That's right, in TV ads...
"Network Solutions activates more dot com domains than
any other ISP"....."use Network Solutions, the dot com people."
This actually raises an operational concern. A little
traceroute will show you that www.networksolutions.com and
the worldnic stuff are down the same pipes as the internic.net
stuff. With the DNS problems of the past few days, one has
to ask, would "internic" activities have worked just fine if
Network Solutions had not been using some {small,large} amount
of the bandwidth for their other commercial activities.
Not that I hold out any hope of the two activities using
separate facilities, but it would be nice.
Such seperation is mandated by the latest Amendment to the Cooperative
Agreement between the U.S. Government and NSI. However it doesn't have to
occur for several months still.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v
CTO (925) 377-1212 v
NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f
Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
I'm afraid I can't find that provision in any amendment to the Cooperative
Agreement as posted at http://rs.internic.net/nsf/agreement/.
However, Amendment 11 (7 Oct 98) is interesting because it mandates that
the specifications and milestones for the Shared Registry System be given
to the USG by 1 Nov 98 and that all the data accrued by NSI in it's
registration process be turned over to the USG by 7 Nov 98.
Have these provisions been effected? Has the SRS been planned out yet? NSI?
Spammers should be investigated by Ken Starr!
Dean Robb
PC-EASY computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]
Separation of Registry/Registrar Services:
Following the Phase 1 deployment of the Shared Registration System, NSI
shall make a certification to the USG every six months designed to
demonstrate by means of objective criteria, which shall be
agreed upon between USG and NSI, that NSI is providing all licensed
Accredited Registrars with equal access to its registry
services. NSI also will by February 1, 1999, employ appropriate
safeguards, approved by the USG, to ensure that revenues and assets of the
registry are not utilized to financially advantage NSI's registrar
activities to the detriment of other registrars.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v
CTO (925) 377-1212 v
NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f
Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
I read this as a requirement that NSI not lock any alternative registrars
out, nor can they use the registry (or it's database) for unfair advantage.
I don't see how this equates to a requirement that WorldNIC, InterNIC and
NSI data flow through different pipes...which was the point made by the
original poster.
Spammers should be investigated by Ken Starr!
Dean Robb
PC-EASY computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]
I had a discussion about this with Ira Magaziner, and he assured me that
NSIs registry would have to be divested of the registrar functions under
this agreement. I think the phrase " ... assests of the registry not be
utilized ... " addresses your concern (and mine.) Such assests would
seem to me to include office space, connectivity, etc.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v
CTO (925) 377-1212 v
NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f
Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/