so ... should domains associated with asn(s) and addr block
allocations be subject to some expiry policy other than "it goes into
the drop pool and one of {enom,pool,...} acquire it (and the
associated non-traffic assets) for any interested party at $50 per /24"?
Eric
On 10/6/10 10:34 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 6, 2010, at 6:35 AM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
On 7/10/10 12:08 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
so ... should domains associated with asn(s) and addr block allocations
be subject to some expiry policy other than "it goes into the drop pool
and o
ICANN is not the problem. It is itself a problem because over the
years instead of being a technical coordinator for names and numbers
became the playground and clearinghouse for IP (Intellectual Property)
groups, all sorts of color, sizes and shapes of attorneys milking from
the "DNS ecosystem"
Also while different segments may have some level of participation
(including folks that claim they represent the users which they do
not) by design ICANN is a membership less organization so the multi
stake holder model is a lie and the bottom up process when the bottom
does not have the same l
...
... The termination of services was effected pursuant to, and in accordance
with, the EveryDNS.net Acceptable Use Policy.
the claim is that being ddos'd is an aup violation. go figure.
there exists a free speech application for fast flux hosting networks,
and its in connecticut, not china.
(during the icann gnso pdp on fast flux hosting the above assertion
was generally dismissed)
-e
On 12/3/10 12:41 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
I see a new T-Shirt "Free speech has an IP address"
On 12/3/10 1:05 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
wrote:
there exists a free speech application for fast flux hosting networks, and
its in connecticut, not china.
(during the icann gnso pdp on fast flux hosting the above assertion was
fred, and others with (misspent) wsis++ / ig++ travel nickles,
it would _really_ help me if you provided more context, off-line if
necessary, as i spent the week before last more involved with the gac
than at any prior point in my decade of icann involvement.
i don't mind the 'tude, as we all
On 12/19/10 8:28 PM, John Curran wrote:
... I also intervened twice requested clarification of exactly how a government-only
decision body for Internet policy would fulfill the "consultation with all
stakeholders" paragraph specified in the Tunis agenda. The answer from several
countries was
It is my son's turn to have the laptop so I won't bother to translate.
The non-francophones can use Google's auto-xlate bot.
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2011/01/28/pour-contourner-le-blocage-du-web-les-modems-56k_1471819_651865.html
Could someone from Amazon Web Services contact me off list? I'm getting root
login attempts from one of your assets and abuse@ hasn't been responsive today.
Tia,
Eric
On 6/26/14 9:20 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Jun 26, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 27, 2014, at 00:07 , Larry Sheldon wrote:
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/court-ruling-israeli-and-us-terrorism.html
Have not seen much discussion about this.
That would be a ho
On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Relevant article by former FCC Chair
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/
It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican "free markets" ideologue) on
a (Progressive) De
On 7/22/14 11:13 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a
state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at
published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the
fiber (conflict of interest).
Ray,
Could you offer a ca
On 7/22/14 1:55 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
You're over-thinking it. Use the power company as a model and you'll
close to the right path.
Well, no, but thanks for your thoughts.
Portland vs. Cumberland County as respective hypothetical bonding and
regulating authorities, not {Bangor Hydro|Florida P
On 7/23/14 5:30 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
The people involved in the bond arrangements
almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more reliable
path to getting repaid than an open system.
I assumed this was true, that bonds with the revenue stream based upon
rights-of-way lease
For those interested, first in my morning's inbox is a letter from
Oregon State Senator Bruce Starr (R-15, Hillsboro), and Nevada State
Senator Debbie Smith (D-13), President and President-elect,
respectively, of the National Conference of State Legislatures to FCC
Chairman Thomas Wheeler, expr
On 1/12/13 10:49 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> ... serious corruption problem, that wants to shut the Internet down ...
Bill,
I don't accept the premise that (a) the settlement free peering model
as modernly practiced can not also be characterized as problematic,
and that (b) the intents (note the p
On 1/14/13 11:23 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> ... The ITU ...
How shall states determine what harms are lawfully attempted, and what
harms are not lawfully attempted? Shall there be a treaty concerning
"cyber" strife between states, or shall "cyber" strife between states
be without treaty based limi
On 1/29/13 9:40 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> I'd like to join Jay, Scott, Leo, and presumably Dave
> supporting muni network ...
+1
i'm indifferent to the "public-can't" rational as munis appear to do
an adequate job of water and power delivery-to-the-curb, in eugene,
palo alto, san francis
On 1/29/13 3:50 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
> It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
> federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering.
> Wholesale only.
