Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Dan Steinberg wrote: FYI, there's been a solution to the chicken and egg problem for years. The ethiopians have a dish, they put both chicken and the egg (hard boiled) in same pot together. It's called Doro Wat, recipe available at: http://www.berko.demon.co.uk/recipes/DoroWot.html n.b. professional poulty products on closed skillet. actual mileage may vary. only attempt this maneuver at home (not in a car) Cute, but as with most of the discussion on mailing lists worthless.
Re: [IFWP] working within ICANN
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Einar Stefferud wrote: In my view, ICANN is no longer worthy of further attention, as their deliberate intention is to disenfranchise all of us. 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.
Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Ellen Rony wrote: If there were killer content that is only available in the other-than-IANA-root, then people would quietly (or not) begin reconfiguring their computers to view it. It's a chicken and egg problem...
Re: [IFWP] Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: You be the Jury (Polling the Lessig-Sondow exchange)
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Joop Teernstra wrote: I went ahead and designed and commissioned the Polling Booth. I make its use available for free. If it is going to be open source, I would like to be paid what it is worth. Then it's not really open source
Re: [IFWP] IETF The PR Firm For NSI?
On Fri, 19 May 2000, Michael Sondow wrote: Since when is the IETF in the business of doing NSI's publicity? Individuals and organizations are free to submit a proposal for an RFC, yourself included(assuming you had something meaningfully technical to say.) Other than possible ignorance of the foregoing why anyone would reasonably view this as the IETF affording NSI "publicity" is beyond my limited comprehension.
Re: [IFWP] RE: realtime root server updates someday? (fwd)
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote: David Harris made a suggestion to update the root servers in real time and I was wondering if NSI found this a practicle solution for implimentation. http://www.ultradns.com. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders -are they represented?
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Michael Sondow wrote:
I think that the smaller ISPs are too intimidated by the power of
the upstream providers to make any sort of complaint.
Michael, you're reaching. Smaller ISPs are more worried about running a
successful business than they are in protracted legal battles which they
generally don't have the funds for anyways.
These smaller ISPs are mostly commercial. That's not the problem.
It's that the RIR-determined qualifications, both technical and
economic, for having blocks allocated directly from the source are
too high, forcing small operations to be beggars of the provider,
which is after all in competition with them and has every incentive
to keep them as small as possible (and often providing bad service,
as well).
While I like to take the RIRs to task on several issues, there are very
real technical reasons to minimize the number of portable address blocks
available due to the deleterious effect a lack of ability to aggregate
addresses and summarize routes have on both the size and CPU/Memory
requirements necessary to hold and calculate routing tables. One would
have hoped that Moore's law would have kept up with routers as well, but
with a few notable exceptions times this does not seem to be the
case. High-end routers also tend to be very expensive meaning that if
steps were not taken to minimize portable allocations, providers would be
forced to purchase ever increasingly expensive routers at ever shortening
intervals. This cost of course would necessarily be shifted to the
consumer.
Each RIR has varying policies on allocations as well. RIPE for example,
while strongly discouraging organizations that don't truly need it, will
give anyone that asks who has a verifiable business presense in Europe a
/19 provided that they pay the applicable fees. ARIN has moved to actually
decrease the requirements for address allocation(organizations can apply
for /20's where they had to justify /19's previously.) ARIN has also made
other positive steps such as making audited financial statements available
on their website to everyone whether they are an ARIN member or not.
I'd like to see the organizations with "grandfathered" large allocations
be asked to justify those allocations or have them taken back. However, I
am cognizent that the true test of ownership of a thing is when one
attempts to take it away. All any of the RIRs can do is ask. If the
financial statements of ARIN are any indicator, any attempts at address
reclaimation "by force" would result in the RIR being sued out of
existence. If you had a fiscal obligation to a company is that a fight
you'd engage in?
I'd also like to see competition between providers of addresses for a
given geographic region, as I believe that the operations could be run at
a *much* lower cost and just as efficiently as they are currently.
Neither of these desires is worth spending a great deal of energy on
at the present time however. The largest problem is the current
ICANN abomination as a whole. In fact, the RIRs aren't too happy with
their new masters at ICANN either, as ICANN has taken to delegating itself
address space since ICANN representative apparently feel that the are
sufficiently above the RIRs that the rules do not apply to them.
The Internet started out very free, but it has rapidly become
conservative.
The Internet was never "very free." Someone was at all times paying for
it, it just generally wasn't the end users.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders -are they represented?
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Greg Skinner wrote: Michael Sondow wrote: I think that the smaller ISPs are too intimidated by the power of the upstream providers to make any sort of complaint. Only an organization like ISPA could do that, and they won't because the power there is with the larger independent ISPs who control their own block. Have the smaller ISPs ever approached EuroISPA or any of the other ISP associations and asked them to lobby on their behalf? I served as a representative of the ISP/C at the IFWP meetings. I attended one of the meetings(Switzerland) discussing what the RIRs would look like under ICANN. The meeting was almost totally dominated by RIR representatives since all the fun was happening in the other room where domain names were being discussed and I felt an obligation to involve myself with the issue of addresses.) The RIR representatives single-mindedly attempted a vote disallowing any direct involvement external to the given RIR(such as by small ISPs) to affect RIR policy in any way. It was certainly an eye-opening display of arrogance and resistance to the input of the governed. With all that said, I stand by what I stated in my previous message to Michael. From what I've seen, the movements of the RIRs has been generally positive. I'd also point out that Alec Peterson and Justin Newton both sit on the ARIN advisory council and are also board members of the ISP/C. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders -are they represented?
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Michael Sondow wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
Have the smaller ISPs ever approached EuroISPA or any of the other ISP
associations and asked them to lobby on their behalf?
I don't know if they have or not. But "here" for me is the U.S.
There's no EuroISPA here. What chance does a small ISP have in the
U.S.A., when ARIN won't give them a block? My ISP has been waiting
for 4 years, and he has the money.
But obviously not the size.
Meanwhile, his upstream provider treats him like *%$*,
Get another provider.
won't configure his zone files properly,
Get another provider.
won't let him be multi-homed,
Get another provider.
lets him get hacked by not providing protections, etc.
That's your providers responsibility not their upstreams.
Having renumbered a couple of ISP networks, it can be a fairly painless
affair if it is thought out carefully. It's not free, but it is certainly
cheaper than suffering the lousy service your provider claims to be
suffering.
An alternative for the ISPs you feel are getting squeezed is to try to
enter into private peering arrangements with other ISPs. Perhaps
these ISPs could form their own association and apply for a routable
IP block.
According to what I've read in Ole Jacobsen's IP magazine about
peering, it can cause more trouble than it solves. There are
questions of compatability. And peering creates its own economic
problems.
In this case, it would present some very difficult problems as the
providers would have to provide transit for other peoples packets.
On their own, though, they have no incentive to change the way
things are run. It's something that an organization like ICANN, but
well directed instead of making the situation worse, ought to be
able to do.
You were hoping for an even stronger ICANN? Be careful what you ask for.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] CPSR Comment on Domain Name Expansion (WG-C/DNSO/ICANN)
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Hans K. Klein wrote: In short, the DNSO has a historic opportunity to change the TLD namespace from its current status as a contraint on the development of the Internet, not to mention a battleground for wasteful disputes, into a force for innovation consistent with the rest of Internet standards. For this reason, CPSR calls for the implementation of Position Paper B. A very well-written and compelling endorsment. However, I have to say: don't hold your breath. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Esther Dyson's reply
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Esther Dyson wrote:
In practical terms, I don't think a "global" vote makes sense. A vote of
people worldwide, yes, but only of interested parties who know what they are
voting about. yes, I know, who decides? maybe we should have a global vote
on that! (just kidding!) it should organize bottom-up, Better yet where
possible are global markets, where people get to choose for themselves
without imposing their choices on others.
