> Is it the job of the spokesperson to set forth the truth or attack the
> critic?
Set forth the truth and illuminate the darkness.
> Were Mr. Pope's dealings confidential?
Yes.
> Will NSI now disclose all
> its confidential business dealings?
see above
> Has NSI had any contacts with Thomson
> and Thomson recently?
not 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?
Judicious move by T&T
> 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
> >> >
> >
> >
