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
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, [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. > > > > > >
|