At 17:31 9/01/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> Joop proposed:
>> 2. The Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) shall be composed of any
>> individual, firm, association, corporation or other entity who is the
>> holder of a second level domain (SLD) in any top level domain (TLD)or of a
>> thi
Richard and all,
What is even more interesting is the influence of the ISOC on the
.il domain here. See:
http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/il-domain-rules-new.html
for further details Where did the ISOC get this authority?
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> Would .il be a c-cctld? (that's getting
At 04:22 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>steve a écrit:
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> Have the ORSC Rep (Jay) tape the meeting, and place the minutes on the
>> list. If that's not allowed by all in attendance then...make your own
>> judgement...
>
>It doesn't solve the dilemma, Steve. And no
At 04:17 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Mikki Barry a écrit:
>
>> >mindless sniping about open vs closed meetings/lists
>> >seems absolutely entrenched. I just thought I would join in on the
>> >fun.
>>
>> It's not fun IMHO. I'd really like to get on with getting some work done.
>
>Yes
At 05:55 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
>At 05:21 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>At 04:49 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
>>>
>>>So why not??!!
>>
>>
>>Because they don't work well enough in the current Internet.
>>
>>Let's be a little careful about demanding immediate, large-scal
At 10:43 AM 1/10/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>Dear all (both DNSO.net and DNSO.org) ,
>
>I propose to insert the following language in preamble of the SO
>application document, (whether incorporated bylaws or dnso charters)
>
>
>1. Decisionmaking by the General Membership of the DNSO is achi
On Sun, Jan 10, 1999 at 10:43:36AM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> Dear all (both DNSO.net and DNSO.org) ,
>
> I propose to insert the following language in preamble of the SO
> application document, (whether incorporated bylaws or dnso charters)
>
>
> 1. Decisionmaking by the General Membership
Joop and all,
Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 11:48 9/01/99 +, jeff Williams wrote:
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> >> No, Jeff, this is not a proposal for censorship, but a proposal to combat
> >> the kind of flaming that is intended to silence people.
> >
> > I agree Joop in this instance and it
Joop and all,
Good suggestion. However you need to submit this to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for the DNSO.ORG bunch. I am copying it to there with this reply.
Joop Teernstra wrote:
> Dear all (both DNSO.net and DNSO.org) ,
>
> I propose to insert the following language in preamble of the SO
> applic
Would .il be a c-cctld? (that's getting silly)
http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/
Love the bit about ISP's being licensed by the
Ministry of Communication. Shee... uh, oy!
--
"To find out what your opponent is up to, look at what he
says about you" - unknown
__
At 05:21 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
Please don't post HTML. *Some* of us still use /usr/bin/mail :-)
(sometimes)
>
>At 04:49 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
>I have stayed out of this for a while
>recovering from the trial.
>We are drug pushers. We tout our technology but don't e
You don't need live audio and video to meet online, and yes there
are better things than IRC and ICQ and net meeting.
At 05:55 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
>At 05:21 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>> At 04:49 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
>>>
>>> I have stayed out of this f
Dear all (both DNSO.net and DNSO.org) ,
I propose to insert the following language in preamble of the SO
application document, (whether incorporated bylaws or dnso charters)
1. Decisionmaking by the General Membership of the DNSO is achieved by
on-line debate and vote
2. The Domain Name Supp
At 11:48 9/01/99 +, jeff Williams wrote:
Joop Teernstra wrote:
>> No, Jeff, this is not a proposal for censorship, but a proposal to combat
>> the kind of flaming that is intended to silence people.
>
> I agree Joop in this instance and it applies to ALL of those whom
>frequently engage in p
At 05:21 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 04:49 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber
wrote:
I have stayed out of this for a while
recovering from the trial.
We are drug pushers. We tout our technology but don't ever use it. What
is wrong with live mbone, real video, real audio -- pick your poison
Jay,
You wrote:
>Some Interesting Parallels . . .
> The White Paper <==> Declaration of Independence
> ICANN By-Laws<==> Articles of Confederation
> Supporting Orgs <==> State Governments
> Mike Roberts <==> John Hanson
The Declaration of Independence was product of
At 05:21 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 04:49 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber
wrote:
I have stayed out of this for a while
recovering from the trial.
