Re: oh, for goodness' sake.

[Eric Osborne <eric () employees org>]

> On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> > My vote's for NIC.INT.  I'm still searching for the correct RFC on INT
> > rules to see if that's appropriate, however.
>
> Personally, I feel that with the new TLD's coming online, IMHO, there's no
> reason why one more couldn't be added JUST FOR stuff like RIPE and ARIN
> and the internic.  And the Root servers, etc.
>
> Maybe .NIC or .REG or .CORE or .... ?
>
> Set the requirements so that only those organizations providing "core"
> internet services, which if break we're all screwed at least somewhat, can
> get a delegation under them.

Yeah, that'll last.
How much trouble do you think a porn site would go to to get WWW.HARD.CORE?


I thought so.
Also - is "being able to download the newest version of Netscape" a core 
service?  You don't think so (I hope), and I certainly don't think so, but 
Netscape may think so.  Microsoft, too. I'm being kinda cynical here, but
anything's possible.

> I can see one of the questions on the allocation form:
>
> 8) Estimate the number of messages which will be generated on the nanog
> list if your existing Domain was placed in hold status.

That's a *great* idea!  Perhaps we just form a "nanog-domain-approve" list,
and just have an internet cabal that decides on every domain registration!
Remember, the only reason most people don't like dictatorships is because they
aren't in charge...:)



eric