Of course under ICANN no such choice is allowed.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
[IFWP] Small company wins VW domain battle
http://news.cnet.com/news/1,1,0-1005-200-1474021.html /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
[IFWP] Internet Labels Lose Meaning in Rush for Popular Addresses (fwd)
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/11/biztech/articles/29name.html
Of particular interest was the following:
"...Michael M. Roberts, interim president and chief executive of Icann
-- the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the network's
new governing body..."
The press seems to get it, I wonder when the ICANN board is going to fess
up...
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
[IFWP] Re: your mail
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote: Doesn't matter. At least we have COMPETITION in the domain registration business. You're NO LONGER LOCKED IN and the STABILITY OF THE INTERNET is no longer at risk. The fact your domain dosn't work is a small price to pay. How is this any different from when NSI ran things exclusively? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: BIND 1999 Survey - released limited distribution
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote: it weasn't spam. I have the results of the survey. They are interesting. It certainly was. Perhaps you should mention that you host the spammer in question Richard. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Becky Burr freezes root servers
On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, J. Baptista wrote: I has come to my attention that Becky Burr of the Department of Commerce has frozen the root and even NSI isn't allowed to add new namesevres for com. While it isn't new news, it would be interesting to see the exact, i's dotted and t's crossed legal explanation and basis for the exertion of such control. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, J. Baptista wrote: On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Joseph Friedman wrote: So anytime a root server is added or moved (and its IP# changes) the only for all the DNS servers worldwide to know of the change(s) is to manually update the list? Yup, or as richard said - if they upgrade bind - so do they upgrade the root cache. Sounds like something the anti rackets people would be interested in. Does it not. Microsoft may run the worlds OS, but Vixie controls the root cache. Vixie does not "control the root cache." Vixie controls the root cache on a single root(which I believe is also a SLD) server. Mr. Vixie should make it quite clear that there are options. He is under no obligation to do so, and further, why would he? To date, I haven't seen any truly viable alternatives and I've looked. If I were to hazard a guess, he hasn't either. So, why mention something that to you(options) don't exist? It is als important to stress that viability encompasses much more than throwing up a bunch of boxes wherever and calling them "root servers." To date, and I'll doubtlessly get flamed for saying this, all the attempts I have witnessed at alternative root servers have consisted of little more than this. No serious financial backing, no production-grade management/ syncranization, no serious marketing(by professionals), no serious buy-in. But as has been mentioned before on these lists - vixie is sponsored by the very people who run the roots, Vixie *is* one of the people who runs the roots, and if I am not mistaken(which is possible) I don't believe any of the root server operators are compensated for running those servers. They do so as a service to the Internet community. Perhaps you could tell us who exactly runs the various root servers and in what fashion they "sponsor" Vixie since you make the claim that they are doing so. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] PCCF opens DNS speakers corner.
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, J. Baptista wrote: Hello: It's a pleasure to announce that we have setup a toll free number to collect opinions on what you think of DNS governance issues. The service will allow you to remain anonymous. U.S. Residents only - unfortunately. The toll free number is 1-877-494-4980 extension 757. We will post these voice messages to a web page and the comments made may be made available to over 100,000 domain name system administrators who are part of our BIND 1999 survey. I hope you are not considering spamming 100,000 people, especially technically-clued ones as many of those administrators are. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
[IFWP] Mandatory Arbitration
While on the surface appearing very marginally related to these discussions the following article about credit card companies and the use of arbitration: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cc/19990920.asp includes an interesting statement within. To wit: "It also has been deemed 'unconscionable' and therefore, unenforceable, in some state courts, particularly if the clause requires one party to arbitrate and allows the other to retain the right to sue." /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] failure notice
On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote: Account mailbox is full. No new email accepted. Aren't these the guys who sell the free domain names? No. Free Internet service. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Greg Skinner wrote: Richard Sexton wrote: Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing, I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the same reasons - it is not legitimate, open, transparent or representative of more than a couple of hundred poeple. The failure of ICANN is proof the process works. Not necessarily. It seems to me that the failure of ICANN is more due to the fact that they cannot act independently of established law. For example, had they focused their attention on building good relations throughout the Internet community, setting up an election process, etc, I don't think they would be in trouble as they are now. It's a very salient point. The reasoning behind this is quite simple: the people behind ICANN see approval from the Commerce Dept., the EU, etc. as the key to success. While paying lip-service to the Internet community with talk of non-existent "consensus-building", transparency and representation, the goal is to garner government(s) approval, not do what is in the interest of the members of the community. However, this doesn't strike me as an example of Internet self-governance. The wrist that slapped ICANN's hands was the old order of traditional government. ICANN is indeed not a creature of "Internet self-governance." It is the result of a few large commercial interests and mid-level bureacrats attempts to avoid and abrogate the rights that citizens hold under the laws of their respective nations. The main reason that ICANN has enjoyed any success whatsoever is that ICANN has a convienent and willing "villian" in NSI, whose own ineptitude and ignorance of the Internet community has made it a convincing excuse for any action ICANN might take. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Fwd: IP: ICANN and what it is
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, David Farber wrote: To: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Dyson) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 09:18:26 -0400 WHy does it need to be ICANN itself who does this? Does no one else have the right to correct misconceptions? g Probably because few people view it as a misconception. Regardless, may I please ask you on behalf of ICANN to avoid the use of oversight in referring to ICANN outside of direct quotes? (By all means please send this to the list.) Well, most people have recognized that what you are attempting is Internet Governance, so the term "oversight" seems quite appropriate. It's really time to drop the pretenses. They are tired, and very worn out. I do notice that your message didn't use the magic buzzword "consensus" in it once. You're slipping... g /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Latest on the Australian censorship
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Joe Sims wrote: On your question, since any national government can join GAC by simply saying so, the GAC is by definition those governments that care enough about these issues to participate in it. Any recommendations they make to ICANN's board will certainly be listened to, just like any recommendations made by anyone else, but they have no automatic or official effect; they are simply recommendations to the board. Why it is that the notion that ICANN should not try to involve interested governments in its processes, so that they feel invested in and (hopefully) protective of ICANN and its consensus-building efforts, is somehow threatening to anyone is beyond me. We can't wish them away, and since they are governments, they have the power to pass laws that could be inconsistent with the private-sector, consensus-building approach of ICANN. 1) Demonstrate consensus. Please. Quantify it. Be very precise and specific. We are all aware that this is the buzzword that Olgivey is coaching you folks to say whenever possible, but do you actually have any meaningful ability to do anything other than mouth the word? 2) If the GAC is afforded a special place in the ICANN infrastructure as it has been, then it should bear similar responsibilites as any other constituency, namely to be open? In refusing to consider the application of the IDNO, Esther question whether they were truly representative of individuals. Why not apply the same litmus test to the handful of mid-level bureaucrats that constitute the GAC? Are you certain that there are enough governments present to be truly representative of the governments of the world? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Latest on the Australian censorship
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Joe Sims wrote: the bylaws make no mention at all of GAC having anything at all to do with ICANN's "legal obligations", and they are perfectly clear that ICANN is not required to follow any GAC advice. FWIW, I have always read the bylaws exactly the same way. The issues that matter strike me as completely political and not a bylaws issue. Would ICANN have the spine to stand up to a strong demand by governments that, e.g., a ccTLD be reassigned? Do you even need to ask that particular question in light of the "GAC endorsed" WIPO recommendations being railroaded through? One might more profitably enquire if there is any law *external* to the bylaws (e.g. national law, or even international law) that would require some compliance by ICANN. I know of none at present, but I have not looked. There are much bigger things at stake here than mere laws: power, egos, reputations, careers, and a great deal of money. ICANN has already shown a propensity for ignoring its' bylaws. I doubt avoiding other laws is beyond them. There are some things in the bylaws that I find open to interpretation or confusing, but the fact that GAC as a formal matter has a right to be heard and no more seems fairly clear to me, and Tony hasn't been able to persuade me otherwise. A right to be heard, perhaps. What is perverse is the concept of government "representatives" being so afraid of the people that they purportedly represent that they have to close meetings. Further, as we are bearing witness to, those mere "recommendations" are being rubberstamped by ICANN. They may delay committing the ink for a short period of time to avoid some of the heat, but the agenda is clear, and it is being adhered to. But don't take my word for it. I'll be happy to forward this message to you a few months from now(assuming ICANN is still in business and isn't under a court order from some jurisdiction impeding them) and say "I told you so." /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote: What we'll have in Santiago is a refined version of the comment-submission system we provided in Singapore and Berlin. As http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago describes: "Online participants will be able to submit text comments in real-time. Questions and comments submitted over the Internet will be sent to technical staff present in the meeting room. Those real-time messages relevant to the topic currently being discussed will be processed by the moderator who will select certain messages for presentation to the assembled group for a response similar to that provided to a concern raised at a microphone in a QA session. All messages will be archived on this site." And herein lies the rub, and the disparity between on-line participants and those physically present. Those physically present can stand in line for a mike and say whatever it is they wish to say. Those not physically present are *filtered* through the staff. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
RE: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: I do fear that the consequence is that you will have "questions" over reasoned debate. As a result, measuring "consensus" coming out of such a process becomes ever more problematicI'm not sure, though, I have a better alternative (again, assuming the same process applies to the physically present). All the more reason to do away with the traveling ICANN circus and hold the meetings completely virtually. Of course this would represent too much of a paradigm shift for some. And to that I say: Evolve or die. :-) /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: Re[2]: [IDNO-DISCUSS] icann.edleman.19990819 / Access to ICANN S
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote: Jeff Mason wrote: As I expected there are no gurantees. The issue is not weither the Berkman Center is composed of angels - or fruits aging in fine wine, it is privacy, a right granted to democratic societies. Remote online participation should approximate physical participation in Santiago as much as possible. Customarily, when one is speaking before a board, the individual states his or her name and address or town and, (optional) organization and/or occupation. This is not a privacy issue but a matter of keeping an accurate public record. It is appropriate to request similar information of those who participate remotely. It does beg the question: "What does one do in the case of the 'Jeff Williams' of the world?" /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
[IFWP] Re: your mail
On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote: Hello: With respect to esther dyson - chairman of the icann board. I've noticed that few people address their concerns to the pres mike roberts, instead all concerns are directed to the chairman esther dyson - why is that. Because Esther is the only one anyone ever sees on these mailing lists. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] News
On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: randy barret. ignorant fool Who is he? What gives him special insight or stature? (Other than some people agree or disagree with him. :-) ) Randy is a pretty clueful reporter who has been doing work for Interactive Week and others for quite some time. While I disagree with him on this particular issue, I would hardly characterize him as an "ignorant fool." /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Political Domain Name story
On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote: DOMAIN FIGHT CAUSES BROWN OUT (POL. Tuesday) http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/politics/story/21201.h tml An opportunistic cybersquatter who holds key domain names in the race for San Francisco mayor is now on a candidate's payroll. Incumbent Willie Brown's Net identity is in jeopardy. By Chris Oakes. Now *that* was written by an ignorant reporter. How can someone "cybersquat" on a common name? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Political Domain Name story
On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote: Did you read the article? Indeed I did. If you were talking about brown.com (or even williebrown.com in another context) I might agree with you except the article states that the names taken were: "williebrown.com, williebrownjr.com, damayor.com, frankjordan.com, jordanformayor.com -- and even williesucks.com -- are registered to Hasse Inc., owned by one Andy Hasse" so this is how someone can cybersquat on a common name. The defenses of a hypothetical innocent person are not available to this non-hypothetical person who clearly targeted Mayor Brown (unless you can come up with another Willie Brown Jr. who is known as damayor). Please explain to me why Willie Brown, the mayor has superior rights to the domain name "williebrown.com" or any of the other character strings above. I'd also love to hear your definition of "cybersquatter." /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] The rough consensus in Berlin and ICANN's bylaws
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Joop Teernstra wrote: Karl and Patrick, The "consensus" in Berlin was so rough, that I can still see my abrasions. Joop, Thank you for the view of what occured in Berlin. Even had there been consensus in Berlin, which, from your account there wasn't, the far more important issue is that no consensus call or vote was taken from those not physically present in Berlin. One can only wonder what miniscule percentage of participants in this arena were present in Berlin vs. the total number including those not physically present. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: Call for comments on DNSO Names Council amendments (Deadline: August 10)
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Esther Dyson wrote: Thanks, Karl. We are indeed soliciting comments as you suggest at the end. What is truly unfortunate is that despite repeated requests you have not addressed the substance of Karl's statements. ICANN willingly and knowingly violated its' own bylaws with the ICANN Interim CEO and counsel present in taking actions to have certain individuals forcibly ejected from a teleconference. Why? Is this an issue that will ever be answered when it is asked by the plebs, or will we be forced to have any meaningful question asked by a Congressperson in order to receive an answer? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
[IFWP] Internet first for injured judge
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_407000/407911.stm Perhaps the ICANN board could take a lesson from this, and stop flying around the world and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on meetings(and $400 a night hotel rooms of course.) /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] $1 per name fee?
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Ivan Pope wrote: One of my fears at the beginning of the process was that ICANN would expand to soak up all available resources, and then would go looking for more. Which is exactly what it started doing with the so called 'not more than $1 per name' fee. It is not often that taxes are adjusted downwards /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
RE: [IFWP] Block the Crock
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Patrick Greenwell wrote: Personally, I think the list owner has been far too giving of his time in forwarding posts from non-members to the list. If one wishes to post to the list, then one should be a member. You are right, in principle, but the problem comes often from the unhealthy habit of some people who copy every message to each and every list they subscribe to, relevant or not to the thread. And if one continues to forward those posts to a list, wouldn't you agree that they are in fact aiding those with this unfortunate habit? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Block the Crock
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Jim Dixon wrote: This got by the filters because Dave is rude enough to post over and over to this list without subscribing to it. Glancing through it does remind me of why I Block the Crock. Time to improve those filters ;-) Personally, I think the list owner has been far too giving of his time in forwarding posts from non-members to the list. If one wishes to post to the list, then one should be a member. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: Membership supermajorities
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Karl Auerbach wrote: In other words, if there were to be established a viable non-ICANN root system, then all this effort to establish advisory committees, Supporting Organizations, WIPO rules, ADR, taxes/fees, etc would all exist only on those things willing to voluntarily accept the rules derived from the ICANN root (and possibly the ICANN TLDs). Everyone and everything else would be exempt. And given the choice, how many people do you think would "volunteer"? :-) /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: Re[2]: [IFWP] ICANN's Internet Community - Fact and Fancy
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, William X. Walsh wrote: Monday, July 19, 1999, 7:25:21 PM, Patrick Greenwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Bill Lovell wrote: Wow! Sounds like [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there consensus here? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! All kidding aside, Tony raises an extremely valid point: Where is all this "consensus" that ICANN claims? Come on now Patrick, you know that they mean consensus from the CORE, ISOC, and Trademark interests. That may be, but I don't believe it is the answer that representitves of ICANN would offer. My question is: what is the "official" answer? I have seen very little in the way of "consensus" expressed on any of a great number of issues, so I am curious where the claims of "consensus" emerge from. Are the board members going out and speaking with constituents? Are they relying on staff to provide them with summations of views and "consensus" of the community? It would be very helpful indeed to know the answer to this question, as well as the litmus test they are applying when determining when "consensus" is present. Esther, as the only board member that apparently has any public communication with constituents, could you perhaps spare a moment to answer this question? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] ICANN's Internet Community - Fact and Fancy
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Bill Lovell wrote: At 10:02 PM 7/19/99 -0400, you wrote: 5. Analysis. ICANN's own "community feedback" files of record reveal clearly there is no "community consensus." Indeed, it is preponderantly a chaotic randomness of topics and people combined with one outspoken critic, and almost none of the material is more than a few paragraphs long. Wow! Sounds like [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there consensus here? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! All kidding aside, Tony raises an extremely valid point: Where is all this "consensus" that ICANN claims? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose?
