<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] Regarding introducing registry services
- To: elliot noss <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [registrars] Regarding introducing registry services
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:00:28 -0500
- Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Paul Stahura'" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx, "'Paul Twomey'" <twomey@xxxxxxxxx>, roseman@xxxxxxxxx, registrars@xxxxxxxx, brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 05 Nov 2003 09:11:29 EST." <3FA90511.3020904@tucows.com>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I too have read the .com agreement (and a few others) many times.
I agree the agreement(s) are fee-for-service (then again I do not play
lawyer on the net, and don't know many lawyers who have net-clue either).
Having sat on the other side of the table in a prior job, I also agree
that "should" is the right tack, not "how".
If it is "how", then the next brain-dead thing that VGRS (origninal vendor-
defined psudo-IDN, the wild-card/siteswiper hack, ...) or NS (the orange/
black partition of .US along the original namespace, e.g., ci.portland.me.us,
and "new" flat namespace, e.g., dogcatcher.us, aka repurposed ccTLD) or ...
dumps on the market is what we are marketing, at registry-defined terms and
conditions (wasn't the SS T&C a dandy?).
My two beads worth,
Eric
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|