RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

["Jeff Field" <jfield@aaaq.com>]

I apologize for not making myself clear...the point I was trying to make had
nothing to do with what you sell; it had to do with the way in which you
sell it, i.e., with misleading tactics (small print/buried
disclaimers/misleading copy/etc.).

Again, something along the lines of the following, prominently displayed,
would be, IMHO, acceptable.

--------------------------------------
Please note: In order for you and other Internet users to access the
websites of, send email to, or use any other Internet service connected with
the domain name(s) you are about to register requires the DNS (Domain Name
System) settings of each user's computer be configured to point to DNS name
servers which have been set up to query the ORSC Inclusive Name Space root
server system operated by PacificRoot.

Additionally, although PacificRoot believes the ORSC Inclusive Name Space
root server system we operate is superior to what we believe to be the
functionally obsolete ICANN root server system, and that we are currently
making progress through marketing, education and outreach to raise the
awareness of all Internet users of that superiority, many Internet user
computers are not yet configured this way.  Simply put, all this means is
that currently some Internet users will be able to utilize (access your
website, send you email, etc.) the domain name(s) and some will not.
--------------------------------------

Regards,

Jeff
--
jeff field
925-283-4083
jfield@aaaq.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of JandL
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 8:28 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org; jfield@aaaq.com
> Cc: jandl@jandl.com; Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)
>
>
> One basic difference, Jeff.  The .BIZ we are registering is the
> original, legitimate .BIZ and the registry is not a fake, duplicate or
> copy of another registry.  It is not a "pre-registration" nor is it a re-
> direct away from someone else's business.
>
> It would be different if we were registering names supposedly in a
> someone else's registry or one that did not exist. Now if you were
> to open a .biz registry and make it look as though you were
> registering in our registry, or if you were to call yourself The .BIZ
> TLD Registry, AtlanticRoot Network, Inc. biztldnet.com or
> pacificrootcom.net, it would be a similar case.   Yours is a totally
> different scenario.
>
> Leah
>
> >
> > Some time ago in the days of InterNIC, when the only place to go
> > register a name was www.internic.net, a company from Australia set up
> > a website for domain name registration using the web address,
> > www.internic.com.  Although they also had a few small print/buried
> > disclaimers, there was also copy that would lead many to think they
> > had arrived at the official InterNIC site to register domain names.  I
> > believe they charged $250 to register a name when the same thing could
> > be done at the real InterNIC site for $100 (that was the fee at the
> > time).  The only mistake they made, going to .com instead of .net cost
> > them $150 for each name registered.  The site was eventually shut
> > down...in fact, I just found the old stories over at www.news.com (for
> > the full stories, search on "internic.com"):
> >
> > Domain reseller confuses users - July 9, 1997
> > Internic.com clarifies disclaimers - July 11, 1997
> > FTC goes after domain broker - August 21, 1997
> > Domain registry charged with fraud - May 1, 1998
> > Bogus Australian domain registry blocked - June 8, 1999
> >
> > The way in which information is presented at the alternative root .biz
> > registration site reminds me a lot of the internic.com scam.  And with
> > that, I'm done debating this issue.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jeff
> > --
> > jeff field
> > 925-283-4083
> > jfield@aaaq.com
> >
> > > > At 22:49 12.04.2001 -0700, Jeff Field wrote:
> > > > >I've already stated my opinion as to the use of the term,
> > > > >"upgraded".
> > > > > FYI, here's the relavant dictionary definition I found:
> > > > >
> > > > >Upgrade - "To replace (a software program) with a more recently
> > > > >released, enhanced version."
> > > >
> > > > <humor>
> > > > I prefer the version I found in a dictionary written by frustrated
> > > > database users, circa 1985:
> > > >
> > > > "Upgrade - an arcane ritual in which a Database is sacrificed to
> > > > the great god Progress....." </humor>
> >
>
>
> --
> 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