Re: Statements against new.net?

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () research att com>]

In message <Pine.GSO.4.31.0103141436410.9269-100000 () meron openu ac il>, Rafi Sa
dowsky writes:
> Hi Hank
>
> In this particular case ".XXX" as "generic" suffix is probably not a good
> choice - I'm sure someone would pay a lot of money for this particular
> gTLD ...

I think that that was Hank's point -- the owner of the One True .xxx 
will make lots of money.

> Regards
>       Rafi
>
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> >
> > > I fail to see how RFC2826 is in any way "political".Upon careful re-readin
> g
> > > it boils down to:
> > >
> > > If you use one root, everybody agrees what things look like.
> > >
> > > If you use multiple roots, what people will see depends on which root they
> ask.
> > > How is this political?
> >
> > It isn't, but since these cyber-carpetbaggers have failed on the technical
> > end to get their way, they figure if they can turn it into a political
> > issue then they can involve their clueless congressman to jump in and make
> > all sorts of investigations and subcommittees and perhaps they will end up
> > with the pseudo-jackpot of a .xxx suffix in their hands.
> >
> > -Hank


                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb