Common Interest Network Information Center Society
Root Sync report for Mon Sep 10 05:40:40 EDT 2001
http://cinic.org
(c) The dot.GOD Registry @ http://www.dot-god.com/
BG - ERROR detected in zone .BG
add ns NS-EXT.VIX.COM. to root
add ns NS2.DIGSYS.BG. to root
delete ns
International Root Server Confederation
Root Sync report for Mon Sep 10 05:42:30 EDT 2001
http://www.irsc.ah.net/
(c) The dot.GOD Registry @ http://www.dot-god.com/
AI - ERROR detected in zone .AI
add ns NS1.OFFSHORE.AI. to root
add ns NS1.PAIR.COM. to root
add ns NS1.REDHAT.COM. to
AlterNIC
Root Sync report for Mon Sep 10 05:48:34 EDT 2001
http://www.alternic.org/
(c) The dot.GOD Registry @ http://www.dot-god.com/
AC - ERROR detected in zone .AC
add ns NS.NIC.AC. to root
AD - ERROR detected in zone .AD
add ns VIVALDI.TELEPAC.PT. to root
delete ns DNS3.AD. from
The PacificRoot
Root Sync report for Mon Sep 10 05:54:44 EDT 2001
http://www.pacificroot.com/
(c) The dot.GOD Registry @ http://www.dot-god.com/
BG - ERROR detected in zone .BG
add ns NS-EXT.VIX.COM. to root
add ns NS2.DIGSYS.BG. to root
delete ns ADMII.ARL.MIL. from root
BM - ERROR
i-DNS.net International
Root Sync report for Mon Sep 10 05:56:49 EDT 2001
http://www.i-DNS.net/
(c) The dot.GOD Registry @ http://www.dot-god.com/
AI - ERROR detected in zone .AI
delete ns A.I-DNS.NET. from root
delete ns B.I-DNS.NET. from root
delete ns C.I-DNS.NET. from root
- Original Message -
From: Joe Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Sandy Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Evaluation of NAIS and ALSC Reports
The existing bylaws of
ICANN make no provision for further At Large
In my view, ICANN is no longer worthy of further attention,
as their deliberate intention is to disenfranchise all of us.
We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
Cheers...\Stef
At 12:58 -0400 10/09/01, Michael
I can understand you, Gordon, and still have my own perspective.
The trust you hope to see perhaps grows out of folks interacting
with mutual respect for one another, which for me grows out of
that global sense of our deep interactivity I keep talking about.
I have a long way to grow,
At 9/9/01 10:21 AM, you wrote:
FWIW, I got a verbal summary online at:
http://www.iperdome.com/images/iperdome1.ra
This was most interesting to listen to. Hopefully you do not hold it
against me, if I do not put it up at www.ifwp.org. Despite all the
historical details, it is very much
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Einar Stefferud wrote:
In my view, ICANN is no longer worthy of further attention,
as their deliberate intention is to disenfranchise all of us.
We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
Einar Stefferud wrote:
In my view, ICANN is no longer worthy of further attention,
as their deliberate intention is to disenfranchise all of us.
I agree with you totally. The title of my posting was intended as
sarcasm, as the content of Sims' email indicates. They have
eliminated the
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 17:32 [=GMT-0400], Michael Sondow wrote:
Einar Stefferud wrote:
In my view, ICANN is no longer worthy of further attention,
as their deliberate intention is to disenfranchise all of us.
I agree with you totally. The title of my posting was intended as
sarcasm,
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
Ignore ICANN to your own detriment.
Looks like you don't have much choice in the matter, Patrick. You've
been thrown out:
Joe Sims: The existing bylaws of ICANN make no provision for
further At Large elections...the ICANN bylaws are a blank sheet on
this subject,
Working within ICANN lends legitimacy to an innately illegitimate enterprise.
There has never been any public vote for privatization or any vote for ICANN.
Please do not ignore that the would-be emperor still wears no clothes.
-- ken
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Einar Stefferud wrote:
In my view,
We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
Burying your head in the sand and wishing the problem away won't make it
so.
Ignore ICANN to your own detriment.
Perhaps, but saying these ISO protocols suck and should not
There you go.
[ABOVE 18]
ICANN Fucked-up the White Paper
On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, at 15:26 [=GMT+0100], BrandonButterworth wrote:
Who supports Ellen's call for a new IFWP acronym meaning?
Unhappy with some situation on the net that you can't
influence? Internet Forum for Whiney People is for
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 17:58 [=GMT-0400], Richard J. Sexton wrote:
We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
Burying your head in the sand and wishing the problem away won't make it
so.
