[35476] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Namespace conflicts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Shawn McMahon)
Fri Mar 9 14:46:56 2001
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:32:29 -0500
From: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon@eiv.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010309143229.C11331@eiv.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1ccMZA6j1vT5UqiK"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20010309141010.078DD35C42@berkshire.research.att.com>; from smb@research.att.com on Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:10:09AM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--1ccMZA6j1vT5UqiK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:10:09AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>=20
> In my area of NJ, virtually every town's "obvious" .com domain names were=
=20
> grabbed by one of two competing would-be service providers. They had=20
> absolutely no town-specific content -- but if the town wanted a Web=20
> site, they had no choice but to deal with these folks. I have no major=
=20
Bull. Where is it written that towns MUST have a .com address?
Those towns had .townname.nj.us available to them for FREE.
They chose to use .com, they chose to have the problem. It's about choices.
--1ccMZA6j1vT5UqiK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE6qS/NEcl9bQ0RMt0RAkzZAJ0QYNO7O1eBddtH9R4ViCkxcRhYGgCg0r/x
e0H6wQiWsxPmxlavXDSKmbs=
=b9ww
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--1ccMZA6j1vT5UqiK--
