If the system of interest consists of a non-trivial number of carrier
edge devices, then a non-random distribution of source addresses is
certain. (para 1, tech).
The armed organization referred to as "Isis" is described[1,2] in some
detail, in the first as having sophisticated digital marketi
Hey!
New message, please read <http://iamakeupartistry.com/struck.php?n1v>
Eric Brunner-Williams
Hey!
New message, please read <http://hongcongapps.com/road.php?rm>
Eric Brunner-Williams
Hey!
New message, please read <http://takestockinyourlife.com/usual.php?6>
Eric Brunner-Williams
i read it, its rather good.
-e
On 9/12/15 12:45 PM, John Levine wrote:
/*If you're willing to sign on and help today, please email me directly
(off list) */and I will be happy to share a copy of the letter for you
to review before you agree to sign on.
Why don't you just send us a copy or a li
On 10/25/14 5:00 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
It might. So would removing the farce of 'private' domain registration.
the venue where the applicable policy is currently under development is
gnso-ppsai-pdp...@icann.org
just to be tediously instructive, the policy applicable to gtlds is
develope
On 10/27/14 1:32 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
[snip]
I should clarify I was thinking about whois on the IP blocks and/or
ASN. not dns for domain names.
if your network is spewing sewage, there should be some way to contact
you. if you are uninterested in being contacted, there's always RBLs I
On 10/27/14 10:12 AM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
If you can't be bothered to have correct contact info, your packets go
into the scavenger queue. Or get redirected to a webpage explaining
why your network is blocked until you correct it.
Your customers will be the ones complaining to you.
t
On 10/26/14 9:25 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
I think one missing or weak component are those who actually make this
stuff work vs the pie-in-the-sky infringer/volume/policy crowd.
I've sat in IPC meetings and suffice it to say there isn't much clue
on that front and why should there be unless the go-
David wrote:
Indeed, and I must commend Warren and Eric for caring enough to actually engage
in this stuff. While many people in the NANOG/IETF/DNS Operations communities
complain about the latest abomination ICANN is inflicting upon the world, there
aren't a whole lot of folks from those comm
On 10/23/14 7:27 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>in other words, the bc and ispc were, and for the most part, imho, remain
captive properties of the intellectual property constituency.
Here, Eric is suggesting the intellectual property folks are driving policy
issues on behalf of the folks interested
some history.
at the montevideo icann meeting (september, 2001), there were so few
attendees to either the ispc (now ispcp) and the bc (still bc), that
these two meetings merged. at the paris icann meeting (june, 2008) staff
presented an analysis of the voting patters of the gnso constituencie
it was at ietf-9, while jon and i were discussing the {features|flaws}
of iso3166-1, that another contributor approached us and ... spoke to
the unfairness, as argued by that contributor, of the armed forces of
the united kingdom being excluded from the use (as registrants) of the
.mil namespac
systemd is insanity.
see also smit.
i won't comment on your experience, having no direct knowledge. why you
comment on mine is uninteresting.
-e
On 10/20/14 9:03 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/20/14 7:47 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the
.us zone, i d
having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the
.us zone, i differ.
as i recall, having done the research, in the year prior to the ntia's
tender some six people held some 40% of the major metro area subordinate
namespaces. to my chagrin, relieved by a notice of termin
at ietf-9 jon and i discussed the problem solved (scaling of the zone
editor function as the price of network interfaces dropped by orders of
magnitude) by reliance upon iso3166-1, and the problems created by
reliance upon iso3166-1. the economic success of .cat (unique among the
icann 1st and
On 9/17/14 10:45 AM, David Conrad wrote:
To be clear, generic TLDs (gTLDs) can’t have bare (dotless) TLDs (or wildcards).
um. .museum. ...
On 9/17/14 9:10 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "David Conrad"
Right. Similarly, .SU has been assigned. SU is a bit odd in the sense
that it was moved to “transitionally reserved” when the Soviet Union
broke up and a batch of new country codes were created (e.g., RU,
well, apropos to point #2, the iso3166/ma includes representatives from
ten agencies, of which a certain 501(c)(3) originally in marina del rey,
now in los angeles, is included.
however, i can't imagine staff offering an opinion of record on the subject.
"ay" for "aye" would work for me.
-e
On
On 9/16/14 8:26 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
What kind of timeframe would a new ccTLD for a major country roll out on?
that could be several quite distinct questions:
1. assuming that the "aye" vote prevails, in what quarter will the
iso3166/ma issue the relevant update, allocating a code point to
see also:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/iran-3g-phones-filter-unsanitary-water.html#
restated slightly, video, the primary vehicle for porn, needs minders,
text, the primary vehicle for ideas, does not.
