Re: Re[2]: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

[steinle@smartvia.de]

> Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 10:55:41 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> |>> From: steinle@smartvia.de [mailto:steinle@smartvia.de]
> |>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:39 AM
> |>> With the TM 'sex.shop' for tanning oil (LoL) he wanted to 
> |>> reverse hijack my domain name registered with new.net (I got 
> |>> some threats via e-mail and phone).
> |>> http://www.new.net/search_whois.tp?domain=sex&tld=shop
> |>> 
> |>> But as long as I don't sell tanning oil on www.sex.shop 
> |>> (LoL) I won't lose my domain. ;-)
> > This is getting to be a royal PITA! www.sex.shop doesn't resolve here.
> My point exactly.
--> To prevent this, make sure your Domain resolves in all roots.
In the 'alt roots' I saved all the law.pro, med.pro and cpa.pro domains. Therfore the dotPRO namespace could be THE ONLY namespace where every single domain name could belong to the same registrant!
A registrant of a dotPRO domain name from RegistryPro could get the identical domain name from me.

This would give this registrant visitors from the PacificRoot, The Universal Registry and from the name.space root in addition. --> 100% visibility

http://root-dns.org/VueDig/VueDig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=pro


cheers,
simon

http://nic.pro.xs2.net

 -- 
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
> --
> Webcertificates.info
> SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

--
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