All,
JeffM, indeed virtuous people rare... I don't know of many.
Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > All I can say is to use your own terms. If you don't like it, filter
> > it.
>
> I stand corrected, and rightly so. Unfortuna
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
> All I can say is to use your own terms. If you don't like it, filter
> it.
I stand corrected, and rightly so. Unfortunately, I can't filter anyone
out. Your all gods children - special, and what you say is important -
possibly irrelevant - but no
Monday, August 23, 1999, 9:54:07 PM, Planet Communications Computing Facility
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dont want to be picky. But so many people attack JeffW. They say he's
> a liar - maybe he is - maybe he is not. Certainly, we can drop our hat to
> jeffW for getting you well baited.
.
Tuesday, August 24, 1999, 12:21:37 AM, Mark Jeftovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 05:19 PM 8/23/99 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
>>William and all,
>>
>> Indeed I did, in night classes for two years, part time...
> *sigh*
> Ok... which school did you teach at Jeff?
> Oh you're not going to t
Diane,
> The question of determining
> consensus based on random physical and virtual participation is,
> IMHO, one of the most compelling issues facing the Internet.
I entirely agree with you, and one of the severest criticisms of
ICANN is that it has resolutely ignored this issue, both in
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:
> The Berkman Center and all its officers and members have been, since
> the inception of this process, a principle support for every unfair,
> discriminatory, unprincipled, and destructive policy of ICANN. Any
> organization that shows so little respec
Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> sorry I do not trust mr zittran adequately I know otheres who
> don't as well and I hope they will speak out.
Any person or entity that would aid and abet a blatantly
undemocratic organization like ICANN, as the Berkman Center has
done, is unworthy of respect. The staf
Combo sounds good to me.
I will say that if someone has to be the moderator IMHO it would be hard
to pick someone better than Prof. Zittrain. But they won't always be that
good -- so adding in a little dash of randomness to season the sauce
sounds about right
I strongly agree that FIFO is
On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 06:09:20PM -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
> Given the options (FIFO, random, gateway filter), I'd opt for random.
What procedure would you suggest for random selection? Dice? Why
wouldn't people complain just as much about loaded dice? Without
going to an awful lot of troub
Ben Edelman wrote:
>
>But the question in my mind remains: What do you do when there are too many
>acceptable, on-topic, concise remote comments? How to choose?
Given the options (FIFO, random, gateway filter), I'd opt for random. We
may not get the best articulated comments, but it would then
William and all,
Your point? Unfortunately for your comment here, neither JeffM nor
I, am anonymous
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Monday, August 23, 1999, 5:13:24 PM, Planet Communications Computing Facility
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > exactly - thanks for your support
>
> > On Mon, 2
Dan and all,
I think your comments should be relevant! >;) But as I stated earlier
on post on this thread, I must agree with Gordon. Having J. zittran
as a moderator is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house!
I respect his ability, but do not trust his motives...
Dan Steinberg wrot
Monday, August 23, 1999, 5:13:24 PM, Planet Communications Computing Facility
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> exactly - thanks for your support
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
>> JEffM and all,
>>
>> I feel the same way here Jeff, and have stated so on more than
>> one occasion. H
Gordon and all,
I must agree with Gordon here. J. zittran, played a crucial role
in conjunction with Mike Roberts, in sabotaging the IFWP, if memory
serves me correctly...
Gordon Cook wrote:
> >
> >
> >* Moderator's Choice. A Berkman staff person -- primarily Professor
> >Zittrain, for thos
exactly - thanks for your support
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
> JEffM and all,
>
> I feel the same way here Jeff, and have stated so on more than
> one occasion. However I do not censor anyone as a matter of
> practice. I try to respect everyone's input, whether I like their i
William and all,
Indeed I did, in night classes for two years, part time...
Thanks for the plug! >;) I guess Eric Johnson has been busy,
eh? >;)
William X. Walsh wrote:
> "Jeffrey's" newest claim to fame?
>
> He now claims he taught interpersonal communication at a junior
> college.
>
> >
All,
FYI...
--
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
JEffM and all,
I feel the same way here Jeff, and have stated so on more than
one occasion. However I do not censor anyone as a matter of
practice. I try to respect everyone's input, whether I like their input
or not, is not really relevant.
Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote:
>
Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >* Moderator's Choice. A Berkman staff person -- primarily Professor
> >Zittrain, for those of you wondering! -- reviews all the messages received
> >prior to the first time remote comments are recognized on a particular
> >subject, and he reads the ones that he
Ben and all,
No excuses here that are valid Ben. ICANN had plenty of time to
make necessary arrangements, and should have had an advance
team in SIngapore at least two weeks before that conference
and made adjustments in advance. They did not, hence they showed
their level of incompetence...
