Network Solutions Dropped as Registrar Of Internet Domains
Network Solutions Dropped as Registrar Of Internet Domains By David S. Hilzenrath Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 24 1997; Page E01 The Washington Post The National Science Foundation said yesterday it will not renew Network Solutions Inc.'s deal to register Internet domains when the Herndon company's agreement with the government expires next year. But Network Solutions responded by saying it does not plan to relinquish its exclusive hold on the registration of ".com" domains and several other established forms of Internet addresses. The two announcements leave the future of one of the Internet's central resources in confusion and contention. Domain names serve as something of a Zip-code system for the Internet, enabling users to address electronic mail and locate pages on the graphical World Wide Web. Corporations and organizations pay to register their locations. A coalition of organizations has been pushing for competition in the registration of Internet domains, including those ending in .com for commercial users, the most popular form of Internet address. Critics have argued that competition could promote better service and lower prices. As of Dec. 31, Network Solutions had collected $42.6 million in fees from the enterprise, charging $100 to register new addresses ending in .com, .org, .gov, .net and .edu. It also charges annual renewal fees of $50 after two years. Seventy percent of the money is revenue to Network Solutions, a subsidiary of California-based federal government contractor Science Applications International Corp., and the rest is set aside for improvement of the Internet. The NSF inspector general recently estimated that registrations would generate annual fees of about $200 million by mid-1999. National Science Foundation spokeswoman Beth Gaston said it "has not been determined yet" whether the registry Network Solutions operates belongs to the company. The agency put Network Solutions in charge of the registry in 1993, and it has grown to include about 1.2 million domains. Networks Solutions seemed more definite. "It is not our intention to share .com or the others [domains] we register," Network Solutions spokesman Christopher Clough said. "Those would obviously [be] assets that we've developed . . . much as Microsoft wouldn't share DOS," its proprietary software. Network Solutions favors competition, but only in the registration of new types of domains, Clough said. A coalition of groups led by the Internet Society is trying to create a system in which competing registrars could process the same types of domains, including those controlled by Network Solutions. "They've taken the low road and tried to protect their monopoly instead of taking a leadership role in the best interest of the Internet," said Donald Heath, president of the Internet Society. The National Science Foundation's inspector general recently recommended that the federal government maintain oversight of Internet addresses and continue earmarking a portion of registration fees for development of the Internet. But Joseph Bordogna, the agency's acting deputy director, issued a statement yesterday saying the commercialization of the Internet leaves the NSF less reason to stay involved. Bordogna said the NSF "has no plans to renew or re-compete" the agreement with Network Solutions. A group of federal agencies, including the NSF, the Federal Communications Commission and the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, has been discussing what role the government should play. Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company Aleph One / aleph1@dfw.net http://underground.org/ KeyID 1024/948FD6B5 Fingerprint EE C9 E8 AA CB AF 09 61 8C 39 EA 47 A8 6A B8 01
On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Aleph One wrote:
Networks Solutions seemed more definite. "It is not our intention to share .com or the others [domains] we register," Network Solutions spokesman Christopher Clough said. "Those would obviously [be] assets that we've developed . . . much as Microsoft wouldn't share DOS," its proprietary software.
Perhaps a better analogy would be an OS like BSD which was developped partially with NSF funding. Or Linux which also has NSF funded components. Of course, those are both being shared ... There's really no reason any of us should be worried about NSI and the IAHC competing for domain name registries. But NSI is also pushing for control over the root domain (.) and if things get too heated up over that dispute we really could see a partition of the Internet at the DNS level. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
The following should be attributed to Michael Dillon:
On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Aleph One wrote:
Networks Solutions seemed more definite. "It is not our intention to share .com or the others [domains] we register," Network Solutions spokesman Christopher Clough said. "Those would obviously [be] assets that we've developed . . . much as Microsoft wouldn't share DOS," its proprietary software.
