Re: That stability thing again

[Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>]

At 8:01 AM -0500 2002/10/08, Jim Fleming wrote:

>  If the U.S. Government concludes (based on bad advice) that their
>  aging, 32-bit, legacy root servers can only handle the load of
>  256 TLDs,

	The US government doesn't own the root servers.  The root server 
operators own them, and provide this service to the community free of 
charge.  Indeed, in some ways, I think that they might be better 
managed if someone did pay for the service, so that we could hold 
them more accountable for failures to do their job properly.

>  Clearly, some of the so-called ccTLDs would have to be removed
>  to make room for the more marketable (popular) TLDs.

	This is taken out of context.  Moreover, there is no indication 
that these surveys were conducted with any kind of regularity that 
would lend any real meaning to the results.  Stick your head into the 
sand and ask the sand fleas what they think, and you'd be as likely 
to get a reasonable response.

>  Some people view LESS as MORE stable. They do not understand
>  the Internet, but, that does not stop them from flying around
>  the world attempting to INCREASE the membership in their
>  EXCLUSIVE club. Their hypocrisy has no limits...

	I'm sorry.  There are some words and phrases here which would 
seem to make sense when isolated, but taken as a whole this is a 
complete non-sequitur.

	Could we try once more, in English this time?

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
     -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w---
O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)