Apparently a misunderstanding. I meant work in the sense of Hank's message, e.g. raising awareness that this is wubbish. At 09:44 AM 13.3.01, Mally Mclane wrote:

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

...

...

Do any ISPs or web hosting companies have publically available statements on their web sites stating that they will not support the new new.net domains and why they won't? I am getting more requests from users to change our DNS root servers to support this and wanted to see what others tell their users. Any IETF/ICANN statement available?

Speaking from my experience, the new.net idea has been rubbished both on uknot (a list which consists of a lot of the UK Internet Industry movers'n'shakers) and ecdiscuss, it's also been rubbished a lot in the press.

I wouldn't advise anyone to start reconfiguring their nameservers. Just be patient and wait for ICANN ;)

Regards,

Mally Mclane

Bruce Campbell wrote:

It comes down to - alternative roots break the accepted consistency of the existing hierarchial DNS structure.

Quite right. The hierarchy, together with the authoritarianism and monopolistic practices it permits, must be preserved at all costs.

Unfortunately, there are many crackpots (yes, we get a few who perceive that APNIC has a slightly different role than it does) who take a lot of explaining in order to get the above simple idea through their heads

You're absolutely right. Everyone who doesn't agree that you and the others at the RIRs should control who gets IP addresses and can be an ISP, and thus dictate to them what nameservers they use, is a crackpot. These idiots just can't get it through their thick heads that you should have dictatorial powers over their channels of communication. M.S.