>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["Robin Nixon"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 04:36:03 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 25 04:36:02 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from ns-ont.clubnet.net (ns-ont.aux.clubnet.net [206.126.137.242])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75381F056
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 04:36:01 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from robin (nixon-db.dsl.clubnet.net [206.126.131.174])
> by ns-ont.clubnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA13512;
> Wed, 25 Aug 1999 01:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-ID: <074d01beeed3$cb4724a0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Robin Nixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Robin Nixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Jeff Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: "Domain policy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "IFWP Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: TLD List.
>Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 01:28:16 -0700
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
>
>> I am afraid I must for the most part agree with WIlliam here. As to
>>the characterization of PGmedia, I don't agree with that. But by in
>>large, trying to claim ownership of a large number of gTLD's
>>without the benefit of a TM on them or even with a TM, unless you
>>can legitimately financially support those gTLD's, you are spitting
>>in the wind, so to speak...
>
>TLDNS.COM chooses not to make claims. Neither in areas where others have
>made claims nor in areas whhere they haven't (although our prior use
>reserves us that right in this latter case). Instead our vision is for an
>open naming system of unlimited 'TLD's - where different groups may look
>after different areas for easy management - but where the names belong to
>the Internet in general and not any single individual or organization.
>
>What we see is the need for (for example) Mr Fred Smith to get a name in
>cybercspace that matches his own name. Now, fredsmith.com, org and .net are
>probably gone, and there's not much else left. But with Infinite 'TLD's all
>the Fre Smiths in the world get the chance at a good name:
>fredsmith.flowers, fredsmith.baker, fred.smith .fredsmith
>newsagnent.fredsmith, fredsmith.carpenter, fredsmith.3rd and so on. Finally
>this person will be able to get a name that loks good instead of
>members.aol.com/fredsmith/ or whatever.
>
>Or how about flower.arranging - would arranging be a popular TLD? No? So if
>there isn;t unlimited 'TLD' space that great domain couled not exist. Then
>what about films? summer.of.sam would be possible - south.park or
>south.park.the.movie - how about eyes.wide.shut and so on?
>
>Or more personal 'home' pages robin.and.julie - fredsmiths.uncle -
>marys.pricess.diana.page - are you with me yet?
>
>- Robin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire
civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of
dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing.
Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny]
