At 08:13 AM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
Concerning the following stuff below, much of this discussion
intermingles structure and function without distinguishing one
from the other. Is a root server a piece of hardware, i.e., a
piece of the structure, that can be privately owned? Indeed,
yes. Doe
Antony and all,
And ICANN is behaving like a 400 lb flatulence producer. It is in need
of a frontal lobotomy and a couple of gallons of malox, while the rest
of us need gas masks and several spray cans of air freshener...
The Blind leading the clueless, blowing paint pealing farts all over
Oh please, some fat-trimming all around is indicated.
NSI is a million-pound gorilla in need of liposuction, not to mention
prozac.
BUT ... on the other side of the pond, someone certainly needs to look into
the cozy little arrangements in Europe - now what exactly are the
requirements to becom
I think Ronda Hauben, on the one hand, and Gordon Cook and Gene Marsh,
on the other, are talking past each other. There is one distinct difference
between ITU rules and RFCs, of course, and that is that the ITU is an
international body subscribed to by national governments, while RFCs
grew out of
At 03:05 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>It can be yours, but it still isn't private if it is part of
>the Internet.
>
>If you want a private network, have your private network.
>
Oh Rhonda, give it up. Revisionist history, or that based on bent opinion,
does not work anymore. You might want t
That doesn't prove anything. It's just somebodies opinion.
It is possible to point to the legal language that
defines public resources... not so with usenet
because it doesn't exist.
Show me where is says the internet was created as a public
resource. Or, if it was created as a private resource,
Gene Marsh a écrit:
>
> In a previous message I drew this exact corollary. There are many
> parallels, some of them not so inviting (much of the amateur radio spectrum
> has been whittled away under the current administration).
Natch. No profit from those pesky amateurs, and they clog up the
ai
Jim Dixon wrote:
>
> Correction:
>
> Christopher Wilkinson has to the best of my knowledge never been a
> member of CORE.
> At the same time he has also been a member of the gTLD MOU's Policy
> Advisory Committee (the POC) for the past year and a half. The POC
> sets policy for CORE.
Quite
Richard Sexton wrote about public computer networks:
> Prove it.
Here's the discussion of why Usenet was a public network:
>From Chapter 10 "Netizens: On the History and Impact of
Usenet and the Internet" http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/
-
Usenet as a Public Computer Users Network
At 07:22 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
>A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>>
>> I'm more than familiar with those struggles.
>> This why you want to avoid the characterization
>> of being a public resource - and why conversely
>> the GAC has adopted an international agreement
>> stating Internet Name and Numbe
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>
> I'm more than familiar with those struggles.
> This why you want to avoid the characterization
> of being a public resource - and why conversely
> the GAC has adopted an international agreement
> stating Internet Name and Number systems are
> public resources. Being a p
At 07:21 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>The router at our local public library, which is paid for by taxpayer
>>dollars and, therefore, is owned by the public (and there are many examples
>>of this).
>
>Ok, show me how, I as a memebr of the public affect policy concerning
>this router.
>
Ahhh, tha
>The router at our local public library, which is paid for by taxpayer
>dollars and, therefore, is owned by the public (and there are many examples
>of this).
Ok, show me how, I as a memebr of the public affect policy concerning
this router.
This program posts news to thousands of machines thr
At 06:04 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>That unique history includes a standards setting procedure of RFC's.
>
>That is the basis to determine the law that will govern the Internet.
>
Rhonda, are you kidding here? The RFC's have NOTHING to do with Internet
governance. RFC's have no law-providin
At 05:58 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>>Its disappointing Gordon that you make fun rather than try to understand
>>>the distinction being made and try to help to clarify rather
>>>than obfuscate.
>>
>>Ronda, it is you who obfuscates but assuming you know more about
>>international telecommunicati
yeah right Ronda. sigh
this take the cake for the most inane and stupidest thing i have ever
heard you say... and if you r eally don kn ow that I am not a fan of
the itu then you are not only naive but stupid.. find me an
knowledgable lawyer that suppost the tripe about r fcs as a
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:
> Jim Dixon a écrit:
> >
> > My usual disclaimer: I don't think that the Commission should be taking
> > action against NSI at this time. I think that DG IV has been given bad
> > advice by elements elsewhere in the Commission who have a vested interest
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 3 17:13:43 1999
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579DE18C42
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:13:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Po
>>Its disappointing Gordon that you make fun rather than try to understand
>>the distinction being made and try to help to clarify rather
>>than obfuscate.
