Eric Weisberg a écrit:
> Just because most people are affected by IP and DN allocation
> policies doesn't mean they will participate. We already know THEY
> WON'T!
How do you know that, Eric? Have they been informed about the creation of
ICANN?
> That is why I question the wisdom of register
On 09-Feb-99 Bill Lovell wrote:
> >--
> >"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
> >of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
> >- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
>
> Is this last supposed to be communicating something, or is it
> j
Bob Allisat wrote:
>
> Eric Weisberg wrote:
> > The "great unwashed" will not join and vote in ICANN
> > elections no matter how hard you beat the bushes.
>
> I figure a lot of average people
> will want to get involved if it ever comes to that.
I've seen such figuring, but not the basis.
On 08-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> All,
>
>It is unfortunate that folks such as William, have a reality and/or a
> reading deficiency problem and there fore refuse to recognize certain
> facts. Demonstrations such as William is displaying below in it's
> disgusting rancor, have plague
Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit:
> There is some argument that one can use a Windows machine for primary DNS.
I'm a typical end-user. I have a laptop running Windows95. There are
configuration pop-ups for TCP/IP and DNS confirguration. But I've never seen
a book anywhere, and I've been looking for o
Ms. Dyson wrote:
> *I* alone am not ICANN; it is a (growing) collection of people,
> including staff, PR consultantsand of course members.
Members? You have no members. As for a collection
it's more like monkeys you've been assembling. Silly
clueless monkeys, a few dorky students, all org
Eric Weisberg wrote:
> The "great unwashed" will not join and vote in ICANN
> elections no matter how hard you beat the bushes.
Gee, Eric... how does that explain Mr. Corcker's
participation? I'm sure he's going to vote and if
I beat the bushes with a baseball bat I'd not find
a greater unwa
All,
It is unfortunate that folks such as William, have a reality and/or a
reading deficiency problem and there fore refuse to recognize certain
facts. Demonstrations such as William is displaying below in it's
disgusting rancor, have plagued these discussions and debates for some
time now, an
Don Heath a écrit:
>
> At 01:40 AM 2/8/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >Sorry, Mr. Heath, but I didn't agree to continue this discussion in secret,
> >so I am posting this to the same recipient list as was used previously.
>
> No need to apologize. There was nothing in what I wrote to you
> t
Ken Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Eric Weisberg says the mass of folks on earth will not vote in ICANN
>elections, even if asked, so he proposes going instead with public
>interest organizations having a say in the process. His notions have
>merit, yet notice the assumption that public apathy
The press release said:
ICANN was created by the global Internet community in response to
Management of Internet Names and Addresses, a U.S. Government statement
of policy issued in June 1998, that invited the global Internet community
to form a new, private sector organization to undertake ma
At 04:48 PM 2/8/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>On 09-Feb-99 Ken Freed wrote:
>> Eric Weisberg says the mass of folks on earth will not
>> vote in ICANN elections, even if asked, so he proposes
>> going instead with public interest organizations having
>> a say in the process. His notions have merit,
On 09-Feb-99 Ken Freed wrote:
> Eric Weisberg says the mass of folks on earth will not
> vote in ICANN elections, even if asked, so he proposes
> going instead with public interest organizations having
> a say in the process. His notions have merit, yet notice
> the assumption that public ap
Eric Weisberg says the mass of folks on earth will not
vote in ICANN elections, even if asked, so he proposes
going instead with public interest organizations having
a say in the process. His notions have merit, yet notice
the assumption that public apathy will prevail. I am not
convinced this wil
Jeff, it is obvious since you refuse to provide ANY contact for people
independent of your Homestead Inn telephone number, that you are telling
falsehoods.
Besides, Gallup staff would receive calls at a GALLUP number, not an INEG
number.
The point of all this is that if no one can be contacted
William and all,
As I have outlined before, and seemingly you either missed or are displaying
an in ability to except that those organizations/companies that are members
of the INEGroup will be using our communication IP network through
a centralized contact point. That point for the purposes
At 02:06 PM 2/8/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 08:38:29AM -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>> i have said repeatedly that kent crispin is not a member of CORE, not an
>> employee of any member of CORE, receives no compensation from CORE nor is
>> he the official spokesman for COR
Sean and all,
The ICANN released through yet another inoculious "Press Release"
the intentions of the ICANN regarding "Registrat/Registry Accreditation's"
without the input prior to this said "Press Release", of the membership
Organization which the ICANN is bound to do through the NTIA/ICANN/M
Yes Jeff, we are looking for a number that doesn't ring to YOU.
