The Register article:
"The report that this week decided the ownership of
the second most important directory on the Internet
has been called into question with the claim that a
fundamental element of it is factually incorrect."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/31/net_report_denic/
DENIC statement:
http://www.denic.de/en/denic/presse/press_70.html
- ferg
* > The Register article:
"The report that this week decided the ownership of
the second most important directory on the Internet
has been called into question with the claim that a
fundamental element of it is factually incorrect."
Apparently, the main criticism is that DENIC developed the core of its
operations (the main database) on its own, without hiring consultants.
I find this criticism a bit strange as well, but it makes some sense
if you are extremely risk adverse. The main question is why DENIC
wasn't aware of this criterion before it made its offer (or the
requirement to be a customer of some disaster recovery company).
Anyway, DENIC's offer didn't match that of Sentan or Verisign in many
aspects, so it's a non-issue in the end.
But only if you judge according to Telcordia's metric. As always: Never trust a statistic you have not faked yourself ...
Arnold
* Arnold Nipper:
Anyway, DENIC's offer didn't match that of Sentan or Verisign in many
aspects, so it's a non-issue in the end.But only if you judge according to Telcordia's metric.
Yes, the selection of criteria could be biased. Or Telcordia compared
apples and oranges when it compared Verisign's 100 ms to DENIC's
200�ms (or what the actual numbers where).
As always: Never trust a statistic you have not faked yourself ...
I doubt that DENIC will ever publish the technical part of its bid, so
this isn't convincing.
> "The report that this week decided the ownership of the second most
> important directory on the Internet has been called into question with
> the claim that a fundamental element of it is factually incorrect."
can it BE? is this game RIGGED? what a SHOCKING SURPRISE! ("not.")
based strictly on the choice of telcordia as the evaluator, the .NET bid
appears to have just been ICANN's way of earning USD $800K extra this year.
(minus the fee paid to telcordia, that is.)
(i was mostly done being bitter about the way .ORG was handled, until
someone showed me that PIR had more or less gone out of existence... i
really expected this to take a little longer, just for appearance' sake.)
Yeah, I was a little curious about the composition of the latency number
as well... A heavily-splayed anycast deployment should have influenced
that number favorably, I'd have thought, but apparently not. It's my
assumption that they ran pings (of some unknown duration) from some
unknown number of locations, to each of the currently-operated server
addresses, and combined (averaged?) the results somehow. But I'd
certainly be curious as to their actual methodology.
-Bill
"The report that this week decided the ownership of
the second most important directory on the Internet
has been called into question with the claim that a
fundamental element of it is factually incorrect."Apparently, the main criticism is that DENIC developed the core of its
operations (the main database) on its own, without hiring consultants.
Well there's your problem. German law makes it much harder to lay off
your staff and rehire them as consultants than it is here in the U.S.
R's,
John