On Sat, Jun 12, 1999 at 06:14:11AM +, William X. Walsh wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 22:43:00 -0700, Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, it was NSI that was booted. The ICANN board modified their
original position in response to widely held public opinion (just as
you claim they
At 06:24 PM 6/11/99 , you wrote:
Wasn't that the point? Technologies may change, but people stay roughly
the same. Where's the next OSI-buster?
Mark,
OSI busting is like the "eternal vigilance in the
pursuit of liberty" admonition. OSI is a state
of mind that has its place; but when applied to
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
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Sat, Jun 12, 1999 at 06:14:11AM +, William X. Walsh wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 22:43:00 -0700, Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, it was NSI that was booted. The ICANN board modified their
original position in response to widely held public opinion
from the real time scribes notes from berlin
* George Conrades: Why does NSI refuse to sign up as
accredited registrar?
* David Johnson: Objects to that requirement as criteria for
participation in that constituency, didn't say in the
meeting that they would not sign up.
Kent and all,
This is utter nonsense. There were a grand total of three people that
stood
up and stated that they felt that NSI should not have more than 1
representative
on the names council. Yes, that is a "Number" but a very low one.
None the less this is really besides the point and
All,
And now they are putting out this. After the fact I might add!
Sheeesh!
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
Gordon and all,
I too was not able to find any of the definitive statements on any of the
Berlin archives that specifically states that NSI or for that matter
any other "Registrar" must be "Accredited". I would also point out that
Mike Roberts statement(S) regarding ICANN and the Singapore
On Sat, 12 Jun 1999 07:15:36 -0700, Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Jun 12, 1999 at 06:14:11AM +, William X. Walsh wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 22:43:00 -0700, Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, it was NSI that was booted. The ICANN board modified their
original
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 try to remove only disruptive individuals, if
Javier and all,
The problem here Javier is that there are not clearly stated rules of
discussion in the june 25th announcement. In that this is a public
forum, and you seem to be inordinately "Concerned" with disruption
issues, these rules evidently need to be in place and clearly stated
so
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
Tony and all,
I would second this sugestion from Tony Rutkowski of opening
the
DNSO "Agenda" setting mailing lists as well...
All in favor indicate in the affirmative, all not in favor indicate
in the
Negative! This will help let the (PNC?) know where stakeholders
stand!
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
Randy and all,
Well Randy I am very surprised at you in this instance. Strict is fine
and a good thing where appropriate. But fair and open are also
as important as well. You should know this!
BTW, your response to william was also an ad hominem attack as well.
I don't find in this
Richard and all,
Well it sounds like Mr. Sola has a personal or philosophical beef with you
Richard. That is usually a good indication of lack of emotional maturity...
Not to mention to kick you off in 15 seconds was totally out of line!
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
At 11:38 PM 6/12/99 GMT,
On Sat, 12 Jun 1999 17:50:29 -0700 (PDT), Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
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
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
Greg,
People seem to be willing to go along with whatever the
government does, as long as they aren't taxed too much, they make
reasonable wages, etc. I offer as evidence the general apathy towards
the Monica Lewinsky scandal: many people were uninterested; others
gave Clinton a high
On Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:52:51 -0700, Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 08:23 PM 6/12/99 -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
Javier,
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
As you're
Javier,
As I recall, there was first a vote to have a closed meeting 6/25 2-4 pm,
followed by an open meeting 4-6 pm. Later on it was decided that meetings
would be open unless disruption occurred, which (I completely agree) is
different than censorship, which to my knowledge was not advocated
21 matches
Mail list logo
