|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Internic address allocation policy
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 Scruz.net 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 interthisiscoolnet.com.net.com.net 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|