At 08:40 AM 2/26/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>NSI chose to fund people who are vigorous opponents to proposals on the
>table.
I'm a little confused here Dave, NSI sent me to Singapore and Geneva;
what proposal on the table was I antagonistic of? Jon's plan ?
Would if be fair to say you wre
Kent Crispin said:
>Not so. The fact is that there are many people like me in the
>IAHC/POC/CORE arena that fund this activity entirely on their own
>dime -- sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. The CORE registrars
>have a monetary stake in this, it is true. But the IAHC/POC is
>composed of
Hello Kent -- If the words you are using (yours, not ours) are
"completely unimportant" (your words, not ours), then why do you
publish them in the first place.
Shall we also assume that your use of the words "private control of
TLDs" is also completely unimportant?
Cheers...\Stef
>From your me
IFWP Working Group K Miller
Internet-Draft 25 Feb 1999
A Zero-level Domain
Status of this document:
"This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
d
>I would rather you go to the Southern District's warehouse in Kearny, NJ
>and actually read the record in this case before you presume to lecture us
>on what the facts really were.
In truth, Milton's account is exactly on track with that Adam Curry told me
directly.
>
>
>
>At 05:13 PM 2/25/99 -0
>Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:05:32 -0800
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Page)
>Subject: RE: [IFWP] NSI payments Adam Todd and Richard Sexton
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>David, you want to know what this is all about? If you didn't know this
>already, remember the source of Ke
Stef and all,
If you do oppose the ICANN Accreditation Guideline proposal, why
have you not posted that in specific terms to the ICANN on their
relevant list than Stef?
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> I think it woudl be just fine if you, Kent, would stop putting words
> my my mouth, and trying to s
Stef said: I think it woudl be just fine if you, Kent, would stop putting words
>my my mouth, and trying to speak for ORSC;-)...
>
>First, I assure you that this is not a joke;-)...
>
>I in fact am seriously opposed to a lot of NSI policies and I am
>working toward moving to a different TLD, in pa
I think it woudl be just fine if you, Kent, would stop putting words
my my mouth, and trying to speak for ORSC;-)...
First, I assure you that this is not a joke;-)...
I in fact am seriously opposed to a lot of NSI policies and I am
working toward moving to a different TLD, in part to be free of
OK Kent -- I have laid out all my support for other sources.
There was then and is now, nothing going on under the table on my side
of this discussion. I and ORSC specialize in working in the open, and
I must say that I find that we have been able to contribute vastly
more to the cause of findin
Milton and all,
Milton is exactly correct here. Anyone with even a moicrum of legal
knowledge would know this without question. I guess the John
is the exception here.
What the judges ruling might be could cover wide gambit or range
of solutions, including allowance for any of those pgMedi
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Interesting that you and others are just now coming to this conclusion.
>I came to this conclusion more than two years ago.
Actually, I came to this conclusion when I first heard of the mtv.com
case. It was posted to misc.legal.moderated about five year
Chuck, Don and all,
Are you suprised Don? You shouldn't be. We are sure not! This has
been the sort of tactics that the DNSO.ORG has been employing from
the very start, and to some extent with ICANN's help as well I
wonder
if the ITAA is employing the same PR firm ICANN is?
[EMAIL PROT
At 09:38 PM 2/25/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
>You made a flat assertion without any limitation on it. Your assertion
>was demonstrably false. What you said was:
>
>I then listed real, functioning Internet organizations (ISPA UK, EuroISPA,
>the LINX, the Internet Watch Foundation, MaNAP) where I h
On 26-Feb-99 Bob Allisat wrote:
> = That's a good one Bob.
>
> Thank you. I don't think we have ever met in
> person. Nor have I met any of the various and
> sundry parties to this debate. I would like to
> have that opportunity one day. And to perhaps
As would I.
> demonstrate tha
At 12:14 PM 2/25/99 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Is your definition of an antagonist one who does not support ICANN? Should
>we all just blindly accept everything that ICANN proposes, without careful
>analysis and evaluation? I really doubt that you feel that way.
