For the historians:
Do people realize that it wasn't even in the budget to
have the 14 of us handling in-addrs, ip allocation/assignment,
SWIP, all of the domain name issues and answer the phones in
early 1995? The whole registration process/budget was not
designed for vanity-tagging the
Richard, I have not seen any comments from you in any of the DNSO archives,
even the public comment areas, at least in the past few months. I don't
see how you are going to have any kind of input into the process if you
don't participate.
--gregbo
At 11:54 AM 4/12/00 -0700, you wrote:
Richard, I have not seen any comments from you in any of the DNSO archives,
even the public comment areas, at least in the past few months. I don't
see how you are going to have any kind of input into the process if you
don't participate.
I participated in
Richard, how do you explain the participation of people like Chris Ambler,
Simon Higgs, etc? (Subject to their opinions of what should happen with
new TLDs) it seems they have at least as much of a clue as anyone else
in wg-c.
--gregbo
At 02:17 PM 4/12/00 -0700, you wrote:
Richard, how do you explain the participation of people like Chris Ambler,
Simon Higgs, etc? (Subject to their opinions of what should happen with
new TLDs) it seems they have at least as much of a clue as anyone else
in wg-c.
You're asking me to explain
Greg:
Richard has made it very clear to you that he will not participate in this
farce called the DNSO. The DNSO voice is in desparate need of voices to
rationalize thier farce - and Richard has no intention of lending his name
or support to the DNSO farce
Now - why am I denied participation
Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
Explain the reasons and could I know what your relationship to the WG-C
is.
I have no relationship to wg-c except as a reader of the archives (and
occasional poster to the public archives).
I read quite a bit of what you wrote and what others' reactions were to
what
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
But isn't there a Vint Cerf RFC that says "The Internet Is For Everybody!" ?
Nobody took Dr. Joe Baptista off the Internet.
At 03:21 PM 4/12/00 -0700, you wrote:
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
But isn't there a Vint Cerf RFC that says "The Internet Is For Everybody!" ?
Nobody took Dr. Joe Baptista off the Internet.
Right. Paul Vixie made him unroutable and the 80K a reay listadmin of
the dnso list blocks him. But he's
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Right. Paul Vixie made him unroutable
I am able to reach pccf.net from three different sites. Whatever Vixie
did doesn't affect the entire Internet.
and the 80K a reay listadmin of the dnso list blocks him. But he's
still on the Internet.
That he is able to
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
and the 80K a reay listadmin of the dnso list blocks him. But he's
still on the Internet.
He can still post to the ga-full list.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Greg Skinner wrote:
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
and the 80K a reay listadmin of the dnso list blocks him. But he's
still on the Internet.
He can still post to the ga-full list.
But banned for life from the GA-Rules. A dead list - but non the less
it's the
Joe Baptista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But banned for life from the GA-Rules. A dead list - but non the less
it's the principle that counts.
What principle might that be? Subscription to ga or ga-full is voluntary.
Those that choose to read the full feed may. Both lists are archived.
Just to keep the record straight, it was Amendment 4 (September 13, 1995),
not Amendment 11, that changed the Cooperative Agreement from cost + fixed
fee to a structure that allowed the collection of fees from registrants.
Amendment 11 (October 7, 1998) extended the Cooperative Agreement through
It has always been surprising to me that General Atomics and ATT, who were
part of the initial InterNIC, received no flack for notholding up their
portion of the Cooperative Agreement. Maybe ATT did some work but their
Annual Report of, I believe 1996 didn't even mention that role.
Ellen
I meant industry flak; flak like we all have given NSI. I understood that
GA didn't uphold it's end of the Agreement went quietly into the good night
rarely to be spoken of again. At least NSI stayed the course.
It has always been surprising to me that General Atomics and ATT, who were
part
http://www.elian.cu/
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:17:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: !Dr. Joe Baptista [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: YJ Park [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Opinion from China regarding new gTLD.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, YJ Park wrote:
2, The NEW gTLDs will
18 matches
Mail list logo