Bret and all,
Good idea Bret! If only the folks over there at ISI could learn
how to keep their e-mail archives and mailing lists up.. >;)
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> > But the question in my mind remains: What do you do when there are too many
> > acceptable, on-topic, concise remote comments
William and all,
Yes William, IRC has some very good advantages, to be sure. I
personally prefer DCC for instance for sending large files to
FTP for instance. Have you considered though how great an
advantage Internet video conferencing is for meetings and
such? Try it you will like it! >;)
Kerry and all,
Believe me this has been taken note of with respect to this ICANN
(Initial?) Interim board. Their actions in the, now many violations of
their own bylaws and the White Paper have been discussed, as you
know on quite a few occasions. This example that you point to here
has been
>
>
>* Moderator's Choice. A Berkman staff person -- primarily Professor
>Zittrain, for those of you wondering! -- reviews all the messages received
>prior to the first time remote comments are recognized on a particular
>subject, and he reads the ones that he thinks are most significant.
>"Signi
an example of true censorship. Oley.
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Gordon Cook wrote:
> to jeff mason
>
> The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
> 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://coo
to jeff mason
The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[
ART III. Section 3. NOTICE AND COMMENT PROVISIONS
(ii) in advance of each Board meeting, a notice of the
fact and time that such meeting will be held and, to the
extent known, an agenda for the meeting. If reasonably
practicable the Board shall post notices of
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Diane,
> > there was no registration.
>
> But everyone who spoke from the floor identified themselves? What
> percentage might that have been?
Speakers were asked to identify themselves and most of them did. This has
been the practice since the IFWP days. Are you asking w
Monday, August 23, 1999, 1:28:08 PM, William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.dnspolicy.com/news/99/08/23/1319235.shtml
> Internetnews.com is reporting that the story DNSPolicy.com broke last
> week on NSI Soliciting Webhosting and other Internet Service Providers
> for advertisi
"Jeffrey's" newest claim to fame?
He now claims he taught interpersonal communication at a junior
college.
> I am not looking to make enemies at all. My style is blunt,
> straight forward
> and as too the point as I can make it, most of
http://www.dnspolicy.com/news/99/08/23/1532205.shtml
Yes it's old news, and reads pretty much as a fluff piece, but it might
of interest.
--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyber
Roberto wrote,
> > And I may assume that USG can be considered a NGO ;>).
Rather than get everyone confused with NGO (*non-governmental
organization), might we speak of quasi-governmental orgs: QGO?
kerry
Diane,
> there was no registration.
But everyone who spoke from the floor identified themselves? What
percentage might that have been?
> Time constraints are as much a function of how much total time a
> person has to invest as they are a function of the final deadline.
> I agree tha
http://www.dnspolicy.com/news/99/08/23/1521228.shtml
This brings the total to over $800,000, still short of the $2M goal
Jom Sims and Esther say they are shooting for.
--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
(
I understand now. Mark complained to me and i told him to go ahead and
filter me out. It's all in my email. But Mark felt compeled to begin his
complaining in public - even though I feel I have adequately dismissed his
complaint.
I posted the private email - simply because I have no need to re
basic netiquette jeff mason, if I send you a message to you alone it
generally is because I don't want to take a disagreement into the
public domain.to take the contents of a private message and make
them public without the permission of the sender is just not
done.defining private me
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:
> * Moderator's Choice. A Berkman staff person -- primarily Professor
> Zittrain, for those of you wondering! -- reviews all the messages received
> prior to the first time remote comments are recognized on a particular
I would be very comfortable with M
Monday, August 23, 1999, 3:37:19 PM, Ben Edelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben,
Any reason why the IRC server is down?
--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association,
> But the question in my mind remains: What do you do when there are too many
> acceptable, on-topic, concise remote comments? How to choose?
One possibility is to time-shift part of the discussion. Take live the
seven or eight comments on a topic that real time will allow (2/3
selected by moder
Ellen suggested:
> Appropriate first tier filters would be:
> a) deferring off-topic comments
> b) acknowledgikng one comment per individual per topic
> c) curtailing long responses beyond 250 words.
These are a good start. Indeed, they're filters we definitely need and
absolutely intend to put
Mark asked:
(after I pointed out the value of having comments in writing)
> Yes, but aren't these screens going to be positioned so that they are
> facing the audience, and in effect, obscured from view by the BoD, or
> whatever body is running the meeting? It's important to remember that
> whi
Monday, August 23, 1999, 8:05:32 AM, Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 04:06 PM 8/22/99 , Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>>Jay,
>>
>>Um, haven't you realized that very few people care about this stuff very
>>much?
