|
|
 |
[address-policy-wg] RE: [narten@localhost: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
-
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" patrick@localhost, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" iljitsch@localhost
-
From: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@localhost
-
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 18:02:04 -0400
-
Cc: "shim6-wg" shim6@localhost, ppml@localhost, global-v6@localhost, "IETF Discussion" ietf@localhost, address-policy-wg@localhost, v6ops@localhost
I agree.
/jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-shim6@localhost [ ] On
> Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore
> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 12:10 AM
> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum
> Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore; shim6-wg; ppml@localhost
> global-v6@localhost IETF Discussion;
> address-policy-wg@localhost v6ops@localhost
> Subject: Re: [narten@localhost: PI addressing in IPv6
> advances in ARIN]
>
> On Apr 14, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> > On 14-apr-2006, at 16:57, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> >
> >> 60 voted in favor of moving forward with PI. 6 voted against.
> >
> > Wow, 10 to 1. Amazing.
> >
> > Even more amazing: 60 people who represent nobody but their own
> > paycheck get to blow up the internet.
> >
> > Where is ICANN when you need it? This little experiment in
> playground
> > democracy has to end before people get hurt.
>
> Wow, Iljitsch, I have never lost so much respect so quickly for
> someone who was not flaming a specific person or using profanity.
> Congratulations.
>
>
> Back on topic, it is not just those 60 people - the "playground"
> appears to overwhelmingly agree with their position. I know I do.
>
> I am sorry your technical arguments have not persuaded us in
> the past. But I would urge you to stick to those, or at
> least consider why we remain unconvinced, rather than devolve
> into .. whatever that post was supposed to be.
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
>
|
|
|
|
