On 9/27/12 9:24 AM, ku po wrote:
CERNET policy is FREE of charge for it's members, as long as the traffic is
in their 'FREE networks' eg most of IP Blocks in China and some
Universities in the world.
However, outbound traffic to Non-free networks eg most blocks outside China
will be charged.
howdy all from a cold room 100km north of the equator.
...
That's an *amazingly* oblique and de minimis reference to the topic on
point, couched in Eric's usually opaque language ...
...
i'm reading this from the meeting room where the generic names supporting
organization council is meeting
so did anyone have a question or is my epistolary stylistic genius
sufficient as topic of general interest?
... and he talked for 45 minutes, and no one understood a word that he said.
i'm happy to leave the reportage and issue analysis to those better informed.
you look to be someone
[...] I don't mind new TLDs, but company ones are crazy
and going to lead to a confusing and messy internet.
are either confusing or messy the best rationals for declining
either or both of corporate names or trademarks?
are these (corporate naming and trademark registration as generators)
Really, if you're going to opine on the disasters that will befall ICANN as a
result of the new gTLD program, you might want to actually read what that
program does and doesn't do. Really.
you made my morning dave. thanks for the chuckle!
ray,
... only trust .band and that .com et. al. are less secure.
secure is not a well-defined term.
as the .com registry access model accepts credit card fraud risk,
a hypothetical registry, say .giro, with wholesale registration at
the same dollar price point but an access mechanism accepting
Another avenue could be At-Large. The North American Regional At-Large
Organization (NARALO) - uniquely amongst the RALO's - accepts individual
members.
as the elected unaffiliated member representative (or umr) i suppose i
should point out that (a) yes, the structural feature of individual
185K is just the application few, the process includes some
requirements to have a given amount of dough for operations in escrow,
add what you need to pay attorneys, experts
, lobbyists, and setup and staff a small corporation even if you plan
to outsource part of the dayt-2-day operations
I was talking about public perception and the ability to change it
through marketing; not any actual security.
It's like the difference between .com and .biz, people don't
understand when something isn't a .com and don't trust it. When I
say people I'm talking about the average
Well I just asked the question during the Getting Ready panel at the
ICANN 41 meeting.
keep in mind that the venues for asking precise questions for the
purpose of obtaining accurate answers of record are tdg-legal, or
the saturday gnso gtld hours (the kurt show).
Q: How much on top of the
Lets say I want to apply for .WINE with commercial purposes, then what
is a ballpark figure for the funds/investment required ?
My guess, it is way way above the $185K
assuming no defect in the application, necessitiating a second bite
at the apple, at cost (extended eval), and no objections
My perception is that if you don't have access to ~$2M for that kind
of gTLD don't even waste your time.
you may want to consult with a practitioner in the jurisdiction of your
choice who does business organization and investor equity structures,
as the cost to acquire a right to contract for a
Folks,
In the never ending game of policy whack-a-mole, we are offered the claim that
that the cost to a small to medium business to make its operational purpose
v6 address enabled is in the mid-five figures.
For those of you who do smb consults, some numbers to make a hypothetical
shop
On 6/13/10 1:11 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 6/13/10 9:35 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
How about the case where the master zone file has be amputated and the
secondaries can no longer get updates?
We just saw that with Haiti.
This overlooks the consequences of that particular catastrophic
Does anyone have the video bits from the Haitian panel? I'd like to
run it within our loop at the ICANN meeting next week in Brussels.
Tia!
Eric
I wrote a first round BTOP application.
No, the program doesn't quite promise to change, by orders of
magnitude, the pipe that's available to most folks, and even if it
did, that isn't a very strong promise.
Most folks live in urban areas, adequately served by physics, if not
the private,
There are a few people who have some passing interest in ICANN so I
will inflict upon the list my few paragraph summary of things that matter.
