[16043] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: oh, for goodness' sake.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Osborne)
Thu Apr 9 17:40:45 1998
From: Eric Osborne <eric@employees.org>
To: forrestc@iMach.com (Forrest W. Christian)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 05:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: sprunk@paranet.com, Michael@memra.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980408223437.7215C-100000@workhorse.iMach.com> from "Forrest W. Christian" at Apr 8, 98 10:46:15 pm
>
> On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> > My vote's for NIC.INT. I'm still searching for the correct RFC on INT
> > rules to see if that's appropriate, however.
>
> Personally, I feel that with the new TLD's coming online, IMHO, there's no
> reason why one more couldn't be added JUST FOR stuff like RIPE and ARIN
> and the internic. And the Root servers, etc.
>
> Maybe .NIC or .REG or .CORE or .... ?
>
> Set the requirements so that only those organizations providing "core"
> internet services, which if break we're all screwed at least somewhat, can
> get a delegation under them.
Yeah, that'll last.
How much trouble do you think a porn site would go to to get WWW.HARD.CORE?
I thought so.
Also - is "being able to download the newest version of Netscape" a core
service? You don't think so (I hope), and I certainly don't think so, but
Netscape may think so. Microsoft, too. I'm being kinda cynical here, but
anything's possible.
>
> I can see one of the questions on the allocation form:
>
> 8) Estimate the number of messages which will be generated on the nanog
> list if your existing Domain was placed in hold status.
>
That's a *great* idea! Perhaps we just form a "nanog-domain-approve" list,
and just have an internet cabal that decides on every domain registration!
Remember, the only reason most people don't like dictatorships is because they
aren't in charge...:)
eric
