The comittee should realise that the question Verisign poses about
observed adverse effects, while interesting, is not as pertinent as it
seems at first sight. John Klensin put it very well yesterday in
a rigorous way. I'll offer a less rigorous but more graphical analogy:
A contractor drills large holes in the central structural parts of a
building to allow installation of their innovative garbage disposal.
Civil engineers question the effects this has on the building's stability.
The contractor's defense is: "Well it is still standing!
How much work did those tenants really have patching up the holes
to reduce the air drafts and stop the crackling noises?"
A contractor drills large holes in the central structural parts of a
building to allow installation of their innovative garbage disposal.
Civil engineers question the effects this has on the building's
stability. The contractor's defense is: "Well it is still standing!
How much work did those tenants really have patching up the holes
to reduce the air drafts and stop the crackling noises?"
Close but a new garbage disposal in a building may still offer some
benfits to the tenants. These wildcards did not.
Close but a new garbage disposal in a building may still offer some
benfits to the tenants. These wildcards did not.
Keep 'em coming...
<<
How about this, you hire a company to manage your apartment complex and find
they are using the property to run their own daily flee market, which pisses
off all your tenants.
but a new garbage disposal in a building may still offer some