>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 27 04:47:53 1999
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from thetics.europa.com (thetics.europa.com [209.20.130.162])
by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC57F00A
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 04:47:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cerebral.europa.com (ip153.r2.d.pdx.nwlink.com [207.202.136.153])
by thetics.europa.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA28583;
Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:12:55 -0700
To: Jonathan Zittrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: "thin" registries
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<000201bec011$6392e1a0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 06:57 PM 6/26/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Bill,
>
>I don't really disagree with you--see the second graf of my original
>post--but my point was that having different registrars establish different
>policies isn't a compromise. Rather, it's identical to having no policy at
>all. Which you may think is OK--indeed, which I may think is OK!--but it
>might as well be put out that way, instead of "consumer choice for dispute
>policies."
Concur wholeheartedly. Let's not multiply the disaster by generating
subspecies! :-)
Bill Lovell
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
