[ga] Re: [ga-roots] Community Roots or Red Herrings)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Eric and all,

  Estrangement seems to be his preference.  Such a affliction seems to
be catching of late given New.nets bounding success, which before
their existence, was greatly doubted.  It is interesting how facts in
the market place transition to a new reality already known, but not
yet realized, often occurs.  This is one of the wonderful things
of transitioning technological advancements.

  We as citizens of the Internet and of the world are seeing this in
other
areas of technology that are not Internet related as well.  And similar
afflictions of ideological disgruntlement almost always arise, but
eventually
given the lessons of history, subside or are effectively negated.  This
is
how the ongoing history of the world has always been, and will likely
continue for a very long time to come.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> This worries me greatly.  I hope Dassa moves to enlightenment and not
> estrangement.
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Darryl and all,
> >
> > Dassa wrote:
> >
> > > |> -----Original Message-----
> > > |> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> > > |> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 1:30 PM
> > > |> To: dassa@dhs.org
> > > |> Cc: [ga-roots]
> > > |> Subject: Re: [ga-roots] Community Roots or Red Herrings)
> > >
> > > |> > No, ICANN has not created any colliders.  The private roots have put
> > > |> > private domain spaces up into the routable Internet address space when
> > > they
> > > |> > shouldn't have.
> > > |>
> > > |>   Unfortunately your contention here is incorrect.  But than again most
> > > of
> > > |> us that have been around for awhile and have read your nonsense are
> > > |> quite use to this as a norm for you.
> > >
> > > Can't attack the content so attack the person eh Jeff
> >
> >   Not at all Darryl.  Are you having reading comprehension problems?
> >
> >   I said (See above) that your CONTENTION was incorrect.  Or did
> > you miss that part?  That is a direct attack of your argument.  A precursor
> > if you will...
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > |> >  They are not alternative roots and continueing to call
> > > |> > them such is conveying a degree of legitimacy to what they are doing.
> > > |>
> > > |>   Yes they are not Aternitive Roots, but "Competitive Roots" or
> > > |> "Inclusive Root structures".
> > >
> > > No, they are not competitive or inclusive, if anything, they are rogue.
> >
> >   You have YOUR opinion.  Millions of others don't seem to agree with
> > it however.  RFC's do not either.  But this is a minor factor, of course
> > as RFC's are requests for comments nothing more...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > |> > The private roots are the ones causing problems as they are using IP
> > > addresses
> > > |> > outside of the ranges set aside for the private networks (name
> > > spaces).
> > > |>
> > > |>   That is because they are not private networks, but public ones...
> > > |>   I believe that RFC 1918 clearly outlines the definition clearly...
> > > |> Your interpretation not withstanding, as usual...
> > >
> > > RFC 1918 defines the IP ranges to be used for private networks and
> > > allocated by the relevant body.  The name space for the Internet also has a
> > > relevant body, any name space that is outside the legacy root name space is
> > > a private name space and as such belongs as a private network and not on
> > > the Internet.
> >
> >   But many including New.net's, ORSC's ect., are not outside of the
> > legacy root structure.  They simply set on top of it.  Hence they are
> > "Competitive or Inclusive Roots" by definition and by operation.
> >
> > >  The Internet DNS system was designed to have a unique root
> > > zone, if you do not believe that to be the case I suggest you reread the
> > > applicable RFC's and history.
> >
> >   I have, but thank you anyway for your suggestion.
> >
> > >  People may like to change that and have
> > > numerous root zones but it currently isn't the case.  Any roots aside from
> > > the legacy root under the control of ICANN are rogue and not legitimate on
> > > the Internet.
> >
> >   Well this statement is incorrect of course.  And this has been pointed out
> > in great detail on many previous occasions on the Domain Policy ML,
> > (See relevant Archives)  It has also been pointed out on the APNIC
> > ML as well, (Also see relevant archives).
> >
> > >  They are private name spaces and belong on private networks,
> > > not in the public network and name space.
> >
> >   Incorrect again.  But of course you don't seem to understand what
> > a public network is or is comprised of it seems.  That is not surprising
> > however.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
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