On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 17:58 [=GMT-0400], Richard J. Sexton wrote: > >> We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the > >> cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root. > > > >Burying your head in the sand and wishing the problem away won't make it > >so. > > > >Ignore ICANN to your own detriment. > > Perhaps, but saying "these ISO protocols suck and should not be used" > was not effective. Making TCP/IP work, was. So what is the latest that I missed? Freenet? Where do I get an IP number from a non-ICANN authority? One that works? I am all for alternatives, especially working ones, and I do try to participate in those. But can we really _ignore_ ICANN completely?
- [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Michael Sondow
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Einar Stefferud
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Patrick Greenwell
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Michael Sondow
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Michael Sondow
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Marc Schneiders
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Einar Stefferud
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Ken Freed
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Richard J. Sexton
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Marc Schneiders
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Einar Stefferud
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Marc Schneiders
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Gordon Cook
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Michael Sondow
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Marc Schneiders
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Gordon Cook
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Gordon Cook
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Marc Schneiders
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Marc Schneiders
- Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN" Gordon Cook
