Re: [ga] NeuLevel Statement

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

This letter is repulsive from the first lines;

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Statement from Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Director, Policy and Intellectual Property

"Policy and Intellectual Property"  give me a break.  Should it not be Policy and
Individual User Rights?
The slant here might as well just say we are Wholly owned by a conglomerate of
VERY LARGE BUSINESS.

>
> NeuLevel, Inc.
> July 26, 2001
>
> It has come to our attention that a lawsuit has been filed in the State of
> California regarding the launch process for .BIZ domain names. We believe
> that the .BIZ domain name selection process is the most fair and equitable
> way to distribute domain names during the launch of the first truly global
> business-centric space on the Internet. We believe the lawsuit is without
> merit.
>

"regarding the launch process"  -- no regarding the fraud promulgated upon the
expecting public which is supposed to be protected by ICANN.  And what is this?
dotCOM is not a "truly 'G'lobal business centric space?  Belief requires faith,
to say you believe something is without merit is like saying I have not seen
God's driver license so I do not believe he exists. (total lawyer spin- Talk)
Merit is fact based not belief based.

>
> NeuLevel stands completely behind the launch process of .BIZ, which provides
> protections for all trademark owners and discourages cybersquatting and
> speculation.

Since when did speculation become a bad thing.  Let us count the speculators;
Columbus, Apollo Moon exploration, Cures for Measles, Polio and Plagues,
investments in Oil production, computer production, e-commerce.  What Bull and PC
garbage.

> NeuLevel is committed to preserving the integrity and stability
> of the Internet and the .BIZ launch process, which complies with all
> applicable law. The .BIZ launch process has been approved by the Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit organization
>

Check this out he refers to *mandate instead of actuality*

> whose mandate is to act through a bottom-up consensus-based process in the
> best interests of the global Internet community.
>

Why did not he not say "who acted through a bottom-up consensus-based process".
That omission alone is damning, as an admission against interest by failure to
deny - passive admission and I hope the Judge allows it into evidence.


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html