>
>Ronda, it is you who obfuscates but assuming you know more about
>international telecommunications law and policy development than tony.
>
Jim Dixon a écrit:
>
> My usual disclaimer: I don't think that the Commission should be taking
> action against NSI at this time. I think that DG IV has been given bad
> advice by elements elsewhere in the Commission who have a vested interest
> in ICANN.
Christopher Wilkinson, member of CORE.
>
>Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Oh my god, so ronda as the denizen of usenet can't see the
> >telecommunications world except through USEnet glasses too funny
>
>Its disappointing Gordon that you make fun rather than try to understand
>the distinction being made and try to help
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 3 15:54:10 1999
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BE318C1B
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:54:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Po
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 02:49:04PM -0400, Planet Communications Computing Facility
>wrote:
> > Hello Kent:
> >
> > Some time ago you made the comment:
> >
> > "ANYONE can set up a private TLD, and that has no more significance
> > concerning the IANA root ser
Jeff and all,
Agreed. I wasn't intimating that you specifically had a
fear of
government, especially ours. However I was intimating that the
GAC
and ICANN DO have such a fear.
Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote:
Hello:
I appreciate the support. It's not at issue that I fear the g
>This is in contradiction to claims made by some that since they have
>what they call a functioning registry they can legally force their
>way into the IANA root.
Did Becky changed her name to IANA or something ?
This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire
civilized
>This issue came up on early Usenet and got clarified.
Where ?
>Those sites that wanted to be private, couldn't be on Usenet.
>
>Once one was on Usenet, one announced one's site, agreed
>to be part of the communication with others etc.
>
>Usenet was a public entity.
Nope. Usenet is a common pri
Occasionally Tom Friedman gets the picture:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/friedman/073099frie.html
July 30, 1999
FOREIGN AFFAIRS / By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
The New Human Rights
In this post-totalitarian world, the human rights debate needs an
update. While America
Oh my god, so ronda as the denizen of usenet can't see the
telecommunications world except through USEnet glasses too funny
why can't you get it through you head ronda that Tony is talking
international telecommunications *LAW* as defined by the ITU and by
governments which are obliged to
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 02:49:04PM -0400, Planet Communications Computing Facility
wrote:
> Hello Kent:
>
> Some time ago you made the comment:
>
> "ANYONE can set up a private TLD, and that has no more significance
> concerning the IANA root servers than the claims of the vario
Hello:
I appreciate the support. It's not at issue that I fear the government.
The only issue I see here is that governments officials must be well
behavied and refrain from such arrogant behaviour. Government are our
friends, and Dr. Tooney's comments make them look evil and i'll kept.
On Tue
Jeff and all,
I can see your point. I tend to agree to the extent that
people that are afraid
of government, shouldn't be, at least not in the US anyway. But
some seem
to be in instances where some regulation is involved. However
the USG is
at least accountable to the voters, that can't be s
"A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dear Rhonda,
>>And the Internet isn't "private computer networks".
>>...
>>The Internet is an internetworking of networks -- that is
>I have juxtaposed two of your sentences. One of the
>constituent networks - 206.5.17.0 - is mine. I assure,
>it is
Hello Kent:
Some time ago you made the comment:
"ANYONE can set up a private TLD, and that has no more significance
concerning the IANA root servers than the claims of the various militia
groups concerning US territory."
Kent Crispin, Chairman, gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Bo
Hello:
The comments made by Dr. Tooney concern me, he sounds a bit like a mafiosi
less the dentures. It's critical that government refrain from threatening
comments.
Regards
Jeff Mason
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Jeff and all,
>
> Jeff, Paul Toomey is frequently using these
Mark and all,
Excellent rebuff of the Generalisimo.
I believe though I do not know that Generalisimo Sola has either
not read the ICANN Bylaws and Berlin resolutions at all of closely
enough,
or he is attempting to misstate and there fore misuse those resolutions
and/or bylaws. I have tried
Jeff and all,
Jeff, Paul Toomey is frequently using these fear tactics.
