Re: [IFWP] .US ?

I expect that the speculators are seeing less glittering future profits, and the market is proving that there is no danger in expanding the number of TLDs. Also, .US is not all that attractive in the first place. Cheers...\Stef At 12:44 AM +0200 4/28/02, Marc Schneiders wrote: >Why does it lo

[IFWP] [bwg+] interesting news

VeriSign Value Plummets, Internet News, 4/26/2002, http://www.internetnews.com/fina-news/article/0,,5_1016551,00.html

Re: [IFWP] All .us users to come under surveillance andcensorship control of US Gov

Hello Stephen -- My take on all this is that; First: The .us TLD has been a wasteland since it was created. (This is why I have always avoided any us of .US;-)... and that; Second: Now it is going to get worse. (Whichis why I am very happy with my prior choices;-) Neustar understands thin

Re: [IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .orgreassignment

600 3/22/02, Jim Fleming wrote: >- Original Message - >From: "Einar Stefferud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment > > > > Do we need a sanction from anyone to run such an election? > > > &

[IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment

Do we need a sanction from anyone to run such an election? If the voter EMail addresses are openly available, it should be easy enough to issue a voter ID (DVC) to each and let them vote via the Internet. See Perhaps IFWPlist would like to give it a try for IFWP subsc

Re: [IFWP] OpenSRS Live Reseller Update 03/21/02

What A marvelous result of the faulty SRS protocol designed by NSI. I recall warning them about this exact problem when they asked me to review it. Oh Well, they were not paying me, so they deserve what they get for ignoring me. Foreward;-)..Stef (New Naval Term for Sailing Into the Wind) A

Re: [IFWP] The ISOC Takeover (Was: Farber suggests the IAB)

But Richard, going along with your ISP is a form of voting. Not everyone votes in their best interest all the time, especially if they don't have all the needed information, but then, not having chosen to get the right information (or knowledge) they have again voted their choices. We can wo

Re: [IFWP] The ISOC Takeover (Was: Farber suggests the IAB)

To recall a point I made many years ago about the DNS: Since every user of any computer, who has their computer's "root" password, or if the computer does not have a password on its "root" login, has the privilege of setting the value of the user's own choosing for the IP address location of her/

RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder

Of course Marc;-)... Too True! But, without it, the ITU Telephone Heads would not have left a mark anywhere in the Internet. Surely you do not expect them to give up on leaving their mark! So far as I can tell, they have done very little to improve on what TPC.INT did 5 years or more ago, a

RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder

At 12:08 PM +0100 3/19/02, Marc Schneiders wrote: >On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, at 20:52 [=GMT-0500], Richard J. Sexton wrote: > > > >> There's a $35 piece of sofware called "Simple DNS+" that puts >bind to shame > > >> for ease of use anf user friendlyness. http://www.jhsoft.com/ >There's a 30 > > >

RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder

Yeah;-)... This is the original TPC.INT scheme set up by Marshall Rose and Carl Malamud to map all phone numbers in the world into the DNS;-)... <9.1.7.1.3.7.4.3.1.6.1.tcp.int> They used it to set up free FAX transmission via the Internet with local volunteer servers all arou

RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder

Sort of. Its lineage is via NeXT, which includes NeXT STEP and some other non-unix stuff. It has a MACH kernel, among other things. So, lots of stuff will port easily, but not all. the people I talk to love it, and say "It is REAL UNIX" which I believe, but I do not have much info on what p

RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder

Will it run on OSX? Cheers...\Stef At 8:52 PM -0500 3/18/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > >> There's a $35 piece of sofware called "Simple DNS+" that puts >bind to shame > >> for ease of use anf user friendlyness. http://www.jhsoft.com/ There's a 30 > >> day free trial. I tried it and paid fo

RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder

We should interpret Adam Todd's refusal as a request for removal. Simple action, positive result!...\Stef At 8:04 AM -0800 3/18/02, Ellen Rony wrote: >Doesn't name.space have some colliders,the same TLD delegated to more than >one administrator in the inclusive TLD universe? > >[Aside: .SHEESH

RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder

No, I don't mean per any protocol. Is it not typical to receive messages in the size range of 368738 bytes?...\Stef At 11:40 AM -0500 3/18/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote: >At 08:14 AM 3/18/02 -0800, you wrote: > >Isn't 368738 bytes well within the max size limit of a single >SNMP message? > >Bea

RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder

Isn't 368738 bytes well within the max size limit of a single SNMP message? Cheers...\Stef At 10:07 AM -0500 3/18/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > >The root Zone is minuscule these days relative to the size, for > >instance of Windoze. > >Or IE or OutLook, etc, ad nauseum... > > > >How many

RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder

There is no Internet Governance involved with ICANN, except for the hidden agenda of gaining control of Information Distribution by means of contracts binding users of DNS names to control by the name "delegators" who in fact have no natural reason to be controlling what people do with their n

RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder

Right on Richard;-)... The root Zone is minuscule these days relative to the size, for instance of Windoze. Or IE or OutLook, etc, ad nauseum... How many bytes is it Richard? Cheers...\Stef At 10:00 PM -0500 3/17/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > >If a great thunderbolt from heaven descended u

RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder

There is no such thing as an alternate inclusive root. The Inclusive root includes all non colliding TLDs, so there is nothing alternate about it...Stef At 7:21 PM -0500 3/17/02, Joanna Lane wrote: >Yeah, right, and they'll call upon UN forces to defend security and >stability of the internet.

Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections

When pray tell did the Govt pay for my piece of the Internet. I do not recall ever getting any funds from them to pay for it. I sure would appreciate getting back my $70,000 spent on Internet stuff over the years. Somehow I expect you are not counting anything spent by non-govt people to moun

Re: [IFWP] The ITU, to the rescue ...

At 17:57 -0500 20/02/02, Jay Fenello wrote: >The ITU, to the rescue ... > > >http://www.geneva2003.org/home/index01.htm > >Background > >The international community is organizing a World Summit on the >Information Society. It will take place in two phases: in Geneva, >December 2003, to be fo

Re: [IFWP] Corrupt Domain Name Arbitration

Well, if you were AMAZON and wanted to improve your odds Cheers...\Stef At 10:55 -0500 18/01/02, Michael Sondow wrote: >How can the law firm that represents ICANN represent a complainant in a >domain name arbitration? > >=

Re: [IFWP] Typosquatting

completion. Thanks for all your considerations... If you want me to give your pages a test run, just send me the URLS. Cheers...\Stef At 22:56 +0200 10/10/01, Marc Schneiders wrote: >On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, at 08:57 [=GMT-0700], Einar Stefferud wrote: > > > Thanks Mark for the feedback. >

Re: [IFWP] Typosquatting

ote: >On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, at 14:32 [=GMT-0700], Einar Stefferud wrote: > > > Very confusing set of URLs, requires a lot of careful thought to find > > your page. > >Thank you for putting me on the right track! Let me try again: go to >www.nxdomain.net and click on the one

Re: [IFWP] Typosquatting

Very confusing set of URLs, requires a lot of careful thought to find your page. Blue Ink on White Background is pointless in terms of readability. What ever happened to black and white? If you want anyone to read what you are presenting, please make it readable;-)... If you do not want anyone

[IFWP] Fwd: IP: Disconnect the Dots -- Maybe We Can't Cut Off Terror'sHead, but We Can Take Out Its Nodes

This concept explains several things about our efforts to organize into some kind of coherent business organization, based on our existence as a network of people looking for ways to deal with DNS ROOT ISSUES. We are a network, living in a network (SURPRISE!) and looking like a network. Cheer

PRIVATE Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

Given your attitude toward anything I say, I think we have completed all our useful interactions;-)... Enjoy the silence;-)...\Stef At 16:15 -0600 12/09/01, Ken Freed wrote: >Paranoid, Stef? Do you always presume that everyone is against you? >Look at your mistaken presumption regarding my vie

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

Of course, and I assume you will make sure that it is passed along, in case someone else has not;-)... Fortunately, "my plans" are just thoughts on the fly;-)... But thank you very much for informing everyone here that ICANN has spies all around us, to be sure they know what we think, so they

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

Well, how about that. With Kent Crispin here the beans are already spilt, which is why I am leaving. Cheers...\Stef At 00:38 -0700 11/09/01, Einar Stefferud wrote: >Well, we run some danger of you going to ICANN meetings and spilling >our beans;-)... > >So, you will find some ho

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

Hi Kent -- Now that I see you are here, I shall simply exit stage left;-)... Enjoy;-)...\Stef At 23:03 -0700 10/09/01, Kent Crispin 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 the

Re: [IFWP] Introduction

about from time to time since. I am now retired while remaining active in Internet affairs. I have had my NMA.COM domain name since 1987. For more information just put my address <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or my name (Einar Stefferud> into your favorite GOOGLE search engine and stand back;-)...

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

Right on Patrick;-)... And a strategy of first making an egg is not likely to work out. First we need the chicken, and it will give us some eggs. If we also have a rooster;-)...\Stef At 19:19 -0700 10/09/01, Patrick Greenwell wrote: >On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Ellen Rony wrote: > > > If there were k

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

Well, we run some danger of you going to ICANN meetings and spilling our beans;-)... So, you will find some hostility here to people who insist on participating in both. We a re not going to try to kill ICANN, but we also do not want to put our head in the ICANN guillotine for no good purpos

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

Of course we cannot and will not ignore ICANN.,. After all, out plan is to copy the ICANN ROOT, and augment it into being our superior Inclusive Root, to be offered as a solid well managed ROOT service to ISP's that want and need such a service. We should also offer it to the ccTLD operators w

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

t until this comes about before I commit to any plans. Onward;-)...\Stef At 23:36 +0200 10/09/01, Marc Schneiders wrote: >On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 17:32 [=GMT-0400], Michael Sondow wrote: > > > Einar Stefferud wrote: > > > > > > In my view, ICANN is no longer w

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

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

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

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

Re: [IFWP] Introduction

On what basis are you running for an ICANN BoD seat? On reading a few lines of your candidate statement, I note that you call for many of the same things that the IFWP (and the ORSC) called for long long ago in a meeting far far away (in Singapore;-)... What makes you think that you can have a

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

OK, so now we are back to edge control by individuals, which is where I started. My strong suspicion is that if you take the entire internet as your target, that any "government" (with or without a constitution) will tend toward becoming centralized and bureaucratic (and hence dictatorial), an

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

Hi Ken -- So, you are just returning me to my first question;-)... If some kind of democratic government, supported by a good constitution is a good thing, why not try it also for the global economy? I say this because they are both edge controlled environments, and because economic freedom is s

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

And The Solution to this lament is _? Assuming, of course, that laments have solutions. Cheers...\Stef At 16:36 +0200 09/09/01, Marc Schneiders wrote: >On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, at 16:01 [=GMT-0400], Richard J. Sexton wrote: > > > I agree with Gordon on this; we don't need "gevernance". W

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

Hello Ned -- At 12:27 -0600 08/09/01, Ken Freed wrote: >Wrongaroonie, Einar -- >The goal is a decentralized network of independent democracies, >just as we need individuals practicing reponsible self rule from a >common global sense of our deep interactivity. That how genuine >freedom and democra

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

And then we can undertake to create a global constitution for the Global Economy, and then take on any other edge controlled environments which also surely\ need to have a constitution, to apply Centralized Democratic Government. Enjoy your trip;-)... At 12:47 -0600 07/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:

Re: [IFWP] Re: Registrar Constituency meeting - Berlin

Hi Patrick -- That is the bad news. The good news is that doing so will unmask ICANN for what it is;-)... BTW, my access to present mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is blocked and my mail is being rejected. Cheers...\ >From your message Fri, 21 May 1999 19:41:12 -0700 (PDT

[IFWP] Re: voting

Hi Esther -- Please forward this to the official address for protests against the processes that ICANN is employing in organizing the constituencies. I am not at all clear where to send a protest like this, but I trust you to know where to send it and to send it there. It is my intention that th

