Hey Bob, what plans to You Ronda and Bill have for us ?
At 10:38 PM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote:
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
Jim Dixon wrote:
snip
In this instance the 'we' clearly refers to NetNames.
Also, I clearly state that 'restrictive ccTLD policies are
anti-competitive'. Which implies that we believe that
non-restrictive
policies are not anti-competitive. Which would lead you to
the conclusion
The argument as to whether the net is public or private
has been going on for years with such notables as
Stephen Boursey et al claiming it's public. One
common theme is, the people who claim it is
public own no infrastructure. It is as if
sombody buys a magazine subscription then claims
the
Hello.
Jeff Mason wrote:
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.
The comments made by Dr. Twomey concern me as well, but in fact I don't
think he was threatening
U.S. Press Censorship of any Criticism of ICANN
Press Censorship of criticism of ICANN is rampant in the U.S.
A while ago I wrote to a computer trade magazine that played
an important role in reporting a story about some problems
in making the cutover from NCP to TCP/IP and asked if they
My personal opinion is that this is exactly what is going to happen. There
is no way you can convince the governments not to step in if the ICANN
solution will fail. Whether the outcome will be an international body with
specific intergovernmental status like ITU, FAO, or other UN organizations,
Consorship != editorial control.
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. Please be sure you know what you are doing.
Are you absolutely sure that you want
At 10:44 AM 8/4/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The comments made by Dr. Twomey concern me as
well, but in fact I don't
think he was threatening anybody, but simply state a belief, which is
that
the most likely event in case of a failure of ICANN is that the whole
matter
will be ruled by an
Ronda:
The magazine you were dealing with could just of run out of space to print
the op ed. That does happen at the last moment.
Have you tried asking them to run it again, in another issue, or have you
recieved a definate no on this.
Has anyone else had this sort of problem with the press?
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
Roberto - this "threat" has been around for the last 20 years.
Many of us spent some of our careers dealing with it.
Under much more favorable circumstances to these players,
they tried and failed spectacularly. That's why they are
trying to
At 12:37 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
Ronda:
The magazine you were dealing with could just of run out of space to print
the op ed. That does happen at the last moment.
Have you tried asking them to run it again, in another issue, or have you
recieved a definate no on this.
Has anyone else had
Hello:
I think it's important your opinion be published. If you have problems
with this magazine, maybe some of the list memebers can send in some email
supporting the issue and asking that it receive appropriate exposure.
Maybe they were giving you the run around, so let's put on some pressure
Ah yes, what bliss ignorance isthanks for reminding me why I
filtered both these people.
Hey Bob, what plans to You Ronda and Bill have for us ?
At 10:38 PM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote:
At 08:13 AM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
Concerning the following stuff below, much of this discussion
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While there might be a certain logic to what you say, I think that it
is exceedingly unlikely that anyone would come to this conclusion
after reading what you wrote.
I came to this conclusion, but that may be influenced by the fact that I
At 12:53 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote:
At 12:37 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
Ronda:
The magazine you were dealing with could just of run out of space to print
the op ed. That does happen at the last moment.
Have you tried asking them to run it again, in another issue, or have you
recieved a
Attached is Chairman Bliley's letter of July 28. Please feel free to
contact me if you have any questions or would like comments from someone
with ICANN.
Sincerely,
Joseph S. Sheffo
415-923-1660
==
August 4, 1999
The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
Chairman
The House Committee on
At 10:28 PM 7/28/99 , Ellen Rony wrote:
FWIW, I don't concur with Jay's theories about a biased press. We have
not bias but confusion. This evolution of the DNS is complicated,
convoluted, and contentious, so it isn't easy to report on the activities
of ICANN and the Department of Commerce in
At 12:07 PM 8/4/99 -0700, Sheffo, Joe wrote:
Attached is Chairman Bliley's letter of July 28. Please feel free to
contact me if you have any questions or would like comments from someone
with ICANN.
Sincerely,
Joseph S. Sheffo
415-923-1660
Sure, ask them why they havn't aswered Jonothon
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote:
My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of
Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns
that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter
must then also describe the whole
At 05:10 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote:
My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of
Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns
that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter
Hi Ellen,
I too applaud your efforts, several
years strong.
In actuality, none of us have a
monopoly on truth, and it is only
through an open exploration of these
issues, that a collective truth may
emerge.
Please continue to fight your battles,
just as I will continue to fight mine :-)
All,
In several exchanges with Eric Johnson and others on the NCDNHC
mailing list some consideration is being given to the allowance
of NON-PROFIT entities that may or may not be NON-COMMERCIAL
as members of the NCDNHC. Contrary to several warnings of other
members of the NCDNHC mailing list
At 05:34 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote:
At 05:10 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote:
My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of
Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns
that it isn't easily given to
Ken and all,
To my knowledge, I don't believe that the IDNO or the ICIIU have made
such a claim. However I have noticed that YOU make the claim that they
have. Reference please? ;)
Ken Stubbs wrote:
i wonder how many people believe that your little pet ICIIU or IDNO with its
ALMOST 150
At 05:54 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
At 05:34 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote:
At 05:10 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote:
My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of
Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and
At 06:04 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote:
No!! Shocker! The press - even the tech trade press didn't understand
about vulnerabilities in their bind! Come on, most of the trade press move
around beats with reasonable regularity and cannot be expected to have the
same level of understanding on
Antony and all,
How come I am not surprised that almost half of the pNC are not
subscribed. It might also be of some interest to some as to
WHICH ones are not subscribed as well... Very interesting and
reveling!
Antony Van Couvering wrote:
I am concerned to know how the Names Council
Joe and all,
And now of course, we know know that the ICANN lied to congress
on questions 1 and 2, don't we as several news reports posted
a week ago show very clearly...
What surprises me is why the Subcommittee has not issued
a congressional order to hold the ICANN (Initial?) Interim
Richard Sexton wrote,
Show me where is says the internet was created as a public
resource. Or, if it was created as a private resource, show me
where this was made into a public resource.
Even Canadian civics classes fall short, I guess. Public
'resources' -- what used to be called
Heather and all,
Very nice rebut to "Dcrock". My kind of lady! Whew! You gave it to
him very nicely...
Heather Islip wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
What I have a problem with is abuse of power. I don't believe that
NSI is being investigated because they are a
The ICANN Board has posted a proposed set of amendments to the ICANN Bylaws
relating to the DNSO Names Council. Most notably, the proposed amendments
are intended to limit any one company or organization to one representative
on the DNSO Names Council.
A couple of points:
1. These
Okay, we seem to think there is absolutely nothing public about the
Internet, and that this allows us to finally break free of the burden of
government. Now let's move on to the next step, and find a way to think
about the Internet as something we all share, which needs massive
cooperation to
Once the vague 'authority' of the USG is
withdrawn from IANA in Sept. 2000,
what will take its place? How do we account for the
fundamentally
cooperative nature of the Internet, yet avoid the awful p-word?
Isn't it
just possible that what makes this whole damn thing work is something
a
little
... Now let's move on to the next step, and find a way to think
about the Internet as something we all share, which needs massive
cooperation to make it work.
I disagree that it needs "massive cooperation to make it work".
There is a need for coordination of things like TCP port numbers
Karl and all,
I think you make some very good and well commented upon points
sense the Berlin Conference.
Let me also agree that overall I think this proposed amendment
is a good "Rough Draft" as an improvement to the ICANN bylaws.
I have already forwarded it to our Legal/judicial review
Jeff Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The magazine you were dealing with could just of run out of space to print
the op ed. That does happen at the last moment.
Nope Jeff, the op ed Editor told me they decided *not* to
use it.
That was after he had told me they would use it.
I wrote asking
Ellen Rony wrote:
Nick Patience wrote:
Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said:
"Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of
functions from NSF to NTIA,
from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say
IFWP."
Sorry Nick, I
Judging by this and similar responses in this thread I'd say Rhonda has
hit a nerve.
Tom Lowenhaupt
The Communisphere Project
MAAt 03:05 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
MA
MAIt can be yours, but it still isn't private if it is part of
MAthe Internet.
MA
MAIf you want a private network, have your
At 10:27 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
There are powerful forces keeping it all quiet and the
problem isn't that the story is complicated.
Agreed. There are far more complicated storie in the paper every day.
The problem is that what is being grabbed is big time
loot and those doing the
Tom and all,
I agree I believe in this instance she has indeed, though few would openly
admit it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Judging by this and similar responses in this thread I'd say Rhonda has
hit a nerve.
Tom Lowenhaupt
The Communisphere Project
MAAt 03:05 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you
Wednesday, August 04, 1999, 5:10:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Judging by this and similar responses in this thread I'd say Rhonda has
hit a nerve.
No, not at all. The response is that Ronda (no "h") has placed
herself in a position to not be taken seriously by many in
Esther,
Still waiting for your/ICANN's response on these items.
Gene...
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 01:01:30 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Gene Marsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Esther,
I have tried on several occasions to re-establish some form of
communication
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:44:34 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Gene Marsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bylaws changes
ICANN Board,
As representative for anycastNET Incorporated, Diebold Incorporated and
the Top Level Domain Association, I hereby request that action on Bylaws
changes, as
Sheffo, Joe wrote:
Attached is Chairman Bliley's letter of July 28.
No, it is not Chairman Bliley's letter. It is Esther Dyson's letter.
If Ogilvie is not paying any more attention than this slip would
seem to indicate, maybe Ogilvie should not be involved here.
Dear Chairman Bliley:
Everyone,
Yes, these posting coming from
"Dr. Brian C. Hollingsworth" [EMAIL PROTECTED],
are indeed fraudulent if he is attempting
to represent myself.
Dr. Brian C. Hollingsworth wrote:
To all,
Please ignore the postings from "Brian C. Hollingsworth" who has a sig which says
that he is
Mr. Measday and Everyone,
I would take several exceptions with several of the statements that
you make here. In very general, terms the essence of your comments here
are none the less correct, though the predicates for your conclusions
are significantly unfounded. I would be more than happy
Jeff and Everyone,
Mr. Sola's demeanor and attitude has not gone unnoticed by many in the
EU and EC of late. Some private discussions that I have had have
expressed much dismay in his attitude and deliberance of dictating
"Edicts" as if he were some sort of "Royal Line". I tend to agree
with
Brian and all,
I believe that I have made a similar sort of suggestion to the ICANN
(Initial?) Interim Board before. However I am extremely doubtful that
such a event is likely to take place given the errant behavior of that
very ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board itself, nor, if done, would I
Gene and all,
Good thing you aren't holding your breath, Eh? ;) But of course Esther
ALWAYS answers any and all questions, just as she did to congress!
Sure, right!
Gene Marsh wrote:
Esther,
Still waiting for your/ICANN's response on these items.
Gene...
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999
49 matches
Mail list logo
