[IFWP] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsind-tsig-08.txt

>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Authentication-Warning: opsmail.internic.net: majordom set sender to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsind-tsig-08.txt >Date: Thu, 0

RE: [IFWP] Singapore Update

What minority is being protected? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kent Crispin Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 6:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [IFWP] Singapore Update On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 08:39:43AM -0600, David Schutt wrote

Re: [IFWP] Singapore Update

The real-time scribe notes from the 3 March ICANN session in Singapore is at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/singapore-0399/archive/ dc Ellen Rony wrote: > Milton Mueller wrote: > > >> Given the number > >> of business/tm and registry related constituencies, the game is pretty > >> well stack

Re: [IFWP] Report from Singapore

Joop, The CENTR document can be found at . ...JZ At 12:23 AM 1/1/90 , Joop Teernstra wrote: >Dear all, > >Unfortunately, I cannot present you with the full text of this document >right now, but I hope Kilnam will

[IFWP] No, this is not constructive, I *know* that. This is probably a forgery or something.

At 07:56 AM 3/5/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote: >Within a therapeutic context, there can sometimes be some benefit in participating in >a >patient's fantasies. Please go on, Dave. (Ob Song: Iggy Pop - Lust for life.) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] "Those who give up a little freedom

lesser of two evils, to:[IFWP] Singapore Update

Kent and all, But there is always the choice of picking the lesser of two evils is there not? If so, than MOST would likely live under the, "tyranny of the majority" and the least of all would be effected in a perceivable manner. Minority views and protections/needs must be protected.

Re: [IFWP] Re: Molotovs and mailing lists

Kerry and all, Good point here Kerry. This sort of problem can and indeed seems to have inflicted certain list members, with respect to "Flame War Dependency" deficiency The craving just seems to overcome their sense of perspective and reality I thank god I am not one the unfortunat

[IFWP] And William misstates yet again: Re: Jeff Speaks

William and all, William X. Walsh wrote: Today Jeffrey A. Williams (allegedly the CEO of a multibillion dollar corporation which no media source has been able to verify even exists) called me at home, and he made the following comments :  (I should say the person who called claimed to be the same

[IFWP] Re: Molotovs and mailing lists

> > When bomb-throwers target e-mail discussions, no one can > escape the carnage. Indeed, "...a deeper truth is that list members also fall in love with the controversy. Asher aptly calls it 'co-dependency.' It's also a kind of electronic rubbernecking, where the misfires and cattiness are

Re: [IFWP] Singapore Update

On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 08:39:43AM -0600, David Schutt wrote: [...] > In case anyone is unclear about this, the whole point of a constituency is > to solidify a power base, and defend it against dilution. Constituencies are > by *definiton* 'capture by special interests'. Precisely the same thing

Re: [IFWP] Jeff Speaks Part Two

At 03:41 PM 3/4/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >Well, people, make your own judgement. I've posted a number of reasons that it would be better not to have notes sent about or in response to persons showing a pattern of non-contribution. The reasons include helping outside readers, such as

[IFWP] Jeff Speaks Part Two

I just got off the phone with the second call from the person claiming to be Jeffrey A. Williams, CEO of the elusive INEGroup. Jeffrey continues to insist he DOES have a law degree at SMU, and that they are not permitted to acknowledge he ever attended there. This is despite SMU claiming otherwi

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from ["Jim Fleming" ]

>From: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Getting Real >Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:48:54 -0600 > >-Original Message- >From: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To:

Re: [IFWP] Jeff Speaks

> 2) Indicated that he was NOT with NSA, but was attached to ONI (Office > of Naval Intelligence) for approximately a year and a half. Could it have been the rumored Bureau of Matudinal Omphaloskepsis? (I.e. the bureau of contemplation of one's naval by the light of the rising sun - they predic

[IFWP] Jeff Speaks

Today Jeffrey A. Williams (allegedly the CEO of a multibillion dollar corporation which no media source has been able to verify even exists) called me at home, and he made the following comments : (I should say the person who called claimed to be the same Jeffrey A. Williams, but having never m

[IFWP] IETF Ostriches

...meanwhile the IETF Ostriches bury their fat heads in the cyber sands of historic Internet accomplishments, congradulating each other about how many RFC's they each authored. As if that all meant fuck all when the real drive is being supplied by folks who ain't ne'er heard of freaking Jo

[IFWP] Try rec.humor.funny

At 10:24 AM 3/4/99 -0800, you wrote: > >> The following document was adopted by the ICANN Board: > >And, of course, being a transparent, accountable entity, we know who on >the ICANN board voted for and who against. And we have the minutes of the >debate. > >Don't we? You forgot to add:

[IFWP] Singapore, Shmingapore!

