, so of course it's up to each country how to handle it). I'm sorry for the non-technical post but I think blacklists are disgusting (I don't care if they help or not) and I just think so much brilliance could be directed elsewhere.
Thanks and best regards,
Nick Staff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]-
or a piece of Nigeria via the post office I have to assume there's yet another reason. Am I right, how could I know, that's why this is just food for thought if you will.
--Best regards,
Nick Staff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Original message --
> Since you top post
o conflicts in the vein of "you can't run my app while
you're running app x". Again this is not to encourage self-assignment, but
to make it a little less problematic when it happens.
This is pretty off the cuff so if it's utterly stupid please treat it like a
brainstorming session
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> - Forwarded message from Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> >>
> >> FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant
> >> criticism of mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP
> >> list.
> >>
> >> --
>
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nicholas Staff wrote:
> >>- Forwarded message from Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> >>
> >>FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant
> >>criticism of mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the
> DNSOP list.
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Crocker writes:
> >> Without getting into the discussion of whether an email
> every 5 days
> >> is a DOS I would certainly like to state for the record
> that without
> >> question the pettiness has taken far more thought than the
> >> productivity, a
Bert,
David asked the IESG to consider a PR-action ("posting rights" action)
against Dean. Posting rights actions are governed by RFC 3683.
I agree that 3683 is used to apply drastic measures, but unfortunately those
are the measures the AD saw as appropriate for Dean's supposed infractions.
Eve
>
> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I certainly hope that we do not have to have the equivalent of an
> > "IETF Last Call" everytime that a WG chair or AD finds that an
> > individual is disrupting normal WG process.
>
>RFC 3683 (BCP 83) is concise enough to quote th
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nick Staff" writes:
> >
> >> ]
> >> ] 7.2 Approval to block participant on a WG list (Bert
> >> Wijnen) ] ] Thi
description:
"This looks similar, but it does not require the one-year minimum, nor does
it require a LastCall."
Basically CM I agree with you wholeheartedly that the passage does apply and
that this situation should be governed by 3683.
nick
>
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Nick Staff w
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>
> I'm interested to know whether people would see arguments for
> either or both of
>
> 1. An IETF Ombudsman (or Ombudscommittee), to act as a
> dispute mediator.
>
> 2. An IETF "netiquette" committee, to offload list banning
> procedu
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>
> >> 2. An IETF "netiquette" committee, to offload list banning
> procedures
> >> from the IESG.
> >
> > I don't think so. I prefer that this responsibility stay
> with a few
> > individuals, so that it is taken very seriously -- not
> From: Theodore Ts'o [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Ted-
Sorry for taking so long to respond - I wanted to give some thought to your
questions before replying (comments in-line)
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 06:47:36PM -0700, Nick Staff wrote:
> > > 2. An IETF "netiq
> From: Theodore Ts'o [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:00:18PM -0700, Nick Staff wrote:
> > > 2) Unless discussion of the decisions of the netiquette
> committee,
> > > during the committee is considering a request, and after the
>
> Dean Anderson wrote...
> Nick tells Brian how he feels about that: (Nick is plainly
> offended)
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg35993.html
>
> Nick is just trying to make peace. He didn't deserve that.
> What's more sickening is that Carpenter still apparently
> doe
Anyone who wants to cast their vote against the Jefsey Morfin PR-Action
Petition may now do so here:
http://jefseymorfin-ietf-pr.endpointsystems.com/default.asp
This is NOT an official IETF ballot and is essentially a "counter petition"
so that both sides can be fairly represented.
This counter
TED]; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin
>
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:44:11 -0700 Nick Staff wrote:
>
> > Anyone who wants to cast their vote against the Jefsey Morfin
> > PR-Action Petition may now do so here:
> >
&g
> Melinda Shore wrote...
>
> Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be
> taking the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's
> probably more appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.
>
> Melinda
>
I'm against PR-Actions for anything that can pass a Turing test
> Should _every_ Internet user (let count one billion) receive a
> personal copy of the root file every month, the decrease of root
> related traffic on the Internet would be by 90%. That the
> root server > system works well, does not implies that the root servers
system
> concept is still the
Sorry for the noise, but before I blush through any more corrections (that
many have been kind enough to do offlist), let me say I for some reason
didn't realize Jefsey was refring to the root hints and for some reason
assumed he was suggesting everyone recieve a copy of the tld zones hosted by
the
> Toleration of disagreement has almost nothing to do with it.
