Re: [IFWP] cc. domain dead in the water

Paul In message , "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" writes: > Today is a gloomy day for "CC." domain holders. My sympathies lie > with anyone using a CC. toplevel domain today (Sunday, March 14, > 1999). Just for the record, you are not, by any chance, in direct competit

Re: [IFWP] Reflections on Singapore

All, Ellen Rony wrote: > Esther Dyson wrote: > > >FWIW, it is well-known (and published on our site) > >that Hans Kraaijenbrink is affiliated wtih ETNO. To quote from his bio on > >our site: "Hans Kraaijenbrink is Chairman of the Executive Board of ETNO, > >the European Telecommunications N

Re: [IFWP] cc. domain NOT dead in the water

Dear Dr. Lisse, My humble apologies. I admit, the CC. affair was a false alarm... instead of doing a fresh lookup, I pinged _stale_ data that I copied and pasted from a file I had laying around...and wrongly jumped to conclusions. Apparently, they renumbered their nameservers and added a coupl

[IFWP] Military model internet: failed experiment

Ellen Rony wrote: > ... only five people (plus one by telephone), who have no accountability > to any membership because it is not yet in place, and who profess to > have little prior experience with the DNS, sat in closed session to > determine the activities and policies that will affect the fu

Re: [IFWP] Reflections on Singapore

At 09:05 PM 3/14/99 -0800, Ellen Rony wrote: >Esther Dyson wrote: > >>FWIW, it is well-known (and published on our site) >>that Hans Kraaijenbrink is affiliated wtih ETNO. To quote from his bio on >>our site: "Hans Kraaijenbrink is Chairman of the Executive Board of ETNO, >>the European Telecommun

Re: [IFWP] cc. domain dead in the water

At 07:01 AM 3/15/99 +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: > >Maybe you should try from Mars. ROTFLMAO! Are you guys aware what a Martian server is, in reference to BGP4? If not, y'all might want to get the GateD docs and RTFM a bit. Every time I hear about the .MARS TLD issue I have to chuckle. It's

Mike Roberts distructive policies to:Re: [IFWP] Reflections on Singapore

Roeland and all, Oh, you can be sure that some of us have learned this lesson well, as it has been mentioned several times in teh past as to Mike Roberts questionable activities regarding the IFWP and his already or later revieled reasons for being instermental in disrupting that effort... Roe

Re: [IFWP] cc. domain dead in the water

Roeland On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > At 07:01 AM 3/15/99 +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: > > > >Maybe you should try from Mars. > > ROTFLMAO! > > Are you guys aware what a Martian server is, in reference to BGP4? I am indeed, and acutely, aware of what a Martian Server

[IFWP] Fw: [Systalk] Stupid Internic

-Original Message- From: Matthew Enger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sunday, March 14, 1999 6:26 PM Subject: [Systalk] Stupid Internic >How often do you see this:) > >[rs.internic.net] >No match for "INTERNIC.NET". > >The InterNIC Registration Servi

[IFWP] Fw: Re: [Systalk] Stupid Internic

-Original Message- From: Kurt A. Huhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, March 15, 1999 2:27 AM Subject: Re: [Systalk] Stupid Internic >How about 20 days and counting to change my contact information. 3 form >submissions and a Fax later and it s

RE: [IFWP] Fw: Re: [Systalk] Stupid Internic

This would be more appropriate for Internic's Domain-Policy list, where this entire issue has now been pretty well beaten to death. On 15-Mar-99 Woo Wei Xian(Zen) (Exch) wrote: > > -Original Message- > From: Kurt A. Huhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECT

RE: [IFWP] Reflections on Singapore

Roeland wrote: > We all have one real good and visible example of such conflict of > interest. > Mike Roberts, the ICANN CEO. Instead of recusing himself, during the final > votes, of the IFWP Steering Committee, wrt the wrap-up meeting. He did his > best to sabotage it because his promised CEO s

[IFWP] plans for trademark constituency

Will someone be so kind as to inform us of the plans for the trademark constituency formation? Thank you.

[IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN

Greg, > > > What do you suppose it would take to manage a coordinated *online > > meeting to discuss the transition; in other words, to take Dr Z's > > suggestion seriously that ICANN is only one of many possible (serial > > or parallel) experiments? > > I think it would take a lot of work. Ce

[IFWP] The Y1C problem

Rome, January 18, 1 B.C. Dear Cassius: Are you still working on the Y1C problem? This change from BC to AD is giving us a lot of headaches and we haven't much time left. I don't know how people will cope with working the wrong way around. Having been working happily downwards forever, now we ha

Re: [IFWP] The Y1C problem

At 01:27 PM 3/15/99 -0500, you wrote: Thanks, Michael! A great way to start a week! Bill Lovell >Rome, January 18, 1 B.C. > >Dear Cassius: > >Are you still working on the Y1C problem? This change from BC to AD >is >giving us a lot of headaches and we haven't much time left. I don't >know how p

[IFWP] Re: The Y1C problem

At 10:27 AM -0800 3/15/99, Michael Sondow wrote: >Rome, January 18, 1 B.C. > >Dear Cassius: > >Are you still working on the Y1C problem? This change from BC to AD >is >giving us a lot of headaches and we haven't much time left. I don't >know how people will cope with working the wrong way around.

[IFWP] "Bottle?"

Wired has an interesting take on the net today: are we all supposed to get drunk? :-) >Robert Killick said the Net could be slowed by what he called "a lack of >bottle in general and a lack of conviction" among businesses and consumers >alike. http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/184

Re: [IFWP] "Bottle?"

Bill and all, Very interesting article! Thanks for drawing our attention to it. It is interesting to note possibly that the regulation that the ICANN is considering imposing in it's "Accreditation Guidelines" as well as what WIPO's RFC-3 are even more restrictive that what governments are cur

Re: [IFWP] "Bottle?"

Hi all --- It's British slang, and it means "courage." jtg At 11:37 AM 3/15/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote: >Wired has an interesting take on the net today: are we all supposed to get >drunk? :-) > >>Robert Killick said the Net could be slowed by what he called "a lack of >>bottle in general and

Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote: > Maybe (again) I have used the wrong word. What would it take to > loosen the concept of 'meeting' from the temporal constraints/ > intensity/ concentration your response seems to imply? I wasn't trying to imply anything. I envision that under ideal c

Re: [IFWP] "Bottle?"

At 12:19 PM 3/15/99 -0800, you wrote: >Hi all --- > >It's British slang, and it means "courage." Ah! There must be an excellent etymylogical story behind that! Bill Lovell

[IFWP] Re: Considering abusive IETF contributors

Dave and all, Dave Crocker wrote: > At 01:02 PM 3/15/99 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > >In other words, they succeeded in their goal. > >Which would not have happened if everybody could keep Fred Baker's attitude > >of ignoring them. > > I happen to agree with you, but the reality is that for a

[IFWP] Re: Considering abusive IETF contributors

Kent and all, Compleatly agreed here Kent. And this post of yours is not excpetiong to the contribution of NOISE! >;) Kent Crispin wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 03:33:09PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > > At 01:02 PM 3/15/99 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > > >In other words, they succeeded

[IFWP] Re: What ICANN doesn't want you to know - a well hidden web site

Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ISOC is Designing an Internet Society Task Force > Since we are informed by ISOC Vienna office staffer Sascha > Ignjatovic today that "Dr.Cerf is getting a process [going] which > will help develope [the] concept and establish an Internet and > Society Ta

[IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN

Greg, > > Maybe (again) I have used the wrong word. What would it take to > > loosen the concept of 'meeting' from the temporal constraints/ > > intensity/ concentration your response seems to imply? > > I wasn't trying to imply anything. Please don't take it as an insult ;-). In response to

Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote: > Please don't take it as an insult ;-). In response to my suggestion > for a *digital meeting, your reply, involving publicity, funding, > providing RA relays (and presumably transcribers for the text- > bound?) etc seemed more relevant to an analog (f2

Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN

Greg and all, Greg Skinner wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote: > > > Please don't take it as an insult ;-). In response to my suggestion > > for a *digital meeting, your reply, involving publicity, funding, > > providing RA relays (and presumably transcribers for the text- > > bou

Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN

Greg Skinner wrote: > I think there is a preference among people to have face-to-face, or at > least telephone conferences because there are some things that are not > communicated very well in email and other text-based media. Tone of > voice and facial expression lend much to the communication