[35648] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mathias Koerber)
Wed Mar 14 07:53:01 2001
From: "Mathias Koerber" <mathias@koerber.org>
To: "Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>, <mdevney@teamsphere.com>,
"Scott Francis" <scott@virtualis.com>
Cc: "Patrick Greenwell" <patrick@cybernothing.org>,
"Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@opaltelecom.co.uk>,
"Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>, "Hank Nussbacher" <hank@att.net.il>,
<nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:21:19 +0800
Message-ID: <NEBBLGLDKLMMGKEMEFMFAEBBCFAA.mathias@koerber.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039CA8@condor.mhsc.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > [... Blackholing new.net...]
> > If we all do that (And yes I can see a significant [10%+]=20
> > fraction of this
> > group's readership doing it), then the problem goes away=20
> > soon. An elegant
> > fix, except that new.net would probably sue anyone who=20
> > blackholed them...
>=20
> Indeed they would. It is even likely that they'd win. Such action =
wouldn't
> win ICANN any favours in Congress either.
I am not an American and not really familiar with US laws and political
thinking, but why is it that it is considered OKfor someone to break =
away from,
ignore the DNS root system, but not for others to blackhole a player =
whose traffic
they don't want to see. What laws would prohibit the latter while not =
affeting the
former?
Mathias
