Microsoft. Not
to mention that Bill manning has on many occasions disputed this
individuals claim. He still claims he owns right to .WEB, which
of course
are false.
Christopher Ambler wrote:
I would be happy to drop the whole "Jeff Williams"
issue, if the individual
posting as such would sto
Taft and all,
Well Taft, what can be done is to register an official contest to the
contract that the ICANN is entering into with the NIST, would be one step,
all be a temporary one. Another step would be to get a petition up to send
to the NTIA protesting the thus far actions that the ICANN
Taft and all,
Taft Charles Frederick wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
Taft and all,
Well Taft, what can be done is to register an official contest to the
contract that the ICANN is entering into with the NIST, would be one
step, all be a temporary one
Roeland and all,
Very good story Roeland!!! And We agree that this does get right to the
point.
I t is my personal hope that all took the time to read it and head its
lesson!!
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Hello all,
There is a question at the end. This is a longish story. Please read it,
Roberto and all,
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Stephen Page wrote:
> Presently, ICANN has
a closed list. ORSC has an open list.
> DNSO.ORG has a closed list.
>
Point of clarification:
If you are referring to the main mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), you
are
wrong, because the list is open.
About
Jay and all,
Thanks for the report Jay. However the CLOSED meeting
seemed, from these
comments you are making here to be pretty much worthless with respect
to any real resolution and unlikely to improve given the situation.
It is odd to us anyway that the ORSC would participate in such
a CLOSED
Alex and all,
Alex Kamantauskas wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
Jay and all,
Thanks for the report Jay. However the CLOSED meeting seemed, from
these comments you are making here to be pretty much worthless with
respect to any real resolution and unlikely
ALex and all,
Alex Kamantauskas wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
Alex and all,
Alex Kamantauskas wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
Jay and all,
It is odd to us anyway that the ORSC would participate in such a CLOSED
meeting given
not be possible while
an investigation was underway. This is standard procedure form what I have
told, although I find it unnecessary. So, if you had been paying attention you
would have read that particular post a bit closer.
On 22-Jan-99 jeff Williams wrote:
William and all,
Well william
Mikki and all,
Mikki Barry wrote:
Well, I for one thank the ORSC for letting us know what went on behind
closed doors. That action, to me, shows good faith. In this case, I
choose to believe that the ORSC is a little bit pregnant.
Some of us in ORSC have difficulty with that analogy :-).
Bill and all,
Good points here Bill, I couldn't agree more with your assesment.
Bill Lovell wrote:
At 06:25 PM 1/21/99 -0400, you wrote:
* * *
** 1/19/99:
"ICANN is not a governance institution,
but a narrowly focused technical body charged with certain policymaking
and coordination
Antony and all,
Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Mikki
> Barry
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 9:35 PM
> To: IFWP Discussion List
> Subject: [ifwp] Re: DNSO Important update: The "Merged" Draft
>
>
> >
Andrew and all,
Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP, Executive Director wrote:
Jeff,
FIrst of all how can you determine if a particular company has common
set of standards if there are no industry wide excepted set of standards to
judge any other companies set of standards?
Because the AIP's ACAC
All,
William is exactly accurate in his comment regarding Kent Crispin and
Amadeu. They are both long term and continued supporters of the
"Capture" attempt of the DNS system by CORE and the gTLD-MoU.
With Kent Crisping being PAB chair. Their one sided agenda
is well documented and when the
Richard and all,
Not to worry Richard, I doubt that no one except Patrick is suspicious
of you representing NSI. Patrick has on what appears on too many
occasions accused others of many things falsely. This seems to be
a disturbing and unfortunate tendency that he possess
Richard J.
Jim and all,
Jim Dixon wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Darrell Greenwood wrote:
[Dixon, writing about a larger vs smaller ICANN membership:]
> >I don't know if ICANN would be wiser. It would certainly have
more
> >credibility. But the problem of verifying the identity of
members
> >becomes more
of Registrars (CORE)
Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI)
Policy Oversight Committee (POC)
World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA)
------
From: jeff Williams[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 1999 11:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [E
Roberto and all,
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Folks,
I liked Jay's summary.
