First of all, can we lose the confrontational tones?
On 08-Feb-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
John B. Reynolds a écrit:
You administer your zone indirectly by controlling which ISP runs it
directly.
Administer the zone indirectly? What are you talking about? Is this a game
of
At 2/7/99, 06:15 PM, John B. Reynolds wrote:
Milton Mueller wrote:
The Paris draft group, on the other hand, was responsive to this
same criticism.
I commend them for this.
On the other hand, the Paris group was completely unresponsive to criticism
that its veto provisions gave too much
In message 001401be52fb$9ddc9320$010a@jbr, "John B. Reynolds" writes:
Michael Sondow wrote:
Einar Stefferud a écrit:
I agree with this concern, and I suggest that the initial membership
be defined in some other more well defined way. One suggestion that
makes sense to me is
George Conrades wrote:
Michael, your thoughts on this one make a lot of sense to me.
Geo.
George Conrades wrote:
Michael, your thoughts on this one make a lot of sense to me. Geo.
...it's a good idea. If people registering domain names were
automatically made members, by having a
Eric,
This issue has been really troubling me lately. The value of automatic
enlistment of members depends on whether membership is seen as a kind of
"use it or lose it" thing. One conception of ICANN has it performing
functions that affect all internet users, and that therefore should take
Eric Weisberg a écrit:
I agree that there must be a presumption against any impediment to
participation and I really appreciate your concern in this
regard. However, isn't that unnecessary in this organization on
the following grounds--ICANN's particular and limited purposes
We don't yet
Don,
I do not recall, a SINGLE statement by ISOC being sent through the lists
that I am connected to. But then I did not subcribe to all and not at the
same time. The question of ISOC's participation is however easily solved:
Please, post to the list of record ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) with cc to
OK -- I suggest that you contact the Paris Draft editors who ar
submitting the Parid draft Application to clearly inform them that you
do not support the Paris Draft.
If you wish, also supply a ReSend of your suggested attachments.
Redundancy in such cases is actually a freindly ting to
All of them! (see Eberhard's question below;-)...
I also agree that the initial members of the startup DNSO should be
the Zone Administrators and not the Technical Contacts!
And, for Michael's information, the fact that he has contractred with
an ISP to do everythig for his DNS Zone, and not
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 07:43:57PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
Furthermore, it is explicitly the case that the Names Council only
gives recommendations to ICANN.
That is all the DNSO CAN do Kent, so this is no distinction.
Of course. However, Jay, Einar, and others have
Hello Don Heath,
I'd like to register a disagreement. Comments interspersed.
At 01:40 AM 2/8/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
Sorry, Mr. Heath, but I didn't agree to continue this discussion in secret,
so I am posting this to the same recipient list as was used previously.
Don Heath wrote:
I
At 09:49 PM 2/7/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
John B. Reynolds a écrit:
Every domain name holder directly or
indirectly administers a DNS zone file. Are you sure you're not
confusing "DNS zone" with "root zone"?
No, the domain holders don't administer zone files. That's done by the ISPs
Michael,
John is right.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Sondow writes:
John B. Reynolds a =E9crit:
You administer your zone indirectly by controlling which ISP runs it
directly.
Administer the zone indirectly? What are you talking about? Is this
a game of semantics to you?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Roeland M.J. Meyer" wri
tes:
At 09:49 PM 2/7/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
John B. Reynolds a écrit:
Every domain name holder directly or
indirectly administers a DNS zone file. Are you sure you're not
confusing "DNS zone" with "root zone"?
No, the
On Feb 1 1999 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania a Memorandum was issued in the case of ACLU et al vs Reno (Civil
Action NO. 98-5591). I have not had time to read the Memorandum but have found
the first 8 Findings of Fact interesting and so I am copying
You contact with an ISP to create and maintain a zone file on your behalf.
If you don't like what they do with it, you can move to another
ISP or make
other arrangements. Ultimate control remains vested in you. I don't see
how I could make this any more clear than I already have.
Oops,
Kent Crispin wrote:
Running the hearing slows down the process, intrinsically. A hearing
takes time that would have been spent doing other things. As long as
I am guaranteed a "fair hearing" at will, I can slow down the
process.
