All,
This is of course true of any company that has an alternative to
BIND. INEG. INC. has such an alternative, BINDPlus 2.1. Yet
placing that as a potential stumbling block would not last long
and be of little consequence, unless perhaps it has the potential
of "Reverse pointing" which BINDPlus 2.1 does have as and install
option...
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Monday, August 02, 1999, 5:43:25 PM, A.M. Rutkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At 04:31 PM 8/2/99 , Werner Staub wrote:
> >>correct - but they do not seem to be sincere since you act as a paid
> >>advocate for a monopoly.
>
> > OK, I confess. I just can stop it.
> > I'm actually a monopolist myself. I have
> > about 12 domains for which I am the monopoly
> > registrar. Would you like to register in
> > the CHAOS.COM domain?...or maybe NETMAGIC.COM?
> > I'll give you a monopoly too.
>
> > Forgive me father, for I have sinned.
> > mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
>
> > Who is the father of all monopolies? the
> > legacy root, or BIND? Does she forgive?
>
> What's interesting is that the BIND team has the single ability to
> place a big obstacle in ICANN's way if they ever chose to. Shipping
> the latest version of bind with an alternative root server config
> would place a huge stumbling block in ICANN's path.
>
> They are under no obligation to make the root-servers.net roots the
> default configuration.
>
> --
> William X. Walsh
> General Manager, DSo Internet Services
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
>
> (IDNO MEMBER)
> Support the Cyberspace Association, the
> constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
