RE: [IFWP] regular exprssion of the general assembly of the dnso

Richard, You wrote: > The [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list has 53 members. > > The IFWP list has 156 members. > Well, in this case, why not having the general discussion on the DNSO on the IETF list, that has far more members? ;>) Jokes apart, my point is that the purpose of the mailing lists i

[IFWP] Re: [discuss] Individual representation

On Sun, 27 Jun 1999 21:58:15 -0700 (PDT), Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One of the other key issues for this entire constituenbcy model is htat there can be only one for a constituenbcy group. What is one vehemently disagrees with the formulation of the constituency group h

[IFWP] A D M I N I S T R I V I A

I just sent out all the postings that were delayed when the IFWP-list universe was being "re-organized" last night. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] "They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [Bill Lovell ]

>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 27 04:47:53 1999 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from thetics.europa.com (thetics.europa.com [209.20.130.162]) by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC57F00A for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 04:4

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [Jeff Williams ]

>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 27 04:48:45 1999 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2]) by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7DAF00A for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 27 Jun 1999

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [Mark Measday ]

>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 27 05:17:24 1999 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from mail.iprolink.ch (rsge1.iprolink.ch [194.41.63.1]) by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B7CF022 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 05:17:23 -

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [Jeff Williams ]

>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 27 04:45:26 1999 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.16]) by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F4D5F00A for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 27 Jun 19

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [Jeff Williams ]

>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 27 04:39:31 1999 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4]) by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5B0F00F for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 27 Jun 1999

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from ["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" ]

>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 27 04:34:27 1999 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from spitfire.law.miami.edu (spitfire.law.miami.edu [129.171.187.10]) by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BC1F00A for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 27 Jun 1

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [william@dso.net (William X. Walsh)]

>From dso.net!william Sun Jun 27 02:12:42 1999 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from bilbo.dso.net([206.16.77.10]) (4823 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for <[EMAIL PROT

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [Karl Auerbach ]

>From CaveBear.com!karl Sun Jun 27 01:43:00 1999 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from npax.cavebear.com([192.203.17.71]) (2439 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for <[EMA

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [Jeff Williams ]

>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 27 04:30:24 1999 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.7]) by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A6DF009 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 27 Jun 1999

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from ["A.M. Rutkowski" ]

>From netmagic.com!amr Sun Jun 27 02:12:01 1999 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from exchange.agent.org([206.5.17.8]) (4419 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net via sendmail with P:smtp/D:aliases/T:pipe (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for <[EMAIL P

Re: [discuss] Re: [IFWP] regular exprssion of the general assembly of the dnso

Mark, In a perfect world where there were no silos to protect and egos to bruise, of course this would make sense. However, look at the responses so far. Individuals who should rightfully be participants in the IFWP/DNSO discussions are refusing to be IFWP list participants. Go figure. Gene..

[IFWP] Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN

So agreements on these issues are going to require a new level of international cooperation and global policy formation. The subject of Internet taxation is absolutely top of mind with every senior executive I talk with. To a person, they question whether they're goi

[IFWP] Re: [discuss] Individual representation

On Sun, 27 Jun 1999 19:15:04 -0700, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >At 06:35 PM 6/27/99 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: >>Go back to the archives Dave, Randy isn't there, on ANY of the main >>lists. Postel's stuff was strictly IANA internal and close associates. >>NOT part of the public

Re: [discuss] RE: [council] Re: [IFWP] regular exprssion of thegeneral assembly of the dnso

Mr. Sola, I am curious as to why you would not want to be included in the very debate in which you are to be participating as an active member. The DNSO discussion list is not, at least yet, the defacto forum for these issues. The IFWP list is. You choose not to participate in any real discours

[IFWP] Re: [discuss] Individual representation

On Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:28:26 -0700, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >No assumptions were involved. You made explicit statements demonstrating >specific ignorance. davespeak translation : "You made statements that countered the view we want to have presented, and so we will just state

[IFWP] Re: [discuss] Individual representation

On Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:00:11 -0700, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Most of the people in these different groups (except those who clearly push >the misinformation) believe they are being constructive. > >They are wrong. Interpreted in Davespeak "People who push views that do not confo