Chuck,
Since you typical
Stef and all,
I agree with everything you say here Stef, except your last statement,
which you well know is completely false. And, please don't make me have
to post our private exchanges to embarrass you to prove it
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> Hello Chuck and all --
>
> I have been no less
Greg and all,
Interesting that you and others are just now coming to this conclusion.
I came to this conclusion more than two years ago. The McDonalds case
was one my deciding factors as I recall. i have posted these thoughts
several times. The idea that WIPO and its ADR's or RFC-3 proposal
Either the Paris Draft or the BMW draft is the better draft and an as-yet
unwritten draft may be better than both.
Among the issues irrelevant to determining that isse are: who signed those
drafts, what an employee of WITSA told that organization's members, who
wrote the word Center in his post a
1999.02.26
Singapore DNSO Meeting Schedule and Agenda
Place: 2nd Floor, SICEC, Suntec City, Downtown Singapore
1999.3.2 08:00 - 18:00 Chair: David Maher/Antony van Couvering
Presentation of 2 draft appli
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 05:27:45PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Who has funded Kent Crispin's peripatetic travel schedule? (No, it isn't
> Kent's piggybank)
Yes, it is my own personal piggybank that has funded my travel. The
only exception is that my employer has covered my expenses to a
cou
For those of you planning to participate remotely in the Singapore Open
Board Meeting and/or in the Membership Open Meeting, here's an update on
where we stand.
Regarding the times of the meeting: The Open Board Meeting will take place
on March 3 from 9:00AM to 5:30PM Singapore time. In GMT, tha
Chuck Gomes wrote:
+ There was nothing under the table. There was nothing
+ unethical. They were contributors to the process who did
+ not have funding. The fact that they were not quite so one
+ sided in their views as you is another issue.
I, Bob Allisat, replied:
> Okay. Next ICANN meeting
On 25-Feb-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
> This is, of course, incorrect. CENTR has not signed the Paris draft.
> (Nor has anyone named "Center".)
>
Gordan said that, not Milton.
--
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25-Feb-99
Time: 15:53:52
--
My message never mentioned CENTR, or Center. Nice try, Kent.
--MM
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 04:58:45PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >
> >
> > Gordon Cook wrote:
> >
> > > when I informed her that DNRC, AIP, Center, and 20 CC administrators had
>
I would rather you go to the Southern District's warehouse in Kearny, NJ
and actually read the record in this case before you presume to lecture us
on what the facts really were.
At 05:13 PM 2/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> As one of the lawyers who participated
At 05:13 PM 2/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> As one of the lawyers who participated in the representation of MTV in that
>> case, I would say that that particular genie was let out of the bottle the
>> day Adam Curry registered mtv.com in his own name and began promot
On 25-Feb-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
> Another point I find quite interesting: I think this example points
> out the clear difference in ethical stance between CORE and NSI --
> Someone in CORE spent good money to be sure that a critic was
> represented; NSI spent good money to stack things in th
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 04:58:45PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>
> Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> > when I informed her that DNRC, AIP, Center, and 20 CC administrators had
**
This is, of course, incorrect. CENTR has not signed the Paris draft.
(Nor ha
Who has funded Kent Crispin's peripatetic travel schedule? (No, it isn't
Kent's piggybank) Who has funded the presence of a certain PAB/POC person
at every one of the WIPO hearings? Who funded the ITU's participation in
gTLD-MoU? Who has funded Don Heath's movements about the planet? Is there
any
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 10:41:35AM -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> Hello Chuck and all --
>
> I have been no less harsh in criticism of NSI policies and operations
> than of ICANN polices and operations, or of IAHC/CORE policies and
> operations.
That's very creative. Stef. Perhaps you could p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm suggesting ICANN maintain a Certification process that accepts ICANN
>members~voters only from ISPs that provide a minimum quality of service.
