[175356] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (shawn wilson)
Mon Oct 20 22:09:20 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <BDD10A31-FEA4-4096-AC60-18F7D8B0563E@pch.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:09:11 -0400
From: shawn wilson <ag4ve.us@gmail.com>
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Oct 20, 2014 9:33 PM, "Bill Woodcock" <woody@pch.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
>
> > Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of "why not=E2=80=9D.
>
> Eh. Off the top of my head, I see two categories of breakage:
>
> 1) things that hard-code a list of =E2=80=9Creal=E2=80=9D TLDs, and br=
eak when their
expectations aren=E2=80=99t met, and
>
> 2) things that went ahead and trumped up their own non-canonical TLDs
for their own purposes.
>
> Neither of those seem like practices worth defending, to me. Not worth
going out of one=E2=80=99s way to break, either, but=E2=80=A6
>
I'm not defending any practice. Let's just say everything else goes smooth.
How many fed employees are there and what's their average salary? Let's
assume it takes them 5 minutes to change their email sig. How much would
that cost?
There's probably also a legal issue 1here. You can't make it so that
someone can't communicate with their elected official. No term limits in
the House so you'd start this and 50 years later, you'd be able to complete
the project (due to the last congressman being replaced).