All the past large dragons appear to have been killed or reduced to
largish lizards. The Four Over Arching Issues, of which only one was
real,
On 7/16/10 11:17 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
The thorniest issues aren't technology-related, per se; they're legal exposure
(both real and imagined), regulatory concerns (both real and imagined),
antitrust concerns (both real and imagined), management/marketing/PR concerns
(largely imagined),
There are a few people who have some passing interest in ICANN so I
will inflict upon the list my few paragraph summary of things that
matter, see also my July 2nd post: I went so you don't have to --
ICANN Bruxelles pour les nuls.
The initial report of the 65 person VI WG is published.
On 7/26/10 12:45 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
You forgot the fifth option.
Invade a country (invasion is not strictly required) and take over
control of their ccTLD which probably does not have an agreement with
ICANN so you can charge and do as you please. Many of the greedy
registrars will be more
On 7/26/10 3:28 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Now seriously, just how many pages of the IV Initial Report did you read
before coming up with the fifth option?
I read the entire thing. Of the 138 pages, take out the Summary, the
ToC and several of the Annexes where many of them are sort of cut
past
On 7/26/10 6:00 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
I found Milton Mueller's summary - noted at
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1006- useful.
Is there anything there that you would disagree with?
He errors in characterizing the position statements as static, rather
than evolving over time. His own position
On 7/26/10 7:11 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
The question too, is which model is mitigating the best the presence of rogue
registrars (like domain tasting registrars, etc..)
Franck,
First, tasting is only a part of the extensions from the registrant
serving business model that ICANN explicitly
On 7/26/10 7:50 PM, William Pitcock wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-26 at 14:42 -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
But I do take your point about .co/.com, and in all fairness, it is a
decade delayed favor returned by NeuStar to Verisign for the .bz/.biz
collaborative marketing ploy of 2001
On 7/26/10 8:46 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Being one of the rare known external readers, is there any bit of it you
have a view on not already reflected in the para above and below?
There is another dimension to the whole enchilada that makes a
compromise a moving shooting target.
Some of the
The window for comments closes tomorrow.
Of course, the window for comments that somehow paint ICANN as a
bastion of fools never closes, but anyone in the access and above
business that opines on the structure, and interests, of registrars
and registries, who opines after tomorrow, but not
On 8/15/10 6:25 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Randy Bush wrote:
when the registry work was re-competed and taken from sri to netsol (i
think it was called that at the time), rick adams put in a no cost
when we (sri) lost the defense data network nic contract in may '91,
disa
so ... should domains associated with asn(s) and addr block
allocations be subject to some expiry policy other than it goes into
the drop pool and one of {enom,pool,...} acquire it (and the
associated non-traffic assets) for any interested party at $50 per /24?
Eric
On 10/6/10 10:34 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 6, 2010, at 6:35 AM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
On 7/10/10 12:08 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
so ... should domains associated with asn(s) and addr block allocations
be subject to some expiry policy other than it goes into the drop pool
and one
...
... The termination of services was effected pursuant to, and in accordance
with, the EveryDNS.net Acceptable Use Policy.
the claim is that being ddos'd is an aup violation. go figure.
there exists a free speech application for fast flux hosting networks,
and its in connecticut, not china.
(during the icann gnso pdp on fast flux hosting the above assertion
was generally dismissed)
-e
On 12/3/10 12:41 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
I see a new T-Shirt Free speech has an IP address
On 12/3/10 1:05 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
brun...@nic-naa.net wrote:
there exists a free speech application for fast flux hosting networks, and
its in connecticut, not china.
(during the icann gnso pdp on fast flux hosting the above
fred, and others with (misspent) wsis++ / ig++ travel nickles,
it would _really_ help me if you provided more context, off-line if
necessary, as i spent the week before last more involved with the gac
than at any prior point in my decade of icann involvement.
i don't mind the 'tude, as we
On 12/19/10 8:28 PM, John Curran wrote:
... I also intervened twice requested clarification of exactly how a government-only
decision body for Internet policy would fulfill the consultation with all
stakeholders paragraph specified in the Tunis agenda. The answer from several
countries was
It is my son's turn to have the laptop so I won't bother to translate.
