I don't think he was saying that at all. Just stating that from a pure numbers standpoint 50k/140mil is a small percentage.
OTOH, I agree to your point - Network Solutions definitely downplayed this in their release. Curiously so. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:42 PM, RijilV <rij...@riji.lv> wrote: > On 20 June 2013 14:28, <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote: > >> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:08:18 -0700, Jeff Shultz said: >> >>> "small number of Network Solutions customers" >>> >>> They must be staffed with physicists, astronomers, or economists.... I >>> don't know anyone else that would consider "nearly fifty thousand" (from >>> a previous post by Phil Fagan) to be a small number. >> >> It's relatively small when you consider there's something like 140M .com's > So it's okay to screw over "nearly fifty thousand" customer domains because > there are 140M .com's? When talking about inadvertently effecting that > many folks I don't think it is appropriate to trivialize the customer > impact by calling it small when you're talking about a handful of large > websites that aren't somehow magically shared over those 140M .coms. Also > it is untrue to limit it to only "the websites" given how many other things > folks are likely to be using DNS for... > > .r'