At 22:59 3/18/98 -0800, you wrote:
For a good example of this, whois perhaps.youwant.to, then nslookup perhaps.youwant.to. It looks like someone tried to pull a Kashpureff that didn't really succeed.
The nslookup version of perhaps.youwant.to came first, by the way.
So what can we do to actually get something done about it? Anyone?
Currently, I'm talking to a couple of people in the computer news world (one electronic, one electronic and print) about doing a nice expose-style article. Seems that we should be getting SOMETHING for our $100, no? [snip...] I forgot to mention that I've been in contact with Bode & Biddle as well; the firm sueing NSI over the registration fee. Seems that NSI's stance (including email from NSI that specifically says they won't delete a domain unless they don't pay) fits in nicely with the argument that NSI is a "money-grubbing monopoly". Spam: it's not just for breakfast anymore.... Dean Robb PC-Easy On-site computer services (757) 495-EASY [3279]
On Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 02:12:40PM -0500, Dean Robb wrote:
I forgot to mention that I've been in contact with Bode & Biddle as well; the firm sueing NSI over the registration fee. Seems that NSI's stance (including email from NSI that specifically says they won't delete a domain unless they don't pay) fits in nicely with the argument that NSI is a "money-grubbing monopoly".
During a discussion with the InterNIC's David Holtzman, I brought up the issue of false info on registrations. He said they were working on the problem. He didn't go into details, and I didn't ask for them. Just an FYI. -- Steve Sobol, Tech Support Guru, NACS.NET [http://www.nacs.net/support] (The address I use on Usenet is a valid address - don't try to unmunge it!) Moderator, alt.religion.afterburner [http://antispam.nstc.com/ara] 1997 AL and 1998 World Series Champions: [http://www.indians.com]
At 17:06 3/20/98 -0500, you wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 02:12:40PM -0500, Dean Robb wrote:
I forgot to mention that I've been in contact with Bode & Biddle as well; the firm sueing NSI over the registration fee. Seems that NSI's stance (including email from NSI that specifically says they won't delete a domain unless they don't pay) fits in nicely with the argument that NSI is a "money-grubbing monopoly".
During a discussion with the InterNIC's David Holtzman, I brought up the issue of false info on registrations. He said they were working on the problem.
He didn't go into details, and I didn't ask for them.
Just an FYI.
Thank you for the word. Unfortunately, I think you're being led astray. According to Chuck Gomes, their Director of Customer Programs: "Last, we constantly find ourselves having to prioritize tasks. We have long lists of improvements that are planned so there is always competition for resources. The bogus information issue has only been a big concern of a few of our customers. In my role as Director of Customer Programs, I try to push hard for the changes that will impact the most customers in the most effective way possible. I for one am not convinced that putting a lot of effort into this problem will have any significant effect." Furthermore, Chuck, in several weeks of exchanges, was never able to provide a single valid reason ["because people filter on domain names" doesn't constitute a valid reason] why they don't just enforce their Registration Agreement and delete a domain with false information when it's brought to their attention. If it's in your contract, and the violation is pointed out to you...how much "work" does the problem need? Spam: it's not just for breakfast anymore.... Dean Robb PC-Easy On-site computer services (757) 495-EASY [3279]
On Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 09:57:04PM -0500, Dean Robb wrote:
Thank you for the word. Unfortunately, I think you're being led astray. According to Chuck Gomes, their Director of Customer Programs:
I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt here and assume that the two people in question have differing opinions or, perhaps Mr. Holtzman knows something at this point that Mr. Gomes does not. A policy like this is not necessarily something that Mr. Gomes will be involved in as it doesn't relate directly to his job, and David Holtzman is apparently higher up the corporate ladder (according to his signature, he is Senior VP/Engineering.)
Furthermore, Chuck, in several weeks of exchanges, was never able to provide a single valid reason ["because people filter on domain names" doesn't constitute a valid reason] why they don't just enforce their Registration Agreement and delete a domain with false information when it's brought to their attention.
If it's in your contract, and the violation is pointed out to you...how much "work" does the problem need?
I do think that the fact that it's in their contract is enough of a reason. I have had the opinion in the past that although NSI customers are forced to play by their rules, NSI themselves do not necessarily always play by the same rules. But I am going to sit tight for a little while and see what comes out of NSI. It's true that David Holtzman may be blowing smoke up my ass, but I am going to give him a chance to prove that he's not. -- Steve Sobol, Tech Support Guru, NACS.NET [http://www.nacs.net/support] (The address I use on Usenet is a valid address - don't try to unmunge it!) Moderator, alt.religion.afterburner [http://antispam.nstc.com/ara] 1997 AL and 1998 World Series Champions: [http://www.indians.com]
participants (2)
-
Dean Robb -
Steve Sobol