>I'm suggesting that this include universal email accounts and access to
>a Community Service Tier. (This should be a near t
Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> As one of the lawyers who participated in the representation of MTV in that
> case, I would say that that particular genie was let out of the bottle the
> day Adam Curry registered mtv.com in his own name and began promoting a
> music website under the name mtv.com
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 04:53:40PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Stef,
>
> It sounds like you are an antagonist according to Kent's
> definition. So I guess we did provide some support for an
> antagonist, even one who is antagonistic to NSI. :)
Indeed, a good joke, Chuck :-) In fact, of c
Stef,
It sounds like you are an antagonist according to Kent's
definition. So I guess we did provide some support for an
antagonist, even one who is antagonistic to NSI. :)
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: Einar Stefferud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 1:42
Gordon Cook wrote:
> when I informed her that DNRC, AIP, Center, and 20 CC administrators had
> also signed the 'other draft' she wanted to know when. I said it was at
> the end of the meeting in paris that produced what is known as the Paris
> draft. she said she was unaware of the Paris dra
Nope. That depends on the specific content of the judge's decision. You are
assuming, once again, that a pgmedia victory means that the judge simply
ratifies pgmedia's specific proposed way of doing things. That is not how
antitrust cases work, generally.
For example, if the DOJ "wins" its case a
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >> ICANN has been a difficult issue only because of the gTLD turmoil. All of
> >> the other issues you name were not problems that needed solving. The gTLD
**
> >> turmoil has b
Dear Joop,
ICANN has the difficult job of determining voter qualifications. Some
people are qualified, others aren't. In my country 500,000 people lost
their lives in a civil war over who can and who can't vote.
I'm suggesting ICANN maintain a Certification process that accepts ICANN
members~vo
Telage, Don wrote:
>
> NSI is a member of ITAA and inexplicably did not get Ms.
O'Niell's distorted
> and outrageous invitation to endorse BMW! I'm hopelessly
disappointed in
> those engaged in this sham activity. Do you have no self
respect? Don
> Telage
>
Jim Dixon wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> > I don't know if this is good or bad, but I continue to be amazed at the
> > small-time nature of corporate participation in these developments.
> >
> > A US telecom carrier spent more than $5 million on a statewide campaign to
Milton: How about getting a hold of this "new" memo and posting it for all
to see?
trust and all that stuff..
>From: "Sheila O'Neill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Just talked with sheilla oneil Re: [IFWP] dnso.org lobbying t
> actics
This is getting ridiculous.
At the end of the process of privatization of the DNS, how could you *not*
end up with private control of TLDs? (gTLDs, anyway)
Maybe someday someone will explain what the hell this is really about
instead of hiding behind factional code words.
David Schutt
-Or
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Greg Skinner wrote:
> Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> The claim of US power [over NSI] is demonstrably false, by virtue of
> >> the continuing pattern of poor decision-making the USG has ma
Milton wrote:
>As you can see from the letter below, WITSA and ITAA are lobbying
>their members to support the BMW proposal. In the process, they are
>telling untruths about the alternative, Paris draft proposal. Ms.
>O'Neill below implies that the Paris draft proposal was signed *only*
>by NSI
I just faxed the following protest to:
Gordon Cook
COOK Network Consultants
431 Greenway Avenue
Ewing, NJ 08618
(609) 882-2572
Electronic Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David M. Walker February 24, 1999
Comptroller General,
General Accounting Office
Room 7100, 441 G St
On 25-Feb-99 Bob Allisat wrote:
>
> Chuck Gomes wrote:
> + There was nothing under the table. There was nothing
> + unethical. They were contributors to the process who did
> + not have funding. The fact that they were not quite so one
> + sided in their views as you is another issue.
>
In the event of a PGMedia victory, anyone wanting to operate .web or any of
the 515 other TLDs claimed by PGMedia would have to overturn existing
precedent.
Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> I don't think this is correct. If PGMedia can sue and win, then
> any other TLD
> operator would have a legitimate
Chuck Gomes wrote:
+ There was nothing under the table. There was nothing
+ unethical. They were contributors to the process who did
+ not have funding. The fact that they were not quite so one
+ sided in their views as you is another issue.
Okay. Next ICANN meeting somewhere on Earth you
g
There was nothing under the table. There was nothing
unethical. They were contributors to the process who did
not have funding. The fact that they were not quite so one
sided in their views as you is another issue.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Hello Chuck and all --
I have been no less harsh in criticism of NSI policies and operations
than of ICANN polices and operations, or of IAHC/CORE policies and
operations.
