>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Dilloway)
>Subject: How the Internet can bypass Governments and even ICANN
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>To all those who raise a dispute or differenc
Although her ICANN role may have brought her some discomfort, she has
picked up some nice rewards this year. The first was her very own
television commercial on behalf of IBM's e-commerce campaign. The
second came on June 8th when in London, the WPP Group PLC, one of the
largest advertising ag
DNSO list admin and all,
What happened to all of the other posts sent to the [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
Your archives seems to be way out of sync and date. In addition what
happened to all the posts sent to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] as well? It has
been 20+ days and running sense I sent several messages,
Tony and all,
I believe that one of the thing that Joe neglected to mention
but
I hope is aware of is the the ICANN "Appointed" the members of the
GAC "Advisory Committee". As such is is difficult to believe
that
the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board is not presupposed to give
considerable weight
Mr. Farber, Ms. Dyson, and Everybody,
It appears based on other posts to which Jeff Williams correctly noted, that
Ms. Dyson is not being completely candid in her remarks in this post that
Mr. Farber so kindly provided here. This I fine disturbing, and have also
noticed before on other comment
Mr. Mason and Everyone,
I believe the law(s) to which you are referring to indirectly here are those
of "Eminent Domain" and Treaty agreements, that are therefore adequately
encompassing. I know first hand that several EU members are looking into
this situation in that light and reviewing exis
Jeff and Everyone,
Jeff, I believe that you are essentially correct here in you conclusion,
although overly simply stated. The IANA, or now ICANN, is not in a
legal position to make such decisions, though it seems it is attempting to
put itself in a position to do so through and with it's GAC
Mr. Marsh and Everyone,
Your point and conclusion should be well taken here Mr. Marsh.
Gene Marsh wrote:
> At 12:50 PM 8/25/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >>I ask again, without the NTIA, just what could the Internet community do
> >>about NSI? Someone please say that nothing needs to be done about
JeffM and all,
My guess is that it would depend on which ccTLD that ICANN went after.
If it was say, .TO, I doubt that anybody would get very upset other than
those that are currently managing the .TO ccTLD. Others might be a bit
more high profile so as to cause a stir at least and likely gene
Gordon and all,
Execellent points here Gordo, and nicely stated as well. >;)
Gordon Cook wrote:
> This morning Dave Farber posted the following to his IP list and to
> the IFWP list.
>
> Calling ICANN the Internet's Oversight Board was not a
> 'misconception'. It was in fact an accurate ana
David, Esther and all,
Esther, on several occasions you have definitively stated that you don't
speak for the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board. Now in this reply to David,
you say that you do, or at least in this instance you do. This seems like
another misconception itself, or you are trying t
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
> JeffM and all,
>
> JeffM, you may be correct here. But the IANA/ICANN can refuse to
> continue to include those ccTLD's in the Roots should they not wish to
> comply. Of course this would be extreme and could cause some
> legal action.
That would
JeffM and all,
Nothing new here, other than a bit of over ingratiation of Vinton Cerf.
He is indeed a good fellow and was instrumental in the development of
TCP/IP, but that is about as far as it goes...
Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote:
> Article on Cerf and MCI.
>
> http://www
JeffM and all,
JeffM, you may be correct here. But the IANA/ICANN can refuse to
continue to include those ccTLD's in the Roots should they not wish to
comply. Of course this would be extreme and could cause some
legal action.
Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug
This morning Dave Farber posted the following to his IP list and to
the IFWP list.
Calling ICANN the Internet's Oversight Board was not a
'misconception'. It was in fact an accurate analysis by Jerri
Claussing of the New York Times. Claussing has been watching what
they do as well as what th
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, David Farber wrote:
> >>To: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Dyson)
> >>Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 09:18:26 -0400
> >>
> >>WHy does it need to be ICANN itself who does this? Does no one else have
> >>the right to correct misconceptions?
Prob
>
>Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 10:09:02 -0400
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: IP: ICANN and what it is
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>To: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Dyson)
>>Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1
Article on Cerf and MCI.
http://www.thestar.com/thestar/editorial/money/990829BUS02_CI-VINT29.html
This URL is only good for today - Aug 29.
Regards
Jeff Mason
--
Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 8
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
> In any case, many people believe that a government has fairly strong
> rights vis a vis choice of which registry runs the associated ccTLD,
> so this example is perhaps not a good one. Government policies
> concerning encryption might be more intere
19 matches
Mail list logo
