I think it woudl be just fine if you, Kent, would stop putting words
my my mouth, and trying to speak for ORSC;-)...
First, I assure you that this is not a joke;-)...
I in fact am seriously opposed to a lot of NSI policies and I am
working toward moving to a different TLD, in part to be free of the
threats posed by the NSI TM policy.
But, if ICANN has its way, things will become much worse for all DNS
name registrants at all fee based registration levels when the
Registrara has the power to removed registered names without hearing
for a variety of "causes". ICANN threatens to destabilize all
businesses that depend on stable DNS name arrangements.
Just consider deregistration for being one day late in bill payment,
with the opportunity for someone else to jump in and grab the name, so
that arrival of the check the next day will not recover the name.
And, this is only one of the "new and improved" non-NSI policies.
So, rest assured, Kent, that ORSC does not endorse or condone the NSI
TM policies adn rules, and does not endorse the ICANN propposed ICANN
Registrar acceditation and operating rules.
The fact that we are more opposed to ICANN than to NSI might let you
say that ORSC is less opposed to NSI than to ICANN. but you cannot
equate this with supporting NSI in what it does now.
Your problem seems to be the inability to sense the polarity of the
minus sign when it is applied to more than one entity at a time.
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:10:55 -0800:
}
}On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 04:53:40PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
}> Stef,
}>
}> It sounds like you are an antagonist according to Kent's
}> definition. So I guess we did provide some support for an
}> antagonist, even one who is antagonistic to NSI. :)
}
}Indeed, a good joke, Chuck :-) In fact, of course, there is
}absolutely no question that ORSC and NSI have been very supportive of
}each other's positions for a long time now.
}
}--
}Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
}[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
