Re: WHOIS Privacy & Proxy Services?

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote: > Is there any news out of the ICANN meeting that just concluded regarding > new policy's around WHOIS Privacy & Proxy Services? > The Implementation Review Team is just starting its work, so there won't be much news for

Re: Eisenach & the FCC - was: [Re: Here we go again.]

--- m...@beckman.org wrote: From: Mel Beckman This is discussing politics, not the "operational and technical issues" of NANOG's charter. --- BTW, I didn't mean it to be talking politics. He was mentioned in the current discussion,

Re: NEVERMIND! (was: Seeking Google reverse DNS delegation contact)

So... actually someone did tell arin to aim these at ns1/2google.com... I'll go ask arin to 'fix the glitch'. thanks! -chris (sometimes people do this, I have no idea why... perhaps they just like broken ptrs?) On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette

Re: NEVERMIND! (was: Seeking Google reverse DNS delegation

contact) User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 03:57:19PM -0800, Christopher Morrow wrote: > So... actually someone did tell arin to aim these at > ns1/2google.com... > I'll go ask arin to 'fix the glitch'. For 138.8.204.in-addr.arpa ... ARIN is delegating to

WHOIS Privacy & Proxy Services?

Is there any news out of the ICANN meeting that just concluded regarding new policy's around WHOIS Privacy & Proxy Services?

Re: Here we go again.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 at 07:08 Dovid Bender wrote: > Consumers can always chose with their wallet. > > As long as you have options, which is the basic problem. There isn't real alternative options.

Re: Eisenach & the FCC - was: [Re: Here we go again.]

Public policy affecting networks is a legitimate topic. Net neutrality has been discussed countless times on this board with no objection from anybody. Regards, Roderick. From: NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman

Re: Eisenach & the FCC - was: [Re: Here we go again.]

Before this snowball gets any bigger, I would like to reiterate the previous commenter calling for this present political discussion to move elsewhere. Here's the NANOG AUP we've all agreed to: NANOG Acceptable Use Policy * Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues

Eisenach & the FCC - was: [Re: Here we go again.]

--- jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: The president elect chose Mr Eisenach to help fill jobs in FCC and other telecom areas of govt. That'll have impact on ops, if some of the papers are correct. Briefly:

Re: Eisenach & the FCC - was: [Re: Here we go again.]

Rod, I respectfully disagree. This is discussing politics, not the "operational and technical issues" of NANOG's charter. There are other venues for politics. NANOG's AUP prohibits political discussions. -mel On Nov 13, 2016, at 1:42 PM, Rod Beck

Re: NEVERMIND! (was: Seeking Google reverse DNS delegation

In message <20161114004152.ga27...@panix.com>, Brett Frankenberger wrote: >On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 03:57:19PM -0800, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> So... actually someone did tell arin to aim these at >> ns1/2google.com... >> I'll go ask arin to 'fix the glitch'. > >For

RE: WHOIS Privacy & Proxy Services?

Thank you very helpful. From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rube...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 7:50 PM To: Ryan Finnesey Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: WHOIS Privacy & Proxy Services? On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Ryan Finnesey