Dean and all,
Dean Robb wrote:
At 03:55 PM 4/9/99 -0600, Carl Oppedahl wrote:
But note that NSI slipped in something that the US government may not have
noticed. After 90 seconds, it jumps directly to Network Solutions' own
page, just as it did last week. So it still uses the Internic
Sigh.Michael that has already been done many many times NSI had
been running the contract
**ON ITS OWN** for almost 2 years before SAIC stepped up to but it.
Dean Robb a écrit:
Yep, SAIC is a *BIG* player in the military biz these days. My wife works
as a system administrator
Dean Robb a écrit:
Of course, (just to keep the Black Helicopter Lovers happy), well-placed
phone calls wouldn't be documented anywhere...
Who are these "Black Helicopter Lovers" you mention? You mean
conspiracy theorists? I tend to try to avoid seeing things as
conspiracies, although my
Gordon Cook a écrit:
Sigh.Michael that has already been done many many times NSI had
been running the contract
**ON ITS OWN** for almost 2 years before SAIC stepped up to but it.
No doubt. Of course, that proves nothing. However, I'm no conspiracy
theorist, and frankly haven't any
Richard J. Sexton a écrit:
The .NIC zone is populated as of tonight with pointers to
the Country Code domain registies of the world. Well, most of
them anyway, the ones we can point to with a unique IP
address.
Try, for example, http://am.nic or http://de.nic.
Where are these being
Joop and all,
And the divisiveness continues
Joop Teernstra wrote:
Friends,
The effort that I undertook in Singapore, together with Jay Fenello and
many others, to have the Individual Domain Name Owners recognized as one of
the bootstrap-constituencies in the DNSO has been only
Ok, here's my support for such a constituency.
Joop Teernstra wrote:
Friends,
The effort that I undertook in Singapore, together with Jay Fenello and
many others, to have the Individual Domain Name Owners recognized as one of
the bootstrap-constituencies in the DNSO has been only partly
At 02:30 AM 4/10/99 -0400, you wrote:
Richard J. Sexton a écrit:
The .NIC zone is populated as of tonight with pointers to
the Country Code domain registies of the world. Well, most of
them anyway, the ones we can point to with a unique IP
address.
Try, for example, http://am.nic or
Comments on the ICANN Membership Advisory Committeee Recommendations
of March 18th, 1999, Pertaining to The Formation and Function of the
ICANN At-large Membership
First, it must be said that these most recent recommendations of the
M.A.C. seem to ignore entirely not only the lengthy discussions
Also, mine,
--
Javier A. Maestre
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NEW)
URL: http://www.dominiuris.com (NEW, English available)
old: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
old: www.trc.es/usuarios/dibu/
--
Ok, here's my support for such a
Anyone knows about this initiative?
--
Javier A. Maestre
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NEW)
URL: http://www.dominiuris.com (NUEVA)
en extinción: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
en extinción: www.trc.es/usuarios/dibu/
--
HTTP2 gives you an
And in typically ICANN like cowardly fashion those who designed the
travesity that you critique so well refuse to stand up and say it is I who
did this and here is why. One can guess it is R oberts or Sims. Too bad
they so far lack the guts to say so and to answer your critique. Their
silence
Following the recent posts on the ICANN web site:
http://www.icann.org/dnso/constituency_groups.html
The undersigned are pleased to announce the creation of a new mailing
list to discuss the creation of the trademark, intellectual property and
anti-counterfeiting interest group
Mr. Cook:
Although you've asked Dan Steinberg for comment, please accept mine as well.
Diane Cabell
MAC
Mr. Cook quotes Michael Sondow:
{...}
This said, we offer a brief critique of the MAC's recommendations as
expressed in the Summary of the MAC Conference Call
Ok, Gordon I'm here.
But I'm not sure what you want from me.
I can tell you that Roberts and Sims had absolutely *nothing* to do
with the MAC recommendations.
Neither of them were present for any telecons I attended.
I can tell you that I was insulted by the tone of Sondow's remarks
(something
At 01:04 PM 4/10/99 -0400, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
Following the recent posts on the ICANN web site:
http://www.icann.org/dnso/constituency_groups.html
Is says there:
The DNSO Formation Concepts statement adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors on
March 4, and the draft
bylaw changes
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
gTLD registrieS ? There's only one... or does this mean "prospective
registreis" ?
Constituencies are supposed to self-define, so it means what the group
decides it means. From what I've read on the lists, there is support for
including "prospective registries."
ICANN
RIchard and all,
If you remember, there was some discussion and heated debate
with respect to Registrie(S) with respect to a constituency...
Of course I have yet to see a definition in terms of the DNSO,
what a legitimate "Constituency" is... So my comment is yet
again, LET THE GAMES
I got the impression from Michaels remarks that the quoted material was
what ICANN had adopted. While he is well capable of speaking for himself,
i took his remarks as a decent analysis of how ICANN could misuse this
structure. I have seen nothing in ICANN's behavior that leads me to
believe
Richard Sexton wrote:
In particular, these documents specify that the DNSO will include the
following initial Constituency Groups:
ccTLD registries
Commercial and business entities
gTLD registries
gTLD registrieS ? There's only one... or does this mean "prospective
registreis"
Should the initial DNSO Constituencies currently identified as "ccTLD
registries" and "gTLD registries" be re-categorized as "open registries"
and "closed registries," identified according to whether the registry is
open to any registrant, worldwide ("open"), or is instead limited to
certain
1) GTLD Constituancy
So whats the deal here, do I just set up the mailing list and invite
everybody to join and ask ICANN to post a notice about this ?
2) open vs. closed domains.
By George I think they've got it.
In a nutshell, .com and .int and gtlds and .ca and .nu are
"country code" [1]
Ellen and all,
Ellen Rony wrote:
Richard Sexton wrote:
In particular, these documents specify that the DNSO will include the
following initial Constituency Groups:
ccTLD registries
Commercial and business entities
gTLD registries
gTLD registrieS ? There's only one...
I support most of the MAC recommedations, Mr. Cook. Not all of them, but most of
them. I want the At-large Membership to be a large, open, democratic body; not a
selective, wealthy group. I want any Internet user to be eligible to serve on the
Board of ICANN, not just the people hand-picked by
Diane, most people call me Gordon.
Your desires as expressed below are noble enough. But, you also appear
willing to extend Mike roberts, joe sims and the board a lot more trust
than, in my opinion, they merit. With no transparency and no
accountability within ICANN, the board is being handed
NEW ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
Section 1: DESCRIPTION
(a) The DNSO shall advise the Board with respect to policy
issues relating to [top-level domains] THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM.
(Scope of DNSO jurisdiction clarified in response to public
comment.)
At 07:06 PM 4/10/99 -0400, you wrote:
Your desires as expressed below are noble enough. But, you also appear
willing to extend Mike roberts, joe sims and the board a lot more trust
than, in my opinion, they merit. With no transparency and no
accountability within ICANN, the board is being
For those planning on going to Berlin next month for the ICANN
meeting (it's never too early to plan ahead), here's an excellent
website with maps, unusual and interesting hotels, and lists of the
hippest cafes, bars, jazz joints, dance halls, etc.
28 matches
Mail list logo
