ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    XTNS offers new gTLDs (sort of) | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 127 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: XTNS, RealNames, and internationalized domains
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Tuesday September 04 2001, @07:08PM (#2215)
    User #2810 Info
    OK, let's tally up the score so far, I'll call myself (and the others who have been correct to date, I don't want all the credit) Boris for convenience. You can play the part of XTNS, a role you are well suited for as neither of you have functional names:

    XTNS claims to be available to 88% of net users.

    True [ ] False [X]
    Demonstrably so. Point for Boris .

    XTNS claims to be selling domain names.

    True [ ] False [X]
    Admittedly false. Point for Boris .

    XTNS denies that XTNS people are posting here.

    True [ ] False [X]
    XTNS later concedes the point for Boris .

    XTNS denies that clients are upset.

    True [ ] False [X]
    Some of them are posting here. Point for Boris .

    XTNS claims to have owned xtns.com for 5 months.

    True [ ] False [X]
    Not according to WHOIS. Point for Boris .

    XTNS says it is IDENTICAL to the VeriSign ML testbed.

    True [ ] False [X]
    XTNS later concedes the point for Boris .

    XTNS says names are working on August 15.

    True [ ] False [X]
    I'll settle for a half-point for Boris on that one.

    XTNS says repeatedly since then (and as recently as today) that names are working.

    True [ ] False [X]
    Boris gets 1.5 points for XTNS continuing to make the same error.

    XTNS claims to be above par for the industry.

    True [ ] False [ ]
    Given the state of the industry, let's call that one a draw.

    XTNS (or someone claiming not to be XTNS, meaning it probably is) claims to be extremely dumb and extremely rich.

    True [X] False [ ]
    Hard to prove with an Anon poster but as only such people would buy XTNS names Boris concedes the point for XTNS.

    So the score so far is:

    Boris 9
    XTNS 1

    That is pending further proof on such other statements as that I work for a competitor, that XTNS wrote the VeriSign ML testbed, that XTNS is owned by VeriSign, etc. which would further increase our winning margin, though given VeriSign's similar customer service XTNS might yet steal a point. OTOH, we can continually pad our lead for each 72 hour period that XTNS continues not to work, so it looks like we may as well declare victory and call the game. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: XTNS, RealNames, and internationalized domains by fnord
    Re: XTNS, RealNames, and internationalized domains
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Tuesday September 04 2001, @08:19PM (#2217)
    User #2810 Info
    Oh, and David gets an assist for being a little hazy on the technology, it did turn out to be vaporous. ;) -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: XTNS, RealNames, and internationalized domains
    by Anonymous on Wednesday September 05 2001, @10:07AM (#2220)
    OK, Let's tally up the score CORRECTLY this time! (and NO I have no relationship with XTNS at all -- I just hate seeing people like you state lies on message boards):


    XTNS claims to be available to 88% of net users.
    True [X ] False [ ]
    XTNS's SYSTEM (not any given name, its SYSTEM) is accessible to over 88% of net users and that is a clear and proven fact.

    XTNS claims to be selling domain names.
    True [ ] False [X]
    Yes false -- XTNS NEVER CLAIMED TO SELL "DOMAIN NAMES" Check their site. You are just plain wrong here and have been all along.

    XTNS denies that XTNS people are posting here.
    True [ ] False [X ]
    Yes, FALSE -- XTNS themselves never said they didn't post here. I was the person who said that and I later corrected myself when I saw a total of 3 (out of over 100!) posts that look as if they were from an XTNS rep. But all the others -- including mine -- are NOT from XTNS or on their formal behalf.

    XTNS denies that clients are upset.
    True [ ] False [X]
    XTNS has NEVER denied it has any upset clients. I cannot see a single post here or on their site denying this. This is a deliberate slight on XTNS that you have invented and tried to perpetuate. Again, are you relying on something I or someone else here posted? Someone other than XTNS? It seems so ...

    XTNS claims to have owned xtns.com for 5 months.
    True [ ] False [X]
    FALSE - -XTNS themselves have never responded or commented on this issue. An anonymous poster did and their comments (if true) make yours seem foolish and purile. It is highly likely that they have owned it for the past 5 months and still the WhoIs not be updated properly. I have had that problem half a dozen times myself.

    XTNS says it is IDENTICAL to the VeriSign ML testbed.
    True [X ] False [ ]
    TRUE -- it is identical in all key respects-- the concession (which was by ME not by anyone at XTNS) was sarcastic if you didnt realize. I was merely saying that the only difference is that XTNS is operating the system for real and not as a test bed. Other than that point in XTNS's favor, the systems are identical and based on XTNS's intellectual property (as I understand).

    XTNS says names are working on August 15.
    True [ ] False [X]
    False -- XTNS never said a single word was working on August 15 -- they made clear they would start working later in September. You invented this lie to try to make them look bad.

    XTNS says repeatedly since then (and as recently as today) that names are working.
    True [ ] False [X]
    XTNS never said their names are working -- certainly not "today". Again, are you referring to posts I have made? If so, I am not XTNS. All I have seen is claims by me and by other posters that the SYSTEM is clearly working as you can see it on the Verisign testbed (you can also see it working on the .jp new multilingual name site too).

    XTNS claims to be above par for the industry.
    True [ ] False [ ]
    I cant be bothered to check but I suspect this statement was made by another poster and not by anyone in XTNS. Big deal if it was by XTNS, no point of relevence here.

    XTNS (or someone claiming not to be XTNS, meaning it probably is) claims to be extremely dumb and extremely rich.
    True [X] False [ ]
    Again, I was joking. (Or was I?)

    So the score so far is:

    Boris 0
    XTNS 9
    Me, at least 1 ... perhaps more.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com