RE: [registrars] Afilias Response to Bhavin's earlier Posting
I agree with Afilias ...... I should have verified the facts b4 probably
putting up the research. It was meant to be simply statistical in nature,
but I did not mean any harm. There is however an inaccuracies section that I
put up below on the same page, where I mentioned tht the following types of
domains in the list would be inaccurate
* those challenged by another challenger
* those that were challenged were actually genuine names and the respondent
had the necessary trademark
* some names that were challenged were not released in LR2 because they were
put on ICANN Reserver (like country names etc)
In all fairness however I am posting the Afilias response to this on the
same website in order for everyone to get the fair picture ......
Sorry for any blooper ... dint mean any harm - simply meant to bring certain
facts to notice....
incidentally would that mean that a certain number of names which are still
in the challenge process will be released live?? if so would this be
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
> Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
> Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 4:34 AM
> To: Registrar Constituency
> Cc: Hal Lubsen
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Afilias Response to Bhavin's earlier Posting
> At 05:29 PM 5/31/02 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> >We suggest to Mr. Turakhia that, should he have any additional
> questions or
> >comments in the future, it would be beneficial to the greater
> community to
> >verify the facts before making public comments.
> It looked to me as through Bhavin put a lot of effort into his
> study. Since he did not look at the shadow database (was it open
> to him?),
> he made some mistakes.
> I don't think he deserves to be insulted for his diligent efforts.
> Regards, BobC