On Fri, May 30, 1997 at 08:42:41AM -0400, Richard Shu wrote:
Jamie Rishaw wrote:
Seriously, our schedule calls for 5 dedicated, non-recursive servers up by next week this time, with T1 of better connectivity.
"Oh, we'll have quadruple this Real Soon Now(tm). We decided that it was a Good Thing to release this project with a crappy server and crappy links.. but honest.. we're fixing it!"
We plan full RFC2010 by the time we reach 5% visibility.
So.. never, right?
I dont get it. Why wait until later to do things _right_?
Because we're not used to being members of organizations in which major decisions are driven by short-notice ultimatums.
Because we had to act quickly when it became apparent that the root servers were likely to be arbitrarily reloaded with a set of TLDs less than the full set originally registered as eDNS TLDs.
Because we are used to organizations that provide stability and reliability as key elements to foster an environment hospitable to business.
Respectfully submitted, Richard Shu
Because the people who made eDNS TLDs resolve, the root server operators, got tired of people who were claiming TLDs with no ability to register in them, were collusively operated in violation of the charter, were being held out as "businesses" when in fact said "businesses" didn't legally exist under the laws of the state the "registry" claimed to be in, that some of the "registries" were unable to even quote a *PRICE* over the phone for registration (and it was nowhere to be found online either) and further the roots refused to continue when it became apparent that the RAs and Registries had no intent of resolving ANY of those problems. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal