>Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 19:02:20 -0800
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: NSI hijacks InterNIC
>
>At 01:19 PM 3/21/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Now here's something cute. I clicked on the URL for the NSI whois
>below and was told "Access Forbidden. Your client does not
>have permission to access the requested item." Should I have said
>"alakazam?" What am I, chopped liver? I'm supposed to be able to
>get my own, aren't I?
>
>Bill Lovell
>
>>William,
>>
>>The new site is not the NSI registry. It is the NSI registrar. The NSI
>>registry has not yet been introduced.
>>
>>Chuck
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: William X. Walsh [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 1999 8:12 PM
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Subject: Re: NSI hijacks InterNIC
>>>
>>> You should of left the Internic part of your operation (which you operate
>>> under
>>> contract from the USG) as a seperate function than your private registrar,
>>> which you operate under a different set of rules.
>>>
>>> You should not of attempted to use the Internic name to try and unduly
>>> influence the public and harbor up the position of NSI as a registry
>>> before
>>> competition has been introduced. This is nothing more than NSI taking
>>> advantage of its position as sole registrar at this point to try and make
>>> sure
>>> they maintain the lion's share of the market. This is an unfair business
>>> practice, as prospective registrars have no such ability to use the
>>> established
>>> name of Internic.net (which was a CONTRACTED SERVICE) to promote their
>>> registry
>>> functions.
>>>
>>> Not to mention that NSI has been acting in a woefully inconsiderate manner
>>> by
>>> making such changes without ANY public notice, or seeking comment from
>>> those
>>> who are most affected by such changes.
>>>
>>> As someone on the isp-webhosting list just pointed out, if it wasn't for
>>> the
>>> ISPs, there would be no need for an Internic or a "Network Solutions."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20-Mar-99 Chuck Gomes wrote:
>>> > It has always been NSI's site. Prior to Friday night, it had the
>>> InterNIC
>>> > logo and the NSI logo. How do you come to the conclusion that NSI
>>> hijacked
>>> > the internic.net address? We consolidated our web sites into one, so
>>> it
>>> > seemed to make sense to point people using the internic.net address to
>>> the
>>> > new site. Should we have just left them hanging?
>>> >
>>> > Chuck
>>> >
>>> > > -----Original Message-----
>>> > > From: Ivan Pope [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> > > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 1999 7:04 PM
>>> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> > > Subject: NSI hijacks InterNIC
>>> > >
>>> > > Chuck,
>>> > > By what right does NSI hijack the internic.net address? They don't own
>>> it.
>>> > > The site now up isn't InterNIC, its NSI.
>>> > > Ivan
>>> > >
>>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>>> > > > From: Chuck Gomes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> > > > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 1999 10:40 PM
>>> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> > > > Subject: Re: This is a scary change...
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Whois accessibility on the new site is the same for everyone,
>>> > > > the "Big Boys"
>>> > > > and the "little guys."
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Chuck Gomes
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>>> > > > > From: Douglas Bates, MD [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 1999 2:35 PM
>>> > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> > > > > Subject: This is a scary change...
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Well. Someone hold me up. 'Cause the rug has just
>>> > > > been pulled from
>>> > > > > under my (and all the other 'little guys') feet!
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Of greatest concern among the new changes at NSOL is the
>>> > > > loss of whois.
>>> > > > > But maybe not - if you are one of the Big Boys. Try the
>>> > > > following site:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I do not have permission, but I bet major companies do.
>>> > > > > Domain listing, searches and all other whois functions need to be
>>> > > > > available to EVERYONE in an equitable fashion.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Douglas Bates
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > "Government of the domains, by the corporations, for the
>>> > > > corporations
>>> > > > > must perish from the earth."
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > --
>>> > > > > DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to
>>> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> > > > > To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF
>>> > > > DOMAIN-POLICY"
>>> > > > > For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --
>>> > > > DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to
>>> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> > > > To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF
>>> > > > DOMAIN-POLICY"
>>> > > > For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to
>>> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> > > To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF
>>> DOMAIN-POLICY"
>>> > > For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> > To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF
>>> DOMAIN-POLICY"
>>> > For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> General Manager, DSo Internet Services
>>> Date: 20-Mar-99
>>> Time: 16:03:30
>>> ----------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
>>> For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
>>
>>
>>--
>>DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
>>For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
