Patrick and all,
Patrick Corliss wrote:
Hi Jeff
On Wed 10 May 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
Patrick, you need to learn to turn wrap on in your E-Mailer or don't
sent your response as an attachment.
Patrick Corliss wrote:
Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
Ok, all but 1.
On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 01:18:02PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
At 10:05 AM 4/4/00 -0700, you wrote:
http://offer.networksolutions.com/go/t1/surv1/
Note question 13.
Kinda begs the question "which has more validity, 30 or so people
ni working-group-C all with vested
Sombody should call Chad and get him to put IFWP's great product that
he looked at in his virtual mall.
At 05:17 PM 1/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 10 17:17:01 2000
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from worldmall.com (unknown
Bradley and all,
To be sure that again the record is straight it has bee Bradley amongst
a very few of his ilk/cohorts that are responsible for the partial damage
that they have tried to inflict on the IDNO. Bradley's use of the term
"JDNO" is a good example of his viciousness and misleading
All,
William Walsh has a long standing problem with FACTS. Of course
most of us know this already, so just take this post as a reminder...
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 11-Nov-99 Dinesh Nair wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
fair representations. As a matter of fact,
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Joop Teernstra wrote:
At 02:55 PM 10/11/1999 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
Liability for reposting a comment as moderator that violates some national
law.
The proposed civil discourse rules for the IDNO (www.idno.org/discuss.htm)
return the
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
With a web based Polling Booth (www.idno.org/vote1) this becomes possible.
This method is fundamentally flawed, in that it permits a simple majority of
those active and concerned enough to vote to oust anyone with whom they do not
approve of
Joe and all,
Good point here Joe, and quite sisinctly stated. We all know that
there has been much discussion on this point in the past. It may be that
further discussion on this PROCESS point is something that the ICANN
and the DNSO doesn't want to occur. If so, that seems rather odd
and
You wrote:
Well THANK GOD we were all hallucinating.
:-)
Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
Tel. (718)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
Well THANK GOD we were all hallucinating.
Just for the record, the assertions contained in the following
email with regard to statements I am alleged to have made are
completely without factual substance and do not represent my
views or the views of any ICANN person to the best of my
knowledge.
That's "libel", Ken, not "liable".
And thats "they're = they are", not "their", Joe.
Carry on the good work. You both make me proud.
At 09:50 PM 9/27/99 -0400, you wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Sep 27 21:50:56 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received:
does anyone know why the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list is not working? And who do I
contact.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 12:22:56 -0400
From: Ben Edelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ga list (fwd)
Check out www.dnso.org.
-Original
Joe and all,
Joe I have sent over 20 messages to the appropriate people and called
Esther Dyson regarding the DNSO Ga list not working properly for
over a month now. I see that it is still not working. My understanding
is the list operator is Elisabeth Porteneuve. I have cc'ed here on this
Thanks Jeff:
I guess enough people are being cc'ed on this problem - so someone may
take a moment to look into it.
If the list is not working, it's not my department, but it does not look
nice.
Cheers
Joe Baptista
--
Planet Communication Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public
Joe and all,
I think the fact that this problem (Minor) has existed for over
a month now shows lack of accountability and competence.
J. Baptista wrote:
Thanks Jeff:
I guess enough people are being cc'ed on this problem - so someone may
take a moment to look into it.
If the list is not
William and all,
Lets face it William, you don't approve of adult related information
on the internet at all. You have made that political statement on several
occasions over the past couple of years. So any web based business
that is possibly interested in the DNS business, you are not in
Thursday, August 26, 1999, 2:10:59 AM, Jeff Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William and all,
Lets face it William, you don't approve of adult related information
on the internet at all. You have made that political statement on several
occasions over the past couple of years. So any
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
Evidence that I have EVER said I do not approve of adult related
information. One single post please. ANY post public or private to
that effect please.
William - thank you. You've stated your position - it's to the point.
And best of all no
William and all,
I am afraid I must for the most part agree with WIlliam here. As to
the characterization of PGmedia, I don't agree with that. But by in
large, trying to claim ownership of a large number of gTLD's
without the benefit of a TM on them or even with a TM, unless you
can
Robin and all,
Robin, yes I am with you I think. But please understand, that I am not
against what you purport to be about in general terms. I do see
a huge potential problem to which william eluded to. Politically
speaking I believe at this juncture that a huge number of gTLD's
is not
Robin and all,
Logically I agree with you. But on a political and legal point of view
I think this is very pacarious position if you are administering the
gTLD .umbrellas... But if you have adequate legal insurance and
a good legal firm behind you, than it is your risk to take...
