Subject: Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

From: Greg Skinner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:12:21 -0700 (PDT)

Jon:

> personal comment
> Other classes of organisation may simply be providing a subset of
> internet services - I don't see a market or technical case for these
> and in fact would encourage regulatory bodies to see if these types of
> organisations are trying to achieve lock out or are engaged in
> other types of monopolistic or anti-competitive behaviour. :-)

If I'm understanding you correctly, there is clearly a market for such
organizations, otherwise they would not exist.  Whether or not there
is technical justification for what they do is a matter of opinion.
For reasons that have been beaten to death here and elsewhere, they
provide some function that is not met with the existing IPv4 service.

I could make the argument that they provide Internet access, in the
sense that one can use these providers to gain access to a subset of
content and services that is "traditionally" called Internet service.
I would support them being classified as Internet Access Providers
(IAPs).  In some circles, that's what they're called.

Masataka:

> I just want to make it illegal for these types of organisations call
> their service "Internet" or "internet".

> It's something like "Olympic".

How would you go about doing that?  What judicial organization is likely
to make an issue of this, in light of all the other (arguably more serious)
issues on their plates?

--gregbo

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 07:16:35 +0859 ()

Greg;

> (IAPs).  In some circles, that's what they're called.

Your points are taken that you can call them WASP (Web Access Service
Providers).

							Masakaka Ohta