> Hi Antony,
> I've realized that very few people are even
> *aware* o
Monday, August 23, 1999, 7:51:20 AM, Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Net is in awfully early days of its use outside of academic and largely
> US/English language settings. You seem to be saying that what was good enough
> for the Wright Brothers is good enough for today's air trav
I was a math major. Arithmetic has always escaped me.
At 01:35 PM 8/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>No, I oversaw the chair set up. 382.
>dc
>
>Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
>> >There were people constantly coming in and out of the room however; some of us
>> >didn't waltz in until the agenda reached th
http://www.dnspolicy.com/news/99/08/23/1319235.shtml
Internetnews.com is reporting that the story DNSPolicy.com broke last
week on NSI Soliciting Webhosting and other Internet Service Providers
for advertising on NSI's whois and whois results pages (see
http://www.dnspolicy.com/features/99/08/20/
Hello Mark:
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Mark C. Langston wrote:
>
> I will also demand that you refrain from posting private e-mail without
> the prior written consent of the author.
>
> However, since you chose to ignore that particular convention as well,
> I'll go ahead and point out that where I
I will also demand that you refrain from posting private e-mail without
the prior written consent of the author.
However, since you chose to ignore that particular convention as well,
I'll go ahead and point out that where I said MTA I of course meant to
say MUA.
--
Mark C. LangstonLAT
Brandon and all,
A circular justification. Excellent! You should be an ICANN (Initial?)
Board member! >;)
BrandonButterworth wrote:
> > Well - mark - here's my public reply to you, which is the same as my
> > private reply. If it's that bothersome - please filter me.
> >
> > If more membe
> Well - mark - here's my public reply to you, which is the same as my
> private reply. If it's that bothersome - please filter me.
>
> If more members feel the same - fine i'll consider it.
I feed the same, it's fine on a web site but a hindrance
to communication when used in email.
> But I'
>
> Again, I ask you publically to stop posting in MIME-encapsulated HTML.
>
> Thank you.
>
Well - mark - here's my public reply to you, which is the same as my
private reply. If it's that bothersome - please filter me.
If more members feel the same - fine i'll consider it. But I'd rather
Again, I ask you publically to stop posting in MIME-encapsulated HTML.
Thank you.
--
Mark C. LangstonLATEST: ICANN refuses Let your voice be heard:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to consider application for http://www.idno.org
Systems AdminConstituency status from organized http://www.
We have just finished a distribution of pr on behalf of ICANN. As a
member of ICANN we felt the membership base is unrepresentative of the
internet community.
We have identified the following groups of interested parties:
Small Business
Anarchists
Pornographers
No, I oversaw the chair set up. 382.
dc
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> >There were people constantly coming in and out of the room however; some of us
> >didn't waltz in until the agenda reached the topic we were interested in, so the
> >total attendance was a good bit higher than 150. I believe th
Actually I believe there's a larger issue at stake when you consider this
thread with the parallel thread about time/message limits. It is currently
under consideration (I believe) to put some limitations on how much people can
say at a microphone in Santiago and how much will be passed on from
>There were people constantly coming in and out of the room however; some of us
>didn't waltz in until the agenda reached the topic we were interested in, so the
>total attendance was a good bit higher than 150. I believe the GAC open session
>was much more crowded.
Yeah, the GAC folks and their
>> >I believe that many people on working committees simply do not find e-mail
>> >adequate to the task.
>>
>> If it wasn't adequate, the Internet would not exist; it's how we
>> got this far.
>
>The Net is in awfully early days of its use outside of academic and largely
>US/English language setti
Ben Edelman wrote:
>* While remote comments may indeed be excerpted for oral presentation the
>assembled group, realize that there's more to the presentation of remote
>comments than the oral component. In particular, there are two big screens
>in the front of the room on which comments will be
On 23 August 1999, "Ben Edelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>* While remote comments may indeed be excerpted for oral presentation the
>assembled group, realize that there's more to the presentation of remote
>comments than the oral component. In particular, there are two big screens
>in the f
Diane and all,
I guess this depends on what you call efficient. In terms or relation
to cost $$, it is VERY efficient. I would argue that in terms of time
E-Mail is also Very efficient, as well. I can respond to allot of E-Mails
in the time it takes me to fly to Santiago, Boston, or singapor
At 04:06 PM 8/22/99 , Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>Jay,
>
>Um, haven't you realized that very few people care about this stuff very
>much?
Hi Antony,
I've realized that very few people are even
*aware* of this stuff due to a media blackout
that has effectively prevented people from
learnin
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> And herein lies the rub, and the disparity between on-line participants
> and those physically present.
>
> Those physically present can stand in line for a mike and say whatever it
> is they wish to say. Those not physically present are *filtered* through
> the staff.
The Net is in awfully early days of its use outside of academic and largely
US/English language settings. You seem to be saying that what was good enough
for the Wright Brothers is good enough for today's air traveller. I don't buy
it, and I find e-mail far less efficient a means of communicatio
Thanks, Richard. That sounds a very accurate count of how many people were in the
final open meeting room at one time and is more responsive to the question of
time constraints on speakers.
There were people constantly coming in and out of the room however; some of us
didn't waltz in until the ag
>I believe that many people on working committees simply do not find e-mail
>adequate to the task.
If it wasn't adequate, the Internet would not exist; it's how we
got this far.
--
This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire
civilized world. Your message will cost th
>BTW, Diane's remark ("Berlin had a heavy turnout") reminded me I
>have yet to see even the vaguest approximations of attendance at
>any of the live meetings. What kind of heaviness are we talking
>about?
At one ppoint I counted - there were roghly 150 people in the Berlin
open meeting.
--
T
At 06:41 PM 8/22/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Jeff Mason wrote:
>
>>I dont dispute what you have said. That is not the issue. It is the
>>right to be anonymous and participate as a viewer.
>
>You can can be an anonymous listener with Real Audio. It's cross-platform,
>works for both Windows and Macs,
Ray and all,
ROFLMAO! Ray, old son, you are just a scream!! I wouldn't give
ICANN a thin dime, until or unless they change their errant ways,
nor would I approve of be in favor of INEGroup doing so either...
Ray Hallman wrote:
> That's very creative, Karl! I enjoyed it. Keep up the good w
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Monday, August 23, 1999, 4:43:57 AM, Planet Communications Computing Facility
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The existence or non existence of a provision and it's application is
> > not relevant here. What is at issue is the right to incorporate p
JeffM and all,
Completely agreed. In fact NOW is really a bit late in the game,
as ICANN in it's "Accreditation Policy" is already in violation of
the Privacy Act, and the 1996 Telecommunication's act, it may also
be in violation of the Credit Protection act, as well as the Sherman act...
Pla
William and all,
William, I am sure that repeating the same thing over and over again
does get boring. And doing so also doesn't make it true either. You have
yet to state difinitively or site any particular creditable evidence for your
stance here...
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Monday, Augus
Kerry Miller wrote:
> > I remain worried about our ability to review hundreds or even
> > thousands of comments fast enough. It's hard, and we may be pushed
> > to our limits by the Santiago time zone...
>
> Your half-dozen references to *time* constraints make one wonder
> what the perceived
That's very creative, Karl! I enjoyed it. Keep up the good work.
I wouldn't worry any longer about the ability of ICANN to finance it's
operations, now that INEG has been admitted to the organization!
Such a relief!
Ray
- Original Message -
From: Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
Oh no noe william, that incorrect, what I am saying is that ICANN is a
near government organization (NGO) and should have simular privacy
regulations in place - if not - it stands to be subject to further
criticism.
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Monday, August 23, 1999, 4:43:57
Monday, August 23, 1999, 4:43:57 AM, Planet Communications Computing Facility
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The existence or non existence of a provision and it's application is
> not relevant here. What is at issue is the right to incorporate privacy
> law into icann at an oportune time - NOW.
The existence or non existence of a provision and it's application is
not relevant here. What is at issue is the right to incorporate privacy
law into icann at an oportune time - NOW.
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Monday, August 23, 1999, 4:35:49 AM, Planet Communications Comp
Monday, August 23, 1999, 4:35:49 AM, Planet Communications Computing Facility
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If ICANN wants to play - it needs the same privacy controls as exsist in
> the us government.
As was already pointed out numerous times, there is amble evidence
that no applicable provisio
If ICANN wants to play - it needs the same privacy controls as exsist in
the us government.
Regards
Jeff Mason
--
Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 [EMAIL PROTE
Roberto and all,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jeff Mason wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:
> >
> > > I must say, I think these fields are exceptionally
> > reasonable -- each
> > > justified for a legitimate logistical reason, with privacy
> > policies clearly
> > > stated on
Jeff Mason wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:
>
> > I must say, I think these fields are exceptionally
> reasonable -- each
> > justified for a legitimate logistical reason, with privacy
> policies clearly
> > stated on the sign-in form itself. Nonetheless, if there are
> > co
William,
Very nice William! >;)
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Some of you may be using my.netscape.com for your personalize start
> pages, or one of the alternative sites such as my.userland.com.
>
> You can now add DNSPolicy.com to your start page at netscape, and soon
> at userland, by just go
Some of you may be using my.netscape.com for your personalize start
pages, or one of the alternative sites such as my.userland.com.
You can now add DNSPolicy.com to your start page at netscape, and soon
at userland, by just going to the dnspolicy.com page and clicking on
the netscape channel icon
81 matches
Mail list logo
