|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
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, [email protected], .KIDS Domains, Inc., and MP3.com. Brian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Wallingford" <[email protected]> To: "Patrick Greenwell" <[email protected]> Cc: "Paul A Vixie" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> 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. > >
|