It was actually changed last night.
sA
At 03:48 PM 6/2/00 -0400, you wrote:
>It's been fixed.
>
>Whois info for, web.net:
>
>Registrant:
> Web Networks
> 401 Richmond Street West Suite #384
> Toronto, Ontario M5V 3A8
> CA
>
> Domain Name: WEB.NET
>
> Administrative Contact:
> Contact (DAC3-ORG, NDS Administrative dns-admin@web.net
> 416-596-0212
>
> Technical Contact:
> Contact (DTC5-ORG), DNS Technical dns@web.net
> 416-596-0296
>
> Billing Contact:
> Contact (DAC3-ORG, NDS Administrative dns-admin@web.net
> 416-596-0212
>
>
> Record last updated on 1-Jun-2000.
> Record expires on 24-May-2001.
> Record Created on 26-May-1993.
>
> Domain servers in listed order:
> NS.WEB.NET 192.139.37.2
> NS2.WEB.NET 192.139.37.4
>
>On Fri, 02 Jun 2000, Magicus Inc. wrote: > There you go again
>William. >
> > Give yourself a rest long enough to see the result of what is happening.
> >
> > You are talking blame. People, and more sadly the Press, are going to talk
> > appearances.
> >
> > Somehow Tocuws/OpenSRS is seeming to get the press of being the last refuge
> > of the scoundrel Tandoko and the registrar offering him sanctuary. Untrue
> > and unjust this may be, still the name is there in every article regarding
> > the theft.
> >
> > Philippe is right in saying that Tucows needs to do something, or even be
> > seen to be doing something in this situation.
> >
> > Osmana Bin Laden's very presence in Afghanistan is enough to give the
> > Country and all associated with it doubtful credibility, not to mention
> high
> > avoidability. Since we have plighted our Troth with Tucows/OpenSRS we get
> > asked the questions.
> >
> > NSI may be the dregs of the Earth but they are seen to be acting on the
> > issue till they come to a particular point and say that they are unable to
> > take action without Tucows. As one article says:
> >
> > "The situation is currently at an impasse. The whois record still shows the
> > site with the alleged thief, going by the name of Billy Tandoko, registered
> > as administrative contact, technical contact, zone contact and billing
> > contact for the domain. Network Solutions is still waiting to hear back
> from
> > TUCOWS about what they intend to do to correct the fraudulent domain name
> > transfer. TUCOWS did not respond to calls from InternetNews for additional
> > details."
> >
> > I am not sure what, but something needs to be done.
> >
> > -AR
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org
> > [mailto:owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org]On Behalf Of William X. Walsh
> > Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 12:19 AM
> > To: Philippe Landau
> > Cc: discuss-list@opensrs.org
> > Subject: Re: Tucows silence bad for business (was: "Domain Names
> > Hijacked" news article
> >
> >
> > Hello Philippe,
> >
> > Friday, June 02, 2000, 10:50:20 AM, you wrote:
> >
> > PL> on Thu, 1 Jun 2000, "Rodney Payne" <opensrs@anthill.com> wrote:
> > >>Can't opensrs help these people??
> >
> > PL> The situation is currently at an impasse. The whois record still
> > PL> shows the site with the alleged thief, going by the name of Billy
> > Tandoko, registered as administrative contact, technical contact, zone
> > contact
> > PL> and billing contact for the domain. Network Solutions is still
> > PL> waiting to hear back from TUCOWS about what they intend to do
> > PL> to correct the fraudulent domain name transfer. TUCOWS did not
> > PL> respond to calls from InternetNews for additional details.
> > PL> http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,2171,3_386441,00.html
> >
> > Don't believe NSI :) They've blatently lied to the press on similar
> > issues in the past.
> >
> > PL> not only does Tucows/OpenSRS give NSI an undeserved
> > PL> PR-advantage, it is also very disappointing that they
> > PL> did not act swiftly and as soon as the events became known.
> > PL> Tucows - why ?
> >
> > This problem rests squarely on NSI's shoulders. Their mail-from
> > security problem permitted the admin contact to be changed. Any
> > delays or other problems are a direct result of that, and no one but
> > NSI should bear any responsibility for it. NSI may try and shift it,
> > because they want to pretend they aren't culpable for the original
> > change.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > William mailto:william@userfriendly.com
>
>--
>Robert Rivers
>OpenSRS Technical Operations
Scott Allan
Director OpenSRS
sallan@opensrs.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:35:37 EDT