At 11:44 PM 7/14/99 -0400, you wrote:
>How do you deal with a clueless membership? Say they
>voted unanimously to make anybody with a nameserver
>pay $1 everytime sombody used it for a lookup and
>if you didn't pay this you couldn't run a nameserver
>period.
>
>How do you deal with things like th
How do you deal with a clueless membership? Say they
voted unanimously to make anybody with a nameserver
pay $1 everytime sombody used it for a lookup and
if you didn't pay this you couldn't run a nameserver
period.
How do you deal with things like that ?
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED
Jon Zittrain wrote:
Take #1 on the membership solution: make it an open
membership; people
join; that's the electorate; they elect; end of story. If this
appeals to
you there's no such thing as a "captured" electorate, because it simply
is
what it is.
I disagree. To the extent some interests
Eric Weisberg wrote:
> Jon Zittrain wrote:
>
> > Where do you see ICANN about to adopt simple majority, head-to-head,
> > winner-take-all elections? For the at-large board or elsewhere?
>
> I forgot to mention something which may change in light of the recent USG
> demands for ICANN elections.
James and all,
Yes, it was ruled unconstitutional several years ago now...
James Santagata wrote:
> At 01:18 PM 7/14/99 +0100, Mark Gould wrote:
> >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >
> >This message contains words that some may find offensive. If that
> >includes you, read no further.
>
Jon,
At 04:32 PM 7/14/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>For those who say that a
>particular group--CORE, say--has "captured" the DNSO process, is that the
>same kind of "capture" as the Turks with TIME, or the backoffice people
>with AIP? ...JZ
>
This is an excellent descriptive piece, and outline q
At 04:34 PM 7/14/99 +, you wrote:
>
>> . They have no notion what a root server system
>> is, let alone what to do with one if someone told them that they
>> were hooked up to one. They wouldn't even know what being
>> "hooked up to a root server system" means, let alone an OS or
>> a DNS.
>>
On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 03:49:15PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> In addition to our advocacy, Name.Space has designed and developed a
> system we call SINDI (Secure Internet Name Data Integrator) which works,
> in a totally secure, downwardly-compatible way to coordinate and synchronize
Kerry,
My high school didn't even offer a civics class!
Take #1 on the membership solution: make it an open membership; people
join; that's the electorate; they elect; end of story. If this appeals to
you there's no such thing as a "captured" electorate, because it simply is
what it is. The
Jonathan,
One of the problems with "realnames" is that is not a replacement for DNS,
but only an "enhancement" to search engines. Realnames does not route
mail, or enable other tcp/ip connections other than web (http).
(for the sake of relevance to this thread, I will not discuss the myriad
of o
> What worries me most is getting the electorate to be
> representative in the first place. ... No matter what scheme you
> use to weigh and tally votes among them, it'd be hard to generate a
> satisfactory election, since the electorate itself wouldn't
> approximate what we think of as "fai
> . They have no notion what a root server system
> is, let alone what to do with one if someone told them that they
> were hooked up to one. They wouldn't even know what being
> "hooked up to a root server system" means, let alone an OS or
> a DNS.
>
> In short, let's have a little less techyne
At 02:59 PM 7/14/99 , Jon Zittrain wrote:
>Imagine if the 99.9% relied-upon namespace were wholly run by Netscape or
>Microsoft. Would that be a victory for the private market, or would
>everyone be looking for ways to be fair about capturing the value of those
>names instead of letting Netsca
Gene and all,
I don't know either for sure but it looks like a guy who calls himself
"Joe Blow". ROFLMAO! Some name huh? Love his domain name
though! My guess is though, that the real "Joe Blow" is Onno Hovers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] What ever the case may be, I completely
agree with you Gene,
Rob,
Yep, to break out of the current benefits of a single root one had better
be able to offer an appealing alternative. Centraal may be building enough
momentum to do this; my own thought has been that the browser makers are
perfectly positioned to make the play and are quietly trying to do
I'm not sure who wrote this originally. This statement could not possibly
be made by anyone with a SLIGHT grasp on reality. I resent the implication
that my business is not major nor my organization important because they
ABSOLUTELY DO NOT SUPPORT ICANN.
Gene Marsh
Diebold Incorporated
anycastN
John and all,
This is a bunch of BS, and I believe that you know it is as well.
Several organizations that DID come forward before the Berlin
fiasco, were denied recognition out of hand or ignored entirely
for reasons that to this day have yet to be answered specifically
by the ICANN (Initial?)
Hello Richard,
thank you for telling me that. I was unaware of your "app".
Nice to hear that you made one too.
regards,
Paul
>Hi Paul;
>
>Jon said I'd written "an app" not yours. Mines at http://support.open-rsc.org
>or something like that. I don't think many poeple use it, they just
>mail me
Karl and all,
Very good points here Karl with respect to why multiple roots
are not widely accepted, yet. However I think that there is huge
pent up demand for multiple roots. We have seen this on
extranet and intrAnet perspective for going on 3 years now.
To me anyway, FWIW is that there
> So what's stopping market forces, as you say, from creating the nicely
> nested (but still not completely overlapping) competitive set of DNS
> services? I'd imagine only the market itself so far--which has been known
> to miss good opportunities in the space, to be sure. ...JZ
The infamous c
Hi Paul;
Jon said I'd written "an app" not yours. Mines at http://support.open-rsc.org
or something like that. I don't think many poeple use it, they just
mail me instead :-)
At 01:06 PM 7/14/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Jonathan,
>
>correction--it was not Richard Sexton, but Paul Garrin who has w
At 10:18 AM 7/14/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> >> So far as I know, consumers can edit the fields in their network
control
>> >> settings for most OSs to direct themselves to any DNS server willing to
>> >> resolve names for them.
>> >
>> >Actually it is a bit more complicated than that.
>>
>> I sh
Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Um, I believe that's what this kind of list does, doesn't it? Ask everyone
>who's signed on to it?
AFAIK, only a few people on this list are employees of providers of some
kind of network service that would include the ability to switch DNS
service.
--gre
> >> So far as I know, consumers can edit the fields in their network control
> >> settings for most OSs to direct themselves to any DNS server willing to
> >> resolve names for them.
> >
> >Actually it is a bit more complicated than that.
>
> I should think so. Fact is, most consumers (Mom,
> But I said "direct themselves to any DNS server," not "direct themselves to
> any root server." Aren't we agreeing that any intermediary can set up a
> DNS resolver, which in turn gets its info from any root server it chooses,
> and then consumers can point to whatever intermediaries they p
Dear Jonathan,
correction--it was not Richard Sexton, but Paul Garrin who has written
the DNS switcher application, located at http://namespace.org/software.
(actually the app was designed by Paul Garrin and coded by a programmer).
The application switches windows computers to resolve DNS throug
At 09:34 AM 7/14/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Greg Skinner wrote:
>
>>> When I wrote 'consumers' I was thinking of individuals, and yes, they
>>> should have some say over who is determining what choices they have.
>>> However, as far as this specific thread go
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:07:56 -0400 (EDT)
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard J. Sexton (At work))
>
>Path:
>ns3.vrx.net!news2.best.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!lsanca1-snf1!news.gte
Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> When I wrote 'consumers' I was thinking of individuals, and yes, they
>> should have some say over who is determining what choices they have.
>> However, as far as this specific thread goes (what choices do users
>> have as far as g
Mark and all,
I think it is pretty plain what is going on. Javier and other members
of the pNC/NC, very much like the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board are
playing the old "Shell Game" and using various mailing lists to
accomplish their goals of selective exclusion, so as to effectively STACK
the
All,
FYI. So much for process!
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwoo
All,
This might be of some interest... FYI
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5
At 04:36 PM 7/13/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Ronda Hauben wrote:
>
>> Greg Skinner wrote:
>
>> >Now, on the other hand, it may not be very well known that consumers
>> >have choices, or that there might be reasons why they should exercise
>
>> Have you ever thought that maybe people online aren't "consu
> On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Mark C. Langston wrote:
>
> > Javier, I'm confused.
*SNIP*
> > Yesterday afternoon, I request to be added to wg-c-1, and a few
> > hours later, I request that I be added to wg-c-2.
> > Last night, you add me only to wg-c-2, with no explanation.
> >
> > I'm bothered
Hi Jonathan,
When you look at this debate through
my eyes, you have a long process of
incrementalism that has resulted in
a fraud that is now known as ICANN.
It started with two processes to find a
community consensus way to self-govern the
Internet. The IFWP featured open meetings
and ope
I fully support you in this effort Michael. I call on Vint Cerf to
publish the attack that he and /or Don Heath allegedly sent to
Barbara Simmons of the ACM questioning her fitness to be involved
because Milton Meuller dared to sit down with you and break bread in
Berlin. I have been told ab
Jonathon,
I admire your restraint. Please dont let the words of one interfere with
the excellent work you are doing.
Dan
(sig. file on vacation)
> At 11:58 PM 7/13/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>
> >Funny, that's exactly how the Paris Draft
> >handled this issue.
> >
> >We can rehash all of the ar
Jon Zittrain wrote:
> Where do you see ICANN about to adopt simple majority, head-to-head,
> winner-take-all elections? For the at-large board or elsewhere?
I forgot to mention something which may change in light of the recent USG
demands for ICANN elections. I am told that some members of
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from ["Rob Raisch"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:17:01 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [John Charles Broomfield
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:57:55 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTE
[someone may need to post this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for me, since I rather
doubt I'm a member]
I agree that list management has suddenly become a crisis.
There are too many lists. This makes informing oneself hard. It makes
discussion fractured. It reduces the meaningfulness of consensus.
Javier, I'm confused.
First, you complain about people crossposting to wg-c as well as wg-c-1.
Then, you personally post one of these crossposts to wg-c-1, even
though you've claimed that everyone there would have already received it
not once, but twice.
( http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c-1/A
Karl,
But I said "direct themselves to any DNS server," not "direct themselves to
any root server." Aren't we agreeing that any intermediary can set up a
DNS resolver, which in turn gets its info from any root server it chooses,
and then consumers can point to whatever intermediaries they ple
At 11:58 PM 7/13/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>Funny, that's exactly how the Paris Draft
>handled this issue.
>
>We can rehash all of the arguments that
>went into the Paris Draft, but given the
>ICANN Board's proclivity to accept easily
>captured structures, I doubt that any
>good would result.
It's
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>
> In exchange for the constituency pie slices, we also received this:
> "Individual domain name holders should be able to participate in
> constituencies for which they qualify." (See,
> http://www.icann.org/dnso-formation.html). At the time, I was
> extraordinarily pleas
I have found the lists page at dnso.org
Am I allowed to post to any of the working group mailing lists other than
the public list? Am I a member of any of any subgroups? Am I a
member of these lists? If not, why not?
I have also received private e-mail from various people who allege they
were
COMPUTERGRAM INTERNATIONAL: JULY 14 1999
+ Over Privacy Advocates' Objections, FTC Says No New Laws
By Rachel Chalmers
The Federal Trade Commission has told the US Congress that it
sees no need for legislation to prevent companies from abusing
individuals' private information. "We continue t
47 matches
Mail list logo