And the name of someone at Gallup that can be contacted AT Gallup.
On 08-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> William and all,
>
>The number as has been repeated to you and all before is as is in my
> sig file below. Are you expe
William and all,
The number as has been repeated to you and all before is as is in my
sig file below. Are you experiencing a reading impairment problem
william?
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Still waiting for a name and a way of contacting someone that doesn't mean
> ringing your number at Homes
INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
For Immediate Release
February 8, 1999
ICANN Releases Draft Accreditation Guidelines for Domain-Name Registrars-
Proposal to be Available for Public Comment at www.icann.org
Los Angeles-In a first step towards establishing fair and consistent
Still waiting for a name and a way of contacting someone that doesn't mean
ringing your number at Homestead.
Or the people at Gallup that you claimed helped with the INEG polling efforts.
You're gonna have to prove it sometime, Jeff.
On 08-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> William and all,
>
>
William and all,
Of course all 89,000+ members of INEGroup DO NOT share the same
phone member, but are routed through that central number of purposes
of simplicity and a central point of contact. I SERVE as their elected
spokesman only.
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 08-Feb-99 jeff Williams wr
On 08-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> Stef and all,
>
>I thought I had just done that on this list, Stef? Is that not correct?
> We
> through myself submitted our suggested amendments as well several
> times. The only way that we are going to resolve these areas of
> disagreement
> sh
Stef and all,
I thought I had just done that on this list, Stef? Is that not correct?
We
through myself submitted our suggested amendments as well several
times. The only way that we are going to resolve these areas of
disagreement
short of a law suit, is through voting online.
Einar Ste
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 15:07:44 -0500 (EST)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [John Charles
Broomfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From manta.outremer.com!jbroom Mon Feb 8 15:07:43 19
I understand Jonathan's point to be that the interests of activist-Internet
users may not coincide with the interests of passive users, and that passive
users should have representation with all other interests that affect and
are affected by the Internet. After all, passive users affect the Inter
At 12:16 PM 2/8/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit:
>
>> Anyone with knowledge, a Unix system, and a full-time Internet connection
>> can do the same.
>
>Do the average domain name holders have the knowledge, a Unix machine, and
>an Internet connection of their own? If not
On 08-Feb-99 John Charles Broomfield wrote:
>
> Hi Anthony,
> I'm copying below the original message that was sent to ccTLD admins
> about the IATLD & RFC-1591.
> What I like so much about it is the first line "The subject line says it
> all." and then goes on to ramble like crazy. Ok
--- Forwarded Message
Here is what Mr Heath answered me:
- --- Forwarded Message
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 14:38:36 -0500
To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Don Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 10:52 AM 2/8/99 +0200, you wrote:
>Please, post to the list of record ([EMAIL PROTEC
Kent Crispin wrote:
>If the RCs can ignore the hearings at will, then the hearings in
>general are useless, and they might as well be stricken from the
>document.
I don't think they can ignore the hearings at will, but they need to be
able to exercise their professional judgment about what is
here is a copy of a suggestion I sent to andrew kraft to possible move this
down the road...
something for you all to chew on ...
-Original Message-
From: Ken Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP, Executive Director <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, February 08, 1999 10:3
Diane Cabell wrote:
>
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>
> > I support the creation of a public interest, or netizens SO, if you
> > like.
>
> That's what the At Large Membership is supposed to be.
No. We are discussing why that is NOT so.
The "great unwashed" will not join and vote in ICANN
electi
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Sondow writes:
> The average client of an ISP, that is, the average domain name
> holder, cannot tell the ISP what to put into their zone file. I've
> had trouble with every single one of the five ISPs I've used because
> of this, and I've heard the same st
On 08-Feb-99 David Schutt wrote:
> Not a good example, my browser timed out.
Yeah, a free service sometimes has Hiccups.
> There are lots of experimental and/or educational systems out there, I'm
> more interested in commercial services that can take a spike without
> gasping.
I believe
This is nothing but a blantent misrepresentation of the facts.
I know for a fact that Antony did not just post up all the IATLD supporters
without contacting them and getting theie explicit support.
You will note that not ALL the ccTLDs who are listed as IATLD or RFC1591
supporters are listed as
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Sondow writes:
> Dr Eberhard W Lisse a =E9crit:
>
> > Please, post to the list of record ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) with cc to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]), who on behalf of ISOC, made what input into the D
Greg Skinner wrote:
> I support the creation of a public interest, or netizens SO, if you
> like.
That's what the At Large Membership is supposed to be.
