Greg and all,
Maybe you have forgotten, we already have three (3) root server
operators that are not in agreement with ICANN at the moment...
Greg Skinner wrote:
> Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Again I see that you still missed Richard's point and my
> > reiteration of that
>Richard, the point I'm trying to make is that it will require
>substantial numbers of DNS admins to start pointing at the alternative
>roots (in particular admins of sites that serve substantial numbers
>of users) to change the status quo.
You're telling me ?
>Perhaps there will be a grassroots
"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> I can't imagine anything that ICANN would do that would cause the
>> Internet community to take its DNS from someplace else en masse.
> En masse ? No. One of them is already pretty pissed though.
Richard, the point I'm try
At 10:20 AM 10/3/99 -0700, you wrote:
>"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Greg Skinner wrote:
>
>>> Basically, you're saying what I said before. People may not be happy
>>> with ICANN, but they don't want to change the status quo.
>
>> Noy yet, no. Wait till ICANN actually *does*
Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again I see that you still missed Richard's point and my
> reiteration of that point entirely.
I guess I am really dense. :)
Anyway, we'll see what happens, if ICANN does something that causes
the DNS admins of the Internet community to point at the
Greg and all,
Again I see that you still missed Richard's point and my
reiteration of that point entirely. Besides, ICANN does not
control the Roots now with the new DOC deal. So ICANN
is not offering anything except over-regulation. In addition
some existing Premier customers of NSI that re
"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> Basically, you're saying what I said before. People may not be happy
>> with ICANN, but they don't want to change the status quo.
> Noy yet, no. Wait till ICANN actually *does* something.
I can't imagine anything that ICA
At 08:44 AM 10/3/99 -0700, you wrote:
>"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'll save you the trouble. It can be summarized as "Icann has a few
>> warts on it, but it's the only option".
>
>> You'll also hear a lot of "I'm tired of this and I don't really
>> care any more", "if we
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE list-digest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 11:45:29 -0400 (EDT)
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>--
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] has
Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think this is what Richard is saying at all, Greg. Rather
> he is saying that allot of people would luv to see serious changes
> but feel they are up against ICANN that is is basically intractable.
> So they are left with their own devices and
Greg and all,
I don't think this is what Richard is saying at all, Greg. Rather
he is saying that allot of people would luv to see serious changes
but feel they are up against ICANN that is is basically intractable.
So they are left with their own devices and feel betrayed by
ICANN.
Greg Skin
"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll save you the trouble. It can be summarized as "Icann has a few
> warts on it, but it's the only option".
> You'll also hear a lot of "I'm tired of this and I don't really
> care any more", "if we don't the ITU will take over" and
> "...worki
12 matches
Mail list logo
