Wednesday, July 28, 1999, 11:55:42 PM, William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wednesday, July 28, 1999, 10:39:30 PM, Paul A Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> like i said earlier, there's an ethical rudder consideration, and a
>> moderate intelligence consideration, before i take on a c
Wednesday, July 28, 1999, 10:34:27 PM, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>>
>> I am not answering your question for Paul,
> You and William Walsh are irremediable morons. For the first time, I
> had engaged a root server operator in a serious discussion, and yo
Wednesday, July 28, 1999, 10:28:04 PM, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William X. Walsh a écrit:
>>
>> > Well, if you want us to chip in so we can pay you to post
>> > your important announcements here I suppose we probably
>> > could. How much were you thinking?
> That message of M
Wednesday, July 28, 1999, 10:39:30 PM, Paul A Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> are you folks sick of me yet? if so, you'll need to stop cc'ing me.
>> > > Well, if you want us to chip in so we can pay you to post
>> > > your important announcements here I suppose we probably
>> > > could. How
Paul and all,
Now Paul don't get carried away! LOL! I wasn't giving you any
career counseling of any sort. I was asking! Or did you miss the
question mark?
At any rate I had heard that you were having some difficulty at one point
not too long ago career wise form a fairly reliable source
Michael,
Get a grip on yourself! Sheeesh!
Michael Sondow wrote:
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > I am not answering your question for Paul,
>
> You and William Walsh are irremediable morons. For the first time, I
> had engaged a root server operator in a serious discussion, and you
> have sc
All,
Respectfully this application seems just a tad strange as well...
It
appears that this organization is yet another organization that
does not meet the criterion membership as it is NOT actually
a NON-COMMERCIAL, but rather is a NON-PROFIT company...
Again, could it be possible that this
are you folks sick of me yet? if so, you'll need to stop cc'ing me.
> > > Well, if you want us to chip in so we can pay you to post
> > > your important announcements here I suppose we probably
> > > could. How much were you thinking?
like i said earlier, there's an ethical rudder consideration
Milton and all,
Very good question here Milton, I would love to know more about this
"University" as well. After checking earlier today with the US consulate
in Korea and the US Board of Regents, they were "Puzzled" as
well regarding this "University" as well, as they had Never heard of it.
I
> I am not answering your question for Paul, but my guess is that
> Paul believes, now anyway, that the big companies is where the
> big money is. Am I close here Paul? >;) At any rate, I can't blame
> Paul for making this decision for himself at this juncture in his
> career
the number
Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> I am not answering your question for Paul,
You and William Walsh are irremediable morons. For the first time, I
had engaged a root server operator in a serious discussion, and you
have scared him off with your idiot postings. You two have destroyed
the credibility of
> > > Mr. Vixie, everyone who has a domain name is your client.
> >
> > Show me the money. ("I'm not in this for your revolution, man.")
>
> That's very funny, Mr. Vixie, but I don't believe it. I'll bet you
> aren't in this for the money. But, then, why would you do what the
> big money guys w
William X. Walsh a écrit:
>
> > Well, if you want us to chip in so we can pay you to post
> > your important announcements here I suppose we probably
> > could. How much were you thinking?
That message of Mr. Vixie's was addressed to me. You've scared him
off, just when we were getting somewhere
When NSI initiates legal action against the department of commerce,
the house of cards built by the clinton gore administration on the
commerce NTIA foundation will come crashing down. Pincus has been
warned that his assertions will not withstand the scrutiny of the
discovery process but he g
COMPUTERGRAM INTERNATIONAL: JULY 29 1999
Internet Editor: Nick Patience ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
+ FBI to Monitor Non-Military Networks for Terrorist Activity?
By Rachel Chalmers
The Clinton Administration has developed plans for a computer
monitoring system to be overseen by the FBI. The plan, wh
Karl,
> If you or NTIA can issue an order, contractual or otherwise, which
> obligates NSI to open the database under pain of legal penalties,
> then your or NTIA have control.