The
Hello:
In our opinion, robin tldns represents more competition for icann. It
already has competition but no one is taking the issues seriously. People
want tld's today - not tommorrow. And if someone can give icann some
viable competition today - we'll be happy to work with them.
Santiago
JEffM and all,
Ok I can except your stand or point of view. Very basicaly I agree
with it! ;) This still does not impact my questions and comments...
Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote:
Hello:
In our opinion, robin tldns represents more competition for icann. It
already
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
JEffM and all,
Ok I can except your stand or point of view. Very basicaly I agree
with it! ;) This still does not impact my questions and comments...
agreed - not at all in reference to the comments - just our position - i
should have deleted
Susan and all,
Well with one minor adjustment, this might be ok. That adjustment being
the following:
This document represents a snapshot of the policies and procedures it
covers as of its date of publication. These policies and procedures
are subject to change and such change takes
Ok, just send it to me then and I'll forward it, Paul.
At 05:07 PM 7/27/99 -0400, you wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 27 17:07:21 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from isrv3.pa.vix.com (isrv3.pa.vix.com [204.152.184.182])
by ns1.vrx.net
At 03:40 PM 6/30/99 -0400, you wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jun 30 15:40:26 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from drx.rivalworks.com (drx.rivalworks.com [209.6.170.10])
by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC0FF01B
for [EMAIL
Randy Bush wrote, in a message that bouced because he is not a subscriber:
The problem here Javier is the propensity of people such as you to
consider any criticisms from those outside your own "thought camps" to
be "disruptive."
Personally, I don't trust YOU to make that determination.
Richard and all,
Well Richard, we all know form past history that Randy has a
bad habit of being over dramatic, to say the least. Not to mention
being at time hypocritical to boot... I do hope I am in his killfile, it
would be a great disappointment if I were not...
Randy, if you are
Ms. Van Houweling-
Allowing people who do not belong to a constituency to fill its
meeting room and disrupt its organizational process is not having
"helped arrange meeting space for open meetings for all of the
initial constituency groups".
As an operative of the unelected board, you are
I've added Paul to the "posters" file so his postings won't
bounce any more.
I've CC'd [EMAIL PROTECTED] who is if I recall, in the
telecommunications policy area of Industry Canada. I'd appreciate
input on what role Canada has in the GAC and how Industry Canada decides
what to put forth to
Bret A. Fausett a écrit:
The latest agenda items for the Berlin ICANN meeting
(http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-details.html) suggest that "[t]he
ICANN Board of Directors will meet to discuss and vote on any pending
resolutions with regard to...WIPO Final Report, including annexes." ICANN
Kent wrote,
On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 12:23:32PM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Why are we getting all that header stuff?
Because it's enough of a pain to forward stuff that bounces as it
is and I'm too lazy to edit them out.
It would be easy enough to configure things so that it
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
I disagree with the notion that open lists get filled with flames.
While there have been some on the ORSC list, we have mechanisms in
place to prven them from geting out of hand. If you offend somebody,
you apologize or you're removed. After 3
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
What is the value of unenforced rules?
What is the value of the IFWP list?
--
Alex Kamantauskas
Tugger Networks
__
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there consensus that the IFWP list should have some sort of
rule structure that cuts down on the crap ?
I don't know that I want to be in the business of deciding (for others)
what's "crap" and who should be allowed to write or read. I would hope
At 10:27 AM 1/11/99 -0800, you wrote:
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there consensus that the IFWP list should have some sort of
rule structure that cuts down on the crap ?
I don't know that I want to be in the business of deciding (for others)
what's "crap" and who should be
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
MHSC.NET is working on delivering a web-list service. Having seen the
problems with the IFWP list, we would rather deliver a quality service late
than a problematic service expeditiously. If anyone else is working on
this, please let me know.
I
At 12:21 PM 1/11/99 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
MHSC.NET is working on delivering a web-list service. Having seen the
problems with the IFWP list, we would rather deliver a quality service late
than a problematic service expeditiously. If
At 09:48 11/01/99 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
I disagree with the notion that open lists get filled with flames.
While there have been some on the ORSC list, we have mechanisms in
place to prven them from geting out of hand. If you offend
40 matches
Mail list logo
