Our business is email. We are the provider for Pathfinder, Alta Vista,
Lycos, Cnet and about 24 other well know sites. Our interest in seeing a
healthy domain name space is natural as that is necessary for the company
to continue growing. I suspect that GlobeComm is more involved with and
dependant upon a healthy Internet than most or all of the members of PAB
and CORE. A functioning, growing Internet is the whole issue.
>
>Regards,
>BobC
>
>P.S. I have now read your follow on dialog with BobH. It is clear that
>BobH sees only a small fraction of the domain name part of the issue, which
>is only a small part of the whole issue. Please understand that BobH is
>not representative of the majority of CORE. The majority of CORE have
>rejected his positions when put to a vote, both in *live* Plenary meetings,
>Teleconferences and VoteBots. Please don't "tar all of us with the same
>stick" you use on BobH;-{
I think upon review, you will find that CORE has in fact adopted many of my
positions after months of learning the hard and expensive way.
Bob Helfant
>
>>
>>We spent a great deal of time, energy and money into doing more or
>>less what the white paper has asked for -- having the self governance
>>organs of the net come up with a reasonable organization for managing
>>the DNS. Given that we have a ready-made solution available, why
>>should we only allow NSI and others to beat Jon into submission when
>>we can intervene and present a reasonable and well structured solution
>>that has already gone through extensive industry examination?
>>
>>> It would cost so much less in money and time and if history is any
>>> teacher, have the same result.
>>
>>If you don't want in, by all means, feel free not to interfere.
>>
>>Perry
>>
>