Ignore ICANN to your
Is this true? Does it not depend on _how_ you work inside ICANN? I see
a lot of people active on the ncdnhc list who 'hate' ICANN as much as
possible. Still they vote for the ICANN board seat (maybe without
success) if they happen to be on the Names Council. Lets not ostracize
each other. I am
Marc Schneiders wrote:
ICANN is way more clear than
any alternative I know of.
IFWP=Institute For Wankers and Poltroons?
'Bye-'bye, Tootsie, 'bye-'bye.
'Bye-'bye, Tootsie, don't cry.
M.S.
I think we are beginning to converge, but are still running in
different paradigms, so that our same words mean different things to
each of us.
I see in your text below, some sense that one way to solve the
problem of ICANN is to declare it to be a public enemy, and then call
the troops to
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 19:08 [=GMT-0400], Michael Sondow wrote:
Marc Schneiders wrote:
ICANN is way more clear than
any alternative I know of.
IFWP=Institute For Wankers and Poltroons?
Could we keep this to basic 2000 words English for those, like me,
whose native language is
We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
Burying your head in the sand and wishing the problem away won't make it
so.
Ignore ICANN to your own detriment.
Perhaps, but saying these ISO protocols suck and should
i don't think the routing registries have signed contracts with ICANN yet
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 17:58 [=GMT-0400], Richard J. Sexton wrote:
We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
Burying your head in
Beautiful. But who gave you your IP number?
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 19:54 [=GMT-0400], Gordon Cook wrote:
We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
Burying your head in the sand and wishing the problem away
If they haven't, they will. Much easier to be under ICANN than under
your government. See ccTLDs.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 19:56 [=GMT-0400], Gordon Cook wrote:
i don't think the routing registries have signed contracts with ICANN yet
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 17:58 [=GMT-0400], Richard J.
Is this true?
yes it is true
Does it not depend on _how_ you work inside ICANN?
no it does not depend on how you work inside of icann since the
private BWG mail list started in 1998 I have been an active
participant in that group of people who have all tried to work within
ICANN and
Beautiful. But who gave you your IP number?
dhcp.sorry
--
The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
(609) 882-2572 (phone fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Index to 9 years
of the COOK Report at
If there were killer content that is only available in the
other-than-IANA-root, then people would quietly (or not) begin
reconfiguring their computers to view it.
Right now, SuperRoot or Virtual Root or Competitive Root or whatever you
call it is like a private road in cyberspace. But give the
Hello Einar,
The funny thing about this medium is that while I have no idea who you are,
you feel entitled to ask me all kinds of questions without introducing
yourself. If this were the phone, I doubt I'd take your call...;-)
Regards,
Joanna
on 9/9/01 8:19 PM, Einar Stefferud at [EMAIL
Joanna Lane wrote:
Hello Einar,
The funny thing about this medium is that while I have no idea who you are,
you feel entitled to ask me all kinds of questions without introducing
yourself. If this were the phone, I doubt I'd take your call.
One feels sympathy for these do-gooder
Hi, Joanna--
Many of us have been on this IFWP list since it was launched in about June
of 1998. It went through a period of non-use and then disappeared for a
while into the ether, but for most of us here, this is an ongoing dialogue,
with new people joining in (and perhaps leaving) from one
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Ellen Rony wrote:
If there were killer content that is only available in the
other-than-IANA-root, then people would quietly (or not) begin
reconfiguring their computers to view it.
It's a chicken and egg problem...
Thank you Ellen,
Nice to meet you.
Joanna
on 9/10/01 10:16 PM, Ellen Rony at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, Joanna--
Many of us have been on this IFWP list since it was launched in about June
of 1998. It went through a period of non-use and then disappeared for a
while into the ether, but
Beautiful. But who gave you your IP number?
The same place ICANN got their. A regional registry. ICANN uses NAT
addresses so this is rather moot.
--
But at the end of the day, even if you put a calico dress on
it and call it Florence, a pig is still a pig.
-- Bradshaw v.
Trying to work with ICANN is a double waste of any participant's time,
unless you are one of the people on the inside track.
First, if you are trying to change the status quo,
you are engaging in a fight with them.
they really know how to fight and win.
So, good luck, but don't ask me to any
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 12:08:16AM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Beautiful. But who gave you your IP number?
The same place ICANN got their. A regional registry. ICANN uses NAT
addresses so this is rather moot.
Where did you get that idea?
--
Kent Crispin
At 11:03 PM 9/10/01 -0700, you wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 12:08:16AM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Beautiful. But who gave you your IP number?
The same place ICANN got their. A regional registry. ICANN uses NAT
addresses so this is rather moot.
Where did you get that idea?
I don't
37 matches
Mail list logo
