Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

discuss - Re: [opennic-discuss] Increasing relevancy (Was: Policy proposalforremoval...)

discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] Increasing relevancy (Was: Policy proposalforremoval...)


Chronological Thread 
  • From: mike <mike AT pikeaero.com>
  • To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
  • Cc: "Aaron J. Angel" <aaron.angel AT gmail.com>
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] Increasing relevancy (Was: Policy proposalforremoval...)
  • Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:32:18 -0500
  • Envelope-to: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org,aaron.angel AT gmail.com


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/15/2012 10:49 PM, Aaron J. Angel wrote:
> They way I look at it: Who besides Google are household names
> offering public DNS? http://bit.ly/Oh6K3p. Not a big list. And
> we're one of two with a 'complete list' of servers.
>
> Providers, not end-users, are why ICANN dominates. We may disagree
> on key policies, but the architecture is sound. Root servers are
> few, but well maintained, long established and highly stable.
> Beyond that, little focus is placed on end-users. Ultimately, they
> answer to providers.
>
> If its relevancy we want, we should refocus on partnering with
> providers. Slow is slow, but steady can catch up sooner than you
> realize.

Excellent points. I tend to agree with at you've saying, I suppose it
is does largely dependent upon what OpenNIC hopes to achieve.

If it's providers we want to target, then how do we go about that?
Step one?

I've spoken personally to one of the execs of the larger ISPs here in
Ontario, and I got his interest initially, but having followed up, got
feedback that his "people" viewed OpenNIC, as you say, sort of "a
hobby" interest, and our discussions tapered off into radio silence.

Please don't take any of what I have said the wrong way. I agree that
we aught to try and run a tight ship, just the current structure of
OpenNIC in my view (correct me if I'm wrong) depends largely upon the
T2 operators and attracting more of them. That's all I was getting at
is that given that; we aught to present ourselves as nube friendly.
I'm not saying I'm right, that's just the way I see it as things
currently stand.

- --Mike

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQLGm+AAoJEA7EcEr0emgfazUH/1caSW6hbANmx2jLhtDwPlxS
R0TPzW4196UwmfkXJRtaKZn5nU6LYuyMRaTdqIxLGltYzrs2LBMWvmiMV1nWjG4h
YfOZgofEK/dkpGIzJSD+Itz69xztz8joeoivOR0Sydmhge6FVN2X5WARpPrEQ4m2
hHSkfZNtA0O0WeLzvthraZFfnGxjEf5TeKHyKr/DeWRApsM9b2yXNToc48LiO5US
7gcnGY4+gfFzbVXMgmELJquTJ1eeFR3r5/vYyFh8e5tzezcvObAl3QHBqBlURMqD
AlYeYuakmky1lcVecnVI0XiFvHOJ30f+NatnxnfdI2SOl8Xv1/tQ+HCNZcYFyIU=
=tj4J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page