Eric,
I already answered E. Alaknantha with a code snippet answering
his question, sorry I forgot to CC the entire list so everyone would
know...
It realy would be nice if folks just followed up privately to off topic
posts.
-rick (cc'ing the list so eveyone knows the way)
On 20 Dec 2001,
Noel,
this stems from the lack of engineers intrest in politics, until its
too late.
-rick
On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
PS: One wonders about the wattage level of the people on the commision,
but I digress.
Vint,
the ASO members don't support ICANN on a per block basis, in fact ICANN's
Task Force on Funding (TFF) observed that the IP Address Registries
operate on a non-profit business model from member fees and should foot
10% of ICANN's budget. (see
Vernon,
would pacbell filtering all multicast at all CPE equipemt fall into your
bucket, where do you draw the line?
-rick
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Vernon Schryver wrote:
From: Lloyd Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
my point is not to push sms or whatever. but that by "on the internet" i
Daryl,
I happen to own a iso-3166-2.com domain (ar.com) and a large part of the
queries to my name servers are for SLDs under .AR. which is the ccTLD
for Argentina.
The number of queries for *.com.ar.com., which all fail is significant
compared to queries for anything valid under ar.com.
I
randy,
the RFC is what will be used, RRP version 1.1.0 is in the OTE (test
environemnt) slated to be put into general availability on Jan 15th.
The current version in production is RRP 1.0.6
-rick
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Randy Bush wrote:
2. The proposed RFC is not what should be used:
IESG:
I hate to add a "me too" but I must. I believe that the RAB minutes would
be very useful if they were published. Having participated with many
Registrars and participated in changes and suggestions to the RRP protocol
through the ICANN Testbed process I welcome Ed's comments.
I am glad
M 1/4/00 -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote:
The IETF does not need to publish broken implementations of one companies
view of the shared gTLD registration process.
True. They don't need to do anything. They have the *option* of continuing
the tradition of approving publication of Informationa
David,
I appologise if you found my comments offensive, they were not intend to
be. I'm gald you encouraged NSI to publish RRP, I'm gald they published
it. I also needed to discuss with the RAB issues about RRP durring the
testbed but was prevented by NSI by NDA. Remember in Berlin I asked if I
NSOL has made an I-D of their RRP Protocol it is available at
http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-rrp-00.txt
-rick
Martin,
don't expect things to get better about UCE, your registration information
is now available for sale. all registrars are required to sell their whois
databases for a maximum of $10K, per the latest ICANN/DOC/NSI agreements.
-rick
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Martin Essenburg wrote:
I think
11 matches
Mail list logo
