At 05:06 PM 5/24/99 -0400, Mikki Barry wrote:
At 4:36 PM -0400 5/24/99, Esther Dyson wrote:
Yes, we have been listening. We have been listening and thinking so hard we
haven't always had time to respond. But you should see some reasoning as
well as some results over the next few days.
Esther
and undergoing a similar registry-registrar bifurcation that was
specified last September. It might be useful to hear a little
about the implementation and competition progress and compare with
COM, ORG, and NET.
All the decisions are made by the .CA name holders as
an autonomous collective.
THere *is* something in the Board minutes about it; I will find the wording
and pass it along, but I'm in an airplane right now. As I said to Joop,
sincerely, I did not want to talk with him privately about this but
preferred to answer his legitimate questions in public, which I tried to do
Have we fogotten that it was a consensus item that a unifom ADR is not desirable
art the Geneva IFWP meeting?
Didd anybody else notice that nobody ever asked the question this time round
"is a uniform ADR desirable"
At 10:32 AM 5/29/99 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote:
Jeri -
In our
At 09:55 AM 5/29/99 -0400, you wrote:
Gene,
The Berlin meeting was the first time that the
comments/scribing/webcast/meeting archive tools really reached critical
mass. It had been available in Singapore and Cambridge, too, but novelty
and time zones may have made it less accessible to remote
IN BIG LETTERS.
This stuff is too important to be glossed over... and thats what we're doing.
At 05:36 PM 5/29/99 +, you wrote:
I think this statement should be printed up and posted whenever
ICANN meets -- verbatim.
The real problem which you eluded to with these ICANN meetings is
PM 5/29/99 -0400, you wrote:
Process issues aside, and assuming we can fix the (serious) glitches
(timetable, free expression protection), isn't this proposal better than
the NSI dispute policy. (I mean just chapter 3, not chapter 4).
On Sat, 29 May 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Have w
The Sondow plan however is flawed at its most basic levels in being
overly exclusive. even though the so called justification for it is
important. By going so far in its exclusions, it simply cannot meet
the mandate it is seeking to fill.
It has numerous other flaws as well.
The ACM plan was a
At 08:15 PM 5/31/99 -0400, you wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I would also suggest looking at ActiveWorlds. The structure is
flexible and allows hundreds of simultaneous users.
Ben Edelman from the Berkman centre is going to look at it Tomorrow or Wednesday;
I'll let you
At 08:38 PM 5/31/99 -0400, you wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"The spirit of the actions taken in Berlin were
contrary to the sprit of the white paper--that
decisions be consensus based and bottom up.
This
At 09:40 AM 5/31/99 -0500, you wrote:
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
At 11:22 AM 5/31/99 GMT, you wrote:
And back on the thread here
None of this has shown that anyone really is a member of this
"Congress" called the ICIIU except Mr Sondow..
I am. As are the Canadian
At 02:19 PM 5/31/99 GMT, you wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 1999 10:08:38 -0400 (EDT), "Richard J. Sexton"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:22 AM 5/31/99 GMT, you wrote:
And back on the thread here
None of this has shown that anyone really is a member of this
"Congress" called
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 02:30:45 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from ["A Gehring"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From open.org!alg Tue Jun 1 02:30:43 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 12:58 AM 6/1/99 -0700, you wrote:
On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 05:32:25AM +, William X. Walsh wrote:
Bullocks.
Just because the ISOC does things also which are non commercial
doesn't take away from the fact that most of the advocacy it does in
this process is on behalf of COMMERCIAL
At 08:52 PM 6/1/99 +1200, you wrote:
At 11:22 31/05/1999 +, William wrote:
And back on the thread here
None of this has shown that anyone really is a member of this
"Congress" called the ICIIU except Mr Sondow..
Legally Michael's ICIIU is an incorporated "non-membership
I could go and incorporate the "Comedian Domain Name Holders Congress"
tomorrow, but that doesn't mean that it has any validity in this
process.
Well yeah, but there's talk and there's actions. I've seen you
talk and I've seen Michael act.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember,
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 02:30:45 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from ["A Gehring"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From open.org!alg Tue Jun 1 02:30:43 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) ISOC has consistently argued that the top level domain space is a
public trust -- not exactly a commercial point of view.
THis has been debated to death. The public trust thing is a non-starter.
That way there be dragons.
