Hello Ken:
Have not heard back from you on your reasoning as to why NSI running root
servers would not be in the best interests of it's shareholders.
I would be very interested in your reasons as I feel the opposite would be
true.
Regards
Joe
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, J. Baptista wrote:
> I disagree Ken. I think running the root-server infrastructure would be
> good for NSI shareholders. Why do you think the contrary is true. I
> don't understand.
>
> I was under the impression NSI has been thinking about it for awhile. I
> could be wrong, i just don't understand your position that the NSI board /
> staffers would be against it.
>
> Regards
> Joe Baptista
>
> On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
> > you say go for it.... i say it isn't going to happen.
> > in my opinion it is not in the best interests of the NSI shareholders and
> > ,if you ask any senior NSI staffer, they will tell you that their first
> > responsibility is to their shareholders
> >
> > ken stubbs
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: J. Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 8:07 AM
> > Subject: Re: NetSol E-Mail
> >
> >
> > > I think what were seeing here is Network Solutions first move to establish
> > > it's own root server structure. Certainly they have the numbers to blast
> > > ICANN out of the water.
> > >
> > > If that's their goal - I say go fot it. This is becoming a very delicate
> > > game of chance and occupation.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Joe
> > >
> > > On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Michael M. Krieger wrote:
> > >
> > > > At 12:54 on Sept 16 Phil Howard suggested that NSI was using contact
> > > > records:
> > > >
> > > > As confirming data, I'd note that there are - 0 - domains registered
> > > > in my name or this e-mail address. My only existance is a handle left
> > > > from a registration botched by Netcom that I simply let lapse for non-
> > > > payment (since I didn't need the name right away and didn't care to
> > fiddle
> > > > with correcting things).
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it would be nice if NSI handled our handles with a bit more
> > care.
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > --------
> > > > Date: Thu Sep 16, 1999 12:54 pm PDT
> > > > From: phil MBX: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > TO: DOMAIN-POLICY MBX: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > BCC: * MICHAEL M KRIEGER / MCI ID: 597-5596
> > > > Subject: Re: NetSol E-Mail
> > > >
> > > > Dena Whitebirch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > That's interesting! Actually mine was sent to the email address which
> > > > > hasn't been associated with my NIC handle for months. And I got none
> > at
> > > > > the real address they should have. One of the other ISPs I work with
> > got
> > > > > no email at all. Good thing I was able to inform them of this small
> > > > > change in policy.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe the process of mailing them out isn't finished, yet. A million
> > > > individual e-mails, even if they are already all in the queue, may not
> > > > go out so easily all at once.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you still have a leftover contact record? I doubt they would
> > have
> > > > wanted to make the database do all the extra processing of checking to
> > see
> > > > if each contact record actually has a domain record pointing to it.
> > > >
> > > > I got mine at the correct address. When I changed my e-mail address a
> > > > while back, I changed it in the contact record instead of resubmitting
> > > > all the domains again like I've seen many people do.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Phil Howard | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> Cheers
> Joe Baptista
>
> --
> Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
>
>