[IFWP] Announcement of the new TLD Association (TLDA)

PROTECTED]>, "Dan Steinberg (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David Farber (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Don Telage (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ed Gerck (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Einar

[IFWP] Re: Not at all, was Re: the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency, status update

Hello Ed and Joop -- I fear that some kind of short circuit has occurred here. Maybe several all at once;-)... So, lets back up and reset/restart. I am not entirely opposed to constituencies, but I am opposed to them as ICANN is using them. I am not organizing one of my own, but I am supporti

Re: [IFWP] RE: Iperdome Status Report

Indeed, Jay, the values you identify are worth working for. I agree with Roberto that labeling them as American is not a helpful idea in the ocntext of the Interent, which is viewed around the world with a certain suspician that is it controlled by the US and needs t0o be wrsted from "American Co

Re: [IFWP] The DNSO General Assembly

Apr 1999 22:01:54 -0400: } }Einar Stefferud a =E9crit: }>=20 }> Your policy is most laudable. }>=20 }> What is the mechanism for making this work in Berlin? } }Well, what I thought was I would ask each one who can't come to }Berlin if they want to assign me their vote. If they do, th

Re: [IFWP] The DNSO General Assembly

Your policy is most laudable. What is the mechanism for making this work in Berlin? Cheers...\Stef >From your message Wed, 14 Apr 1999 17:33:12 -0400: } }Einar Stefferud a =E9crit: }>=20 }> I wish you good lucj, but since ICANN is going to take its cues from }> those present in

Re: [IFWP] The DNSO General Assembly

I wish you good lucj, but since ICANN is going to take its cues from those present in Berlin, the game is already hosed. I see no effort at all to work things ourt so that netizens can participate without flying to Berlin. Cheers...\Stef >From your message Tue, 13 Apr 99 16:31:48 -0400: } }The

[IFWP] Re: [Membership] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18

P:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] }Sent: Monday, April 12, 1999 4:02 AM }To:Michael Sondow; ICANN MAC list; ICANN; Int'l Forum on the White = }Paper; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Joop Teernstra; Jonathan Zittrain; Daniel = }Kaplan; DNSO discuss; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Einar Stefferud; Eric = }Weisberg; Esther Dyson; Jay

[IFWP] Re: the Individual Domain Name Owners constituency

I also support formation of such a constituency. I suggest that it not take its direction from ICANN as to its ineterests, but first organize an membership fo domain name owners and find out what are their interests. It is my interest to protect the interests of domain name owners, adn not to pr

Re: [IFWP] Fwd: Re: Power Politics and the New Internet Order

After reading the rest of this thread, which devolves into name calling and drifts off the topic, I have decided to answer this one from early in the thread;-)... As a result of the early discussion in this thread, it suddenly becomes very clear that if anyone is building a Private INTRAnet, and

Re: [IFWP] Fwd: Re: Power Politics and the New Internet Order

Thanks Dan for wiping out windsheilds again so we can see more clearly. I also agree with Chris Ambler's proposal that Well Know Name Holders and Famous Name Holders should all have the same opportunity to establish a TLD in their name, if they want to do so, and that if they do, they have to mee

Re: [IFWP] Fwd: Re: Power Politics and the New Internet Order

So, what is wrong with .ibm, .att, .ford, .etc? Lets cede all famous names to have TLD registries, and reserve the TLD space for them. Then they can mount thier TLD if they want to step up to the reguirements of running a TLD service for themselves. This requires a lasrger commitement than

Re: [IFWP] Re: [dnsproc-en] Re: Domain Names are property, says court

Call signs have much of the same character as DNS names, in that they may not be used in conflict by two different Electro Magnetic Signa Transmitters. But, this has nothing to do with whether or not the call sign registrant owns some intellectual property in connection with the Call Sign string.

