Re: Statements against new.net?

[<mdevney () teamsphere com>]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Scott Francis wrote:
> > Perhaps next you might wish to stamp your feet and threaten to hold your
> > breath until they go away?
>
> let's not forget what mailing list this is - the operators in this forum can
> have a very real and significant impact on the direction "the market" takes.
> If, as a group, the NANOG readership decides to take a single position on
> anything (ha!), then we could very likely effectively determine in which
> direction "the market" will go. After all, if _nobody's_ customers can access
> new.net's non-sanctioned gTLDs, they can't very well go to another provider
> for such access, and new.net will die the quick death that it deserves.
>
> (yes, I'm obviously idealistic and naive to think that even a significant
> majority of NANOG readers could even agree on which way is up, but I think
> enough people agree on this issue that we don't necessarily have to sit back
> and let "the market" make decisions that will have real operational impact
> for the foreseeable future. We can make those decisions ourselves.)
Actually, I'm enamoured of someone's idea to just blackhole new.net and
let them figure out how to sort that.  Saves me a whole lot of trouble, I
just get to ask the customer where they got the idea that .xxx was a valid
tld.  

If we all do that (And yes I can see a significant [10%+] fraction of this
group's readership doing it), then the problem goes away soon.  An elegant
fix, except that new.net would probably sue anyone who blackholed them...

--Matthew Devney