Re: [IFWP] Re: Status Report for DNRC

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kent Crispin writes: > On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 06:10:30PM -0400, Michael Sondow wrote: > > Kent Crispin a =E9crit: > > > as soon as there are a few dozen distinct > > > members to a constituency, capture will be difficult. > >=20 > > Or else it has already been capt

RE: [IFWP] Iperdome Status Report

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Richard, This approach could be easily moved to a gTLD admin approach... the model works if done well. Gene... - -Original Message- From: Richard J. Sexton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 3:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTE

RE: [IFWP] gTLD registry constituency

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris (and the lists), I have forwarded a copy of our announcement to Don Telage for his review and requested conference with him. Don's intentiuons were, I am guessing, the same as ours: get some gTLD constituancy rolling by the deadline. I hope

[IFWP] TLDA Formed As Industry Association, ICANN Constituancy

This is a repost for those who, for whatever reason, did not receive the original message as posted Monday April 16, 1999 at 11:35PM. Please contact me with any questions. If you have already received this message, my appologies for the repeat. The web site will be active shortly. Gene Marsh

[IFWP] Re: Not at all, was Re: the Individual Domain Name Owner'sconstituency, status update

Joop Teernstra wrote: > At 06:22 27/04/1999 -0700, Ed Gerck wrote: > > >Joop: > > > >Not at all. > > > >I think your text is a far stetch and one that is not granted. It should be > >recalled in totum. When anyone joins any Internet open group that is > >done most of the times if not all, not to

[IFWP] Re: Not at all, was Re: the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency, status update

At 06:22 27/04/1999 -0700, Ed Gerck wrote: >Joop: > >Not at all. > >I think your text is a far stetch and one that is not granted. It should be >recalled in totum. When anyone joins any Internet open group that is >done most of the times if not all, not to oppose anything from the past >but to h

[IFWP] Re: Not at all

Stef, > we shoudl not confuse the DNSO-IP) > constituncy with the IDNO constituency, though I must say the the > alphbet soup of constituency names has reached the point of no > return;-)... Hey, I have a great idea! What if every constituency had a two-part name, separated with a distinct mar

Re: [IFWP] Re: Status Report for DNRC

Kent Crispin a écrit: > The problem is that legitimate, long-standing *real* organizations, > with *real* integrity and *real* ethical principles and *real* > memberships, are being drowned out by "protests" from front > organizations, created on the fly to advance the political and > economic ai

Re: [IFWP] Re: Brock Meeks on Internet Governance

At 12:22 PM 4/27/99 -0800, you wrote: >>On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Bill Lovell wrote: >> >>> All this IFWP talk has been cheap enough, but where has it >>> got anyone? > >Patrick Greenwell wrote: >> >>Where do I send a check? > >Send it to me. Woman cannot live by DNS email alone. > >S:-] > Hey, watch

Re: [IFWP] Re: Status Report for DNRC

Kent and all, This sort or response has been your well known mantra for several years Kent, and frankly to date you have not provided one shred of evidence that would hold up in a court of law to support your claims that anyone else or any other group is legitimate or not. In fact, to the cont

Re: [IFWP] Re: Brock Meeks on Internet Governance

Ronda Hauben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Whole IFWP process was flawed as it didn't start from the > recognition of the Internet as a communications medium, instead it > was intent on turning the whole Internet over to those smaller set > of interests who were intent on changing the Internet

Re: [IFWP] More than one DNSO-IP, was Re: Not at all, was ...

Ed and all, And the divisiveness continues Ed Gerck wrote: > Einar Stefferud wrote: > > > So, lets back up and reset/restart. > > Yes. > > > I do not support the DNSO-IP constituency as it is cleary working > > against my interests, but we shoudl not confuse the DNSO-IP) > > constituncy w

Re: [IFWP] Re: Status Report for DNRC

On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 06:10:30PM -0400, Michael Sondow wrote: > Kent Crispin a écrit: > > as soon as there are a few dozen distinct > > members to a constituency, capture will be difficult. > > Or else it has already been captured. But yours is just the voice of > those doing the capturing. You

Re: [IFWP] Re: Brock Meeks on Internet Governance

Bill Lovell a écrit: > All this IFWP talk has been cheap enough, but where has it > got anyone? Do I hear an offer to represent?

