[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

pTLA request for MICROSOFT - review closes 2 January 2002

I think Microsoft should be allowed it's pTLA. If we allow Cisco and Compaq
then why not Microsoft? We should encourage greater participation verses
building barriers.

Now concerning the point that the US government can't get Microsoft to
conform... The US government has issues getting it's own personnel and
agencies to conform and work as team players. I believe any real world
organization, forum, industry group, alliance, coalition has this very same

Michael P. Brig

-----Original Message-----
From: John Klos [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 4:17 AM
To: Chuck Yerkes
Cc: Bob Fink; 6BONE List; Chris Engdahl; ITG IPv6 Engineering Team
Subject: Re: pTLA request for MICROSOFT - review closes 2 January 2002

> > MICROSOFT has requested a pTLA allocation. The open review period for
> > will close 2 January 2002. Please send your comments to me or the list.
> >
> > <http://whois.6bone.net/cgi-bin/whois?microsoft>
> Not to be petty, but this stanza jumps out as a potentially historic
> note.  We will hope that MS does not live up to their long earned
> reputation for not playing with others  (http, kerberos, DNS, DDNS,
> DHCP and others leap to mind).
> >    4. The pTLA Applicant MUST commit to abide by the current 6Bone
> >       operational rules and policies as they exist at time of its
> >       application, and agree to abide by future 6Bone backbone
> >       operational rules and policies as they evolve by consensus of the
> >       6Bone backbone and user community.
> Need we define "consensus" and other words very, very, very,
> clearly and concisely to avoid all loopholes?

I must agree with this sentiment. Does 6bone have a lawyer or lawyers? Are
any lawyers on this list? It would be a VERY wise move to have Microsoft
representatives agree to these terms plainly in a legal document; trying
to get Microsoft to conform after the fact is, well, impossible (the US
government cannot do it).

The very least that 6bone can do is have Microsoft agree to such terms in
writing. As a NetBSD developer, I do not want to see our work become
irrelevant should Microsoft start making incompatible protocols.

John Klos
Sixgirls Computing Labs