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Diane Cabell wrote: Perhaps you aren't looking in the right places. All of the reports and recommendations, plus the Board resolutions and timelines are on the ICANN site. There are steps between here and there. There are very few personnel available to undertake them. It's not going as quickly as you or I would wish. Perhaps if you yell louder it will magically change those circumstances. Perhaps if ICANN were to have concentrated most of its efforts on this task, rather than delving into areas that far exceed its' mandate,we wouldn't be having this conversation. :-) /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose?
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When you consider that one of the primary purposes of this *interim* board was to establish an electorate, and hold formal elections to elect the first official *initial* board, your comments simply don't add up. The Commerce Department would seem to disagree with you. In its reply to Bliley, at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/blileyrsp.htm it says "the terms are used interchangeably": The Commerce Department can disagree with whomever they wish. I suggest you all actually look at the original document for yourselves.
Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose?
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Diane Cabell wrote: analysis by the MAC raised many difficult issues. Perhaps an online election may be beyond the budget. If anyone knows a crack programmer who will code for water and gruel, please volunteer now! Diane, As I stated previously if ICANN were truly the community-consensus based organization that it claims to be, all they would have to do is ask, and resources would be volunteered by members of the community. That is what a community is about. It isn't about multi-million dollar budgets, high-priced attorneys and speaking to fellow denziens of ones community through press releases. I know at least a dozen people present in these discussion capable of the programming necessary(and there are doubtlessly many, many more.) That people aren't jumping at the chance to offer their services should dispell the myth that this ICANN is a creature of self-governance. I'd sooner rot in hell than help enable this charade. Perhaps someone from AOL or IBM is available? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Javier, what are you doing?
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Mark C. Langston wrote: Javier, I'm confused. *SNIP* Yesterday afternoon, I request to be added to wg-c-1, and a few hours later, I request that I be added to wg-c-2. Last night, you add me only to wg-c-2, with no explanation. I'm bothered enough that the pDNC has appointed you, a signatory of the gTLD-MoU, a member of the BoT of ISOC, a member of the PAB and POC, as the chair of the group that will decide questions regarding the existence and management of gTLDs. It troubles me further that you also control the subscription processes surrounding this WG, which you've broken into 4 seperate lists. What, exactly, is going on here? Business as usual. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
[IFWP] ICANN running out of money
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,38847,00.html?st.ne.fd.gif.l P.S. I am maintaining links to recent news information at: http://stealthgeeks.net/background.html. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: Thoughts on ICANN
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Michael Sondow wrote: You wrote: Well, the two names council members that are employees of MCI in contravention to the bylaws that state no more than one employee of a company may be on the names council is the most obvious one. While the case of the two MCI employees on the Names Council is ceratinly a violation of the bylaws, as you say, the most obvious violation is undoubtedly the duplication of CORE members. Article VI-B Sec. 2(g) of the bylaws states that "No more than one officer, director or employee of a corporation or other organization (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) shall serve on the NC at any given time." All three NC members from the Registrar Constituency are CORE members, and two of them - Ken Stubbs and Amadeu Abril i Abril - are officers of CORE, Stubbs being the President of the Executive Committee and Amadeu Abril i Abril being a member of the Policy Oversight Committee. If we add to that David Maher, another POC member, who has appointed himself the NC member from the Non-Commercial Constituency, and Javier Sola, a member of the Policy Advisory Body, who is not only an NC member from the Business Constituency but recently the Chair of the NC, we get a grand total of no less than five CORE officers on the Names Council. If we add up ISOC personnel among NC members we get similar results. Hi Michael, CORE's Articles of Association are available at: http://www.corenic.org/about_core/articles.htm. The only officers of the organization as far as I can tell are the Executive Committee members. Currently, Ken is the only Excom member holding a position within the ICANN structure. Members of the Policy Oversight Committe, or members of the Policy Advisory Board aren't considered either "officers" of the organization, nor are they likely employees. Corrections(with corresponding documents) welcome of course. Doubtlessly you'll scream at me for not agreeing with your assesment. *shrug* /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: Thoughts on ICANN
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote: Hi Michael, CORE's Articles of Association are available at: http://www.corenic.org/about_core/articles.htm. The only officers of the organization as far as I can tell are the Executive Committee members. Currently, Ken is the only Excom member holding a position within the ICANN structure. Members of the Policy Oversight Committe, or members of the Policy Advisory Board aren't considered either "officers" of the organization, nor are they likely employees. Corrections(with corresponding documents) welcome of course. If the names council was 80% ORSC people I'd scream saying it was unbalanced and nobody would take it seriously. The bylaws, as implemented, fail to prevent capture by a single organzation. Hi Richard, I am not disagreeing with you. All I am saying is that Michael's assesment that five "officers" of CORE hold seats within the NC is incorrect. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: Thoughts on ICANN
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Michael Sondow wrote: Patrick Greenwell a écrit: Doubtlessly you'll scream at me for not agreeing with your assesment. I sceram at no one. But are you content, then, that the NC is in the hands of CORE (and ISOC)? Not really. But I prefer to maintain accuracy when I make assertions. Is this, according to you, the fulfillment of the White Paper's call for self-organization by all stakeholders? Nope. Are you helping here to justify CORE and ISOC's takeover of the DNSO because it keeps users like me out, which you seem to be in agreement with, since you have insulted and rejected and aggressed against us ever since we dared to intervene on these lists and in the NewCo, despite the fact that the White Paper and the DOC have stated that the DNSO should be divided equally between users and operators? Thank you for making my point Michael. You do a great disservice to those that you are attempting to aid by your continued attacks on those that otherwise might want to help you or the position you represent. Scream away though if it makes you feel better. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: Thoughts on ICANN
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Michael Sondow wrote: Patrick Greenwell a écrit: But I prefer to maintain accuracy when I make assertions. I see. So you are the arbiter of the truth. Well, I didn't know that. I humbly beg your pardon, Lord Greenwell. Michael, Do you have any objective refutation of the statements in my original response? Or would you like to continue to play "hunt the CORE lover?" /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Craig McTaggart wrote: I've held back on all of the other ridiculous claims in this thread but this is the one that always gets me going. Some clarifications about private property and identifiers. You do not own your domain name. There is now case law on the books that says otherwise. You are quite simply wrong.