Michael Sondow writes: > Finally, Joe Sims announced that as of last week ICANN is > officially the NewCo. Beckwith Burr was in attendance, and > acquiesced by her silence. The announcement was greeted with > applause from an auditorium of Asia-Pacific networkers whose > critical faculties ha

Re: [IFWP] Your Congress in Action: TM/DN

At 09:41 AM 3/4/99 -0500, you wrote: >The status of this study is still uncertain. >NTIA is supposed to fund it but doesn't want to spend the money. >--MM > >Bill Lovell wrote: > >> The National Research Council of the National Academy of Science now >> has the ball; the USPTO, NTIA, all other Dep

[IFWP] looking for data on Hans Kraaijenbrink internet regulator

Cook: I was told the following: Don't know if people realize here that Hans is chair of ETNO - which is the current incarnation of the CEPT - the monopoly organization of European PTTs. It was the most closed, controlling telecom organization that ever existed. Hans apparently doesn't do email,

[IFWP] ICANN SCHMICANN!

Philippe Landau wrote: > i mean is jeff (WiIliams) the only real opposition there ? Michael Graham replied: + Now that is a scarey thought! Not at all. You are both presuming way too much about ICANN and this whole process. First these people may say anything they like. What happens in rea

No Consensus for: Re: [IFWP] ICANN Dispatch from Singapore - 4 March 99

Sean and all, I changed the title to illustrate plainly that there is has never been even a tiny consensus for any of the ICANN decision stated in this "Dispatch", as we all already know. BTW this is about the forth such announcement sent thus far. Sean Garrett wrote: > The Internet Corporat

Re: [IFWP] Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts,March 4, 1999

> The following document was adopted by the ICANN Board: And, of course, being a transparent, accountable entity, we know who on the ICANN board voted for and who against. And we have the minutes of the debate. Don't we? --karl--

[IFWP] ICANN Dispatch from Singapore - 4 March 99

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Initial Board of Directors Determines Guidelines at Singapore Meeting Summary SINGAPORE, March 4, 1999 -- The initial Board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) moved forward today on two important

Re: [IFWP] Report from Singapore

On Mon, 1 Jan 1990, Joop Teernstra wrote: > Dear all, > > IANAR, > (I am not a reporter), but I was there and have to bear witness to you of > some of the extraordinary happenings during the DNSO meetings and the open > meeting with the ICANN board. (not:"open Board meeting") > I apolog

Re: [IFWP] Singapore Update

At 10:02 AM 3/4/99 -0500, Gordon Cook wrote: >didn't i read from either joop or michael that becky burr had declared >ICANN newco? Can others confirm this? If so we know how little the word >of commerce was worth. elliot maxwell where were you when the net needed >you? > >time for legal action.

[IFWP] Re: Preliminary Report from Singapore Meetings

All, Yes I have sadly read them... A very sad day this is for all... The decision were arbitrary as predicted some months ago by myself and many others, again without a membership this sort of thing will indeed happen. Esther, why are you hiding the archives of the comments submitted on thes

Re: [IFWP] Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts, March 4, 1999

John and all, Thank you fro passing this along. It appears as Ellen had worried as did many of us that there would *not* be a consensus based DNSO decision from ICANN and that the ICANN "Initial" and INterim Board is again acting in direct violation of their own Bylays as well as the White Pap

Re: [IFWP] Singapore Update

Milton Mueller wrote: >> Given the number >> of business/tm and registry related constituencies, the game is pretty >> well stacked against the little-guy domain holder.) Let's not characterize the non-commercial world using the Internet as the "little guy domain holder". A substantial use of t

[IFWP] Summary of Actions Taken by the ICANN Initial Board of Directors at its Meeting in Singapore on March 4, 1999

http://www.icann.org/statement.html ICANN Summary of Actions Taken by the ICANN Initial Board of Directors at its Meeting in Singapore on March 4, 1999 Summary (March 4, 1999) The initial Board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) moved forward to

[IFWP] Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts, March 4, 1999

http://www.icann.org/dnso-formation.html ICANN Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts, March 4, 1999 The following document was adopted by the ICANN Board: Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts To be used by the ICANN staff in prepar

Re: [IFWP] Molotovs and mailing lists

John and all, Great point John! Now if we could only get The William Walshe's and Derrel Greenwoods of the world to pay attention. John B. Reynolds wrote: > When bomb-throwers target e-mail discussions, no one can escape the carnage. > > http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/feature/1999/03/

Re: [IFWP] Singapore Update

didn't i read from either joop or michael that becky burr had declared ICANN newco? Can others confirm this? If so we know how little the word of commerce was worth. elliot maxwell where were you when the net needed you? time for legal action. hello out there. IOdesign? where are you?

