[ga-full] RE: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are theyrepresented?

["!Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>]

I have no problem with collaboration, but I will not participate in
revisionism.  Facts are facts and facts never change, and Mr. Conradr is
well aware of his position in my books.

Frankly I don't trust him, but he will be given good opportunity by myself
to reform and upgrade himself to the proper standard.  PCCF will most
likely join ARIN so that we can have the representation we need in the
ASO.  However, that does not change my opinion that ARIN and the current
ASO representation is unacceptable.

As for the concept of a courteous tone, let me advise you that in the good
old days David Conrad would be hung for his sins.  The DNS is a mess, the
systems it operates on are hacker friendly and we owe a great deal of
thanks for this state of affairs to to the quality BIND products 
produced by Msrs. Conrad and Vixie.

Regards
Joe Baptista

On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 mike.norris@heanet.ie wrote:

> 
> I agree with David Conrad.  And that's not just because he maintains
> a courteous tone in his mails.  David's record is one of achievement
> through cooperation, and I would suggest that collaboration rather than
> confrontation is what we need.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Mike Norris
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: !Dr. Joe Baptista [mailto:baptista@pccf.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 4:07 PM
> > To: David R. Conrad
> > Cc: Michael Sondow; mike.norris@heanet.ie;
> > aso-policy@lists.aso.icann.org; aso-comment@lists.aso.icann.org;
> > list@ifwp.org; ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are
> > they represented?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, David R. Conrad wrote:
> > 
> > > IPv4 address allocation is based on technical 
> > considerations that relate to
> > > management of a limited (albeit one can argue not currently 
> > scarce) resource
> > > and the implications the allocation of that resource has on 
> > the Internet
> > > routing system.  The allocation of IPv4 addresses has 
> > _NEVER_ been democratic,
> > > it has been and is driven by the physics of the Internet.
> > 
> > No - that's misinformation and in your case a lie.  The IPv4 address
> > blocks were handed out by postel to a large extend as good 
> > merit badges to
> > his friends.  We all know the facts on that Conrad, and that's why the
> > IPv4 system is suffering such scarcity - and the reason why 
> > the IETF is
> > running around like scared bunnies trying to get IPv6 to work 
> > - which it
> > won't.
> > 
> > > What I would like to see is continued reliance on technical 
> > considerations for
> > > the allocation of IPv4 address space rather than a system 
> > that relies on
> > > politics.
> > 
> > Unacceptable.  You can not run from politics when you try to effect
> > control.  It's a well established fact you know.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Joe Baptista
> > 
> 

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html