If a hearing catches and corrects a problem before the process
John B. Reynolds wrote:
5.11 Further Review of Changes
Whenever a proposal has been changed as a result of
the preceding processes, any changes resulting from
such processes shall be republished on the DNSO
website and subject to review under the prior
provisions of this section.
My
John Charles,
Is Patrick Raimond the admin contact or is not? Are you now going to say
that anyone who doesn't speak English natively shouldn't be able to
participate, because s/he might not understand?
In re: support of RFC 1591, .GP answered "YES" to the question of whether
ICANN should put
Eberhard Lisse wrote,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John
Charles Broomfield writes:
Patrick Raimond (the admin contact for ".gp") speaks reasonably good
English.
So let him decide.
snip
Antony,
ask Patrick specifically whether he, as the GP ccTLD Aministrator and
thus on
Please supply references. I understand that you may wish to avoid the
appearance of promoting a particular service, but I'm sure that some
specifics would be very useful to those reading this list.
David Schutt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
John Charles,
Your accusations are the worst sort of unsupported mudslinging. Ordinarily
I would ignore it, but this is one of those cases where silence could be
dangerous. You seem to doubt the veracity of the IATLD support, presumably
because you and your purported not-for-profit (should I
Translation: Expediency is more important than fairness
David Schutt
Running the hearing slows down the process, intrinsically. A hearing
takes time that would have been spent doing other things. As long as
I am guaranteed a "fair hearing" at will, I can slow down the
process.
Put it
Not a good example, my browser timed out.
There are lots of experimental and/or educational systems out there, I'm
more interested in commercial services that can take a spike without
gasping.
David Schutt
Linux and BIND are both free software. The real sticking point is the
requisite
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
At 09:49 PM 2/7/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
John B. Reynolds a écrit:
Every domain name holder directly or indirectly administers a DNS zone
file. Are you sure you're not confusing "DNS zone" with "root zone"?
No, the domain holders
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rus Postel) wrote:
i do not qualify for any of the categories of membership suggested,
yet i use the internet and believe i have a right to participate in
democratic decision making.
Good point. I believe every Internet user should have the right to
participate in the
On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 07:34:40AM -0600, John B. Reynolds wrote:
Jay Fenello wrote:
How do you envision ICANN enforcing
policies onto the registries?
If all else fails, ICANN has the authority to remove them from its root
zone. It's admittedly the 'nuclear option', but it's there.
On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 12:16:50PM -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
At 2/8/99, 11:48 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:
I am not talking about there being just *one* hearing. As soon as
the first FH concludes, the second one will be requested, and then
after that the third, and so on. As far as I can see,
Jay Robert Hauben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 1 1999 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania a Memorandum was issued in the case of ACLU et al vs Reno (Civil
Action NO. 98-5591). I have not had time to read the Memorandum but have found
the first 8
Eric Weisberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not believe the "general public" has any interest in joining
our group nor in voting for our board. Thus, there must be some
other way of protecting their interests. Perhaps there should be
a "public interest" SO (given that "we" have chosen the SO
Greg Skinner wrote:
I support the creation of a public interest, or netizens SO, if you
like.
That's what the At Large Membership is supposed to be.
Diane Cabell
MAC
This is nothing but a blantent misrepresentation of the facts.
I know for a fact that Antony did not just post up all the IATLD supporters
without contacting them and getting theie explicit support.
You will note that not ALL the ccTLDs who are listed as IATLD or RFC1591
supporters are listed
On 08-Feb-99 David Schutt wrote:
Not a good example, my browser timed out.
Yeah, a free service sometimes has Hiccups.
There are lots of experimental and/or educational systems out there, I'm
more interested in commercial services that can take a spike without
gasping.
I believe
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Sondow writes:
The average client of an ISP, that is, the average domain name
holder, cannot tell the ISP what to put into their zone file. I've
had trouble with every single one of the five ISPs I've used because
of this, and I've heard the same stories
Diane Cabell wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
I support the creation of a public interest, or netizens SO, if you
like.
That's what the At Large Membership is supposed to be.
No. We are discussing why that is NOT so.
The "great unwashed" will not join and vote in ICANN
elections no
here is a copy of a suggestion I sent to andrew kraft to possible move this
down the road...
something for you all to chew on ...
