Jeff,
Please discontinue this. This is a most serious issue, and we do not need this
game to get involved in it. I will NOT respond to any of your messages on this
thread.
We do not need someone who is just here to play games using a pseudonym and
telling fables distracting from what is a most serious issue.
Consider yourself kill filed on this thread.
You obviously don't get it, and I seriously question your motives for posting a
response to my post.
In event please go back to your appeal, oops I mean PG Media's appeal, and
leave those who post their real names and identities to discuss more serious
issues.
On 20-Mar-99 Jeff Williams wrote:
> 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
----------------------------------
William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Date: 20-Mar-99
Time: 18:39:39
----------------------------------
