At 11:59 24/02/99 -0800, Gregbo wrote:
What is your point here? I never said that non-profit = saintly.
Let's get real here. Someone is going to "profit" from any decision
that is made by any "body", whether it be a group of researchers, an
elected board, an appointed board, a group of
US$50 per day with up to US$150(march 2, 4, 5).
the price includes lunch.
in singapore, renting a room costs same regardless of having meals such as
lunch, and we follow the local custom.
all manpower resources are subsidized by AP community, and we came to US$50
PER DAY. is it too expensive?
Milton Mueller wrote:
From the article:
"Since PGMedia filed its suit, however, the Internet landscape has
changed drastically, throwing a monkey wrench into an
already-complicated lawsuit. Last fall, the National Science
Foundation passed responsibility for the Internet to Commerce
Greg,
The genie is out of the bottle. We are going to have to find some
way to deal with the legal issues of naming network resources now.
I disagree: the legal issues are legal issues, not yours or mine or
ICANNs.
That means they are up to good and worthy individuals who try to
apply
To clarify, ICANN is not charging anything for the open meeting on 3 March.
(Register for free at http://www.apng.org/apricot99/apstar.html.)But
most ICANN meeting participants are also participating in APRICOT'99, for
which there is a registration fee.
-Molly Shaffer Van Houweling
ICANN
To all interested and concerned,
Today's conference concentrated mainly on the ICANN "Accreditation
Guidelines", and the WIPO RFC-3. The meeting agenda to the
INEG campus at different available conference rooms and auditorium.
The work groups were comprised of the following:
Supporting
I apologize Kilnam for jumping to the same conclusion that Joop came
to -- That selective notification of a pulic meeting was hapening yet
again!
So, as you see, it is much more reasonable when posting this kind of
message to visibly cross post it to avoid causing people to suspect
ill will.
Guys,
Can we PLEASE stop whining?!?
I am afraid this kind of reminder is insufficient.
Molly Shaffer Van Houweling wrote:
I should have made it clearer that my recent message was just a reminder.
The comment mechanism was originally announced on Feb. 8.
We all knew when and where
At 03:02 AM 2/24/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
ICANN has been a difficult issue only because of the gTLD turmoil. All of
the other issues you name were not problems that needed solving. The gTLD
turmoil has been built up nicely to create confusion and concern in the
other areas, though none
Stef,
You wrote:
I apologize Kilnam for jumping to the same conclusion that Joop came
to -- That selective notification of a pulic meeting was hapening yet
again!
So, as you see, it is much more reasonable when posting this kind of
message to visibly cross post it to avoid causing people
Chon,
You wrote:
snip. is it too expensive? if so, we need to find sponsors to
subsidize
further like Washington Meeting.
I have developed a deep mistrust for the last minute's sponsors in this
domain.
Please remember that the balance of the first IFWP conference in Reston is
still
At 18:26 24/02/99 -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
There are a lot of balls in the air which, when they land, will determine
the future of the DNS. For example, look at the dizzy schedule of meetings
and issues before us right now:
* ICANN's annointment of a domain name supporting organization
*
I have to take issue with the good doctor's statement. In order to do
that I have to deal with the substance (much easier than finding some
subjective test of whether I am a whiner). The substance requries
specifics on each one. I will bore the list with only one teeny tiny
example, but rest
Name.Space wrote:
Milton Mueller wrote:
From the article:
"Since PGMedia filed its suit, however, the Internet landscape has
changed drastically, throwing a monkey wrench into an
already-complicated lawsuit. Last fall, the National Science
Foundation passed responsibility for
On pain of possibly encountering a severe case of regrets, I have to
agree with Dave that:
"There is only quietly shunning" and
"This [behavior] will only change when such
contributions are ignored, thoroughly and permanently."
Dave and I together have proven
I fully agree with Dan and Ellen, and I propose that someone collect
all these process comments toether and grop them as a digest into all
the ICANN comments lists.
I take the clear implication that this is designed to disable all
useful discussion and comment. I also assume that all those
Stef and all,
Well if you feel this way why not just shun ICANN as well? That seems
to be your answer to something that you don't agree with in most cases,
why should ICANN be any exception? Or is there possibly another
motive?
Einar Stefferud wrote:
I fully agree with Dan and Ellen, and
John:
What you think of PGMedia's specific proposals does not really matter. What is
at issue in the lawsuit is the principle of non-discriminatory access to the
root. An antitrust lawsuit is not a substitute for a new system of root
administration. But it can establish the legal principles upon
As you can see from the letter below, WITSA and ITAA are lobbying
their members to support the BMW proposal. In the process, they are
telling untruths about the alternative, Paris draft proposal. Ms.
O'Neill below implies that the Paris draft proposal was signed *only*
by NSI and ORSC. She does
You asked why shared registry advocates don't support PGMedia. I replied to
that question. The substance of PGMedia's proposals is entirely relevant
(in fact, crucial) to that issue.
As for the lawsuit, a PGMedia victory would not establish "the principle of
non-discriminatory access to the
I fully agree with Dan and Ellen, and I propose that someone collect
all these process comments toether and grop them as a digest into all
the ICANN comments lists.
I'll be gone until late afternoon (flying to Texas to attend the Dallas
conferece g and if you believe that, then you know donkeys
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 06:45:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave,
Please name any antagonists that NSI funded to the process.
Is an antagonist someone who disagrees with you?
Adam Todd and Richard Sexton have both publically stated that NSI
funded their travel expenses. Both have
Ellen,
1. Finally got your book today. Congratulations, its comprehensive. You must
be hard at work on 2nd Ed. :-)
2. I agree that the interim board is not qualified to impose these sorts of
requirements on Registrars. It is difficult to see exactly what the board
has done at all and what a
Ellen and all,
Ellen Rony wrote:
I fully agree with Dan and Ellen, and I propose that someone collect
all these process comments toether and grop them as a digest into all
the ICANN comments lists.
I'll be gone until late afternoon (flying to Texas to attend the Dallas
conferece g and
At 2/25/99, 03:16 AM, Einar Stefferud wrote:
I fully agree with Dan and Ellen, and I propose that someone collect
all these process comments toether and grop them as a digest into all
the ICANN comments lists.
I like this idea ;-)
Richard, can we submit an archive of the
IFWP and ORSC lists
At 12:01 AM -0800 2/25/99, Einar Stefferud wrote:
On pain of possibly encountering a severe case of regrets, I have to
agree with Dave that:
I find it extremely ironic that you would side with Dave Crocker in
silencing alternative ideas and contributions. It is he and the rest of the
dreaded
Kent and all,
You still did not answer Chucks question... But than again you likely
did not understand it either
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 06:45:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave,
Please name any antagonists that NSI funded to the process.
Is an
Jon,
To be completely clear to your members, you should also want to mention that
the amendments to the Paris Draft, which are supported by NSI, AIP and most
of the other supporters, and have been objected to (ie, most are fine either
way) by ANY of the supporters, are now "official". The
At 12:07 PM 2/25/99 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
At 2/25/99, 03:16 AM, Einar Stefferud wrote:
I fully agree with Dan and Ellen, and I propose that someone collect
all these process comments toether and grop them as a digest into all
the ICANN comments lists.
I like this idea ;-)
Richard, can we
Franky and all,
This is one demonstrations of the mindset that "if you don't
agree
with me than you are wrong and a DIRTY #%^*$#*", or
"if you don't
follow blindly than we shall pan and brand you a something or other".
Hay, but I am sure with you on being long on NSOL stock!
>;)
Frank Rizzo
Roberto Gaetano a écrit:
Chon,
You wrote:
snip. is it too expensive? if so, we need to find sponsors to
subsidize
further like Washington Meeting.
I have developed a deep mistrust for the last minute's sponsors in this
domain.
Please remember that the balance of the
Joop Teernstra a écrit:
Even in Singapore the critical meetings on the DNSO application and the
ICANN membership are scheduled on THE SAME DAY in different locations.
Supporters of the principles of the Paris Draft, who also want to have
input in the ICANN membership meeting will be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
The genie is out of the bottle. We are going to have to find some
way to deal with the legal issues of naming network resources now.
I disagree: the legal issues are legal issues, not yours or mine or
ICANNs.
I think you
Molly Shaffer Van Houweling a écrit:
To clarify, ICANN is not charging anything for the open meeting on 3 March.
(Register for free at http://www.apng.org/apricot99/apstar.html.)But
most ICANN meeting participants are also participating in APRICOT'99, for
which there is a registration
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 12:14:40PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kent,
Is your definition of an antagonist one who does not support ICANN?
The precise definition of "antagonist" is completely unimportant.
The real issue is that NSI, a government contractor, has funded
participation of
I don't think this is correct. If PGMedia can sue and win, then any other TLD
operator would have a legitimate claim to do likewise. Therefore, it is the
principle that is at stake rather than the specific proposals of an individual
business. Is there an antitrust lawyer in the house?