I have accepted travel exepense support from NSI ($800+) to attend the
ICANN Boston "open" Meeting, and also support from a
I agree with your totally. The irony was intended. Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:16:03 -0800:
}
}At 12:01 AM -0800 2/25/99, Einar Stefferud wrote:
}>On pain of possibly encountering a severe case of regrets, I have to
}>agree with Dave that:
}
}I find it extremely ironic
I don't think this is correct. If PGMedia can sue and win, then any other TLD
operator would have a legitimate claim to do likewise. Therefore, it is the
principle that is at stake rather than the specific proposals of an individual
business. Is there an antitrust lawyer in the house?
--MM
John B
On 25-Feb-99 Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> As one of the lawyers who participated in the representation of MTV in that
> case, I would say that that particular genie was let out of the bottle the
> day Adam Curry registered mtv.com in his own name and began promoting a
> music website under
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 12:14:40PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Kent,
>
> Is your definition of an antagonist one who does not support ICANN?
The precise definition of "antagonist" is completely unimportant.
The real issue is that NSI, a government contractor, has funded
participation of o
>The genie was let out of the bottle the day that the guy sold
>mcdonalds.com to McDonalds; the day that MTV started fighting to get
>mtv.com back from Adam Curry. Basically, it all began when the world
>started to realize that there was intellectual property and financial
>value to domain names.
Joop Teernstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And life being such, it is our duty not to allow structures to
> emerge that offer massive opportunity for abuse of power and
> corruption. I thought Jim's point was valid.
No governmental structure can overcome the foibles of human nature.
--gregbo
Shame on you Jon,
Not only have you disparaged the supporters of
the Paris Draft, but you have misrepresented
*both* the Paris and the BMW Drafts.
Your actions are highly suspect:-(
Trying to remain . . .
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-943-0524 http://www.iperd
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kent Crispin writes:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 06:45:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Dave,
> >
> > Please name any antagonists that NSI funded to the process.
> > Is an antagonist someone who disagrees with you?
>
> Adam Todd and Richard Sexton have both
Molly Shaffer Van Houweling a écrit:
>
> To clarify, ICANN is not charging anything for the open meeting on 3 March.
> (Register for free at http://www.apng.org/apricot99/apstar.html.)But
> most ICANN meeting participants are also participating in APRICOT'99, for
> which there is a registrat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> The genie is out of the bottle. We are going to have to find some
>> way to deal with the legal issues of naming network resources now.
> I disagree: the legal issues are legal issues, not yours or mine or
> ICANNs.
I think yo
Joop Teernstra a écrit:
>
> Even in Singapore the critical meetings on the DNSO application and the
> ICANN membership are scheduled on THE SAME DAY in different locations.
>
> Supporters of the principles of the Paris Draft, who also want to have
> input in the ICANN membership meeting will be
Roberto Gaetano a écrit:
>
> Chon,
>
> You wrote:
>
> . is it too expensive? if so, we need to find sponsors to
> subsidize
> > further like Washington Meeting.
> >
> I have developed a deep mistrust for the last minute's sponsors in this
> domain.
> Please remember that the balance o
Franky and all,
This is one demonstrations of the mindset that "if you don't
agree
with me than you are wrong and a DIRTY #%^*&$#&*", or
"if you don't
follow blindly than we shall pan and brand you a something or other".
Hay, but I am sure with you on being long on NSOL stock!
>;)
Frank Rizz
At 12:07 PM 2/25/99 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
>At 2/25/99, 03:16 AM, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>>I fully agree with Dan and Ellen, and I propose that someone collect
>>all these process comments toether and grop them as a digest into all
>>the ICANN comments lists.
>
>
>I like this idea ;-)
>
>Rich
Jon,
To be completely clear to your members, you should also want to mention that
the amendments to the Paris Draft, which are supported by NSI, AIP and most
of the other supporters, and have been objected to (ie, most are fine either
way) by ANY of the supporters, are now "official". The amended
Kent and all,
You still did not answer Chucks question... But than again you likely
did not understand it either
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 06:45:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Dave,
> >
> > Please name any antagonists that NSI funded to the process.
