Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: bldigrn
Date/Time: Tue, October 31, 2000 at 6:44 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows NT 5.0
Score: 5
Subject: reply to Julie

Message: 		 

 
               
      Julie,
In your most recent message, you do not dispute the basic premise that a private company can deploy and sell its assets how it chooses.  But in your first posting you complained about how dotTV is hoarding the best names for itself.  These two positions are in direct contradiction with one-another and it isnt clear to me which position you are taking.

As for issues of legality, if you have a specific example of a customer not being treated in good faith, mightnt you feel obligated to cite the details of the complaint rather than issue a blanket statement that a company such as .tv is a lawbreaker?  Arent there two sides to every issue (whatever issue this may be- you havent said)?  You have seen first hand that DOTTV may have operated outside of those fundamental principals or laws  Which is it?  Have you seen them firsthand or have you heard that they have from notoriously-iffy discussion groups?  Is it that they HAVE operated outside fundamental principals or is it that they MAY HAVE (your words) done so?  Which laws have they broken?  Please cite them in your public comments so I can form the most educated opinion possible.

I dont work for dotTV so I cant speak for this company or its intents, but again, reading the dotPRO Consortiums application, it is clear to me that the proposal is the issuance of 3rd-level PRO domain names.  Perhaps they have not said that they will sell the 2nd level .PRO domains because, in fact, they do not propose to do so.  I havent read a single application that suggests the applicant feels they have unbridled ownership of the domain they are administering, and I certainly have no reason to believe that dotTV or the dotPRO Consortium feel this way either.  Their proposal (and presumably, an ICANN-awarded contract) is to sell 3rd level domains.  Why, upon reading this, is there a presumption on your part that the Consortium will necessarily be aching to sell 2nd level domains even when they are not empowered (and have made no suggestion whatsoever of an intention) to do so?  Why such an indefensible bias against this corporation or its Consortium and partners?

     
 

Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy