Roeland and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> Hey Patrick and all,
>
> This is precisely one of the points I've been trying to make these past months. What
>is the point, if NSI enforces their same sad policy on the registrars? The registrars
>would have to pass those policies on to the registrant. The registrant STILL has to
>deal with those same sad policies.
In essence this is an accurate assessment and one that was pointed out to
the ICANN on more than one occasion. But the DNSO bunch, which
the ICANN Interim Board in it's infinite wisdom, decided was the best
direction to go for now, either overlooked this problem or choose to ignore
it an deal with it at a later date. That may be fine for the Test Bed, but
is unlikely to be satisfactory later. Hence the need for multiple
registries or some changes in the inane Guidelines policy.
>
>
> The brown fecal matter STILL flows down hill.
ROFLMAO, very eloquently put here Roeland and quite accurate indeed.
The ICANN has set up a scenario where the Stakeholder, without the
benefit of a membership organization check, decidedly determined
that the Registrant should be the barer of any an all responsibility
of deflecting much of this fecal matter.
> The attempt to place someone midway up the hill to block it simply results in their
>getting out of the way when it happens. Worse, the registrar now sits between the
>registrant and the registry. The registrar gets to add some of their own effluent as
>well. The registrant now has to fight past the registrar, on their way to the
>registry, where the REAL problem lays. This is a definite set-back for the registrant.
Yep, and what we have been espousing from the very beginning.
>
>
> It gets even better. How long do you think NSI is going to maintain the e-mail
>domain registry system? It takes away from registrar business. The registrars are
>going to put real pressure to get NSI to drop that system. If I were a registrar, I
>would. This puts an even greater barricade between registrants and the COM/NET/ORG
>registry.
More than likely correct as well.
>
>
> Those of you advocating the shared registry approach should feel real happy now.
>You've screwed the world. Mark my words.
Yes indeed, it is only a matter of determining which orifice in which
the insertion shall be done. KY jelly anyone? >;)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owner-Domain-Policy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Patrick Greenwell
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 5:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: transfer domain to another registrar
>
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Carl Oppedahl wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the strongest single reason to make such a move is to escape NSI's
> > terrible domain name trademark policy. See http://www.patents.com/nsi.sht .
>
> What good will that do you? NSI is still the only registry for .com, .net,
> and .org.
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> Patrick Greenwell Centergate Research, LLC http://www.ultradns.net
> (tinc)
> Coming to the ISPF? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
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
