On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> That is not what you said in the original post, this is:
>
> >> >>Last year alternate roots supported 0.3% of internet traffic.
> >> >>
> >> >>This year alternate roots are supporting 5.5% of internet traffic.
>
> You have no basis for saying how much traffic the servers that may not
> be using the USG roots are supporting out of the whole internet
> traffic in the method you used to survey them. The percentage of
> nameservers does not automatically equate to the percentage of
> internet traffic.
I understand. In fact the estimate is correct. Unfortuantely I don't
have the time to teach you statistical analysis. But we can be confident
that 5% of internet traffic is non USG. My results are representative and
can be extrapolated accordingly with some confidence.
I know this is a shock to you william. But thats' life and it don't
surprise me.
> > The bottom line here is that my predictions that ICANN would lose market
> > share are right on. Last year it was at 99.7% and this year it's at
> > 94.5%.
>
> Again, your statement doesn't jive with the actual results of your
> "survey".
>
> In other words, Joe, you are trying to make this number appear to be
> more substantive than it is. But I understand why perfectly :)
>
> But let's make sure we stick to the actual facts in evidence, ok?
The facts are very simple. Of 60,513 dns surveyed, 3,331 reported as non
USG. This is a big change from last year. Those are the facts and I can
support them. In fact what I have is more then "facts" - it is evidence
and proof. Like I said - anyone willing to undertake to test and confirm
my results is welcomed. Because evidence like this William can be tested
and verified. All your doing is jive turkey talk. If you want to
challenge my stats William - accept the undertaking and test them for
yourself.
We call that process William - the scientific method.
regards
joe
--
Joe Baptista
http://www.dot.god/
dot.GOD Hostmaster
+1 (805) 753-8697