-e
On 8/31/14 11:08 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
well, looking at
well, looking at the ayatollah's website and invoking google translate
there's this language:
"... different mechanisms to secure and protect their users against the
moral and psychological damage this type of service, including access to
information, videos and photos from immoral and inhuman
Please ping me.
TiA,
Eric
On 7/25/14 4:29 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Not that some leading proponents of net neutrality would even know a router
if it bit them ...
i'm _trying_ to imagine the lobbyists, corporate counsels, and company
officers above the v.p. of engineering i know who have vastly superior
clue a
For those interested, first in my morning's inbox is a letter from
Oregon State Senator Bruce Starr (R-15, Hillsboro), and Nevada State
Senator Debbie Smith (D-13), President and President-elect,
respectively, of the National Conference of State Legislatures to FCC
Chairman Thomas Wheeler, expr
On 7/23/14 5:30 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
The people involved in the bond arrangements
almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more reliable
path to getting repaid than an open system.
I assumed this was true, that bonds with the revenue stream based upon
rights-of-way lease
On 7/22/14 1:55 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
You're over-thinking it. Use the power company as a model and you'll
close to the right path.
Well, no, but thanks for your thoughts.
Portland vs. Cumberland County as respective hypothetical bonding and
regulating authorities, not {Bangor Hydro|Florida P
On 7/22/14 11:13 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a
state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at
published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the
fiber (conflict of interest).
Ray,
Could you offer a ca
On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Relevant article by former FCC Chair
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/
It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican "free markets" ideologue) on
a (Progressive) De
On 6/26/14 9:20 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Jun 26, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 27, 2014, at 00:07 , Larry Sheldon wrote:
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/court-ruling-israeli-and-us-terrorism.html
Have not seen much discussion about this.
That would be a ho
Could someone from Amazon Web Services contact me off list? I'm getting root
login attempts from one of your assets and abuse@ hasn't been responsive today.
Tia,
Eric
On 9/12/13 1:39 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> ICANN new gTLD agreements specified 100% availability for the service,
> meaning at least 2 DNS IP addresses answered 95% of requests within 500 ms
> (UDP) or 1500 ms (TCP) for 51+% of the probes, or 99% availability for a
> single name server, defined as 1
> On Jul 27, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
>
>> For the folks who aren't aware, there is working being done on a proposal
>> for a complete do-over of WHOIS:
>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130703_rebooting_whois/
>> I don't believe this work address the regional registry information, w
On 7/26/13 8:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2013, at 11:05 , David Conrad wrote:
>> > On Jul 26, 2013, at 7:58 AM, "Patrick W. Gilmore"
>> > wrote:
>>> >> You can change anything you want. ARIN & ICANN are both member
>>> >> organizations. Propose a change, get the votes, and POO
> I'm reasonably sure that there are more than 50 service providers
> who are able to privide you with a connection that will do IPv6.
In this context the universe of 50 providers are registry service
providers, existing and entrant. Verisign, NeuStar, Afilias, CORE,
AusReg, ISC, ...
Your side w
On 7/4/13 6:23 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
> OK, I 'fess to terminal stupidity--in this contest: "DEC"? "the DAG"?
Sigh. DNSSEC and Draft Applicant Guidebook.
> OK, I 'fess to terminal stupidity--in this contest: "DEC"? "the DAG"?
Draft Applicant's Guidebook.
Someone who should know better wrote:
> Well give that .com thingie is IPv6 accessable and has DNSSEC there
> is nothing we need to let you know. And yes you can get IPv6
> everywhere if you want it. Native IPv6 is a little bit harder but
> definitely not impossible nor more expensive.
And this
On 7/4/13 11:11 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> I'll bite. What's the *actual* additional cost for dnssec and ipv6
> support for a greenfield rollout? It's greenfield, so there's no
> "our older gear/software/admins need upgrading" issues.
You'll let me know there is no place where v6 is no
On 7/4/13 10:48 AM, John Levine wrote:
> I dunno. Can you point to parts of your house that have been
> significantly improved by fire insurance?
Cute John. Let me know when you've run out of neat things other people
should do.
Eric
On 7/4/13 8:00 AM, Ted Cooper wrote:
> Do they have DNSSEC from inception? It would seem a sensible thing to do
> for a virgin TLD.
In the evolution of the DAG I pointed out that both the DNSSEC and the
IPv6 requirements, as well as other SLA requirements, were
significantly in excess of those pla
On 7/2/13 7:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
> Rather than asking random strangers, you can read the applicant
> guidebook and find out what the actual rules are:
There really should be a kinder introduction to those who lack basic
clue than to attempt to read the last version of the DAG, even for the
Am
Thank you Rubens, you saved me the effort.
