Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Statements against new.net?

  • From: Steven M. Bellovin
  • Date: Wed Mar 14 09:05:13 2001

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







Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.