>And ...
>205.189.73.10
>216.196.51.4
>216.196.51.5
>
>and many, many more that Richard and I don't directly control. There are
>MANY more out there than you may believe.
>
>Gene...
>
Got it, Gene! I'll get back to you.
Bill Lovell
>
>>
>++
>Gene Marsh
>president, anycastNET Incorpora
At 11:43 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> >In other words, if there were to be established a viable non-ICANN root
>> >system, then all this effort to establish advisory committees, Supporting
>> >Organizations, WIPO rules, ADR, taxes/fees, etc would all exist only on
>> >those things willing to
Sunday, July 18, 1999, 11:36:25 PM, Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are those ones in which you have a financial interest? If so, the idea here
> was
> to answer my question, not to try to sell me on something, and other than
> slipping in one actual answer (the alternative root servers
> >In other words, if there were to be established a viable non-ICANN root
> >system, then all this effort to establish advisory committees, Supporting
> >Organizations, WIPO rules, ADR, taxes/fees, etc would all exist only on
> >those things willing to voluntarily accept the rules derived from t
At 12:29 AM 7/19/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>Which certainly has its appealing aspects. But 'splain something: I'm
>>sitting here on, say, a xxx.com or a xxx.net ISP, and I want to search a
>>.per or a .biz, or more exactly I want to search on whatever, some of
>>which may happen to be on .per or .b
At 12:29 AM 7/19/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>Which certainly has its appealing aspects. But 'splain something: I'm
>>sitting here on, say, a xxx.com or a xxx.net ISP, and I want to search a
>>.per or a .biz, or more exactly I want to search on whatever, some of
>>which may happen to be on .per or .b
subscribe list
>Which certainly has its appealing aspects. But 'splain something: I'm
>sitting here on, say, a xxx.com or a xxx.net ISP, and I want to search a
>.per or a .biz, or more exactly I want to search on whatever, some of
>which may happen to be on .per or .biz. Alternatively, I want all the people
At 08:40 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>At 11:20 PM 7/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>Bill, you miss the point. Your ISP (europa.com) told you to set your DNS
>>server entries to some specific addresses when you signed up. Those
>>arbitrary entries are set within your computer's settings, and have l
Dear Mr. Link,
In view of the July 22 hearing on ICANN, the ICIIU respectfully
submits the following questions.
M. Sondow
QUESTIONS FOR ICANN AND THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
REGARDING THE INTERNET PRIVATIZATION PROCESS
1. Questions for the ICANN Boar
At 11:20 PM 7/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Bill, you miss the point. Your ISP (europa.com) told you to set your DNS
>server entries to some specific addresses when you signed up. Those
>arbitrary entries are set within your computer's settings, and have little
>to do with what ISP you are using.
At 08:17 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>At 10:30 PM 7/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>> At 07:25 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>> >At 06:51 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>In other words, if there were to be established a viable non-ICANN root
>> >>system, then all this effort
On 18 July 1999, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In any case, proving that the code offered to the referee is the same as
>> the running code is trivially easy: you compile it, and hash the two
>> programs, and bit-compare them, or compare hashes. (Of course you have to
>> use the e
At 10:30 PM 7/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
> At 07:25 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >At 06:51 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >>In other words, if there were to be established a viable non-ICANN root
> >>system, then all this effort to establish advisory committees, Supporting
>
Gene and all,
Gene you left out two little details. Although it is true marketing is one element
that is missing in order for an multiple root structure can be competitive
and broadly accepted, the other two elements that are essential are
$$ and a business plan
Gene Marsh wrote:
> At 07
Joe Sims wrote:
>
> Jay, it was a hard lesson, but I've learned that nothing useful comes from
> engaging with you, so I don't plan to.
What's this, Mr. Sims? You're afraid to tell us how much money
you've taken, so you refuse to answer? Are you taking the Fifth? Is
this another confession?
>
To make a long story short:
1) I did indeed understand you to be worried about something other than
what you describe below.
2) If one were to decide to be worried about the problem you describe
below, the simplest solution, as you note, is to have the code running on
the trusted third party's m
At 07:25 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>At 06:51 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>In other words, if there were to be established a viable non-ICANN root
>>system, then all this effort to establish advisory committees, Supporting
>>Organizations, WIPO rules, ADR, taxes/fees, etc would all exis
At 07:16 PM 7/18/99 -0700, somebody wrote something and I
stole the email so as to send this:
>
By coincidence, I was just joining an email group which uses the
following procedure [names deleted]:
Thank you for requesting an . account.
To complete your registration, you MUST ENTER the follo
Paul Garrin wrote:
>Dear Joop,
>
>It may be a good idea to have a site that actually works
>if you expect people to vote. ;-)
>
>regards,
>
>Paul Garrin
>
>http://www.idno.org/vote1/
>
>redirects to:
>
>http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/vote1/
>
>Result:
>
>HTTP Error 404
Thanks Paul for pointi
At 06:51 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>In other words, if there were to be established a viable non-ICANN root
>system, then all this effort to establish advisory committees, Supporting
>Organizations, WIPO rules, ADR, taxes/fees, etc would all exist only on
>those things willing to voluntari
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 02:23:50PM -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
wrote:
> Now, crypto happens to be something I know a little
> about ( http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/#crypto )
Very impressive. However, crypto and network security are two very
different, though relate
> > Consequently, ICANN will have the power
> > to set the terms and conditions under
> > which a name server's domain name will
> > exist.
> >
> > These "flow down" contracts are the
> > essence of a strict REGULATORY regime
> > that will not only affect name servers,
> > but virtually every asp
At 08:54 AM 18/07/1999 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>You have characterized what took place a couple of times now, in ways that
>differ from the facts. I do not recall any request for seconds. Simply a
>spontaneous call for an ostracism vote by you.
Here is the last part of the original postin
Gene and all,
I fully agree with your and Karls sentiments. ICANN without a financial
plan and a method of full disclosure of financial dealings would be prudent
and wise once and "IF" they are ever fully constituted. But in all fairness
to the ICANN full financial disclosure at this juncture
At 03:13 PM 7/16/99 +, you wrote:
>
>
>In response to a thread which began a couple days ago, I
>suggested that
> >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.
At 07:51 PM 7/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At 03:53 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>I hear that ICANN has run out of money.
>>
>>Have they published a statement showing the expenses to date.
>>
>>(I, for one, wouldn't want to to pay the $1 domain name tax [not to
>>mention the probable eventual $$ f
Karl,
I agree with your sentiments below. The closest model I can see is the
amateur radio licensing fee model, but that involves governmental agencies
from many countries, and is a mess.
I would be very uncomfortable paying any tax or fee to ICANN under the
current circumstances as well, and a
Joe,
Perhaps you did not like the questions coming from Jay Fenello. OK.
As a representative of:
Diebold Incorporated
anycastNET Incorporated
Top Level Domain Association
I respectfully ask you to answer the following questions:
Has Jones Day ever *invoiced* ICANN for
any services or any a
At 03:53 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I hear that ICANN has run out of money.
>
>Have they published a statement showing the expenses to date.
>
>(I, for one, wouldn't want to to pay the $1 domain name tax [not to
>mention the probable eventual $$ for IP address space tax] when there is
>no pub
I hear that ICANN has run out of money.
Have they published a statement showing the expenses to date.
(I, for one, wouldn't want to to pay the $1 domain name tax [not to
mention the probable eventual $$ for IP address space tax] when there is
no published record of how the entity which is impos
> > Why not hold it on the *INTERNET*!!!
>
> Because CORE can't control the Internet.
>
Besides, it would prove embarrasing to those whose identities
cannt be verified.
> "fraud" ... could occur with fraudulent registrations -- me registering
> Benjamin A. Edelman, Benjamin B. Edelman, and so on.
> It could occur with non-fraudulent but still "not representative"
> messages -- like if I signed up as members of ICANN everyone I knew
> (or all the employees o
At 03:27 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Sunday, July 18, 1999, 8:54:33 AM, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> In any event my position, now, is that IDNO does not represent the stated
>> constituency and has much too flawed a history to justify its being selected.
>
>In other words, sin
At 02:42 PM 7/18/99 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
>Jay, it was a hard lesson, but I've learned that nothing useful comes from
>engaging with you, so I don't plan to.
Can you *do* that ?
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.nethttp://www.m
Sunday, July 18, 1999, 9:02:00 AM, Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Yes. They certainly have that potential. What happens if the name
>>server owners band together and say "Stuff it"?
> Every scenario that I can envision (rewriting
> BIND, alternate roots, etc), will result in a
> f
Sunday, July 18, 1999, 8:54:33 AM, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any event my position, now, is that IDNO does not represent the stated
> constituency and has much too flawed a history to justify its being selected.
In other words, since the INDO will not explicitly support the C
Phil and all,
Ahhh! Good point here Phil. I hadn't actually thought of this.
thanks for the heads up here. >;)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There was this one quote in the article that was NOT properly attributed:
>
> | Its similar to a states Department of Motor vehicles allowing drivers t
>Nice deflection Joe, but could you answer the questions please?
>
>Gene Marsh
>
>At 02:42 PM 7/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >
yes Joe. Answer please> You have I assume nothing to hide? Has
Jones Day ever *invoiced* ICANN for
any services or any amount? mHas Jones Day ever *received* any monie
At 12:00 PM 7/18/99 -1200, you wrote:
>Dave,
>
>Should the USG reject the ICANN as NewCo, based solely on it's flawed
>History.
>
Yes.
++
Gene Marsh
president, anycastNET Incorporated
330-699-8106
Nice deflection Joe, but could you answer the questions please?
Gene Marsh
At 02:42 PM 7/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>
>___
>
>
> This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
>are not the in
___
This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
notify the sender b
Joop Teernstra wrote:
[...]
>Of course agonizing about cost, voters' fraud etc.has its own attractions.
>I am offering use of the site for the equivalent of the cost of my
>attending the Singapore, Berlin and Santiago meetings.
>Sounds fair?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--joop teernstra, IDNO bootstrap
>
> > Both ETSI and ITU fullfill these criteria that were discussed in
> > POISSON already sometime ago.
>
>The criteria are rigged. ETSI and the ITU are being made part of the
>PSO because they are signatories to the gTLD/MoU. The PSO is nothing
Michael,
They conveniently overlooked some things.
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from ["Roeland M.J. Meyer"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:05:03 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTE
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Dave Crocker
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 15:28:18 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun
Ben and all,
You have some good thoughts here that of course, have been discussed
many times before on this and other e-mail forums as well as within
sever publicly held corporations and some state governments in the
US that currently use Internet online voting today. (Florida, Texas, and
Minne
Dave,
Should the USG reject the ICANN as NewCo, based solely on it's flawed
History.
Should your friend's reject you solely for your own flawed History.
Find me fifty, no just find even one entity w/o some flawed History, and
I will revisit your argument.
Arnold Gehring
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun
> > I still believe that dishonesty of the voters is not the central problem
> > and that web based voting can easily be audited after an election in case
> > the results are challenged.
>
> The Committee disagreed. 99% of the voters may be honest, but the remaining 1%
> can do so much damage.
Diane and all,
Could you please explain in some detail how 1% of potential voters,
as you contend, could do "So much Damage"?
Diane Cabell wrote:
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > Thank you Diane. You had a password, so you could go inside. Did you
> > actually vote and observe what happens? You
William,
The problem is that the information on domain name holders is not
authoritative.
If I were the salesmen in the ICANN HQ intent on bringing home an order,
I could not ignore Kents critisism. On the political stage he, should be
ignored, however.
Did I not once many months ago, followin
All,
FYI. A very interesting and fact filled post from Jim Flemming...
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 Numbe
Now, crypto happens to be something I know a little
about ( http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/#crypto )
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
> Peer review of the code doesn't do the job at all, unfortunately.
> How do you know that the reviewed code is in fact the code being
I agree
At 12:45 PM 7/18/99 , Joe Sims wrote:
>Since neither the legal nor the pr folks are being paid, the comparison is
>not very meaningful, is it?
Hi Joe,
Thank you for a cleverly worded reply.
Perhaps, however, you could please clarify
the ambiguous content in your note:
Has Jones Day ever *i
At 12:45 PM 7/18/99 , Joe Sims wrote:
Since neither the legal nor the pr folks are
being paid, the comparison is
not very meaningful, is it? If there is no money, any amount is too
much.
Ah, but the big question, Joe, is whether they are still
billing -
especially while they are engaging in fund
___
This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
notify the sender b
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Dave Crocker
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:43:19 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 10:22:24AM -0400, Ben Edelman wrote:
> Joop wrote:
>
> > I still believe that dishonesty of the voters is not the central problem
> > and that web based voting can easily be audited after an election in case
> > the results are challenged.
>
> I'm no expert on membership
At 11:17 AM 7/18/99 , Diane Cabell wrote:
>Jay Fenello wrote:
>
>> At 09:47 AM 7/15/99 , Diane Cabell wrote:
>> >How would the registrar's agreement have any impact on the name
>> >servers?
>>
>> As I understand it . . .
>>
>> If ICANN gets its way, every registrant
>> receiving a domain name will
15 days and counting...
>Esther, Mike, Joe,
>
>Is there any particular ICANN view on efforts to set up alternative root
>systems? I'd figured that ICANN would be neutral on it--it's got a mandate
>to (eventually, if all proceeds a particular way) maintain and manage the
>contents of the legac
Jay Fenello wrote:
> At 09:47 AM 7/15/99 , Diane Cabell wrote:
> >How would the registrar's agreement have any impact on the name
> >servers?
>
> As I understand it . . .
>
> If ICANN gets its way, every registrant
> receiving a domain name will have to agree
> to the terms specified in the regis
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Dave Crocker
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 02:44:38 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun
At 08:51 PM 7/18/99 +1200, you wrote:
>No other constituency is meeting so much resistance and obstruction in
>finding recognition either.
> for the individual approach.
>
Well, not quite. The TLDA has met complete resistance as well.
>--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
>the Cyberspace
At 09:47 AM 7/15/99 , Diane Cabell wrote:
>How would the registrar's agreement have any impact on the name
>servers?
As I understand it . . .
If ICANN gets its way, every registrant
receiving a domain name will have to agree
to the terms specified in the registrar's
agreement.
Within that
Joop wrote:
> I still believe that dishonesty of the voters is not the central problem
> and that web based voting can easily be audited after an election in case
> the results are challenged.
I'm no expert on membership -- was only peripherally involved in Berkman's
Representation in Cyberspace
Jay Fenello a écrit:
>
> Why not hold it on the *INTERNET*!!!
Because CORE can't control the Internet.
Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
Tel. (212)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
I should have thought, when you had somebody who
> > has always believed that a voting system was against his interests
> >and works to discredit them at every turn and opportunity.
its time to apply the old adage, 'Better the devil you know than the
devil you dont.' If indeed
> > There is
Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 1999 at 08:14:55PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > Roberto and all,
> >
> > The IDNO constituency will prove to you and to ICANN that Tony is right.
> > Voting is now underway for a 21 member steering committee for the IDNO.
>
> OTOH, you railroaded David
Joop Teernstra wrote:
> Thank you Diane. You had a password, so you could go inside. Did you
> actually vote and observe what happens? You can still do so.
I tried the freebie site because the 48 hour voting limit had passed by the time
I got there.
> Actually our whole voters' roll has been a
Diane Cabell wrote:
>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:42:05 -0400
>From: Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose
>
>Joop's site is terrific. It's very clever and easy to navigate. It is a
very
>nice polling site. I estimate his cost for the three trips at around $4500.
At 06:00 PM 17/07/1999 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>It's not a legitimate constituency, in my opinion, and in the
>opinion of quite a few others. No other constituency flashes up a
>little "loyalty oath" when you try to join.
>
No other constituency is meeting so much resistance and obstructi
At 07:32 PM 17/07/1999 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>By the list owner:
>
>1. Enforcement of participation rules, post hoc and without documentation
>or group approval
>
Not true.
>2. Assertion of organizational goals which were without documentation and
>without group approval
>
Not true.
T
At 04:59 PM 17/07/1999 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>There was some question over his being removed from a list on the
>website of founding members. Kevin was asked for some clarification,
>which he never provided. But NO ONE removed him from the IDNO or the
>IDNO mailing lists.
>
Kevin is
> >Nobody was railroaded out. There was a short period when some hot-tempers
> >caused a few short-lived changes to the mail list. All members of the
> >IDNO are welcome on its mailing lists. But one should also not forget,
> >that like any other organization, the members are free to set the
>
74 matches
Mail list logo
