Karl and all,
Karl, I have a bad feeling that you are likely correct in your
interpretation
of the before mentioned Resolutions coming from the Berlin ICANN
meeting's. The language used, leaves the acceptable applications
language completely in the hands of the ICANN Interim Board and
it's yet
At 08:44 AM 5/23/99 -0800, you wrote:
Setting aside my personal doubts about the effectiveness of a constituency
structure for the DNSO,
Having just retruend from Berlin, I have to observe your doubts are entirely
justified.
I have developed a side-by-side comparison of the
three Non
Dear supporters of the idea that Individuals need their representation on the DNSO.
Just a brief message at this point. When I'm back in New Zealand I will have the
chance to digest all that has happened a bit better.
It has been an emotional up and down.
Yesterday, when we were handed the
Berlin 27 May, 1999
Today we were handed the resolutions that the ICANN Board had taken, after 3 days of
hearings and in-camera deliberations.
1.Recognition of 6 commercial contituencies of the DNSO.
2.The determination that no appropriate proposal was received for the sole
non-commercial
Joop wrote:
The hotel where the Board and those on expense
accounts stay, costs over 350 DM per night, yet no
internet connectivity at all was available to the
conference participants, who had to find a cybercafe
far away to report to their constituents who could not
physically be there.
I don't think we can thank the Berkman poeple enough. What they have
done is without precedent in the Internet not ONLY for the features
mentiones by Sue but for the ability to review at a later time what transpired
(as I am doing now) and to observe things that were missed by those of us who
Kerry Miller wrote:
my concrete suggestion is that the Santiago conference consist
entirely of networked computers. The Board and the SO reps and
the lobbyists and all can stay home, and take the opportunity to
read the mail -- yes, and respond (confer) -- for a change. ICANN
might then
All,
Some more interesting and positive news for those concerned with
education, arts and kid's related issues...
http://infousa.news-real.com/apnews/19990527/15/59/4159953_st.html
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information
At 12:11 PM 5/28/99 -0400, Ben Edelman wrote:
The Berkman Center had a couple computers available immediately after
meetings that some people used for checking email via web accounts (hotmail,
yahoomail, etc.). We certainly didn't have enough for everyone or for
anyone to use for very long, but
I tired my best. You'll note that about 4:12 pm on wednesday I asked her
to read them and she wouldnt. I don't think "having the scribes
prepare summaries of the remote comments" counts as "remote participation".
At 09:58 PM 5/27/99 -0400, you wrote:
Diane C wrote:
I forgot to mention that the
ICANN's Resolution regarding the report of the World Intellectual Property
Organization in Berlin is certain to draw a broad variety of resposes.
While I am pleased that ICANN has appropriately deferred recommendations in
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 to the Domain Name Supporting Organization, some
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:44:19 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Robert Connelly
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From iciiu.org!msondow Thu May 27 16:44:18 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL
At 11:16 PM 5/26/99 -0400, you wrote:
It would have seemed cooler if I'd had any sense it was getting through
to the board.
PS - does anyone know who belonged to the voice that made the
anti-academic remark? Was it Roberts or a Board member?
Hans the Dutch member.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wendy and Ben worked the "Berkman Net" (which included continuous real-time
scribing) both days starting at 7 am with only a short lunch break. (Actually we
forgot to feed them on the first day.) On Wednesday, after packing up all the
equipment and a brief dinner, Ben sat down to take a 3-hour
Greg wrote:
Perhaps, as a compromise, the Santiago conference can run as planned,
but those who attend (if connectivity permits) can use their computers
to interact with the online community.
First of all, I want to note that the Berkman Center may not necessarily be
involved with the
Ben Esther and all,
Ben, as I have told you on several occasions that if you needed connectivity
for your or ICANN's meetings anywhere on the globe all you needed to do
was let me know in a reasonable amount of time of that need. You and the
Berkman center along with ICANN most especially
Greg and all,
The simplest and most effective way to handle this is to have an advance
team form the Berkman center contact CNN or TBS as well as possibly
Kinkos and see about getting a VAN with the necessary host servers
installed down there for the conference in advance. This is not that
Ellen and all,
Good points Ellen. We [INEGroup] as well as myself completely concur
with your comments and concerns here.
We would have one possible proviso, that being that any such resolutions
that the DNSO or any SO for that matter would come up with must be
approved by the ICANN
At 12:00 PM 5/28/99 -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
Next, the July 31 deadline for the DNSO to submit Chapter 3 recommendations
to ICANN is too ambitious for a new organization. The DNSO is still in
You can only meet an aggressive deadline if you set open.
While many people do not understand why
Diane and all,
STUDENTS!!! Jesus, get those folks some help!!! Can't ICANN or the
GIP cough up some $$ to do this right??? For god's sake! Yes, as just
students they did a wonderful job. But that job wasn't anywhere near good
enough for what the ICANN is supposed to be!
Diane Cabell
Ben and all,
I must completely agree with Ben on his point of Chat or IRC for this
sort of meetings. This is in part why I suggested back at the original
boston meeting I suggested that ben get in contact with some providers
for real time internet video or internet conferencing for remote
"Competitive registries?"
Dave, you were an advocate of a "single registry, competitive registrars"
model
for the better part of those FIVE YEARS.
What's changed?
--
Christopher Ambler
Personal Opinion Only, of course
This address belongs to a resident of the State of Washington
who does not
I seem to remember a few being posted on the screen while being read aloud
during the morning session, but I was working on MAC documents and not able to
pay keen attention. They read Bret's question about ICANN legal fees. In the
afternoon, the speakers who were physically present had a hard
I tired my best. You'll note that about 4:12 pm on wednesday I asked her
to read them and she wouldnt. I don't think "having the scribes
prepare summaries of the remote comments" counts as "remote participation".
You are absolutely correct, Richard. Several people I know noticed that
you did
FURTHER RESOLVED, the Board determines that no proposal to create a
non-commercial domain name holders Constituency has yet been
submitted that is appropriate for recognition.
FURTHER RESOLVED, with the recognition that the interests
represented by a non-commercial domain name holders
Richard and all,
Yes as I understand it, as I did not attend, there indeed was quite a bit
of yet again closed impromptu discussions going on outside of public
review. Do you have any "Poop" on any of that that you would like to share
with those that did not attend?
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
At 12:58 PM 5/28/99 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 12:00 PM 5/28/99 -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
Next, the July 31 deadline for the DNSO to submit Chapter 3 recommendations
to ICANN is too ambitious for a new organization. The DNSO is still in
You can only meet an aggressive deadline if you set
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 01:03:20AM +0200, Onno Hovers wrote:
FURTHER RESOLVED, the Board determines that no proposal to create a
non-commercial domain name holders Constituency has yet been
submitted that is appropriate for recognition.
FURTHER RESOLVED, with the recognition that the
At 07:16 PM 5/28/99 -0700, you wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 01:03:20AM +0200, Onno Hovers wrote:
FURTHER RESOLVED, the Board determines that no proposal to create a
non-commercial domain name holders Constituency has yet been
submitted that is appropriate for recognition.
FURTHER
At 05:06 PM 5/24/99 -0400, Mikki Barry wrote:
At 4:36 PM -0400 5/24/99, Esther Dyson wrote:
Yes, we have been listening. We have been listening and thinking so hard we
haven't always had time to respond. But you should see some reasoning as
well as some results over the next few days.
Esther
30 matches
Mail list logo