Re: [IFWP] Deeper and deeper

Chuckle: The ICANN of WORMS;-)...\Stef >From your message Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:02:55 -0500: } }Roeland, } }I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. }What particular can 'o worms are you referring to? } }"Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote: }> }> Hello all, }> }> It occurs to me that we ke

[IFWP] Re: Power Politics and the New Internet Order

Good show Jay;-)... Your comments fit with my interpretation of the facts as we know them. Best...\Stef

Re: [IFWP] Re: [dnsproc-en] Re: Domain Names are property, says court

Thanks Bill -- I have been making that point now for about two years, and you are the first person to restate it in other words! I welcome your support for the concept that ICANN is claiming to onw things that they have not been conceived. My claim is that the "ICANN owns all names" business mod

Re: [IFWP] Demise of Internic

The Internet and The Economy are very much the same, in that both are controlled from their edges, where individuals and companies all make local decisons about product and service purcahses and offereings, though some influence is applied with some Intergovernmental Treaties and Central Banks and

[IFWP] Re: A tough decision

Thanks William X... Let us know if we may assist you in any way. Best...\Stef >From your message Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:29:25 -0800 (PST): } } }For the last 24 hours this has been a matter of a great deal of thought for me. } }Even has I finished work late last night, I was willing to give NSI the

[IFWP] Re: Drawing lines

Hi Esther -- Assuming that this is a postion of ICANN that you are reporting, may I respectfully ask if y0ou are broadcasting your response to the partites that Jay identified as not working in an open manner? If not, may I respectfully ask that you and/or ICANN do so via all possible channels of

Re: [IFWP] Forming a NCDNC

That is my definition originally used ORSC constituency definitions. It makes perfect sense to me still. Cheers...\Stef David Schutt wrote: > > There was a definition of a domain holder floating around. It was anyone > with administrative control of a zone file. (whether they did the actual >

Re: [IFWP] Forming a NCDNC

Tony -- Very interesting. I expect that we need to think about the structural issues where many ccTLDs use the 2LD level for categories (which really correspond to gTLDs in some important ways.) So, just cutting across particular levels is not going to work very well. So, I come back to "anyone

Re: [IFWP] RE: Privacy of Domain Registration Information

I don't have a great quarrel over the $1.00 per year per registered name, but I am very concerned about oversight for ICANN in its use of the funds! And, at a higher meta level I find the chasm among conceptual business models for naming and the registering of names to be a major problem. We hav

Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademark Enforcement at the TLD Level. WAS Re: a

law has no concept fo the issue. Cheers...\Stef >From your message Mon, 01 Mar 1999 17:32:29 -0800 (PST): } } }On 02-Mar-99 Einar Stefferud wrote: }> I think the best move for us to take is to just start using the }> Trademarking of Private and Prospective TLDs and be done with it. It

Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademark Enforcement at the TLD Level. WAS Re: alternate rootzone

I think the best move for us to take is to just start using the Trademarking of Private and Prospective TLDs and be done with it. It is a silly thing to try to use qas a hammer to get ICAN to back off. They do not listen to or respond to threats! They react to real live action. And since this n

Re: [IFWP] Comments on draft registrar accreditation guidelines

Thank You David Schutt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for such a well thought out and articulate statement. I want to add my endorseent to it. Cheers...\Stef >From your message Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:29:14 -0600: } }As an individual user and a commercial user of the Internet, I have grave }concerns about th

Re: [IFWP] NSI's selective funding policy

This is very interesting;-)... I have seen no hostile ad homonim comments from Chuck Gomes, though I might find the accusation of making them to be a case of making them. Cheers...\Stef >From your message Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:33:40 -0500: } }Dave, } }Whereas there were no formal selection criter

Re: [IFWP] hypocrisy (was: Time out....)