Perhaps a better analogy would be an OS like BSD which was developped partially with NSF funding. Or Linux which also has NSF funded components. Of course, those are both being shared ... Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
If the government of Fairyland decides to let a contractor maintain the Database of Hypothetical Numbers, who owns the database? Does it matter if the contractor allows people to add Imaginary Numbers and Unreal Numbers? Lee Howard Internet Systems Engineer (703)208-5231 UUNet High-speed Install lhoward@uu.net Do I speak for UUNet? [NO]
At 4:23 PM -0400 4/24/97, Lee Howard wrote:
If the government of Fairyland decides to let a contractor maintain the Database of Hypothetical Numbers, who owns the database?
That's the question. In addition, it seems like Network Solutions thinks they own the *data* if not the database. -- Russell Byrne, Manager, Network Engineering and Tech Support Dept.s Cogent Software, Inc., 221 E. Walnut St., Ste. 215, Pasadena, CA 91101 Voice: 818/585-2783, FAX: 818/585-2785
On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Lee Howard wrote:
If the government of Fairyland decides to let a contractor maintain the Database of Hypothetical Numbers, who owns the database?
One would submit that the CONTRACTUAL arrangement between parties in this instance -- and any legal instrument asserting such an arrangement would be subject to review.
Does it matter if the contractor allows people to add Imaginary Numbers and Unreal Numbers?
In this particular frame of referrence, the difference between imaginary and unreal numbers being...?
Lee Howard Internet Systems Engineer (703)208-5231 UUNet High-speed Install lhoward@uu.net Do I speak for UUNet? [NO]
All the best, Robert Mathews. ---------------
Warning: NANOG-irrelevent flame about NSI contained herein. Hit "D" now.
There's really no reason any of us should be worried about NSI and the IAHC competing for domain name registries. But NSI is also pushing for control over the root domain (.) and if things get too heated up over that dispute we really could see a partition of the Internet at the DNS level.
This is not a concern. The DNS software vendors, and the root servers, all follow the IANA. When IANA says "go", we go. If NSI says "go somewhere else" then they become irrelevant, and they become a travesty, and their gravestone becomes another mile marker on the Internet's road to glory. This means "." moves to IANA-operated servers as soon as IANA says so. This means "COM" moves to IANA-approved servers as soon as IANA says so. This means NSI had best fire all of its lawyers and maybe its President/CEO. Internet B-I-G, NSI "little". The DNS namespace is a public trust, not a corporate asset. "Get over it."
On Fri, Apr 25, 1997 at 11:16:39PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
Warning: NANOG-irrelevent flame about NSI contained herein. Hit "D" now.
There's really no reason any of us should be worried about NSI and the IAHC competing for domain name registries. But NSI is also pushing for control over the root domain (.) and if things get too heated up over that dispute we really could see a partition of the Internet at the DNS level.
This is not a concern. The DNS software vendors, and the root servers, all follow the IANA. When IANA says "go", we go. If NSI says "go somewhere else" then they become irrelevant, and they become a travesty, and their gravestone becomes another mile marker on the Internet's road to glory.
This means "." moves to IANA-operated servers as soon as IANA says so.
This means "COM" moves to IANA-approved servers as soon as IANA says so.
This means NSI had best fire all of its lawyers and maybe its President/CEO.
Internet B-I-G, NSI "little".
The DNS namespace is a public trust, not a corporate asset. "Get over it."
You are so full of it Paul that one has to wonder what you're smoking, and how you've avoided prison doing so. What the hell has been addling your brain out there in California? I'd like you to point out the major corporations and public universities who will do this. I'd also like you to immediately return that nice root server that NSI has paid for in part or whole, if you really believe this. Anyone trying to take "COM" and point it somewhere else will find that they have created a class-action lawsuit with 1,000,000 plaintiffs -- all the people who you instantly disconnect that have COM domains. Anyone trying to STEAL NSI's COM zone (to appropriate it as their own) will likely find themselves on the wrong end of a monstrous lawsuit, not to mention potential felony theft charges. Grow up Paul. Seriously. The Internet isn't your little playground, and it does not belong to Jon Postel, Joyce Reynolds, and Bill Manning. Those are facts. If you assert differently, then let's see the names of those who agree with you. They'll make interesting additions to the list that NSI, who has rights in those databases, should be watching. -- -- 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
At 11:46 AM -0700 4/26/97, Karl Denninger wrote:
You are so full of it Paul that one has to wonder what you're smoking, and how you've avoided prison doing so.
