mailing list archives
Re: oh, for goodness' sake.
From: Eric Osborne <eric () employees org>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 05:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
My vote's for NIC.INT. I'm still searching for the correct RFC on INT
rules to see if that's appropriate, however.
Personally, I feel that with the new TLD's coming online, IMHO, there's no
reason why one more couldn't be added JUST FOR stuff like RIPE and ARIN
and the internic. And the Root servers, etc.
Maybe .NIC or .REG or .CORE or .... ?
Set the requirements so that only those organizations providing "core"
internet services, which if break we're all screwed at least somewhat, can
get a delegation under them.
Yeah, that'll last.
How much trouble do you think a porn site would go to to get WWW.HARD.CORE?
I thought so.
Also - is "being able to download the newest version of Netscape" a core
service? You don't think so (I hope), and I certainly don't think so, but
Netscape may think so. Microsoft, too. I'm being kinda cynical here, but
I can see one of the questions on the allocation form:
8) Estimate the number of messages which will be generated on the nanog
list if your existing Domain was placed in hold status.
That's a *great* idea! Perhaps we just form a "nanog-domain-approve" list,
and just have an internet cabal that decides on every domain registration!
Remember, the only reason most people don't like dictatorships is because they
aren't in charge...:)
- Re: oh, for goodness' sake., (continued)