On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 08:08:58AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I know many refuse to accept this, but the old InterNIC was > a hybrid site involving both registry (DNS) and registrar > (customer) functions and it is very easy to establish that > most of the functions on the InterNIC site were registrar > related. InterNIC was not a registry. The question of whether the Internic was a registry or a registrar is totally irrelevant -- more of the disingenuous obfuscation that you dispense so expertly. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- [IFWP] FYI John B. Reynolds
- Re: [IFWP] FYI A.M. Rutkowski
- Re: [IFWP] FYI Dave Crocker
- RE: [IFWP] FYI John B. Reynolds
- RE: [IFWP] FYI A.M. Rutkowski
- RE: [IFWP] FYI cgomes
- RE: [IFWP] FYI John B. Reynolds
- RE: [IFWP] FYI cgomes
- Re: [IFWP] FYI Dr Eberhard W Lisse
- Re: [IFWP] FYI Kent Crispin
- Re: [IFWP] FYI Dr Eberhard W Lisse
- Re: [IFWP] FYI Jeff Williams
- Re: [IFWP] FYI Michael Sondow
- Re: [IFWP] FYI Roeland M.J. Meyer
- RE: [IFWP] FYI Dave Crocker
- RE: [IFWP] FYI Ivan Pope
- Re: [IFWP] FYI Michael Sondow
- [IFWP] FYI Richard J. Sexton
- Re: [IFWP] FYI Jeff Williams
- Re: [IFWP] FYI Another related interesting n... Jeff Williams