RE: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...
Let's see... you answer the first line and ignore the rest. Is that how you
read "great points" too?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 4:34 PM
> If you take a look at the posts, try reading the one that
> starts with "great points". It sounds like support to me,
> but maybe a lifetime of English isn't sufficient.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 3:39 PM
> > From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:29 PM
> > Thanks to everyone for jumping on that one. I expected a
> > boatload of objections, and some support. So far we see
> > both.
> Funny, I didn't see any support...
> > But how about simply
> > disallowing resale of domains by anyone but a registrar, at a
> > standard price? The complexities of this (based on transfer
> > of trademarks and what have you) are probably far less
> > significant than determining "hoarding."
> Not hardly... There are so many ways to sell something, especially an
> intangible good, that it is virtually impossible, at least not
> cost-effective, to even try.
> > That said, let's talk about the juvenile responses.
> Let's not...
> > I typed a few into my browser;
> > some worked, and some didn't. And I still say, use it or
> > lose it. They should lose any of them that they don't use,
> > but admittedly this may be impossible to enforce.
> You obviously have no idea how easy it is to make a domain
> name appear "in
> use", for various definitions of "in use". I can do this, for
> over 10,000
> names, on a single Linux box.
> > And what about misuse of NET and ORG? I sent a message to
> > Network Solutions last year asking them why they were
> > suggesting ORG and NET domains to everyone, when you're
> > supposed to be a non-profit organization or a
> > network-services provider to use those domains. They said
> > they don't enforce those anymore, because they couldn't.
> If you'd read the drelevent RFCs, you'd see for yourself how
> those charter definitions are. They are REALLY vague. They
> sound good on the
> surface, but you don't have to scratch very deep to see where
> they start to
> > So, if you want to keep this organization from being a bigger
> > joke than it already is in the minds of many (thanks to
> > recent press coverage), stop making fun of people's E-mail
> *That* I can agree with.
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
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