Diane Cabell
MAC
Eric Weisberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I do not believe the "general public" has any interest in joining
>our group nor in voting for our board. Thus, there must be some
>other way of protecting their interests. Perhaps there should be
>a "public interest" SO (given that "we" have chosen the
Jay Robert Hauben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Feb 1 1999 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
>Pennsylvania a Memorandum was issued in the case of ACLU et al vs Reno (Civil
>Action NO. 98-5591). I have not had time to read the Memorandum but have found
>the first 8
On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 12:16:50PM -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
> At 2/8/99, 11:48 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> >I am not talking about there being just *one* hearing. As soon as
> >the first FH concludes, the second one will be requested, and then
> >after that the third, and so on. As far as I c
Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit:
> the zone file sits on grumpy.net.na as per an agreement with a local
> ISP. Whether they give me physical write access is not the issue,
> rather that I decide what gets written into it.
The average client of an ISP, that is, the average domain name holder,
cannot
On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 07:34:40AM -0600, John B. Reynolds wrote:
> Jay Fenello wrote:
> >
> > How do you envision ICANN enforcing
> > policies onto the registries?
>
> If all else fails, ICANN has the authority to remove them from its root
> zone. It's admittedly the 'nuclear option', but it's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rus Postel) wrote:
>i do not qualify for any of the categories of membership suggested,
>yet i use the internet and believe i have a right to participate in
>democratic decision making.
Good point. I believe every Internet user should have the right to
participate in the deci
Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit:
> Anyone with knowledge, a Unix system, and a full-time Internet connection
> can do the same.
Do the average domain name holders have the knowledge, a Unix machine, and
an Internet connection of their own? If not, what is the point to this
discussion?
Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit:
> Please, post to the list of record ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) with cc to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]), who on behalf of ISOC, made what input intot he DNSO
> process, in particular DNSO.ORG, when, using which forum, and
At 2/8/99, 11:48 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 09:45:28AM -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>> Kent Crispin wrote:
>> >Running the hearing slows down the process, intrinsically. A hearing
>> >takes time that would have been spent doing other things. As long as
>> >I am guaranteed
Hi Kerry,
These are my personal impressions . . .
At 2/5/99, 06:26 AM, Kerry Miller wrote:
>
>Jay,
>
>{ 2.1 Membership.
>{
>{... Any ICANN member with expertise or interest in domain name
>{ issues may join the DNSO General Assembly by submitting a membership
>{ application.
>
>Isnt an '
Jay Fenello wrote:
>
> At 2/8/99, 08:34 AM, John B. Reynolds wrote:
> >
> >
> >Jay Fenello wrote:
> >>
> >> At 2/7/99, 06:15 PM, John B. Reynolds wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Milton Mueller wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The Paris draft group, on the other hand, was responsive to this
> >> >> same criticism.
> >>
On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 09:45:28AM -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> >Running the hearing slows down the process, intrinsically. A hearing
> >takes time that would have been spent doing other things. As long as
> >I am guaranteed a "fair hearing" at will, I can slow down the
At 2/8/99, 09:27 AM, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>
> 5.11 Further Review of Changes
>
> Whenever a proposal has been changed as a result of
> the preceding processes, any changes resulting from
> such processes shall be republished on the DNSO
> website and subject to review under the prior
> provisio
At 2/8/99, 08:34 AM, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>
>
>Jay Fenello wrote:
>>
>> At 2/7/99, 06:15 PM, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>> >
>> >Milton Mueller wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Paris draft group, on the other hand, was responsive to this
>> >> same criticism.
>> >> I commend them for this.
>> >
>> >On the o
Don Heath has been a consistent supporter of those whom Michael Sondow
complains about for years.
Some say that he was quick to embrace Robert Shaw and the ITU, and to
involve WIPO in the process.
Here is some information from my canarie talk in December.
"Other's started using Jon postel early
Greg Skinner wrote:
>
> I also think that if we are talking business models here, consider
> that this is just one business model that happens to have a certain
> amount of support, but it is not the only one, and not necessarily the
> best one. The model of web hosting sites like GeoCities migh
In message <000801be5376$4f8dec20$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David Schutt" wr
ites:
> Translation: Expediency is more important than fairness
No, that was a 3 on th Kent-Meter.
el
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> At 09:49 PM 2/7/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>> John B. Reynolds a écrit:
>
>>> Every domain name holder directly or indirectly administers a DNS zone
>>> file. Are you sure you're not confusing "DNS zone" with "root zone"?
