RE: [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with $100, 000-plus price tag
I am missing something here. We have been flooded over the years with emails that have been stating how successfule alternate roots are, on how ISPs all over the world are increasingly pointing to a system that is able to override what is in the "ICANN root" with a different choices, and so on. Now, what's the problem now? If ICANN delegates some TLDs that have a different resolution in a different root system, all what it takes for who wants to address the latter rather than the one in the ICANN root is to change your setting and point to the alternate system. It's called "competition", I am being told. There's nothing wrong in having different highways systems, as it already happens with different railroad systems. Cheers, Roberto > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Sunday, 29 June 2008 01:30 > To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with > $100, 000-plus price tag > > > What a load of crap Danny! Are you bucking for employment at > ICANN again or something? > > Truly a sad day for the Internet indeed. > > Here's an analogy for you: What if your town along with your > neighbouring towns have simply lost confidence in the > existing Highway or Levee authorities because they have been > siphoning off the the money that was intended for maintenance > to say... fight pointless wars overseas or some such > nonsense... So, the highway and levee systems around your > town(s) are not what you and your fellow country bumpkins > were hoping for when you paid your taxes like good little > sheeple. So, your town and its neighbouring towns decide to > build your own highways and levee systems ON YOUR OWN PRIVATE > LAND. You end up running into many others in neighbouring > towns and cities who feel the same way across the country and > all together and at your own expense you end up setting up > your system of highways (or levees). Then, all of a sudden, > the looters at the now anachronistic Highway/Levee Authority > move in and take over your highways and levees because they > have the guns, bombs, and HAARP. How would that make you feel > Mr. Establishment Apologist? > > Regards, > > Sotiris > > > > > John, > > > > I don't see it that way. Let me try to use an analogy. > There are a > > set of properties that are in a poorly-trafficked side of > town. Most > > folks can't easily find these properties as they are not > listed in the > > maps (search engines) that most people will use. They provide some > > local benefit to those that own the properties and to the > limited set > > of neighbors that are aware of the property locations, but > as they are > > not situated on the main thoroughfares, most will just pass them by > > without even realizing that they are there. > > > > The owners of these properties can arrange to move these > structures to > > the main highway by entering into a leasehold arrangement with the > > highway department (the same way that a McDonald's, for > example, can > > occupy a prime rest stop location along an interstate thruway). Of > > course, these property owners may have to compete with > other property > > owners to obtain such a lease. > > > > And yes, there are times when a major highway might pass through a > > minor property development and create a loss situation for > a property > > owner as the highway builders exercise their eminent domain > rights. > > In such cases, there are victims, and often enough such > victims are not compensated. > > > > Anyone that has watched the development plans for this highway has > > known that it has been many years in the making; certainly > enough time > > for property owners to make their plans. > > > > Most would say: you can't stop the march of progress. Most would > > also agree that progress outweighs the needs of the few > whose assets > > might be damaged. Such is life. > > > > Those that choose not to get out of the way of a > steamroller will wind > > up being crushed -- that's just the way that it is. If you seek to > > grow your properties, the consider entering into the > process set up by > > the highway department. You have just as much right as > anyone else to > > bid on a lease (and ICANN leases are forever). Put together a > > business plan and field a bid. It's a better option than > grousing over the current situation. > > > > regards, > > Danny > > > > --- On Sat, 6/28/08, John Palmer > <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> From: John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Subject: Re: [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with > >> $100,000-plus price tag > >> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Date: Saturday, June 28, 2008, 4:27 PM This is nothing but > an attempt > >> at wholesale theft of property from one group of people (small > >> businesses) by an organization so that they can sell that stolen > >> property to rich and powerful people. Most of the gTLDs that are > >> popular are already owned and operated by companies, most of them > >> small businesses with limited resources. You know how > justice works > >> in the country - You get justice if you can buy it, > otherwise, you're > >> out of luck. They are now proposing to do what they did with .BIZ > >> back in 2000 on a wide scale basis. > >> > >> Whats new? ICANN is all about stealing things it does not own and > >> profiting off of it. We all know, for instance, that the UDRP is > >> nothing but a scheme that allows rich and powerful > interests to steal > >> domains from poor people. > >> > >> ICANN, Dick Cheney, George Bush, the Bilderburgs, > Hapsburgs, Vladimir > >> Putin, Robert Mugabe - no difference between any of them. > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Dominik Filipp" > >> <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx> > >> To: <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > >> <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:59 PM > >> Subject: RE: [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with > >> $100,000-plus price tag > >> > >> > >> > >> Sotiris, > >> > >> bright conclusions as usual, but I see one positive aspect > on it, a > >> decrease of Verisign's .COM dominance. Just imagine perfect URL > >> addresses such as > >> > >> http://microsoft > >> http://ibm > >> http://xerox > >> > >> affordable for the rich though. > >> > >> But all the rest in your post remains perfectly valid. > >> > >> Dominik > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > >> sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 5:03 PM > >> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Subject: [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with > >> $100,000-plus price tag > >> > >> > >> All, > >> > >> See article: > >> > http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4218 > >> 629 > >> .ece > >> > >> One last money grab by the looters at ICANN and their moocher > >> cronies. > >> The day of the truly international, standardized Internet is over. > >> This move is a pretty transparent attempt to dominate any > DNS system > >> by a bunch of shortsighted and pigheaded individuals who > have all the > >> visionary capacity of a rotten potato. The real (and > >> unstated) intent of > >> this move is to preclude the advent of extra-ICANN DNS > systems in any > >> language on earth, such that the resulting (or continuing) US > >> dominated addressing system will remain within the purview of > >> American control. In effect, what ICANN is telling the > world is that > >> no country/nation has the right to create its own DNS as they will > >> simply collide it into irrelevancy and make a handsome "profit" at > >> the same time! > >> > >> A sad day for Internet users worldwide. > >> > >> Sotiris > >> > >> P.S. I will be unsubscribing from this list as there is no > longer any > >> reason for me to follow the meaningless blabber hereon. > >> Good luck to all > >> of you (except to the looters and moochers, I hope your genitalia > >> rot). > > > > > > > > > <<attachment: winmail.dat>>
|