Jay Fenello wrote:
At 03:02 PM 10/13/99 , Joe Sims wrote:
you understand, I am sure, but simply don't accept, that
others (like the
USG and what I percieve the vast majority of those in the Internet
community that are participating in this process) think that
what is being
done is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roberto and everybody else,
Roberto, it seems that you have not been paying very close
attention. Rick White is not a member of the GA and as such
cannot be nominated or elected in accordance with the DNSO
bylaws and the procedure at www.dnso.org for the
Mikki Barry wrote:
At 2:20 PM +0200 10/12/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I didn't pay attention - I already wrote to
Mikki/Gordon that I might
have missed something - but where is it written that the person to be
nominated has to be a member of the GA?
Hey guys, all I did was
I may have missed something, but it seems to me that Green Paper and White
Paper are two distinct things.
The former was a draft, and is now buried in oblivion, while the second is
the current (as today, 1999-09-27) statement of policy of the USG.
As such, I don't understand in the following
Jay Fenello wrote:
The White Paper is *not* quoted,
only referenced.
I stand corrected.
You are right.
Roberto
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
At 12:51 PM 9/27/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The former was a draft, and is now buried in oblivion, while
the second is
the current (as today, 1999-09-27) statement of policy of the USG.
Roberto:
"UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Management of
Good morning, everyone.
Funny, Brian C. Hollingsworth has given his/her/its name as Jeff Williams
;)
It seems that after the breeding session this weekend there is even more
confusion about who is who ;)
Regards
Roberto
Everyone,
1. Full name: Jeff Williams
2. E-mail
J. Baptista wrote:
Many of you here, including our dearest Roberto Gaetano, have
petitioned that we do something about Mr. Shaw.
As all readers of these mailing lists know (except for Domain-Policy, to
which I am not subscribed), I did not petition anything, I only asked to be
kept
Gordon,
Resign from what? From his position at NSI, maybe?
I thought that as CEO he is accountable to his shareholders, not to the
Internet Community (not even to speak about the IFWP list).
Regards
Roberto
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
Craig McTaggart wrote:
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
snip
I thought that as CEO he is accountable to his
shareholders, not to the
Internet Community (not even to speak about the IFWP list).
No, that's what Telage says when he threatens ICANN and the
NTIA, but unless
corporate law is
Jay,
You wrote:
This is right out of the Dave Crocker
play book. Try and discredit a 20,000
word summary, by focusing on a single
statement.
I believe there was nothing wrong in Werner's request.
If a statement is believed to be incorrect, it is perfectly normal to ask
for
Joe Baptista wrote:
Roberto I posted the communication to Mr. Shaw not with the
intention of
encouraging discussion, but to provide notice.
I have no interest in participating in this discussion. I
suggest those
who enjoy the gossip of common housewives proceed to do so in private.
Joe Baptista wrote:
Dear Mr. Shaw:
I am writing in reference to allegations and claims made by
you in your
capacity as a representative of GAC, ICANN and the ITU. Your
email to a
number of newsgroups (including the comp.dcom.telecom
conference) claimed
our employees; officers or
Joe,
Yes, you have answered my concern.
What I understand from your answer is that CORE did not explicitely tell you
that they have any interest in the bind99 database.
In other words, you don't have any endorsement from CORE to your project,
and no authorization from their part to use their
Dear Mr. Baptista,
May I ask how comes that you identified CORE as a group having an interest
in your database?
I am particularly curious about who exactly expressed this interest, and how
this is authoritative for CORE.
Thanks.
Regards
Roberto
-Original Message-
From: J.
Ben,
Thank you for the comprehensive report of the difficulties you have.
I believe that you are doing a wonderful job, and I have the feeling of not
being alone in thinking this way.
I also believe that you overreacted to Joop's message, but I can try to
explain how this could have happened
Mark,
You wrote:
It is unclear to me whether you are speaking in an advisory
capacity for the
governments or in a private capacity interpreting the ICANN
bylaws.
AFAIK, no government in the world is so clueless to accept advice from
myself, not to even speak about paying for it ;).
Tony Rutkowski pointed out:
Hi Roberto,
The way I understand it, there is no obligation from ICANN to consult the
governments (in particular those who choose not to participate in the GAC).
au contraire (sorry I don't know the Italian).