We are drug pushers. We tout our technology but don't ever use it. What
is wrong with live mbone, real video, real audio -- pick your poison
Dave and all,
Only problem with Mr. Crockers statement below, is that these
technologies mbone, real video, real audio and I would add
Internet Video conferencing are use on the Internet by
literally thousands every day
Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 04:49 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
At 04:49 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
I have stayed out of this for a while
recovering from the trial.
We are drug pushers. We tout our technology but don't ever use it. What
is wrong with live mbone, real video, real audio -- pick your poison, so
all can at least attend the meetings if no
Dave and all,
Completely agreed Dave. We (INEGroup) and myself made this suggestion
to the ICANN before the November 14th Boston Meeting as well as all the
subsequent Brussels meeting as well. It didn't seem that the Berkman Center
could get it act together to get it done even after I persona
I have stayed out of this for a while recovering from the trial.
We are drug pushers. We tout our technology but don't ever use it. What is wrong with
live mbone, real video, real audio -- pick your poison, so all can at least attend the
meetings if not the coffee breaks. If you tell me it is
steve a écrit:
>
> Suggestion:
>
> Have the ORSC Rep (Jay) tape the meeting, and place the minutes on the
> list. If that's not allowed by all in attendance then...make your own
> judgement...
It doesn't solve the dilemma, Steve. And no one would agree to it. Who would
want to listen to that t
Mikki Barry a écrit:
> >mindless sniping about open vs closed meetings/lists
> >seems absolutely entrenched. I just thought I would join in on the
> >fun.
>
> It's not fun IMHO. I'd really like to get on with getting some work done.
Yes, some work is good. But tell us, Mikki, on the 21st of J
Jay and all,
Jay Fenello wrote:
> FYI:
>
> One of the dates burned into the minds of Americans is July 4, 1776. This is
> the date that the Declaration of Independence was signed by the members of the
> Second Continental Congress. Less well-known, but no less important, is the
> date of signing
FYI:
One of the dates burned into the minds of Americans is July 4, 1776. This is
the date that the Declaration of Independence was signed by the members of the
Second Continental Congress. Less well-known, but no less important, is the
date of signing of the Constitution, on September 17, 1787.
>P.S.: Chris, you are organizing something for Saturday evening, I
>understand.
>May I also remind you of the Boston (open) meeting at the Berkman Center,
>Saturday.
Yes, I know about that - I am not going to that meeting, as my travel
plans prohibit it. I was just wondering who would still be i
Suggestion:
Have the ORSC Rep (Jay) tape the meeting, and place the minutes on the
list. If that's not allowed by all in attendance then...make your own
judgement...
Steve
T: 925-454-8624
>I'd be happy to comment on this. There is apparently a
>meeting the day before among the organizers of th
Thanks. You have my permission to reprint this
Actually, thanks for the free advertising!
Esther
At 07:24 PM 08/01/99 -0500, you wrote:
>INTELLECTUAL VALUE
>by Esther Dyson
>
>Wired 3.07 (1995)
>(excerpt)
>"In a new environment, such as the gravity field of the moon,
>laws of physics play o
At 07:22 AM 1/9/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 09, 1999 at 09:02:17AM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
>> any possible way we can stop the sniping and maybe start being more
>> productive?
>
>I doubt it -- mindless sniping about open vs closed meetings/lists
>seems absolutely entrenched. I
At 11:11 AM 1/9/99 -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>At 07:37 AM 1/9/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>>Richard J. Sexton a écrit:
>>You've agreed to attend a closed meeting, knowing full well that people were
>>being excluded. Now, when attacked, you claim to be doing it in the public
>>interest. T
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> At 07:37 AM 1/9/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >Richard J. Sexton a écrit:
> >>
> >> At 02:09 AM 1/9/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >> >That meeting you're going to is the real meeting, from which the opposition
> >> >is being excluded. The one the next day is t
Joop and all,
Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 02:15 9/01/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >You're not worth arguing with, William Walsh. You're a poor human being with
> >no honesty, no morals, no common sense, nothing but your own greed and
> >jealosy of others. I'm amazed that you dare show your f
At 07:22 AM 1/9/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>It is sadly true that people have fixated on the issue of "closed" vs
>"open" meetings/lists, and it has become a mantra for mindless
>criticism of people whose position you don't agree with. But the
>fact is that meetings and lists have many purpo
At 07:37 AM 1/9/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Richard J. Sexton a écrit:
>>
>> At 02:09 AM 1/9/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>> >That meeting you're going to is the real meeting, from which the opposition
>> >is being excluded. The one the next day is the window dressing. You and the
>> >ORS
At 07:32 AM 1/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Richard J. Sexton a écrit:
>
>> You should apologize.
