At 01:50 PM 7/13/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Yes, the WTO is based in Geneva, but surely it's beyond reproach?
This was weeks ago, and I had a computer virus in the meantime, so
I certainly stand ready to be corrected, but was it not the WTO that had
a good chunk of its top leadership caught with thei
At 06:19 PM 7/15/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>I just saw a notice at the House Commerce Committee web site
>of a Congressional Hearing by the Subcommittee on Oversight
>and Investigations on "Domain Name System Privatization: Is
>ICANN Out of Control?"
>
In a word?
Yes.
>It is listed as being schedu
More biased coverage from News.com:
House to address domain system's future
By Dan Goodin
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
July 14, 1999, 5:15 p.m. PT
Details are beginning to emerge about an upcoming House subcommittee
hearing that could have strong consequences for the future re
At 04:00 PM 7/15/99 +, you wrote:
>
>
>> >If anyone is interested in getting over such arrogance, one
>> >worthwhile way to do it is to consider how 'they' might *get a notion
>> >of what a root server system is.
>>
>> Unless, of course, they have their own lives to live, their own
>>
I just saw a notice at the House Commerce Committee web site
of a Congressional Hearing by the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations on "Domain Name System Privatization: Is
ICANN Out of Control?"
It is listed as being scheduled for Thursday, July 22, 1999 at
10:00 a.m.
The URL is http:/
Ivan Pope a écrit:
>
> Michael,
> What's your problem?
I stated it quite clearly (below). Can't you read? I don't think
it's proper for a person who uses other people's Internet addresses
to be the voice of Intellectual Property in the NewCo. Pretty
obvious I should think, even to you.
> > Jon
Mark C. Langston a écrit:
>
> Oh, we will get a choice? I was under the impression it would be passed on
> by the registrars, and therefore be made part of the contract between DN
> owner and registrar. Thus, it's not an optional thing.
You do get a choice: You can either agree, or not. If yo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
>
> I don't think that time are ready for direct democracy in the Net, which
> does not mean that we should not try, but it surely means that the good old
> method of taking the good elements to propose, building a case for them, and
> trying to convince the "decision m
Kerry Miller a écrit:
>
> If they think that 'elite' and 'rank-and-file' are part of the vocabulary
> of democracy, it's no wonder there is confusion.
"Hear, hear", as the British would say.
Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U.
Diane Cabell wrote:
Eric Weisberg wrote:
> A system can be designed to accomplish a purpose or to fail.
ICANN
> must decide whether its purpose is to afford maximum diversity of
> representation or to develop a fool proof system for conducting
> meaningless elections (in the sense of its expre
Jon Zittrain wrote,
> My high school didn't even offer a civics class!
I've found that this failure is often the real cause of contention in
arguments about membership and voting...
> Take #1 on the membership solution: make it an open membership;
> people join; that's the electorate; they
> >If anyone is interested in getting over such arrogance, one
> >worthwhile way to do it is to consider how 'they' might *get a notion
> >of what a root server system is.
>
> Unless, of course, they have their own lives to live, their own
> professions to follow, etc., and simply don't
At 02:39 PM 7/15/99 , Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>The Internet is not some vast public resource that is the birthright
>of every living soul. It's not, of course, it's a club of people that
The Internet happened as the antithesis of the traditional
public resource approach to telecommunications ove
At 06:57 PM 7/15/99 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I agree that there may be cultural differences, but I disagree this being
>one of these. Maybe because that, among all people on the Earth, Italians
>are among the most suspicious about Governments. Or maybe because our
>Constitution (sorry to
Eric Weisberg wrote:
> A system can be designed to accomplish a purpose or to fail. ICANN
> must decide whether its purpose is to afford maximum diversity of
> representation or to develop a fool proof system for conducting
> meaningless elections (in the sense of its expressed representational
At 12:57 PM 7/15/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> As many issues in this debate are, I suspect that
>> at least some of our differences are cultural in
>> nature.
>>
>> While you might be comfortable with a small cabal
>> of Government and Corporate appointees making global
>> decisions for t
Jeff Williams wrote:
> This might be of some interest... FYI
>
If you want the follow-up, yes, the PSO MoU was signed yesterday night (Oslo
time).
Regards
Roberto
A system can be designed to accomplish a purpose or to fail. ICANN
must decide whether its purpose is to afford maximum diversity of representation
or to develop a fool proof system for conducting meaningless elections
(in the sense of its expressed representational aspiration).
Diane Cabell rep
Jay,
You wrote:
> As many issues in this debate are, I suspect that
> at least some of our differences are cultural in
> nature.
>
> While you might be comfortable with a small cabal
> of Government and Corporate appointees making global
> decisions for the entire, world-wide Internet, most
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:37:54 -0400
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [IFWP] Re: personal a
At 06:07 AM 7/15/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> It started with two processes to find a
>> community consensus way to self-govern the
>> Internet. The IFWP featured open meetings
>> and open discussions, with the result being
>> a set of compromise and consensus principles
>> that were reflect
Here is the text of a second message I attempted to post to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . I have posted it to the GA list, but in
deference to their no-cross-posts policy I am sending it separately to
IFWP & Domain-Policy.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:18:27 -0400 (EDT
Here is the text of a message I attempted to post to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . I have posted it to the GA list, but in
deference to their no-cross-posts policy I am sending it separately to
IFWP & Domain-Policy. Personally I find cross-posts easier to filter,
but go figure.
--
A. Michael Froomkin
On 15 July 1999, Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Mark C. Langston wrote:
>
>> Oh, we will get a choice? I was under the impression it would be passed on
>> by the registrars, and therefore be made part of the contract between DN
>> owner and registrar. Thus, it's not an optional thi
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Andy Gardner
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:56:06 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu
Kent,
>DNS has a different, more technically oriented function.
Absolutely.
> It is also widely understood in IETF circles that IPv6...will make such
> technically oriented use of DNS necessary...
Yes, and we are now relying on something forced to provide inappropriate
features on which we wil
Mark C. Langston wrote:
> On 15 July 1999, Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Further, ICANN isn't a government with guns to enforce such a policy. If such
> >a decision was intolerable to the greater number of the constituents having to
> >pay it, would it really fly at all?
>
> Oh,
Michael,
What's your problem?
Ivan
Ivan Pope
NetNames
Managing Your Internet Identity
http://www.netnames.com
180-182 Tottenham Court Road
London, W1P 9LE
+44 (0)171 291 3900
+44 (0)468 625546 Mobile
+44 (0)171 291 3939 (Fax)
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Sondow [mailto:[EMAIL
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 09:13:36AM -0400, Rob Raisch wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 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 w
On 15 July 1999, Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Further, ICANN isn't a government with guns to enforce such a policy. If such
>a decision was intolerable to the greater number of the constituents having to
>pay it, would it really fly at all?
Oh, we will get a choice? I was under t
Jonathan Cohen is posting messages to mailing lists from a mailbox
that
is not his own, using another person's name and adress as the
sender.
This is tantamount to impersonation, is in violation of the
WIPO rules, the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Policy rules, and
established correct practice
Richard J. Sexton 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 that ?
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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 d
Jay,
You wrote:
> It started with two processes to find a
> community consensus way to self-govern the
> Internet. The IFWP featured open meetings
> and open discussions, with the result being
> a set of compromise and consensus principles
> that were reflected in multiple documents,
> includi
34 matches
Mail list logo
