In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Domain Registration Role Account wrote:
>
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>et>
>> , [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> >On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Domain Registration Role Account wrote:
>> >> 2) Whois. For years and years, Network Solutions, as a non-profit,
>> >> collected contact information for thousands and thousands of domain
>s
>> >> in the whois database.
>> >
>> >Network Solutions was never a non-profit.
>>
>> Whatever, the InterNIC they created was.
>
>Wrong again. I suggest you do you more research before spouting such
I did, thanks:
::In 1993 the consulting firm of Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) won a
::five-year contract with the U.S. government to create InterNIC, an
::entity that administers domain names ".com," ".net," and ".org."
ref http://www.historyoftheinternet.com/chap7.html
But let me predict it won't end here. After reading your comments
below, I'm guessing the relative immateriality of this to the thread
at hand will be lost in the shuffle over who can tell the other
they're wrong most emphatically, as is consistent with all such
auxillary discussions which sprout from one man's desire to do nothing
more than assert his superiority over others by telling someone else he's
wrong (or stupid, or has overpriced something in a .forsale group
that you can now buy new for half the price, or can't spell, or uses
incorrect grammar, poor diction, et al). Having recently partaken an
protracted engagement with another one of your like recently, forgive me if
I lack the stomach to put up with you. Why don't we just cut to the chase?
Mine's 8 inches. How about you.... dickhead?
Oohh wait. Silly me. I left myself open to Response Style 16,
Make Your Opponent Look Childish for Resorting to Namecalling.
Or let me be more to the point. I don't give a rip about your
response to the above, or about who trademarked what name on
what day of the week.
>misinformation. NSI did not create the "InterNIC." The term "InterNIC" was
>trademarked by AT&T, who turned it over to the USG a couple years ago.
>
>> Still, it's moot. For five years, they amassed a database under an
>> exclusive government contract, that should be the property of the
>> government, not NSI.
>
>Like it or not(I don't), it is not unusual for the government to allow a
>contractor to maintain possession of such databases.
To allow is one thing.
To fail to rectify is another. If it is the rightful property of
the US Government, then it is rightfully public information.
>> >> Now as a commercial entity, they say that
>> >> database is proprietary (semi-public ?) information that ONLY THEY
>> >> can use for marketing purposes. Others are prohibited from harvest
>> >> the data.
>> >
>> >Untrue.
>>
>> % whois -h whois.networksolutions.com att.net
>> The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network
>> ...
>> purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this Data to:
>> ...
>> (spam); or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
>> that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems). Network Solutions
>>
>> So, how does one harvest the data without a high volume, automated,
>> electronic process? With a low-volume, manual, biological process?
>
>Did you actually read what you quoted above? Or better yet, do you
>actually understand the words?
>
>The above prohibits two things:
>
>1) Spam(email). Spam is theft, not a bona fide marketing activity.
Did you read it? Did you read anything of what I wrote, or do you
just spout troll dung to give yourself a sense of worth? At
what point did I ever intimate legitimacy in the practice of
spamming OR for that matter, even address it?
The relevant portion of the quote-- the part that's actually
printed-- the part that is NOT replaced by the little dots--
they're called ellipses, btw (I'm sure you can use that little
tidbit to help put someone else down in the future)-- addresses
those little automated processes.
>2) Automated domain registration application systems.
...under no circumstances will you use this Data to:
...(2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems).
I'm so sorry, dear and obviously intellectually superior Mr. Greenwell.
I and my limited intellect failed to see how the language chosen
by NSI ("high volume, automated, electronic processes that apply
to Network Solutions") is specifically limited to DOMAIN applications.
You seem to be choosing a definition for "apply" that is very specific,
thus narrowing the scope of the limitation to YOUR benefit, as opposed
to a more broad definition (e.g. to have anything to do with something)
that would give NSI the greater benefit.
Of course, it goes without saying, and is obvious to anyone who
actually takes the time to read all the legal fine print that
NSI puts out, that it is their primary goal above all else to secure
the greatest benefit possible for all those with whom they interact,
their own peril being a secondary consideration.
Silly of me not to see that, I guess. I stand in eternal gratitude
and awe of your truly insightful analysis of this quandary... you twit.
-Cengiz
