Bill and all,
Good points here Bill, I couldn't agree more with your assesment.
Bill Lovell wrote:
At 06:25 PM 1/21/99 -0400, you wrote:
* * *
** 1/19/99:
"ICANN is not a governance institution,
but a narrowly focused technical body charged with certain policymaking
and coordination
Antony and all,
Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Mikki
> Barry
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 9:35 PM
> To: IFWP Discussion List
> Subject: [ifwp] Re: DNSO Important update: The "Merged" Draft
>
>
> >
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
Alex and all,
Taking what you can get isn't good enough in these public matters,
as you should well know.
I do well know. I was just thanking Jay for letting us know at least
something that went on.
It's only satisfactory if ALL of what
Jeff,
FIrst of all how can you determine if a particular company has common
set of standards if there are no industry wide excepted set of standards to
judge any other companies set of standards?
Because the AIP's ACAC Council is determining those standards. We've brought
the top
Andrew and all,
Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP, Executive Director wrote:
Jeff,
FIrst of all how can you determine if a particular company has common
set of standards if there are no industry wide excepted set of standards to
judge any other companies set of standards?
Because the AIP's ACAC
From yesterday's domain names meeting are available on realvideo on the
WITSA web site at http://www.witsa.org/press/domain.htm
Jon Englund
__
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward
At 12:35 AM 1/24/99 +0800, you wrote:
it isn't often that a statement invalidates itself.
Yes it is. It happens every time a post is signed:
d/
--
"That's why there is a Protocol SO. To decide what the next
number after 16 is." - Dixon (tinc)
More grist for the mill
--
Michael Dillon - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Check the website for my Internet World articles - http://www.memra.com
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:00:25 -0800
From: JC Dill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Richard J. Sexton" wrote:
At 04:26 PM 1/22/99 -0500, Dan Steinverg wrote:
"Richard J. Sexton" wrote:
At 10:13 AM 1/22/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
If one takes the view that one must only send what everyone is assured of
being able to process, then we will never have any upgrades.
At 09:11 PM 1/22/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 02:20 PM 1/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
As for Mr. Lovell's comments on NSI, I have repeatedly stated that NSI's
dispute resolution proceeding works an injustice because it performs no
likelihood of confusion analysis. It does not have the expertise
At 01:57 PM 1/23/99 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
Show me a mailing list where postng in only HTML is accepted and I'll believe you.
I'm on about 40 of them (about 300 messages/day on the aggregate).
Surprisingly, there are no dinosaurs on them. Seems like doctors,
lawyers, speedskaters,
At 01:57 PM 1/23/99 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
"Richard J. Sexton" wrote:
At 04:26 PM 1/22/99 -0500, Dan Steinverg wrote:
"Richard J. Sexton" wrote:
At 10:13 AM 1/22/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
If one takes the view that one must only send what everyone is
assured of
being able to
Excessive CC's to people who probably couldn't care less have been removed.
On 23-Jan-99 jeff Williams wrote:
A! But yet you have a DNSO Draft proposal! Interesting. Was there
any participation by the "Interested Parties" as required in the White Paper
in an open and transparent
Anthony:
I will correct your factual errors, and hope that they are honest mistakes.
Antony Van Couvering wrote:
NSI's numbers talk about how many cases go to court. Not sufficient.
Wrong again. NSI's numbers have nothing to do with how many cases go tocourt.
NSI's numbers are a complete
All,
William is exactly accurate in his comment regarding Kent Crispin and
Amadeu. They are both long term and continued supporters of the
"Capture" attempt of the DNS system by CORE and the gTLD-MoU.
With Kent Crisping being PAB chair. Their one sided agenda
is well documented and when the
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Darrell Greenwood wrote:
[Dixon, writing about a larger vs smaller ICANN membership:]
I don't know if ICANN would be wiser. It would certainly have more
credibility. But the problem of verifying the identity of members
becomes more complex with increasing membership.
Jim and all,
Jim Dixon wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Darrell Greenwood wrote:
[Dixon, writing about a larger vs smaller ICANN membership:]
> >I don't know if ICANN would be wiser. It would certainly have
more
> >credibility. But the problem of verifying the identity of
members
> >becomes more
This is simply not true. In most societies there are real, physical
people and then there are artificial persons, corporations. The
existence of the latter is much easier to verify than the existence
of the former.
I personally find it very easy to look at a person and say "you are a real
18 matches
Mail list logo