-Original Message-
From: Ken Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP, Executive Director [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, February 08, 1999 10:30
--- Forwarded Message
Here is what Mr Heath answered me:
- --- Forwarded Message
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 14:38:36 -0500
To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Don Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:52 AM 2/8/99 +0200, you wrote:
Please, post to the list of record ([EMAIL
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 15:07:44 -0500 (EST)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [John Charles
Broomfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From manta.outremer.com!jbroom Mon Feb 8 15:07:43 1999
Stef and all,
I thought I had just done that on this list, Stef? Is that not correct?
We
through myself submitted our suggested amendments as well several
times. The only way that we are going to resolve these areas of
disagreement
short of a law suit, is through voting online.
Einar
On 08-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
Stef and all,
I thought I had just done that on this list, Stef? Is that not correct?
We
through myself submitted our suggested amendments as well several
times. The only way that we are going to resolve these areas of
disagreement
short of
William and all,
Of course all 89,000+ members of INEGroup DO NOT share the same
phone member, but are routed through that central number of purposes
of simplicity and a central point of contact. I SERVE as their elected
spokesman only.
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 08-Feb-99 jeff Williams
INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
For Immediate Release
February 8, 1999
ICANN Releases Draft Accreditation Guidelines for Domain-Name Registrars-
Proposal to be Available for Public Comment at www.icann.org
Los Angeles-In a first step towards establishing fair and
William and all,
The number as has been repeated to you and all before is as is in my
sig file below. Are you experiencing a reading impairment problem
william?
William X. Walsh wrote:
Still waiting for a name and a way of contacting someone that doesn't mean
ringing your number at
Yes Jeff, we are looking for a number that doesn't ring to YOU.
And the name of someone at Gallup that can be contacted AT Gallup.
On 08-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
William and all,
The number as has been repeated to you and all before is as is in my
sig file below. Are you
Sean and all,
The ICANN released through yet another inoculious "Press Release"
the intentions of the ICANN regarding "Registrat/Registry Accreditation's"
without the input prior to this said "Press Release", of the membership
Organization which the ICANN is bound to do through the
At 02:06 PM 2/8/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 08:38:29AM -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:
i have said repeatedly that kent crispin is not a member of CORE, not an
employee of any member of CORE, receives no compensation from CORE nor is
he the official spokesman for CORE.
William and all,
As I have outlined before, and seemingly you either missed or are displaying
an in ability to except that those organizations/companies that are members
of the INEGroup will be using our communication IP network through
a centralized contact point. That point for the purposes
At 04:48 PM 2/8/99 -0800, you wrote:
On 09-Feb-99 Ken Freed wrote:
Eric Weisberg says the mass of folks on earth will not
vote in ICANN elections, even if asked, so he proposes
going instead with public interest organizations having
a say in the process. His notions have merit, yet
Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric Weisberg says the mass of folks on earth will not vote in ICANN
elections, even if asked, so he proposes going instead with public
interest organizations having a say in the process. His notions have
merit, yet notice the assumption that public apathy will
Don Heath a écrit:
At 01:40 AM 2/8/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
Sorry, Mr. Heath, but I didn't agree to continue this discussion in secret,
so I am posting this to the same recipient list as was used previously.
No need to apologize. There was nothing in what I wrote to you
that I
Ms. Dyson wrote:
*I* alone am not ICANN; it is a (growing) collection of people,
including staff, PR consultantsand of course members.
Members? You have no members. As for a collection
it's more like monkeys you've been assembling. Silly
clueless monkeys, a few dorky students, all
Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit:
There is some argument that one can use a Windows machine for primary DNS.
I'm a typical end-user. I have a laptop running Windows95. There are
configuration pop-ups for TCP/IP and DNS confirguration. But I've never seen
a book anywhere, and I've been looking for
On 08-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
All,
It is unfortunate that folks such as William, have a reality and/or a
reading deficiency problem and there fore refuse to recognize certain
facts. Demonstrations such as William is displaying below in it's
disgusting rancor, have plagued
On 09-Feb-99 Bill Lovell wrote:
--
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
Is this last supposed to be communicating something, or is it
just a
Eric Weisberg a écrit:
Just because most people are affected by IP and DN allocation
policies doesn't mean they will participate. We already know THEY
WON'T!
How do you know that, Eric? Have they been informed about the creation of
ICANN?
That is why I question the wisdom of registering
55 matches
Mail list logo
