On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 22:43:00 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yes, it was NSI that was booted. The ICANN board modified their
>original position in response to widely held public opinion (just as
>you claim they never do), and restricted NSI to one seat.
I take GREAT offense in y
[placeholder for reply from [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Greg,
> > When ICANN can be put through the same oversight and *public
> > hearings as FCC, the problem will indeed be settled.
>
> I doubt it. The FCC has a rather poor track record of regulating
> shared public resources in the public interest as of late.
Are you willing to go further, and
>If not, then please review your note's lack of responsiveness to my
>specific content. This might also require re-evaluating the targeting of
>your personal attack, changing it to a more reflexive reference.
You've been reading too much Dilbert, Dave. Could you try that again
in English ?
-
Dave Crocker a écrit:
>
> On the other hand, it is refreshing to see that there is a
> group he has had involvement with, but against which he does not pursue a
> vendetta.
Hi, Dave! Say, I was just talking with the KPFA people this
afternoon. They told me that you were very popular with their
a
At 09:28 PM 6/11/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>you idiot - ever heard of steven lukasik? elliot maxwell? Einar stefferud?
So, let's see. You claim that, as FCC staff, they took essential actions
concerning the creation and/or growth of the Internet?
If so, which ones, in what role(s), took w
you idiot - ever heard of steven lukasik? elliot maxwell? Einar stefferud?
>At 04:01 PM 6/11/99 -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>enabled the Internet to emerge through the Computer trilogy
>>basic-enhanced dichotomy and by removing government
>>regulatory agencies from the scene. It is also in i
At 05:31 PM 6/11/99 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>Lovely. Don't like the content, attack the writer.
If you review the posting, you will see that Don introduced the issue, by
making an assertion about himself. Presumably, he introduced his claim for
a reason.
As such it is entirely relev
Lovely. Don't like the content, attack the writer.
--
Christopher Ambler
Personal Opinion Only, of course
This address belongs to a resident of the State of Washington
who does not wish to receive any unsolicited commercial email
- Original Message -
From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 17:04:30 -0700, Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 03:31 PM 6/11/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>>From: "Telage, Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Javier'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: Re: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999
>>10:09:19 -0400
>>
>
At 04:01 PM 6/11/99 -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
enabled the Internet to emerge through the Computer trilogy
>basic-enhanced dichotomy and by removing government
>regulatory agencies from the scene. It is also in independent
What a fascinating spin on history, claiming that the FCC was essential
At 03:31 PM 6/11/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>From: "Telage, Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Javier'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: Re: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999
>10:09:19 -0400
>
>Javier, You need to read the bylaws. Art VIB Sec2h requires that the NC
>meetings
John and all,
What is even more interesting and reveling is it looks on the surface
anyway that Register.com knew it was going to be a ICANN test
bed registrar sense feb of this year Wonder how that might be, hummm?
John B. Reynolds wrote:
> Bill Lovell wrote
> > At 09:45 AM 6/11/99 -070
Bill Lovell a écrit:
>
> At 05:59 PM 6/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >Bill Lovell a écrit:
> >>
> >> At 04:01 PM 6/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >>
> >> And Bill Lovell is now writing: Here, here! Tony has (finally? --
> >> sorry, Tony!) said something. Expect the whole shootin' match
> >> to be taken ov
Bill and all,
Try using http://www.crsnic.net/cgi-bin/whois
Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 09:45 AM 6/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >Actually, this presents a problem. Most whois clients only look at the
> >single registry, assuming one registrar per TLD and they do NOT
> >differentiate between registri
Bill Lovell wrote
> At 09:45 AM 6/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >Actually, this presents a problem. Most whois clients only look at the
> >single registry, assuming one registrar per TLD and they do NOT
> >differentiate between registries and registrars, as that is a recent
> >distinction. Certainly,
At 09:45 AM 6/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Actually, this presents a problem. Most whois clients only look at the
>single registry, assuming one registrar per TLD and they do NOT
>differentiate between registries and registrars, as that is a recent
>distinction. Certainly, whois does not understand th
"A.M. Rutkowski" wrote:
> The FCC is unlikely to have ever created an abomination like
> ICANN and its intergovernmental body within - the GAC. This
> is hardly Internet self-governance. It's homecoming for all
> the old OSI crowd who are intent on creating a neo UN body
> to help "manage" th
At 05:59 PM 6/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Bill Lovell a écrit:
>>
>> At 04:01 PM 6/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>> And Bill Lovell is now writing: Here, here! Tony has (finally? --
>> sorry, Tony!) said something. Expect the whole shootin' match
>> to be taken over by the FTC. :-)
>
>Would that be s
Bill Lovell a écrit:
>
> At 04:01 PM 6/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
> And Bill Lovell is now writing: Here, here! Tony has (finally? --
> sorry, Tony!) said something. Expect the whole shootin' match
> to be taken over by the FTC. :-)
Would that be so terrible? They can't make much more of a hash
William and all,
How true, how true indeed. Good evaluation here William.