Immaterial. The point is that ISOC frequently takes a
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 21:28:29 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [John Charles Broomfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From manta.outremer.com!jbroom Tue Jun 1 21:28:28 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:12:52 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from ["A Gehring"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From open.org!alg Wed Jun 2 02:12:50 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:55:21 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Sam Lanfranco
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From yorku.ca!lanfran Wed Jun 2 14:55:18 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:54:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Don Heath
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From isoc.org!heath Wed Jun 2 14:54:16 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or simply rename it "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
At 01:26 AM 6/3/99 +0200, Onno Hovers wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
At 02:37 PM 6/2/99 -0500, Kevin M. Kelly wrote:
Be assured that you are not alone. I must admit that (a few steps behind
ICANN) I find it increasingly difficult to see credible representation for
the
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 04:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from ["Teddy A. Purwadi"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From iix.net.id!policy Thu Jun 3 04:57:44 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL
At 01:43 PM 6/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
Also, they are soliciting comments by July 4 on whether the WIPO proposals
should be 1) broadened to include all commercial disputes...
Please explain.
ICANN is empowered to "set policy for and direct the allocation of IP
number blocks, oversee the
Ie, everybody with an @itaa address is bouncing; I'll have to sunscbscribe
them. If anybody knows them please ask them to re-subscribe (at http://lists.ifwp.org)
then they fix their problem)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the
At 03:47 PM 6/4/99 -0500, you wrote:
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
At 03:48 PM 6/4/99 , you wrote:
enter into a new Cooperative Agreement with ICANN to run the root and
.com/.net/.org.
Yeah, right. Dyson's going to run it off her
little laptop. :-) I'm sure customers will
flock to that one.
Only through considerable pressure have people like Rutkowski and Fenello
finally acknowledged their affiliation to NSI -- while simultaneously ly
claiming that taking money from NSI doesn't affect their opinion. How many
others have not?
Good point. I don't recall Jon Postel ever mentioning
No, ICANN would just contract it out to someone else a year or so earlier
than planned.
You've seriously understimated the complexity of the problem.
As has Gordon, if he really believes that NSI can simply walk away from the
Cooperative Agreement. Such an action would be a disaster for
http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-pso/maillist.html
...they all are apparently told to post an endorsement and they do...
...this reminds me of the time on a RIPE list where some TLD guy
posted a note and forgot to remove the part telling him to do it...
PS. I was told in Berlin that
At 11:26 AM 6/5/99 -0400, you wrote:
cook: when mike roberts instead of maintaining professional neutrality to
NSI stand up and speaks in berlin of NSI as everyone's favorite monopoly
and registrar criteria give ICANN power to disenfranchise NSI essentially
at will, I'd say NSI has reason to
At 09:42 AM 6/7/99 -0400, you wrote:
New York Times today:
Critics See Internet Board Overstepping Its Authority
By JERI CLAUSING
http://ww.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/06/biztech/articles/07ican.html
There's three "w's" in "www" marty :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember,
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:37:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Jonathan Weinberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From mail.msen.com!weinberg Tue Jun 8 14:37:47 1999
Return-Path:
At 12:03 AM 6/8/99 GMT, William X. Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 16:50:22 +0100, Jeff Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further we find that NSI is still a far
better alternative as a result of these reasons (See above).
NSI is only better because they made sure that this was not true
At 01:43 AM 6/8/99 GMT, William X. Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:11:53 -0700, Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 1999 at 12:03:06AM +, William X. Walsh wrote:
NSI benefits from the prepay rule, because the vast majority of
registrations are processed by third
I'd say this is a pretty clear determination of the effects NSI's
prepayment requirement is going to have on its new and future
prospective registrars.
Where were you 6 months ago when it seemed like I was the only one on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] advocating no prepayment???
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ever do a whois on register.com ?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
At 08:10 PM 6/8/99 -0400, you wrote:
FSDFDSFDSA.COM?
test data i suspect. I think I registered that one once, too.
wwwtabnet.com (where tabnet.com appears to be a competitor of register.com)?
Thats the one that got me.
Likley to cause confusion in the mind of the consumer ?
--
[EMAIL
At 11:09 AM 6/11/99 +1200, you wrote:
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/te/2891/1.html
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/te/2888/1.html
Stefen Krempl's Articles on The ICANN Berlin meetings
It's alright for you Joop, but for thos eof us that don't
speak two-dozen languages, it looks
If not, then please review your note's lack of responsiveness to my
specific content. This might also require re-evaluating the targeting of
your personal attack, changing it to a more reflexive reference.
You've been reading too much Dilbert, Dave. Could you try that again
in English ?
--
Here's what the ICANN By-Laws say about this:
http://www.icann.org/bylaws-09apr99.html
Well, this kind of thing should really go to the ICANN membership, not just
a bunch of CORE guys that made it to Berlin. Look at what the bylaws say
about this:
ARTICLE II: MEMBERSHIP
[This
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.