--MM
John
I agree with your totally. The irony was intended. Cheers...\Stef
From your message Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:16:03 -0800:
}
}At 12:01 AM -0800 2/25/99, Einar Stefferud wrote:
}On pain of possibly encountering a severe case of regrets, I have to
}agree with Dave that:
}
}I find it extremely ironic
Hello Chuck and all --
I have been no less harsh in criticism of NSI policies and operations
than of ICANN polices and operations, or of IAHC/CORE policies and
operations.
I have accepted travel exepense support from NSI ($800+) to attend the
ICANN Boston "open" Meeting, and also support from
There was nothing under the table. There was nothing
unethical. They were contributors to the process who did
not have funding. The fact that they were not quite so one
sided in their views as you is another issue.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[EMAIL
In the event of a PGMedia victory, anyone wanting to operate .web or any of
the 515 other TLDs claimed by PGMedia would have to overturn existing
precedent.
Milton Mueller wrote:
I don't think this is correct. If PGMedia can sue and win, then
any other TLD
operator would have a legitimate
Milton wrote:
As you can see from the letter below, WITSA and ITAA are lobbying
their members to support the BMW proposal. In the process, they are
telling untruths about the alternative, Paris draft proposal. Ms.
O'Neill below implies that the Paris draft proposal was signed *only*
by NSI and
Milton: How about getting a hold of this "new" memo and posting it for all
to see?
trust and all that stuff..
From: "Sheila O'Neill" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Just talked with sheilla oneil Re: [IFWP] dnso.org lobbying t
actics
Date:
Jim Dixon wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Milton Mueller wrote:
I don't know if this is good or bad, but I continue to be amazed at the
small-time nature of corporate participation in these developments.
A US telecom carrier spent more than $5 million on a statewide campaign to
reduce
Telage, Don wrote:
NSI is a member of ITAA and inexplicably did not get Ms.
O'Niell's distorted
and outrageous invitation to endorse BMW! I'm hopelessly
disappointed in
those engaged in this sham activity. Do you have no self
respect? Don
Telage
Dear Joop,
ICANN has the difficult job of determining voter qualifications. Some
people are qualified, others aren't. In my country 500,000 people lost
their lives in a civil war over who can and who can't vote.
I'm suggesting ICANN maintain a Certification process that accepts ICANN
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
ICANN has been a difficult issue only because of the gTLD turmoil. All of
the other issues you name were not problems that needed solving. The gTLD
**
turmoil has been
Nope. That depends on the specific content of the judge's decision. You are
assuming, once again, that a pgmedia victory means that the judge simply
ratifies pgmedia's specific proposed way of doing things. That is not how
antitrust cases work, generally.
For example, if the DOJ "wins" its case
Gordon Cook wrote:
when I informed her that DNRC, AIP, Center, and 20 CC administrators had
also signed the 'other draft' she wanted to know when. I said it was at
the end of the meeting in paris that produced what is known as the Paris
draft. she said she was unaware of the Paris draft
Who has funded Kent Crispin's peripatetic travel schedule? (No, it isn't
Kent's piggybank) Who has funded the presence of a certain PAB/POC person
at every one of the WIPO hearings? Who funded the ITU's participation in
gTLD-MoU? Who has funded Don Heath's movements about the planet? Is there
any
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 04:58:45PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
Gordon Cook wrote:
when I informed her that DNRC, AIP, Center, and 20 CC administrators had
**
This is, of course, incorrect. CENTR has not signed the Paris draft.
(Nor has
At 05:13 PM 2/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
As one of the lawyers who participated in the representation of MTV in that
case, I would say that that particular genie was let out of the bottle the
day Adam Curry registered mtv.com in his own name and began promoting a
I would rather you go to the Southern District's warehouse in Kearny, NJ
and actually read the record in this case before you presume to lecture us
on what the facts really were.
At 05:13 PM 2/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
As one of the lawyers who participated in
My message never mentioned CENTR, or Center. Nice try, Kent.
--MM
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 04:58:45PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
Gordon Cook wrote:
when I informed her that DNRC, AIP, Center, and 20 CC administrators had
On 25-Feb-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
This is, of course, incorrect. CENTR has not signed the Paris draft.
(Nor has anyone named "Center".)
Gordan said that, not Milton.