What the hell has been addling your brain out there in California?
Karl, I seem to recall that you have recently attempted to take the moral high ground, disparaging those who engage in ad hominem criticisms of you. Some of us have been amused by you, of all people, taking such a stance. I'd like to thank you for reminding us just who is speaking and what he is like.
Anyone trying to take "COM" and point it somewhere else will find that they have created a class-action lawsuit with 1,000,000 plaintiffs -- all the people who you instantly disconnect that have COM domains.
My, but you ARE one for hyperbole, aren't you. But since you are once again engaging in the practise of law without a license, please explain the legal conditions that have changed from the last time IANA did exactly this type of change, moving the administrative delegation for .com from its 10+ (actually 20+) year assignment over to NSI. As much difficulty as you seem to have accepting this, Paul, IANA is the authority for assignments, not NSI, and certainly not you, no matter how much you lust after that role.
Grow up Paul.
good advise, Karl. Take it.
Seriously.
indeed. d/ ---------------------------- Dave Crocker, Director +1 408 246 8253 Internet Mail Consortium (f) +1 408 249 6205 127 Segre Place dcrocker@imc.org Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA http://www.imc.org Also: IAHC member, expressing personal opinions http://www.iahc.org
Gee whiz. Procmail'ing Karl into /dev/null does me no good, since the rest of you actually read his messages and I have to wade through your replies. At the very least, can you not CC "nanog" once other lists have been added? I'm not just asking because I would then not have to read replies to Karl's messages -- I'm asking because "nanog" has a topic, and this isn't it.
I'd like you to point out the major corporations and public universities who will do this. I'd also like you to immediately return that nice root server that NSI has paid for in part or whole, if you really believe this.
Anyone trying to take "COM" and point it somewhere else will find that they have created a class-action lawsuit with 1,000,000 plaintiffs -- all the people who you instantly disconnect that have COM domains.
Anyone trying to STEAL NSI's COM zone (to appropriate it as their own) will likely find themselves on the wrong end of a monstrous lawsuit, not to mention potential felony theft charges.
NSI does not own the root domain .com .org .net or any other TLD. They were *hired* by the NSF to manage the registration of domain names for these TLDs, and they have done a deplorable job. They are now being fired, if anyone is opening themselves up for a class action suite it is NSI for not relinquishing property that they have no legal right to claim as their own. Sheese!!! I wondered back in '78 how no-nothing dim witted liberal arts majors would ever find a way to make money on the Net, now I know... They all became Lawyers. geoffw Virtual Sites www.v-site.net
On Sat, Apr 26, 1997 at 12:37:53PM -0700, Geoff White wrote:
I'd like you to point out the major corporations and public universities who will do this. I'd also like you to immediately return that nice root server that NSI has paid for in part or whole, if you really believe this.
Anyone trying to take "COM" and point it somewhere else will find that they have created a class-action lawsuit with 1,000,000 plaintiffs -- all the people who you instantly disconnect that have COM domains.
Anyone trying to STEAL NSI's COM zone (to appropriate it as their own) will likely find themselves on the wrong end of a monstrous lawsuit, not to mention potential felony theft charges.
NSI does not own the root domain .com .org .net or any other TLD. They were *hired* by the NSF to manage the registration of domain names for these TLDs, and they have done a deplorable job. They are now being fired, if anyone is opening themselves up for a class action suite it is NSI for not relinquishing property that they have no legal right to claim as their own.
Sheese!!!
I wondered back in '78 how no-nothing dim witted liberal arts majors would ever find a way to make money on the Net, now I know... They all became Lawyers.
