<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: Statements against new.net?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>If the Commerce Department ruled that new.net threatened the very core of how the Internet works (which it does -- resolver libraries and nameservers were written to the spec, and the spec said that ONE zone was owned and managed by ONE entity -- and multiple root zones were never included in that concept), then I could see it legally working.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-Mat Butler</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Speaking for myself, not my employer.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Mark Radabaugh - Amplex [<A HREF="mailto:mark@amplex.net">mailto:mark@amplex.net</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 10:19 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: nanog@merit.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: RE: Statements against new.net?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> BUT if representatives from a dozen or a hundred ISPs meet</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> together and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> choose to blackhole new.net for the explicit purpose of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> running them out</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> of business, and then do so, they would be in violation of US</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> anti-trust</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> laws.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> -- David</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>But what if a quasi-government organization (ICANN) explicitly blessed</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the concept of banning alternate roots :-) Now there is a can of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>worms...</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Mark Radabaugh</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Amplex</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>(419) 833-3635</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>