PRE-ANNOUNCEMENT: BIND-Members Forum
James Raftery
james-bind-users at now.ie
Fri Feb 2 17:26:18 UTC 2001
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:22:56AM -0800, Paul A Vixie wrote:
> presumably these would be not-for-profits or close enough to that status
> that they could and would ask that their membership fee be waived. but
> as TLD server operators they are potentially very important parts of the
> internet's infrastructure, which isc is more or less "sworn to protect."
[snip]
> that's almost certainly the way it will be done.
That's good to hear on both counts.
> isc is not-for-profit.
True; but while the organisation as a whole aims not to generate a
profit individual activities may create an excess of revenue over
expenditure. I have worked for not-for-profit organisations in which
certain activities which generate excess revenue subsidise other
activies which don't. Overall there's no profit. I would hope that this
scheme in isolation can be shown to be run on a strict cost-recovery
basis.
> yes. this isn't a democracy. if there were, for example, a group of
> people who did their own linux or bsd distributions but who isc thought
> were too immature to be trusted to follow an NDA, then isc can just say
> "no."
Hrm, I'm uneasy about that but I see your point.
> on the other hand, CERT isn't a system vendor or root/tld server
> operator but isc naturally wants CERT to to be part of the bind-members
echo "Being CERT" >> criteria
No discretion. I'm suggesting that, as much as practicable, don't bend
silly rules change them.
Thanks, and Regards,
james
--
James Raftery (JBR54)
"It's somewhere in the Red Hat district" -- A network engineer's
freudian slip when talking about Amsterdam's nightlife at RIPE 38.
More information about the bind-users
mailing list