There you are very wrong. Prior to September 1995 you were correct. NSI was released from their fee structure from the government at that time, which was, incidentally, when they started assessing fees to users. There were 100,000 entries in the table at that point. Now there are 1.1 Million. For 90% of that database, the development and operation was paid for with *private funds* as a *private, for-profit, revenue-funded* business. NSI put up the risk capital to do this. They did so with no guarantee of a profit, and in fact claim they have lost money. When that change happened, the IANA (which really is the ISOC, as the IANA doesn't legally exist) did *NOTHING*. They ratified this ownership and business structure by consenting to the continued delegation of those zones. I believe that if push comes to shove, this will be supported through legal process. This is what I've been saying for 18 months, but nobody wanted to hear it then because it was politically unpalatable. Too bad. Now we get to live with the prediction come true, and the ONLY fix is to open the field to free competitive forces. Now for my next prediction: You will never take COM away from NSI. NSI has a protectable and financial interest in that database, the systems used to operate it, and a goodly number of the root servers themselves. Therefore, any plan for DNS that includes "grabbing" or "opening" COM is deficient on its face as it fails to address the reality of the situation with that zone. It took 18 months for my last one to come true. This one should be apparent by this time next year. -- -- 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
Karl Denninger writes:
NSI does not own the root domain .com .org .net or any other TLD. They were *hired* by the NSF to manage the registration of domain names for these TLDs, and they have done a deplorable job. They are now being fired, if anyone is opening themselves up for a class action suite it is NSI for not relinquishing property that they have no legal right to claim as their own. [...] There you are very wrong.
Prior to September 1995 you were correct.
Go and read the cooperative agreement sometime. Its on the web, you know. It clearly states two things: 1) that NSI may be permitted to charge at some point in the future to defer costs, and that 2) at the end of the contract, everything reverts to the NSF -- EVERYTHING. The contract also notes that NSF is funding the contract but that the origin of the delegation is the IANA. I strongly urge people to go and read it for themselves. Perry Speaking personally, and not in an official capacity
At 12:40 PM -0700 4/26/97, Karl Denninger wrote:
For 90% of that database, the development and operation was paid for with *private funds* as a *private, for-profit, revenue-funded* business.
under a government agreement, with a government assignment of responsibility and government review and approval of the fees. the agreement, by the way, says that the data belong to the government.
NSI put up the risk capital to do this. They did so with no guarantee of a profit, and in fact claim they have lost money.
no, really they didn't, since the captial came from the revenue stream.
I believe that if push comes to shove, this will be supported through legal process.
and I believe they won't. ain't it great to have all these free legal opinions floating around?
This is what I've been saying for 18 months, but nobody wanted to hear it then because it was politically unpalatable.
or, perhaps, because your legal opinions are even less than mine, and that's going some. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org
Geoff White writes:
I'd like you to point out the major corporations and public universities who will do this. I'd also like you to immediately return that nice root server that NSI has paid for in part or whole, if you really believe this.
Anyone trying to take "COM" and point it somewhere else will find that they have created a class-action lawsuit with 1,000,000 plaintiffs -- all the people who you instantly disconnect that have COM domains.
Anyone trying to STEAL NSI's COM zone (to appropriate it as their own) will likely find themselves on the wrong end of a monstrous lawsuit, not to mention potential felony theft charges.
NSI does not own the root domain .com .org .net or any other TLD. They were *hired* by the NSF to manage the registration of domain names for these TLDs, and they have done a deplorable job.
You are, of course, correct. I will point out that NSI's cooperative agreement with the NSF clearly states that at the end of the agreement, any and all databases or software created under the agreement belong to the government, not to NSI. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me. Perry Speaking for myself, and not in an official capacity
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Geoff White writes:
I'd like you to point out the major corporations and public universities who will do this. I'd also like you to immediately return that nice root server that NSI has paid for in part or whole, if you really believe this.
Anyone trying to take "COM" and point it somewhere else will find that they have created a class-action lawsuit with 1,000,000 plaintiffs -- all the people who you instantly disconnect that have COM domains.
Anyone trying to STEAL NSI's COM zone (to appropriate it as their own) will likely find themselves on the wrong end of a monstrous lawsuit, not to mention potential felony theft charges.