>
>I should apologize to William Walsh, after the way he attacks every message
>I send regardless of what it says, just because he's afraid of the
>"customers" having any say in the Internet "business"?
>
>On Sat, Jan 09, 1999 at 09:02:17AM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
>> >> I agree the foul stencg of secret deals from IAHC
>> >> days still lingers, but you're on a witch hunt Kent.
>> >
>> >Something you should be very familiar with, I must admit.
>>
>> So much for working together for the common good
On Sat, Jan 09, 1999 at 09:02:17AM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
> >> I agree the foul stencg of secret deals from IAHC
> >> days still lingers, but you're on a witch hunt Kent.
> >
> >Something you should be very familiar with, I must admit.
>
> So much for working together for the common good of th
At 02:15 9/01/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>You're not worth arguing with, William Walsh. You're a poor human being with
>no honesty, no morals, no common sense, nothing but your own greed and
>jealosy of others. I'm amazed that you dare show your face on these lists
>after having been exposed
sondow wrote: (not a ecrit in self affected french)
>
>ORSC was "invited". The users and their representatives haven't been, nor
>have any people from CABASE or ALCI, or anywhere else in the developing
>countries, because the INTA and their friends don't want opposition. It's
>clear as day, isn't
>On Sat, Jan 09, 1999 at 01:18:01AM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>> Not form my observation.
>>
>> BWG was cc'd as a courtesy. Poepel simply kept the cc line.
>
>So you say.
And so says the editor of the draft.
>
>> Nothing gets decided on the BWG list.
>
>So you say.
>
>> I agree the foul ste
>It's obvious, however, from the continual "cc's" to the
>"bwg-n-friends" list in Mikki's messages that things were being
>decided on the closed bwg-n-friends list as far as the ORSC draft was
>concerned. Most of Mikki's draft just appeared on the ORSC list --
>the comments from the ORSC list are
Roeland and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> At 10:18 AM 1/9/99 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >You know our opinion differ, I will be glad if I can have consensus on my
> >position, but I will be also happy if you could convince people and have
> >consensus on your opinion.
> >For the time bei
Richard J. Sexton a écrit:
> You should apologize.
I should apologize to William Walsh, after the way he attacks every message
I send regardless of what it says, just because he's afraid of the
"customers" having any say in the Internet "business"?
Not likely.
Jay and all,
Mercy, this Wahsington meeting(s)? thing is getting a bit carried
away isn't it. Can't the DNSO.ORG organize anything in an open
and transparent manner, or at least make their F2F meetings
open and transparent? If not, why not, should be the question
their leadership are asking t
Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit:
> The real issue is that, under US law (and IANAL), my understanding is that
> a vendor can not have BoD seats with the contractor's company.
You have made an important point. As you say, there is a glaring fault with
the setup ICANN has proposed, where people are sel
William and all,
Yep, for this and several other Mailing lists I use this Netcom account.
I have several other's, some of which I rarely use. And my own
as well. I just prefer to segment things out a bit...
William X. Walsh wrote:
> 2.6 million in netsol stock, and still using a netcom dial
Hi.
Maybe I can add the bits I know.
The open meeting of Jan.22 will be preceded by a preparation session, that
will involve only the "sponsoring" organizations.
If I may comment on this, I would say that it is very difficult for
commercial organizations to understand the philosophy of open mee
At 12:41 AM 1/9/99 -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>I made a great batch of chili tonight.
I broke out the wok and made some Indonesian fried rice (nasi goreng) with
lottsa sambal (chili sauce to y'all, my eyes are still watering ).
___
Roeland M.
At 10:18 AM 1/9/99 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>You know our opinion differ, I will be glad if I can have consensus on my
>position, but I will be also happy if you could convince people and have
>consensus on your opinion.