Re: [IFWP] Re: Status Report for DNRC

Kent Crispin a écrit: > as soon as there are a few dozen distinct > members to a constituency, capture will be difficult. Or else it has already been captured. But yours is just the voice of those doing the capturing. Your arguments are made only to silence the protests.

Re: [IFWP] Re: URGENT/Press/Wired News, re: testbed concerns from NameSecure.com

Richard J. Sexton a écrit: > What where the selection criteria anyway ? A guess: Whether or not your lawyer is ready to file charges? > Will the applications > be made available for scrutiny ? Only if subpoenaed as evidence.

Re: [IFWP] Re: Status Report for DNRC

Jay Fenello a écrit: > > >At 8:27 PM -0400 4/26/99, Esther Dyson wrote: > >>Seriously, this (plus many other similar postings, not picking on you > >>Mikki!) makes me wonder: why bother with constituencies if everyone wants > >>to join each one? I don't know if these postings were meant for pub

Re: [IFWP] gTLD registry constituency

NSI claims to be the only member of this constituency. Image Online Design, Inc. would differ with this opinion, and would claim membership in this constituency as well. -- Christopher Ambler This email address belongs to a Resident of the State of Washington - Original Message - From

[IFWP] gTLD registry constituency

The gTLD constituency report and cover letter is available at: http://netsol.com/policy/icann427/ --tony

Re: [IFWP] Re: Brock Meeks on Internet Governance

>On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Bill Lovell wrote: > >> All this IFWP talk has been cheap enough, but where has it >> got anyone? Patrick Greenwell wrote: > >Where do I send a check? Send it to me. Woman cannot live by DNS email alone. S:-] Ellen Rony

Re: [IFWP] Iperdome Status Report

On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:34:31 +0100, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >You can whine and whine and whine, and remove all those addresses from >the CC list so they don't see you directly discrediting yourself, but >the fact remains, the ccTLD constituency is for Country Top Level >Dom

Re: [IFWP] Iperdome Status Report

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard J. Sexton" writes: > It's not as funny when you're a big zone: ibm.com, dec.com, gc.ca... > > ORSC has espoused a zone admins group for almost a year. Cool, who did the one man show and his three cyberstooges choose, INEG? el

Re: [IFWP] Iperdome Status Report

Willie, In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, William X. Walsh writes: > On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 18:21:07 +0200, Roberto Gaetano > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >William Walsh wrote: > > > >> com.au and per.nu and other RFC1591 delegated ccTLD subdomains have as > >> much right to the ccTLD constituencie

Re: [IFWP] Iperdome Status Report

At 11:55 AM 4/27/99 -0700, you wrote: >On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 06:21:07PM +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote: >> >> Maybe a good starting point is to check how many administrators of UTTLDs >> (Underneath The Top Level Domains ;>)) feel the need for representation in >> DNSO in such a way. > >Yes. Of

Re: [IFWP] Iperdome Status Report

On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 06:21:07PM +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > > Maybe a good starting point is to check how many administrators of UTTLDs > (Underneath The Top Level Domains ;>)) feel the need for representation in > DNSO in such a way. Yes. Of course, as the owner of the Songbird.Net (tm)

Re: [IFWP] Iperdome Status Report

On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 18:21:07 +0200, Roberto Gaetano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >William Walsh wrote: > >> com.au and per.nu and other RFC1591 delegated ccTLD subdomains have as >> much right to the ccTLD constituencies as the .NO registry does. >> >To the best of my knowledge, a TLD is a Domain

[IFWP] [Fwd: TACD Initiative on Electronic Commerce]

All, FYI. Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 --

[IFWP] More than one DNSO-IP, was Re: Not at all, was ...

