[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do

To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Subject: Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do
From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:25:57 -0400
In-Reply-To: <009d01beeda4$f3edcce0$7bfe3b9d@redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <Your message of "Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:41:27 PDT." <006b01beed9f$7e16d0c0$7bfe3b9d@redmond.corp.microsoft.com><4.2.0.58.19990823130348.00b44d10@shell2.bayarea.net>
Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org

At 04:20 PM 8/23/99 , Christopher Ambler wrote:

This whole argument just makes me think that it's only fair that
we get the marketing and business people to start helping out with
protocol development.

Do you see a intrinsic problem with a private-sector
group (e.g., ICANN) establishing and enforcing mandatory
business models and a regulatory regimes for private-sector
provisioning of services for private shared networks?

Do we have any comparable examples?

--tony

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do
  - From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>

References:
- Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do
  - From: "Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>
- Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do
  - From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
- Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do
  - From: "Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do
Next by Date: Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do
Prev by thread: Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do
Next by thread: Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread