At 10:45 PM 1/11/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
More of my bad memory again, shoot. Also, I have key sigs that are
that
painful, I'm glad that I'm a guitarist, not a keyboard player.
So are we.
Richard Sexton
Soprano Sax.
If and when we have another F2F meeting, we should bring
All,
If anyone believes that they are being harmed by lack of action or
incorrect action by the NTIA or any other USG agency they can surely seek
a legal remedy as required by law. If those parties are NOT willing
to do so, than either they cannot make this case, or are not willing to
take
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 1999 at 11:36:34AM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
At last, an intelligent comment! Thank you!
[...]
A question: What in your opinion would constitute demonstration of "legal
identity" keeping in mind the global nature of the
Jonathan Zittrain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
from exercising their rights to participate, is a serious problem. My
question: what do you see as the best online architecture for open
discussion on contentious issues that doesn't have a small minority of the
stakeholders de facto dominating the
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Greg Skinner wrote:
Much of the fighting is over ICANN itself, and comes from the fact that
ICANN operates in secret. A good deal of the fighting is in fact a
form of speculation: people are arguing over different interpretations
of ICANN's intent, or what today's
Chris,
Did I mention that I play keyboards and drums?
No, but I suspected that seeing your post on the rythm.
Roeland wrote:
It looks like we have the makings of the "Internet Blues/Jazz Band". When
do we rehearse?
We could try to do something over the Net, but I'm afraid that this is
At 11:50 PM 1/11/99 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
It looks like we have the makings of the "Internet Blues/Jazz Band". When
do we rehearse?
Chameleon for an encore?
I was actually thinking of "Mac the Knife". grin
___
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
Roeland and all,
Why don't you guys take this musical stuff offlist, ok? ;)
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
At 11:50 PM 1/11/99 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
It looks like we have the makings of the "Internet Blues/Jazz Band". When
do we rehearse?
Chameleon for an encore?
I was
At 10:55 PM 1/11/99 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
At 10:45 PM 1/11/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
More of my bad memory again, shoot. Also, I have key sigs that are
that
painful, I'm glad that I'm a guitarist, not a keyboard player.
So are we.
Richard Sexton
Soprano Sax.
If and
Then again, I also think that this DNSO will accomplish nothing, as it
will never resolve the issues and ICANN will have to decide anyway.
All it does is provide a forum for *future* issues. In the meantime, it
merely wastes another year.
You are probably right. But, what can we do? We have
On Sun, Jan 10, 1999 at 11:36:34AM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
At last, an intelligent comment! Thank you!
[...]
A question: What in your opinion would constitute demonstration of "legal
identity" keeping in mind the global nature of the organization?
A very good question.
Remember
I dunno, but I'm planning on showing up with my touring rig. If it's
not open, I'll file suit in the appropriate jurisdiction and venue
(probably where I an refused entry g).
For an encore, plan on playing "Take Five" in all keys. The ability
to do same can be used as technical criteria for
Dr Eberhard W Lisse and all,
You should know by now that this is a typical attitude often displayed by
Kent Crispin. He has displayed this attitude many many times in his
weak but snide attempt to discredit or otherwise smear people. Most
of us that have experience with Kents tactics are
At 04:06 AM 1/12/99 +, jeff Williams wrote:
Roeland and all,
Why don't you guys take this musical stuff offlist, ok?
Everyones a critic :-) You'd think he'd heard us play or something...
--
"To find out what your opponent is up to, look at what he
says about you" - unknown
actually chris changed his name a few years back from "joe morello" to chris
ambler to
avoid people bothering him all the time asking him to autograph their
cymbals..
mmm.. maybe paul desmond lives close by the d.c. area as well ( i am
assuming he is still alive...?)
a little smooth alto sax is
Patrick,
You wrote:
The only persons I have
heard defending this position has been the ICANN board itself, IBM(in
Boston), and perhaps some of the other "unamed third parties" that the
ICANN board has been meeting with who will not self identify.
Without being one of the
At 07:41 AM 1/12/99 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:
mmm.. maybe paul desmond lives close by the d.c. area as well ( i am
assuming he is still alive...?)
He died a long time ago of lung cancer.
a little smooth alto sax is very soothing for the soul..
Any sax is good sax.
--
"To find out what your
Whats the saying ? 'The sheer length of this document will prevent anybody
from eevr reading it' ?
Please trim included material to a minimum. It's the only polite
thing to do.
At 02:36 AM 1/12/99 -0500, Ronda Hauben wrote:
Jonathan Zittrain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
from exercising their
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
At 10:45 PM 1/11/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
More of my bad memory again, shoot. Also, I have key sigs that are that
painful, I'm glad that I'm a guitarist, not a keyboard player.
So are we.
Richard Sexton
Soprano Sax.
Roeland wrote:
It looks like we have the makings of the "Internet Blues/Jazz Band". When
do we rehearse?
Actually, there is some precedent for the emergence of a musical group out
of the oooze of common professional involvement. In the 70's, financial
investors formed a group called "Full
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Ellen Rony wrote:
Roeland wrote:
It looks like we have the makings of the "Internet Blues/Jazz Band". When
do we rehearse?
Actually, there is some precedent for the emergence of a musical group out
of the oooze of common professional involvement. In the 70's,
Well, there is the MBone band - Severe Tire Damage.
And don't forget my own band - Petz on Prozac.
--karl--
__
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Christopher Ambler wrote:
Exactly. But it has been argued over, and will continue to be argued over.
Nevertheless, it seems that the only way to circumvent the problem is to
have an individual membership structure a la Karl Auerbach, and this, of
course, neither the
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
All,
If anyone believes that they are being harmed by lack of action or
incorrect action by the NTIA or any other USG agency they can surely seek
a legal remedy as required by law. If those parties are NOT willing
to do so, than either they
Ms Burr:
I must protest this proposed teleconference (see below) with "ORSC
folks". This is a matter some importance, and of wide interest to
many people. Privileged, closed access for the ORSC is simply not
fair to all these other interested parties, and is in fact completely
at odds with
Patrick and all,
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
All,
If anyone believes that they are being harmed by lack of action or
incorrect action by the NTIA or any other USG agency they can surely seek
a legal remedy as required by law. If those
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
In case anyone has any doubt or is wondering, there is no such
organization, and what Mr. Williams says is completely untrue.
No, INEGroup is not a corporation, I should have stated this better
for accuracy. Please replace INEGroup with INEG.
At 08:59 AM 1/12/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) I can't for the life of me imagine why a server at Berkman
wuld be "hard to configure to". Sounds like pilot error to me
but I note you have no problems handling mailing lists.
If you're behind a firewall
Hi Stef,
What you describe is a *best* case scenario.
I suspect that this contract is the first transfer
of assets from the USG to ICANN. Unless this contract
states otherwise, I doubt that the USG is planning on
retaining any control over these ISI functions.
If I am correct, ICANN will
At 09:36 AM 1/12/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
Ms Burr:
I must protest this proposed teleconference (see below) with "ORSC
folks". This is a matter some importance, and of wide interest to
many people. Privileged, closed access for the ORSC is simply not
fair to all these other interested
Kent and all,
Good for the goose, but not for the gander, eh Kent? Practice what you
preach, and maybe this sort of thing will not be necessary. I am
certainly not condoning this sort of thing, just reminding you and the
DNSO.ORG as well as the ICANN, that you reap what you sew.
Kent
Patrick and all,
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
Patrick and all,
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
Roberto and all,
I checked out the reference that you provided for the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It
Alex and all,
Alex Kamantauskas wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
In case anyone has any doubt or is wondering, there is no such
organization, and what Mr. Williams says is completely untrue.
No, INEGroup is not a corporation, I should have stated this better
for
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
for accuracy. Please replace INEGroup with INEG. INC. LTD.
In case anyone has any doubt or is wondering, there is no such
organization, and what Mr. Williams says is completely untrue.
This is patently incorrect as Alex is well aware
Please note that Kent is being obstructive.
He wants to limit all communications, with DoC, to DNSO.ORG and ICANN. This
is unacceptable.
He is a very disengenious fellow. He knows very well that ORSC operates
under exparte rules, under these types of circumstances. He knows very well
the
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 01:05:27PM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
At 09:36 AM 1/12/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
Ms Burr:
I must protest this proposed teleconference (see below) with "ORSC
folks". This is a matter some importance, and of wide interest to
many people. Privileged,
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
The for sure right answer is that ORSC should be treated like
everyone else. That probably means that ORSC should not be talking
to DoC.
Have you considered asking to speak with the DoC Kent?
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 10:44:14AM -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
In light of the past few days of comments, let's just shine a mirror on
your message, with a few words replaced (see caps)
My comment was itself intended as a mirror of many comments. I
guess I was a bit too subtle.
That being
I think jays cynicism is well founded. I am also in the middle of
research that challenges Roelands analysis which i clipped from this reply.
Hi Stef,
What you describe is a *best* case scenario.
I suspect that this contract is the first transfer
of assets from the USG to ICANN. Unless
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 10:46:08AM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
The for sure right answer is that ORSC should be treated like
everyone else. That probably means that ORSC should not be talking
to DoC.
Have you considered asking to speak
What would be examples of entities or individuals who would fall under the
At Large constituency?
__
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To
Alex and all,
Alex, Alex, Alex, please for the sake of all of us take you medication.
Alex Kamantauskas wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
for accuracy. Please replace INEGroup with INEG. INC. LTD.
In case anyone has any doubt or is wondering, there is no such
At 10:18 AM 1/12/99 -0800, you wrote:
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't buy it. Dejanews takes all groups and make sthem available
over the web. If they aren't maing a group available, just ask them
to add it, If the don't respond, let me know and I'l pull in a
favour.
The server at
At 08:46 PM 1/11/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
Richard J. Sexton a écrit:
At 07:19 PM 1/11/99 -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
p.s. the present draft allows an entity to belong to as many groups as it
meets the qualifications for (and pays the fees for).
What's that called? The
Kent and all,
Do you realize how inane you sound here Kent? If not, you should.
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 01:05:27PM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
At 09:36 AM 1/12/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
Ms Burr:
I must protest this proposed teleconference (see below)
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
Alex and all,
Alex, Alex, Alex, please for the sake of all of us take you medication.
And Jeff Williams spake:
"And Patrick, you also might want to refrain from making false claims
about people in the future as this is also a destabilizing
On the other hand, the Jan 21 meeting is a prepratory meeting for an
immediately following PUBLIC meeting, and includes a *great many*
stakeholders from many really different constituencies.
Sounds like a re-incarnation of the IFWP so-called "steering-committee".
(In fact, it looks like
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 02:36:04PM -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
What would be examples of entities or individuals who would fall under the
At Large constituency?
Me/Songbird(r), any freelance web developer/internet consultant, eg
Dave Crocker.
San Francisco Bay Area chapter of ISOC
A
William and all,
I see that you have noticed the repeat in history a la IAHC/PAB/POC/gTLD-MoU.
It is interesting how the mindsets of some never seem to change, as well
as their attitudes. Good work here William! ;) Seriously.
William X. Walsh wrote:
I know what you *say* you stand for.
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 11:56:51AM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
Have you considered asking to speak with the DoC Kent?
No, because it is an obviously untenable position. NTIA doesn't have
the resources to have a private telecon (with or without
transcriptions) with anyone who
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 12:34:12PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
On the other hand, the Jan 21 meeting is a prepratory meeting for an
immediately following PUBLIC meeting, and includes a *great many*
stakeholders from many really different constituencies.
Sounds like a re-incarnation
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
I am suprised that you would make assertions regarding the resources
available to NTIA. If I might ask, how do you know with any certainty
rather NTIA has the necessary resources or not?
I have been independently told their resources are
Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Greg Skinner wrote:
But the fighting existed even back in the IAHC days.
Not the fighting over ICANN.
The point I was trying to make is that you can subsitute IAHC or Jon
Postel for ICANN and you get the same result.
ICANN is supposed
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 02:36:04PM -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
What would be examples of entities or individuals who would fall under the
At Large constituency?
Kent Crispin wrote:
Me/Songbird(r), any freelance web developer/internet consultant, eg
Dave Crocker.
San Francisco Bay
At 01:15 PM 1/12/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
Was ICANN selected by a secret process? From what I recall reading
some time back, several ICANN interim board members indicated they
were contacted by either Mike Roberts or Jon Postel and asked to
serve.
Esther Dysan was the first person to
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 02:36:04PM -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
What would be examples of entities or individuals who would fall under the
At Large constituency?
Interested individuals -- ... Karl Auerbach. ...
Putting me, or anyone into an "at large" class of membership is
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 01:31:14PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 02:36:04PM -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
What would be examples of entities or individuals who would fall under the
At Large constituency?
Interested individuals -- ... Karl Auerbach. ...
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 04:21:14PM -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
[...]
Interested individuals -- Elen Rony. Karl Auerbach. Dan Steinberg.
