THere *is* something in the Board minutes about it; I will find the wording
and pass it along, but I'm in an airplane right now. As I said to Joop,
sincerely, I did not want to talk with him privately about this but
preferred to answer his legitimate questions in public, which I tried to do
Kerry and all,
Yes indeed. Execelent idea.
Kerry Miller wrote:
If ICANN really wants to manage "so many serious, substantive, on-
topic comments," I'm sure ZNet would be happy to help them set
up a similar system. Indeed, given their respective (and
prospective) budgets, perhaps ICANN
Diane and all,
The real problem which you eluded to with these ICANN meetings is poor
planning in as much as not enough time allotted for each meeting.
Diane Cabell wrote:
I seem to remember a few being posted on the screen while being read aloud
during the morning session, but I was
Richard and all,
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
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
Esther and all,
More political BULLHOCKY from you Esther. You should be ashamed!
Keep it up if you wish. Nobody believes you anyway. Your own public
comments belie this comment as they have so many times before.
Esther Dyson wrote:
THere *is* something in the Board minutes about it; I
Esther and all,
Again Esther, more political BULLHOCKY! You should know
very well
that the bulk of the comments regarding moving on the WIPO RFC-3
"Final report" was to put that off and either allow for the DNSO to
be completely
formulated and than get their recomendation before considering
and undergoing a similar registry-registrar bifurcation that was
specified last September. It might be useful to hear a little
about the implementation and competition progress and compare with
COM, ORG, and NET.
All the decisions are made by the .CA name holders as
an autonomous collective.
THere *is* something in the Board minutes about it; I will find the wording
and pass it along, but I'm in an airplane right now. As I said to Joop,
sincerely, I did not want to talk with him privately about this but
preferred to answer his legitimate questions in public, which I tried to do
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 11:29:03PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
The current DNSO is now mainly a trade organization.
Thank Milton and Michael.
I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest so I'll state
my observations once and don't care to discuss it. I was in attendance
Jeri -
In our conversation on Thursday, I said to you that we had endorsed many of
the "principles" of the WIPO report, most notably uniform dispute
resolution, but not the specific recomemendations.
I suggested that you consult the press release and resolutions for
details, which include
esther,
in our conversation, you told me the board had endorsed the principles of the report.
maybe i misunderstood, but neither my notes or
my memory recall any discussion of specifid chapters being endorsed and others being
referred WITHOUT recommendation. because i had
no written info, i
esther,
in our conversation, you told me the board had endorsed the principles of the report.
maybe i misunderstood, but neither my notes or
my memory recall any discussion of specifid chapters being endorsed and others being
referred WITHOUT recommendation. because i had
no written info, i
YUP IT IS!!!
my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another argument for
open meetings? : )
jeri
ICANN's press release read:
The constituencies, which will elect the
Names Council to act as the governing body of the Domain Name Supporting
Organisation (DNSO), are the core of the DNSO.
For the record, I think a better way of understanding the DNSO is to
place the General Assembly at its
Jeri Clausing wrote:
my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another
argument for open meetings? : )
Bingo.
-- Bret
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 11:41:30AM -0400, Bret Fausett wrote:
ICANN's press release read:
The constituencies, which will elect the
Names Council to act as the governing body of the Domain Name Supporting
Organisation (DNSO), are the core of the DNSO.
For the record, I think a better way of
In view of the fact that five of the six constituencies are controlled by
interests firmly in the pockets of the ISOC/ICANN church, I would suggest
that the word choice giving the constituiencies power was quite intentional.
ICANN's press release read:
The constituencies, which will elect the
Jeri and all,
If you remember some time ago I attempted to enlighten you in regards
to Esther Dyson and the ICANN INterim Board. This confusion is just
another example of her many attempts to expunge herself and the ICANN in a manner that
is somewhat less than honest and accurate but in
a
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 11:41:30AM -0400, Bret Fausett wrote:
ICANN's press release read:
The constituencies, which will elect the
Names Council to act as the governing body of the Domain Name Supporting
Organisation (DNSO), are the core of the DNSO.
Esther,
I checked my facts when the information was available. And I revised the story to
reflect the new information. You DID NOT go over
the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the report in
principle. And you asked someone else in the room
several times what you
Esther,
I checked my facts when the information was available. And I revised the story to
reflect the new information. You DID NOT go over
the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the report in
principle. And you asked someone else in the room
several times what you
At 12:32 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
In view of the fact that five of the six constituencies are controlled by
interests firmly in the pockets of the ISOC/ICANN church, I would suggest
that the word choice giving the constituiencies power was quite intentional.
yup. ISOC controls all
At 01:50 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Jeri Clausing wrote:
the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the
report in principle. And you asked someone else in the room
several times what you had done.
Somehow, I always thought that "in principle" was quite different from "in
Jeri and all,
Good for you Jeri! ;) You shouldn't take the nonsense that Esther
Dyson continually put out. She is continually being disingenuous. This
exchange on this thread is just one of many many examples. And yes
you should report BOTH sides as any good journalist should
Jeri
what does your sigh mean?
your surely are not having any second thoughts about the direction things
are going in?
At 12:32 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
In view of the fact that five of the six constituencies are controlled by
interests firmly in the pockets of the ISOC/ICANN church, I
Two points:
1) there's an enormous difference between endorsing the entire report
"in principle but not in detail" and taking no view of some very
controversial parts of it. For those who object to the entire proposal
regarding famous marks on he principle of the thing, even an endorsement
"in
Have we fogotten that it was a consensus item that a unifom ADR is not desirable
art the Geneva IFWP meeting?
Didd anybody else notice that nobody ever asked the question this time round
"is a uniform ADR desirable"
At 10:32 AM 5/29/99 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote:
Jeri -
In our
At 09:55 AM 5/29/99 -0400, you wrote:
Gene,
The Berlin meeting was the first time that the
comments/scribing/webcast/meeting archive tools really reached critical
mass. It had been available in Singapore and Cambridge, too, but novelty
and time zones may have made it less accessible to remote
At 02:49 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
what does your sigh mean?
your surely are not having any second thoughts about the direction things
are going in?
Hardly. Your direction of believing that a broad range or organizations'
supporting ISOC's efforts somehow means that ISOC "controls"
Jeri Clausing of the New York Times wrote:
perhaps this is another argument for open meetings? : )
I applaud you, Jeri, for supporting the call for open meetings.
As one who tried to participate remotely in the pre-meeting forum, I was
distressed that messages regarding WIPO that focused on
At 03:23 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
2) I am uncertain what your remark about constituencies is supposed to
Michael, I apologize for the confusion of my reference to you. Somewhat
out of character, my comment was not so much focused on the fact that you
I think this statement should be printed up and posted whenever
ICANN meets -- verbatim.
The real problem which you eluded to with these ICANN meetings is poor
planning in as much as not enough time allotted for each meeting.
Kerry and all,
Well thank you Kerry for the cudo! ;) None the less the ICANN Interim
Boards blatant inability to do proper planning amongst keeping their
board meetings closed, is testament to their incompatancy, most especially
the three "Ring leaders", sometimes know as the "Terrible
IN BIG LETTERS.
This stuff is too important to be glossed over... and thats what we're doing.
At 05:36 PM 5/29/99 +, you wrote:
I think this statement should be printed up and posted whenever
ICANN meets -- verbatim.
The real problem which you eluded to with these ICANN meetings is
Richard and all,
TRUE! One small adjustment to your statement. THE ICANN IS
ATTEMPTING TO DO THE GLOSSING OVER!
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
IN BIG LETTERS.
This stuff is too important to be glossed over... and thats what we're doing.
At 05:36 PM 5/29/99 +, you wrote:
I think
Glad to see you haven't lapsed from your true believer mind set. you had
me worried.
At 02:49 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
what does your sigh mean?
your surely are not having any second thoughts about the direction things
are going in?
Hardly. Your direction of believing that a
On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:03:54 -0700, Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 03:23 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
2) I am uncertain what your remark about constituencies is supposed to
Michael, I apologize for the confusion of my reference to you. Somewhat
On Sat, 29 May 1999 12:37:05 -0700, Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The sigh was for the continuing, silly confusions. One has to do with your
confusing correlation with causation -- or otherwise dismissing the import
of support from a large number of independent organizations and
Thats the point - we do not know.
I say we try it, and get some real world data. If it turns out it
works we can delpoy it on a more widespread basis.
I echo PDT's sentiments though... no "cybersquatter" has ever won
in court and the benefits do not outweightthe burdon.
At 07:03 PM 5/29/99
It expects to formally recognize a third group, the Address
Supporting Organization in Santiago.
Can someone help me with the antecedents for this SO? Is there
mention in the Bylaws of anything besides DNSO, PSO, and the at-
large membership?
kerry
Reading, even answering remote messages is not enough. There must be
a mechanism for online voting, and all representatives, whether of
constituencies, the SOs, or the board itself, must be elected by a
fully democratic process that includes all interested stakeholders,
whether present at the
Richard,
IN BIG LETTERS.
This stuff is too important to be glossed over... and thats what we're doing.
I agree, a lot of time and energy has been frittered away, as if we
have been waiting to be *told we are being listened to. Maybe the
realization is dawning that while in principle
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 10:42:40PM +, Kerry Miller wrote:
It expects to formally recognize a third group, the Address
Supporting Organization in Santiago.
Can someone help me with the antecedents for this SO? Is there
mention in the Bylaws of anything besides DNSO, PSO, and
43 matches
Mail list logo
