Asensio is a documented short seller. Previous attacks have been on smaller
companies to cover their financial position.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin B. Schwimmer [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 2:24 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] NSI purposely disseminated misleading information
>
> The basis for Asensio's misinformation charge is explained in its web site
> at www.asensio.com in a document other than the press release cited by
> Yahoo. One sentence caught my eye:
>
> "There is no reasonable basis to expect that NSOL's DNS contract will not
> completely be terminated on or before its scheduled termination date."
>
> Why is it reasonable to expect that the contract will be terminated before
> its scheduled termination date?
>
> I would be interested in knowing if Asensio has a short position in NSOL.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 06:39 PM 3/25/99 -0000, you wrote:
> >As far as I can see, the InterNIC site was where NSI fulfilled their
> duties
> >to the USG and the networksolutions.com site was where they offered a
> value
> >added service.
> >It is of course entirely self serving that NSI now claims the InterNIC
> site
> >as a Registrar site rather than a Registry site. Well, of course they
> would,
> >but the USG shouldn't let them get away with it.
> >Every time NSI claims an absolute truth, you need to look at the spin and
> >the re-writing of history.
> >
> >And read http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990325/ny_asensio_1.html for
> >background.
> >I quote 'We believe that NSOL's management has purposely disseminated
> >misleading information, and failed to disclose material negative
> >information'.
> >
> >Ivan
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 1:09 PM
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: RE: [IFWP] FYI
> >>
> >>
> >> I know many refuse to accept this, but the old InterNIC was
> >> a hybrid site involving both registry (DNS) and registrar
> >> (customer) functions and it is very easy to establish that
> >> most of the functions on the InterNIC site were registrar
> >> related. InterNIC was not a registry. There was no
> >> registry, but there will be shortly.
> >>
> >> Chuck
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: John B. Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 11:46 PM
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: RE: [IFWP] FYI
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> >> >
> >> > At 05:44 PM 3/24/99 , John B. Reynolds wrote:
> >> > >The old InterNIC site is still up (presumably maintained
> >> in case NSI is
> >> > >forced to pull down the new one): It's at
> >> http://198.41.0.5/ or
> >> > >http://rs0.internic.net/.
> >> >
> >> > It actually looks like the site for the new registry
> >> > home page, doesn't it?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --tony
> >> >
> >>
> >> If that were the case, it would be appropriate for
> >> http://www.internic.net
> >> and http://rs.internic.net to continue to point to it, since
> >> InterNIC is the
> >> registry (the registrar is WorldNIC).
> >>
> >> ________________________________________________________
> >> NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you?
> >> Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
> >> http://www.netzero.net/download.html
> >>
> >
> >
