Re: naming debates

To: ietf at ietf.org
Subject: Re: naming debates
From: Einar Stefferud <Steflist at thor.nma.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:15:56 -0800
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0212031309040.17511-100000@flash.ar.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0212031309040.17511-100000@flash.ar.com>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

But ga at dnso.org carries zero weight in ICANN discussions, so taking this discussion there is a total waste of time.

If ICANN and IETF want the discussion to go elsewhere, then it will go where it wishes to go and not cave in to ICANN control (i.e., bottling up) of the discussion.

Or, if you do not want to see other opinions or ideas, just put your spam filters to work, or subscribe to the CENSORED version of the IETF list.

We like the way ostriches deal with things they do not wish to see ;-)...

Cheers...\Stef

At 1:11 PM -0800 12/3/02, Rick Wesson wrote:
>dns naming debates don't belong on the IETF list. there is a
>sandbox created just for naming debates, see ga at dnso.org
>
>those interested in continuing these discussions should pick them up some
>place else.
>
>thanks,
>
>-rick

Follow-Ups:
- Re: naming debates
  - From: Marshall Rose

References:
- naming debates
  - From: Rick Wesson

Prev by Date: Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You)
Next by Date: Re: naming debates
Previous by thread: Re: naming debates
Next by thread: Re: naming debates
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: naming debates

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.