Eric
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/obama-china-targets-cyber-overseas
the headline may be misleading.
Presidential Policy Directive 20 defines OCEO as "operations and
related programs or activities … conducted by or on behalf of the
United States Government, in or through cyberspace, tha
On 6/7/13 8:28 AM, <<"tei''>>> wrote:
> This is one of these "Save the forest by burning it" situations that
> don't have any logic.
>
> To save a forest firefighters often cut a few tree. Don't cut all the
> trees in a forest to save it from a fire.
Seasonal work, many solar obits past.
Well,
In time of response order:
There is Leo's reference to the not yet concluded RAA process, in
which a para contains possibly relevant "registrar shall" terms.
This is forward looking (the proposed RAA is not yet required by the
Corporation) and may apply only to parties contracting with the
Corpor
On 4/9/13 5:47 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Can you point is at the right address or form to submit regarding this? Seems
> like its time for both on and DS.
Jared,
Joe is an employee of the corporation, a rather high ranking one. As I
mentioned in my response to Mark, he _may_ be in a positio
On 4/9/13 5:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I said all of this years ago as a suggestion for the next round of contract
> renewals (since I was told that it had to be added to the contracts first).
>
> Best of luck. Personally, I think it should have been a requirement at least
> 5 years ago.
And exa
On 4/9/13 4:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> It's about time certification was lost for failure to handle
> records. The same should also apply for DS records.
You can suggest this to the compliance team. It seems to me (registrar
hat == "on") that in 2.5 years time, when Staff next conducts a
r
Folks,
We'd a user account compromised a couple of weeks ago, spam naturally.
We're not getting any response from Gmail's set of contacts, so if
anyone has a working Gmail contact, phone or mail, that they're
willing to share off-list, I'd appreciate it.
Eric Brunner-Williams
On 2/22/13 11:01 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Without getting into metaphysics, we can think of the dot in the
> presentation format as representing the separators in the wire
> format. In the wire format, of course, these separators are octets
> that indicate the size of the next label. And sinc
On 2/2/13 9:54 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> > I would think in this model that the city would be prohibited from
>> > providing those services.
> That is what I just said, yes, Brandon: the City would offer L1 optical
> home-run connectivity and optional L2 transport and aggregation with
> Ethernet p
On 2/1/13 6:26 AM, Dave Sparro wrote:
> municipal utilities:
> - sell bonds cheaper (holders get tax-advantaged rates in interest
> income, and are ultimately backed by the muni taxpayers)
Tangential to the private vs public screed:
The ability to issue (and sell) tax exempt (T-E) bonds for any
On 1/31/13 6:28 PM, Dan Armstrong wrote:
> But the most successful municipal undertaking to support telecom I have ever
> seen is a municipally owned conduit system….
Could you be a bit more specific? What is the muni, and where can the
business model data be found?
Also, what was the muni's RO
On 1/30/13 6:33 AM, Jason Baugher wrote:
> The other thing I find interesting about this entire thread is the
> assumption by most that a government entity would ...
could we agree that contract management is a problem inherent and not
abandon an engineering discussion, which includes economics, t
On 1/29/13 3:50 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
> It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
> federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering.
> Wholesale only.
That reminds me, the City of Eugene is interviewing for a CTO. I think
the City could
On 1/29/13 9:40 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> I'd like to join Jay, Scott, Leo, and presumably Dave
> supporting muni network ...
+1
i'm indifferent to the "public-can't" rational as munis appear to do
an adequate job of water and power delivery-to-the-curb, in eugene,
palo alto, san francis
On 1/14/13 11:23 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> ... The ITU ...
How shall states determine what harms are lawfully attempted, and what
harms are not lawfully attempted? Shall there be a treaty concerning
"cyber" strife between states, or shall "cyber" strife between states
be without treaty based limi
On 1/12/13 10:49 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> ... serious corruption problem, that wants to shut the Internet down ...
Bill,
I don't accept the premise that (a) the settlement free peering model
as modernly practiced can not also be characterized as problematic,
and that (b) the intents (note the p
On 6/4/12 3:28 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Well, I note that at least the .secure promoters haven't decided it's
> a good idea:
the _known_ .secure-and-all-confusingly-similar-labels promoters.
the reveal is weeks away, followed by the joys of contention set
formation.
there may be more than on
On 6/4/12 12:30 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> The greatest advantage of .SECURE is that it will help ensure that all the
> high-value targets are easy to find.
one of the rationalizations for imposing a dnssec mandatory to
implement requirement (by icann staff driven by dnssec evangelists) is
that a
On 5/31/12 10:52 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> What will drive the price up is the lawsuits that come out of the
>> >woodwork when they start trying to enforce their provisions. "What? I
>> >have already printed my letterhead! What do you mean my busted DKIM
>> >service is a problem?"