NSI does not own the root domain .com .org .net or any other TLD. They were *hired* by the NSF to manage the registration of domain names for these TLDs, and they have done a deplorable job.
You are, of course, correct.
I will point out that NSI's cooperative agreement with the NSF clearly states that at the end of the agreement, any and all databases or software created under the agreement belong to the government, not to NSI.
Read it for yourself if you don't believe me.
This is interesting Perry. Both InterNIC and IANA are government contracted tasks, and yet you somehow attribute godhood to IANA while relegating NSI to the basement. What gives here? Sounds like favoritism to me. Why should contractor IANA get to keep its power while contractor NSI loses its. What's the law like in Perry's world. Oh, BTW, don't give me any crap about the lordlike actions of IANA personnel and the deplorable actions of NSI, blah, blah, blah. The only thing NSI has truly done that is awful is their TM dispute policy, and the IAHC has taken that very thing under its own wing. So when it comes right down to it, maybe the US government should handle port assignments also. Who knows, perhaps a clerk could handle the admin function of doling out numbers, so we wouldn't have to bother a research scientist with it. Vince Wolodkin Speaking for myself and a lot of other people who are PISSED off at your ridiculous double-speak.
Perry Speaking for myself, and not in an official capacity
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Vince Wolodkin writes:
This is interesting Perry. Both InterNIC and IANA are government contracted tasks,
Ah, no.
Go read the RFCs and learn whence the IANA comes, and then get back to us.
Perry
Perry, If you can quote to me the RFC written by the US government that says IANA is something more than a US government contracted task, then I'll kiss your ass in front of Macy's window. Otherwise, and as always, you are full of it. Vince
Vince Wolodkin writes:
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Vince Wolodkin writes:
This is interesting Perry. Both InterNIC and IANA are government contracted tasks,
Ah, no.
Go read the RFCs and learn whence the IANA comes, and then get back to us.
If you can quote to me the RFC written by the US government that says IANA is something more than a US government contracted task, then I'll kiss your ass in front of Macy's window. Otherwise, and as always, you are full of it.
Vince; I contend that you are a twelve foot tall pink rabbit. If you can find me an RFC written by the US government that denies this, then I'll believe it isn't true. Otherwise, you're just "Pink Bunny" Wolodkin from now on. Perry
"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes * > If you can quote to me the RFC written by the US government that says * > IANA is something more than a US government contracted task, then I'll * > kiss your ass in front of Macy's window. Otherwise, and as always, you * > are full of it. * * Vince; * * I contend that you are a twelve foot tall pink rabbit. Can you all please take this p****** contest some place else? Do on the newdom mailing list whatever you want, but keep this name calling crap off the nanog list. -Marten
Marten, Well what do you expect from Perry M., anyway. You know he thinks he is from an Alien. Marten Terpstra wrote:
"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes * > If you can quote to me the RFC written by the US government that says * > IANA is something more than a US government contracted task, then I'll * > kiss your ass in front of Macy's window. Otherwise, and as always, you * > are full of it. * * Vince; * * I contend that you are a twelve foot tall pink rabbit.
Can you all please take this p****** contest some place else? Do on the newdom mailing list whatever you want, but keep this name calling crap off the nanog list.
-Marten
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. Phone :913-294-2375 (v- office) E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Anyone trying to STEAL NSI's COM
NSI does not own the root domain .com .org .net or any other TLD.
