Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play

[Kevin Loch <kloch () opnsys com>]

Sorry Brian, the way I read the quotes in your 
post it looked like you were speaking for them.  
It is a good question though.

KL

Kevin Loch wrote:
> Brian,
>
> I'm curious, the use of UDNS1 and UDNS2 in your nameserver
> host names seems to suggest that UltraDNS is affiliated
> with this somehow.  Is that true or was it just a bad
> choice of hostnames?
>
> KL
>
> Brian wrote:
> > Here's the part of new.net that seems not well thought out.  So if you don't
> > wanna dink with system settings to be an end user, and are not on a partner
> > network, then too bad, is that what I appear to be seeing?
> >
> > 2. Are there differences between how New.net domain names and .COM/.NET/.ORG
> > domain names work?
> > There are some differences, but in many ways the domain names work the same.
> >
> > One difference is that in order for people to see New.net domain names they
> > must be either accessing the Internet through one of our many ISP partners
> > or they must have downloaded and installed our Web browser plug-in.
> >
> > If either one of these requirements is met, then New.net domains will work
> > just as you are used to .com and .net domains working.
> >
> > 3. Who is helping to shape New.net?
> > New.net has many partners who are working with us to make New.net domains
> > widely recognized around the world. Some of our current partners include:
> > Earthlink, NetZero, Excite@Home, .KIDS Domains, Inc., and MP3.com.
> >
> >     Brian
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Brian Wallingford" <brian () meganet net>
> > To: "Patrick Greenwell" <patrick () cybernothing org>
> > Cc: "Paul A Vixie" <vixie () mfnx net>; <nanog () merit edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 8:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
> >
> > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > >
> > > :
> > > :On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote:
> > > :
> > > :>
> > > :> [ this came from http://www.new.net/about_us_press.tp and appears not
> > to be
> > > :>   a joke.  its operational impact will not be felt today, but if it's
> > even
> > > :>   moderately popular before it dies, operational impact WILL be felt.
> > i'm
> > > :>   quite surprised by some of the folks they list as their
> > artners.  --vix ]
> > > :
> > > :Too bad ICANN has been such a complete and utter failure that an
> > > :organization felt it necessary to start such a business, huh?
> > >
> > > Sounds like this was driven more by carelessness and greed than by
> > > necessity.