Ken,
It is still not correct. Jon Postel's action could not disrupt any
traffic.
Regards,
Werner
Ken Freed wrote:
Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy?
"Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at
IANA issued an electronic directive that
Tony,
Of course if would be appropriate to correct the wording on the
ICANN web site. But you know this has nothing to do with ICANN's
orientation.
Or maybe from now on you will also complain whenever you see a US
phone number written without the US country prefix, saying that this
is an
Ken,
Below is the rewritten paragraph from
http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm
"Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation,
Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that
"reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers.
By temporarily disrupting portions
Ken,
Could you comment on the following excerpt from
http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm
"Jon Postel showed his displeasure with the situation by
redirecting the root servers, temporarily disrupting world
Internet traffic."
Regards,
Werner
--
Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct
Ken,
You said, more precisely, that Jon Postel temporarily
"disrupted Internet traffic" by "redirecting" the root
servers. Could you explain whose traffic was disrupted,
and how?
Regards,
Werner
Ken Freed wrote:
Werner --
What sort of comment would you like?
He was in a position to
Tony,
What's been bothersome is how the NDA - which
was meant to protect all testbed participants
^^^
against snipping public remarks - has been used against
NSI, (...)
When NSI uses confidentiality agreements and performance bonds to
slow down the access of new
Tony,
So you say that the EC has protectionist motivations in investigating NSI,
and at the same time you acknowledge that there is no-one to protect.
These are two entirely different topics. The term
"protectionist" is synonymous with strategic industrial
policy and preservation of
Tony,
But could you clarify *whom* the EC tries to protect by investigating
NSI, in your opinion?
You're asking the same question that I am!
So you say that the EC has protectionist motivations in investigating NSI,
and at the same time you acknowledge that there is no-one to protect.
Tony,
The European Commission looks, of course, at the global European figures.
Obviously, if the European ccNICs had the dominant position you show as
hypothesis, the things would be different. After all, DG IV should be
silly to bother for 0.01%, don't you agree?
Not necessarily -
Tony,
The market share of ESTENA - the Ministry of Education
Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg is nearly 100% in Luxembourg.
Please tell us how you calculate this. I suspect you are simply
dividing the total number of .lu registrations by the total
number of .lu registrations
gTLD market
10 matches
Mail list logo
