[35628] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick Greenwell)
Wed Mar 14 02:55:48 2001
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 20:47:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <patrick@cybernothing.org>
To: Scott Francis <scott@virtualis.com>
Cc: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@opaltelecom.co.uk>,
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20010313052853.F6787@virtualis.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103132041010.57236-100000@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Scott Francis wrote:
> On or around Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:37:26AM -0800, Patrick Greenwell may have written:
> >
> > Suddenly, I feel like I should be grabbing your hand and engaging in a
> > rousing rendition of "Kumbayah my lord."
> >
> > Rather you or myself like it or not, given the existence of a player
> > that has the capital to make this idea go, the market now has an
> > opportunity to decide for itself.
>
> Unfortunately, "the market" tends to consist in large majority of 1) users,
> and 2) management. And we all know how bright those two particular
> segments of the population tend to be.
Well, those are the people defining your paycheck, sure you want to write
them off so quickly?
> If, as a group, the NANOG readership decides to take a single position on
> anything (ha!), then we could very likely effectively determine in which
> direction "the market" will go. After all, if _nobody's_ customers can access
> new.net's non-sanctioned gTLDs, they can't very well go to another provider
> for such access, and new.net will die the quick death that it deserves.
You might want to take a long, careful, hard look at who has been doing
the sanctioning and how they've been making those decisions before jumping
on the bandwagon. Just a friendly suggestion.