Re: [IFWP] Re: Report from Singapore

what about dave farber? did he wear his ribbon? did esther refuse to wear hers? what company is being referenced when Hans Kaayenbrink's affiliation is mentioned? *** The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook jus

[IFWP] Singapore Update

Karl, I'm always amazed at your ability to maintain such a measured tone. Personally, I'm angry. I think some of the positions I've seen re constituencies are reprehensible. Blatant power grabbing, the notorious 'capture' attempted right in front of my very eyes. (or ears, actually). In case any

Re: [IFWP] Your Congress in Action: TM/DN

The status of this study is still uncertain. NTIA is supposed to fund it but doesn't want to spend the money. --MM Bill Lovell wrote: > The National Research Council of the National Academy of Science now > has the ball; the USPTO, NTIA, all other Dept. of Commerce entities AND > all private cor

[IFWP] Molotovs and mailing lists

When bomb-throwers target e-mail discussions, no one can escape the carnage. http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/feature/1999/03/03feature.html NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you? Get your FREE Internet Access and Email

Re: [IFWP] Singapore Update

Karl: Karl Auerbach wrote: > Once more, it is made clear to me that the only unit of interest should be > the individual human -- one person, one vote. Giving special recognition > (and votes) to any aggregation is an invitation to abuse and manipulation. Sorry if I sound cynical, but by now i

[IFWP] Re: Report from Singapore

Jpp[ Teernstra wrote: >(I am not a reporter), but I was there and have to bear witness to you of >some of the extraordinary happenings during the DNSO meetings and the open >meeting with the ICANN board. (not:"open Board meeting") Thanks to you and Michael Sondow for sending us detailed reports

Re: [IFWP] RE: JW fools another reporter! Wired quotes a fraud!

Dave Crocker writes: > The lesson, of course, is that shunning silly participants has more than > one benefit. It reduces the noise on the list, but it also reduces the > likelihood that someone reading the list will take seriously the person > being shunned. It must be noted that Dave is acti

[IFWP] The Imperial ICANN? To: Re: Report from Singapore

All, We are not helpless Ellen, if we decide to band together!! Are you game? Is it time for a STOPICANN.ORG site? I detest and find great danger in these politics of "Imperial Administration" as you accurately put it Ellen. >;) We wonder where the DOC/NTIA is on all this? Becky, care

[IFWP] The "Crock of the net spews more "CrockSpin to:"JW fools another reporter! Wired quotes a fraud!

All, As we all have become unfortunately accustomed from back in the gTLD-MoU days, "THE CROCK" or AKA "Doctor of Spin" seems to continue to spew his nonsense upon us all once again Sad. Very sad indeed Dave Crocker wrote: > At 03:56 PM 3/3/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: > >

Re: [IFWP] Singapore Update

I just scanned the CENTR document. I find it quite unacceptable in the way it carves up the world into pre-supposed "constituencies". I also object its very obvious premise that somehow registries have a bigger stake in things than those who need and use domain names -- It's analogous to saying

Re: [IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from ["John D. Goodspeed" ]

John > >I think it would be a good idea if people could register Internet Domain > >Names without any public record of who they are. I can't see that there is > >really a justifiable need for any public access to a whois database. I totally agree. In fact, and I speak under correction about the

[IFWP] Anecdotes from Singapore

The CENTR document presented yesterday to ICANN as a compromise DNSO draft is a sell-out of fundamental Paris draft positions: -- Section 4.4 says that the Names Council, rather than the DNSO membership, will select the DNSO-appointed ICANN Board members. -- Section 6.3 gives ICANN the authorit

[IFWP] RE: JW fools another reporter! Wired quotes a fraud!

I read it just the opposite. If no one responds to his claims, he is MORE likely to be taken seriously by a casual observer who has NO basis for not taking him seriously. By posting, we place on the public record an accounting of his fables. On 04-Mar-99 Dave Crocker wrote: > At 03:56 PM 3/

[IFWP] Report from Singapore

Dear all, IANAR, (I am not a reporter), but I was there and have to bear witness to you of some of the extraordinary happenings during the DNSO meetings and the open meeting with the ICANN board. (not:"open Board meeting") I apologise in advance that he viewpoint will be from the DN owne

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from ["Teddy A. Purwadi" ]

sion 3.0.5 (32) >Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 01:05:34 +0700 >To: Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >"Kevin J. Connolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: "Teddy A. Purwadi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Press Release: Governments Endorse Private SectorInternet >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PRO

[IFWP] RE: JW fools another reporter! Wired quotes a fraud!

At 03:56 PM 3/3/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >It should also be pointed out that recently Jeff Williams and INEG claimed to >have hosted a conference in Dallas with 12,000 participants at the Texas In case no one has noticed, postings by Jeff continue to be taken seriously be participants

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from ["John D. Goodspeed" ]

>From: "John D. Goodspeed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "DNS 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: A Right to Privacy >Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 22:47:14 -0500 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal