William:
You may have missed in your caustic remark that Chuck
was replying to *my* argument -- which he referred to
as "this situation*. So, what I included within brackets
(following standard procedure for introducing context
in quotes) is no more and no less than what I wrote
and which is part of his reply -- as you may consult
the archives for.
BTW, you were doing so fine till now ;-)
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
"William X. Walsh" wrote:
> On 13-Jan-2000 Ed Gerck wrote:
> > "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> >
> >> Ed,
> >>
> >> Saying that "the Registry would be of no help unless there is evidence of a
> >> violation of the Regigtry/Registrar Agreement" does not mean that I think
> >> that is a problem.
> >
> > Chuck:
> >
> > Fair enough, how about if I quote you as saying (for completness,
> > inserting the text you classified as "this situation"):
> >
> >
> > "I agree with you that the Registry would be of no help in this situation
> > [namely, the facts that the Registrar follows a sales system (Shared
> > Registry) that denies tracing the Registry for any customer, denies
> > responsibility to the customer from the Registry, denies access to the
> > Registry's logs in order to prove customer's rights, keeps the
> > property of what is sold with the reseller, gives the customer no
> > authority over what was bought, and denies legal recourse as the
> > customer may see fit] unless there is evidence of a violation of the
> > Registry-Registrar agreement. However, I do not think this is a
> > problem." Chuck Gomes.
> >
> > Is this according to what you want to say? If not, please provide
> > the change, if yes then I can comment by return email.
>
> How about removing your editorial from it and letting his comments stand on
> their own, Ed?
>
> - --
> William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
