Hank Nussbacher also wrote ...

...

The gTLD-MoU has gone out of its way to create a lot of new acronyms with the semblance of a logical government, but with no definition of control or checks and balances. Personally, I think the initial framework outlined by Network Solutions in:

http://www.netsol.com/papers/internet.html

makes a lot more sense for the future and stability of the Internet as well as the TLD issue. It's a more reasonable starting place.

Hmmm. Jim Dixon says not to create any more gTLDs and you are in favor of the NSI solution, which means limitless gTLDs - each competing with the other - competing monopolies. Jim seems to be saying that this is a US problem and it would appear that NSI's solution does not take into account non-USA interests.

I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not Jim Dixon and his views do not apply to me and have nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. I'm always having a hard time getting "IAHC people" to actually address the problems I point out, rather than either going off on another tangent (side-stepping) or picking on my spelling or some unimportant detail of what I said. My complaint is that the gTLD-MoU builds and imposes a sort of government, but there are no defined lines of power and there are no legal checks and balances. On top of this all changes to the gTLD-MoU must have approval by IANA and ISOC - thus they hold ultimate control over a not-very-well-defined process of governing the gTLD landscape (as well as your hard earned money, mine and everyone else in the world's).

It would appear more to be in NSI's interest that it remain in control of com/net/org and let the new gTLDs fight for market recognition that NSI already has. How does that foster European interests? If I were a European - I would think to be against the NSI proposal.

Please explain how the NSI solution is "good" for Europe. -Hank

Please explain how the NSI proposal is *not* good for Europe. As I see it, NSI's recommendations on how to move forward with the issue of TLDs is better for the Internet in general - Europe, US or wherever. Just read what they say - it's self explanatory. It says that the problems with the IAHC are: o It does not provide the incentive for TLD Registrars to invest in improved services o It risks the fragile stability of the Internet. o It is too bureaucratic o It is narrow and does not address the total situation. o Its approach to domain names disputes appears unworkable, will create increased conflicts, and is unfair to registrants in remote regions. NSI suggests that the goals be to: o Limit regulation. o Limit bureaucracy. o Minimize requirements. o Protect critical functions. o Establish legal sponsorship. And they go on to explain why and some suggestiong on how. See http://www.netsol.com/papers/internet.html or http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC_97_04_minutes.html Cheers, Ray http://www.STOP-gTLD-MoU.org/ -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 15:15:13 MET DST 1997 ---------