William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> I think you deleted the most important parts, but let me correct you below.
>
> On 20-Mar-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > William,
> >
> > Note the corrections to your conclusions below.
> >
> > Chuck Gomes
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: William X. Walsh [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 1999 6:05 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: This is a scary change...
> > >
> > (Text deleted)
> >
> > > 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.
> > [Gomes, Chuck] Actually, at the new site all registrations now cost
> > $70 for two years, $35 per year for renewals, exactly the same as the
> > InterNIC prices. Previously, registrations at the WorldNIC site cost $80
> > for two years. Name reservations cost $119 just like they did previously.
>
> If ANYONE can look at this site and say that the previous called Worldnic's
> services are not being pushed on this website, I'll eat my words.
Possibly so, but this is not wrong or improper in any way. It is just a good
use of a technology to effect a marketing plan. I call it master stroke
myself.
>
>
> The simple fact is that NSI has been in a monopoly for so long, that it should
> NOT be permitted to gain such an unfair advantage as this will lead to.
As long as it in not illegal you got no bitch coming WIlliam.
>
>
> > > 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.
> > [Gomes, Chuck] The registry has not yet been separated from the
> > registrar. What you are seeing now is primarily registrar functions (e.g.,
> > customer interface functions).
>
> Yes, and at the expense of others. NSI is getting a headstart on locking up
> the registrar functions as a branded service of NSI.
If you ahd started your own registry and registration service in alternative
TLD's you wouldn't be at a disadvantage, now would you? Or if you had
used your business savvy, if you have any, you could have seen this
coming for some time now. I did over two years ago. What is your problem
William?
> To continue processing
> registrations under the co-operative agreement as Internic did not provide much
> of an advantage to NSI, so I understand perfectly, Chuck, WHY this change was
> made. My point is that it is WRONG.
Remember what I said yesterday about opinions WIlliam?
> And that NSI has once again undertaken to
> make serious and significant changes without public notice, input, or
> oversight.
This is in part a legitimate complaint. But it really should not come
as a suprise. I am not.
> The Internic is not a "vehicle for NSI" and NSI does not own the
> Internic. To unilaterally make such a change is a significant deviation from
> previous and accepted practices. And it is nothing more than NSI trying to
> make sure that they position as a "Registrar" is more locked up in the minds of
> the public than anyone other registrar, before these registrars are even
> appointed and able to compete with them.
Of course NSI is doing this, they are a BUSINESS after all....
>
>
> This is plain disgusting, Chuck. And may indeed provide one of the strongest
> cases I have seen for anti-competitive behavior on the part of NSI.
Jeeeezzz you like to whine!! WAAAA WAAAAA WAAAA!!
>
>
> NSI claims to stand for competition and an opening of the market, but they have
> added a caveat, as long as they get to take advantage of their position to make
> sure they stay at the top no matter what, and to use every advantage at their
> disposal before the competition is introduced to make sure they are the number
> one registrar.
Of course!! They are a BUSINESS William!!! Not a club!!
>
>
> I've never been one to advocate taking away com/net/org from NSI until
> recently. I've now come to the conclusion that NSI is betraying the trust of
> the people, the internet, and indeed the principles behind the co-operative
> agreement.
Not true. They are obeying the LETTER of the of the co-operative agreement
as they announced a month of so ago that they would with this move.
>
>
> I urge everyone to write their congress critters and demand an investigation
> into the USG-DOC and NSI situation.
I will be with respect to YOU william and your fraudulent behavior as well
as your false aspersions you cast on others. This situation not withstanding.
>
>
> ----------------------------------
> William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> General Manager, DSo Internet Services
> Date: 20-Mar-99
> Time: 14:23:57
> ----------------------------------
>
Regards,
--
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
