The IFWP list is like the Hotel California, Greg. You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave. I just threw your name in the .allow file. (Even if what you're saying is utter nonsense :-) >Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:06:10 -0800 (PST) >From: Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are they >represented? >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >I am not on ifwp any more, so I don't know if this will go to everyone, >but I wanted to make sure you got this. > >> Protocols and routing systems are always being changed and adapted. >> But they are being changed and adapted to suit the needs of certain >> participants and not others. The priorities aren't clear, in part >> because the needs of the smaller users of addresses, who actually >> comprise the majority, have not been taken sufficiently into >> consideration. There may be a need for a hierarchy in routing, but >> there is never a need for a hierarchy in priorities and >> accessibility. And the problem with the present system of allocation >> of addresses (and of routing, too, of course) is that it allows a >> centralizing authority like ICANN to determine policy. If that were >> not so, no NewCo could pretend to organize an ASO without the ISPs, >> and a DNSO without the end-users. > >ISP members and end-users are welcome to join the IETF, which is where >most useful (imho) discussion of routing and address allocation happens. >All that is required is that they subscribe to the mailing lists for >working groups addressing those topics. > >--gregbo >gds at best.com > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dnso.com It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR
