Re: DNS: defining "official" domains

Re: DNS: defining "official" domains

From: Adam Todd <at§ah.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 22:03:36 +1000
>  | You ignored the invoices.
>
>No I didn't.  Wrong again (big surprise).   They (none of NSI, Internic,
>or the IANA) never sent one.   No-one has ever sent me an invoice for any
>domain name at all, ever.  Period.

You were told to ignore the invoice.

Had you received it would you have ignored it?

>They (NSI/Internic) apparently did send invoices to some other country TLDs.

Apparently.

>If paying the $'s was to actually support the root servers, I wouldn't
>mind (though why the rate for a country would be the same as the rate for
>some trivial little domain I would have no idea).

Because a TLD is a TLD is a TLD, it costs the same to run irrespective of
it's use.

>But the costs aren't for
>that, it doesn't go to the root servers, other than the ones that NSI
>actually run themselves perhaps, nor is it intended to.

NSI obviously run the 'A' server thus there is a cost to which the fees are
contributed.  Granted $30 million is a lot of root server funding :)

>Ths charge covers
>the costs of actually maintaining the data, doing updates, etc - and for AU
>there is essentially none of that.

Agreed. I'm glad you said that.  I suppose you would then agree that from
the perspective of maintaining data for a TLD there is really minimal work
involved, other than connectivity and keeping the server alive?

>  | Now I'll accept yur apology in advance for indirectly calling me a liar.
>
>I did nothing of the kind.   You said I paid for AU.   I said I didn't.

No, I didn't say you PAID.  I said, I was informed that invoices were sent
out for ccTLDs that were required to be paid.

>I also said that considering the source of the information it was not
>surprising that it was wrong.

If you call NSI - to which you have already validated DID IN FACT SEND
INVOICES - wrong, then fine.  

>I didn't said you lied - 

Implied.

>that would imply that you have some idea what you're talking about 

Oh I see.

>and chose to deliberately misstate things. 

Hmmm.

>I don't think that's true, I simply believe you have no
>idea at all what you're talking about.

But I must have some idea, or you woudln't be so vigourously defnding it.
Nor woudl you have resulted to the last paragraph of your posting.  You
shodul have done the mature thing and left it with the initial
explaination, rather than working in a further way to try hard to discredit
me.

I find all this effort by so many people to spend so much time, constantly,
in effort to discredit me rather awe inspiring.

I feel that the only way you people can operate is to put me down as far as
possible in hope tha others will listen to you.  You know more against one,
the one is wrong.  Funny enough, eventually the truth and credability will
show, when the time is right.  And I can assure you - it's going to hurt a
lot of people who think very highly of themselves.

It's all a matter of public record now.

But thanks for the put down again Robert, you should know by now I thrive
on such behaviour and as Stephen Baxter once wrote "he will bite every time."

Yes I will - because I get great enjoyment watching people squirm and
wriggle hopefully trying to retain an ounce of credability in the process.

I just can't believe a single person like myself can have such a major
impact on such a large number of people - unless some are afraid the
strength (like One Nation Followers) might increase.

Now there is something to think about.  I do feel very much like Pauline
Hanson.  I'm sure if I play my cards right (boy is this giving away the
baby and the bath water) you will all - in time (an election perhaps) come
to realise that a single voice that has integrity to the majority is far
stronger than the group voice of a minority - who claim to represent
everyone else.
Received on Mon Jun 22 1998 - 23:34:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Mar 26 2014 - 21:51:56 UTC