Congrats!
It may also be noted that according to the article, though not exactly
spelled out, some 50 of the registrants agreed to give up their Domain
Names. I wonder how many of these was due to Porches legal
intimid
This is one clear example of why domain name disputes STILL belong in
the courts, and not in a suprajudicial mandatory ADR.
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:28:00 -0700, James Santagata
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Domain Trademark Suit:
>
>Porsche Thursday said a federal court in Virginia dismissed it
"A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The FCC has actually had an excellent record. First it enabled the
> Internet to emerge through the Computer trilogy basic-enhanced
> dichotomy and by removing government regulatory agencies from the
> scene. [...]
> (And yes, I worked there in var
At 04:01 PM 6/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
And Bill Lovell is now writing: Here, here! Tony has (finally? --
sorry, Tony!) said something. Expect the whole shootin' match
to be taken over by the FTC. :-)
Bill Lovell
>
> At 01:36 PM 6/11/99 , Greg Skinner wrote:
>>
>> I doubt it. The FCC has a r
At 01:36 PM 6/11/99 , Greg Skinner wrote:
I doubt it. The FCC has a rather poor
track record of regulating
shared public resources in the public interest as of late. If
you
think domain names have caused a lot of controversy, read some of
the
debates regarding low power FM, cable (de)regulation,
From: "Telage, Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Javier'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: Re: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999
10:09:19 -0400
Javier, You need to read the bylaws. Art VIB Sec2h requires that the NC
meetings be open to the public. As a general rule I favor "s
The so-called Names Council of ICANN's DNSO, which according to the
ICANN bylaws will have in its purview nothing less than the future
policy of the Internet domain name system, today revealed to all, in
a manipulated and hijacked teleconference of which tapes were made
by this writer, its true na
"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I though the HDTV thing was handled rather well. "Go away and
> come back when you agree" was what happened there wasn't it ?
It's a matter of opinion whether or not it was handled well. For
perspectives, go to DejaNews (www.deja.com) and read pa
>I doubt it. The FCC has a rather poor track record of regulating
>shared public resources in the public interest as of late. If you
>think domain names have caused a lot of controversy, read some of the
>debates regarding low power FM, cable (de)regulation, HDTV, etc.
I though the HDTV thing w
FYI:
>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:48:24 -0400
>From: James Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: http://www.cptech.org
>To: com-priv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Cybertelecom-l <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Letter to Esther Dyson from Ralph Nader and James Love regarding ICANN
>
>June 11, 199
I once wrote an article that discusses the government corporation control
act at some length. You can read it at
http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/reinvent.htm
FWIW I think ICANN does not violate the letter of the GCCA, although it
may well violate the spirit of it.
--
A. Michael Fr
Roeland and all,
I fear that roeland is correct here. It is likely both a ill-thoughtout
architecture
and an incomplete implementation. I pointed this out some timea ago when
looking over Kents specs on SRS and made some brief observations...
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> Actually, this prese
Rick and all,
It looks very much like Register.com and likely the other 4 test
bed
registrars of ICANn have hosed up the zone files as well as have
"Bogus" entries in their DNS name servers as well. After modifying
Browser based "Whois" and doing some checking over the past 4 days
Register.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller)
> When ICANN can be put through the same oversight and *public
> hearings as FCC, the problem will indeed be settled.
I doubt it. The FCC has a rather poor track record of regulating
shared public resources in the public interest as of late. If you
think doma
> >ICANN is by no means the only forum where (liberal) governments have
> >taken this position ... (I appreciate it is not clear what legal
> >basis Mr Twomey has for conceding sovereignty on behalf of the
> >governments for which he speaks...
>
> What other forums is this being done in?
>
>
COMPUTERGRAM INTERNATIONAL: JUNE 11 1999
SECTION: INTERNET
Virus Shuts Down Microsoft, Intel, Lucent, EMC, NBC, GE Mail
By Rachel Chalmers
A virus that works like Melissa but seems far more virulent has
destroyed files and shut down mail servers at half a dozen or
more companies, including
Milton Mueller a écrit:
>
> I think Roberts deserves praise for engaging in the debate.
Mr. Roberts is feeling the bite of growing criticism and needs to
justify himself.
> This is a conversation we
> need to have.
Yes, but in a different forum, an open forum, where there is true
transparency
On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 12:08:16AM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> Can you spell "lock-in by network externalities," Mr. Roberts?
> Efforts to start alternative roots have failed for the same reason
> that an attempt to start up a new telephone system without
> interconnection to AT&T would hav
38 matches
Mail list logo