RE: [IFWP] Speaking of verification (and saving money)

Wells Fargo and many other banks are, however, more interested in cost deferral and additional revenue streams (such as internal and external advertising) to worry about electronic voting short term. First they will need to own their own transaction network (which almost no bank does). If you wa

[IFWP] ICANN too be a front for the Global Internet Project see http://www.gip.org/meetpr.htm

Faced with the continuing problem of coordinating law making in their repsective nations to satisfy their corporate interests, John Patrick AND HIS FELLOW GIPSTERS continues to work the GIP's PAC (Political Action Committee) known as ICANN. On April 20 1999 after hearing a report from Esther Dyso

[Special attention Diane] to: Re: [IFWP] Speaking of verification (and saving money)

Diane and all, Lucent Tech. Does for share holders as an option. Diane Cabell wrote: > I'll put it at the top of my research list, but when I looked at the site, I > didn't see any online voting, merely online announcements and copies of > shareholder mailings. I didn't see any place to actu

[IFWP] Individual DNSO representation and the Cerf attack on Simmonsof the ACM

randy, please be kind enough to apply your analysis below to the attack by Vint Cerf on Milton Meuller and Barbara Simmons of the ACM for daring to sit down and break bread with Michael Sondow at the Berlin meeting. I have had now accounts from two persons involved in this donny brook. Since I

Re: [IFWP] Speaking of verification (and saving money)

Diane Cabell wrote: >I'll put it at the top of my research list, but when I looked at the site, I >didn't see any online voting, merely online announcements and copies of >shareholder mailings. I believe it was handled through proxyvote.com. ^^

Re: [IFWP] Speaking of verification (and saving money)

I'll put it at the top of my research list, but when I looked at the site, I didn't see any online voting, merely online announcements and copies of shareholder mailings. I didn't see any place to actually register/buy a share or cast a vote, but we'll contact them and find out. Thanks for the s

Re: [IFWP] RE: [IFWP] Re: Press CommuniquéIn-reply-to :

On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Antony Van Couvering wrote: > The wish to have a uniform dispute resolution policy makes sense, Makes sense for some, not for others. The world of domain name registration has managed to muddle along just fine without any sort of mandated uniform dispute resolution polici

Re: [IFWP] RE: [IFWP] Re: Press CommuniquéIn-reply-to :

At 05:16 PM 6/26/99 -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: uniform anything...I want choice that is brought >about by my registrar being able establish its own >policies, practices, whois systems, whatever. By equivalence, this means wanting 800 telephone numbers to be free or charged, according to which

Re: [IFWP] Speaking of verification (and saving money)

Eric Weisberg wrote: >Here is an exchange I just had off list regarding ICANN's proposed >means of verifying something (though, despite trying for the >purpose of this note I can not define what) for voting purposes. > Autodesk (leading mfg of CAD software) provides an online proxy voting option

[IFWP] Speaking of verification (and saving money)

Here is an exchange I just had off list regarding ICANN's proposed means of verifying something (though, despite trying for the purpose of this note I can not define what) for voting purposes. > Have you seen AT&T Online

Re: [discuss] RE: [council] Re: [IFWP] regular exprssion of thegeneral assembly of the dnso

>Don, > >Thank you for the clarification. > >My advice is that if you want accuracy, all you have to do is to be as >transparent as you are asking us to be. That way we can be accurate. Quid >pro quo. Tell us who of the IFWP/DNSO players work for NSi and who are >those for whom you have paid plane

[IFWP] Re: [discuss] Individual representation

Ellen and all, Ellen Rony wrote: > Randy Bush wrote: > > >if the academic institution is non-commercial, why would they not wish to > >join the non-commercial constituency? > > > > ICANN decided in its skewed perspective that trademark interests were > different and apart from business interests

[IFWP] A D M I N I S T R I V I A

I upgraded fromsmail to postfix this morning. Actually I started last night at dinner. Nine, I think, mesages to this list bounced. If I don't see them resent when I wake up I'll forward them to the list. Postfix is amazigly fast, thanks to Dr. Lisse for recommending it. Waring though, if you'r