North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Internic address allocation policy

  • From: Kim Hubbard
  • Date: Sun Nov 24 20:21:59 1996

First of all the name isn't InterNIC Inc.  Secondly, from what you're
saying the policy should say that whoever the InterNIC or others deem
as trustworthy don't have to follow policy but those that the InterNIC
or others do not believe are trustworthy should follow policy.  I don't
know for sure, but a think you'd probably have a hard time getting
an IETF consensus on that one.

Finally, the trustworthiness of was never called into question.

Kim Hubbard
InterNIC Registry

> Michael,
> Thank you for your note.  It explains a lot to me and likely others.
> It also resembles the way SRI-NIC.ARPA used to do business.
> Perhaps it confuses me to see unknowns jumping into place calling
> SCRUZ-NET an unknown entity when it's run by people whom so many
> people *DO* know.  Just ask Jim Haynes <[email protected]>.  These
> people aren't randoms.
> Well, sorry, Jim, I don't mean to be volunteering you, but the point
> is how can honesty be questioned?  It seems to superfluous to me to
> say that they have little honesty.  In the name of reducing routing
> tables Internic Inc. (what a name) has instead been increasing them!
> If it were John Q. Doe <[email protected]>,
> ok so ask for a plan and judge their honesty; John needs good service
> too.  But, when it's Matthew, I mean sheesh!  We're not talking about
> the admin of here.  Some of
> SCRUZ-NET's customers have been major international news before
> (remember NAZIs and Germany and Compuserve and censorship?)  It's not
> like they don't exist.  As little as I like the NAZIs, I like the
> ability to keep track of their pulse so I know when to take cover and
> shoot.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -