ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ispcp]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ispcp] Note to ISOC members on the NTIA request for comments on the MoU

  • To: <mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [ispcp] Note to ISOC members on the NTIA request for comments on the MoU
  • From: <tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 20:50:45 +0100
  • Cc: <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>, <ispcp@xxxxxxxxx>, <owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Acaga043MI0ICWvuSfKPpJpg13HC/gAAJB9w
  • Thread-topic: [ispcp] Note to ISOC members on the NTIA request for comments on the MoU

Greg/All

I also support the views expressed by Greg. The Internet now forms a
vital resource on which many of our economies are based, - time to do
things on a professional basis rather than rely on the 'old boy' way of
working before it all ends in tears.

Tony 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mark McFadden
Sent: 05 July 2006 20:43
To: maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Greg Ruth; ispcp@xxxxxxxxx; owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ispcp] Note to ISOC members on the NTIA request for
comments on the MoU

I'm drafting as we speak.

mark

maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> No apologies necessary.  I totally agree.  Did we decide to file 
> comments together on behalf of the ISPCP?
> 
> Magnolia Mansourkia
> Chief Privacy Counsel
> Verizon Communications
> 703-351-3199 Voice
> 703-351-3653 Fax
> 202-744-3745 Mobile
> 
> 
> *Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>*
> Sent by: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 07/05/2006 01:09 PM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	Re: [ispcp] Note to ISOC members on the NTIA request for
comments on 
> the MoU
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All,
>     Does anyone else have a problem with the statement
> 
> "...operational authority over the DNS root name server
> system through formal arrangements with the root name server operators
> is not desirable. We believe that the current distributed and
redundant
> way of operating the root name servers by a dozen independent
> organizations is highly successful."
> 
> I think this Blanche DuBois strategy (depending on the kindness of
> strangers) is rather ingenuous (or, perhaps, disingenuous).  It
> reflects the culture of the Internet about 20 years ago, when
> everything was done informally by "gentleman's agreement" (sorry
> Maggie).  Things have changed.  What's wrong with formal arrangements
> with the root name server operators?
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> 




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>