Sunday, July 25, 1999, 4:35:38 PM, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because some participants have no interest in a real consensus
> process. They will not discuss reasonably and they will not
> compromise. Hence, they wail and decry, but do not contribute
> constructively.
> These
Patrick,
You wrote:
>
> And if one continues to forward those posts to a list,
> wouldn't you agree
> that they are in fact aiding those with this unfortunate habit?
>
Maybe I did not make myself clear.
The example I had in mind was that the originator of the thread is
subscribed to each end
Measure how many individuals have participated in Internet mailing lists
about new domain names from a year before NSI began charging to
the creation of ICANN. Material is here: http://www.newdom.com/archive
(Icann chould have all lists arcived after they began).
Now estimate the amount of time p
>POSTEL: We need to separate forming the IANA organization and solving
>domain-name problems. We're going to get an organization formed whose
>overall structure [will include] the board and supervising the staff and so on.
>We're going to set up some committees under that structure, and one of tho
Michael,
> I am not a trust expert, but I'm instinctively dubious that this
> would work. You'd need to find someone who knew. My guess,
> though, is that the trustees would have great discretion, and only
> a court could review it -- and that it wouldn't want to...
It occurs to me that there
All,
Yet again we see the TROLL Diarrhea of the Keyboard from
"Dcrock". What a mess PU!
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 [EMAI
Richard and all,
Ohhh NOOO! We certianly don't want THIS
ICANN (Initial?) Interim
Board creating any "Neutral Technical Coordination Body"!!
It would only end up being populated of staffed by TROLLS of
one
flavor or another or POLICY WONKS that have NO idea of
what they
are doing or talking a
>How could this mess have happened?
It's an arrogance tax.
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.nethttp://www.mbz.orghttp://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
>The assistance of Jones-Day goes back considerably before the start
>of ICANN -- they were involved in the drafting of the original draft
>bylaws that were out for discussion during the entire IFWP process.
>Also, there have been at least two Jones-Day lawyers involved. I
>can't speak to the a
>ICANN could do better. But it doesn't even try.
Thats because we have a prejudicial part time ICANN doing
PR.
I'd love to see a full time neutral technical coordination
body. Somebody WILL create this, and it would be nice if
that sombody was ICANN.
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If the $500k covers fees pre-ICANN then who were the services rendered on
> behalf of (and who signed off on the retainer)? IANA? Then it's IANA's
> bill. Did ICANN pick up IANA's bills?
Good questions.
Certainly these debts are going to tie the hands of any sucessor boards of
ICANN who ma
On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 04:29:28PM -0400, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> If the $500k covers fees pre-ICANN then who were the services rendered on
> behalf of (and who signed off on the retainer)? IANA? Then it's IANA's
> bill. Did ICANN pick up IANA's bills?
I really don't know, Marty -- I was
martin and all,
Yes, they were supposed to...
Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> If the $500k covers fees pre-ICANN then who were the services rendered on
> behalf of (and who signed off on the retainer)? IANA? Then it's IANA's
> bill. Did ICANN pick up IANA's bills?
>
> At 11:41 AM 7/25/99 -070
Esther and all,
Yes Esther you noted this some time ago as well. And to date
there is still NO mechanism for members to realistically participate
in any meaningful manner. Couple this with you less than honest
testimony to the House Subcommittee, and it shows that you
and almost all of the me
Martin and all,
The part of Esthers opening statements that struck me a particularly
felonious and grossly disingenuous is a follows:
"Mr. Chairman, I regret that the title of today's hearing ("Is
ICANN Out of Control?") conveys an erroneous impression about what ICANN
is and what it is doing.
Saturday, July 24, 1999, 10:58:42 AM, Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To which I would add another type of IP
> -- that of the .com brand.
> It is no small matter that .com is the
> defacto namespace for commercial interests.
> That is a branding success, more than
> anything el
Actually, I seem to remember statements that the IANA stuff was all
pro-bono?
Should I dig them up from the archives?
"Martin B. Schwimmer" wrote:
>
> If the $500k covers fees pre-ICANN then who were the services rendered on
> behalf of (and who signed off on the retainer)? IANA? Then it's IAN
If the $500k covers fees pre-ICANN then who were the services rendered on
behalf of (and who signed off on the retainer)? IANA? Then it's IANA's
bill. Did ICANN pick up IANA's bills?
At 11:41 AM 7/25/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 12:23:46PM -0400, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
Thanks. Noted!
Esther
At 01:21 PM 20/07/99 +1200, 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 administe
Indeed. Any volunteers?
"Martin B. Schwimmer" wrote:
>
> 500 thou divided by $350 is 1428 billable hours, divided by 8 (normal
> billing day) is approx 178. There have been only about 200 working days
> since ICANN was formed in October. Should've hired in-house if you need
> all day every da
Michael Froomkin wrote:
> My assumption, on which I would welcome your comments, is that many (not
> all, but enough) foreign courts would enforce a US third party
> beneficiary theory if the agremeent specified a particular US state as
> the governing law of the agreement. I would have expecte
On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 11:39:49AM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> For all your hand waving, it still holds true, for the price of a single
> share of common stock in NSI, one obtains more real voice in the affairs
> of NSI than one has in all of the land of ICANN.
Tell you what, Karl. You use
On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 12:23:46PM -0400, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> 500 thou divided by $350 is 1428 billable hours, divided by 8 (normal
> billing day) is approx 178. There have been only about 200 working days
> since ICANN was formed in October. Should've hired in-house if you need
> all d
For all your hand waving, it still holds true, for the price of a single
share of common stock in NSI, one obtains more real voice in the affairs
of NSI than one has in all of the land of ICANN.
And it is absurd to for you to assert that ICANN's trivial, nearly vacuous
disclosures are comparable
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I think the list owner has been far too giving of
> > his time in
> > forwarding posts from non-members to the list.
> >
> > If one wishes to post to the list, then one should be a member.
> >
>
> You
http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/99/133801.html
ICANN Nixed Deal To Bolster NSI Control Of Registry
By David McGuire, Newsbytes
WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A.,
23 Jul 1999, 3:24 PM CST
The cash-strapped Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) several months ago rejected a
My assumption, on which I would welcome your comments, is that many (not
all, but enough) foreign courts would enforce a US third party
beneficiary theory if the agremeent specified a particular US state as
the governing law of the agreement. I would have expected Canadian
courts to do this -- wo
I am not a trust expert, but I'm instinctively dubious that this would
work. You'd need to find someone who knew. My guess, though, is that
the trustees would have great discretion, and only a court could review
it -- and that it wouldn't want to. I also suspect that it might be one
thing to ha
500 thou divided by $350 is 1428 billable hours, divided by 8 (normal
billing day) is approx 178. There have been only about 200 working days
since ICANN was formed in October. Should've hired in-house if you need
all day every day legal assistance.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
On 25 July 1999, Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>
>At this point, what the Net needs is a more distributed DNS, one that has
>no single control point. What we have instead is ICANN, which is
>attempting to control not just the domain name system but the entire
>Internet. There is
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Weisberg wrote:
> It is incredible that anyone should have to restate this basic principle
> of our discourse.
>
> Dan Steinberg wrote:
>
> > it's really simple:
> > If any listmember finds another member's posting unpleasant, a waste
> > of bytes, boring, etc. then in the
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> Personally, I think the list owner has been far too giving of
> his time in
> forwarding posts from non-members to the list.
>
> If one wishes to post to the list, then one should be a member.
>
You are right, in principle, but the problem comes often from the unh
>Yet more nonsense. We don't have yet have ANYTHING AT ALL in the way
>of Internet Governance. In fact what we have is a tiny, underfunded,
>powerless, non-profit being pushed by the USG against a ruthless and
>clever monopoly with a huge wad of monopoly cash and an army of
>lawyers and lobbyist
On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 12:13:35AM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > Earth to Karl: You get as many votes in NSI as MONEY CAN BUY.
> > *Every* vote in NSI is a BOUGHT vote. There is no required
> > representative structure whatsoever. Furthermore, the only entities
> > that have meaningful pow
>Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 00:49:46 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [IFWP] this list
>
>http://metalab.unc.edu/mdw/HOWTO/mini/Advocacy-6.html
>
>Should we think about something like this?
>
>I note on orsc we used the msggroup rules and they
>havn't been particul
35 matches
Mail list logo