>
Ah, if you mean to say that one who has the power to back up
what they say, has _control_, then absolutely, I
Ellen and all,
Excellent comments and thoughts here Ellen! Touché! I would
add that it appears relatively evident that the ICANN "Outreach Program"
is without limbs to reach out with as it is hampered by lack of funding,
and what funding it did have it has squandered in bad decisions...
Most
William and all,
Shame on you WIlliam, suggesting that Paul would consider a bribe...
Tisk, Tisk!!!
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Wednesday, July 28, 1999, 5:59:44 PM, Richard J. Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At 05:29 PM 7/28/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >>> Mr. Vixie, everyone who has a doma
Michael and all,
I am not answering your question for Paul, but my guess is that
Paul believes, now anyway, that the big companies is where the
big money is. Am I close here Paul? >;) At any rate, I can't blame
Paul for making this decision for himself at this juncture in his
career
Mic
Pete Farmer wrote:
>For the record, of the 10 feedback comments to Mr. Cooper's op/ed piece, 6
>are "on Jay's side," 2 are pro-Dyson, and 2 offer no opinion. Of the 6 "on
>Jay's side," 4 are formatted normally.
>
>Reality check, Jay. Possibly you and Ellen pasted your replies, instead of
>typing
Wednesday, July 28, 1999, 5:59:44 PM, Richard J. Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 05:29 PM 7/28/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>> Mr. Vixie, everyone who has a domain name is your client.
>>
>>Show me the money. ("I'm not in this for your revolution, man.")
> Well, if you want us to chip in so we
Paul A Vixie wrote:
>
> > Mr. Vixie, everyone who has a domain name is your client.
>
> Show me the money. ("I'm not in this for your revolution, man.")
That's very funny, Mr. Vixie, but I don't believe it. I'll bet you
aren't in this for the money. But, then, why would you do what the
big mon
At 05:29 PM 7/28/99 -0700, you wrote:
>> Mr. Vixie, everyone who has a domain name is your client.
>
>Show me the money. ("I'm not in this for your revolution, man.")
Well, if you want us to chip in so we can pay you to post
your important announcements here I suppose we probably
could. How much
> Mr. Vixie, everyone who has a domain name is your client.
Show me the money. ("I'm not in this for your revolution, man.")
> Well, I hate to say this, but are you a member of the Poisson list?
No.
Paul A Vixie a écrit:
>
> None of my clients has told me that they read ifwp. I see them each
> regularly and they have other ways to make their needs known to me.
Mr. Vixie, everyone who has a domain name is your client.
> The other reason I don't do ifwp is that it's got some of the flaming
Michael and all.
Michael you pose some interesting points here.. Further elaboration
on some of those points stated/discussed below...
Michael Froomkin wrote:
> Ok. I'll try again.
>
> I assumed from your question that you were asking whether such a small
> group could reasonably claim reco
To: "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IAHC Suggested TLDs vs -DLDs selected by popular vote...
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:34:22 -0500
>@@@ http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html
>
>.firm
>.store
>.web
>.arts
>.rec
>.info
>.nom
>
>@
>
>10514 INC
Jay Fenello wrote:
> Curiously, only Ellen Rony's and my own
> comments are formatted to make them almost
> impossible to read!
>
> Jay.
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2298770,00.html
>
Jay,
I didn't have any problem reading your comments or Ellen's. I'm using
Netscape
For the record, of the 10 feedback comments to Mr. Cooper's op/ed piece, 6
are "on Jay's side," 2 are pro-Dyson, and 2 offer no opinion. Of the 6 "on
Jay's side," 4 are formatted normally. I
Reality check, Jay. Possibly you and Ellen pasted your replies, instead of
typing them directly? Poss
> However, it still is not necessarily true. Some time back in this
> thread I pointed out that Internet routing has in effect thousands of
> independent roots, the autonomous systems (ASs) which in combination
> are the Internet. Each AS has its own separate routing policy, each
> decides ind
Curiously, only Ellen Rony's and my own
comments are formatted to make them almost
impossible to read!
Jay.
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2298770,00.html
Talkback
Trademark conflict is the real ... - Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.
