RE: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Let's see... you answer the first line and ignore the rest. Is that how you
read "great points" too?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gavin.stokes@autodesk.com [mailto:gavin.stokes@autodesk.com]
> 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:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 3:39 PM
> 
> > From: gavin.stokes@autodesk.com [mailto:gavin.stokes@autodesk.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 
> unenforcible
> 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
> overlap.
> 
> > 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 
> addresses.
> 
> *That* I can agree with.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 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