What is your definition of speculation?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Lovell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 1999 8:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells the quill holder
what
At 07:54 PM 7/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Bill,
>
>Please clarify for me how NSI is a domain name speculator. That's a charge
>I haven't heard before.
Gimme a break. "Oh, be sure to get your .net and .org registrations as
well!
Somebody who has been watching us stoke the fires of speculation all these
years might otherwise grab it up for themselves."
>
>Also, please help me understand what the practice of invoicing for domain
>names has to do with limiting the number of registrars that can be
>implemented at one time. The first issue is a registrar issue. The second
>is a registry issue. It should come as no surprise that a considerable
>amount of support is provided to implement new registrars, so the more that
>are in the pipeline at the same time, the more resources are required.
That
>does not seem like a very complicated concept.
So even you should understand it. When you foment a gold rush in getting
in those registrations, does that not add work to your oh-so-limited crew?
Do you not neglect the registry function as you push your registrar role?
Is there not an inherent conflict of interest in having those two functions
under the same roof? And don't give us that "they are separated" line --
nobody believed it then and no one will now.
Bill Lovell
>
>Chuck Gomes
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bill Lovell [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 1999 7:59 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells the
>> quill holder what
>>
>> At 06:26 PM 7/11/99 -0400, domainiac wrote:
>> >>Almost every major ISP does exactly this becasue it
>> >>enhances high-availability architectures and eliminates the
>> >>root-servers.net machines as external points of failure (EPOF). When
>> >--
>> >>I've done work with 8 area ISPs, and not a single one does this
>> >>Roland. I seriously doubt very many ISPs at all do this.
>> >--
>> >Here are some articles that touch on this point:
>> >
>> > <http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/17973.html>
>> >
>> > <http://news.com/News/Item/0,4,32591,00.html>?
>>
>> Ironic, I would say. NSI, the ultimate domain name speculator, pretends
>> to
>> thwart the practice which it promulgated by permitting registrations
while
>> not paying for them, thus causing a work overload (if they are to be
>> believed)
>> that precludes them from signing up more than 5 competitors a month. It
>> is
>> becoming increasingly apparent that NSI's attempts to hold on to its
>> monopoly
>> as long as possible, and to wring every $ out of the system while it can,
>> continue unabated. There is no obstacle to stable, efficient operation
of
>> the
>> internet that NSI will not arbitrarily impose in its own interests. With
>> ever
>> increasing arrogance, it pushes the envelope as far as possible and
>> beyond,
>> in spite of warnings by NTIA that it has been acting outside of its
>> authority
>> (and when has it not?). Would NTIA, ICANN and you and I not all be
better
>>
>> off if ICANN immediately took over the "A" server, stuck it at a neutral
>> place
>> such as NIST out of the hands of ALL of the wheeler dealers, took over
>> domain names and the whole schmear, and sent NSI packing back into a
>> well deserved oblivion? It is now quite beyond argument that NSI cannot
>> be trusted either as the registry or in any other capacity.
>>
>> Bill Lovell
>>
>> P. S. As to the steps noted below, good move!
>> >
>> >The news.com article the number of total zone file subscriptions was
>> about
>> >500 and that included users who used the zone files for other reasons.
>> >
>> >This brings up another issue about NSI's and the zone files. NSI is
>> >requiring companies to tell NSI why they are using the zone files before
>> NSI
>> >will even send a copy of the agreement to access the zone files. These
>> >companies are often competing with NSI for the same customers for
>> services
>> >outside the scope of the Internic function (domain hosting, e-mail
>> >forwarding, etc.). In addition, NSI put stipulations in the agreement
>> that
>> >they could cut off access in the future at their discretion.
>> >
>> >I therefore asked for zone file access through NTIA via FOIA. Kathy
>> Smith,
>> >chief counsel for NTIA wrote back and said they did search for zone
files
>> >but they couldn't find them! I appealed this based on the fact the
>> records
>> >are under the control of NTIA under the cooperative agreement with NSI.
>> I
>> >am waiting for a response.
>> >
>> >Russ Smith
>> > <http://domainia.org/>
>> >
>>
>