Re: [IFWP] RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Karl Auerbach wrote: You do not own your domain name. There is now case law on the books that says otherwise. You are quite simply wrong. This is one of those cases where "ownership' is a soft concept. Maybe one doesn't have absolute, unlimited title to a domain name, but one has some collection of rights, contractual and perhaps otherwise, that are in and of themselves rights that can be transferred (perhaps for a quid pro quo, i.e. sold), used as security for debt, licensed, delegated, etc etc. Sorry, I should have been more specific. You are of course correct Karl. My conclusion is that domain names do come with a bundle of rights and that those rights do constitute sufficient discretionary power over the domain name that they, or at least the rights towards the domain name if not the name itself, could be considered a form of property right. And the judges in the court cases I have heard of on the subject would seem to agree with that interpretation. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Craig McTaggart wrote: When people criticize ICANN's methods and power, some essentially argue that it should be more like a government, with due process controls and democratic authority before it imposes fees (which many erroneously call taxes - a curiously American predilection). No taxation without representation, they say. Wait a minute, I thought government was the problem, and the last thing we wanted was government. How ironic it is to hear the anti-government posters finally implicitly recognize that whoever does this job has to have legitimate authority and function in everybody's interests. Sounds like government, huh? I don't think you are offering a particularly accurate portrayal of those that don't wish an Internet "governance" organization. I also don't believe your conclusion is valid. The persons behind ICANN have repeatedly stated that what they are doing is not "governance." Their actions speak otherwise. Some of this be attributed to confusion in the Green and White Papers as to the role of the new organization, and even further to the mandate from the Clinton Administration. Some of these actions however, simply cannot be attributed to mere ignorance. ICANN has been extremely overzealous in setting up a "governance" structure by its attempted imposition of power over the delegation and seizing of objects such as domain names, something that IANA never attempted to do. Indeed, the White Paper was very clear with regards to the scope and applicability of domain dispute resolution policies, yet ICANN has completely ignored this. While I don't purport to speak for those that don't want an Internet "government," I believe the viewpoint is fairly simple: "We don't want an Internet government. However, as that seems to be what is occuring, it better be done properly." It hasn't, it isn't and it isn't going to be. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: Thoughts on ICANN
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Jon Zittrain wrote: At 07:29 PM 7/3/99 , Richard Sexton wrote: At 07:08 PM 7/3/99 -0400, Jonathan Zittrain wrote: through governments, that might even be solace, but my point is that even in its current incarnation ICANN seems to me to have quite tight constraints on what it can do. I don't know how you can say that when it's ignoring it's own bylaws Jonothon. I've probably not been following the list enough lately, but I'd want to talk specifics here. Please review the letter I wrote to Ralph Nader/James Love which is available at http://stealthgeeks.net/nader.html. I was very careful to avoid including violations that were subject to a lot of interpretation. If I had, it would have been a much larger document indeed. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] RE: [IFWP] Re: Press CommuniquéIn-reply-to : m10xeqW-000Xzra@ns1.vrx.net
On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Antony Van Couvering wrote: The wish to have a uniform dispute resolution policy makes sense, Makes sense for some, not for others. The world of domain name registration has managed to muddle along just fine without any sort of mandated uniform dispute resolution policies. There is a nice, ever-increasing stack of case law that has formed saying that "cybersquatters" don't win. As that is the case, there is little necessity for a uniform dispute policy in cases involving "cybersquatting." Any other type of dispute is most properly handled by either *VOLUNTARY* arbitration, or by the courts. 2. To say there is no consensus among the constituencies is entirely premature. In a way, that is what Working Group A is there to discover. Is it? We have had years of discussion about this very subject among a wide number of players and there has never been consensus on this issue. In fact, within the IFWP I believe there was a consensus emerging that in fact a UDRP was *not* desireable. Further, Working Group A was formed "to Review Chapter 3 of the WIPO recommendations, regarding Conflict Resolution Policy for Domain Names." It wasn't formed to decide if "UDRPs were necessary or desireable." The intent is clear. The process is horribly flawed. Working Group A was formed before an elected Names Council is seated. Who decided that Working Group A was a good thing? The currently unelected and unrepresentative ICANN board? The currently unelected and unrepresentative provisional Names Council? The results, likewise will be horribly flawed. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: PASS THE SICK BAG!
On Sun, 13 Jun 1999, Esther Dyson wrote: Jay - What made you stop consulting for NSI? Curiously, Esther Dyson Esther, Was your appereance in an IBM commercial a one time deal, or are you a regular employee? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
RE: [IFWP] Re: Register.com and the Testbed charges effect
On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Roberto Gaetano wrote: Hi. Richard Sexton wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd say this is a pretty clear determination of the effects NSI's prepayment requirement is going to have on its new and future prospective registrars. Where were you 6 months ago when it seemed like I was the only one on [EMAIL PROTECTED] advocating no prepayment??? The big issue, as I see it, is not "prepayment yes" vs. "prepayment no", but "prepayment yes for some and no for others". It is self-evident (please correct me if I'm wrong) that this situation is not a level field for competition. This is a very good point. Will NSI continue to allow people to register without prepaying via WorldNIC, yet force all other registrars to pay for any registrations through them, paid or not? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: I represent the little guy -- Esther Dyson as hypocrite
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Esther Dyson wrote: Gordon, One does not have to be 100 percent in agreement with everything in order to stay involved in something. I think I can do more for the little guy (and the Net in general) from inside ICANN than from outside. So do I. When are we going to have elections? Isn't that what the interim board should be focusing on? The board could do the most for "the Net in general" by concentrating solely on getting a duly elected board in place. At least that way those "arrogant juveniles" as Mike Roberts likes to refer to ICANN detractors might actually have a say as to who they most feel comfortable having represent "the little guy." This could result in ICANN actually having some legitimacy among the serfs. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Magaziner, Lessig Spar
On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Gordon Cook wrote: You are right Jay. and Lessig was/is absolutely right too. The GAC was planned from the earliest stages of ICANN as a body of gov't types who could use the ICANN shell and the built in mutability of the ICANN by laws to rule the internet through ICANN from behind the scenes. Magaziner, Cerf, Roberts and Dyson were all midwifes to the big lie. The ability to keep an internet free of gov't control lies now largely in the hands of Network Solutions. The Gods help us all then. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: Registrar Constituency meeting - Berlin
On Fri, 21 May 1999, Einar Stefferud wrote: Hi Patrick -- That is the bad news. The good news is that doing so will unmask ICANN for what it is;-)... True, very true. BTW, my access to present mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] is blocked and my mail is being rejected. Must be that ICANN brand of openness and transparency in action that I've been hearing so much about. ;-) /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Comment on Geographic Diversity Policy
On Sat, 22 May 1999, Kent Crispin wrote: On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 09:31:21AM -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote: Izumi AIZU wrote: But I want to state that the geographic diversity has been very much the consensus from last year's IFWP process, Only in an "aspirational" sense. We have never agreed that this form of diversity should be imposed if it will frustrate other forms, as is the case with the current proposal. I'm sorry, Eric. You are misinformed. Izumi is correct: geographic diversity has been an absolute requirement from very early on, and is a component of the White paper. We spent a great deal of time in the DNSO meetings discussing exactly this issue. Hi Kent, I don't recall seeing you at any of the many IFWP meetings I attended, so I am curious how you would know what was decided in this regard at those meetings. My recollection is akin to Eric's. Geographic diversity was indeed discussed and most people found it to be a valuable and necessary component of NewCo, however there was indeed no agreement on it trumping all other forms of representation. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Comment on Geographic Diversity Policy