That reminds me, the City of Eugene is interviewing for a CTO. I think
the City could
On 1/30/13 6:33 AM, Jason Baugher wrote:
> The other thing I find interesting about this entire thread is the
> assumption by most that a government entity would ...
could we agree that contract management is a problem inherent and not
abandon an engineering discussion, which includes economics, t
On 1/31/13 6:28 PM, Dan Armstrong wrote:
> But the most successful municipal undertaking to support telecom I have ever
> seen is a municipally owned conduit system….
Could you be a bit more specific? What is the muni, and where can the
business model data be found?
Also, what was the muni's RO
On 2/1/13 6:26 AM, Dave Sparro wrote:
> municipal utilities:
> - sell bonds cheaper (holders get tax-advantaged rates in interest
> income, and are ultimately backed by the muni taxpayers)
Tangential to the private vs public screed:
The ability to issue (and sell) tax exempt (T-E) bonds for any
On 2/2/13 9:54 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> > I would think in this model that the city would be prohibited from
>> > providing those services.
> That is what I just said, yes, Brandon: the City would offer L1 optical
> home-run connectivity and optional L2 transport and aggregation with
> Ethernet p
On 2/22/13 11:01 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Without getting into metaphysics, we can think of the dot in the
> presentation format as representing the separators in the wire
> format. In the wire format, of course, these separators are octets
> that indicate the size of the next label. And sinc
Folks,
We'd a user account compromised a couple of weeks ago, spam naturally.
We're not getting any response from Gmail's set of contacts, so if
anyone has a working Gmail contact, phone or mail, that they're
willing to share off-list, I'd appreciate it.
Eric Brunner-Williams
On 4/9/13 4:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> It's about time certification was lost for failure to handle
> records. The same should also apply for DS records.
You can suggest this to the compliance team. It seems to me (registrar
hat == "on") that in 2.5 years time, when Staff next conducts a
r
On 4/9/13 5:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I said all of this years ago as a suggestion for the next round of contract
> renewals (since I was told that it had to be added to the contracts first).
>
> Best of luck. Personally, I think it should have been a requirement at least
> 5 years ago.
And exa
On 4/9/13 5:47 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Can you point is at the right address or form to submit regarding this? Seems
> like its time for both on and DS.
Jared,
Joe is an employee of the corporation, a rather high ranking one. As I
mentioned in my response to Mark, he _may_ be in a positio
In time of response order:
There is Leo's reference to the not yet concluded RAA process, in
which a para contains possibly relevant "registrar shall" terms.
This is forward looking (the proposed RAA is not yet required by the
Corporation) and may apply only to parties contracting with the
Corpor
On 2/2/12 12:32 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
>> So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be [a law against prefix
>> hijacking]?
>
>
>
> So far the track record of the US government trying to make laws
> regarding technology and the Internet has been less than stellar.
...
While I agree with Ray
representative to serve on Seat
> Number 9 of the ICANN Board.
>
> The ASO AC is pleased to announce the following four candidates for its
> upcoming appointment.
>
> The Candidates are:
>
> - Thomas Eric Brunner-Williams
> - Martin J. Levy
> - Willia
On 2/15/12 8:32 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> ... Before deciding to go the IDNA route, treating DNS
> labels as UTF-8 was discussed, evaluated and rejected.
well, sort of. we started with "idn" as a wg label.
the smtp weenies opined that they'd never have a flag day and anything
other than a boot en
> In my experience the path of least resistance is to get a junior network
> engineer and ...
agree, where the end goal is to increment the facility's scripting
capable administrators. been there, done that.
disagree, where the end goal is to create a coherent distributed
system with a non-trivia
Thank you George. Not SMTP but HTTP.
I expect exact match string (as brand) marketers, and also
partial match string (as brand typo-squatter) marketers, to exploit
this asset class ("widely spread and legitimately routed IPs").
#include
#include
#include
Eric
> In article <95f7df59-052d-43ba-869f-289df915c...@arbor.net> you write:
>> On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>>
>>> there are four gtlds
>> Aren't there actually seven?
> Including the new IDN TLDs, there are now 60.
well
there are the legacy (pre-2000) set.
there are
>> Also, one could make a distinction between sponsored TLDs and
>> generic TLDs, but that's probably splitting hairs.
>
> I suppose, but they all have similar registry and registrar agreements
> with ICANN, which is what makes them different from ccTLDs.
at present there are almost as many subst
On 3/10/12 3:23 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> I would presume that Verisign decided that it just wasn't worth the
> effort to deploy into India.
operational control of .in passed to a for-profit operator domiciled
in one_of{us,ca,ie} other than VGRS. as india is a competitor's
property, investment
good head line copy edit.
body lacks substance, though not attitude.
