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?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

> On 03/11/2013 02:38 PM, McTim wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> And this is something that several people in the so-called "technical
>>> community" find beyond their understanding
>>
>>
>> I think this is incorrect.  If a good case were made that a closed TLD
>> restricted competion, I for one would be happy to agree with it.
>>
>> Just asserting the fact without evidence doesn't make it so.
>>
>>
>>
>