Jay,
You wrote:
This is right out of the Dave Crocker
play book. Try and discredit a 20,000
word summary, by focusing on a single
statement.
I believe there was nothing wrong in Werner's request.
If a statement is believed to be incorrect, it is perfectly normal to ask
for
ISOC'S ICANN COALITION WIDENS ITS CONTROL
ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE DNS - INVITES TRADEMARK, IP, ITU,
EC, E-COMMERCE INTERESTS TO EXPAND ICANN SCOPE
ICANN ALLOWS PROPERTY RIGHTS TELCO REGULATORY INTERESTS TO
STRUCTURE SOS TO ENSURE THEIR MAXIMUM ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
ICANN is moving forward
Ken,
Below is the rewritten paragraph from
http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm
"Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation,
Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that
"reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers.
By temporarily disrupting portions
Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy?
"Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at
IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" the path used for
copying the root zone file to the various root servers, potentially
disrupting global Internet
Sorry, the previous post was in relation to the earlier draft.
It wasn't that it was disruptive to operations. It was POLITCALLY scary...
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Ken Freed wrote:
Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy?
"Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation,
Diane and all,
Thank you Diane. I shall pass this on to our legal staff for further
review.
I can see some immediate problems on just a first read that I will
comment on in a later post.
Diane Cabell wrote:
I've put them up at http://www.mama-tech.com/udrp.html
Ken Stubbs wrote:
hope
Carl and all,
I am also in complete agreement with Carl on his comments here
to these "Rules for UDRP". But as I said in an earlier post on
this subject, I will have additional comments/suggestions in a later
post.
Good read Carl!
Carl Oppedahl wrote:
At 10:57 PM 9/9/99 , Diane Cabell
Werner and all,
I am afraid you are incorrect Werner. The calls into NSI and the
NTIA from DN owners were frantic as many DN's were not resolving
or doing so very slowly at the time. So much so, that the NTIA had
to DIRECT Jon to switch back. He complied reluctantly.
Werner Staub wrote:
Joe Baptista wrote:
Roberto I posted the communication to Mr. Shaw not with the
intention of
encouraging discussion, but to provide notice.
I have no interest in participating in this discussion. I
suggest those
who enjoy the gossip of common housewives proceed to do so in private.
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry to have hit a nerve, it was not my intention.
You didn't. I just hate to repeat myself. I think I made that clear.
Frankly, I thought your letter to Mr. Shaw was a joke, but since you seem to
take it seriously, may I ask you to provide
Another country heard from.
The point in Postel's redirection wasn't the potential disruption of
traffic but his assertion of [temporary] power over the root zone.
Interestingly, his redirection never brought federal agents to his door.
And the Green Paper (proposed rule) wasn't killed. It was
All,
Comments?
--
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
Roberto and all,
I don't see where Joe owes Bob Shaw an apology. Rather the
reverse would be more appropriate.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Baptista wrote:
Roberto I posted the communication to Mr. Shaw not with the
intention of
encouraging discussion, but to provide notice.
I
Editor's Note: If one does not understand how ICANN came to be, one
will not grasp the complex interaction of forces that are powering
it. It will remain the mysterious black box that can be interpreted
differently for different audiences. The tiny group directing it has
found it desirable
Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Below is the rewritten paragraph from
http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm
"Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation,
Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that
"reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers.
Since Esther's at the global meeting for establishing mandatory net
content ratings, and seems to be chafing a bit over it, I'd like to
point something out:
Domain names would probably have to be rated as well.
Since Esther *is* at this conference, and is the de facto face of ICANN,
shouldn't
On Friday, September 10, 1999, Gordon Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
concluded that:
...in fact a collapse of ICANN will best serve those
interested in the continued operation of an Internet
whose doors are not closed to entrepreneurs and innovators.
I don't share Mr. Cook's confidence in
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Pete Farmer wrote:
On Friday, September 10, 1999, Gordon Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
concluded that:
...in fact a collapse of ICANN will best serve those
interested in the continued operation of an Internet
whose doors are not closed to entrepreneurs and
Greg and all,
In accordance with the event at the time "Switching Master Root servers"
DID disrupt traffic and DN resolution for a time. Hence I can only
agree with the term "Disrupt" as a completely accurate description
of the result of Jon Postel's "Switching" Master Root servers.
