On Thu, 29 May 1997 20:01:29 -0500, Karl wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 1997 at 12:48:23AM +0000, Ron Kimball wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 1997 19:14:29 -0500, Jim wrote:
Karl, I am not sure that uDNS claims to be "better" than eDNS.
If by "eDNS" you mean Karl's thing, yes we do claim to be better in the areas that count. We will never dump the entire root zone to a "clean slate" and tell people this is a "good thing". We will supply stable, business grade service with no "Freezes", "Ultimatums", or "Premaddona posturing"...
Take care, Ron
Yep, stable, business-grade service.
On recursion-enabled servers.
Yep.
BTW, the reason the original system is being re-qualified (which is what it is) is that a bunch of people were cheating.
You mean you, and the others, can't qualify under the rules of *stable, business grade service*, defined as:
1) Someone answers your phone. 2) You are actually registered to legally do business in your state. 3) You have real nameservers on real circuits. 4) Someone can actually register electronically in your TLD. 5) Someone can use the web and/or whois to look up who owns a SLD delegation.
Well, blow me down. Must be some fancy new definition of "stable, business grade service" here if you folks don't meet these criteria.
Oh, and we're not assessing taxes. Still.
Ron, all you have to do is file the template. I know that's tough, but the truth of the matter is that 90% of the TLDs which your defectors are now putting up under "uDNS" don't meet the above *FOUR* criteria, say much less being non-collusive and holding 10 or fewer TLDs.
<yawn>