Well, folks, now that NSI has antitrust immunity,
NSI-CANN do as they please.
at least until Name.Space wins its appeal.
regards,
Paul Garrin
Name.Space, Inc.
http://name.space.xs2.net
>>Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 18:43:57 -0800
>>To: Paul Goldstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>From: Bill Lovell <[EM
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> The point is that most of the business NSI gets comes through various ISPs.
> Without them, there might not be near as many registrations. They market the
> ability to use a domain name, have an internet identity, etc along with their
> websites.
If
Jeff,
Please discontinue this. This is a most serious issue, and we do not need this
game to get involved in it. I will NOT respond to any of your messages on this
thread.
We do not need someone who is just here to play games using a pseudonym and
telling fables distracting from what is a most
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 20-Mar-99 A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> > At 01:49 PM 3/20/99 , Ivan Pope wrote:
> > >I would suggest that everyone writes to the press, politicians and to the
> > >USG pointing out that this is unilateral behaviour on the part of NSI to
> > >lock everyon
The dissatisfaction and concerns are growing.
-FW: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>-
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 17:56:39 -0800 (PST)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Marc Slemko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: heads up: internic changes
Just FYI, if your company relies on any
Maybe Mr Kelly and others who don't see the harm from a move like this will
understand now..
-FW: <01be7335$9fa05b60$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>-
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 18:56:15 -0600
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: John Jungling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTE
Greg,
[
>>> Perhaps I didn't understand what you meant by "digital meeting."
>>> I was thinking that providing a variety of tools for conferencing
>>> would allow for a diversity of participation means.
]
> > Do you rate a diversity of means higher than a diversity of
> > perspectives?
>
> No.
isp-lists.com hosts several, I am on a number of them, and have seen discussion
on internic at [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and even [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can subscribe for any/all at isp-lists.com's website.
On 20-Mar-99 Ivan Pope wrote:
> Can you tell me where and wh
Can you tell me where and what these lists are. I'd like to join up.
Ivan
> -Original Message-
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 1999 10:43 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [IFWP] FW: Re: InterNIC
>
>
>
> As you can
As you can see from this sample of a post to the Isp-Webhosting list (and
significant discussion is also on-going on the Isp-Tech and other related
lists) that ISPs are seriously and significantly concerned as well. This has
been the busiests thread on these lists today.
The impact of this mo
Michael,
As a non-US citizen, I am amazed that the USG let NSI get away with what it
does. The current situation is light years away from the intent of the
original contract.
I am also amazed by the craven contrivance of US industry to let this
happen.
Ivan
> -Original Message-
> From: M
Just a quick note to observe that this would not be such a problem if NSI
were but one among many competing top-level domain name registries.
Companies such as Image Online Design, Iperdome and CORE are all
ready and waiting to compete fairly.
If the market were open, this would be a simple busi
Ivan Pope a écrit:
>
> It looks like Network Solutions has closed down the InterNIC site and
> pointed the InterNIC address at their own new Website.
> http://www.internic.net
> Is the the future of domain name registration? Does Network Solutions own
> the InterNIC? The USG owns the Trademark, s
It looks like Network Solutions has closed down the InterNIC site and
pointed the InterNIC address at their own new Website.
http://www.internic.net
Is the the future of domain name registration? Does Network Solutions own
the InterNIC? The USG owns the Trademark, so did they license it to Network
Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit:
>
> Ok, let's appoint the K*nt to chair the drafting committee for the
> constituency definitions :-)-O.
Oh, my god! Don't even mention such a thing. He and his cronies have
enough constituencies to manipulate. They can keep their mits off
the NCDNHC.
Roland and all,
In part I agree and have stated as much on this thread several times and in
several ways as well. However the substance of their case, is both relevant
and important as well. SOme may disagree with the pgMedia's desire
for so many gTLD's and/or claim to them, which I think is
WIlliam and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 19-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> > > No, not well known for that at all Jeff. I have never done anything you
> > > mention in this paragraph. You on the other hand
> >
> >Hum? That is not what your fromer employer stated clerly
>
> You mean the fact that AOL has the largest DNS zone file
> per Lottor's January 1999 survey? Has anyone talked
> to them about becoming a competitive registrar? :-)
>
>
I presume you mean 'has anyone talked about opening up the aol.com domain to
competition'? But that's not really the p
OK, 'co-operative agreement'. But that is to all intents and purposes a
contract with the USG.
What do you mean 'not be rebid without ... authorisation'.
Do you mean that it will just get left with NSI for ever? What mechanism was
the extension granted under? What authority would any further exte
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 19-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> > William and all,
> >Indeed this is true. But it could be made to LOOK differently in a court
> > of law. Couple that with the fact that Chris dropped his case, will weigh
> > to some unknown degree on the j
Bill and all,
Bill Lovell wrote:
> *At 09:11 PM 3/19/99 +, you wrote:
> >William and all,
> >
> > True enough. However by the same token it doesn't mean that the
> >appeal won't either. Hence the reason for a court of appeals, william.
> >In addition if there is more discovery, which is l
On 19-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
>Well documented what William? I have made no agreements on
> any public forum to my knowledge. In addition it would be against
> my companies policy to do so, ad as they get every post that
Oh so now there are multiple companies? Do they also have myst
At 07:11 PM 3/19/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>On 20-Mar-99 Gordon Cook wrote:
>> NTIA has not a shred of legally defensible authority to be doing what it is
>> doing. I have triple sourced this. But to challenge NTIA now you need a
>> legally agrieved party. With the PGMedia case now
I'll save Jeffrey the trouble. The message he loves to refer to never says what
he tries to claim it says. Note how carefully it avoids discussing specifics
and refers only to a website that has "William X. Walsh is no longer
affiliated"
TJNS has NEVER verified to anyone that the allegation
On 19-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> > No, not well known for that at all Jeff. I have never done anything you
> > mention in this paragraph. You on the other hand
>
>Hum? That is not what your fromer employer stated clerly
> William... Shall I repost that little piece o
The real problem is that pgMedia is hunting the wrong duck.
At 06:46 PM 3/19/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>Doesn't mean the appeal has any more merit than the original case did.
>
>
>
>On 19-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
>> Gordon and all,
>>
>>As you know, pgMedia has filed an appeal
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 19-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> >Well documented what William? I have made no agreements on
> > any public forum to my knowledge. In addition it would be against
> > my companies policy to do so, ad as they get every post that
>
> Oh so now
On 19-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> William and all,
>Indeed this is true. But it could be made to LOOK differently in a court
> of law. Couple that with the fact that Chris dropped his case, will weigh
> to some unknown degree on the judges mind, should Chris and IOD,
> decides to revi
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 19-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> > William and all,
> >
> > William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think PGMedia is a credible plaintiff, Jeff. I know you do (no
> > > surprise there in light of, well, that subject is for another time).
> >
> >
29 matches
Mail list logo
