[35651] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rafi Sadowsky)
Wed Mar 14 08:35:38 2001
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:50:02 +0200 (IST)
From: Rafi Sadowsky <rafi-nanog@meron.openu.ac.il>
Reply-To: <nanog@merit.edu>
To: Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.10_heb2.08.10103141348320.40546-100000@MaX.att.net.il>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0103141436410.9269-100000@meron.openu.ac.il>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Hi Hank
In this particular case ".XXX" as "generic" suffix is probably not a good
choice - I'm sure someone would pay a lot of money for this particular
gTLD ...
Regards
Rafi
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>
> > I fail to see how RFC2826 is in any way "political".Upon careful re-reading
> > it boils down to:
> >
> > If you use one root, everybody agrees what things look like.
> >
> > If you use multiple roots, what people will see depends on which root they ask.
> >
> > How is this political?
>
> It isn't, but since these cyber-carpetbaggers have failed on the technical
> end to get their way, they figure if they can turn it into a political
> issue then they can involve their clueless congressman to jump in and make
> all sorts of investigations and subcommittees and perhaps they will end up
> with the pseudo-jackpot of a .xxx suffix in their hands.
>
> -Hank
>
>
>
>