>For the time being, it seems to me that the silence of the majority (th
At 11:45 PM 1/8/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>At 12:41 AM 1/9/99 -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
>>I made a great batch of chili tonight.
>
>I broke out the wok and made some Indonesian fried rice (nasi goreng) with
>lottsa sambal (chili sauce to y'all, my eyes are still watering ).
HEY
At 02:36 AM 1/9/99 -0500, Marc Hurst wrote:
>
>
>On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
>> Isn't this going a bit too far ?
>>
>> Last night I met with Jay Fenello. Nobody was told,
>> nobody could show up unless they stumbled across us.
>> Secret. Closed. Evil.
>
>Wow...
>
>Tressa? Richa
At 02:15 AM 1/9/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>You're not worth arguing with, William Walsh. You're a poor human being with
>no honesty, no morals, no common sense, nothing but your own greed and
>jealosy of others. I'm amazed that you dare show your face on these lists
>after having been expose
This sounds so ominous Michael :)
To my knowledge this meeting was NOT arranged by ORSC, and Stef merely inquired
(publicly on the list I might mention) that Jay represent ORSC at this meeting
if possible.
As to the specifics of the meeting, and who set it up, those details have not
been publi
At 02:15 AM 1/9/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>You're not worth arguing with, William Walsh. You're a poor human being with
>no honesty, no morals, no common sense, nothing but your own greed and
>jealosy of others. I'm amazed that you dare show your face on these lists
>after having been expose
>Yeah, me too. I've always considered myself to be a fairly well polished
>hypocrite.
I'm not as polished as I am clean-shaven. I wanted to grow a beard,
but my wife made me scrape it all off today.
Seriously, though - think about the position we're all in. When a group
like ICANN has closed
On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
> Michael and all,
>
> Well if you want to bitch at someone for buying NSOL stock, you should
> be bitching at me. I own over 10k shares!
>
That's nothing!! I own over 40% of Network Solutions. And I have my own
TLD, but its on NSI's 'secret' root
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> You're a bunch of lousy hypocrites. Nothing more and nothing less.
>
> On that remark, this discussion just ended, as far as I'm concerned.
>
Yeah, me too. I've always considered myself to be a fairly well polished
hypocrite.
--
Alex Kamant
Hi Everyone;
Zen has finally responded to several emails of mine after his vacation. He
would want everyone to be absolutely clear about who he represents, what
he's attempting to do for the community, and to reassure all concerned that
he is not representing aIRC to undercut their organizational
At 10:08 PM 1/8/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 09, 1999 at 12:41:33AM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>It's obvious, however, from the continual "cc's" to the
>"bwg-n-friends" list in Mikki's messages that things were being
>decided on the closed bwg-n-friends list as far as the ORSC
You're not worth arguing with, William Walsh. You're a poor human being with
no honesty, no morals, no common sense, nothing but your own greed and
jealosy of others. I'm amazed that you dare show your face on these lists
after having been exposed for your fraud and double-dealings with .tjn, but
Christopher Ambler a écrit:
>
> >That's the same logic used by everyone who participates in closed
> processes.
> >Did you ask whether the meeting was open to everyone who is interested? Did
> >you refuse to participate in a closed meeting? Is it alright when ti's the
> >ORSC that does it, but a
At 1/8/99, 11:42 PM, Michael Sondow wrote:
>It has come to my attention that there may be an invitation-only (closed)
>meeting in Washington prior to the meeting on January 22nd. It has also come
>to my attention that among the "invitees" is a representative of the ORSC,
>namely Jay Fenello. Since
On Sat, Jan 09, 1999 at 01:18:01AM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> Not form my observation.
>
> BWG was cc'd as a courtesy. Poepel simply kept the cc line.
So you say.
> Nothing gets decided on the BWG list.
So you say.
> I agree the foul stencg of secret deals from IAHC
> days still linger
Not form my observation.
BWG was cc'd as a courtesy. Poepel simply kept the cc line.
Nothing gets decided on the BWG list. How could it? What
meaning or significance could it have.
I agree the foul stencg of secret deals from IAHC
days still lingers, but you're on a witch hunt Kent.
