[45140] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: ICANN dead?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Golding)
Fri Jan 18 13:39:02 2002
From: "Daniel Golding" <dgolding@sockeye.com>
To: "Christopher Schulte" <schulte+nanog-post@nospam.schulte.org>,
"Patrick Greenwell" <patrick@stealthgeeks.net>,
"Curtis Maurand" <curtis@maurand.com>
Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:38:10 -0500
Message-ID: <GKEFKKIKGCMICPKBAEIMOEHFCFAA.dgolding@sockeye.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020116220940.02f94e38@pop3s.schulte.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I have to ask that folks stop posting email with subject lines like "ICANN
dead?", due to the unreasonable sense of hope and longing that it may
provoke in the rest of us. Indeed, when we discover that ICANN, is in fact,
not dead, it's rather disappointing.
- Daniel Golding
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Christopher Schulte
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:15 PM
> To: Patrick Greenwell; Curtis Maurand
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: ICANN dead?
>
>
>
> At 07:23 PM 1/16/2002 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >Just another example of the guardians of "Internet stability" exhibiting
> >their true level of suitability for the task.
>
> Oh please. Didn't we go over this mid November, 2001?
>
> http://www.icann.org/ ( which is available from my workstation just fine,
> by the way ) is not a critical part of the operational stability of the
> internet as a whole. It may have been unavailable. If so, big
> deal. Move on.
>
> Enough said.
>
> >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\
> > Patrick Greenwell
> > Stealthgeeks,LLC. Operations Consulting
> > http://www.stealthgeeks.net
> >\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
>
> --chris
>