You are simply being nasty now with no sense to your comments. Why should anyone take your snide advice to ask for NSI travel money? Why don't you ask for some for yourself? I think it would be wonderful if you asked and they gave you some. What is the point of this game of: "Anything

Re: [IFWP] NSI payments Adam Todd and Richard Sexton

Hello Kent -- If the words you are using (yours, not ours) are "completely unimportant" (your words, not ours), then why do you publish them in the first place. Shall we also assume that your use of the words "private control of TLDs" is also completely unimportant? Cheers...\Stef >From your me

Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020

I think it woudl be just fine if you, Kent, would stop putting words my my mouth, and trying to speak for ORSC;-)... First, I assure you that this is not a joke;-)... I in fact am seriously opposed to a lot of NSI policies and I am working toward moving to a different TLD, in part to be free of

[IFWP] Re: NSI payments Adam Todd and Richard Sexton

OK Kent -- I have laid out all my support for other sources. There was then and is now, nothing going on under the table on my side of this discussion. I and ORSC specialize in working in the open, and I must say that I find that we have been able to contribute vastly more to the cause of findin

Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020

Hello Chuck and all -- I have been no less harsh in criticism of NSI policies and operations than of ICANN polices and operations, or of IAHC/CORE policies and operations. I have accepted travel exepense support from NSI ($800+) to attend the ICANN Boston "open" Meeting, and also support from a

Re: [IFWP] Dallas Conference first day report

I agree with your totally. The irony was intended. Cheers...\Stef >From your message Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:16:03 -0800: } }At 12:01 AM -0800 2/25/99, Einar Stefferud wrote: }>On pain of possibly encountering a severe case of regrets, I have to }>agree with Dave that: } }I find it

Re: [IFWP] ICANN comments deadline

eople who }> >have to read the comments won't have much time before the Singapore }> >meeting. That could mean burning lots of midnight oil or it could }> >mean information overload. If the latter is true, then decisions }> >should not be taken on such i

Re: [IFWP] Dallas Conference first day report

On pain of possibly encountering a severe case of regrets, I have to agree with Dave that: "There is only quietly shunning" and "This [behavior] will only change when such contributions are ignored, thoroughly and permanently." Dave and I together have proven conclusiv

[IFWP] Re: Singapore DNSO Meeting Schedule and Agenda - 2nd draft

1999 at 03:53:53PM -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote: }> Hello Joop;-)... }> }> Yes, this should be documented as yet another biased ICANN/DNSO.ORG }> action, intended, but perhaps just a Freudian Slip, to bias the DNSO }> meeting attendance while looking like they are issuing an open

[IFWP] Re: Singapore DNSO Meeting Schedule and Agenda - 2nd draft

Hello Joop;-)... Yes, this should be documented as yet another biased ICANN/DNSO.ORG action, intended, but perhaps just a Freudian Slip, to bias the DNSO meeting attendance while looking like they are issuing an open invitation. Thanks for pointing out that it was to only sent to two list addres

[IFWP] Re: comment solicitation

Thank you Molly for clarifying that no specific notice was posted regarding the draft that was added to your web site on 17 Feb, so that there was very little effective notice to the community. It should go without saying that you must not expect all of us to constantly check your web ICANN site

Re: [IFWP] ICANN comments deadline

By what measure is 3 days maximum elapsed time deemed sufficient to obtain indepth and thoughtful comments (or suupport) from the global Interent Community? Sahdes of IAHC... they at least allowed us to have a couple of weeks before reading and ignoring our efforts. But, I suppose this is calle

Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020

e proposal;-)... That is all...\Stef >From your message Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:03:35 +: } }Roeland, Stef and all, } }Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: } }> At 09:56 PM 2/19/99 -0500, you wrote: }> >>At 03:06 PM 2/19/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote: }> >>>I have not analyzed this in an

Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure

tery of what is the ORSC "policy postion" is that ORSC advocates opening up the root to as many TLDs as the market wants. No more, no less! And sooner rather than later! Because the lack of gTLD names is THE CORE PROBLEM! Cheers...\Stef >From your message Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09

Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority

regarding item number 3 are }related only to GTLD's and future GTLD's and do not necessarily have }application with CCtld's } }best wishes } }ken }-Original Message- }From: Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> }To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> }Cc: [E

Re: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

Hi Antony -- I need to challenge some of your points;-)... >From your message Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:33:43 -0500: } }> }> On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: }> }> > NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD }> > charters serve a purpose? }> }> Why should they

Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademarks vs DNS

I have some interesting value questions (I hope)... 1. What is the value of an SLD in a Chartered TLD if the TLD "name-string" does not work with the desired SLD name-string. 2. What is the value of an SLD in a chartered TLD if the business changes over time, such that the charter forb

Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority

Hi Ken -- Your questrions need some additonal context before the answers can make any sense.. Are we talking about registrars for only registries that are monoplies like NSI, or totally shared registeries ala CORE, or all registries including all ccTLDs and new gTLDs? Will all TLD re

[IFWP] Re: Good ICANN money making scheme: Proprietary protocols in IETF clothing?

