Re: [IFWP] RE: RealServer problems

They work ok for me. At 05:29 PM 2/8/00 -0500, you wrote: >The RealAudio files linked from >still work for me. Our RealServer logs look completely normal -- I see a >number of accesses from the past few hours, including quite a few users >requesting and

Re: [IFWP] Re: Re: Update on ICANN Cairo Meetings

ayebrother sextonI believe you.but as someone else who has been alleged to be a paid NSI agent... I must assert that it is widely known that you are a dangerous man..and do you know the filthy rumor mongers come to me and they say that sexton must be a buddy of that other wel

[IFWP] RE: RealServer problems

The RealAudio files linked from still work for me. Our RealServer logs look completely normal -- I see a number of accesses from the past few hours, including quite a few users requesting and successfully receiving content from the very ICANN DNSO files l

Re: [IFWP] Re: Re: Update on ICANN Cairo Meetings

>On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote: > >> I believe that Mr. Walsh should be prepared to support his allegation >> against vrx.net and its customers, or else do the honorable thing and admit >> that he has no idea what he is talking about here. Again, I deny the rumor that VRx is

[IFWP] Re: Re: Update on ICANN Cairo Meetings

On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote: > I believe that Mr. Walsh should be prepared to support his allegation > against vrx.net and its customers, or else do the honorable thing and admit > that he has no idea what he is talking about here. I think everyone knows Walsh is a bit

[IFWP] RE: ben - fix the real server - it's flacking again

All the real audio links on the following page do not work. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso/ Does that help you out Ben? If you have any further problems with this myopic view of your network - please advise. Regards Joe On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote: > More detail - i

[IFWP] Like, GAC me with a spoon. Ohmygod...

>Personally, I'm all in favor of the European Union taking a more >active role in Internet policy and a firmer stand on domain name >allocation. It could be a significant counterbalance to the >arrognace of the US Government, which has thrust on the world a >monopoly - ICANN - controlled exclusive

Re: [IFWP] EU (& European Union threats?)

You wrote: > Apparently the EU staff who thought up the .EU plan intend for it to aid > commerce in Europe (perhaps by fostering a pan-European identity, perhaps in > some other way) but that doesn't help anybody else. And you think that NSI, ICANN, and the DOC/USG are interested in helping anyo

Re: [IFWP] EU (& European Union threats?)

There are lots of possible ways to make it easier for people and organizations to get a convenient domain name. I know that you've rejected work within ICANN, Michael, and while I remain agnostic about it, I did support the DNSO Working Group C's position paper B as one way to make the allocation

Re: [IFWP] any corporation who would give the lCANN money for its cairo meeting is advertising to the internet that it hasn't got a clue Fwd: Update on ICANN Cairo Meetings @ Call for Sponsors

You wrote: > >From: "icann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >The November ICANN meetings in Los Angeles were sponsored by... Jones, > >Day Reavis & Pogue;... Can a lawfirm representing a corporation invest in that corporation? > > Netwrok Solutions, Inc.; So NSI has been supporting ICANN all along? Ve

[IFWP] RE: ben - fix the real server - it's flacking again

More detail - it's don't work. regards joe On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Ben Edelman wrote: > This is the first report I've had recently of any problems with it. Can you > provide more details about the problems you're currently experiencing? > > > Ben Edelman > Berkman Center for Internet and Society