The non-francophones can use Google's auto-xlate bot.
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2011/01/28/pour-contourner-le-blocage-du-web-les-modems-56k_1471819_651865.html
This is from a 3% to 4% estimate of telecomms and datacomms in the
overall Egyptian economy.
The OEDC communique notes that attracting foreign investment may now
be more difficult. (Is there anyone not looking at regional alternatives?)
Source:
the authoritative and secondary servers for the ميسر. zone were
unreachable, a circumstance which existed a year ago for the .ht zone.
the authoritative and secondary servers for the .eg zone were
mutually unreachable.
wireline dialtone was prevalent during the prefix withdrawal period.
well, i've argued new gtld registry operators in general do not
benefit from a manditory v6 reachability requirement at transition to
delegation, a position unpopular with v6 evangelicals and others who
suppose that new gtld registry operators will exist to serve the next
billion users rather
I disagree... I think that offering alternate name space views to the existing
{b,m}illions of v4 addressed spindles requires IPv6 reachability as well since
those will also be adding IPv6 capabilities in the next year or two.
so your claim is that to have a .cat, serving registrants
On 2/9/11 10:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
I disagree... I think that offering alternate name space views to the existing
{b,m}illions of v4 addressed spindles requires IPv6 reachability as well since
those will also be adding IPv6
owen,
at several points you assert that gtlds are global, which i suggest
is an error on your part.
gtlds are whatever the controlling contract (icann) requires, and that
currently lacks an external to the point of service performance
measurement, and whatever the registrants require, with
On 2/14/11 3:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 14, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
owen,
at several points you assert that gtlds are global, which i suggest is an
error on your part.
TLDs come in two flavors.
GTLD -- Global Top Level Domain -- A domain which contains
On 2/16/11 4:25 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I don't think that the Egyptian shutdown of domain names had much effect ...
ditto.
i'm not aware of any actions by the .eg registry operator, though i'll
ask, coincidental to the prefix withdrawal.
i suppose in the interests of completeness i should
On 2/16/11 6:10 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Feb 16, 2011, at 4:25 13PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I don't think that the Egyptian shutdown of domain names had much effect;
that's why the bgp prefixes were withdrawn. What was effective was the
withdrawal of BGP prefixes.
Per the NYT article, the
OT, but NANOG is almost always good for quick clue ...
For those who have residential VoIP, what provider {features | bugs}
are most vexing?
For those who provision residential VoIP, what subscriber
{expectations | behaviors} are most vexing?
Thanks in advance,
Eric
First, thanks for all the responses to What vexes VoIP users?
I'm looking for pointers to sites, like Geoff Huston's potaroo.net,
that are VoIP clue dense, or mailing lists(*) where the VoIP-full lurk.
Thanks in advance,
Eric
(*) I'm already on the ecrit list, though my real interest in the
On 3/21/11 1:19 PM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
So the days of pointless TLDs are amongst us as we've now given would-be
registrars the right to print money and companies are forced to purchase
useless domain names in order to protect their trademarks, prevent
squatting, etc. When will sanity
On 3/26/11 5:17 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
...
But do you really believe playboy are going to give up playboy.com? Or that
new websites are going to register an address that will result in their
website not being visible by 1/6th of the worlds population (
On 3/26/11 7:17 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
...
For some reason the aerodynamics of pigs comes to mind here. Having pigs fly is
just about as likely as having ambitious Southern prosecutors
give up the ability to bring meaningless, but newsworthy, porn prosecutions,
ICANN's new TLD or no.
ICM
:
-Original Message-
From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:brun...@nic-naa.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 7:24 PM
ICM retained competent counsel for the ICANN issue advocacy. I expect
Stuart will retain competent counsel for the follow-on issues.
Yes, it is certain that Stuart
Two comments from two commenters:
I can't seem to find anyone that would benefit from this, with the exception
of Stuart and ICM's shareholders.