-e
On 3/28/12 11:45 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> Actually, given the uptick in spoofing-based DoS attacks, the ease in which
> such attacks can be generated, recent high profile targets of said attacks,
> and the full-on money pumping freakout about anything with "cyber-" tacked on
> the front, I susp
interesting discussion of jurisdiction.
> In the present instance, we regard ARCEP’s proposed reporting requirement as
> constituting an extra-
> territorial obligation that ought not to be applied to operators who are
> neither established in France nor
> directly providing services within Fr
On 5/23/12 1:40 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> In a modestly favorable light, ISC looks like an arms dealer (DNS
> redirection)
> to the bad guys
my thought "looks like a reasonably successful alternate root operator".
i mention kevin dunlap as well as bill's mention of phil a
On 5/31/12 10:52 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> What will drive the price up is the lawsuits that come out of the
>> >woodwork when they start trying to enforce their provisions. "What? I
>> >have already printed my letterhead! What do you mean my busted DKIM
>> >service is a problem?"
> History suggest
On 6/4/12 12:30 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> The greatest advantage of .SECURE is that it will help ensure that all the
> high-value targets are easy to find.
one of the rationalizations for imposing a dnssec mandatory to
implement requirement (by icann staff driven by dnssec evangelists) is
that a
On 6/4/12 3:28 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Well, I note that at least the .secure promoters haven't decided it's
> a good idea:
the _known_ .secure-and-all-confusingly-similar-labels promoters.
the reveal is weeks away, followed by the joys of contention set
formation.
there may be more than on
On 7/25/14 4:29 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Not that some leading proponents of net neutrality would even know a router
if it bit them ...
i'm _trying_ to imagine the lobbyists, corporate counsels, and company
officers above the v.p. of engineering i know who have vastly superior
clue a
Please ping me.
TiA,
Eric
well, looking at the ayatollah's website and invoking google translate
there's this language:
"... different mechanisms to secure and protect their users against the
moral and psychological damage this type of service, including access to
information, videos and photos from immoral and inhuman
see also:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/iran-3g-phones-filter-unsanitary-water.html#
restated slightly, video, the primary vehicle for porn, needs minders,
text, the primary vehicle for ideas, does not.
-e
On 8/31/14 11:08 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
well, looking at
On 9/16/14 8:26 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
What kind of timeframe would a new ccTLD for a major country roll out on?
that could be several quite distinct questions:
1. assuming that the "aye" vote prevails, in what quarter will the
iso3166/ma issue the relevant update, allocating a code point to
well, apropos to point #2, the iso3166/ma includes representatives from
ten agencies, of which a certain 501(c)(3) originally in marina del rey,
now in los angeles, is included.
however, i can't imagine staff offering an opinion of record on the subject.
"ay" for "aye" would work for me.
-e
On
On 9/17/14 9:10 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "David Conrad"
Right. Similarly, .SU has been assigned. SU is a bit odd in the sense
that it was moved to “transitionally reserved” when the Soviet Union
broke up and a batch of new country codes were created (e.g., RU,
On 9/17/14 10:45 AM, David Conrad wrote:
To be clear, generic TLDs (gTLDs) can’t have bare (dotless) TLDs (or wildcards).
um. .museum. ...
at ietf-9 jon and i discussed the problem solved (scaling of the zone
editor function as the price of network interfaces dropped by orders of
magnitude) by reliance upon iso3166-1, and the problems created by
reliance upon iso3166-1. the economic success of .cat (unique among the
icann 1st and
having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the
.us zone, i differ.
as i recall, having done the research, in the year prior to the ntia's
tender some six people held some 40% of the major metro area subordinate
namespaces. to my chagrin, relieved by a notice of termin
i won't comment on your experience, having no direct knowledge. why you
comment on mine is uninteresting.
-e
On 10/20/14 9:03 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/20/14 7:47 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the
.us zone, i d
systemd is insanity.
see also smit.
it was at ietf-9, while jon and i were discussing the {features|flaws}
of iso3166-1, that another contributor approached us and ... spoke to
the unfairness, as argued by that contributor, of the armed forces of
the united kingdom being excluded from the use (as registrants) of the
.mil namespac
some history.
at the montevideo icann meeting (september, 2001), there were so few
attendees to either the ispc (now ispcp) and the bc (still bc), that
these two meetings merged. at the paris icann meeting (june, 2008) staff
presented an analysis of the voting patters of the gnso constituencie
On 10/23/14 7:27 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>in other words, the bc and ispc were, and for the most part, imho, remain
captive properties of the intellectual property constituency.
