At 08:53 AM 10/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
>"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Greg Skinner wrote:
>
>>> ... you cannot compare the two because usenet is not critical
>>> infrastructure to Internet operation as DNS is. This is not to say
>>> that usenet is not important. However, it is nowhere near as
>>> necessary for reliable Internet operation as DNS is.
>
>> Do you have a closer parallel to the expansion of dns names ?
>
>Not the point. The issue is stability of a critical Internet service.
>
>>> I also note that a lot of the key figures in IETF and ISOC who support
>>> ICANN never had much to do with usenet news. Thus it is not very
>>> likely that they have much confidence in that mode of
>>> self-governance.
>
>> Vixie was, and hw was the only member of the group facetiously
>> knoen as the "backbone cabal" that thought alt would be the death
>> of usenet.
>
>Go back and read what I wrote. I never said no key figures in this
>debacle had anything to do with usenet news. Many of the key figures
>were not major participants in usenet. I'm talking about people like
>Vint Cerf, Don Heath, ie. the people who the USG is listening to.
>
>Vixie was involved with usenet news, but he is not currently an
>advocate of the type of name expansion the alternative TLD movements
>propose. We have been through this before.
>
>My guess is that Cerf and company are well aware of the type of
>self-governance that accompanied the name expansion of usenet. The
>DNS equivalent of rmgroup wars, for example, would be considered a
>serious threat to stability.
>
>--gregbo
>gds at best.com
>
>--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"I see you've got yout fist out. Say your peace and get out. Guess
I get the gist of it, but... it's alright. Sorry that you feel that
way. The only thing there is to say is to say: ever silver lining
has a touch of grey" - JG.
