Re: Public Works Peering

2005-10-06 Thread Steve Gibbard
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, J. Oquendo wrote: Now that I had time to marinate weird ideas even further, this is how my previous idea `could` work for all parties. Of course those making financial decisions would likely hate this idea since it would somehow manage to "hurt" their business in their eyes

Re: Public Works Peering

2005-10-06 Thread Erik Haagsman
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 10:26 -0400, J. Oquendo wrote: > Now that I had time to marinate weird ideas even further, this is how my > previous idea `could` work for all parties. Of course those making > financial decisions would likely hate this idea since it would somehow > manage to "hurt" their bu

Re: Public Works Peering

2005-10-06 Thread Michael . Dillon
> > > /* tip never write e-mail within the first hour of your waking morning > > */ > > > > Let me be the first to congratulate you on such > > an excellent idea. > > Now that I had time to marinate weird ideas even further, this is how my > previous idea `could` work for all parties. Somehow I

Re: Public Works Peering

2005-10-06 Thread James Spenceley
A consortium of companies using this NAP would engineer the network since most times government officials have little clue on the engineering side of things, nor would they understand it more than those already in the industry. Having read this thread, I'm going to assume most of the engi

Public Works Peering

2005-10-06 Thread J. Oquendo
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > /* tip never write e-mail within the first hour of your waking morning > */ > > Let me be the first to congratulate you on such > an excellent idea. > > --Michael Dillon > > Now that I had time to marinate weird ideas even further, this is how m