On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 11:29:34PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:50:44AM +,
> > Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > a message of 32 lines which said:
> >
> >> in the IETF, the naysayers pretty much kick the consenting adults'
>
c: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was:
> mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
>
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:50:44AM +, Paul Vixie
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote a message of 32 lines which said:
> >
&
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Why the IETF? Why not ISOC, an organization that has expertise and
> experience is asking such questions? ISOC already has local chapters
> throughout the world, ISOC has a friendly membership policy, and ISOC
> has good relations with the IETF for discussing proposed improve
How about
http://xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d/
and their email can be found:
; <<>> DiG 9.4.0b4 <<>> -t any xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d @ns5.ce.net.cn.
; (1 server found)
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 59227
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANS
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 04:13:01PM +0100,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
> In fact, it may be necessary to attach a language tag (defined in
> RFC 4646 and 4647) to these addresses in order to make this fully
> possible.
That would be a very bad i
At 4:24 PM +0200 9/20/07, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
My proposal for the IETF would be to ask the actual users, large and
small, through different mechanisms to be defined, what are the issues
that limit their use of the Internet, see what is relevant to the IETF
work and assign priorities to the
On Sep 20, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Peter Dambier wrote:
Daniel Senie wrote:
At 04:18 AM 9/20/2007, you wrote:
Interesting discussion.
I am envolved in two groups develloping around OpenWRT.
One group (some 2000 members) is trying to TORify a < dollar 150
router
the other group (some 30 members)
Daniel Senie wrote:
At 04:18 AM 9/20/2007, you wrote:
Interesting discussion.
I am envolved in two groups develloping around OpenWRT.
One group (some 2000 members) is trying to TORify a < dollar 150 router
the other group (some 30 members) is trying to IPv6 that very same
software. I dont kno
Daniel Senie wrote:
At 04:18 AM 9/20/2007, you wrote:
Interesting discussion.
I am envolved in two groups develloping around OpenWRT.
One group (some 2000 members) is trying to TORify a < dollar 150 router
the other group (some 30 members) is trying to IPv6 that very same
software. I dont kno
> Over the last ten years, I explained a zillion times to my
> management, workmates, etc. why e-mail addresses cannot
> contain accented characters, only to be asked when the IT
> department of the organization is going to "fix it". This is
> the archetypical example of an issue that has been
As the original blog poster, let me answer and expand a bit:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
> What is defined as an 'end-user'?
> You, me, the rest of the people, are all end-users IMHO.
>
>From those one billion Internet users, there are several millions IT
professionals who do not participate in the IE
Interesting discussion.
I am envolved in two groups develloping around OpenWRT.
One group (some 2000 members) is trying to TORify a < dollar 150 router
the other group (some 30 members) is trying to IPv6 that very same
software. I dont know how big the OpenWRT devellopers group is.
They are end
My very first contribution to this mailing list - pardon me, I am
nervous :-) .
I agree with suggestion that it would make more sense to improve
linkages "to the OPERATOR community (e.g.NANOG)" as opposed to the end-user.
I follow the discussions on this forum but admit that although
technic
I'd be careful about using the ICANN/ALAC example as proving much of
anything other than if a group wishes to set up some window-dressing so it
can say users are consulted, and ensures that the users have no particular
influence in the group's activities (compared to every other represented
int
I think this largely depends on what is defined as an "end-user". The
reason the ALAC is failure is that there is a complete mismatch
between the stuff ICANN does and what these "end users" THINK ICANN
does or should be doing.
The ALAC members are largely made up of "civil society" or "politi
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:50:44AM +,
> Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 32 lines which said:
>
>> in the IETF, the naysayers pretty much kick the consenting adults'
>> asses every day and twice on sunday. and that's the real problem
>> here,
At 10:11 PM +0200 9/19/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Time to have a formal representation of end-users at the IETF?
http://patrick.vande-walle.eu/internet/how-can-the-engineering-community-and-the-users-meet/
(My personal worry about this proposal is that there is zero
organisation of end-user
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:50:44AM +,
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 32 lines which said:
> in the IETF, the naysayers pretty much kick the consenting adults'
> asses every day and twice on sunday. and that's the real problem
> here, i finally think.
Time to have a form
18 matches
Mail list logo