... I expect the board and staff really
really would not want to have to answer questions under oath like who
did you talk
On 3/27/11 2:35 PM, John Levine wrote:
... I expect the board and staff really
really would not want to have to answer questions under oath like who
did you talk to at the US Department of Commerce about the .XXX
application and what did you say? and why did you vote
On 3/27/11 4:36 PM, John Levine wrote:
Next, on what basis do you make the claim that .coop and .cat have
failed to attract the predicted support from their nominal communities?
Arithmetic, mostly. There are 40,000 co-ops in the United States,
160,000 in Europe, and apparently several million
On 3/27/11 5:50 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Arithmetic, mostly. There are 40,000 co-ops in the United States,
160,000 in Europe, and apparently several million world-wide, yet
there are only 6700 domains in .COOP. I would find it hard to say
that under 3% takeup was significant support.
Do you
On 1/12/13 10:49 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
... serious corruption problem, that wants to shut the Internet down ...
Bill,
I don't accept the premise that (a) the settlement free peering model
as modernly practiced can not also be characterized as problematic,
and that (b) the intents (note the
On 1/14/13 11:23 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
... The ITU ...
How shall states determine what harms are lawfully attempted, and what
harms are not lawfully attempted? Shall there be a treaty concerning
cyber strife between states, or shall cyber strife between states
be without treaty based limits?
On 1/29/13 9:40 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
I'd like to join Jay, Scott, Leo, and presumably Dave
supporting muni network ...
+1
i'm indifferent to the public-can't rational as munis appear to do
an adequate job of water and power delivery-to-the-curb, in eugene,
palo alto, san francisco,
On 1/29/13 3:50 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering.
Wholesale only.
That reminds me, the City of Eugene is interviewing for a CTO. I think
the City could
On 1/30/13 6:33 AM, Jason Baugher wrote:
The other thing I find interesting about this entire thread is the
assumption by most that a government entity would ...
could we agree that contract management is a problem inherent and not
abandon an engineering discussion, which includes economics, to
On 1/31/13 6:28 PM, Dan Armstrong wrote:
But the most successful municipal undertaking to support telecom I have ever
seen is a municipally owned conduit system….
Could you be a bit more specific? What is the muni, and where can the
business model data be found?
Also, what was the muni's ROW
On 2/1/13 6:26 AM, Dave Sparro wrote:
municipal utilities:
- sell bonds cheaper (holders get tax-advantaged rates in interest
income, and are ultimately backed by the muni taxpayers)
Tangential to the private vs public screed:
The ability to issue (and sell) tax exempt (T-E) bonds for any
On 2/2/13 9:54 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I would think in this model that the city would be prohibited from
providing those services.
That is what I just said, yes, Brandon: the City would offer L1 optical
home-run connectivity and optional L2 transport and aggregation with
Ethernet provider
On 2/22/13 11:01 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Without getting into metaphysics, we can think of the dot in the
presentation format as representing the separators in the wire
format. In the wire format, of course, these separators are octets
that indicate the size of the next label. And since
Folks,
We'd a user account compromised a couple of weeks ago, spam naturally.
We're not getting any response from Gmail's set of contacts, so if
anyone has a working Gmail contact, phone or mail, that they're
willing to share off-list, I'd appreciate it.
Eric Brunner-Williams
On 4/9/13 4:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
It's about time certification was lost for failure to handle
records. The same should also apply for DS records.
You can suggest this to the compliance team. It seems to me (registrar
hat == on) that in 2.5 years time, when Staff next conducts a
On 4/9/13 5:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I said all of this years ago as a suggestion for the next round of contract
renewals (since I was told that it had to be added to the contracts first).
Best of luck. Personally, I think it should have been a requirement at least
5 years ago.
And exactly
On 4/9/13 5:47 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Can you point is at the right address or form to submit regarding this? Seems
like its time for both on and DS.
Jared,
Joe is an employee of the corporation, a rather high ranking one. As I
mentioned in my response to Mark, he _may_ be in a position
In time of response order:
There is Leo's reference to the not yet concluded RAA process, in
which a para contains possibly relevant registrar shall terms.