I believe that INTERNET-DRAFTS are not controlled by the RFC EDITOR. This is a failure of the IETF Secetariat, of IESG oversight. I have already commented on the lameness of the "This document is an }Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026" text tha

Re: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] BMW Procedural Problems

It seems abundantly clear to me that ICANN has a large role to play in making it very clear that they will not favor any application whose supporters refuse to reasonably participate in a process of resolving differences. And this included doing so in public on the Internet. It is not good enoug

[IFWP] Re: California meeting March 18; was Re: Chopped liver no more! Was Re: do we want......?

What kind of meeting is this expected to be? Does it have an agenda? Is it just a social gathering? Or a Birds Of A Feather thing? Or just a meeting to enable saying that ICANN held one in California? Seriously, we should have more of an idea about why and what. Cheers...\Stef

Re: [IFWP] Re: California meeting March 18; was Re: Chopped liver no more! Was Re: do wewant......?

>From your message Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:47:30 -0800 (PST): } }On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Ken Stubbs wrote: } }> get a life ellen. } }Is it possible to see a post from you where you do not make a snide or }disparaging remark? It certainly would be a refreshing change. This rather nasty comment has no

[IFWP] Re: Central Authority is be Dangerous

The Key Issue, which Mr. Zittrain also misses here is the necessary distinction between NSI and its REgistrars becoming "regulated" because NSI is a recognized Moopoly which just happens to be the result of a nasty Market Structure Failure (caused by a lack of proper USGovt Oversight of IANA and N

[IFWP] Re: RFC 1591 and ccTLD's (was Draft new draft)

This is now all the more pressing as we see what ICANN has in mind for Registration, Certification, and Regulation of the entire Registrar and Registry Industry, World Wide! Yes, I know, ICANN has not exactly made it known that this is really what they have in mind, but they also have not disavow

[IFWP] Re: Can we make one list for the dnso discussion?

Well, I have several times proposed using <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for this singular purpose, since it has been rescued, and even suggested adoption of the ORSC civil discourse rules, with a new panel of referees to handle complaints. I even nominated the referees, but I forget who they were. I recal

[IFWP] Re: Amendments to Paris Draft

I think this is a fine idea, and in addition please add some other things that have been proposed. Like, make sure that Fair Hearing Panels can be initiated by petition to the Names Council (or maybe also to the General Assembly) after due consideration given to the petition. This need not req

Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure

ered and certified registrars and a few carefully controlled shared registries! How better to extract ICANN taxes from all concerned? Cheers...\Stef PS: NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! >From your message Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:04:52 -0800 (PST): } }Einar Stefferud <[

[IFWP] Re: Who in ISOC supports the DNSO.ORG Draft? (was Re: Whos is on that draft)

I believe that everyone on the AIP/ORSC side of the Paris Draft Adoption conclusion stands for the change that Bret proposed and cited below. Is it still on the boards for inclusion? When is the drafting attempt going to be mde to come up with a meld of the two applications? This change belongs

[IFWP] Re: ICANN's Defective Competition Guidelines, etc (was Accredita

Jeff -- If you know thew answer to your question better than I do, then please answer if for yourself. I am not at all interested in playing 20 questions with you. Over and out;-)...\Stef >From your message Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:37:16 -0800 (PST): } } }No he didn't. Because the information conta

[IFWP] Re: ICANN's Defective Competition Guidelines, etc (was Accredita

>From your message Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:47:20 +: } }Stef and all, } BTW Stef, what ever happened to what we had discussed regarding the NIST }protest filing? You seemed to have gone back to sitting on the fence again as }Roeland had suggested back on Jan. 22nd. Care to elaborate? } ORSC pr

  1   2   >