I agree this needs to be posted elsewhere, but it started here. Disclaimer: I am not in the legal profession nor (any longer) contracting services to the US Government.. BUT I won't let that stop me from giving my $0.02 I believe there is a leagally sound (and often used) claim which NSI can assert regarding their rights in this matter. When the NSF cut back on its willingness to fund the Internet cooperative agreement and the InterNIC was shifted to a fee for Domain Registration service, it was known by and agreeable to all parties of the agreement that NSI would potentially invest considerable sums to bridge the gap between reduced NSF subsidy and the revenues generated by the fees. I believe, this gap in operating revenues was large at the time NSF announced its reductions in funding. I think it is fair to assume NSI has always covered some expenses not considered part of the contract. I believe that the gap remains large today, and the gap is projected into the next few years. The government frequently encounters this kind of situation. Federal Acquisition Regulations address the rights of the government and the rights of the contractor in this event. Any claims will be resolved in the context of FAR and the NSF-NSI agreement - - not in the context of NANOG or any other list. There was no one yelling at NSI when they invested their capital and resouces to carried the Internet through periods of reduced Federal funding. There has never been any hint of improper charges or business practices. Now, they have stated their position and, in the honored tradition of the Internet, offered it for public review and comment. I, for one, think NSI's management is acting appropriately as the NSF announces the final termination of the NSF-NSI cooperative agreement. Furthermore, the troops who man the trenches day-and-night at NSI to keep the Internet running are generally competent and respected by their professional peers. Mistakes? Deplorable condition of the database? Incompetence? I do not think so. Yea, things are tough, people and resources are never adequate to feed the bandwidth monster we (willingly) serve. I have, personally, operated large, multi-cpu distributed databases with 20M+ records, many diverse views of the data, and real-time updates. I know from experience it is a *hard* job. Therefore, before we talk any further about a world in which another group takes on operation of TLD registries or takes over operation of .com / .net / .edu, I suggest some serious consideration be given to the migration methodologies and costs of bringing up those new operations. I see not consensus on a set of STANDARDS by which a new TLD operator can be accessed. The simple econimics of today's Internet cannot accept any more gross instability which *might* result if this transition to multiple commercial domain registries is not done properly. To some of you, the following probably sill seem unusual from one who has been pioneering the new ATM Internet technology but I, too, believe in open expression of opinions: Network stability should be our industries' highest quality goal. NSI's contributions to Internet stability weigh heavily in their favor on this matter. ..mike..
Mike Trest writes:
I believe there is a leagally sound (and often used) claim which NSI can assert regarding their rights in this matter. When the NSF cut back on its willingness to fund the Internet cooperative agreement and the InterNIC was shifted to a fee for Domain Registration service,
You should read the cooperative agreement. Making the registrations self funding was in the agreement from the start. As is, by the way, a clause that says that at the end, they have to turn over everything -- software, databases, everything -- to the NSF. Ten copies, in fact, with reports. Perry Speaking personally, and not in an official capacity
On Sat, 26 Apr 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
Anyone trying to take "COM" and point it somewhere else will find that they have created a class-action lawsuit with 1,000,000 plaintiffs -- all the people who you instantly disconnect that have COM domains.
I think most people interpreted Paul's statement as meaning that if IANA directed them to continue providing the .COM domain services from a zone file that was not issued by NSI, then they would do so. With the emphasis on continuing the service, i.e. making sure that all 1,000,000 .COM domains continue to operate properly.
Anyone trying to STEAL NSI's COM zone (to appropriate it as their own) will likely find themselves on the wrong end of a monstrous lawsuit, not to mention potential felony theft charges.
Just how did NSI aquire ownership of this .COM zone when it was all built with public money under the authority of the National Science Foundation. Since when does the NSF give away free monopoly franchises?
The Internet isn't your little playground, and it does not belong to Jon Postel, Joyce Reynolds, and Bill Manning.
Those are facts.
It is also a fact that the Internet does not belong to NSI or Denninger. The real question is, which individuals and organizations take their positions of "public trust" seriously and which ones are attempting to leverage such a position into lining their own pockets? So far, Postel, Vixie, et al., are the guardians of the public trust and all those who are lined up in opposition to them appear to be more concerned with lining their own pockets than anything else. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
participants (15)
-
Aleph One -
Dave Crocker -
Dave Crocker -
Geoff White -
Jeff Williams -
Karl Denninger -
Lee Howard -
Marten Terpstra -
Michael Dillon -
Mike Trest -
Paul A Vixie -
Perry E. Metzger -
Robert Mathews -
Russell Byrne -
Vince Wolodkin