At 11:38 PM 6/12/99 GMT, William X. Walsh wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:24:58 +0200, Javier SOLA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony,
The agreement was that all meetings will be kept open if possible. Our only
concern is disruption. If there is disruption that does not permit the
meeting, we would
You first Dave, what was the 990K CORE took in spent on ?
Well, it wasn't spent on ME, and it is the specific benefits accrued by
particular commentators that was the issue I raised. CORE reimbursed me
for my direct travel expenses.
Jolly good, but I did ask what it was spent on, as oppose
Esther did you mean to send that out to a couple of public mailing
lists or was that a late night slip of the finger that was supposed
to go to Jay only ?
At 10:08 PM 6/13/99 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote:
Jay -
What made you stop consulting for NSI?
Curiously,
Esther Dyson
At 06:25 PM 13/06/99
"The beauty of competition is having somebody else to complain about"
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains,alt.domain-names.registries,alt.censorship
Subject: Register.com CHEATING Exposed!! Important please read!!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ron Bennett)
Organization: Netcom
X-Newsreader:
Return-Path: richard
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:08:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: richard (Richard J. Sexton )
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Path:
ns3.vrx.net!news2.best.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-xfer.epix.net!news1.epix.net!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
Subject: Re: tits.com
From
In any event, it remains interesting
It must be wonderful to have that child like innocense such that everything
is "amazing", "interesting", "fascinating" and so forth.
Thanks for your non-response. Back to the killfile.
*plonk*.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, amateurs
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:57:38 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Bill Lovell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From europa.com!cerebral Thu Jun 17 01:57:37 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:45:55 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from ["Roeland M.J. Meyer"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From mhsc.com!rmeyer Wed Jun 23 12:45:54 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:05:55 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from ["Kevin M. Kelly"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From kellywebworks.com!kevin Wed Jun 23 22:05:54 1999
Return-Path:
Joe Sims wrote:
Having a policy for handling disputes over these unique assignments is
essential to performing the required technical function; having a uniform
policy among registrars in a registry is important to ensuring stability.
Huh ?
The Internet (including the DNS) works as well
It seems to me that the ccTLDs want to have it both ways,
no regulation from their governments and no regulation from the ICANN.
In other words, what that have already; the conditions under which
they agreed to do their jobs.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
The old man was asked, why
He was not on the list, despite what he thinks. I added him maually.
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:38:41 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Jean-Michel Becar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
At 02:35 PM 6/26/99 -0400, Ken Stubbs wrote:
frankly.
i dont believe that any truly public list like should be moderated with
exception of the the normal caveats for advocacy of violence, religious
ethnic slurs etc.
we all have filters and if anyone gets sick and tired of reading someone's
From netmagic.com!amr Sun Jun 27 02:12:01 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from exchange.agent.org([206.5.17.8]) (4419 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
via sendmail with P:smtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
(sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for [EMAIL
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 27 04:30:24 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.7])
by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A6DF009
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 27 Jun 1999
From CaveBear.com!karl Sun Jun 27 01:43:00 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from npax.cavebear.com([192.203.17.71]) (2439 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
(sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for [EMAIL
From dso.net!william Sun Jun 27 02:12:42 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from bilbo.dso.net([206.16.77.10]) (4823 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
(sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for [EMAIL PROTECTED];
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 27 04:34:27 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from spitfire.law.miami.edu (spitfire.law.miami.edu [129.171.187.10])
by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BC1F00A
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 27 Jun 1999
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 27 04:39:31 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4])
by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5B0F00F
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 27 Jun 1999
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 27 04:45:26 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.16])
by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F4D5F00A
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 27 Jun 1999
and views denied those in the more 'ordered' environment.
Unfortunate.
MM
"Richard J. Sexton" wrote:
At 02:35 PM 6/26/99 -0400, Ken Stubbs wrote:
frankly.
i dont believe that any truly public list like should be moderated with
exception of the the normal caveats for advocacy o
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 27 04:48:45 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2])
by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7DAF00A
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 27 Jun 1999
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 27 04:47:53 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from thetics.europa.com (thetics.europa.com [209.20.130.162])
by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC57F00A
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 04:47:52
I just sent out all the postings that were delayed when
the IFWP-list universe was being "re-organized" last
night.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
Dave's system has got the flu:
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 23:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Returned mail: Can't create output
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)
The original
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:09:19 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jun 28
The Internet was not the "market" when it was born and it isn't
and won't be a "market now or in the future.
It is a communication medium.
So is a newspaper, and by Jesus look at the ads in that thing.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:54:21
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Hi
Javier;
I am going to respond to your letter as there seems to be
some misunderstanding. For accuracy sake, I was going to
look at the original but I don't seem to have a
The Internet was not the "market" when it was born and it isn't
and won't be a "market now or in the future.