--
E-Mail: William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25-Feb-99
Time: 15:53:52
For those of you planning to participate remotely in the Singapore Open
Board Meeting and/or in the Membership Open Meeting, here's an update on
where we stand.
Regarding the times of the meeting: The Open Board Meeting will take place
on March 3 from 9:00AM to 5:30PM Singapore time. In GMT,
1999.02.26
Singapore DNSO Meeting Schedule and Agenda
Place: 2nd Floor, SICEC, Suntec City, Downtown Singapore
1999.3.2 08:00 - 18:00 Chair: David Maher/Antony van Couvering
Presentation of 2 draft
Either the Paris Draft or the BMW draft is the better draft and an as-yet
unwritten draft may be better than both.
Among the issues irrelevant to determining that isse are: who signed those
drafts, what an employee of WITSA told that organization's members, who
wrote the word Center in his post
Greg and all,
Interesting that you and others are just now coming to this conclusion.
I came to this conclusion more than two years ago. The McDonalds case
was one my deciding factors as I recall. i have posted these thoughts
several times. The idea that WIPO and its ADR's or RFC-3 proposal
On 26-Feb-99 Bob Allisat wrote:
= That's a good one Bob.
Thank you. I don't think we have ever met in
person. Nor have I met any of the various and
sundry parties to this debate. I would like to
have that opportunity one day. And to perhaps
As would I.
demonstrate that a
Chuck, Don and all,
Are you suprised Don? You shouldn't be. We are sure not! This has
been the sort of tactics that the DNSO.ORG has been employing from
the very start, and to some extent with ICANN's help as well I
wonder
if the ITAA is employing the same PR firm ICANN is?
[EMAIL
jeff Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting that you and others are just now coming to this conclusion.
I came to this conclusion more than two years ago.
Actually, I came to this conclusion when I first heard of the mtv.com
case. It was posted to misc.legal.moderated about five years
Milton and all,
Milton is exactly correct here. Anyone with even a moicrum of legal
knowledge would know this without question. I guess the John
is the exception here.
What the judges ruling might be could cover wide gambit or range
of solutions, including allowance for any of those
OK Kent -- I have laid out all my support for other sources.
There was then and is now, nothing going on under the table on my side
of this discussion. I and ORSC specialize in working in the open, and
I must say that I find that we have been able to contribute vastly
more to the cause of
I think it woudl be just fine if you, Kent, would stop putting words
my my mouth, and trying to speak for ORSC;-)...
First, I assure you that this is not a joke;-)...
I in fact am seriously opposed to a lot of NSI policies and I am
working toward moving to a different TLD, in part to be free of
Stef said: I think it woudl be just fine if you, Kent, would stop putting words
my my mouth, and trying to speak for ORSC;-)...
First, I assure you that this is not a joke;-)...
I in fact am seriously opposed to a lot of NSI policies and I am
working toward moving to a different TLD, in part to
Stef and all,
If you do oppose the ICANN Accreditation Guideline proposal, why
have you not posted that in specific terms to the ICANN on their
relevant list than Stef?
Einar Stefferud wrote:
I think it woudl be just fine if you, Kent, would stop putting words
my my mouth, and trying to
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:05:32 -0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Page)
Subject: RE: [IFWP] NSI payments Adam Todd and Richard Sexton
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David, you want to know what this is all about? If you didn't know this
already, remember the source of Kent's
I would rather you go to the Southern District's warehouse in Kearny, NJ
and actually read the record in this case before you presume to lecture us
on what the facts really were.
In truth, Milton's account is exactly on track with that Adam Curry told me
directly.
At 05:13 PM 2/25/99 -0500,
IFWP Working Group K Miller
Internet-Draft 25 Feb 1999
A Zero-level Domain
Status of this document:
"This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
Hello Kent -- If the words you are using (yours, not ours) are
"completely unimportant" (your words, not ours), then why do you
publish them in the first place.
Shall we also assume that your use of the words "private control of
TLDs" is also completely unimportant?
Cheers...\Stef
From your
Kent Crispin said:
Not so. The fact is that there are many people like me in the
IAHC/POC/CORE arena that fund this activity entirely on their own
dime -- sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. The CORE registrars
have a monetary stake in this, it is true. But the IAHC/POC is
composed of
At 08:40 AM 2/26/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
NSI chose to fund people who are vigorous opponents to proposals on the
table.
I'm a little confused here Dave, NSI sent me to Singapore and Geneva;
what proposal on the table was I antagonistic of? Jon's plan ?
Would if be fair to say you wre
72 matches
Mail list logo
