Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
| Username: |
jefsey |
| Date/Time: |
Sat, November 4, 2000 at 7:39 PM GMT |
| Browser: |
Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98 |
| Score: |
5 |
| Subject: |
I stringly OPPOSE the ".tel" concept |
Message: |
|
| There is a misunderstanding about what telephone services may be on the internet
and what an average user may expect from a ".tel" address. Let assume the address
"http://12001234567.tel" This address is an http protocol adress: people are assuming
accessing a web page. The address ftp://120012345678.tel is an ftp adress: people
are assuming dowloading a file. Telephony is a service. To call the IBM operator,
I am expecting to use the adress "tel://ibm.com". Any other system would be: -
misleading
- a costly duplication of existing resources
- anti-novative.
|
Jefsey Morfin
UTEL
|
Message Thread:
- .tel Application by Telnic Limited — Moderator, October 7 @ 10:04 PM (15/16)
- comments — gbailey, December 12 @ 6:24 PM (0/0)
- Let's go forward — MSisson, November 6 @ 12:02 AM (0/0)
- I stringly OPPOSE the ".tel" concept — jefsey, November 4 @ 7:39 PM (0/0)
- .TEL — Garf, November 3 @ 1:02 PM (0/0)
- .Tel — wolfy, November 3 @ 9:44 AM (0/0)
- .tel by telnic — Andrew Hossain, November 3 @ 1:04 AM (0/0)
- Services vs. device addressing — Serge, November 2 @ 9:13 PM (0/0)
- Flexibility — steve smith, November 2 @ 11:09 AM (0/0)
- a real difference — spencer, November 2 @ 10:27 AM (0/0)
- Seems Reasonable — graftonw, November 2 @ 8:39 AM (0/0)
- Both impractical and completely out of ICANN’s jurisdiction — MrTLD, November 2 @ 1:47 AM (0/0)
- After reading all three proposals..... — R.Jackson, November 1 @ 10:49 PM (0/0)
- telnic application — noisy, November 1 @ 5:41 PM (0/0)
- Great Idea — RobTaylor, October 26 @ 9:57 AM (1/1)
- Proposition to ICANN, Applicants & Internet Community — Pistoff, October 18 @ 6:41 PM (0/0)
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy