Kerry and all,
Kerry, normally I find your thoughts in these ongoing discussions
very enlightening, but in this case I am very disappointed...
(See detail below your comments just below)
Kerry Miller wrote:
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/bliley-response-08july99.htm
...ICANN "decisions"
Jon and all,
Absolutely correct Jon, good catch! And yet another example of the
ICANNites purposefully misleading and purveying disinformation
to the public, by Mr. Andrew McLaughlin.
Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
No, that rule is in section 2(g) ("No more than one officer, director or
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 02:41:40 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] has unsubscribed from
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 02:16:26 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] has unsubscribed from
Hi Jonathan,
This email is one of the most ironic
I've ever seen, coming from the Harvard
Berkman Center.
To my knowledge, I have never argued for
a community consensus approach to Internet
Governance. It is simply not consistent
with my views on Governance.
Anyone who knows me, knows
On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 13:41:08 -0700, Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:24 PM 7/10/99 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
I have no idea what you are talking about, since you've cut out ALL of
the pertinent original text.
You also don't contribute anymore content in this message.
Would you
At 02:05 PM 7/10/99 -0700, you wrote:
there are circa 240 top level domains. and inlcuding many
not in the current rootservers.
If they are not in the current root servers, they are not top level
domains. They are private domains.
Not true. A top level domain is a functional level of
At 09:03 PM 7/10/99 GMT, you wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 13:41:08 -0700, Dave Crocker
Its simple, ICANN should not be charging a $1/domain fee at all.
ICANN needs to charge for services it actually renders. No service
that ICANN provides is tied to the quantity of second level domains.
I'm
hello crisp, tiny said it best -- The notion of diversity is anathema
to their approach. It's a religion, not a process.
On Sat, Jul 10, 1999 at 12:26:00PM -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
zittran:
All this said, I'm curious: how do we measure that elusive thing
called consensus? And,
On Sat, Jul 10, 1999 at 05:34:59PM -0400, Gene Marsh wrote:
At 02:05 PM 7/10/99 -0700, you wrote:
there are circa 240 top level domains. and inlcuding many
not in the current rootservers.
If they are not in the current root servers, they are not top level
domains. They are private
The vehicle of law vs. who shouts loudest seems to me a tough question.
If ICANN made simple rules and hewed to them in a vacuum it'd be
criticized for "ignoring community consensus" and acting
unaccountably--you've been one of the strongest proponents of
ICANN (or anything serving its
Clarification (i.e the facts)
It came from John Perry Barlow, a founder and still board member of EFF. I
*was* chairman of EFF and continue to sit on its board.
The Declaration is not a formal EFF position and I for one am not entirely
comfortable with its tone.
Esther
At 01:04 AM
Tony and all,
Great job here Tony, I don't think I have ever seen a better
more concise litany of the current situation with the ICANN...
Nicely done!! >;)
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
Jon
This is a good question! At some point
I suppose you'd agree that some number is too much, no matter how large
a
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:50:56 -0700, Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 1999 at 09:13:49AM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
There is a more fundamental problem with the "20 year deals", or any
similar scheme: a creative monopolist can always find ways to get
around them.
William and all,
William, you might as well give up on trying to convence Kent
of anything, he is intractable.. BTW, I left two messages on your
Answering service. I thought you wanted to chat about something???
William X. Walsh wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:50:56 -0700, Kent Crispin
From: Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICANN is a corporation, it is not a government. It has, or will
have, contractual relationships with other corporations and
organizations. Corporations are bound by the law, like all other
persons, real or fictitious.
There are other international
On Sun, Jul 11, 1999 at 12:26:19AM +, William X. Walsh wrote:
[...]
A registry is no more a monopoly than a car manufacturer is Kent.
There is no lock-in involved with cars -- if I don't like my toyata,
I can get a honda or a ford, for just the cost of a new car.
Changing cars doesn't
On Sat, Jul 10, 1999 at 10:12:51PM -0400, Ronda Hauben wrote:
Can you clarify what you meant by saying there are
"international corporations"?
Shorthand for "corporations that do business internationally". They
may or may not be multinational corporations. An american
corporation can
William,
No.
William X. Walsh wrote:
Jeffrey A. Williams (or the person using that name on these lists),
Do you reside at the Homestead Studios?
Be careful in your answer.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
"The
Jeffrey,
Today you called a toll free number I gave you twice. The number you
called from was captured (As is standard with toll free lines).
The numbers you called from are :
972-732-6371 4:21am for 21 seconds
972-732-6288 12:16pm for 42 seconds
These numbers belong to Homestead Studios,
Rus,
Dam, that was interesting reading (Refering to your link).
However
until now I too, had never heard of "Intergov". What a terrible
scam! :( Maybe they are part of the ICANN/GIP consortium?
Ya think?
BTW rus and all, I have provided William and this list on more than
one occasion the
William and all,
Yes you sure can verify. Just call 972-447-1894 anytime.
Messages are auto pick up after 11:00pm CST or if I
punch in the code to have calls routed to the message pick up
from the 972-447-1894 number.
William X. Walsh wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 20:48:23 +0100, Jeff
Call Homestead Studios and verify it. What Jeff hopes you will do is
just take his word for it. The number he gives is a resident number
that rings to Homestead's voice mail system (hit Zero for operator
when you get his voice mail, it will give you the homestead info).
On Sat, 10 Jul 1999
At 12:48 AM 7/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
Should the gTLD-MoU faction by contrast - which has
a very small stake - enjoy more than 50% of the seats,
the policy-making chair, the agenda making role, and
the predominant appointments to groups developing
policies? Is that capture?
--tony
And the
At 01:33 PM 7/10/99 -0400, Jon Zittrain wrote:
If instead you see ICANN as having a public trust function...
No. We don't. The names of files I use on my computer are none
of the publics damn business. It's between me and other people
that write to this namespace.
Most of the general public
The Declaration is not a formal EFF position and I for one am not entirely
comfortable with its tone.
Esther
You'll probably hate this then:
http://vrx.net/declaration.html
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net
The depth of your thinking would put a jackrabbit to shame.
Is there consensus that this sort of langauge is unacceptible -
personal insults should warrent an apology ?
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.nethttp://www.mbz.org
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [d3nnis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 18:26:00 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jul 10 18:25:59
What is/are the Homestead Studios? Why does it matter?
On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 22:07:10 -0700, Frank Rizzo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is/are the Homestead Studios? Why does it matter?
Because it is just clear evidence of the lies he has been telling.
One that anyone and everyone can easily and simply verify.
30 matches
Mail list logo
