[35660] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick Greenwell)
Wed Mar 14 12:28:09 2001
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:17:25 -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: <20010313231314.A11927@virtualis.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103140915130.68181-100000@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 Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 08:47:05PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell had this to say:
> > >
> > > 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?
>
> the very reason they pay my (all our) paycheck is for technical expertise -
> if Joe Q. User had technical expertise sufficient to make informed decisions
> on this type of matter, why would he need to hire a network operator?
Consumer demand is not driven by your technical expertise.
> This whole matter boils down to one question - that being, what way is the
> Right Way to operate DNS or its equivalent? It seems to me (and a few others)
> that, logically, any hierarchical system _must_ have an ultimate authority -
> not 2 or 3 or 27, which is essentially what new.net is trying to do: create
> an alternate ultimate authority.
DNS as it currently exists is a fixed point in an evolutionary path.
