Re: [IFWP] Re: [Nc-tlds] RE: ICANN received 44 applications for new TLDs
Kent Crispin wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:13:25AM -0700, Anupam Chander wrote: > [...] > > Mr. Sondow's future postings will go unanswered by me. That is because he has no answer to them. > Generally, that is the best policy. Same for Crispin, whose credibility (never very great, since he is a government employee) reached zero when he went behind the back of the membership of the DNSO-in-formation, re-writing the proposal agreed to in Monterrey in order to incorporate the demands of the trademark lobby without anyone's approval. Michael Sondow = INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS http://www.iciiu.org(ICIIU)[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel(718)846-7482Fax(603)754-8927 =
[IFWP] ICANN's Address Council: an important new power group
(Re-posted from the ASO-policy list) > The address council has recently published a graphical view of the procedures of the >Address Council at our web site: http://www.aso.icann.org/ac/ > > http://www.aso.icann.org/ac/procedures.pdf Michael Sondow = INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS http://www.iciiu.org(ICIIU)[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel(718)846-7482Fax(603)754-8927 =
[IFWP] Re: [Nc-tlds] RE: ICANN received 44 applications for new TLDs
Anupam Chander writes: > > First, Mr. > Sondow's uneducated claim that I have "only recently become aware of ICANN's > activities" is utterly false. I used the word "uneducated" in reference to the ICANN Board, not Mr. Chander. As to Mr. Chander being only recently involved in this affair, I don't recall seeing any posts from him on the related mailing lists (IFWP, Domain-policy, ICANN M.A.C., etc.) during the period 1998-99 (I have been an active subscriber to them), nor do I remember ever having heard him speak at an ICANN meeting during its formation. Where was Mr. Chander when the White Paper was issued? Where was he during the IFWP? Where was he during the debates surrounding the proposals for the NewCo? Where was he during the struggle between the Paris group and the CORE/Trademark group for acceptance by the ICANN Board of bylaws for the DNSO, or the war for control of the NCDNHC? Was he present, but silent? Did he use another name? > If he had forwarded my original email in its > entirety, others would have understood that the primary thrust of that email > was criticism of ICANN's $50k entrance fee. Your so-called "criticism" is typical of the loyal opposition. You, like so many others who have found an unwarranted place in ICANN, operate so as to preserve your new-found and undeserved position by criticizing ICANN "from within", careful always to suggest, in every thing you say, that ICANN is not actually a bad organization, that it has simply made some minor errors, and that it is reformable. These are lies. ICANN was illegitimately created, has proceeded illegitimately in everything it has undertaken including its manipulation of its own bylaws to obviate the most fundamental rules which allowed it to be recognized by the DOC (membership, transparency, and accountability), and is in blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution and federal laws regarding the administration of government agencies and antitrust. Yet you pretend that ICANN need only modify its greed, by changing its TLD application process, to become acceptable. Like a host of other appeasers and collaborators, your criticisms are a cover-up for the irreconcilable breaches of justice, fairness, and legality committed by ICANN and which make it an unreformable and illicit organization. > By forwarding my email to > multiple lists, he denies me the opportunity to respond to his ridicule > because I am not a subscriber to those lists, and my response is thereby > automatically rejected by those lists that prohibit non-member > postings. The fact that you are not a subscriber to the IFWP and Domain-Policy lists proves my original contention that you are a jonny-come-lately who has only recently become aware of ICANN's activities. Michael Sondow = INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS http://www.iciiu.org(ICIIU)[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel(718)846-7482Fax(603)754-8927 =
[IFWP] Re: DOC ICANN buck passing
Joe, Thanks for keeping an ear to the political ground for us and alerting us to the sad state of affairs that have characterized this administration in the US, though the affairs are usually less political in nature. I encourage all US readers of Joe's post to ask their representatives (now running for re-election!!!) who is responsible for ICANN oversight and what they are doing to keep up with such a key issue to the future of American and global business, the internet! Post their responses here and for press people to be aware of. They are there to represent us and work for our interests, let your local papers know when they do not! Thanks again, Joe!!! Karl E. Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] "!Dr. Joe Baptista" wrote: > Just in case someone is interested - there is no one at the DOC in charge > of ICANN. It looks as if there's going to be a bit of buck passing at the > NTIA since Burr's departure. > > Burr left the NTIA on Sept 8th and her responsibilities were trasnferred > to Ken Schagrin. Ken called me from Montreal yesturday (he's enjoying the > recent funeral we had there - great for internatinal contacts) and he > confirmed that he will be transfered to another government department > (trade) on Oct 10th. That's five days from now and he has no idea who is > going to replace him - or at least won't say. > > Now this is conveniently happening in the middle of an icann election > during a very contraversial TLD application. I commened the NTIA on > avoiding it's responsibility. This is the classical example of the civil > service suffle called "let's avoid responsibility". I'm not impressed. > > regards > joe > > -- > Joe Baptista > > http://www.dot.god/ > dot.GOD Hostmaster > +1 (805) 753-8697
