Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:44:01 -0300 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
McT, the nature of the problem is not technical -- it is a dispute over
rights. The "tech comm" often "sells" ICANN as a technical organization,
and the fact is that its activities, its business (and the consequences
of these if you will), go far beyond that.
--c.a.
On 03/11/2013 07:06 PM, McTim wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I did not refer to the specifics of that message, just to the nature of the
>> problem at hand.
>
>
> you'll have to be more specific than "the problem at hand".
>
> The fact is that you top-posted a reply to Bill's quoted link of
> which the substantive part of the quote was "They argue that giving
> Amazon control over such addresses—which
> include ".book," ".author" and ".read"—would be a threat to competition
> and shouldn't be allowed."
>
> How else could one interpret it? As a general swipe against the
> technical community? a reflexive (knee-jerk) anti-ICANNism?
>
|
|
|