At 11:47 AM 10/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
>"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Ok, right, and this is exactly the same as sombody on usenet
>> listing their email address as [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] in
>> their signature line. The practice is extremely widespread,
>> and poeple are still able to communicate just fine. One of
>> the addresses in my signature below works for anybody,
>> so I don't buy this argument as representing any impediment
>> whatsoever.
>
>Generally speaking, Usenet consists of a user population that is
>generally much more Internet savvy than the Internet population at
>large. Also, spam problems and counter-measures are generally much
>better documented and understood throughout the Usenet community.
>Thus, methods of concealing one's true email address are much less
>likely to lead to confusion.
So ?
The point it, it works. It's not a problem, usenet has grown -
and rapidly so - in spite of it. I wouldn't characterize usenet
as more or less cluefull than any other slice of the Internet
you care to pick, and as a community of many millions think
it's just about as homogenious or not as far as cluefullness
goes. In other words, if you know of a cluefull usenet do
tell me where I can find it. Usenet has been called many things
but I've neaver heard the "cluefull" attribute attached to it
as a whole. Now, if you take the position that usenet
*administrators* are cluefull then I'm inclided to agree
with you and to point out they have their own root
cluster.
>Is everyone who registers in an alternative TLD going to register in
>an IANA TLD as well, and are they going to give multiple methods of
>contact? Do they know that they need to do this? If they don't,
>do they need to know that they should give an address of a friendly
>relay?
Probably, duirng the transition phase. But they generally won't
be as concise per the example below.
>> What do you mean by "stability of IANA TLDS" ? Given things
>> like palestine.int, .tv, .<haiti>, .tm I'd say the alternative
>> tlds are more stable. What's your metric?
>
>For one thing, whether a person can access the resources of that TLD.
>The alternative TLDs are much less stable because of the perception
>(perhaps wrong) that they're not globally visible.
Right. There is a difference between stability and visability.
>Anyway, the point isn't what I think, it's what people like Cerf,
>etc. believe, because they influence others, like the USG, who
>recognize ICANN as the NewCo, and have enabled it to enter into
>agreements with NSI and other registrars. I have no problems with
>alternative TLDs. I can access them just fine. The common Internet
>user doesn't know what to do to access alternative TLDs.
>
>Imagine a House Subcommittee, or for that mattter, a Supreme Court
>hearing on alternative TLDs, for example. Brian Carpenter is arguing
>against them; you argue for them. What criteria are the House likely
>to consider significant? What are they to consider a reasonable
>approach? What is likely to influence their judgment? Do you believe
>that you would be able to convince them? (It may very well come to
>that.)
I'm well aware of their fuddy techniques.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"I see you've got yout fist out. Say your peace and get out. Guess
I get the gist of it, but... it's alright. Sorry that you feel that
way. The only thing there is to say is to say: ever silver lining
has a touch of grey" - JG.
