Re: [ga] Engineers on TLDs: Do You Want Me With Fries?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

  Point taken to a point.  By arbitrarily I was meaning that ICANN just
ignored
the most important and significant input it had received regarding new
TLD's.
irrespectful of .COM.  Otherwise your point is well taken...  Thank
you...

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    Jeff,
>
> I respectfully disagree with you on a point here. These nonsensicals
> were not passed over in an arbitrary fashion. As us watchers now have
> watched for years we have seen a pattern. The very reason that ICANN
> was formed has been directly thwarted by ICANN. Breakup of mononpoly
> held by .COM. Clearly any and all TLDs that would have a direct impact
> on .COM business have been passed over intentionally. Nothing
> arbitrary about it. .WEB being a perfect example.
> Also if there was strong viable marketing funds behind the idea it
> would be passed over. One time may appear arbitrary but patterns
> create clarity of purpose.
>
> Eric
>
> Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> All former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,
>
> My response to: http://www.circleid.com/article/837_0_1_0_C/
>
> This is an interesting rehash of arguments that
> have been going one sense about 1999 when
> ICANN was conceived. Many of these different
> approaches to new TLD's was discussed on the
> no long defunct Domain-Policy list and the
> neglected DNSO GA list forum, which the ICANN
> Bod decided to shelve effectively in part
> as a result of the disagreement as to the
> adding of new TLD's amongst other hotly
> debated DNS and internet related issues.
>
> I am not a 30 something engineer as I am
> way past 40 yrs old and have been an
> engineer for several decades now. Yet
> despite that, I believe and have for
> quite a few years that the adding of new
> TLD's need not be overly restricted as there
> is no technical reason to have such a
> restriction. However as Vittorio rightly
> eludes to, .biz and .Aero as examples
> were silly nonsensical additions, along
> with .museum and .name. Yet Chris Amblers
> .WEB had some marketing and descriptive
> value as a new gTLD, but was rejected or
> not seriously considered for reasons that
> had little to do with making sense as
> a new gTLD, but more for the reason of
> strongly disagreeing with some of the
> "Old Guard" whom have effectively captured
> ICANN and the DNS in particular.
>
> It is now and has been very clear that
> the addition of new TLD's of any type, will
> be arbitrarily and nonsensically restricted
> by the old engineers for they are indeed
> suffering from NIH as Vittorio rightly
> has observed..
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
>
> "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
> Pierre Abelard
>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Registered Email addr with the USPS
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827
>
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827