On Sat, 22 May 1999, Kent Crispin wrote: I'm sorry, Eric. You are misinformed. Izumi is correct: geographic diversity has been an absolute requirement from very early on, and is a component of the White paper. We spent a great deal of time in the DNSO meetings discussing exactly this issue. Hi Kent, I don't recall seeing you at any of the many IFWP meetings I attended, so I am curious how you would know what was decided in this regard at those meetings. My recollection is akin to Eric's. Geographic diversity was indeed discussed and most people found it to be a valuable and necessary component of NewCo, however there was indeed no agreement on it trumping all other forms of representation. Hello Patrick. The reason there were many IFWP meetings all around the world was to satisfy this requirement. Or have you forgotten: The new corporation should operate as a private entity for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole. The development of sound, fair, and widely accepted policies for the management of DNS will depend on input from the broad and growing community of Internet users. Management structures should reflect the functional and geographic diversity of the Internet and its users. Mechanisms should be established to ensure international participation in decision making. (From the white paper) The fact that you and Eric seem oblivious to this is interesting indeed. The fact that you are unable or refuse to comprehend what people write isn't very interesting Kent. It is tiresome, and reminds me that I should just refrain from any sort of dialogue with you. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: Credentials for attendance at the NCDNHC organizational meeting in Berlin
On Fri, 21 May 1999, Esther Dyson wrote: It applies to all the constituencies, and concerns who may enter the room. Then we hope the people in the room will self-organize and come up with reasonable criteria for their group. but each constituency =building effort must start with an open room. Wonderful to hear Esther. So, where is the GAC meeting? I am sure there will be a great number of people interested in this constituency. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc)(408) 777-1451 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: Registrar Constituency meeting - Berlin
On Fri, 21 May 1999, Esther Dyson wrote: The rooms are open. Then either the constituencies self-organize, and the Initial Board recognizes them, or certain constituencies will be missing in the initial DNSO. Consider for a moment that ISOC, who is convienently holding an all-chapters meeting in Berlin immediately preceeding the ICANN meeting, overwhelm the meeting with representitives for all the constituencies. You would recognize constituencies without offering equal weight to the input and/or participation of those utilizing the Internet who are either unable or unwilling to spend the potentially thousands of dollars(depending on location) to go to Europe? Recognizing any constituency without the input of those unable to attend physically would be do a great disservice to those that you purport to serve. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc)(408) 777-1451 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] The Tax and how to spend the $62 million
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Dan Steinberg wrote: I don't find this appalling at all. That's a shame. It is indeed a very safe feature of the system. Consider the alternatives. Something gets drafted that (despite good intentions) created tremendous inequities accidentally. Imagine the fallout if there was no way to right the wrongs. IMHO this is a feature not a bug. Remember that it took a conscious G act of Congress to take this step. An agency(or in this case their contractor) collected what was at the time an illegal tax. The U.S. Congress then reotractively made the tax legal so that the funds could be retained. I apologize if I am simply restating what occured, but I am amazed that anyone could find that a "feature" rather than a bug. They are your elected representatives. If you don't like their decisions you have the power to vote them out of office. So I am told. Just consider an alternative where you don't have those powers, where decisions were taken by un-elected non-representative beings. Where you had no immediate way to right wrongs. What would you call that: ICANN??? Apples and oranges. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc)(408) 777-1451 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] The Tax and how to spend the $62 million
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Bill Lovell wrote: The US District Court for the District of Columbia agreed that it was a tax but said that Congress could retroactively authorize it, which lawmakers did later that month. This most of all, is particularly appalling /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc)(408) 777-1451 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: DOJ investigating NSI
On Fri, 14 May 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: a senior, well-respected jurist. The language vis-a-vis Network Solutions' role under the NSF cooperative agreement should be fairly dispositive regarding matters, for example, relating to its intellectual property. See below and at http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199905/98-5502a.txt Hi Tony, I could find no relation to anything to do with NSI's patently absurd IP claims in this decision. Perhaps you could offer specific citations from the decision that might clear the fog from my poor, befuddled mind. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v (tinc)(408) 777-1451 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] ICANN's Bylaws and WIPO Report
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Kent Crispin wrote: That is what will be required if the famous marks exclusion becomes part of your so desirable unform base DRP. Not at all. It is absolutely and completely trivial to implement this at the registry level -- for example, the registry simply registers the names to an escrow entity. Furthermore, if the famous mark exclusion doesn't work out, it will be dropped. It isn't necessary that the policy be perfect to start with -- it just matters that there be a policy, and that it be modifiable with changing conditions. Legislators know how to put laws on the books. They have little experience in taking them off. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (tinc) Coming to the ISPF? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] ICANN's Bylaws and WIPO Report
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Kent Crispin wrote: On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 06:32:31PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote: Legislators know how to put laws on the books. They have little experience in taking them off. We are not talking about legislators. This is not a government. Sadly Kent, you are mistaken. The sooner that misconception is put to rest, the better. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (tinc) Coming to the ISPF? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] ICANN and WIPO in Berlin
On Fri, 7 May 1999, Esther Dyson wrote: Thanks for your comments. AS noted, we have not yet decided what we will do. It indeed depends on public comments, among other things. But aside from our process, do you have any comments on the substance of the WIPO report? We would welcome those. Hello Esther, Both Jay and myself have previously requested that you might answer the questions that Jay originally submitted regarding Mike Roberts report to GAC. Any chance that you might have the time to do that? Thank you. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (tinc) Coming to the ISPF? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: GAC Draft Agenda
On Thu, 6 May 1999, Esther Dyson wrote:
Jay -
The GAC calls its own shots. It advises *us*; we do not advise *it.* (And
it *advises* us; it does not control us. We make decisions pursuant to our
own bylaws, with input ("recommendations") from the GAC, from you, from DNSO
members, from anyone else... Please check with the GAC itself on your
questions below.
Esther,
Perhaps you didn't grasp what Jay was asking.
At the GAC meeting there will be a report given by Mike Roberts, Interim
CEO of ICANN on:
The legal delegation and practical relationship between ICANN, governments
and ccTLD administrators Changes in policy for registrations under a gTLD
(for example, as occurred in .edu and as undertaken by NSI) Infrastructure
Trust Fund - Update on progress and the litigation process
And Jay asked:
What legal delegation?
What changes in policy for registrations?
What Infrastructure Trust Fund?
(Is that the $50 million U.S. collected fund?)
What litigation?
Could you please address those questions?