> History suggest
On 5/23/12 1:40 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> In a modestly favorable light, ISC looks like an arms dealer (DNS
> redirection)
> to the bad guys
my thought "looks like a reasonably successful alternate root operator".
i mention kevin dunlap as well as bill's mention of phil a
interesting discussion of jurisdiction.
> In the present instance, we regard ARCEP’s proposed reporting requirement as
> constituting an extra-
> territorial obligation that ought not to be applied to operators who are
> neither established in France nor
> directly providing services within Fr
On 3/28/12 11:45 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> Actually, given the uptick in spoofing-based DoS attacks, the ease in which
> such attacks can be generated, recent high profile targets of said attacks,
> and the full-on money pumping freakout about anything with "cyber-" tacked on
> the front, I susp
good head line copy edit.
body lacks substance, though not attitude.
-e
On 3/10/12 3:23 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> I would presume that Verisign decided that it just wasn't worth the
> effort to deploy into India.
operational control of .in passed to a for-profit operator domiciled
in one_of{us,ca,ie} other than VGRS. as india is a competitor's
property, investment
>> Also, one could make a distinction between sponsored TLDs and
>> generic TLDs, but that's probably splitting hairs.
>
> I suppose, but they all have similar registry and registrar agreements
> with ICANN, which is what makes them different from ccTLDs.
at present there are almost as many subst
> In article <95f7df59-052d-43ba-869f-289df915c...@arbor.net> you write:
>> On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>>
>>> there are four gtlds
>> Aren't there actually seven?
> Including the new IDN TLDs, there are now 60.
well
there are the legacy (pre-2000) set.
there are
Thank you George. Not SMTP but HTTP.
I expect exact match string (as brand) marketers, and also
partial match string (as brand typo-squatter) marketers, to exploit
this asset class ("widely spread and legitimately routed IPs").
#include
#include
#include
Eric
> In my experience the path of least resistance is to get a junior network
> engineer and ...
agree, where the end goal is to increment the facility's scripting
capable administrators. been there, done that.
disagree, where the end goal is to create a coherent distributed
system with a non-trivia
On 2/15/12 8:32 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> ... Before deciding to go the IDNA route, treating DNS
> labels as UTF-8 was discussed, evaluated and rejected.
well, sort of. we started with "idn" as a wg label.
the smtp weenies opined that they'd never have a flag day and anything
other than a boot en
representative to serve on Seat
> Number 9 of the ICANN Board.
>
> The ASO AC is pleased to announce the following four candidates for its
> upcoming appointment.
>
> The Candidates are:
>
> - Thomas Eric Brunner-Williams
> - Martin J. Levy
> - Willia
On 2/2/12 12:32 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
>> So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be [a law against prefix
>> hijacking]?
>
>
>
> So far the track record of the US government trying to make laws
> regarding technology and the Internet has been less than stellar.
...
While I agree with Ray
On 3/27/11 5:50 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Arithmetic, mostly. There are 40,000 co-ops in the United States,
160,000 in Europe, and apparently several million world-wide, yet
there are only 6700 domains in .COOP. I would find it hard to say
that under 3% takeup was significant support.
Do you at
On 3/27/11 4:36 PM, John Levine wrote:
Next, on what basis do you make the claim that .coop and .cat have
failed to attract the predicted support from their nominal communities?
Arithmetic, mostly. There are 40,000 co-ops in the United States,
160,000 in Europe, and apparently several million
On 3/27/11 2:35 PM, John Levine wrote:
... I expect the board and staff really
really would not want to have to answer questions under oath like "who
did you talk to at the US Department of Commerce about the .XXX
application and what did you say?" and "why did you vote a
Two comments from two commenters:
I can't seem to find anyone that would benefit from this, with the exception
of Stuart and ICM's shareholders.
... I expect the board and staff really
really would not want to have to answer questions under oath like "who
did you talk
uant wrote:
-Original Message-----
From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:brun...@nic-naa.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 7:24 PM
ICM retained competent counsel for the ICANN issue advocacy. I expect
Stuart will retain competent counsel for the follow-on issues.
Yes, it is certain that S
On 3/26/11 7:17 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
...
For some reason the aerodynamics of pigs comes to mind here. Having pigs fly is
just about as likely as having ambitious Southern prosecutors
give up the ability to bring meaningless, but newsworthy, porn prosecutions,
ICANN's new TLD or no.
