[35652] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Wed Mar 14 09:03:48 2001
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 08:48:26 -0500
Message-Id: <20010314134827.42D5C35C42@berkshire.research.att.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In message <Pine.GSO.4.31.0103141436410.9269-100000@meron.openu.ac.il>, Rafi Sa
dowsky writes:
>
>
>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 ...
I think that that was Hank's point -- the owner of the One True .xxx
will make lots of money.
>
>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-readin
>g
>> > 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