Einar Stefferud wrote: > So, lets back up and reset/restart. Yes. > I do not support the DNSO-IP constituency as it is cleary working > against my interests, but we shoudl not confuse the DNSO-IP) > constituncy with the IDNO constituency, ;-) and not the DNSO-IP constituency with the dnso-ip l

[IFWP] Sheep being led to the fleecing? to:Re: Not at all, was Re: the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency, status update

Stef and all, Stef is correct here. The decision to form constituencies as part of the DNSO structure ins a travesty and a divide an conquer mechanism for the masses. It only leads to a confusion, as stef has indicated in this post. The fleecing of the DNS and the Internet has just been taken

[IFWP] White Paper versus grassroots processes developing the Internet

From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >According to the press release announcing the White Paper, the U.S. >Government was "looking for a globally and functionally representative >organization, operated on the basis of sound and transparent processes that >protect against capture by self

Re: [IFWP] Iperdome Status Report

Roberto In message , Roberto Gaetano writes: > This said, Jay may raise a legitimate problem, which is representation of > administrators of domain space of level >1 (SLD, 3LD, ...). I have said as much. Most of them would fall under the commerc

[IFWP] Re: Not at all, was Re: the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency, status update

Hello Ed and Joop -- I fear that some kind of short circuit has occurred here. Maybe several all at once;-)... So, lets back up and reset/restart. I am not entirely opposed to constituencies, but I am opposed to them as ICANN is using them. I am not organizing one of my own, but I am supporti

RE: [IFWP] Iperdome Status Report

William Walsh wrote: > com.au and per.nu and other RFC1591 delegated ccTLD subdomains have as > much right to the ccTLD constituencies as the .NO registry does. > To the best of my knowledge, a TLD is a Domain that is at the highest level (hence the name) in the Domain Name system tree. I assume

Re: [IFWP] Re: Brock Meeks on Internet Governance

On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Bill Lovell wrote: > All this IFWP talk has been cheap enough, but where has it > got anyone? Where do I send a check? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com

[IFWP] Re: the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency, status update

On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Joop Teernstra wrote: > Friends, > > All 34 individuals that have so far underwritten the IDNO constituency, > actually oppose the idea of constituencies for the DNSO. > Those who do not want organisations to be their voice, seem to be forming > something that already looks

[IFWP] Re: Not at all, was Re: the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency, status update

"Bret A. Fausett" wrote: > Ed -- I think you may have misspoken in your reply to Joop. Joop is > helping to organize an "Individual Domain Name Owners" constituency. > Personally, I know very little about that effort. In your response, > however, you mention the "dnso-ip" effort, which is diffe

Re: [IFWP] RE: Iperdome Status Report

At 06:39 AM 4/26/99 , Roberto Gaetano wrote: >I surely think that Iperdome and PDNHA's point of view is very important, >and may be helpful in building up a truly complete scenario for the future >DNSO constituencies, but I doubt that a real claim for objectivity and >fairness can be made if the "

[IFWP] Not at all, was Re: the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency, status update

Joop Teernstra wrote: > Friends, > > All 34 individuals that have so far underwritten the IDNO constituency, > actually oppose the idea of constituencies for the DNSO. Joop: Not at all. I think your text is a far stetch and one that is not granted. It should be recalled in totum. When anyone

[IFWP] Re: Not at all, was Re: the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency, status update

Ed -- I think you may have misspoken in your reply to Joop. Joop is helping to organize an "Individual Domain Name Owners" constituency. Personally, I know very little about that effort. In your response, however, you mention the "dnso-ip" effort, which is different from what Joop is working o

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from ["Meeks, Brock" ]

>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 02:47:43 -0400 (EDT) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from ["Meeks, Brock" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > >>From MSNBC.COM!Brock.Meeks Tue Apr 27 02:47:42 1999 >Return

RE: [IFWP] Re: Brock Meeks on Internet Governance

At 11:34 PM 4/26/99 -0700, Meeks, Brock wrote: >Give it up, Dave... Your revisionist thinking is dumbfounding. I'd go Thank you, Brock, for your careful, reasoned and thorough response to my detailed listing of errors in your article. It fully substantiates the public's faith in the accuracy

Re: [IFWP] the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency, status update

Joop, In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joop Teernstra writes: > All 34 individuals that have so far underwritten the IDNO > constituency, actually oppose the idea of constituencies for the > DNSO. Those who do not want organisations to be their voice, seem > to be forming something that already

[IFWP] the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency, status update

Friends, All 34 individuals that have so far underwritten the IDNO constituency, actually oppose the idea of constituencies for the DNSO. Those who do not want organisations to be their voice, seem to be forming something that already looks like an organization. A contradiction? These few dozen