I see once again you have violated the list etiquette about cross
posting to/from the IDNS list.
I've solved that in my reply.
In any event, Mr Crispin, I have asked you repeatedly, and I will ask
you again on this forum.
You have made comments opposing the goals and principles that are the
Richard, Ron and all,
Yes Ron, you seem the have noticed the lack of consistency and total
lack of oversight of the ICANN in this "Experiment" of the introduction of
Registrar competition as well. It actually is allot worse than your
notice (See below). We[INEGroup] have four folks tracking
William and all,
Need I again remind you that the "Rules" to which you refer to
for the IDNO mailing list are not posted on the IDNO site. As
such it is difficult to justify enforcing any such rules in any
proper manner. Hence, you only provide more sauce for the
goose, so to speak, for Kent
Someone wrote:
SO HOW COULD SOMEONE REGISTER TITS.COM AT REGISTER.COM WHEN THEY BLOCK
REGISTRATION *REQUESTS* FOR SUCH DOMAINS!??
Just to be sure that the TITS.COM and similar are still blocked, I tried
registering various profane domains at both NSI webpage and via NSI
registration template
Richard, Ron and all,
Another interesting observation on this post as well. I noticed
the TITTIES.COM is an active domain... There is even a "Free"
area as well! ;) Shocking, just shocking! I guess the relative
filters didn't work in this instance, eh?
This sort of thing kinda gets
Ellen, Ron and all,
Yes this was discussed on the DOmain Policy list even before
April. The point is that to do so is foolish on ICANN's and any
registrar to do as it is in most countries including the US
an established violation of freedom of expression. This will
only lead to eventual
At 22:07 13/06/1999 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
There is no information concerning what is meant by "civil
discourse", nor is there any indication of where I might find out
anything about it.
Among civilised people there is not much need to spell out what civil
discourse is. It gets noted when
Ellen,
You wrote:
The answer is simple. NSI, the registrar, has a different policy as
regards "offensive" words (although I'm not certain this word fits that
description) than does register.com. NSI officials confirmed to me late
in
April that this might occur in the Shared Registry
All,
I have noticed that there have not been quite a number of posts
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the archives. Is there some reason for this?
Please advise.
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:04:46 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from ["Kevin J. Connolly"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From rspab.com!CONNOLLK Mon Jun 14 10:04:45 1999
Return-Path:
Return-Path: richard
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:08:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: richard (Richard J. Sexton )
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Path:
ns3.vrx.net!news2.best.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-xfer.epix.net!news1.epix.net!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
Subject: Re: tits.com
From:
http://cnnfn.com/news/technology/newsbytes/131907.html
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,37730,00.html?st.ne.fd.mdh.ni
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 01:26:36PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
Dear members,
In case anyone needs more convincing of the hostile intent of our "guests"
from the registrar constituency, please note that Mr Crispin posted my
entire message to the dnso list, from
Ron,
Have you stated this concern to the ICANN or the DNSO PNC to date?
This would be a good place to start if you wish those concerns to be
addressed. You might also let a some media folks know as well. Maybe
they will pick up on this and see a potential byline for a story here...
Richard
Karl Auerbach a écrit:
In any case, there will be a Names Council meeting on June 25 in San Jose.
I will be present.
I will be admitted.
I will participate according to the rights and privileges granted to me
under the Bylaws of ICANN and the laws of the State of California.
Don't
Take it from one who knows, Joop, and avoid Kent Crispin by whatever
means available, including removing him from the list and/or
ignoring his postings. He is a person with no morals, none
whatsoever, and there is nothing he won't stoop to to disrupt and
manipulate others, as was proved for all
Ron and all,
No I understood you concern very clearly, hence my response to it
as I share your concern. It appears however that this concern, along
with several others that have sense been reported regarding Register.com
are going unheaded, or are not considered serious enough to act
upon by
Esther Dyson a écrit:
Jay -
What made you stop consulting for NSI?
What made you start doing publicity for IBM?
All,
I wonder when or if Esther Dyson will respond to Ralph...
I hope that CNet follows this up.
Michael Sondow wrote:
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,37730,00.html?st.ne.fd.mdh.ni
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information
Dear Marty
Take a hike.