Marty Schwimmer. Dave Farber. Joop Teernstra. Milton Mueller.
Patrick Greenwell.
What if my firm belonged to one of the other
Hello Jay -- First, the proper IETF list for this topic is the
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and not the main IETF list!
Also, I trimmed the CC list of individuals.
Next, your questions are, I think, quite pertinent, and are deserving
of an answer. I expect someone will offer
Avtually, Kent, it is exactly opposite from an untenable position.
It's how they operate. They talk with people who want to talk to
them.
Private phone calls with anyone who asked was one of Ira Magaziner's
hallmarks. He talked to me (and many other people) as individuals
long before we
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 01:31:14PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 02:36:04PM -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
What would be examples of entities or individuals who would fall under the
At Large constituency?
Interested
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 04:21:14PM -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
[...]
Interested individuals -- Elen Rony. Karl Auerbach. Dan Steinberg.
Marty Schwimmer. Dave Farber. Joop Teernstra. Milton Mueller.
Patrick Greenwell.
What if my firm
At 02:01 PM 1/12/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 04:21:14PM -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
[...]
Interested individuals -- Elen Rony. Karl Auerbach. Dan Steinberg.
Marty Schwimmer. Dave Farber. Joop Teernstra. Milton Mueller.
Patrick Greenwell.
What if my
At 02:55 PM 1/12/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
Sometimes those not so versed in irony don't get it.
Sometimes, those of us who have real work to do, don't have the
time/patience for such "games".
I have always been a proponent of the direct approach. Say what you mean,
son. These little
Audience participation is Tuesday night. Always has been. Always
will be.
If the band doesn't play on Tuesdays that's management's fault. Not
ours. Don't blame the band. (learning to play in a few more keys
would be considered clueful, but there are at present no applicable
draft standards
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Esther Dysan was the first person to explain who contacted her
in a teleconferance with ORSC. She said she was apprached
by Ira and Roger Cochetti of IBM.
My fault. I went back in the archives and checked. Joe Sims and
Larry Landweber were also
Apologies for a completely non-substantive post, but I think it's
appropriate to clear up the apparent confusion about the contents of the
Berkman Center NNTP server.
Greg listed seven of the groups on our server. There are three more: we
also host NNTP archives of the MAC list ([EMAIL
At 05:26 PM 1/12/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Esther Dysan was the first person to explain who contacted her
in a teleconferance with ORSC. She said she was apprached
by Ira and Roger Cochetti of IBM.
My fault. I went back in the archives and
At 08:41 PM 1/12/99 -0500, Ben Edelman wrote:
Apologies for a completely non-substantive post, but I think it's
appropriate to clear up the apparent confusion about the contents of the
Berkman Center NNTP server.
Not only that but could you fix the time of day onthat machine, too please
Ben?
How about "Nameless" ?
If I were going, I'd carry my claves.
Craig
(another drummer)
Ellen Rony wrote:
Roeland wrote:
It looks like we have the makings of the "Internet Blues/Jazz Band". When
do we rehearse?
Actually, there is some precedent for the emergence of a musical
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 05:26 PM 1/12/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
Since the ICANN is (supposedly) an interim board, shouldn't we
(ie. folks on this list) be doing that anyway? So, what would all of
you do if there was no ICANN? More specificially, what if the USG
(and
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 10:36:10AM -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Please note that Kent is being obstructive.
He wants to limit all communications, with DoC, to DNSO.ORG and ICANN. This
is unacceptable.
Don't be silly. ICANN talks with DoC because ICANN has a contract
with them.
This discussion illustrates how arbitrary an attempt to populate a board
through designation of defined constituencies must be, not to mention how
ridiculously complicated such mechanisms end up. And, there is no way to
empirically weigh the relative fairness of the results of such systems.
Why
Have we given up on the "Special Interst Group" (SIG) model
that the ACM uses ? (ie, SIGGRAPH etc.)
At 10:17 PM 1/12/99 -0600, Eric Weisberg wrote:
This discussion illustrates how arbitrary an attempt to populate a board
through designation of defined constituencies must be, not to mention how
On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 10:08:40PM -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
Kent Crispin wrote:
A private attorney who didn't want to spend the money to be, or
didn't feel they fit, in one of the other constituencies -- eg, a
trademark attorney that didn't want to be part of the TM
constituency.
75 matches
Mail list logo
