Who enforces or guarantees this contract?
I posited an interested buyer and a willing seller. Now, what kind
of interest would it be that wouldnt cover taking delivery? If you
cant carry the heat, stay out of the chamber, one might say -- but
this basic nobody-trusts-nobody
Kerry and all,
Nice post here Kerry. Well done. It is likely that many will
not gather all if the nuances that are contained with it
however. Indeed this in unfortunate. So I shall attempt to
put, in my response, a little different way of looking at it.
(See more below your comments)
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Pete Farmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 17:26:43 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 1
At 08:11 PM 7/1/99 -0400, Ken Stubbs wrote:
maybe you would like to let the world know a little more about the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] list michael ?
It's been around for, what? 10 years ? I thought everybody
knew about it.
Richard.
No doubt a paid ICIIU shill.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Eberhard W Lisse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 01:10:05 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 2
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 03:51:20 -0400 (EDT), "Richard J. Sexton"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard.
No doubt a paid ICIIU shill.
Naw, he doesn't have the funds or members to pay shills :)
The sooner those very few holding him up for the sake of holding
someone up to the ISOC find someone new to
Richard,
Is there any way to have the from field on non-member submissions be
that of the original sender?
This would help those of us who filter people like El.
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 03:51:21 -0400 (EDT), "Richard J. Sexton"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All,
Sigh More Willie Whining Oh well, what else is new?
William X. Walsh wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 03:51:20 -0400 (EDT), "Richard J. Sexton"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard.
No doubt a paid ICIIU shill.
Naw, he doesn't have the funds or members to pay shills :)
The
All,
long sigh Again more Willie Whining :(
William X. Walsh wrote:
Richard,
Is there any way to have the from field on non-member submissions be
that of the original sender?
This would help those of us who filter people like El.
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 03:51:21 -0400 (EDT),
At 05:20 PM 7/1/99 , Pete Farmer wrote:
Gerstner's not silly enough to think that
ICANN does or ever will set
transnational policy regarding Internet taxation, security and
encryption,
privacy, or universal access.
However, there is a significant group of players that
seems to include IBM, that
At 07:51 AM 7/2/99 GMT, William X. Walsh wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 03:51:20 -0400 (EDT), "Richard J. Sexton"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard.
No doubt a paid ICIIU shill.
Naw, he doesn't have the funds or members to pay shills :)
Incorrect on both counts.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL
At 07:52 AM 7/2/99 GMT, you wrote:
Richard,
Is there any way to have the from field on non-member submissions be
that of the original sender?
Not without a serious amount of work.
And at 3 am, not at all. I was up at 6 am.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 09:49:54AM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
The following root servers are offering answers for
"www.networksolutions.com" (which they shouldn't be):
b.root-servers.net
This varies with where you make the query from.
Host A:
www.networksolutions.com
Server:
Hi Jeff,
Technically, these are not my comments.
They were posted by Frank Fenello, my
brother, as approved by the PDNHA Board.
He has agreed to join the fight, and I
believe he will make a great addition
to the PDNHA team, as well as the debate.
FYI, I am currently in a quiet period,
On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 11:16:30 +0100, Jeff Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard and all,
Yeah, this is just another one of William Walshe's wild false assertions
and attempts to cast doubt without having any real facts to
back them up. It's disgusting...
You want to see digusting? See
David and all,
Prove that NSi's root servers have between 4000 to 6000 hits per second
David.
Oh yes, and by the way, SROOTS servers have been tested at
10 times this hit rate. So you are wrong of that point as well...
David R. Conrad wrote:
Roeland,
However, my point is that
From: Pete Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Gordon Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 11:05:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer:
Ken and all,
The problem here Ken old son, is that there has been
NO "Community COnsensus" on decisions that ICANN
has made and acted upon unilaterly
Ken Stubbs wrote:
FIRST... PLEASE LET ME APOLOGIZE FOR ALL CAPS... THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH MY
E-MAIL CLIENT FORMATTING.
NOW ON TO THE
David and all,
Again David is BULLSHITTING you all here. David, you were offered
several opportunities at other alternatives, I know I offered you one.
You refused. So stop BULLSHITTING folks!'
Do I need to post those private posts as evidence??? Hu???
David R. Conrad wrote:
Just so no one takes this person seriously, please read
http://www.inegroup.net/ and http://www.dso.net/wwalsh/jeffw/
On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 11:38:00 +0100, Jeff Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David and all,
Again David is BULLSHITTING you all here. David, you were offered
several
Ken, Paul and all,
Sure I would be glad to share that data with Paul. FIrst I need
a sworn statement from David Conrad to stop BULLSHITTING
folks as he did in an earlier post to this list. Second I will need
a similar sworn statement form ICANN and ALL of its (Initial?)
Interim board
On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 11:47:27 +0100, Jeff Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ken, Paul and all,
Sure I would be glad to share that data with Paul. FIrst I need
a sworn statement from David Conrad to stop BULLSHITTING
folks as he did in an earlier post to this list. Second I will need
a
Paul and all,
Seems as though NSI half believes that ICANN may be the
actual culprit itself...
Excerpt from news.com article cited below:
"It was a hack. We're investigating it, and the FBI is involved,"
NSI spokesman Brian
O'Shaughnessy
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,38721,00.html?st.ne.fd.gif.f
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg04880.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg04881.html
The net has gone nuts.
Of course any skilled debater can argeu that ICANN caused
this instability or that ICANN
Again David is BULLSHITTING you all here. David, you were offered
several opportunities at other alternatives, I know I offered you one.
You refused. So stop BULLSHITTING folks!'
Do I need to post those private posts as evidence??? Hu???
David R. Conrad wrote:
Patrick,
David and all,
David R. Conrad? wrote:
Hi,
Somebody kindly(?) forwarded the following waste of electrons to me (I
filter anything with the email address jwkckid1 directly to the trash as
it generally is a complete waste of time so I normally don't see
his/her/their inane dribblings).
build up a *practice
of mutual defense/ recognition/ security/ communication/
enforcement/ commerce.
Exactly right. And this is what we have now with what are
commonly called Laws. But, there are those amongst the ICANNites
that feel these laws are not adequate and need "Special"
All,
I wonder where all of those great ICANN sysops are at? Or where
the l.root-server.net operator is at? He/she/it on the job? And these
guys want to run the Root? What a joke!
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,38721,00.html?st.ne.fd.gif.f
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Bill Lovell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:44:33 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 2
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Bill Lovell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:43:03 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 2
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from ["Sheffo, Joe"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:18:14 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 2
All,
WILLIAM (Sticky Fingers) WALSH (FRAUD?) (THEAF?)
Karl and Jon,
Is this really true about William? (See post to IFWP list below)
- Original Message -
From: TJ Network Services Directors [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 25, 1998 2:56 AM
Subject: TJ Network
Pete Farmer wrote:
Can ICANN establish a fee on domain names to cover administration
costs?
Yes -- that's within its charter. Can ICANN impose a fee whose proceeds
would be used to bring Internet access to schools and libraries in
sub-Sahara Africa? I don't think so -- it's clearly outside
You wrote:
At 08:11 PM 7/1/99 -0400, Ken Stubbs wrote:
maybe you would like to let the world know a little more about the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] list michael ?
It's been around for, what? 10 years ? I thought everybody
knew about it.
Richard.
No doubt a paid ICIIU shill.
Actually, my
NSI's Web site hacked
By Courtney Macavinta
"The Commerce Department and other international governments have
anointed ICANN to administer the Net and to trigger competition in
domain name registration"
Gee, Courtney, I thought the DOC was just a ministry. You mean
they're now an International
(Quiet period over :-)
At 07:37 PM 7/2/99 , James Love wrote:
Pete Farmer wrote:
Can ICANN establish a fee on domain names to cover administration
costs?
Yes -- that's within its charter. Can ICANN impose a fee whose proceeds
would be used to bring Internet access to schools and libraries
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:14:04 -0700, Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 06:04 PM 7/2/99 -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
You don't really think this little scam is going to fly do you?
while it is understandable why you would choose to favor only those scams
from which you benefit, why should
Hi Jamie,
What charter is
that? Becky Burr says after next year, ICANN
will be a free agent.
The only limits here are those that are found in ICANN's
Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. Of course, they can
ignore those pretty much with impunity - which they do
regularly - or simply change
I look at the ICANN process a little differently. It isn't really a
substitute for NSI as much as it would be a substitute for the government.
Perhaps the establishment of ICANN was the worst possible way to handle the
situation -- except for all of the alternatives.
I don't think it would
Mr. Love,
The "major power" of ICANN is not necessarily their potential control of
the A root server. If there were a "free market" root zone, one where
there were alternative gTLDs and competitive "root zones" from which to
derive DNS services, ICANN would be relegated to what most believed it
Pete Farmer wrote:
I'm fairly inflexible as an advocate of due-process and sunshine.
Really? Then why haven't we heard a peep out of you during the past
eight months of takeover of all ICANN'S structures by ISOC and CORE?
Oh, I see, you advocate due process and sunshine, but then when they
I would also add:
- Review ICANN's process of controlling DNSO constituency membership.
- Review ICANN's "open meeting" policy and methods
Gene Marsh
+++
Hi Pete Farmer, you wrote on 7/2/99 7:58:32 PM:
I look at the ICANN process a little differently. It isn't really a
substitute for NSI
All,
This missive or weak attempt at sidestepping on William's part
in NO way change those FACTS as I posted them.
William X. Walsh wrote:
LOL - I was wondering how long it would take you to fish out this
accusation again.
As if this changes one iota your credibility.
The FACTS about
Pete,
At first (quick) glance, I agreed with some of your suggested directions
for review of ICANN and its procedures.
On closer look, you are really putting down a nice smoke screen. If you
truly believe in the principlas you outline, please refrain from deflecting
attention from the issues
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Joop Teernstra
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 22:53:52 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 2
William Walsh wrote:
Until Michael Sondow agrees that you have=20
a consensus document, you don't. =20
Mr Sondow would never agree to any document which did not raise him to
some position of power where he has the ultimate say.
Your position that until Mr Sondow agrees to a document it is not
uh mr. farmer before you make a fool of yourself with your inane
pontifications you ought to spend a few minutes following what you claim
to have figured out.
farmer from on high
But these jingoistic/paranoid attacks on ICANN (e.g. Gordon's claim that
NTIA has "sold out" American Internet
COMPUTERGRAM INTERNATIONAL: JULY 06 1999
Some Root Operators Refuse to Sign on to ICANN/DOC Project
By Nick Patience
Last week the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) distributed a memorandum of participation (MoP)
to the operators of the 13 root servers that
48 matches
Mail list logo
