[ga-abuse] Fwd: RE: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Sorry, I was actually complaining about this message in my previous
post, as being nothing but a personal attack and without merit.

This is a forwarded message
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: 'Kent Crispin' <kent@songbird.com>
Date: Friday, July 27, 2001, 12:41:53 AM
Subject: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

===8<==============Original message text===============
> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 4:52 PM
> 
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 07:43:37PM -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 02:12:22PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > 
> > > > In it, New.net does not argue for multiple roots systems,
> > >
> > > What they argue really isn't very important -- they are 
> so full of hype
> > > you can't tell what they are talking about anyway.  What 
> matters is what
> > > they *do*, and they have *done* is create an alternate root.
> > 
> > Actually, it's more of an enhancement to the existing 
> root... like an
> > amplification, if you will.
> 
> You are just parroting hype.  The fact is that new.net has 
> conflicting TLDs already.

... and you are just parroting FUD. I'm sorry, but I just can't let you get
away with this. New.Net didn't have any conflicting TLDs until ICANN chose
to create new conflicting TLDs. Patrick and I stood there together and
watched them do it! They barely hedged away from, spitefully, awarding WEB
to someone other than IOD (which would have been WAY over the top). The were
fully aware of PacRoot's BIZ, and INFO as well. Once ICANN did that, NewNet
had full license to return the favor, in kind, as far as I'm concerned. No
amount of sugar is going to sweeten the taste of the Marina Del Rey session,
of the ICANN. It was tainted with pure spiteful arrogance, all the way down
the line. Vint was the only saving grace and even he was only doing it to
keep the ICANN from looking too slimey. That session was the opening round
of the name wars. It's been escalating ever since.

> >  The simple brute fact is that ICANN and the USG
> > had not foreseen the inventive approach employed by new.net
> 
> Sorry, once again I'm afraid you don't know what you are 
> talking about. 
> There is nothing at all new in what new.net is doing. 

Well, one or two new tweaks. Some of  which, I don't like.

I sure hope that this is a sign of advanced senility on your part. Because,
I really wouldn't like to think that you were that dishonest.
--
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


===8<===========End of original message text===========



-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo