Re: PAB white paper is out

Bob Helfant (
Tue, 09 Jun 1998 09:08:48 -0400

At 08:24 AM 6/9/98 +0900, Robert F. Connelly wrote:
>Dear Perry:
>Thank you for your posting, there are, indeed, some who don't see the big
>picture. Domain names are *really* only a small fraction of the total issue.

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.

>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.