According to News.com, the following witnesses will
testify at Thursday's hearing on the Domain Name
System Privatization: Is ICANN Out of Control?
http://www.house.gov/commerce/schedule.htm
America Online,
Information Technology Association of America,
Internet Corporation for
Tuesday, July 20, 1999, 12:20:04 AM, Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to News.com, the following witnesses will
testify at Thursday's hearing on the Domain Name
System Privatization: Is ICANN Out of Control?
http://www.house.gov/commerce/schedule.htm
America Online,
Weisberg wrote:
2) You need a dry run (probably more) under any circumstance. Practicing on
live patients is malpractice. I suggested an election over new TLDs because I
thought it would bring out a preponderance of the potential voters (and
problems). Even if not binding, it would be
Joop Teernstra wrote:
This was also the concept of my model for NewCo membership.
I agree with Ellen, that there is much merit in the idea of limiting ICANN
membership to the assigned name and number stakeholders.
I suspect this idea will find sympathy in Joe Sims ear too. g
What about
and this is a wonderful example of why the constituency process is
totally flawed. ICANN was told this weren't they?
On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 04:00:30PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
Kent Crispin wrote:
Agreed. Incidentally, I signed up to be a member of IDNO a couple
of days
JESUS.five against one in the definites... scary..
According to News.com, the following witnesses will
testify at Thursday's hearing on the Domain Name
System Privatization: Is ICANN Out of Control?
http://www.house.gov/commerce/schedule.htm
America Online,
Information
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:58:58PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
Monday, July 19, 1999, 10:31:38 PM, Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, I sure did.
OK, then it will get forwarded to the membership committee. I assure
you, as I stated before, the committee will consider it on
Diane Cabell wrote:
Joop Teernstra wrote:
I agree with Ellen, that there is much merit in the idea of limiting ICANN
membership to the assigned name and number stakeholders.
What about corporate holders? Should they be permitted to vote in the at-large?
Beware of administrative
"A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As it turns out, ICANN actually has an official
"Community Feedback" site that contains an archive of
all the "reflections of community consensus." It's the
only site, and it's at http://www.icann.org/feedback.html
I wouldn't go so far as to say
"William X. Walsh" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Come on now Patrick, you know that they mean consensus from the CORE,
ISOC, and Trademark interests.
Indeed. As others have pointed out, users, small business owners,
independent domain owners (holders), etc. have been left out thus
far.
--gregbo
I actually meant to include the poised list as an example of a place
where I have seen a good amount of support for ICANN as well.
--gregbo
At 08:00 AM 7/20/99 -0700, you wrote:
I actually meant to include the poised list as an example of a place
where I have seen a good amount of support for ICANN as well.
--gregbo
How many people is that ?
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
At 07:43 AM 7/16/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jay Fenello wrote:
More biased coverage from News.com:
What exactly do you reproach to the coverage?
If it is the part where he pretends that the NSI critics and the Registrars
have not been invited to testify, do you have different information?
Comments on the proposed ICANN by-laws change:
The Internet community is invited to make comments on the proposed
Amendments. Comments should be emailed to
http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-dnso/maillist.html.
The following proposed Amendments to the ICANN Bylaws are intended
As it turns out, ICANN actually has an official
"Community Feedback" site that contains an archive of
all the "reflections of community consensus." It's the
only site, and it's at http://www.icann.org/feedback.html
I wouldn't go so far as to say that ICANN's community feedback site
I actually meant to include the poised list as an example of a place
where I have seen a good amount of support for ICANN as well.
Actually if you read the Poised list (I am a former co-chairman of the
IETF Poised working group) you will find that the IETF support for ICANN
is not at all
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: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:17:16 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul
This was also the concept of my model for NewCo membership.
I agree with Ellen, that there is much merit in the idea of limiting ICANN
membership to the assigned name and number stakeholders.
I suspect this idea will find sympathy in Joe Sims ear too. g
What about corporate holders?
Karl Auerbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually if you read the Poised list (I am a former co-chairman of the
IETF Poised working group) you will find that the IETF support for ICANN
is not at all clear or unqualified.
I don't think I said anything to the contrary. There are several people
Frankly, it's amazing to watch the politics
involved in selecting the witnesses for the
upcoming hearings.
Thankfully, I have information that suggests
that the details as reported yesterday by
News.com are not correct.
Jay.
At 09:21 AM 7/20/99 , Gordon Cook wrote:
JESUS.five against
Monday, July 19, 1999, 7:25:21 PM, Patrick Greenwell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Bill Lovell wrote:
Wow! Sounds like [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there consensus here?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
All kidding aside, Tony raises an extremely valid point: Where is all this
"consensus" that
Joop Teernstra wrote:
Ellen Rony wrote:
Economies don't vote. Individuals do.
MAC presented ICANN with an unworkable solution--a membership too grand and
vague to be authenticated without great cost.
ICANN is tasked to administer names and addresses. Its stakeholders are
those who
Also disturbing is this comment from Esther Dyson's letter to Becky Burr:
This Board personifies effective
consensus decision-making, and many of its members feel that losing the
ability to discuss matters in decisional meetings in private will adversely
affect the candor of those
Tuesday, July 20, 1999, 1:46:23 PM, Michael Sondow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joop Teernstra wrote:
Ellen Rony wrote:
Economies don't vote. Individuals do.
MAC presented ICANN with an unworkable solution--a membership too grand and
vague to be authenticated without great cost.
ICANN
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:58:58PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
Monday, July 19, 1999, 10:31:38 PM, Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- snip -
No, I don't agree to that offensive loyalty oath. I simply ignored it.
So you do not support the principles
Eric and all,
Compleatly agreed. This has been the basic principal that the INEGroup
has supported from the very beginning... It remains so...
Good point, although restated, Erick! ;)
Weisberg wrote:
Diane Cabell wrote:
Joop Teernstra wrote:
I agree with Ellen, that there is much
Greg and all,
Agreed. This has been mainly due to the ICANN's either
gross inability
of their "Outreach" program, or the "Outreach" program is more of
a "Dog and pony show" for the NTIA to give the APPEARANCE
of reaching out to the stakeholder community
Greg Skinner wrote:
"William X.
Jay Fenello a écrit:
According to News.com, the following witnesses will
testify at Thursday's hearing on the Domain Name
System Privatization: Is ICANN Out of Control?
http://www.house.gov/commerce/schedule.htm
America Online,
Information Technology Association of America,
Michael and all,
Michael Sondow wrote:
Jay Fenello a écrit:
According to News.com, the following witnesses will
testify at Thursday's hearing on the Domain Name
System Privatization: Is ICANN Out of Control?
http://www.house.gov/commerce/schedule.htm
America Online,
Karl Auerbach a écrit:
... Was it because you wanted to split the user...
It is an interesting notion that there can only be one of any kind of
"constituency".
I never suggested any such thing. As you may recall, I was an ardent
supporter of the Paris draft, and even flatter myself
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Diane Cabell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:36:12 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 20
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: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:14:57 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 20
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: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:18:48 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul
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: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:49:40 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul
At 04:46 PM 20/07/1999 -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
Joop Teernstra wrote:
Ellen Rony wrote:
Economies don't vote. Individuals do.
MAC presented ICANN with an unworkable solution--a membership too grand
and
vague to be authenticated without great cost.
ICANN is tasked to administer
Joop Teernstra a écrit:
When did I oppose that? Is that not the formulation of the Paris Draft,
that I supported?
No, I distinctly recall the ICIIU criterion - that only domain name
holders become members - was repudiated by all and sundry.
Anyway, Ellen was talking about ICANN
here is the private message I sent vint cerf on friday may 14 before
dawn us time and written in st petersburg Russia before dawn US time
-- I never received a response.
Hi Vint,
do you remember Bill Marmon asking you (about 8 weeks ago) if you
would defend ICANN in
a dialogue with me? I
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: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 21:15:45 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 20
Karl wrote,
I question how this "evident consensus" was ascertained. There
has been no "consensus count" or clearly stated question on this matter.
I do suspect that if such a consensus count were to be made, the answer
would be conform to the asserted consensus.
However, I must object
Equally disturbing is why the Commerce Committee has refused to
permit anyone to speak at their hearing who has the integrity and
courage to say these things in public. The cover-up for ICANN
continues.
Gee, thanks
Tuesday, July 20, 1999, 8:02:01 PM, Bret A. Fausett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Internet community is invited to make comments on the proposed
Amendments. Comments should be emailed to
http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-dnso/maillist.html.
The following proposed Amendments to
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: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:43:13 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul
Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit:
I kinda disagree. I supported it.
That's true. I remember you did.
Not many of us supported it, as I recall. I brought it up in
the early IDNO talks too. The issue is future DN holders, those who
don't yet have a DN.
They join when they get a domain name.
Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit:
I kinda disagree. I supported it.
That's true. I remember you did.
Not many of us supported it, as I recall. I brought it up in
the early IDNO talks too. The issue is future DN holders, those who
don't yet have a DN.
They join when they get a domain name.
Sounds then like you are testifying, Mikki? glad to hear
thiswhy have they been so quiet about who is to appear?
Equally disturbing is why the Commerce Committee has refused to
permit anyone to speak at their hearing who has the integrity and
courage to say these things in public.
Gordon Cook wrote:
here is the private message I sent vint cerf on friday may 14 before
dawn us time and written in st petersburg Russia before dawn US time
-- I never received a response.
big snip
Sondow's choice of language when he attacked you for your internet
for everyone RFC was
Mikki Barry a écrit:
Equally disturbing is why the Commerce Committee has refused to
permit anyone to speak at their hearing who has the integrity and
courage to say these things in public. The cover-up for ICANN
continues.
Gee, thanks
Sorry, I wrote that before I saw that you'd
At 11:38 PM 7/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
Sounds then like you are testifying, Mikki? glad to hear
thiswhy have they been so quiet about who is to appear?
I'm on the schedule. I may still be bumped.
I hope not. It would be interesting if you were bumped and others allowed
to testify.
Good
Gene and all,
Don't feel alone in the fact that Esther Dyson and the ICANN
Interim Board's lack of honoring it's commitments. It is not
a singular event nor are you or Diabold being necessarily singled out
in this respect form Esther Dyson or the ICANN in general.
The archives of several
Michael,
"InterplaNETary Commander"? Has he been demoted from "God of the Known
Universe"?
++
Gene Marsh
president, anycastNET Incorporated
330-699-8106
At 11:25 PM 7/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
They join when they get a domain name. Simple.
Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
Tel. (212)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
17 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 legacy
52 matches
Mail list logo
