Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:06:11 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=windows-1252 |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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.
>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|