> > Is a
At 12:01 AM -0800 2/25/99, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>On pain of possibly encountering a severe case of regrets, I have to
>agree with Dave that:
I find it extremely ironic that you would side with Dave Crocker in
silencing alternative ideas and contributions. It is he and the rest of the
dreaded IA
At 2/25/99, 07:06 AM, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>DRAFT CONFLICT OF INTEREST
>* The draft Conflict-of-interest guidelines came out on the 17th of
>February.
>* there was no mention of a comment period deadline for it.
>* even without the reminder, the document was only available for
> (at most) 7 days
Kent,
Is your definition of an antagonist one who does not support ICANN? Should
we all just blindly accept everything that ICANN proposes, without careful
analysis and evaluation? I really doubt that you feel that way.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTEC
Milton,
You are quite correct that the note sent out was not as clear as it
could have been. While there had been a bit of confusion about which
organizations have signed onto which version of the Paris draft, more
detailed information should have been provided in the note.
We will not list pub
At 2/25/99, 03:16 AM, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>I fully agree with Dan and Ellen, and I propose that someone collect
>all these process comments toether and grop them as a digest into all
>the ICANN comments lists.
I like this idea ;-)
Richard, can we submit an archive of the
IFWP and ORSC list
Ellen and all,
Ellen Rony wrote:
> >I fully agree with Dan and Ellen, and I propose that someone collect
> >all these process comments toether and grop them as a digest into all
> >the ICANN comments lists.
> >
>
> I'll be gone until late afternoon (flying to Texas to attend the Dallas
> confere
Ellen,
1. Finally got your book today. Congratulations, its comprehensive. You must
be hard at work on 2nd Ed. :-)
2. I agree that the interim board is not qualified to impose these sorts of
requirements on Registrars. It is difficult to see exactly what the board
has done at all and what a clique
John and all,
Same would also apply to CORE and possibly in the near future
ICANN, should the survive. However this issues is not relevant
nor extant in the pgMedia anti-trust lawsuit, as is plainly clear in the
relevant filings and the current legal record to date, if you have read it
careful
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 06:45:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Please name any antagonists that NSI funded to the process.
> Is an antagonist someone who disagrees with you?
Adam Todd and Richard Sexton have both publically stated that NSI
funded their travel expenses. Both have
>I fully agree with Dan and Ellen, and I propose that someone collect
>all these process comments toether and grop them as a digest into all
>the ICANN comments lists.
>
I'll be gone until late afternoon (flying to Texas to attend the Dallas
conferece and if you believe that, then you know donke
You asked why shared registry advocates don't support PGMedia. I replied to
that question. The substance of PGMedia's proposals is entirely relevant
(in fact, crucial) to that issue.
As for the lawsuit, a PGMedia victory would not establish "the principle of
non-discriminatory access to the roo
As you can see from the letter below, WITSA and ITAA are lobbying
their members to support the BMW proposal. In the process, they are
telling untruths about the alternative, Paris draft proposal. Ms.
O'Neill below implies that the Paris draft proposal was signed *only*
by NSI and ORSC. She does no
John:
What you think of PGMedia's specific proposals does not really matter. What is
at issue in the lawsuit is the principle of non-discriminatory access to the
root. An antitrust lawsuit is not a substitute for a new system of root
administration. But it can establish the legal principles upon w
Stef and all,
Well if you feel this way why not just shun ICANN as well? That seems
to be your answer to something that you don't agree with in most cases,
why should ICANN be any exception? Or is there possibly another
motive?
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> I fully agree with Dan and Ellen, and
John, Paul and all,
John B. Reynolds wrote:
> Name.Space wrote:
> >
> > >Milton Mueller wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >From the article:
> > >>
> > >> "Since PGMedia filed its suit, however, the Internet landscape has
> > >> changed drastically, throwing a monkey wrench into an
> > >> already-complicated
I fully agree with Dan and Ellen, and I propose that someone collect
all these process comments toether and grop them as a digest into all
the ICANN comments lists.
I take the clear implication that this is designed to disable all
useful discussion and comment. I also assume that all those who
On pain of possibly encountering a severe case of regrets, I have to
agree with Dave that:
"There is only quietly shunning" and
"This [behavior] will only change when such
contributions are ignored, thoroughly and permanently."
