Kent Crispin wrote:
> ...
Well, it really doesn't matter what he wrote. The point is, he's
back, and that means no possibility of any useful discussion on this
list. So, good-bye and good luck to you all.
M.S.
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?
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
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 help
>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. Un
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,
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...
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 mo
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 late
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 PROTECT
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
>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 http
>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 an
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
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
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.
>> >
>> >Buryin
> >> 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 protocol
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
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 w
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.
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 not
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.
> >
> >Ignor
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
>> 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 s
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,
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,
a
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
>
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 me
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.
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 mu
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, personally
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 Son
- 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
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
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
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.
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.C
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 ADMII
38 matches
Mail list logo