As such
he along with the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board show their lack
in creditability.
Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> I'm more than familiar with those strug
> >So, if NSI wants to add more servers for .com/.net/.org it isn't going to
> >be able to do so, at least not from the current root system, at least
> >without violating that part of the specification.
>
> They can have as many servers as they want, so long as no individual
> response from the
> > http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/
>
> Well and succinctly put.
Thanks.
> Cooperation among the various root operators (or lack thereof) would likely
> determine the best working model.
When you say "various root operators" do you mean the server operators or
the operators of the e
?? Hypothesis: It's not a question of the networks, it's a question of the legal
frameworks that have jurisdiction in the final analysis over the networks.
Unfortunately, it remains to be proven that the corpus of international and
sovereign law is anything other than public, (in the sense of resp
>At 07:57 AM 8/3/99 -0400, Ronda Hauben wrote:
> >And the Internet isn't "private computer networks".
>
>
>
>Prove it.
don't look for ronda to respond in any reasonable fashion as far
as i can tell she is simply not interested in taking her blinders off.
>
>
>This program posts news to thou
At 02:09 AM 8/3/99 , you wrote:
independent cable-TV as well. My father was an
amateur radio
operator when radio first got started, and his stories about the
fight to stop amateur radio station licensing sounded very much
like
the present struggle.
I'm more than familiar with those struggles.
Thi
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> I'm more than familiar with those struggles.
> This why you want to avoid the characterization
> of being a public resource - and why conversely
> the GAC has adopted an international agreement
> stating Internet Name and Number systems are
> public re
At 08:01 AM 8/3/99 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:49:24AM -0400, Planet Communications Computing Facility
>wrote:
>>
>> I was very surprised to see Dr. Paul Toomey at the GAC Open Meeting
>> treatening the world with such statements as, If ICANN fails, governments
>> woul
At 07:57 AM 8/3/99 -0400, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>And the Internet isn't "private computer networks".
Prove it.
This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire
civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of
dollars to send everywhere. Pleas
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:49:24AM -0400, Planet Communications Computing Facility
wrote:
>
> I was very surprised to see Dr. Paul Toomey at the GAC Open Meeting
> treatening the world with such statements as, If ICANN fails, governments
> would take over the function.
There is absolutely no do
Dear Rhonda,
And the Internet isn't "private computer
networks".
...
The Internet is an internetworking of networks -- that
is
I have juxtaposed two of your sentences. One of the
constituent networks - 206.5.17.0 - is mine. I assure,
it is private. Most others are.
The essential functions of
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 2 12:10:58 1999
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F9518C1E
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:10:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Po
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Ivan Pope wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Ivan Pope wrote:
> >
> > > We believe that restrictive ccTLD policies are
> > anti-competitive within
> > > Europe.
>
> And Jim Dixon replied:
>
> > I think that few readers will gather from this that Ivan is one of the
> > director
Tony,
Where can one find the distinction you and others make between public
and
private networks in the regulatory literature, i.e. that p. ex. UIT and
EC have
different frameworks for different entities based on state or private
ownership? If they do, per se?
>From what date was the distinction
Mr. Walsh and Everyone,
What change of story is that Mr. Walsh? Do you have a reference that verifies
you arrant claim? Perhaps not.
Yes, Jeff was kind enough to provide me with the exact same setup and
model of laptop that he sometimes uses.
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Monday, August 02,
Monday, August 02, 1999, 2:43:26 PM, Brian C. Hollingsworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
BTW, I just caught this, but the spelling of my name in the subject of
this message, is the exact same typo Jeffrey has been making on my
name for quite a long time
Also, your use of the word excepted
Monday, August 02, 1999, 5:03:49 PM, Brian C. Hollingsworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Mr. Walsh and Everyone,
> I don't recall stating that I was in Europe at the moment. It may be unknown
> to you Mr. Walsh, but yes one can dial into any world wide 800 number from
> most locals in Europe
Mr. Walsh and Everyone,
I don't recall stating that I was in Europe at the moment. It may be unknown
to you Mr. Walsh, but yes one can dial into any world wide 800 number from
most locals in Europe. In this instance I am not using the 800 number that Netcom
provides.
William X. Walsh wrote:
53 matches
Mail list logo