ICM
On 3/26/11 5:17 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
...
But do you really believe playboy are going to give up playboy.com? Or that
new websites are going to register an address that will result in their
website not being visible by 1/6th of the worlds population (
http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/127009/2011
On 3/21/11 1:19 PM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
So the days of pointless TLDs are amongst us as we've now given would-be
registrars the right to print money and companies are forced to purchase
useless domain names in order to protect their trademarks, prevent
squatting, etc. When will sanity prevail?
First, thanks for all the responses to "What vexes VoIP users?"
I'm looking for pointers to sites, like Geoff Huston's potaroo.net,
that are VoIP clue dense, or mailing lists(*) where the VoIP-full lurk.
Thanks in advance,
Eric
(*) I'm already on the ecrit list, though my real interest in the
OT, but NANOG is almost always good for quick clue ...
For those who have residential VoIP, what provider {features | bugs}
are most vexing?
For those who provision residential VoIP, what subscriber
{expectations | behaviors} are most vexing?
Thanks in advance,
Eric
On 2/16/11 6:10 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Feb 16, 2011, at 4:25 13PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I don't think that the Egyptian shutdown of domain names had much effect;
that's why the bgp prefixes were withdrawn. What was effective was the
withdrawal of BGP prefixes.
Per the NYT article, the
On 2/16/11 4:25 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I don't think that the Egyptian shutdown of domain names had much effect ...
ditto.
i'm not aware of any actions by the .eg registry operator, though i'll
ask, coincidental to the prefix withdrawal.
i suppose in the interests of completeness i should al
On 2/14/11 3:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 14, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
owen,
at several points you assert that gtlds are "global", which i suggest is an
error on your part.
TLDs come in two flavors.
GTLD -- Global Top Level Domain -- A domain whic
owen,
at several points you assert that gtlds are "global", which i suggest
is an error on your part.
gtlds are whatever the controlling contract (icann) requires, and that
currently lacks an external to the point of service performance
measurement, and whatever the registrants require, with
On 2/9/11 10:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
I disagree... I think that offering alternate name space views to the existing
{b,m}illions of v4 addressed spindles requires IPv6 reachability as well since
those will also be adding IPv6
I disagree... I think that offering alternate name space views to the existing
{b,m}illions of v4 addressed spindles requires IPv6 reachability as well since
those will also be adding IPv6 capabilities in the next year or two.
so your claim is that to have a .cat, serving registrants currently
well, i've argued new gtld registry operators in general do not
benefit from a manditory v6 reachability requirement at transition to
delegation, a position unpopular with v6 evangelicals and others who
suppose that new gtld registry operators will exist to serve "the next
billion users" rather
the authoritative and secondary servers for the "ميسر." zone were
unreachable, a circumstance which existed a year ago for the .ht zone.
the authoritative and secondary servers for the ".eg" zone were
mutually unreachable.
wireline dialtone was prevalent during the prefix withdrawal period.
This is from a 3% to 4% estimate of telecomms and datacomms in the
overall Egyptian economy.
The OEDC communique notes that attracting foreign investment may now
be more difficult. (Is there anyone not looking at regional alternatives?)
Source:
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2011
It is my son's turn to have the laptop so I won't bother to translate.
The non-francophones can use Google's auto-xlate bot.
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2011/01/28/pour-contourner-le-blocage-du-web-les-modems-56k_1471819_651865.html
On 12/19/10 8:28 PM, John Curran wrote:
... I also intervened twice requested clarification of exactly how a government-only
decision body for Internet policy would fulfill the "consultation with all
stakeholders" paragraph specified in the Tunis agenda. The answer from several
countries was
fred, and others with (misspent) wsis++ / ig++ travel nickles,
it would _really_ help me if you provided more context, off-line if
necessary, as i spent the week before last more involved with the gac
than at any prior point in my decade of icann involvement.
i don't mind the 'tude, as we all
On 12/3/10 1:05 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
wrote:
there exists a free speech application for fast flux hosting networks, and
its in connecticut, not china.
(during the icann gnso pdp on fast flux hosting the above assertion was
there exists a free speech application for fast flux hosting networks,
and its in connecticut, not china.
(during the icann gnso pdp on fast flux hosting the above assertion
was generally dismissed)
-e
On 12/3/10 12:41 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
I see a new T-Shirt "Free speech has an IP address"
...
... The termination of services was effected pursuant to, and in accordance
with, the EveryDNS.net Acceptable Use Policy.
the claim is that being ddos'd is an aup violation. go figure.
1 - 100 of 187 matches
Mail list logo
