Re: Draft New Draft

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

As usual, Mr Broomfield totally took this out of context and missed the point
(also note that he only choose to answer a very small part of Antony's message.
Very telling).

On 09-Feb-99 John Charles Broomfield wrote:
>  
>  Hi Antony, (hey, I got it right this time with no "h"! :-) )
>  
>       Just one factual point about your message. 
>  
> > > or the
> > > fact that some ccTLDs are managed for profit
> > 
> > I see.  ccTLDs are not to be managed for profit.  Profit is a bad thing.
> > 
> > > in no relation with the
> > > country the ISO code belongs to, then I am definitely against.
> > 
> > Better talk to .UK, .DK, .CH, .US, .ZA and about 65 other TLDs then.
>  
>  You enjoy quoting your facts about how ccTLDs in general are run. Funny how
>  you seem to screw up on them in general...
>  As far as ".UK" goes, it's run (as you know) by nominet which is by no means
>  a "for profit" organisation. I don't think that Switch would take very
>  kindly to you calling their management of ".CH" as "for profit" either...
>  I thought that ".US" as a TLD was run for free but that Postel had decided
>  to
>  introduce some charges on a cost recovery basis (whatever people in third
>  level domains are doing is besides the point).
>  Couldn't find info for Denmark other than "DK-Hostmaster is appointed by the
>  Danish ISP association" (so it's not a self-appointed thing in any case).
>  As far as ".ZA" goes, from
>  "http://http://www2.frd.ac.za/uninet/zadomains.html"
>  (...)The .ZA domain space is administered by the Manager of the Uninet
>  network(...)There is no charge for registration of a top-level .ZA
>  domain.(...).
>  It does say on the same page that these rules might change in 1999 with
>  ISOC-ZA oversight.
>  Some of the structures under ".za" may well be managed on a for profit basis
>  (for example ".co.za") but there are a bunch that seem to be free.
>  
>  Don't get me wrong, I'm *NOT* trying to say that those 5 which you portreyed
>  are charity organisations, but the way you express it is as if they are just
>  running a business in a normal for-profit fashion (like NSI), which they are
>  definately NOT. 

Antony never claimed those registries were operated for-profit, just that they
did permit people outside their geographic area to register, as do at least 60
other ccTLDs.

He never claimed anything but that, and you are just twisting his words into
something they are not.

He made this statement in answer to a comment from you about ccTLDs that are
offering registerations to people outside their defined regions.  And it is a
very valid point.  I know of one government run ccTLD that also permits others
to register names outside their country.
  
>  Antony, do you have a personal economical stake in the management of any
>  ccTLD?
>  (no, I'm not trying to throw fud with that question, it's just that it seems
>  the only reason why you would be trying so desperately to make sure
>  governments keep their hands off those wonderful profit-makers).

Why do you always insist on twisting people's words into saying something that
they did not say or imply?  

I have no choice but to believe you are being intentionally disingenuous.

What are your motives, Mr Broomfield?

----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
Date: 08-Feb-99
Time: 19:40:42
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts." 
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977