At 10:16 AM 6/26/99 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote: >Your argument fails in that you assume that the domain name space >is a public trust. It is not. > >I would argue that the radio spectrum is a public trust long before >domain name space is, and you don't see the FCC require that >radio and television stations be non-profit. > A complete non sequitur. The "radio and television stations" on the internet, i.e., the people who create content and broadcast it, are the people who have web pages, or registrants, not the registrar. Perhaps we shall come to NIST maintaining the A server and allocating IPs and domain names (or whatever), in the manner that the FCC allocates frequencies and call letters. Relegate NSI to the deepest pit in Purgatory where it can fight with its neighbor, ICANN. It was perhaps from a total lack of any business sense in DOC (and in Clinton/Gore) that this present charade got started anyway. Bill Lovell >-- >Personal Opinion Only, of course... >This email address belongs to a resident of the State of Washington, >who does not accept unsolicited commercial email. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Bill Gerrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, June 26, 1999 9:35 AM >Subject: Re: NSI won't sign on with ICANN > > >> [In reference to "NSI won't sign on with ICANN"; By Courtney Macavinta; >> June 25, 1999, 1:55 p.m. PT; >> http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C38412%2C00.html?sas.mail] >> >> I just don't get it. >> >> Why does or should a domain registrar or registry by a for-profit entity? >> >> Management of a public trust should be, and should have always been a >> not-for-profit operation. >> >> NSI probably wouldn't agree to that now since this is their "core >business" >> (I thought I remember reading something on this list from someone at NSI >> stating that they do a lot more than just domain names). If it would have >> been run as a not-for-profit from the beginning, I don't think we would be >> in this mess today, or would we? >>