This is forward looking (the proposed RAA is not yet required by the
Corporation) and may apply only to parties contracting with the
I exchanged notes with someone in Tehran shortly after 6am EDT this
morning. NPR is at least partially incorrect.
Steve Pirk wrote:
Npr (All things considered) is reporting that cell phones and Internet
access in at least Teheran if not all of Iran is down. Reporters are
unable to connect
Peter Dambier wrote:
Marc Manthey wrote:
i hope i can visit wales someday :-))) , it looks very nice, but the
accent is for me as an europen non native english speaker
nearly incomprehensible :-0
Hello Marc,
it is not an accent. It is a language.
In fact most welsh do
above link, and routing, at transport, there is a tld effort as well.
Randy Bush wrote:
Does NANOG have an outreach and construction program?
yes. informally, a fair number of nanogians have spent the last few
decades doing tech transfer to the developing economies, including
helping
In the applications I wrote earlier this month for BIP (Rural Utilities
Services, USDA) and BTOP (NTIA, non-rural) infrastructure, for Maine's
2nd, I was keenly aware that broadband hasn't taken off as a pervasive,
if not universal service in rural areas of the US.
I don't think the speed
In the applications I wrote earlier this month for BIP (Rural Utilities
Services, USDA) and BTOP (NTIA, non-rural) infrastructure, for Maine's
2nd, I was keenly aware that broadband hasn't taken off as a pervasive,
if not universal service in rural areas of the US.
I don't think the speed
Fred,
I picked Aroostook, Washington, and Lincoln counties for a 4g wireless
with backhaul infrastructure proposal. A wireline infrastructure
proposal for these counties (BIP) would, for some arbitrary amount of
capital expense, serve some of the population in towns, but leave the
non-in-town
+1
I operate a Maine ISP/ASP, and Senator Snowe is my lobbying target.
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:46:19 -0400 (EDT)
Sean Donelan s...@donelan.com wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, Jeff Young wrote:
The more troubling parts of this bill had to do with the President,
randy,
moveon is a maine-based org. it is an effective, fund raising, partisan
organization. it is much more than a click-and-opine vehicle, it puts
hundreds of thousands of dollars into competitive races, and has a
competent political director.
to create a NagOn we would have to hire or
The order arose from Cobell v. Salazar (was C. v. Kempthorne, was C. v.
Norton, was C. v. Babbitt). On October 20th, 2005, Judge Royce C.
Lamberth ordered the Interior Department to disconnect from the Internet
all computer systems that house or provide access to Individual Indian
Trust
Anyone have news on this? I understand Colt has fixed London and are
working on Dublin, Bruxelles and Geneva... but that's all I have.
Hi,
I've a project that needs approximately a rack, in the Vancouver, BC
area. Suggestions?
Eric
Barry Shein wrote:
I was at an IP (as in intellectual property), um, constituency I
think, IPC, meeting at ICANN which basically consisted of 99 lawyers
and me in the room.
By the Montevideo ICANN meeting '01 the Internet Service Providers
Constituency
(ISPC) had dwindled down to the
Jared Mauch wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 07:58:00AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
It's not just AS1712. AS1707 - AS1726 appear to all have been
allocated to Renater. AS1707 was ERX'd to RIPE on Sep 9, 2002, but it
appears that AS1708-AS1726 were missed and have subsequently been
reallocated
Russell,
My personal inclination would be to look for what legit entities are
provisioning them with critical resources and what margins they appear
to be paying.
For DNS resources, the domains, to identify registry preference,
probably a simple volume correlation, and the registrars, which
Dan White wrote:
On 26/11/09 07:37 -0800, David Conrad wrote:
There are folks on this list who work for ISPs which are doing
wildcards/synthesis/etc. They (or, more likely their management) can
tell you there are obvious business reasons why they do
wildcards/synthesis/etc. Perhaps I'm
On 2/2/12 12:32 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be [a law against prefix
hijacking]?
