[IFWP] Blocking TLD's (amusing, chuckle)

1999-10-20 Thread Richard J. Sexton
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:20:02 -0400 (EDT) >From: Chuck Mead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Postfix users <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Blocking TLD's >Sender: [EMAIL PR

[IFWP] Re: "Help" dispute - [Attn. Esther Dyson and Becky Burr]

1999-10-20 Thread Jeff Williams
Russ and all, Looks like some more abuse on the part of AOL, which is by the way one of ICANN's dubious "Test Bed Registrars". Kinda figures that ICANN would be engaged in these sort of dubious activities. It seems yet again that the NTIA need to assert it's authority in conjunction with it'

[IFWP] New FTC rueling on Privacy for children may have far reaching consequences.

1999-10-20 Thread Jeff Williams
All, The FTC ruled today that opt-out rules will apply in privacy with respect to children on the net. This could have broad reaching implications in DNS and IPv6 issues. See: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1999/9910/childfinal.htm Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members

Re: [IFWP] At large membership

1999-10-20 Thread Michael Sondow
Joop Teernstra wrote: > > unless these rules are substantially rewritten in the light of comments > received from the community, it seems almost inevitable that no > *independent* at large membership will come into being. That's precisely what the Board wants: an at-large membership made up of I

Re: [IFWP] IDNO At large membership

1999-10-20 Thread William X. Walsh
On 20-Oct-99 Jeff Williams wrote: > Joe and all, > > In many ways I think that Joe here is right. As I suggested > when > the IDNO first was conceived I recommended in part that growing > in > number of members should be a top priority. It seems that that > recommendation was not shared amon

Re: [IFWP] IDNO At large membership

1999-10-20 Thread Jeff Williams
Joe and all, In many ways I think that Joe here is right. As I suggested when the IDNO first was conceived I recommended in part that growing in number of members should be a top priority. It seems that that recommendation was not shared amongst it's "Founders". What has been predominant i

[IFWP] IDNO At large membership

1999-10-20 Thread J. Baptista
On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Joop Teernstra wrote: > Failure or capture of the AL membership makes it even more important for > Individual Domain Name Owners to press for their admission into the DNSO. No it does not. The idno, if the at large membership does not know is in disarray. You people spend