If anyone wants to add others to the SBA, Nader list who now
have this burning interest in cleanin' up the old corral might
take a look at this guy:
http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/stories/A8824-1999Nov2.html
He comes out looking like a fire breather, at least.
Bill Lovell
-FW: Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: Filibustering-
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 16:07:54 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Joop Teernstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: Filibustering
Cc: IDNO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 03-Nov-99 Joop Teernstra wrote:
> Arn
This issues raised by Ronda are right on target.
ICANN is presuming to become a government
without any public vote mandating its power grab.
Government without the consent of the governed
in illegitimate, and it violates our natural rights.
http://www.media-visions.com/icann.htm
Ken Freed, Pub
Notes from the afternoon session of ICANN's public forum are now posted at:
http://www.domainhandbook.com/icann110399.html which includes the morning
session, too.
The afternoon session had fewer attendees but much more agitation that
evidenced in the morning. Concerns focused on inoperative r
I've known Jim Mercer (reptiles.org) very well for a long time.
There's a bit of history there. I'd be fun to put them together
in a public debate. I think highly of both of them.
Everybody is somebody elses loon.
At 01:22 PM 11/3/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>From NANOG today..
>
>-FW: <[E
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 02:32:10PM -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
[...]
>
> Every other constituency was recognized,
> warts and all, with the "understanding ;-)"
> that they would grow into a more robust
> and legitimate organization over time.
>
> Why the double standard for the IDNO?
There is no
I don't read nanog regularly, but from what I've seen, there are a fair
number of clueful people on it. Out of curiosity, are any of them interested
in the alternative root movement?
--gregbo
Jay Fenello wrote:
>Every other constituency was recognized,
>warts and all, with the "understanding ;-)"
>that they would grow into a more robust
>and legitimate organization over time.
>Why the double standard for the IDNO?
Because it was not part of the plan and came as an embarrassing expos
>From NANOG today..
-FW: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>-
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:19:41 -0500
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Jim Mercer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: possible scam?
the following two messages were recieved by me (and more likely many others)
the author
Notes from the morning session of ICANN's public forum are now posted at:
http://www.domainhandbook.com/icann110399.html
The Forum continues this afternoon and will take up comments on the
DOC/ICANN/NSI agreement.
600 people registered, but approximately 200 attended this morning's
session. Tw
Just a reminder that the Public Meeting of the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers is now taking place in Los Angeles, California.
Today's meeting started at 8:45 Pacific Standard Time and will end at 5:00;
the meetings will continue tomorrow with further public comment followed by
At 01:57 AM 10/20/99 , J. Baptista wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> >
> > On 20-Oct-99 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
12 matches
Mail list logo
