[ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...
"Sounds like johnny-come-lately whining and snivelling to me. Take it like a man, son! So, you missed the boat on .COM... Don't worry, there will be others."
You've got to be kidding. First of all, this statement is dead wrong. In case you weren't paying attention, the proposal for the new TLDs called for something like a 30-day grace period in which holders of current domains could snap up the same URL in the new domains "to avoid confusion". Give me a break. The net result? The very same shortage of domain names, thanks to hoarding.
Second of all, I guessed you missed the response that began with "great points!"
Funny how you didn't respond to the Autodesk detractors with your "whining and sniveling" claim.
From: Sotiris [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:50 PM
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...
First off, nobody's making fun of anyone's email address (I sure wasn't).
> Thanks to everyone for jumping on that one. I expected a boatload of objections, and some support. So far we see both.
I didn't see any support.
> People making the point about equating a domain with a Web site have a good point. That does further complicate the determination of what hoarding is. But how about simply disallowing resale of domains by anyone but a registrar, at a standard price?
What exactly is your problem here? I suppose you'd also like to see this `rationale' of yours applied to diamond mines and diamond merchants, or any other commodity in the marketplace for that matter? Gavin, I've read some far out things on these Lists, but this takes the cake!
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html