It
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Ken Freed
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:52:23 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Sep 10 13:52:22
They say that night Jon was smoking some good herb, at least that's what
they say.
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
Greg and all,
In accordance with the event at the time "Switching Master Root servers"
DID disrupt traffic and DN resolution for a time. Hence I can only
agree
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Dr. Brian C. Hollingsworth wrote:
So, basically what you are saying is that you "talk the talk", but you don't "walk
the walk".
Put up or shut up.
No Brian. What it means is what it says. We at PCCF are busy little
beavers, and unfortunately there is no beaver
Jeff, you were there, weren't you? Did you smoke with Mr. Postal that
night? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere.
-riz
At 2:03 PM -0400 9/10/99, Jeff Mason wrote:
They say that night Jon was smoking some good herb, at least that's what
they say.
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams
I didn't inhale. Honest. I was just being polite.
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Frank Rizzo wrote:
Jeff, you were there, weren't you? Did you smoke with Mr. Postal that
night? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere.
-riz
At 2:03 PM -0400 9/10/99, Jeff Mason wrote:
They say that night
Gordon,
My only comment is I wish the "unindicted conspirators" were as
devious and organized as you claim. My experience is that they were
not and still are not. I just don't believe that the ICANN Board (nor
did the ITAG or the ISOC Board) meets in private to plot the takeover
of the
On 10-Sep-99 J. Baptista wrote:
Again I assure you Mr. Shaw is not a priority. We have appropriately
censored him and will proceed to the next step just as soon as we can
move Mr. Shaw up on our priority ladder. Maybe something next week.
If you aren't going to make a "federal case" out
can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat
something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it
will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself
How would we know? It's never been tried. The cabalesque dealings so
far, hardly count.
At 2:50 PM -0400 9/10/99, David Farber wrote:
I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just
can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat
something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it
will be taken as a indicator that the net can
I have no argument on this Let us VOTE and push them hard till we get
the vote. Seems to me I remember something like a cry "no taxation
with out representation"
side issue, lobbyists win because they spend time and energy in
preparing cases and actionable proposals not because hey shoot up
Dave this is a perfectly reasonable comment. There is only one point
on which I STRONGLY disagree with it.
you say: If ICANN fails it
will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and
we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like.
Vint, Esther, John and
[I am not subscribed to all of these lists, so my response will likely
bounce. Feel free to copy my response in future responses, if you wish.
--gregbo]
Frank Rizzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you
here. But, things are being done for
Franky!
ROFLMAO! Unfortunatly no. I don't smoke that rope!
Frank Rizzo wrote:
Jeff, you were there, weren't you? Did you smoke with Mr. Postal that
night? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere.
-riz
At 2:03 PM -0400 9/10/99, Jeff Mason wrote:
They say that night Jon was smoking
At 12:43 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote:
Frank Rizzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you
here. But, things are being done for self-serving big-business
purposes. It's just sad that we have ICANN being bought out by
high-priced
Franky and all,
Oh no we can't have any of that voting nonsense!!! (Sarcasm intended)
Poor old Capt. Roberts would have a stroke! ;) And that would put
a damper on his free skiing trips via ICANN. That would be a travisty
wouldn't it?
Frank Rizzo wrote:
At 2:50 PM -0400 9/10/99, David
Franky and all,
Good argument! Unfortunately the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board
and the GIP http://www.gip.org know this which is why they
have continued to thwart any VOTING from taking place from the
Stakeholders.
Frank Rizzo wrote:
At 12:43 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote:
Frank
David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
side issue, lobbyists win because they spend time and energy in
preparing cases and actionable proposals not because hey shoot up
everything. (most of the time the money they may cause to get
contributed is secondary to this careful spade work)
But
It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently
exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet
self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists) falls, the process may
fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the
Greg and all,
Exactly right regarding Corporations having a better financing
to do lobbying collectively or independently. This is why
I put together, along with others, INEGroup. We now have the
financing to compete with the best of them from a $$ standpoint.
Greg Skinner wrote:
David
All,
This might be of some interest. Concerns gTLD's
--
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
Greg and all,
I don't find or see a great possibility of what you say Farber is saying
will happen. It is possible yes, but highly improbable given that the USG
has failed so many times already and a major election is in the offing
soon. Hence there is plenty of time for another stab at all
At 05:20 PM 9/10/99 , Greg Skinner wrote:
fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the
result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US
seem to employ that favor big businesses.
Like what?
Even the telecom industry doesn't have anything as
Tony and all,
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
At 05:20 PM 9/10/99 , Greg Skinner wrote:
fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the
result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US
seem to employ that favor big businesses.
Like what?
Even the
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the result of the
laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ
that favor big businesses.
Like what?
Auction of spectrum to cellular phone companies, for example.
Mark:
I know everone is getting hot under the collor in anticipation of the PCCF
Shaw tango. You'll have to wait boys and girls.
I wonder where the people on this list studied law. There is never a need
to rush. Only lemings rush, and they end up flying off cliffs.
We have the advantage of
Since Esther's at the global meeting for establishing mandatory net
content ratings, and seems to be chafing a bit over it, I'd like to
point something out:
Domain names would probably have to be rated as well.
Since Esther *is* at this conference, and is the de facto face of ICANN,
shouldn't
Many thanks, yes yes yes
At 2:20 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote:
It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently
exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet
self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists) falls, the process may
fall
- Original Message -
From: Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report -
Mikki and all,
I have wondered when ICANN and was going to get around
the the "Content" issue with respect to DN's and their related
information that they contain. As I recall we had some lengthy
discussion about this some time ago now. I also have wondered
what "Excuse" ICANN was going to
Gordon,
I will try to outline such a set of concrete scenarios. It will take
some time. I have no staff, it is the beginning of our term and I
will take what time is necessary to do a good job. So don't expect it
this week but I will do it soon.
Dave
At 3:27 PM -0400 9/10/99, Gordon Cook
This is my concern also. Or some remote NGO.
Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta Lund
Boston
- Original Message -
From: Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL
At 07:26 PM 9/10/99 , Diane Cabell wrote:
The amount of trademark-friendly legislation that has sailed through
Congress recently is certainly strong evidence of that.
That's entirely separate from "Internet governance."
The major intellectual property players in Washington have
always played a
All,
FYI: http://www.cnnfn.com/news/technology/newsbytes/136087.html
The House Science Committee Thursday voted
41-0 to approve the $4.8 billion federal research fund
that includes an amendment calling for a study on
ways to increase online privacy protections.
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A.
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:15:56 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Sep 10
All,
FYI: http://www.cnnfn.com/1999/09/09/technology/feature_security/
Regards,
--
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
At 07:17 PM 9/10/99 -0400, David Farber wrote:
At 2:20 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote:
It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently
exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet
self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists)
Richard Sexton wrote:
Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing,
I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled
by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the
same reasons - it is not legitimate, open, transparent or
representative
At 07:20 PM 9/10/99 -0700, Greg Skinner wrote:
Richard Sexton wrote:
Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing,
I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled
by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the
same reasons - it is not
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Greg Skinner wrote:
Richard Sexton wrote:
Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing,
I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled
by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the
same reasons - it is not
Dave Farber noted his agreement with Greg Skinner's assertion below.
Many thanks, yes yes yes
At 2:20 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote:
It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently
exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet
This is my concern also. Or some remote NGO.
Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta Lund
Boston
Then give us substance Diane. Use you lawyerly skills to back up
these vague assertions instead of always excusing ICANN's heavy
handedness.
Some remote NGO. Isn't that just
Since Esther's at the global meeting for establishing mandatory net
content ratings, and seems to be chafing a bit over it, I'd like to
point something out:
Domain names would probably have to be rated as well.
Since Esther *is* at this conference, and is the de facto face of ICANN,
shouldn't
61 matches
Mail list logo