Let me add few lines to Bret's comments.
Bret Fausett wrote:
> Jay Fenello wrote:
> >My impression of this process was that there are only
> >a few, major philosophical differences that must be
> >resolved. One is whether the
Jay and all,
I suppose I am being skeptical here, However I cannot see that any
comments by Bret or actions or considerations have any real impact
at this juncture regarding an DNSO or other SO effort at this point
considering that we (INEGroup) and mhsc, as well as ORSC have
all filed
Stef and all,
Thank you for passing this post along Stef, it is indeed interesting
and contains so interesting an potentially useful ideas. ;)
I would like to expound on one of those ideas that has been
mentioned many times before by others and I had spoken to
Mike Roberts about once on
Jay and all,
Thank you for submitting this impression Jay. It is much appreciated
by many I am sure.
As to your conclusion on these impressions. In what manner will
a "Consensus" be determined? Without a viable method on measuring
that there is "Consensus" for any draft, there cannot be
Antony and all,
Pardon me if I say I do not trues your "Rendition" here of the CLOSED
meeting minuets. Is there a audio recording of these meetings or was
there a registered stenographer present? If not than this is just your
"Recollection", and not really any creditable meeting minuets.
Jay and all,
I guess I would have to ask, "is this really the point"?
I am a Trademark
Holder and paten holder, yet I do NOT agree with the intent
or verbiage
of the WIPO report, not to mention it overstepped its mandate in the
White Paper. Many companies that I have personally talked to
their
Diane and all,
This is NOT a mailing list, Diane. :( [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is mearly a
depository of comments, nothing more.
Diane Cabell wrote:
Jay Fenello wrote:
> Go figure,
>
> The IFWP list just came back on line.
>
> That does not change my message however.
> We need a list of record. The
Chuck and all,
Chuck, don't take Kent too seriously, he really doesn't know what he
is talking about most of the time. Most people on these lists don't take
Kent seriously either.
Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Kent,
You don't have a clue what you are talking about with regard to NSI and I am
Martin and all,
Interesting article. However the ICANN is not in a possition to make these
decisions at present as there is yet to be a membership Organization
in place.
Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
from Wired.com:
ICANN to Unveil New Rules
by Joanna Glasner
3:00 a.m. 28.Jan.99.PST
Esther and all,
it is interesting in the the ICANN is not yet completely formulated
yet that the ICANN "Initial" and Interim board can act independently
and "Appoint" members to committees that have not stakeholder
approval. This sort of action leads many of us to further distrust
you members
Michael and all,
Agreed in part Michael. It should be that the ELECTED
permanent board that
offers a potential set of policies for the Individual Membership Organization
to vote on for approval.
IS IT TIME TO TRASHCAN THE ICANN??
Michael Sondow wrote:
Esther Dyson a crit:
>
> To reiterate:
Stef and all,
Interesting verbal exercise that can be summed up thus:
Any definition
of reasonable "Constituencies" as a part of a membership
structure, is and exercise in futility...
Those whom refuse to learn the lessons of history are domed to
repeat them
Einar Stefferud wrote:
On the
Roeland and all,
Good points here Roeland. ANd We would argue that your
point actually
apply nearly as equally with gTLD's as well, hence I assume part of
your
reasoning for considering them a moot point given your scenario?
At any
rate, gTLD's that are hosted on additional Roots outside the US
Jay and all,
Where is this draft posted on a "DNSO" or other site, or is it?
BTW, this draft does not reflect any of our provisions (INEGroup)
Draft
Jay Fenello wrote:
Hello everyone,
What follows is an attempt to combine the
concepts found in several DNSO drafts.
I have not read this
Andrew and all,
Thank you for this information regarding "Partially merged" draft.
I use that term "Partially Merged" Draft as it does not include
any of the provisions of our draft that was submitted upon request
to the DNSO.ORG [EMAIL PROTECTED], by request...
In specific areas in brief
William and all,
One "Salient Point" that seems to fly in the face of on of you contentions here
is that " There is no precedence to suggest that any of this would be taken
seriously by anyone, and that is what I am trying to point out." In lew of this
questionable statement, William, how
Bill and all,
Bill Lovell wrote:
At 04:37 PM 1/31/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Bob Allisat wrote:
>
>> If I understand you correctly Eric you are proposing
>> that the IFWP become the membership of ICANN...
>
>Yes.
>
>Molly, if it isn't already there, would you add this as an option
>to be considered
All,
We thought that these words from Jim Flemming can be useful...
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd.
Eric an all,
I will take that bet if open membership is allowed. What can you afford
to bet Eric? Make it easy on yourself
Eric Weisberg wrote:
Bill Lovell wrote:
Not to poke a hole here, but what about all the great, unwashed
millions who own modems and flit about the internet
Ellen and all,
Ellen Rony wrote:
Bill Lovell wrote:
There are people in this group who are
very sensitive to this sort of thing: the admixture of gray ribbons
and book selling seemed inappropriate to many, including the
one who sells the books. . .
Mr. Lovell,
I have participated on
Stef and all,
It appears that from the content of comments made by Esther
and
others from the Berkman Center that your worst fears are indeed
the direction in which the ICANN is wanting to drive the direction
of DNS management and there registry/registrar budding industry
towards, that of a
Ellen and all,
Got to go with Ellen on this one. The Quakmire that the DNSO.ORG
has been sence in inception, is not one that engenders trust or
openness. However it does follow the actions of the ICANN. Interesting
that!!
Ellen Rony wrote:
Antony Van Couvering wrote:
You have been
Ellen and all,
We agree with Ellen here as well, and we should also reach out to other
lists and Stakeholders, which I don't believe that Ellens Poll did but ours
did (See results below these comments, which I have also posted previously).
Ellens questions suggested below are good ones as a
All,
Please sexcuse my leaving out this in my last response to this
post...
==
INEGroup has finnished a survey that spanned some 10K domain
name holders regarding a Pre-Payment registration policy for
Domain Names for now an in the future. See Results below:
Potential size of survey
Ellen, Michael and all,
It might be helpful to add some URL references so that those on
other lists that and current non-list-participants, as stakeholders
can make a more informed possition. Some URL's that might be handy
to include would be the following:
Joop and all,
GREAT! Thanks for participating. Would it be possible for you to
provide your results from you site on this poll to us. You may send it
privately if you choose so that I can get it tabulated in with there rest
or our results for our report processing? Thanks again Joop! ;)
Patrick and all,
Patrick is of course inaccurate here. Do yourself a favor and disregard
these musings...
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
In the next two or three days INEGroup will be finishing up our
suggestion for a "Consensus
Roberto and all,
I am trimming the cc list on this reply to reduce duplicate receipts.
The information regarding the "Poised" mailing list of the IETF
can be found at : http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/poisson-charter.html
For those interested. The current posted draft for a PSO is
located
Willam and all,
Yes, let do clear the air indeed. The IETF may not realize IPv8, and indeed
this is true, and points to one of several problems that the IETF currently has,
as it does not necessarily recognize other efforts frequently. Hence one
of many reasons why a need a more broad
Roeland and all,
I Have been saying this for about 3 years.
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
At 02:02 PM 2/2/99 -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
Trademarks can not be usurped, in law, even if they are not registered.
This brings me to a point that is a little off topic from this thread, and
Er. Lisse and all,
Are we now going to get into a long definition war as to what "Rough
Consensus"
is by definition? It appears so
Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Einar Stefferud writes:
I much prefer to use the "Rough Consensus and Running Code" rule!
All,
I t looks like the ICANN is making MORE selections for us all!
How nice of them to do so without our consent or even input.
Seems like another of more to come violations of the White Paper.
IS IT TIME TO TRASHCAN THE ICANN?
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR.