So far the track record of the US government trying to make laws
regarding technology and the Internet has been less than stellar.
...
While I agree with Ray's
of the ICANN Board.
The ASO AC is pleased to announce the following four candidates for its
upcoming appointment.
The Candidates are:
- Thomas Eric Brunner-Williams
- Martin J. Levy
- William Manning
- Raymond Alan Plzak
In accordance with the ASO AC election procedures
On 2/15/12 8:32 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
... Before deciding to go the IDNA route, treating DNS
labels as UTF-8 was discussed, evaluated and rejected.
well, sort of. we started with idn as a wg label.
the smtp weenies opined that they'd never have a flag day and anything
other than a boot
In my experience the path of least resistance is to get a junior network
engineer and ...
agree, where the end goal is to increment the facility's scripting
capable administrators. been there, done that.
disagree, where the end goal is to create a coherent distributed
system with a non-trivial
Thank you George. Not SMTP but HTTP.
I expect exact match string (as brand) marketers, and also
partial match string (as brand typo-squatter) marketers, to exploit
this asset class (widely spread and legitimately routed IPs).
#include string/metric.h
#include icann/udrp.h
#include seo/ppc.h
In article 95f7df59-052d-43ba-869f-289df915c...@arbor.net you write:
On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
there are four gtlds
Aren't there actually seven?
Including the new IDN TLDs, there are now 60.
well
there are the legacy (pre-2000) set.
there are the seven
Also, one could make a distinction between sponsored TLDs and
generic TLDs, but that's probably splitting hairs.
I suppose, but they all have similar registry and registrar agreements
with ICANN, which is what makes them different from ccTLDs.
at present there are almost as many
On 3/10/12 3:23 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
I would presume that Verisign decided that it just wasn't worth the
effort to deploy into India.
operational control of .in passed to a for-profit operator domiciled
in one_of{us,ca,ie} other than VGRS. as india is a competitor's
property, investment
good head line copy edit.
body lacks substance, though not attitude.
-e
On 3/28/12 11:45 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Actually, given the uptick in spoofing-based DoS attacks, the ease in which
such attacks can be generated, recent high profile targets of said attacks,
and the full-on money pumping freakout about anything with cyber- tacked on
the front, I suspect a
interesting discussion of jurisdiction.
In the present instance, we regard ARCEP’s proposed reporting requirement as
constituting an extra-
territorial obligation that ought not to be applied to operators who are
neither established in France nor
directly providing services within
On 5/23/12 1:40 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
In a modestly favorable light, ISC looks like an arms dealer (DNS
redirection)
to the bad guys
my thought looks like a reasonably successful alternate root operator.
i mention kevin dunlap as well as bill's mention of phil
On 5/31/12 10:52 PM, John Levine wrote:
What will drive the price up is the lawsuits that come out of the
woodwork when they start trying to enforce their provisions. What? I
have already printed my letterhead! What do you mean my busted DKIM
service is a problem?
History suggests that the
On 6/4/12 12:30 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
The greatest advantage of .SECURE is that it will help ensure that all the
high-value targets are easy to find.
one of the rationalizations for imposing a dnssec mandatory to
implement requirement (by icann staff driven by dnssec evangelists) is
that
On 6/4/12 3:28 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Well, I note that at least the .secure promoters haven't decided it's
a good idea:
the _known_ .secure-and-all-confusingly-similar-labels promoters.
the reveal is weeks away, followed by the joys of contention set
formation.
there may be more than one
Ernie,
Martin's suggestions (go rummage around the Berkman dump) is a good one.
Not too far from you is someone who actually is a leading figure in this
somewhat arcane field, Prof. Froomkin at Miami Law. There've been a
couple of papers over the years that are good sources too. Drop a note
I should have mentioned this, its a nice, non-fatal, 31pp intro to part
of the problem space, from the IPC weenies:
http://marques.org/sunrise/A%20Perfect%20Sunrise.pdf
Eric
1 - 100 of 188 matches
Mail list logo
