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 everyone else out.
> >
> > Now that the new website is up with all its rich
> > functionality, it's not clear how this is anything
> > more than much improved customer interface.
> >
> > Maybe you can explain how this results in locking out
> > anyone? Do you have any constructive suggestions?
> >
>
> Yes Tony. This is a MAJOR deviation from practice. When NSI unilaterally, and
> without public notice or public comment, removed Created on Dates from the
> standard whois and standard web interface, they left it up on the telent whois
> (now gone) and the itts web whois, essentially just making it a bit harder to
> get the information. Now that has been turned off as well.
Well William I don't have any problem with the Web interface presently.
Works just fine for me. Also, why do you NEED the Created On date
William? Haven't we been down this path already? Don't you keep
track of your customers and your own Creation dates of your
registrations in a a nice little web interfaced database for your customers
such as NameSpace (pgMedia) does? Where is you dedication to your
customers if you don't William? Is it NSI job to track YOUR customers
information for them? And do so fro free? Hell no it isn't!
> Those of us who
> DID require this information, could still get it, while making it harder on the
> domain speculators they CLAIMED were the reason they removed it.
And it has made it more difficult on Domain Name speculators and is much
more customer friendly than requiring payment in advance.
> I now see
> that all that NSI has been saying about these "changes" are nothing but blatent
> lies intended to misrepresent their intentions.
Prove it William!
>
>
> This change is nothing but a blatent attempt to push people to the 119.00
> Worldnic Service. I just used their new interface to register a name on behalf
> of a customer (as an experiment) and worldnic is pushed all over it.
So? It is their company after all. Would you have someone tell you how
to manage your business? I doubt it...
>
>
> My understanding was that NSI was to maintain a seperation between it's
> Internic presence (which was managed under contract) and their registrar
> functions. It now appears that are not doing that, and indeed this presents
> NSI into a situation where they have a TOTALLY unfair advantage.
They did announce some time ago that they were going to separate
these functions as well as stated their intent to meet ALL of the
requirements of the Cooperative agreement and all subsequent extensions.
This seems to be the result. I guess you were hoping they wouldn't
I suppose. Well you just got hoisted on your own patard if you did.
It appears in some ways that NSI is dammed if they do and dammed if they
don't.
>
>
> This is disgusting.
>
> Not to mention that ONCE AGAIN, NSI has taken unilateral action without any
> public notice or comment periods.
This is a legitimate complaint to a point. Take it up with Don T.
> As they are still under the co-operative
> agreement, this should be a MANDATED part of any changes. Especially since any
> changes they make have subtantial impact on the Internet Community.
But it isn't. But at least they are following the LETTER of the agreement.
We can't say that for ICANN, now can we?
>
>
> ----------------------------------
> William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> General Manager, DSo Internet Services
> Date: 20-Mar-99
> Time: 13:48:32
> ----------------------------------
>
> --
>
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