The Board will notify the chairman of the
Richard, Tony,
Richard wrote:
For Canada at least, and I suspect other countries, this has
not shown to
be "the will of the Government of Canada". We both know how and why it
was created :-)
I had the feeling this was the case, in reading a previous message from you.
Nevertheless, I
Richard,
You wrote:
So what do you know about your countries involvment inthe
Gac, Roberto ?
Thanks for asking with the plural, because I tend to lose track on which is
really *my* country ;).
To tell you the truth, I feel that at this point in time the EU is
representing more than other
Mark,
You wrote:
One of the questions to which I didn't get an answer in Chile was what
constitutes a quorum of interest sufficient for ICANN to accept GAC's
advice. If
GAC is the voice of thirty or forty governments, it is presumably not
the voice
of the other 160 plus. Is ICANN
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
As well as holding its meetings at low-cost locations that
facilitated the maximum number of interested parties, instead
at places that diminish openness, attendance, scrutiny, etc.
Apparently the DNSO GA "consensus" was decided largely
decided by Chilean students
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
Joe Sims wrote:
On your question, since any national government can join GAC by simply
saying so, the GAC is by definition those governments that care enough
about these issues to participate in it.
The GAC was not constituted by random self-organization. With only
Bill,
You wrote:
My nose insists upon telling me that I smell something putrid.
This malady started when on internet.com I first read "ICANN
Adopts Cyber-Squatting Policy" and then "ICANN gets Financial
Boost." Is that not what many of us have been concerned about
for years now, that
Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote:
Cowboy and indian stuff - first nations are the indians
Jeff,
Would this imply that USG is the cowboys? ;)
Roberto
Michael Sondow wrote:
Yes, they don't seem to realize the respect accorded the ACLU and
that, by attempting to demean it, they are just hurting themselves.
I thought "global village idiot" was a particularly apt phrase,
didn't you?
I find it always amazing how some people that hold
William X. Walsh wrote:
First of all, Roberto, before you make such a judgement, based on the
extremely bias reporting of what was said by a government official who
has been actively involved in promoting the censorship rules, you
should find out exactly what he said.
I must admit you're
Jeff Mason wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:
I must say, I think these fields are exceptionally
reasonable -- each
justified for a legitimate logistical reason, with privacy
policies clearly
stated on the sign-in form itself. Nonetheless, if there are
Gene,
You wrote:
Yes, but you adroitly miss addressing the other issue...
Richard Sexton
also brought up the question of additional gTLD DNSO NC
representatives.
That issue has never been properly addressed.
True, but the purpose of my post was not to give a comprehensive summary of
Gene Marsh wrote:
Then there was CLEARLY no consensus at Berlin for any topic I
witnessed,
except in favor of the IDNO.
Obviously we were at different meetings ;).
At the one I attended (non-com constituency, with participation of to-be
individual constituency), even a straw poll was
http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2311649,00.html
Karl Auerbach wrote:
So if Willy can demonstrate under existing laws that there is
a violation
to his right of publicity, common law trademark, that the other use is
false advertising or interferes with a prospective advantage,
or is unfair
competion, then fine.
It appears that we
Richard,
You wrote:
Sure, just think of those grants that Marconi, Bell and others had.
Thank you for mentioning Guglielmo Marconi: I could not have thought myself
of a better example to make my point.
The grants Marconi received were given at a point in time when the
feasibility of his
Joop,
You wrote:
After the next's day's session with the Board and following deliberation
in
camera the Board came with it's resolution to change the bylaws and limit
NSI to one seat.
I do not recall any other instance that "consensus" was asked or measured
on the gTLD seats.
Let any
Hi, Chuck, how are you?
You wrote:
"Poor management of the testbed by NSI?" I know that there
have been lots
of emotionally based claims to this effect but would be
interested to see
some objective facts.
Thanks for correcting me.
Re-reading the sentence I realize that it gives the
Tony,
You wrote:
Especially considering Roberto was at the last testbed
advisory committee meeting and I don't recall that either
he or anyone else made such an assertion... :-)
I was only at the "first" testbed meeting in Reston, when the testbed
programme was described to us by NSI.
Ronda Hauben wrote:
So the only way to argue for ICANN to exist is to threaten
that something
worse will happen if it doesn't.
That makes clear that ICANN is illegitimate.