Thank you.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com
(tinc)
Coming to the ISPF? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: Brock Meeks on Internet Governance
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Bill Lovell wrote: All this IFWP talk has been cheap enough, but where has it got anyone? Where do I send a check? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (tinc) Coming to the ISPF? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
[IFWP] Re: the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency, status update
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Joop Teernstra wrote: Friends, All 34 individuals that have so far underwritten the IDNO constituency, actually oppose the idea of constituencies for the DNSO. Those who do not want organisations to be their voice, seem to be forming something that already looks like an organization. Perhaps we need to create a constituency involved in the creation of constituencies. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (tinc) Coming to the ISPF? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
[IFWP] Unfair competition
The following is(was?) sent to all the post-testbed accredited registrars. It raises some extremely valid concerns regarding the very unfair pricing enviroment that is currently in effect - Congratulations on being accredited! I am sending to you and the other accredited registrars a copy of an email I sent to Esther Dyson and Mike Roberts of ICANN. We are also going to send a similar email to Becky Burr at the US Department of Commerce. Please read it as it concerns, I believe, a huge issue that has been overlooked in this process of introducing competition in domain names, an issue that could have a profound effect on your business. We also offer what we believe is a fair solution. I would appreciate your comments (feel free to call me or email) and please, if you agree that this is an issue that needs immediate attention, as we believe it does, send an email today to express your own concerns to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Esther Dyson, Interim Chaiman, ICANN [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mike Roberts, Interim President/CEO, ICANN [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Becky Burr, Department of Commerce Many thanks! -- Jeff Field [EMAIL PROTECTED] Founder/President http://www.namesecure.com NameSecure.com PO Box 127phone: 925-377-1212, ext. 100 Moraga, CA 94566-0127 fax: 925-377-1414 --- start copy of email --- Mike (and Ms. Dyson), Thank you for your reply. I and everyone here at NameSecure.com are also looking forward to an open and competitive marketplace for domain names. In that regard... Perhaps I was not clear about our concerns as to the *severely* detrimental effect the testbed period as currently planned could have on not only our company but all 29 of the post-testbed registrars. Please permit me take a stab at it again... As I understand things going forward, the testbed period begins Monday, the 26th and is scheduled to last 60 days. During the 60 days (which will undoubtedly last longer) Network Solutions will be charging anyone that registers a name through them $70. They are, according to the documents, obligated to charge this legacy fee during the length of the testbed period. The five testbed registrars, however, may charge any price they wish. Presumably, they could even give it away for free and/or bundle the registry fee in with services (please correct me if I'm wrong about any of these assumptions). Assuming the above scenario, that means that during the testbed period, customers of NameSecure.com will be forced to pay the $70 fee. Now, one thing you could say to us is, "You will not have to register your customer's domain names through Network Solutions any longer. You could now register the names through one of the 5 testbed registrars." And to that I would say, "You're right. We do have that choice. However, all of our automated back-end systems have been designed to work with Network Solution's business processes. For us to change all of that for a 60-day period of time (we will ourselves be a registrar after the 60 days) would require an *enormous* amount of time, effort and money. It would force us to divert all of our resources away from our efforts to become a registrar." I don't believe you could truly expect us to do that. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So, assuming that we are not forced to change all of our back-end systems, what potential position does that leave NameSecure.com in? It leaves us in a position of our customers having to pay a $70 registration fee while at the same time one of the testbed registrars is giving it away for free or at cut-rate prices. Our business could dry up to a trickle during the 60-day testbed period. By the end of the 60 days, we could be either out of business or severely crippled. I'm sure that it is not your intention to drive the 29 accredited post-testbed registrars out of business during the 60-day period, however, as the plans to go forward currently stand, it could happen. Let me try to be even clearer about this... Let's say you have a town with ten gas stations in it. And you say, "For the next 60 days, five of you can sell gas for 50 cents a gallon, but the other five have to charge 1 dollar." Obviously, I, and I'm sure you, wouldn't want to be one of the stations that has to charge a buck. But this is exactly the position that NameSecure.com now finds itself in. We're one of the stations that is going to for at least 60 days charge a buck while the testbed registrars can charge 50 cents (or give it away for free). And as you know, in Internet time, 60 days is a long long time. We will do everything we can to make sure this plan does not go forward under this scenario. But... I believe there is a simple answer to all this. As I stated before, until the testbed period is over and until the additional accredited registrars have had a
Re: [IFWP] Re: URGENT/Press/ take 2
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Esther Dyson wrote: Let me add: We understand perfectly that this situation is not ideal, but it is temproary, and two months is a short time. There will be enouhg glitches getting this test going that we do not expect it to give anyone a competitive edge. $70 per domain for two years vs $18 for the same time period? Please tell me what "glitches" would prevent an obvious competitive edge at this disparity in pricing. I don't want to sound cavalier, but as the Justice Department has often said with regard to Microsoft in particular and competition in general, our job is to foster competition, not to protect competitors. In order to "foster competition", five players are allowed deeply discounted pricing, while everyone else is left to pay full price? That certainly doesn't sound like the fostering of competition. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (tinc) Coming to the ISPF? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: URGENT/Press/Wired News, re: testbed concerns from NameSecure.com
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote: At 10:00 PM 4/26/99 -0400, you wrote: I don't want to sound cavalier, but as the Justice Department has often said with regard to Microsoft in particular and competition in general, our job is to foster competition, not to protect competitors. But you are protecting the 5 registrars you picked. What where the slection criteria anyway ? Will the applications be made available for scrutiny ? This is of particular interest. I have been struggling with the idea that AOL was offered status as a testbed registrar, when to the best of my knowledge, AOL doesn't even offer domain name registration for its customers. (corrections welcome). /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (tinc) Coming to the ISPF? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Re: Internet Governance?!
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Ellen Rony wrote: My prediction is that the constituencies will not be inclusive (e.g., individuals denied in one case, non IP interests in another) My prediction is that this bloated, byzantine "seperate constituency for everything and everyone under the sun" model will die a horrible death. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellCentergate Research, LLC http://www.ultradns.net (tinc) Coming to the ISPF? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
[IFWP] NIC pages
Many of you were upset about the redirection of internic.net to www.networksolutions.com. So was I. Rather than just scream about it, which is great for getting all that pent-up frustration out but doesn't really address the issue, I decided to try to find a solution. Here's what I came up with: http://209.133.38.12 (yes, I know it doesn't have a host name, that's up to you...) What I have done is created an identity neutral website where you can register domain names, get whois information via a web interface, and modify information. Kind of like what http://www.internic.net used to be. It isn't finished yet, however if an option is present on the site, it should work. I am using the excellent "Super Whois" located at http://www.geektools.com. Special thanks to J.D. Falk for hosting the site. Comments/suggestions/bug reports welcome.
Re: [IFWP] NIC pages
On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Michael Sondow wrote: Comments/suggestions/bug reports welcome. Why does it take so long to load the registration pages? Speed is limited by the time it takes to perform a whois query.. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellCentergate Research, LLC http://www.ultradns.net (tinc) Coming to the ISPF? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
RE: [IFWP] NSI purposely disseminated misleading information
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Clough, Christopher wrote: Ivan, In the interest of full disclosure to the Internet community are you willing to disclose your repeated failed attempts to sell your company to Network Solutions? Ooh, this is great. You sound a bit agitated Chris. Losing lots on the plummeting value of NSOL?
RE: [IFWP] asensio purposely disseminated misleading information
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Clough, Christopher wrote: Not at all. Just thought the list might want to know. We can still afford to take you dinner again Patrick :^) Great, I look forward to it. :-) /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellCentergate Research, LLC http://www.ultradns.net (tinc) Coming to the ISPF? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
RE: [IFWP] asensio purposely disseminated misleading information
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote: We can still afford to take you to dinner again Patrick :^) Woah! What was this never disclosed, Patrick. No one ever asked? I have had dinner on NSOL a few times actually, and Gabe Batistia and I took a cab together in Switzerland, which he paid for. If you have any further questions, I would be happy to answer them. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellCentergate Research, LLC http://www.ultradns.net (tinc) Coming to the ISPF? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] Report from Singapore
On Mon, 1 Jan 1990, Joop Teernstra wrote: Dear all, IANAR, (I am not a reporter), but I was there and have to bear witness to you of some of the extraordinary happenings during the DNSO meetings and the open meeting with the ICANN board. (not:"open Board meeting") I apologise in advance that he viewpoint will be from the DN owners and registrants, for whom I came to Singapore and that the comments are entirely my own interpretation. Joop, Thank you for the report. Most enlightening. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellCentergate Research, LLC http://www.ultradns.net (tinc) Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
[IFWP] Question regarding testbed registrars
A colleague and I were discussing this issue recently, and some interesting questions arose. During the trial period for the testbed registrars: 1) Will all domain name registrations under .com, .net, and .org only be handled through the 5 registrars, plus NSI? 2) If the answer to 1) is yes, in what capacity will NSI be participating as a registrar? As WorldNIC, as InterNIC, or both? 3) What happens to "InterNIC" handled registrations once competition is in full effect? Does "InterNIC" go away, or does NSI maintain control of it? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellCentergate Research, LLC http://www.ultradns.net (tinc) Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] NTIA
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Bill Lovell wrote: Rather than sweat what, so far as one can tell from this list, will be a meeting of 6 - 7 people in somebody's back bedroom in California, thought might be given instead to attendance at the NTIA meeting in D. C.: Gosh Bill, you make it sound so sordid. I promise to be on my best behaviour. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellCentergate Research, LLC http://www.ultradns.net (tinc) Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
[ifwp] Re: DNS Lotto: You Gotta Be In It To Win It
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote: New York Times - Friday Jan 22, page C4 Lottery May Decide Competition in Internet Name System Isn't gambling illegal in a lot of places? For example I don't think Muslim law is too keen on it /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com (tinc) \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Cooperating with Communications (was Re: Voting m
On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, William X. Walsh wrote: I am currently working on a set of terms of services and service agreements and am adding language into it that lets the users know they are subject to receiving such emails from us, and basically if they don't like it, don't do business with us. And I'm not talking about advertisements for other services, or letting others use our customer lists for marketing. Just things like Monthly Service Updates, etc. I'm dotting and i's and crossing the t's on this one. Good. It's always nice to have clearly spelled out agreements in this regard. The anti spam activists will turn against any cause that they feel was promoting their cause via spam, regardless of how tenuous the allegation is, and will be very vocal about it. There is no appeasing them once they get going on this, and they feed on each other like a nasty virus. Oh, please. Just be clear with your customers what they can expect, and I doubt the majority of those "militant anti-spam activists" will have any issue with it. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com (tinc) \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: WIPO to the Rescue(NOT!)