At 10:08
On 09-Jan-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> It's obvious, however, from the continual "cc's" to the
> "bwg-n-friends" list in Mikki's messages that things were being
> decided on the closed bwg-n-friends list as far as the ORSC draft was
> concerned. Most of Mikki's draft just appeared on the ORSC lis
At 12:54 AM 1/9/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Christopher Ambler a écrit:
>>
>> I would like to formally request that Jay Fenello be placed on
>> the drafting committee as a representative of ORSC (one of
>> the groups that gave, as the DNSO posting indicated,
>> "substantive comments.").
>
>I
On Sat, Jan 09, 1999 at 12:41:33AM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> Isn't this going a bit too far ?
>
> Last night I met with Jay Fenello. Nobody was told,
> nobody could show up unless they stumbled across us.
> Secret. Closed. Evil.
>
> But this happens. Poeple do meet without wanitng the
>
Then you may as well exclude all the DNSO.org leadership as well..
And the entire ICANN Boardthe entire DNSO.org leadership..
And yourself...
On 09-Jan-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
> Christopher Ambler a écrit:
>>
>> I would like to formally request that Jay Fenello be placed on
>>
Christopher Ambler a écrit:
>
> I would like to formally request that Jay Fenello be placed on
> the drafting committee as a representative of ORSC (one of
> the groups that gave, as the DNSO posting indicated,
> "substantive comments.").
I formally protest against the inclusion on the DNSO draf
2.6 million in netsol stock, and still using a netcom dialup. If I had that
money I'd have a better connection, even at home.
On 09-Jan-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> Michael and all,
>
> Well if you want to bitch at someone for buying NSOL stock, you should
> be bitching at me. I own over 10k
Michael and all,
Well if you want to bitch at someone for buying NSOL stock, you should
be bitching at me. I own over 10k shares!
Michael Sondow wrote:
> Martin B. Schwimmer a écrit:
> >
> > Network Solutions Inc. traded as high as 260 today (now it's at 238). Its
> > price to earnings rati
>I made a great batch of chili tonight.
I worked late, and ate my dinner cold, when I got home.
On the other hand, my wife just took warm brownies out
of the oven. I'll eat some now, in a closed meeting.
Christopher
__
To receive the digest vers
Michael chooses to ignore this part of what I said :
On 09-Jan-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
>> Makes perfect sense for ORSC, and for any organization electing to be
>> represented, to make sure they crash these closed meetings if at all
>> possible,
>> to force them to be open, despite any plans oth
>Oh, so it's just fine when the ORSC accepts invitations to closed,
exclusive
>meetings, in order to "force them to be open"? There's only one way to
force
>them to be open: demand that everyone who wants to attend can go, and
refuse
>to participate if they aren't.
As I said, it's very difficult
Isn't this going a bit too far ?
Last night I met with Jay Fenello. Nobody was told,
nobody could show up unless they stumbled across us.
Secret. Closed. Evil.
But this happens. Poeple do meet without wanitng the
whole world there.
I figure as long as no decidions are mad and we don't
hear cra
>That's the same logic used by everyone who participates in closed
processes.
>Did you ask whether the meeting was open to everyone who is interested? Did
>you refuse to participate in a closed meeting? Is it alright when ti's the
>ORSC that does it, but a terrible crime when it's someone else?
William X. Walsh a écrit:
>
> This sounds so ominous Michael :)
>
> To my knowledge this meeting was NOT arranged by ORSC, and Stef merely inquired
> (publicly on the list I might mention) that Jay represent ORSC at this meeting
> if possible.
>
> As to the specifics of the meeting, and who set
Christopher Ambler a écrit:
>
> I'd be happy to comment on this. There is apparently a
> meeting the day before among the organizers of the
> meeting on the 22nd. I have no idea what's to be
> discussed, and that's why I'm rather glad that an ORSC
> rep will be there. I was asked, but I cannot at
Mr. Englund-
It has come to my attention that you and your organization are planning on
holding a closed, by-invitation-only meeting in Washington on the 21st of
January, before the scheduled meeting on the 22nd. Is this true?
__
To receive the dig
I'd be happy to comment on this. There is apparently a
meeting the day before among the organizers of the
meeting on the 22nd. I have no idea what's to be
discussed, and that's why I'm rather glad that an ORSC
rep will be there. I was asked, but I cannot attend, as my
plane leaves Thursday afterno
80 matches
Mail list logo
