Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Vince Wolodkin writes:
Well, since IANA works for the US government as a subcontractor on the InterNIC contract, they should care. Or wait, does IANA even exist anymore??? Wasn't their contract already ended?
Could you quit spewing bullshit in public?
Perry
Gee Perry, your shit don't stink. I've never understood your moronic dual standard where you say NSI is a government contractor and should therefore be gone in 1998(you don't like NSI), but you turn around and even though IANA is a part of the SAME contract you want THEM to stay, because YOU like them. Get a grip. It's okay to say, "IANA is doing a good job and we think they should stay after their contract expires". It's okay to say "NSI is doing a bad job and therefore they can only stay if they join the CORE and sign the MoU". It's okay to say "We haven't put our gTLDs in the roots because we are negotiating behind the scenes to have it done." It's okay to say any of these things. I don't understand how you can deny that the IANA effort is a contracted function in the InterNIC contract and that ISI is in this function a contractor. You can still say they have done a good job and you wish them to continue, but right now, if the US gov't decides they want something done...IANA works for them. Vince Wolodkin