Greg,
Add also the EC Panel of Participants.
Roberto
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 July 1999 5:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] ICANN's "Internet Community" - Fact and Fancy
>
>
> I actually meant to include
At 10:10 PM 20/07/1999 -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
>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 a
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 legac
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
>=
Michael,
"InterplaNETary Commander"? Has he been demoted from "God of the Known
Universe"?
++
Gene Marsh
president, anycastNET Incorporated
330-699-8106
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 li
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.
Esther,
I have tried on several occasions to re-establish some form of
communication with you and ICANN. You have committed to me your response
on several issues, but have ignored my requests and your commitments.
I ask again publicly for you to address, directly, the following questions:
- Wh
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
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.
> Sondow's choice of language when he attacked you for your internet
> for everyone RFC was very
>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.
>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 23:26:34 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue
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 publ
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.
At 10:55 PM 7/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>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
Uh, yeah, I was gonna say som
>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 PROTECTE
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 Amend
> 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 to
> implement an evident consensus among pa
>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
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 o
>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
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 have
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 members
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 i
>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 PROTECTE
>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 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: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:14:57 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue
>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
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 myse
At 02:36 PM 7/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>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.
>
And? Which is?
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
All,
One may want to take into account that Mr. Walsh has on many
occasions
made unsubstantiated false claims towards Mr. Sondow.
As he has
done on many other occasions on various mailing lists towards others.
As such, it might be of reasonable interest to consider such remarks
in this post fr
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.
Karl Auerbach a écrit:
>
> > Also disturbing is this comment from Esther Dyson's letter to B
> ... 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".
If constituencies were truely "self organizing" than there should be any
number of them, they should be born, and they should die, as people form
them or l
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 Americ
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. Wals
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 ther
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 sup
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
> 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 di
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
>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
>> "co
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
The Commerce and Judiciary Committees have agreed to allow the Berkman
Center to webcast their respective upcoming subcommittee hearings on the
mornings of the 22nd and 28th. We'll have extra RealServer capacity ready
to handle the expected surge of traffic, and we hope many of you will join
us.
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 peo
> > 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.
>
> What about corporate ho
>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 PROTECTE
> 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 cle
> > 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 feedba
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 intende
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 inf
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
http://kil
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
"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.
--greg
"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 s
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 administrat
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 consid
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,
> Informati
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
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.
What about
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
62 matches
Mail list logo
