Re: [IFWP] Re: RegisterFree.Com - ICANN Accredited Registar ????????

2000-03-24 Thread @quasar Internet Solutions, Inc.
It's entirely possible to successfully have a competitor as client. I do it all the time and have for years. People are shocked sometimes to learn the level of access I have in some of my competitor's systems...I have staff access at a few and was given root a couple of times before my

[IFWP] Re: registerfree.com is overloading OpenSRS

2000-03-24 Thread !Dr. Joe Baptista
The problem here is with ICANN who openSRS has to live with. ICANN has effectively distroyed and destabilized the registries - and that's a real pity. Regards Joe Baptista On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Ken wrote: Ross, Thank you for your work, and all that openSRS is trying to do. I realize that

[IFWP] FYI: Walsh attempts to engage Baptista in conversation - NO GO

2000-03-24 Thread !Dr. Joe Baptista
The illustrious Mr. Walsh is attempting to engage me in conversation on other discussion lists. Just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. Officially Mr. Walsh has promissed he would never interact with me in email and I feel this attemp by Walsh is another clear example the poor can't

[IFWP] Re: registerfree.com

2000-03-24 Thread Ellen Rony
In the world of PR, giveaways are a well established tradition. Throughout the past 100 years, events have been held to exploit a situation or expand public consciousness. From a page in PR history, John D. Rockefeller, although a generous philanthropist, had earned a reputation a scrooge

[IFWP] Internet stability (was Re: CoolMail.com dispute/lawsuit?)

2000-03-24 Thread Michael Sondow
Dear Ms. Burr- Thank you for the stability that you and the NTIA have brought to the Internet. Yours, Michael Sondow -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 11:45 PM Subject: ElectronMail.com Greetings. You are

Re: [IFWP] Re: registerfree.com

2000-03-24 Thread Richard J. Sexton
It's not worth it. Fior *free* you get your domain parked on their 2 nameservers, the twop thet were hammered of the face of the internet, and it's $25 to add one (or more) of your own. Other registrars cost less that $20. Where is the savings here? At 09:02 AM 3/24/00 -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:

Re: [IFWP] Internet stability (was Re: CoolMail.com dispute/lawsuit?)

2000-03-24 Thread Jeff Williams
Michael and all, Good tongue and cheek post here Michael. I also echo Michaels joust here Becky. Yours and the NTIA's oversight with ICANN has been and continues to be the poorest example of oversight from any organization I believe I have ever seen in my entire life to date. Had either of

Re: [IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are they represented?

2000-03-24 Thread Greg Skinner
Michael Sondow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know it's in the interests of IBM, MCI, ATT to put small companies out of business, but is it in the interests of the RIRs? If not, why don't you work things out so that freedom and free enterprise can continue to flourish on the Internet, instead of

Re: [IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are they represented?

2000-03-24 Thread Greg Skinner
Jay Fenello wrote: What does this have to do with complaints about ARIN's regressive pricing policies? Or the huge @Home delegation? These are questions of policy. I can't speak to ARIN's pricing policies, but I recall reading somewhere that one consideration of @Home's allocation was the

Re: [IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are they represented?

2000-03-24 Thread Michael Sondow
Greg Skinner wrote: If you feel strongly that some of the commercial providers who got legacy /8s ought to return some of those addresses, perhaps a constructive way of going about it is to gather the ISPs you feel are being squeezed, and have them file a formal complaint with the NTIA. I

Re: [IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are they represented?

2000-03-24 Thread Greg Skinner
Michael Sondow wrote: I think that the smaller ISPs are too intimidated by the power of the upstream providers to make any sort of complaint. Only an organization like ISPA could do that, and they won't because the power there is with the larger independent ISPs who control their own block.

Re: [IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are they represented?

2000-03-24 Thread Michael Sondow
Greg Skinner wrote: Have the smaller ISPs ever approached EuroISPA or any of the other ISP associations and asked them to lobby on their behalf? I don't know if they have or not. But "here" for me is the U.S. There's no EuroISPA here. What chance does a small ISP have in the U.S.A., when

Re: [IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders -are they represented?

2000-03-24 Thread Patrick Greenwell
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Michael Sondow wrote: I think that the smaller ISPs are too intimidated by the power of the upstream providers to make any sort of complaint. Michael, you're reaching. Smaller ISPs are more worried about running a successful business than they are in protracted legal

Re: [IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders -are they represented?

2000-03-24 Thread Patrick Greenwell
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Greg Skinner wrote: Michael Sondow wrote: I think that the smaller ISPs are too intimidated by the power of the upstream providers to make any sort of complaint. Only an organization like ISPA could do that, and they won't because the power there is with the

Re: [IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders -are they represented?

2000-03-24 Thread Patrick Greenwell
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Michael Sondow wrote: Greg Skinner wrote: Have the smaller ISPs ever approached EuroISPA or any of the other ISP associations and asked them to lobby on their behalf? I don't know if they have or not. But "here" for me is the U.S. There's no EuroISPA here. What