>>
>> No, the domai
Not a good example, my browser timed out.
There are lots of experimental and/or educational systems out there, I'm
more interested in commercial services that can take a spike without
gasping.
David Schutt
> Linux and BIND are both free software. The real sticking point is the
> requisite perm
Translation: Expediency is more important than fairness
David Schutt
>
> Running the hearing slows down the process, intrinsically. A hearing
> takes time that would have been spent doing other things. As long as
> I am guaranteed a "fair hearing" at will, I can slow down the
> process.
>
>
John Charles,
Your accusations are the worst sort of unsupported mudslinging. Ordinarily
I would ignore it, but this is one of those cases where silence could be
dangerous. You seem to doubt the veracity of the IATLD support, presumably
because you and your purported not-for-profit (should I ask
Please supply references. I understand that you may wish to avoid the
appearance of promoting a particular service, but I'm sure that some
specifics would be very useful to those reading this list.
David Schutt
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On B
Eberhard Lisse wrote,
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John
> Charles Broomfield writes:
>
> > Patrick Raimond (the admin contact for ".gp") speaks reasonably good
> > English.
>
> So let him decide.
>
>
> Antony,
>
> ask Patrick specifically whether he, as the GP ccTLD Aministrator and
>
At 2/8/99, 04:47 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 07:43:57PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>> > Furthermore, it is explicitly the case that the Names Council only
>> > gives recommendations to ICANN.
>>
>> That is all the DNSO CAN do Kent, so this is no distinction.
>
>Of cou
John Charles,
Is Patrick Raimond the admin contact or is not? Are you now going to say
that anyone who doesn't speak English natively shouldn't be able to
participate, because s/he might not understand?
In re: support of RFC 1591, .GP answered "YES" to the question of whether
ICANN should put t
We'll be posting the two DNSO proposals we received for public comment on
our Website today, along with the much-awaited proposed accreditation
guidelines for the shared registry system - also for public comment. That's
as a prelude to the open meeting and our baord meeting in Singapore.
What
John B. Reynolds wrote:
> 5.11 Further Review of Changes
>
> Whenever a proposal has been changed as a result of
> the preceding processes, any changes resulting from
> such processes shall be republished on the DNSO
> website and subject to review under the prior
> provisions of this section.
>
Kent Crispin wrote:
>Running the hearing slows down the process, intrinsically. A hearing
>takes time that would have been spent doing other things. As long as
>I am guaranteed a "fair hearing" at will, I can slow down the
>process.
If a hearing catches and corrects a problem before the process
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>
> Einar Stefferud wrote:
>
> >Here I am in strong agreement that the whole concept of Fair Hearing
> >Panels has been subvertted by inavertant editing whcih converts them
> >into a mecahisim to be used to stop progress on any Research Committee
> >proposal that someone do
> You contact with an ISP to create and maintain a zone file on your behalf.
> If you don't like what they do with it, you can move to another
> ISP or make
> other arrangements. Ultimate control remains vested in you. I don't see
> how I could make this any more clear than I already have.
Oop
Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
>
One conception of ICANN has it performing
> functions that affect all internet users, and that therefore should take
> the needs of all internet users--including the lazy, time-deprived, or
> confused--in mind. (Not to mention future internet users, who may not
> curre
Michael Sondow wrote:
>
> John B. Reynolds a écrit:
>
> > You administer your zone indirectly by controlling which ISP runs it
> > directly.
>
> Administer the zone indirectly? What are you talking about? Is this a game
> of semantics to you? It's a file. How do I change it's contents
> when it's
Jay Fenello wrote:
>
> At 2/7/99, 06:15 PM, John B. Reynolds wrote:
> >
> >Milton Mueller wrote:
> >>
> >> The Paris draft group, on the other hand, was responsive to this
> >> same criticism.
> >> I commend them for this.
> >
> >On the other hand, the Paris group was completely unresponsive
> t
On Feb 1 1999 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania a Memorandum was issued in the case of ACLU et al vs Reno (Civil
Action NO. 98-5591). I have not had time to read the Memorandum but have found
the first 8 Findings of Fact interesting and so I am copying
Esther,
I am writing to ask you a two brief but important questions:
1) Will there be some official notice letting those of us who submitted
proposals (and the public) as to which proposals did make it in by the
deadline and are thus under consideration?
2) As there are at LEAST two proposals o
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" wri
tes:
> At 09:49 PM 2/7/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >John B. Reynolds a écrit:
>
> >> Every domain name holder directly or
> >> indirectly administers a DNS zone file. Are you sure you're not
> >> confusing "DNS zone" with "root zone
Michael,
John is right.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Sondow writes:
> John B. Reynolds a =E9crit:
>
> > You administer your zone indirectly by controlling which ISP runs it
> > directly.
