Dear Paul,
Thank you for your response even if it is not to the question asked. I
never made any proposal. I have listed suggestions made by different
parties (I certainly takes seriously) to address real life problems of
immediate security for nations subject to catastrophe, war, international
On 1 Dec 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
ICANN's obligation is to guarantee to the public the stability of DNS at
the root layer.
i disagree...
From ICANN's own bylaws:
The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) is to coordinate, at the overall level, the
Paul Vixie;
The switch to anycast for root servers is a good thing.
again there's a tense problem. there was no switch to anycast. the last
time those thirteen (or eight) ip addresses were each served by a single host
in a single location was some time in the early 1990's.
So?
Service by
karl, ICANN has responsibility to do what it can to make sure the DNS and ICANN root
system work. It does not have to disenfranchise the RIRs and the root servers to do
this.
vint
At 12:02 AM 12/1/2003 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
Verisign will wave the flag of bias and ask ICANN to
This is from the ASRG list, it seems that the new U.S. Federal anti-spam
bill mentions IETF explicitly.
Yakov
Original Message
Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:22:51 +
From: Jon Kyme [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ASRG [EMAIL
Any formal body has to have some jurisdiction in which it is constituted.
One can argue whether California non-profit law is better or worse than
being a UN entity. I believe there are arguments against the latter as much
as there may arguments against the former.
The IETF is about as close as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin) writes:
Most of all when the hacker seats in the Oval Office, what is the solution?
Kaspurcheff was not the only root hacker to be known. Jon Postel was too.
good bye, sir.
--
Paul Vixie
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
In the multi6 (multihoming in IPv6) working group, as one of many
proposals, we've been looking at putting a 64 bit host identifier in
the bottom 64 bits of an IPv6 address. If such a host identifier is
--On Monday, 01 December, 2003 07:24 -0500 vinton g. cerf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
karl, ICANN has responsibility to do what it can to make sure
the DNS and ICANN root system work. It does not have to
disenfranchise the RIRs and the root servers to do this.
Vint,
I would go even further than
Dear jfc,
As far as I can tell, you have gone only by your initials on this
thread. To help some of us weigh this discussion, could you please
identify yourself by name and affiliation?
Regards,
Michael Lambert
---
Michael H. Lambert Network Engineer
Pittsburgh
At 22:21 01/12/03, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin) writes:
Most of all when the hacker seats in the Oval Office, what is the
solution?
Kaspurcheff was not the only root hacker to be known. Jon Postel was too.
good bye, sir.
--
Paul Vixie
Dear Mr. Vixie,
Things
Alas for this rosy vision, ICANN *tried* to boss the RIRs and get them to
sign contracts agreeing to pay it and obey it, but they balked. So all
credit to the RIRs - and none to ICANN - on this one.
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 01 December, 2003 07:24 -0500
12 matches
Mail list logo
