Saturday, Saturday, January 05, 2002, 3:22:32 PM, Robert L Mathews wrote: > At 1/5/02 2:21 PM, William X Walsh wrote:
>>This is a red herring issue, and totally out of the scope of the issue >>at hand. > Hmmm? We're discussing various proposals for handling expired names. The > justification that's been put forth for most of these schemes (as opposed > to doing nothing) is that some "solution" is necessary because the > registry can't handle the demand, leading to ugly interim solutions where > third parties like SnapNames are making money by monopolizing connections > so they can sell expiring names to fourth parties for an inflated price, > while making it virtually impossible for anyone to get one of these names > by going through the party that's actually supposed be selling them to > the public (registrars). But that's just the point. The premise above is simply not true. People are registering previously registered names through non-"backorder/snapback" means as well, and getting them. The whole issue that there is anything beyond a technical problem to solve is a complete red herring. -- Best regards, William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --
