[IFWP] Re: Novell and "the Net"

Jim and all, What amazes me is how Esther Dyson ever got on the list of "Administrators" of F.root-servers.net? She has a difficult enough time figuring out how to configure her PC Reference: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin/archive/jun-murai-pres/sld003.htm It seems to me that

[IFWP] Re: WIRED: NetSol Irks Admins, Again

William and all,   It seems that William is overreacting just a bit here with this article url reference.  In that very article it is clear that NSI is working on the problem: Excerpt: "Nancy Huddleston, an NSI spokeswoman,  confirmed there were problems with the system  but said they were "being

[IFWP] ICANN position on multiple roots

24 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

Re: [IFWP] DNSO Names Council Webcast - July 27, 1999

Ben and all, What is the phone number fo the call? You information provided below does not list a call in number... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The Berkman Center for Internet and Society will > broadcast the Names Council Teleconference Call > tomorrow at 9:30AM Eastern Time. The feed will

[IFWP] DNSO Names Council Webcast - July 27, 1999

The Berkman Center for Internet and Society will broadcast the Names Council Teleconference Call tomorrow at 9:30AM Eastern Time. The feed will be available at and archives will be made available immediately after the call ends. The agenda of the meeting

[IFWP] GOP to visit I-270 hi techs on tour

IDNO'ers and all,   See: http://cnnfn.com/news/technology/newsbytes/133814.html Excerpt of particular note: House Majority Leader Dick  Armey, R-Texas, is pushing the House GOP  "e-contract," while 63 House Democrats in the New  Democrat Coalition this month touted to the press  their "e-genda."

Re: [IFWP] USG to Netsol : Open Whois Database

> ibm.com was registered in 1986. What is the scope of NSI's claim to the > data relating to that domain? The point about 5 USC 552a has to do with US government databases containing personally identifiable information, such as the names of the tech/admin/billing contacts. (And 5 USC 552a was

Re: [IFWP] USG to Netsol : Open Whois Database

Karl and all, I wholly agree with your comments here Karl. Well stated and outlined. It is simply beyond reasonable consideration or NSI to comply, as they would be dammed if they did, and dammed if they didn't. Catch22, so to speak. It appears that the NTIA is again showing it's ineptness

Re: [IFWP] USG to Netsol : Open Whois Database

ibm.com was registered in 1986. What is the scope of NSI's claim to the data relating to that domain? At 05:30 PM 7/26/99 -0700, you wrote: > >> U.S. Tells Network Solutions To Open Database >> >> http://news.excite.com/news/r/990726/17/net-tech-networksolutions > >If the US can order NSI (or

Re: [IFWP] USG to Netsol : Open Whois Database

So Karl, how much are you going to sell that letter to NSI for? In all seriousness, this issue has been on the table for a while and DoC was warned about the implications (by me and a few others). That they choose this moment to play hardball and that they choose to play using a broken bat is

Re: [IFWP] USG to Netsol : Open Whois Database

> U.S. Tells Network Solutions To Open Database > > http://news.excite.com/news/r/990726/17/net-tech-networksolutions If the US can order NSI (or anyone) to publish the contents of the whois database or to order the database to be transferred over NSI's objection, then the US has "control" of t

[IFWP] Foundation To Help Public Benefit From Web

http://news.excite.com/news/r/990726/14/net-internet-foundation

[IFWP] USG to Netsol : Open Whois Database

U.S. Tells Network Solutions To Open Database http://news.excite.com/news/r/990726/17/net-tech-networksolutions -- William X. Walsh General Manager, DSo Internet Services Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934

[IFWP] Re: Regarding the PSO - Additional comments/concerns

Fred Hardie and all, In addition to Fred's remarks and/or comments, I would like to add that I have some serious concerns that the PSO does not contain a General Assembly or membership as part of it's structure. This seems to me to be both relevant and necessary for the PSO to consider... [EM

[IFWP] Re: (INTA) Press coverage of NSI directory od domain names

Press coverage regarding NSI's new Dot Com Directory, a product based in part, apparently, on the Whois database: http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,1087,3_168401,00.html See also today's NY Times. It is reported that NSI will provide a directory listing at no extra charge for DN re

Re: [IFWP] The Untold Story! - A more realistic view (See Talkback section)

All, Also for a more realistic view that compliments Jays comments here see the Talkback section on the referenced article.. Examples: http://www.zdnet.com/tlkbck/comment/22/0,7056,61445-201488,00.html http://www.zdnet.com/tlkbck/comment/22/0,7056,61445-201175,00.html Please also add your c

Re: [IFWP] The Untold Story!

Jay and all, I agree with Jay here completely. Charles, you really need to get a grip on the realities of the current situation with the ICANN and the stakeholder community. Cutting Esther a break, if what many of us have tried to do and she just took gross unfair and unrealistic liberties wi

[IFWP] The Untold Story!

Hello Charles, I take great exception with your article "Cut Esther Dyson a break!" More comments below: Excerpts from: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2298770,00.html >Cut Esther Dyson a break! >By Charles Cooper, ZDNet News >July 21, 1999 4:30 PM PT > >Hardly a week g

Re: [IFWP] how do you get to $500,000 since last October?

Michael and all, Agreed. Quite ironic! It also appears that either Joe Sims was either incorrect in his assertion at that time, or that Kent Crispin, as per usual has no idea what he is talking about, or both... You be the judge... Michael Froomkin wrote: > That's strange. When I raised an

[IFWP] vix

Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: lists Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:01:42 -0700 From: Paul A Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> no. ifwp is worthless to me. > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL

[IFWP] Re: NCDNHC Application and Information Form

Randy and all, Also in conjunction with Randy's statements. It is difficult to see where New York University could consider itself a NON-COMMERCIAL organization, to say the least. Randy Bush wrote: > > 3. How is it that you have come to represent the Organization in this > > Constituen

Re: [IFWP] re: F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET is no longer open for AXFR of COM,NET

> >i thought i'd posted this to namedroppers but i never saw it there and > >folks are asking, so... > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: re: F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET is no longer open for AXFR of COM, NET, or ORG > >Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:16:05 -0700 > >From: Paul A Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >

[IFWP] Pacifica

>http://www.pacifica.org/board/docs/pr990720.html > >"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service..." The parallels, as somebody mentioned, are striking. -- Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone http://killifish.vrx.nethttp://www.mbz.orghttp://lists.aq

RE: [IFWP] $1 per name fee?

> > On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Ivan Pope wrote: > > > One of my fears at the beginning of the process was that > ICANN would expand > > to soak up all available resources, and then would go > looking for more. > > Which is exactly what it started doing with the so called > 'not more than $1 > > p

Re: [IFWP] $1 per name fee?

On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Ivan Pope wrote: > One of my fears at the beginning of the process was that ICANN would expand > to soak up all available resources, and then would go looking for more. > Which is exactly what it started doing with the so called 'not more than $1 > per name' fee. It is not

[IFWP] re: F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET is no longer open for AXFR of COM, NET, or ORG

>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Authentication-Warning: opsmail.internic.net: majordom set sender to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: re: F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET is no longer open for AXFR of COM, NET, or ORG >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 20:

Re: [IFWP] Good research project for somebody

At 07:58 AM 7/26/99 -0700, you wrote: >Craig Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Sounds appealing to me, except that we'd need to review archives prior >> to Sep '95, and I don't see any of those at the sites available through >> your links. > >I believe there was some pre-9/95 discussion of new

Re: [IFWP] Good research project for somebody

Craig Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sounds appealing to me, except that we'd need to review archives prior > to Sep '95, and I don't see any of those at the sites available through > your links. I believe there was some pre-9/95 discussion of new domain names on the namedroppers list. --gr

Re: [IFWP] how do you get to $500,000 since last October?

On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 11:27:25PM +0100, Michael Froomkin wrote: > That's strange. When I raised anti-trust questions to Joe Sims a while > ago (in the context of whether ICANN's suggestions that the registries > should voluntarily club together and have identical dispute policies) he > assured

Re: [IFWP] Good research project for somebody

The only thing I know of prior to 95 was four messages in the 1977 MSGGRP. At 07:39 AM 7/26/99 -0400, you wrote: >Sounds appealing to me, except that we'd need to review archives prior >to Sep '95, and I don't see any of those at the sites available through >your links. > >Craig > >"Richard J. S

Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] ICANN Membership

At 03:49 PM 25/07/1999 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote: >Thanks. Noted! > Esther, I hope that my agreement with Ellen on the point of ICANN membership does not lead you to the conclusion that the IDNO constituency could now be replaced with promises of Individual membership voting for ICANN directors

Re: [IFWP] Good research project for somebody

Sounds appealing to me, except that we'd need to review archives prior to Sep '95, and I don't see any of those at the sites available through your links. Craig "Richard J. Sexton" wrote: > > Measure how many individuals have participated in Internet mailing lists > about new domain names from

Re: [IFWP] how do you get to $500,000 since last October?

That's strange. When I raised anti-trust questions to Joe Sims a while ago (in the context of whether ICANN's suggestions that the registries should voluntarily club together and have identical dispute policies) he assured me the issues were clear-cut and there were no problems. (Alas, for some r

[IFWP] $1 per name fee?

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 23 July 1999 23:32 > What was posted for comment is at > http://www.icann.org/draftguidelines.html (8 Feb 1999) > > "...Under the proposal, accredited registrars would pay the variable > component month