Dave and I together have proven conclusiv
Name.Space wrote:
>
> >Milton Mueller wrote:
> >>
> >> >From the article:
> >>
> >> "Since PGMedia filed its suit, however, the Internet landscape has
> >> changed drastically, throwing a monkey wrench into an
> >> already-complicated lawsuit. Last fall, the National Science
> >> Foundation pass
I have to take issue with the good doctor's statement. In order to do
that I have to deal with the substance (much easier than finding some
subjective test of whether I am a whiner). The substance requries
specifics on each one. I will bore the list with only one teeny tiny
example, but rest as
Dave,
Please name any antagonists that NSI funded to the process.
Is an antagonist someone who disagrees with you?
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 4:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [I
Joop and all,
Joop, well tell it to the ICANN and the NTIA. Sorry for being so direct
and blunt, but sending these kinds of comments to the IFWP list
won't get much attention other than from the list members. The ICANN
"Initial" and interim board doesn't care too much for this list or what
co
At 15:07 24/02/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>>
>> Do you have access to a backbone router?
>
>No. But I work on networks with a whole lot more than 5 nodes, and a
>whole lot more horsepower than dual pentium 450's.
>
Kent,
You have told us once that you were a government official. What exac
At 18:26 24/02/99 -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
>There are a lot of balls in the air which, when they land, will determine
>the future of the DNS. For example, look at the dizzy schedule of meetings
>and issues before us right now:
>
>* ICANN's annointment of a domain name supporting organization
>*
Chon,
You wrote:
. is it too expensive? if so, we need to find sponsors to
subsidize
> further like Washington Meeting.
>
I have developed a deep mistrust for the last minute's sponsors in this
domain.
Please remember that the balance of the first IFWP conference in Reston is
still in
Stef,
You wrote:
> I apologize Kilnam for jumping to the same conclusion that Joop came
> to -- That selective notification of a pulic meeting was hapening yet
> again!
>
> So, as you see, it is much more reasonable when posting this kind of
> message to visibly cross post it to avoid causing p
At 03:02 AM 2/24/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
>> ICANN has been a difficult issue only because of the gTLD turmoil. All of
>> the other issues you name were not problems that needed solving. The gTLD
>> turmoil has been built up nicely to create confusion and concern in the
>> other areas, though
Guys,
Can we PLEASE stop whining?!?
> I am afraid this kind of reminder is insufficient.
> Molly Shaffer Van Houweling wrote:
> >
> > I should have made it clearer that my recent message was just a reminder.
> > The comment mechanism was originally announced on Feb. 8.
We all knew when and
I apologize Kilnam for jumping to the same conclusion that Joop came
to -- That selective notification of a pulic meeting was hapening yet
again!
So, as you see, it is much more reasonable when posting this kind of
message to visibly cross post it to avoid causing people to suspect
ill will.
Hav
To all interested and concerned,
Today's conference concentrated mainly on the ICANN "Accreditation
Guidelines", and the WIPO RFC-3. The meeting agenda to the
INEG campus at different available conference rooms and auditorium.
The work groups were comprised of the following:
Supporting Organi
To clarify, ICANN is not charging anything for the open meeting on 3 March.
(Register for free at http://www.apng.org/apricot99/apstar.html.)But
most ICANN meeting participants are also participating in APRICOT'99, for
which there is a registration fee.
-Molly Shaffer Van Houweling
ICANN
A
Greg,
> The genie is out of the bottle. We are going to have to find some
> way to deal with the legal issues of naming network resources now.
>
I disagree: the legal issues are legal issues, not yours or mine or
ICANNs.
That means they are up to good and worthy individuals who try to
app
>Milton Mueller wrote:
>>
>> >From the article:
>>
>> "Since PGMedia filed its suit, however, the Internet landscape has
>> changed drastically, throwing a monkey wrench into an
>> already-complicated lawsuit. Last fall, the National Science
>> Foundation passed responsibility for the Internet to
Kilnam Chon a écrit:
>
> US$50 per day with up to US$150(march 2, 4, 5).
> the price includes lunch.
If 100 people attend the DNSO meetings, which is 50% less than were
at Washington, that's five thousand dollars. I truly do not see why
we have to pay five thousand dollars in order to have a pla
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