Here, Eric is suggesting the intellectual property folks are driving policy
issues on behalf of the folks interested
David wrote:
Indeed, and I must commend Warren and Eric for caring enough to actually engage
in this stuff. While many people in the NANOG/IETF/DNS Operations communities
complain about the latest abomination ICANN is inflicting upon the world, there
aren't a whole lot of folks from those comm
On 10/26/14 9:25 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
I think one missing or weak component are those who actually make this
stuff work vs the pie-in-the-sky infringer/volume/policy crowd.
I've sat in IPC meetings and suffice it to say there isn't much clue
on that front and why should there be unless the go-
On 10/27/14 10:12 AM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
If you can't be bothered to have correct contact info, your packets go
into the scavenger queue. Or get redirected to a webpage explaining
why your network is blocked until you correct it.
Your customers will be the ones complaining to you.
t
On 10/27/14 1:32 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
[snip]
I should clarify I was thinking about whois on the IP blocks and/or
ASN. not dns for domain names.
if your network is spewing sewage, there should be some way to contact
you. if you are uninterested in being contacted, there's always RBLs I
On 10/25/14 5:00 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
It might. So would removing the farce of 'private' domain registration.
the venue where the applicable policy is currently under development is
gnso-ppsai-pdp...@icann.org
just to be tediously instructive, the policy applicable to gtlds is
develope
i read it, its rather good.
-e
On 9/12/15 12:45 PM, John Levine wrote:
/*If you're willing to sign on and help today, please email me directly
(off list) */and I will be happy to share a copy of the letter for you
to review before you agree to sign on.
Why don't you just send us a copy or a li
Hey!
New message, please read <http://takestockinyourlife.com/usual.php?6>
Eric Brunner-Williams
Hey!
New message, please read <http://hongcongapps.com/road.php?rm>
Eric Brunner-Williams
Hey!
New message, please read <http://iamakeupartistry.com/struck.php?n1v>
Eric Brunner-Williams
If the system of interest consists of a non-trivial number of carrier
edge devices, then a non-random distribution of source addresses is
certain. (para 1, tech).
The armed organization referred to as "Isis" is described[1,2] in some
detail, in the first as having sophisticated digital marketi
On 6/7/13 8:28 AM, <<"tei''>>> wrote:
> This is one of these "Save the forest by burning it" situations that
> don't have any logic.
>
> To save a forest firefighters often cut a few tree. Don't cut all the
> trees in a forest to save it from a fire.
Seasonal work, many solar obits past.
Well,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/obama-china-targets-cyber-overseas
the headline may be misleading.
Presidential Policy Directive 20 defines OCEO as "operations and
related programs or activities … conducted by or on behalf of the
United States Government, in or through cyberspace, tha
Thank you Rubens, you saved me the effort.
Eric
On 7/2/13 7:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
> Rather than asking random strangers, you can read the applicant
> guidebook and find out what the actual rules are:
There really should be a kinder introduction to those who lack basic
clue than to attempt to read the last version of the DAG, even for the
Am
On 7/4/13 8:00 AM, Ted Cooper wrote:
> Do they have DNSSEC from inception? It would seem a sensible thing to do
> for a virgin TLD.
In the evolution of the DAG I pointed out that both the DNSSEC and the
IPv6 requirements, as well as other SLA requirements, were
significantly in excess of those pla
On 7/4/13 10:48 AM, John Levine wrote:
> I dunno. Can you point to parts of your house that have been
> significantly improved by fire insurance?
Cute John. Let me know when you've run out of neat things other people
should do.
Eric
On 7/4/13 11:11 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> I'll bite. What's the *actual* additional cost for dnssec and ipv6
> support for a greenfield rollout? It's greenfield, so there's no
> "our older gear/software/admins need upgrading" issues.
You'll let me know there is no place where v6 is no
Someone who should know better wrote:
> Well give that .com thingie is IPv6 accessable and has DNSSEC there
> is nothing we need to let you know. And yes you can get IPv6
> everywhere if you want it. Native IPv6 is a little bit harder but
> definitely not impossible nor more expensive.
And this
> OK, I 'fess to terminal stupidity--in this contest: "DEC"? "the DAG"?
Draft Applicant's Guidebook.
On 7/4/13 6:23 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
> OK, I 'fess to terminal stupidity--in this contest: "DEC"? "the DAG"?
Sigh. DNSSEC and Draft Applicant Guidebook.
> I'm reasonably sure that there are more than 50 service providers
> who are able to privide you with a connection that will do IPv6.
In this context the universe of 50 providers are registry service
providers, existing and entrant. Verisign, NeuStar, Afilias, CORE,
AusReg, ISC, ...
