Cool.
That kind of goes hand-in-hand with Vint's Galactic
Internet theme.
- ferg
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
That kind of goes hand-in-hand with Vint's Galactic
Internet theme.
Uhhh... why does a dotcom need an Internet evangelist?
:-S
They're just collecting all the big brains, putting them in big glass jars
so nobody else can have them...
-joe
Well duh, they can auction them off on ebay later.
Joe McGuckin wrote:
me thinks joe has been watching too many 'Futurama' re-runs on 'cartoon
network'...
He meets the requirement of having a Phd. Google must have hired some
regular grad/undergrad and they needed another Phd to keep their ratio
up.
-Jim P.
His name has never "hurt" a companies stock price. Remember MCI--Um,
Worldcom. Remembering.. Um lost a ton of money... just remember. First time
I have noticed Google do anything so blatant. Time to sell Google? Are they
spending money on figure heads?
Regards,
Mark D. Bodley
Managing Partner
Cyrix Systems
800-722-0589
m@cyrixsys.com
www.cyrixsys.com
So he can be an *INTERNET* evangelist, not a "one company's vision of the net"
evangelist?
ObNANOG: Anybody here who *didn't* have a monoculture-created meltdown with Nachi?
PhD? Permanent head Damage?
just kidding. ^.^
Hyun
Jim Popovitch wrote:
To call for the assassination of certain other heads of companies?
(no, don't bother, I know, ok?)
Others don't. May I suggest light reading on this topic:
  http://news.com.com/Court+docs+Ballmer+vowed+to+kill+Google/2100-1014_3-5846243.html
of course this all comes because this poor company is itself being...:
  http://www.techworld.com/networking/news/index.cfm?NewsID=4359
and not only by China but it seems by Europe is "f***ing" its plans as well:
  http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2142044/microsoft-sues-eu-software
[sorry for being somewhat political again; flame away, just preferably
  in private or our distinguished mail list "admins" might get upset]
Dr. Cerf is still well in possession of his enormous faculties and has an excellent grasp of both business and technical issues. He is an asset to any company he joins.
Figure Head? Possibly. But certainly not an empty one.
I was thinking yesterday that IPv6 evangelization is a good reason,
specially when recalling that Google asked for a prefix some time ago
(http://www.ipv6tf.org/news/newsroom.php?id=1001) and something is probably
being baked there ?
Today is even more clear 
Interview: Cerf Discusses His Jump To Google
http://www.ipv6tf.org/news/newsroom.php?id=1398
Regards,
Jordi
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
His name has never "hurt" a companies stock price. Remember MCI--Um,
Worldcom. Remembering.. Um lost a ton of money... just remember. First time
I have noticed Google do anything so blatant. Time to sell Google? Are they
spending money on figure heads?Dr. Cerf is still well in possession of his enormous faculties and has an excellent grasp of both business and technical issues. He is an asset to any company he joins.
Figure Head? Possibly. But certainly not an empty one.
I'm not so sure he still up to it. His performance as ICANN chairman
is not exactly stellar...
mmhmm, someone's been watching too much Futurama, eh?
I'm sure there are a lot of ways Dr. Cerf could benefit the company. I
guess I'm a little surprised that they hired him outright and just didn't
give him a seat on the board of directors.
So is the idea that Google adopts IPv6 and then, seeing that a large,
well-trafficked(sp?) website is actually using the technology, lots of
service providers and smaller sites follow suit?
How widespread *is* IPv6 adoption, anyhow?
Why is that surprising? How much *actual* authority does the average
C-level exec have in an organization? How much *actual* authority does the
average member of the BoD have?
In general, figureheads go on the BoD. To actually *do* something, you hire
somebody competent, and give them a goal, authority, and resources, and stand
back.
Getting back on-topic - how can this be? I thought only service providers
(with downstream customers) could get PI v6 space. Isn't this what policy
proposal 2005-1 is about? Can someone (from ARIN?) explain the current
policy?
- Daniel Golding
Its my understanding that large company (or large university) can
become LIR too - they'd have to show that they have complex network
infrastructure with multiple semi-independent departments and/or subsidiaries with main company's IT department serving as network
provider for those units.
However there is a difference between company becoming LIR and becoming member of ARIN and paying annual membership fee (based on network size) and company applying for single IPv6 assignment (as per 2005-1) and not having to pay membership fee then (only one-time fee for assignment) and not being able to participate at ARIN as a member.