>
> Administer the zone indirectly? What are you talking about? Is this
> a game of semantics t
At 09:49 PM 2/7/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>John B. Reynolds a écrit:
>> Every domain name holder directly or
>> indirectly administers a DNS zone file. Are you sure you're not
>> confusing "DNS zone" with "root zone"?
>
>No, the domain holders don't administer zone files. That's done by t
At 11:06 AM 2/5/99 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>> ...say things like "open is open", like it was some kind of
>> absolute characteristic, instead of the rather vague relative
>> charactistic it actually is.
>
>My metric is this:
>
>A system is "open" if there is a means for an effective two-way
Hello Don Heath,
I'd like to register a disagreement. Comments interspersed.
At 01:40 AM 2/8/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Sorry, Mr. Heath, but I didn't agree to continue this discussion in secret,
>so I am posting this to the same recipient list as was used previously.
>
>Don Heath wrote:
>
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 07:43:57PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > Furthermore, it is explicitly the case that the Names Council only
> > gives recommendations to ICANN.
>
> That is all the DNSO CAN do Kent, so this is no distinction.
Of course. However, Jay, Einar, and others have contin
All of them! (see Eberhard's question below;-)...
I also agree that the initial members of the startup DNSO should be
the Zone Administrators and not the Technical Contacts!
And, for Michael's information, the fact that he has contractred with
an ISP to do everythig for his DNS Zone, and not le
OK -- I suggest that you contact the Paris Draft editors who ar
submitting the Parid draft Application to clearly inform them that you
do not support the Paris Draft.
If you wish, also supply a ReSend of your suggested attachments.
Redundancy in such cases is actually a freindly ting to provide;-
Don,
I do not recall, a SINGLE statement by ISOC being sent through the lists
that I am connected to. But then I did not subcribe to all and not at the
same time. The question of ISOC's participation is however easily solved:
Please, post to the list of record ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) with cc to
[EM
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 10:37:39PM -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> Einar Stefferud wrote:
>
> >Here I am in strong agreement that the whole concept of Fair Hearing
> >Panels has been subvertted by inavertant editing whcih converts them
> >into a mecahisim to be used to stop progress on any Resear
i do not qualify for any of the categories of membership suggested, yet i use
the internet and believe i have a right to participate in democratic decision
making. probably i am in a very small minority of users. why exclude us? aren't
basic end users entitled to have a say in issues effecting how
Eric Weisberg a écrit:
> I agree that there must be a presumption against any impediment to
> participation and I really appreciate your concern in this
> regard. However, isn't that unnecessary in this organization on
> the following grounds--ICANN's particular and limited purposes
We don't ye
Sorry, Mr. Heath, but I didn't agree to continue this discussion in secret,
so I am posting this to the same recipient list as was used previously.
Don Heath wrote:
> I was sitting directly behind you in the Washington meeting and directly
> across from you in the Boston meeting. I was not in M
Eric,
This issue has been really troubling me lately. The value of automatic
enlistment of members depends on whether membership is seen as a kind of
"use it or lose it" thing. One conception of ICANN has it performing
functions that affect all internet users, and that therefore should take
the
George Conrades wrote:
Michael, your thoughts on this one make a lot of sense to me.
Geo.
George Conrades wrote:
>
> Michael, your thoughts on this one make a lot of sense to me. Geo.
>
> ...it's a good idea. If people registering domain names were
> automatically made members, by having a
In message <001401be52fb$9ddc9320$010a@jbr>, "John B. Reynolds" writes:
> Michael Sondow wrote:
> >
> > Einar Stefferud a écrit:
> >
> > > I agree with this concern, and I suggest that the initial membership
> > > be defined in some other more well defined way. One suggestion that
> > > makes
At 2/7/99, 06:15 PM, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>
>Milton Mueller wrote:
>>
>> The Paris draft group, on the other hand, was responsive to this
>> same criticism.
>> I commend them for this.
>
>On the other hand, the Paris group was completely unresponsive to criticism
>that its veto provisions gave
First of all, can we lose the confrontational tones?
On 08-Feb-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
> John B. Reynolds a écrit:
>
> > You administer your zone indirectly by controlling which ISP runs it
> > directly.
>
> Administer the zone indirectly? What are you talking about? Is this a game
> of
91 matches
Mail list logo