Your side w
On 7/26/13 8:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2013, at 11:05 , David Conrad wrote:
>> > On Jul 26, 2013, at 7:58 AM, "Patrick W. Gilmore"
>> > wrote:
>>> >> You can change anything you want. ARIN & ICANN are both member
>>> >> organizations. Propose a change, get the votes, and POO
> On Jul 27, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
>
>> For the folks who aren't aware, there is working being done on a proposal
>> for a complete do-over of WHOIS:
>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130703_rebooting_whois/
>> I don't believe this work address the regional registry information, w
On 9/12/13 1:39 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> ICANN new gTLD agreements specified 100% availability for the service,
> meaning at least 2 DNS IP addresses answered 95% of requests within 500 ms
> (UDP) or 1500 ms (TCP) for 51+% of the probes, or 99% availability for a
> single name server, defined as 1
On 4/10/10 1:42 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> You should have seen the CNN experiment on cyber attack...
>
> you mean the failed chertoff/cheney wanna make the news clueless crap?
> puhleeze! the fcc has more guns than that mob had clue.
unfortunately, the failed chertoff/cheney celebrants of the
"c
On 4/12/10 2:42 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> ... the guy who wrote the first IEEE 802 standard for
> Ethernet over twisted pair ...
I'm certain that's who you are. Hell, what I do for CORE means I'm a
ICANN lobbyist when I'm not writing code, and I'd prefer to be the guy
who wrote XPG/1 and XPG/4.
Jim,
As Lou and Fergie have pointed out, there was a significant policy
change at CNNIC in late December.
I'm going to guess from "get me a .cn domain, without registering it
on my behalf then extorting me" that (a) you'd like to register a .cn
domain _and_ (b) you are not a resident of China (mo
On 6/13/10 1:11 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 6/13/10 9:35 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>> How about the case where the master zone file has be amputated and the
>> secondaries can no longer get updates?
>
>
> We just saw that with Haiti.
This overlooks the consequences of that particular catastroph
Does anyone have the video bits from the Haitian panel? I'd like to
run it within our loop at the ICANN meeting next week in Brussels.
Tia!
Eric
I wrote a first round BTOP application.
No, the program doesn't quite promise to change, by orders of
magnitude, the pipe that's available to most folks, and even if it
did, that isn't a very strong promise.
"Most folks" live in urban areas, adequately served by physics, if not
the private,
There are a few people who have some passing interest in ICANN so I
will inflict upon the list my few paragraph summary of things that matter.
All the past large dragons appear to have been killed or reduced to
largish lizards. The Four Over Arching Issues, of which only one was
real, protecti
On 7/16/10 11:17 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
The thorniest issues aren't technology-related, per se; they're legal exposure
(both real and imagined), regulatory concerns (both real and imagined),
antitrust concerns (both real and imagined), management/marketing/PR concerns
(largely imagined),
There are a few people who have some passing interest in ICANN so I
will inflict upon the list my few paragraph summary of things that
matter, see also my July 2nd post: I went so you don't have to --
ICANN Bruxelles pour les nuls.
The initial report of the 65 person VI WG is published. Regist
On 7/26/10 12:45 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
You forgot the fifth option.
Invade a country (invasion is not strictly required) and take over
control of their ccTLD which probably does not have an agreement with
ICANN so you can charge and do as you please. Many of the greedy
registrars will be more
On 7/26/10 3:28 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Now seriously, just how many pages of the IV Initial Report did you read
before coming up with "the fifth option"?
I read the entire thing. Of the 138 pages, take out the Summary, the
ToC and several of the Annexes where many of them are sort of cut&
past
On 7/26/10 6:00 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
I found Milton Mueller's summary - noted at
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1006- useful.
Is there anything there that you would disagree with?
He errors in characterizing the position statements as static, rather
than evolving over time. His own position i
On 7/26/10 7:11 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
The question too, is which model is mitigating the best the presence of rogue
registrars (like domain tasting registrars, etc..)
Franck,
First, tasting is only a part of the extensions from the registrant
serving business model that ICANN explicitly a
On 7/26/10 7:50 PM, William Pitcock wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-26 at 14:42 -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
But I do take your point about .co/.com, and in all fairness, it is a
decade delayed favor returned by NeuStar to Verisign for the .bz/.biz
"collaborative marketing" ploy of
On 7/26/10 8:46 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Being one of the rare known external readers, is there any bit of it you
have a view on not already reflected in the para above and below?
There is another dimension to the whole enchilada that makes a
compromise a moving shooting target.
Some of the ent
1 - 100 of 187 matches
Mail list logo