Mikki and all,
Is it time to start a ANTI-ICANN phone campaign and a
NTIA-STOP-THE-ICANN
campaign?
IS IT TIME TO TRASHCAN THE ICANN??
Regards,
Mikki Barry wrote:
>Ron Fitzherbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>What would be the problem with the following (from a TM/legal standpoint):
>
>>I file
Ellen and all,
Good question. But you are asking the wrong people. You should
have addressed this question directly to the ICANN Interim Board,
not this list.
Ellen Rony wrote:
Several months ago, ICANN, more specifically the Chair, was interviewing
executive search firms to select
Esther and all,
You miss the point entirely again Esther. The main point
is that you
have NO right to HIRE or APPOINT anyone without
the MEMBERSHIPS
approval, which you DO NOT have as it is not even in place yet
Esther Dyson wrote:
You cancomplain about us either for not saying enough
or
Gordon et al,
You got it just about right Gordo! As Hitler once said, tell a lie often
enough and soon everyone will believe it. But that only lasts for
a time. They shall reap the whirlwind, mark my words...
Gordon Cook wrote:
To my flame, esther kindly replied.
You can complain about
Milkki and all,
Yes, it should be made explicit in the bylaws.
Mikki Barry wrote:
Why would'nt they? It seems appropriate as that member is there to
represent the viewpoint of the DNSO and its members.
I'm not saying they wouldn't...I'm asking whether we should make that
explicit in the
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 07:08:13PM -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
Kent Crispin a écrit:
It was "consensualized". From the notes:
Glen: There is no general constraint on DNSO member participation
in multiple constituencies, but constituencies
James and all,
Looks pretty good as far as it goes... Unfortunately it doesn't go very far.
Please keep us informed as to the progress of this paper. ;)
James Seng wrote:
This is the unedited memo on a idea which we developed while working on
multilingual domain names.
The edited paper
All,
Attached is an proposal very similar that I have put together and is
now being considered by our group as and open and "Classless"
DNSO bylaws proposal. THis proposal is very similar in structure to
Mikki Berry's but with some significant differences in its articles
based on discussions
Stef and all,
Einar Stefferud wrote:
Thanks Kent for giving our work serious consideration.
It has been developed, and is presented to DNSO.ORG in the hopes that
it will help lead to convergence on the issues.
Ot should be obvious to you Stef by this time that this was and still is
Roeland and all,
With the Berkman center announcing a meeting regarding the Individual
Membership committee for the ICANN on Jan 23 in BOston and the
Washington
DC meeting of the ICANN on Jan 22nd, it is difficult to make any
meetings
on the west coast. We (INEGroup) would suggest meetings be
Roberto and all,
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Stef,
You wrote:
- snip -
> And, ORSC reserves the right to submit an alterantive to ICANN in
any
> case, since the ICANN call is not limited to any specific party,
> though we do understand that ICANN has been engaged in some direct
and
> private hand
Esther and all,
These are things that all of the ICANN Interim Board should already know
how to do as Board members.
Esther Dyson wrote:
The goal is to do both. We need help in managing the Website, communicating
internationally and in Washington (another foreign place!), etc. etc. And
Jay, Becky and all,
We at INEGroup would like to second Jays concern and complaint
as well...
Jay Fenello wrote:
Hello Becky,
Please consider this a formal complaint wrt to
the recently released meeting minutes of the ICANN
Board of Directors' Meeting held on January 17th.
It would
Sascha and all,
With respect to William Walsh, I must agree with you completely on
this score. His incessant personal attacks of many individuals are
inappropriate and of little use to anyone.
Sascha Ignjatovic wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
Sascha doesn't want to
Sean and all,
Well there are a few suggestions that have been made many times before
Sean, that the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board has been ask to do that
would go a long ways towards good PR for them, that thus far they have
refused to do.
1.) Where are their bonifides as to how and whom
Jay and all,
Jay Fenello wrote:
Hi Michael,
With all due respect, you are wrong!
No deals were made in Paris -- simply an effort
at finding the common ground between competing
ideas and philosophies.