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Michael Sondow wrote: Which is where the January 21 22 meetings in Washington come in. That's where support for WIPO's new rules will be fixed, probably on the 21st, with the re-written DNSO proposal, including WIPO's draconian DN constraints (two-month wait between registration and allocation, investigation of the applicant, a requirement to sign an agreement to be bound by a WIPO-appointed arbitration board, etc.) submitted to the community on the 22nd. Michael, can you point me to this document? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com (tinc) \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Voting mechanisms: the Amer. Arbit. Assoc.
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote: Where can we pull the source code for review? Source code is not readily available as it is in a paten process. However we could make some arrangements. I would suggest offhand, that you use srinkwraped stuff. Failing that and source code is necessary, an NDA/NCA agreement will be necessary for starters. I will need to clear price with the my board. No one has requested source code to date. Someone call his bluff please. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com (tinc) \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] WIPO to the Rescue(NOT!)
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,30939,00.html Interesting, WIPO seems to think that this is a done deal from the way they are talking... /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com (tinc) \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Constituencies
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Christopher Ambler wrote: Exactly. But it has been argued over, and will continue to be argued over. Nevertheless, it seems that the only way to circumvent the problem is to have an individual membership structure a la Karl Auerbach, and this, of course, neither the trademark groups, nor the registries, nor any other businesses want, since it puts the users on an equal footing with them. I suppose I fall into the "registry" category, yet I favour this structure. Then again, I also think that this DNSO will accomplish nothing, as it will never resolve the issues and ICANN will have to decide anyway. All it does is provide a forum for *future* issues. In the meantime, it merely wastes another year. I tend to agree. Roeland said something the other day that really struck me: ICANN(and the SO's) will not have the threat of force behind them, as is currently the case with governments running the show. So we are left with the only possibility being that ICANN and the SO's garner trust and cooperation from the various constituencies. Instead we have an organization that is operating virtually in the dark, and arguing that it should be allowed to do so. This is not what is desireable, as it does not engender trust among the widest range of interested parties. And without the voluntary cooperation of the majority involved, and without the threat of force behind them ICANN and the structure(s) surrounding it are on their way to eventual failure. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell(800) 299-1288 v CTO (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Constituencies
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote: All, If anyone believes that they are being harmed by lack of action or incorrect action by the NTIA or any other USG agency they can surely seek a legal remedy as required by law. If those parties are NOT willing to do so, than either they cannot make this case, or are not willing to take the steps to make their case. We (INEGroup) have done so on more than one occasion and were compensated accordingly. Any other corporation, company or individual may do likewise. In case anyone has any doubt or is wondering, there is no such organization, and what Mr. Williams says is completely untrue. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell(800) 299-1288 v CTO (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: What is this? Why are we surprised with it?
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Kent Crispin wrote: The for sure right answer is that ORSC should be treated like everyone else. That probably means that ORSC should not be talking to DoC. Have you considered asking to speak with the DoC Kent? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell(800) 299-1288 v CTO (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: What is this? Why are we surprised with it?
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Kent Crispin wrote: I am suprised that you would make assertions regarding the resources available to NTIA. If I might ask, how do you know with any certainty rather NTIA has the necessary resources or not? I have been independently told their resources are limited. But it is fairly clear from first principles. Becky Burr only has 24 hours in her day, just like all of us. She has a job that apparently keeps her fairly busy. If nothing else, her time to spend in telecons to every Tom, Dick, and Jane who wants to know whats going on is limited. Obviously, telecons with some NTIA clerk who hasn't been directly involved in the decisions are not what people are interested in. Considering the ongoing role of NTIA in these proceedings it would seem appropriate and reasonable for NTIA to be in contact with various constituencies to gauge the direction that events are taking. It would also seem that holding these teleconferences would be well within the job descriptions of NTIA staff. Given the fact that Becky offered to speak with representitives of the ORSC, I would almost guarantee it. Kent, As Mikki has stated previously *none* of the drafting for the ORSC proposal occured on the bwg-n-friends list. So she says. But you just can't tell with a private list, can you? The difference is that I have no denial that the DNSO.ORG supporters maintain an invite-only mailing list in which decision making and document drafting has been taking place. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell(800) 299-1288 v CTO (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Open Board meetings
On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Dave Farber wrote: If there is a reason why this is not appropriate for ICANN but is for the others , I think the ICANN Board owes it to the community to tell us now those reasons in detail. Their stated objection to this in Boston was that effective decision making cannot be done in open board meetings, and if forced to do so, all decisions would be made elsewhere and the board meeting would be window dressing. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell(800) 299-1288 v CTO (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Techo-speak, allowed by M. Sondow? or will the real 10 year old please stand up
On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Gordon Cook wrote: IS THER ANY ONE willing and able to host this list and attach a civil discourse requirement to it? The ISP/C will. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell(800) 299-1288 v CTO (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: This list
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote: I disagree with the notion that open lists get filled with flames. While there have been some on the ORSC list, we have mechanisms in place to prven them from geting out of hand. If you offend somebody, you apologize or you're removed. After 3 strikes, you may be barred from the list. The exact rules can be found at http://www.open-rsc.org/lists/rules/ What is the value of unenforced rules? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell(800) 299-1288 v CTO (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Open Board meetings
. There O'BRIEN LEVINE COURT REPORTING SERVICES 239 1 is no need to be -- to watch every word we say, 2 because if you are speaking public, you have to 3 think about every word, you have to think about 4 aspects of privacy. Because in discussing 5 personal issues or things concerning (inaudible), 6 it cannot be put in public. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell(800) 299-1288 v CTO (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Mailer-list hosting
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: MHSC.NET is working on delivering a web-list service. Having seen the problems with the IFWP list, we would rather deliver a quality service late than a problematic service expeditiously. If anyone else is working on this, please let me know. I hope it isn't a web-only service. There are a lot of folks that don't use browsers for email... /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell(800) 299-1288 v CTO (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Constituencies
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote: I asked to get the lists to test the choices. Would people agree as to what type of entity fell where or would there be disputes requiring the "Membership Committee" to make rulings all the time. No to the first question, and yes to the second. The situation will be untenable. I haven't heard any real disagreement with simply having "individual" and "business" membership. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell(800) 299-1288 v CTO (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Constituencies
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: I haven't heard any real disagreement with simply having "individual" and "business" membership. Actually, in a loose fashion, you've heard some agreement. It is the ISOC model. I keep trying but the only other breakdown that makes sense to me is users/ISPs. Since there are problems with both of them, a flat model comes to mind. What exactly is the problem with a bicameral approach? And the flat model has problems all its' own /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell(800) 299-1288 v CTO (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