> Instead, it's more a matter of signal to noise ratio on a
> limited bandwidth channel. If you fill up a list with
> ignorant drivel, people who don't have time to deal with
> drivel will go away, leaving the list to those who pr
> Technologists with a penchant for the meta-discussion may stay.
>
> gja
>
So I guess you'll be staying then since you have quite the penchant for
contributing to these things which you claim to hate so much.
Though it's obvious you enjoy the protection of a closed community, that
does not chang
Joe Baptista wrote:
> does not look like that one was rejected. any advise Jeroen?
>
> thanks
> joe baptista
>
Most every country requires that patent applications be filed before an
invention is ever used publicly or put on sale. Additionally in the US, if
an invention is described in a prin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I take a look at the IETF email after four months and it's still the same discussion as when I left! Hell - talk about the ends not justifying the means (oh yes I know this is very very important to the fate of all productivity, I'm sure the yeild will be tremendous).
How '
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I take a look at the IETF email after four months and it's still the same discussion as when I left! Hell - talk about the ends not justifying the means (oh yes I know this is very very important to the fate of all productivity, I'm sure the yeild will be tremendous).
How '
-- Original message -- From: Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Marshall, > > I do not support approval of this PR-action. > > Because.?? > Eliot-
I don't mean any offense by this but the "Because" is the whole problem of these PR-Actions. Somehow "rough concensus" has t
-- Original message -- From: John Loughney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I am growing tired of this meta-discussion, but I just needed to add my 2 cents, > then I'll be quiet
>I cannot say if this is what Jefsey is doing, as I am not active in any of the >WGs in question.John-
-- Original message -- From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I can assure you that the IESG reads the opinions expressed > carefully and does not take such decisions lightly, one way > or the other. > > Brian Brian,
I was not questioning the IESG's decisions nor d
-- Original message -- From: Elwyn Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Can you imagine if during every murder trial they had a debate on the > > humanity of capitol punishment? > > > As a non-US citizen, I am a little hazy about some details of
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa)
> Ah, I suspect that Elwyn was gently pulling your leg about your inability to > spell "capital" (i.e. the death penalty) - "capitol" means "location of the > government"
Ahh haaadamn word...it'll pay for
There are a couple of arguments consistently used as by the pro-ban/anti-filter camp that kind of confuse me and maybe someone could explain:
Claim: The claim that all the good people will leave if the noise level is too great and if stubborn people with limited technical ability aren't banned.
I'm sorry Frank, your response didn't address any of my questions so maybe there was some missed direction. Whatever the case I'll restate it in case you want another go at it:
There are a couple of arguments consistently used by the pro-ban/anti-filter camp that kind of confuse me and maybe som
I think Sams proposed experiment is a very good idea. I do have some thoughts, but my support doesn't hinge on their incorporation and I'm in favor of the draft either way.
In my opinion these should be experiments of process rather than penalty. I feel like since the severity of a ban legnth i
I guess to me I feel like all experiments will lead to banned and the effectiveness of the solution is going to be how smoothly it gets there and how much it disrupts the normal course of things. I could be misunderstanding the whole thing but I feel like productivity will be affected most by the
I'm pretty sure I understand the intense stupidity of what I'm about to suggest (and I'm sorry to anyone made angry by my stupidity), but what if there were no prescribed response for successful PR-Actions. What if part of the rough consencus process included the appropriate action to be taken.
I don't think there was one member of this list who needed to read this IESG announcement to know what they would decide. I don't think that speaks much for the integrity of the decision.
nick
-- Original message -- From: IESG Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The IESG has
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> AT&T used to charge for any telephone color other than black, even > though the cost of producing a telephone was the same no matter what > color it was.
AT&T also used to charge for additional private IP addresses. I remember one company had a bussiness package
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I still believe that the time is right for an IETF WG to define SOHO
> gateway requirements for IPv6 networks because IPv4 wind-down will
> cause
> more people to take a serious look at how and why to deploy IPv6. One
> single good idea in a SOH
> From: David Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Nick Staff wrote:
>
> > I think the thing that would help IPv6 the most would be the setting
> of a
> > hard date when no new IPv4 addresses would be issued. This would
> make it
> > real for
39 matches
Mail list logo