Take it from one who knows, Joop, and avoid Kent Crispin by whatever
means available, including removing him from the list and/or
ignoring his postings. He is a person with no morals, none
whatsoever, and there is nothing he won't stoop to to disrupt and
manipulate
Ms. Dyson-
Are you, the chairperson of ICANN, exchanging publicity with IBM?
That is, do you do publicity for them, and in exchange they do it
for you? Or is there money, too, involved?
Was it Roger Cochetti who set it up?
Is Beckwith Burr aware of what is going on? Is that what she was
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:21:09 -0400, Gordon Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dear Marty
Take a hike.
Oh yes, thats a good response, Gordon.
Very telling.
Take it from one who knows, Joop, and avoid Kent Crispin by whatever
means available, including removing him from the list and/or
Relevance?
At 10:27 AM 6/14/99 -0400, you wrote:
http://www.ibm.com/thinkmag/excerpts/release/main.html
and
http://www.ibm.com/iac/transcripts/internet-privacy-symp/estherdyson.html
I thought it was a question of general interest, as (I hoped) were my own
financial interests when I posted them some time ago.
Esther
At 01:48 AM 14/06/99 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Esther did you mean to send that out to a couple of public mailing
lists or was that a late night slip of
Michael and all,
I think that we already know the answers to these questions.
The proof is in the putting as the say >;) Or one could
also say that preception is 90% of reality...
It appears to me that Esther Dyson is sort of the Monica Lewinski
of the GIP (www.gip.org). Can we all say
Martin and all,
Obvious of course. Can You say S-U-C-K-I-N-G U-P,
Martin?
Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
Relevance?
At 10:27 AM 6/14/99 -0400, you wrote:
>http://www.ibm.com/thinkmag/excerpts/release/main.html
>
> and
>
>http://www.ibm.com/iac/transcripts/internet-privacy-symp/estherdyson.html
>
Callaw has an interesting article today at :
http://www.callaw.com/stories/edt0614f.html
It reports basically that EFF is trying to put a "price" on the value
of our "identity" so that damages can be ascertained should a company
violate our privacy rights.
(Before you jump in Jeffeypoo, I'm
Jeff,
I trust the contrast to conventional rant is clear. One does not start
with the grounds and somehow try to 'convince' by browbeating or
bullshit or specious argument that 'therefore' someone else 'must'
agree.
Agreed, one must look at the relevant facts in evidence past and
Joop,
If someone breaks the rules, he is dealt
with according to other rules, not the whim of an autocratic listowner.
It's called: the rule of Law.
We are here at a stage where we have very few rules to start with.
You may wish for the happy day when we have lots and lots of
rules to
Martin B. Schwimmer a écrit:
Take it from one who knows, Joop, and avoid Kent Crispin by whatever
means available, including removing him from the list and/or
ignoring his postings. He is a person with no morals, none
whatsoever, and there is nothing he won't stoop to to disrupt and
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:33:47 -0400, Michael Sondow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Would Mr. Cook and Mr. Steinberg care to condemn this type of rhetoric or
is this further proof that the writer of the previous post has grown as a
person in the past six months and is now fit to represent
Who here has read the novel "Confederacy of Dunces" by John Kennedy Toole
(Pulitzer Prize winner in the early '80's)?
Esther and all,
First lets dispense with the begging, shall we Esther. Good. ;)
Second I fail to see why Jay's no longer consulting for NSI has
any barring on anything, especially as he has made it plainly
clear as to what his "Consulting" was all about on several occasions.
Third, as has
Kerry Miller wrote;
Jeff,
I trust the contrast to conventional rant is clear. One does
not start
with the grounds and somehow try to 'convince' by browbeating or
bullshit or specious argument that 'therefore' someone else 'must'
agree.
Agreed, one must look at the
Esther and all,
Esther Dyson wrote:
It was a one-time deal, and it was a lot of fun.
(I got my own trailer.)
FWIW, it was organized by an old friend of mine at Ogilvy Mather,
who did
the Mac 1984 commercial and now works on the IBM account (!), rather
than
with IBM directly.
Well this is in
Maybe for sombody in New York :-), but I thought it was a little nosy and
entirely inappropriate. I'd feel that way if it were CORE or ISOC
and not NSI. YMMV.
At 05:58 PM 6/14/99 -0400, you wrote:
I thought it was a question of general interest, as (I hoped) were my own
financial interests when
Martin and all,
Yes I read it. Good and funny book in many ways. Now that I think
on it a bit I see some amazing similarities to the theme and Title
of this book to ICANN/ISOC/gTLD-MoU/DNSO/WIPO/ITU and in
particular to the ICANN (initial?) Interim board.
Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
Who
It was a one-time deal, and it was a lot of fun. (I got my own trailer.)
FWIW, it was organized by an old friend of mine at Ogilvy Mather, who did
the Mac 1984 commercial and now works on the IBM account (!), rather than
with IBM directly.
But Gordon, please check your facts: it was hockey,
John and all,
Ah, yes you are of course correct John. I stand corrected. I guess
I was thinking of "We the people". My mistake.
John B. Reynolds wrote:
Kerry Miller wrote;
Jeff,
I trust the contrast to conventional rant is clear. One does
not start
with the grounds and
http://cookreport/icannregulate.shtml
The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Exec summaries, glossary etc
(609) 882-2572 (phone fax)
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
Callaw has an interesting article today at :
http://www.callaw.com/stories/edt0614f.html
It reports basically that EFF is trying to put a "price" on the value
of our "identity" so that damages can be ascertained should a company
violate our
At 10:39 PM 6/13/99 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Jolly good, but I did ask what it was spent on, as oppose to was it
Indeed, you did ask that. It was curious that a pointed question about
individual financial affiliation with a large commercial monopoly that is
trying to sway this process
At 06:25 PM 6/13/99 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
you seem to be implying that I am no longer
an independent voice. Nothing could be further
from the truth.
Even when I was consulting for NSI (which ended
with the Berlin meeting), I was not paid to be a
"NSI Supporter." My role was to give NSI my
Antony,
The following annotations form a very different sense of the history you cite:
At 04:16 PM 6/13/99 -0400, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
*The POC was a closed shop, a black box, unreadable and unknowable from the
outside, intransigent against efforts to open it up and see the
At 11:34 PM 6/14/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
Among civilised people there is not much need to spell out what civil
discourse is. It gets noted when it is absent.
That view works well only in some very homogeneous environments. Only some.
What is considered civil discourse varies greatly
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:04:07 -0700, Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 06:25 PM 6/13/99 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
you seem to be implying that I am no longer
an independent voice. Nothing could be further
from the truth.
Even when I was consulting for NSI (which ended
with the Berlin
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:30:44 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Ron Bennett)]
From ix.netcom.com!rb1000 Mon Jun 14 22:30:43 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL
At 05:58 PM 6/14/99 , Esther Dyson wrote:
I thought it was a question of general interest, as (I hoped) were my own
financial interests when I posted them some time ago.
Esther
At 01:48 AM 14/06/99 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Esther did you mean to send that out to a couple of public
Since I was on the IAHC
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Ah yes. I'd always wondered about that so I asked Postel in Geneva.
Me: Jon, what were you thnking of puting Metzger
In any event, it remains interesting
It must be wonderful to have that child like innocense such that everything
is "amazing", "interesting", "fascinating" and so forth.
Thanks for your non-response. Back to the killfile.
*plonk*.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, amateurs
Kent:
I was in Berlin. You were not.
The two or three speakers who spoke out against NSI having additional seats
were all CORE members. The session is on record, by the way.
It should be noted that all of the Names Council seats from the registry
constituency are from CORE. CORE and NSI are two
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:53:42 -0400, Milton Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Kent:
I was in Berlin. You were not.
The two or three speakers who spoke out against NSI having additional seats
were all CORE members. The session is on record, by the way.
Of course it was Milton. In Kent's mind CORE
The problem you describe below is a consequence of NSI's 'thin registry'
model, under which each registrar runs its own whois. It was not created by
ICANN. ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement contains a provision
(Section III.D.4) intended to facilitate its solution by requiring all
Milton and all,
Milton Mueller wrote:
Kent:
I was in Berlin. You were not.
The two or three speakers who spoke out against NSI having additional seats
were all CORE members. The session is on record, by the way.
Milton is correct here. Kent has a long history of exagorating or
streching
On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 12:53:42AM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
Kent:
I was in Berlin. You were not.
On the other hand, I was watching the open board meeting on the real
video feed while you were off contending over the NCC. That is, I
certainly saw things that you did not, even though I
56 matches
Mail list logo