Amen Coop!! It is truly amazin... - Brad
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Insofar as you are commenting upon this, you seem to have missed my
> > narrow technical point. Roberto Gaetano asserted that an IP address
> > uniquely identifies a domain name. This is not true.
>
> Speaking about missing the points, I come ba
> I wonder if you would be willing to comment on the question of multiple roots.
> It's an idea which has recently been attracting renewed vigor in these crowds,
> and its supporters are so energetic, I sometimes wonder whether some new sort
> of alternate root launch is imminent. Outspoken advo
> Therefore, while if you pick up the phone and call a number you will get
> *always* to the same person, in the proposed system you type a domain name
> and you will get to a different domain *depending on how your system is
> configured*.
A couple of thoughts:
- The telephone system is evolv
>> Suppose that you want to reach the Yahoo site.
>> Under the current system ("legacy", if you want), with one root system, you
>> are sure to get it by typing http:\\www.yahoo.com.
>
>If they type that they won't get anywhere :)
>
>> If you have multiple roots, that point to different parts of
Wednesday, July 28, 1999, 7:08:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard,
>>
>> Hello. This has nothing to do with multiple roots.
>>
> Suppose that you want to reach the Yahoo site.
> Under the current system ("legacy", if you want), with one root system, you
> are sur
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Authentication-Warning: opsmail.internic.net: majordom set sender to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
>Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:29:19 -0700
>From: James Seng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Accept-Language: en,zh,zh-TW,zh-CN
>To: Robert Elz
Hi Paul,
Welcome to the discussion. There is some signal within this noise.
I wonder if you would be willing to comment on the question of multiple roots.
It's an idea which has recently been attracting renewed vigor in these crowds,
and its supporters are so energetic, I sometimes wonder wheth
Roberto and all,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Richard,
> >
> > Hello. This has nothing to do with multiple roots.
> >
>
> Suppose that you want to reach the Yahoo site.
> Under the current system ("legacy", if you want), with one root system, you
> are sure to get it by typing http:\\www.yahoo
All,
FYI. I thought that this would be VERY interesting reading. It seems
that the IETF is suggesting that the MoU now be modified
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Net
Richard and all,
Good point. We certainly know for certain that Roberto doesn't
at this juncture! >;)
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> Sombody ought to figure out what percentage of people in the
> DNSO actually know how DNS works. That might be important
> some day.
>
> --
> Richard Sexton | [
Roberto and all,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jim,
>
> You wrote (answering Mark's message):
> >
> > Insofar as you are commenting upon this, you seem to have missed my
> > narrow technical point. Roberto Gaetano asserted that an IP address
> > uniquely identifies a domain name. This is not true
> Well, I assume that you do whatever it is you do for some purpose,
> don't you? It's not just to amuse yourself, is it? So engaging in
> discussion once in a while with the beneficiaries of the service you
> provide, and not just with those who do it, seems to me to be a
> worthwhile idea. No bu
>(As an IP attorney, I have severe doubts that anything that has such a
>functional role as a gTLD would be subject to trademark protection, in the
same way
>that there is no copyright protection for functional components. But wadda
>I know?)
Might it depend on the business model? If you're o
Richard,
>
> Hello. This has nothing to do with multiple roots.
>
Suppose that you want to reach the Yahoo site.
Under the current system ("legacy", if you want), with one root system, you
are sure to get it by typing http:\\www.yahoo.com.
If you have multiple roots, that point to differen
Sombody ought to figure out what percentage of people in the
DNSO actually know how DNS works. That might be important
some day.
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.nethttp://www.mbz.orghttp://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ont
>The example was aimed at showing that while the telephone numbers are
>unique, domain names are not if we allow multiple independent roots.
Hello. This has nothing to do with multiple roots.
ns1 IN A 199.166.24.1
IN A 204.138.71.254
# nslookup ns1
Server: ns1.vrx.net
Jim,
You wrote (answering Mark's message):
>
> Insofar as you are commenting upon this, you seem to have missed my
> narrow technical point. Roberto Gaetano asserted that an IP address
> uniquely identifies a domain name. This is not true.
Speaking about missing the points, I come back to thi
48 matches
Mail list logo