It is a communication medium.
So is a newspaper, and by Jesus look at the ads in that thing.
Is that what you wish as the model for the Internet?
"I don't wish to offer an opinion
At 09:10 AM 6/29/99 -0400, you wrote:
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
snip
"I don't wish to offer an opinion about how the net should be run;
that's
like offering an opinion about how salamanders should grow: nobody has
any
control over it, regardless of what opinions they might have&qu
:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:[IFWP]Computer science or the "market", gov't or ICANN
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (quoting Ronda to
begin with):
The Internet was not the "
The Internet and many other things are not biological systems like
a salamander is. People of good well and with public interest can and
should exert what effort they can to help direct the growth and development
of social institutions like the Internet into socially valuable directions.
How can
Ahh, but Richard...couldn't the rules which govern transport be constructed
in socially beneficial or socially detrimental ways? :)
Yoda said it best: "there is no message, there is just medium"
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind
At 02:02 PM 6/29/99 -0400, Ronda Hauben wrote:
From: "Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1) there has never been anything in human history as big, diverse or
ungovernable as the Internet.
That's not the point. The point is that the Internet has grown
up from a special environment
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: SUBSCRIBE list-digest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:08:23 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] has been added to
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
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Pete Farmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 17:26:43 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 1
At 08:11 PM 7/1/99 -0400, Ken Stubbs wrote:
maybe you would like to let the world know a little more about the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] list michael ?
It's been around for, what? 10 years ? I thought everybody
knew about it.
Richard.
No doubt a paid ICIIU shill.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Eberhard W Lisse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 01:10:05 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 2
At 07:51 AM 7/2/99 GMT, William X. Walsh wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 03:51:20 -0400 (EDT), "Richard J. Sexton"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard.
No doubt a paid ICIIU shill.
Naw, he doesn't have the funds or members to pay shills :)
Incorrect on both counts.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 07:52 AM 7/2/99 GMT, you wrote:
Richard,
Is there any way to have the from field on non-member submissions be
that of the original sender?
Not without a serious amount of work.
And at 3 am, not at all. I was up at 6 am.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to
From: Pete Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Gordon Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 11:05:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer:
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,38721,00.html?st.ne.fd.gif.f
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg04880.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg04881.html
The net has gone nuts.
Of course any skilled debater can argeu that ICANN caused
this instability or that ICANN
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Bill Lovell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:44:33 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 2
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Bill Lovell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:43:03 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 2
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from ["Sheffo, Joe"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:18:14 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 2
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Joop Teernstra
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 22:53:52 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 2
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:15:25 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jul 3
The Official minutes from the Names Council Teleconference, June 11 1999
provided by Susan Anthony are on line, replacing ones we get earlier from
Antony Van Couvering.
They don't match my tape of the call but I doubt anybody cares.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a
At 05:07 PM 7/3/99 -0400, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
purely neutral with respect to it: "We just manage the old IANA root; set
up your own if you like and God bless!" ...JZ
You're closer to them than we are Jonothon, why don't you ask them.
Frankly I expect rhetoric out of them: "renegade",
The last authoritative, community-based consensus
on that question was the White Paper, which ICANN
has ignored since its inception.
And that's being overly kind. The changes between the
green paper and white paper could not be justified from
the public comments.
It's the private comments that
At 03:01 PM 7/3/99 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
The persons behind ICANN have repeatedly stated that what they are doing
is not "governance." Their actions speak otherwise. Some of this be
attributed to confusion in the Green and White Papers as to the role of
At 05:49 PM 7/3/99 -0400,
At 07:08 PM 7/3/99 -0400, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
through governments, that might even be solace, but my point is that even
in its current incarnation ICANN seems to me to have quite tight
constraints on what it can do.
I don't know how you can say that when it's ignoring it's own bylaws
At 07:40 PM 7/3/99 -0400, Jon Zittrain wrote:
I don't know how you can say that when it's ignoring it's own bylaws
Jonothon.
I've probably not been following the list enough lately, but I'd want to
talk specifics here.
Well, the two names council members that are employees of MCI in
Greg, this has nothing to do with new tlds.
As for ICANN doing whats best for the Internet community,
the first order of business for any organization is
self preservation.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
We are having our annual Fireworks Display here at my place over
my little lake (48 acres) and smoking off about $150k worth for
employees and family. So I am looking forward to it!
MPEGS ?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to
Hi Michael,
CORE's Articles of Association are available at:
http://www.corenic.org/about_core/articles.htm. The only officers of the
organization as far as I can tell are the Executive Committee members.
Currently, Ken is the only Excom member holding a position within
the ICANN structure.
201 - 300 of 1006 matches
Mail list logo