Unfortunately the Paris Meeting was never completely decimated
to all of the
Esther and all,
But we are us!
Esther Dyson wrote:
you can see who the contributors are (and how much) by looking at our
Website. What we pay will depend on what they do for us.
Esther
At 08:08 PM 06/02/99 -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:
Touche Dave, a very nice example of how to put
Stef and all,
NO or DISAGREE We have already submitted our suggested
amendments.
Einar Stefferud wrote:
Look All Y'All --
The bottom line is, do you AGREE or DISAGREE with the CONTENT of the
PARIS DRAFT?
If you AGREE, then please jsut say YES.
If you DISAGREE, Please say NO, PLUS
a freindly ting to provide;-)...
Cheers...\Stef
From your message Sun, 07 Feb 1999 16:51:41 -0800 (PST):
}
}On 07-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
} Stef and all,
}
}NO or DISAGREE We have already submitted our suggested
} amendments.
}
}
---
You are subscribed to dnso.discuss as: [[EMAIL
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
at Homestead.
Or the people at Gallup that you claimed helped with the INEG polling efforts.
You're gonna have to prove it sometime, Jeff.
On 08-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
William and all,
Of course all 89,000+ members of INEGroup DO NOT share the same
phone member, but are routed through
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
you wish to
leave for his attention.
William X. Walsh wrote:
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
William and all,
Pot kettle black again!
William X. Walsh wrote:
Mr Broomfield CONTINUES to take things out of context and make them say things
they never said.
On 09-Feb-99 John Charles Broomfield wrote:
I'm happy to see that you're not interested in spreading FUD, since in
recent
William and all,
Pot kettle black!
William X. Walsh wrote:
I see that no one can make comments any longer without getting villified by Mr
Sondow.
These meetings are actually planned for exactly the purpose you state, so that
members can attend both sets of meetings.
I won't debate
Dyson wrote:
Jeff,
May I humbly suggest you arrange special discount fares with American Airlines?
Esther
At 04:11 PM 09/02/99 +, jeff Williams wrote:
All,
We (INEGroup) are preparing an international Internet Stakeholders
meeting in Dallas at Texas Stadium for Feb. 25 thru the 28
Gordon and all,
Gordon Cook makes a good point that has been made over and over again
Mike. What is the essence of the ICANN's authority? It is not even completely
constituted yet. The ICANN Interim Board presently really is not in any
position to be making any decisions or even set a
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 10-Feb-99 Mike Roberts wrote:
With respect to the rest of the email, you present a compelling
case for your vision of the future of the Internet name and
address system. However, it is your case and your opinion,
to which you are richly
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 10-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
But let me quote from you and apply it to this process :
"Company, group, or organization representatives, must have an
affidavit from their me
Kevin an all,
Thank you kevin for providing the exact address.
Kevin M. Kelly wrote:
TEXAS STADIUM is at 2401 E Airport Freeway, IRVING TX
THE DALLAS COWBOY PLAY FOOTBALL THERE!
I wouldn't want anyone to miss the INEGroup stakeholders meeting! ;-)
--
DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia
how up (as he claims
are already preregistered)?
On 10-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 10-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
But let me quote from you and apply it to this process :
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 11-Feb-99 Karl Auerbach wrote:
On the other hand, the database is a *big* privacy intrusion.
And, as I've been indicating, it was paid for and authorized via the
Cooperative Agreement and is hence subject to the Privacy Act of 1974.
Pisanty and all,
Agreed. You may not realize this but this is a constant mantra that
William Walsh has taken for some time. He is a extremely disturbed
individual, and it may be useful for you to recognize this when reading
his posts...
Pisanty Baruch Alejandro-FQ wrote:
Hello,
is this
Javier and all,
We agree that agreement can be reached, but not likely at Singapore.
How many people do you actually are going to meet at Singapore
anyway? I would estimate maybe 200 at most. That is hardly a
indication of any kind of consensus.
