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

["JandL" <jandl@jandl.com>]

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