Is it the job of the spokesperson to set forth the truth or attack the
critic? Were Mr. Pope's dealings confidential? Will NSI now disclose all
its confidential business dealings? Has NSI had any contacts with Thomson
and Thomson recently? I noticed that they were running creation date info
about two weeks after you removed it, and then they suddenly stopped. Did
NSI in any way cause T&T to pull the creation date info?
At 02:21 PM 3/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Ivan,
>
>In the interest of full disclosure to the Internet
>community are you willing to disclose your
>repeated failed attempts to sell your company to
>Network Solutions?
>
>Chris Clough
>Network Solutions
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ivan Pope [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 1:40 PM
>> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>> Subject: [IFWP] NSI purposely disseminated misleading information
>>
>> 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
>> >
>
>