Javier SOLA wrote:
Anthony,
I tend to
George and all,
Scale in what way? Could you please define you meaning of "Scale"?
In addition, I would add that if you intend to advocate that only a limited
number of stakeholders can become members, how do you justify this
against the requirements of the White Paper?
George Conrades
George and all,
Again George, how does restricting membership to what you suggest as
an example, Domain Name Holders, meet the requirements of the
White Paper of "All Interested Parties"?
George Conrades wrote:
No, to domain name holders as an example.
-Original Message-
From:
Steve and all,
We (INEGroup) agree with steve's contention here entirely. George's
suggestion of limiting membership in any fashion is ethically challenged
to say the least, not to mention in strict contrast to the requirements
of the White Paper.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
George:
YOUR
George and all,
Though we (INEGroup) agree with your reference to Scotts contention below,
we also fail to see as well, how the dictatorial style of practice of the ICANN
contributes to the ICANN "Initial" and Interim board is a reasonable
demonstration
of openness, transparency, and
Stef and all,
Einar Stefferud wrote:
From your message Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:47:20 +:
}
}Stef and all,
} BTW Stef, what ever happened to what we had discussed regarding the NIST
}protest filing? You seemed to have gone back to sitting on the fence again as
}Roeland had suggested back
Stef and all,
I don't know the answer Stef, hence my reason for asking in the first place.
Kind of a normal thing to do when one doesn't have the answer, yet the
question still lingers.
Einar Stefferud wrote:
Jeff -- If you know thew answer to your question better than I do,
then please
Kevin and all,
Kevin, William is often misstating others positions, as his one time employer
has pointed out (.TJ). He seems to have this propensity and displays it
often.
Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
Mr. Walsh,
You've misstated my position.
I am opposed to mandatory arbitration. I am in
All,
FYI, http://cnnfn.com/digitaljam/newsbytes/126372.html
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd.
Jay Venton, and all,
The problems that the ICANN and possibly the ISOC is having is of their
own making and seemingly wishing to continue by dictating without the
benefit of the Membership Organization in the case of the ICANN, policies
that have been continuingl been stated by stakeholders,
Ellen and all,
We couldn't agree with you more here Ellen. It seems that there are some
"Interested Parties" that feel or believe that TM's and DN's have some sort of
relationship that is special with regard to Domain Names. These folks that
argue this point usually have very little in depth
Antony and all,
We would be opposed to this "Expedited Recommendations" provision
in that it represents and provides, under no specific provision, as Antony
has suggested it here (See Below), an effective veto power for the
NC without the approval of the membership and does so without
a
William and all,
William, I wouldn't be a bit suprised if you were dazzeled if you were
able to find your rump with both hands. Others milage may very
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 13-Feb-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
William X. Walsh a écrit:
On 13-Feb-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
I
Michael and all,
You are right here IMHO. But it seems reasonable to assume that
both shared and non-shared gTLD's can coexist. If not, why not?
I have yet to see an answer to that question that is logical to date.
Michael Dillon wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Einar Stefferud wrote:
}
William and all,
William is correct here and it should be noted. Kent's claim for the
support that the WMB draft has is grossly overstated at best, same
however goes for the Paris draft as well. For instance the INEGroup
does NOT support either the WMB draft not the Paris draft in it's
Eric and all,
IMHO no need to apologize however you can most likely expect
a
warning message from Molly regarding cross posting as that seems
to be forbidden in the rules of the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list
rules. >;)
With respect to your content comments, we have always agreed
that
any policy
Esther and all,
Esther Dyson wrote:
Maybe there should be a meeting *about* constituencies, as opposed to
necessarily *of* constituencies.
Why? It seems to us that the need for pre-defined constituencies is
fairly much opposed. The polls that we and Joop ran showed this
to be the case
Bret and all,
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
My original post asked about whether there was really
a need for giving
executive power to the Names Council, even if just to act in an
"emergency" capacity. Kent's re-threaded response ("Timely decision")
not
only answered a different question (i.e. the need
1 - 100 of 1851 matches
Mail list logo