And those who argue that you can't complain about ICANN or you will
only get something worse, show that they
Craig,
You wrote:
Okay, we seem to think there is absolutely nothing public about the
Internet, and that this allows us to finally break free of
the burden of
government.
It happens all the time.
When new ideas get started, they are largely financed with public resources
(=governments with
Hi, Jay.
Thanks for answering (comment below):
At 11:36 AM 8/5/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jay,
You wrote:
See the rest of the story at:
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/5139/1.html
Would you qualify the article as "objective" or "biased"?
Hi Roberto,
I
Jim Dixon wrote:
snip
In this instance the 'we' clearly refers to NetNames.
Also, I clearly state that 'restrictive ccTLD policies are
anti-competitive'. Which implies that we believe that
non-restrictive
policies are not anti-competitive. Which would lead you to
the conclusion
Hello.
Jeff Mason wrote:
The comments made by Dr. Tooney concern me, he sounds a bit
like a mafiosi
less the dentures. It's critical that government refrain
from threatening
comments.
The comments made by Dr. Twomey concern me as well, but in fact I don't
think he was threatening
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
Not necessarily - if the intent is protectionism.
What about if it is "not"?
It seems to me that you assume this by default (it's EC, therefore it *must*
be protectionist), then you proceed by circular argumentation to demonstrate
that *it is* protectionist.
But Werner
Michael Sondow wrote:
The EC is taking its cue from ICANN, covering up their own
anticompetitive DNS activities by using NSI as a smokescreen.
Probably, this tactic was suggested to Christopher Wilkinson, who is
a member of CORE, and transmitted by him to DG IV.
Maybe DG IV itself is a
Tony Rutkowsi wrote:
At 12:29 PM 7/29/99 , dibu wrote:
Well, I think is not the same.
NSI domain names are international, but country code based
domain names
not.
From anticompetitive and functional standpoints, it is exactly
the same. The market is the performance of
You're right, I have to admit.
Roberto
Actually Robert, this message was of great interest to many, including
myself and I'm sure others on this list. Lack of a response does not
imply lack of interest.
Jim,
You wrote (answering Mark's message):
Insofar as you are commenting upon this, you seem to have missed my
narrow technical point. Roberto Gaetano asserted that an IP address
uniquely identifies a domain name. This is not true.
Speaking about missing the points, I come back to this
Richard,
Hello. This has nothing to do with multiple roots.
Suppose that you want to reach the Yahoo site.
Under the current system ("legacy", if you want), with one root system, you
are sure to get it by typing http:\\www.yahoo.com.
If you have multiple roots, that point to different
Michael,
snip
taken over John's NewCo. Only a fool would continue to refuse to
listen to those who oppose them, many of whom post to the IFWP. It
is not we who are in need of your messages, but you who are in need
of ours.
Besides the fact that it is Jon, not John, and that everybody
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
Personally, I think the list owner has been far too giving of
his time in
forwarding posts from non-members to the list.
If one wishes to post to the list, then one should be a member.
You are right, in principle, but the problem comes often from the unhealthy
Patrick,
You wrote:
And if one continues to forward those posts to a list,
wouldn't you agree
that they are in fact aiding those with this unfortunate habit?
Maybe I did not make myself clear.
The example I had in mind was that the originator of the thread is
subscribed to each end
Gordon Cook wrote:
Given today's events, Jim Rutt better announce the formation of a
Global Open Registry Association and solicit the 224 country code
TLDs to join the Registry Association before the GAC makes them
obsolete.
May I suggest the motto for the campaign:
"Join the
Karl,
Very good document, indeed.
Let me state my POV on subject #2 (I have objections also on #1, but as this
has been discussed several times, all readers know where our positions
differ, and there's no need to bore them with another thread).
I have nothing in principle against multiple
Michael,
You wrote:
This is what's called solipsistic reasoning, Roberto. The EC POP is
an integral component of the IAHC, which created ICANN and appointed
its board.
Do you have an idea of who is participating in the EC-PoP?
Roberto
Ivan,
You wrote:
Jay,
You really don't get it, do you? The Reuters story is about
ICANN dropping
the $1 fee and opening up its board meetings. I don't think
the journalist
set out to examine the history or future of the namespace.
When people start shouting about media bias you
Hi.
I am commenting of this one because the same point was made on GA-DNSO, and
is worthed discussing. I am repeating my point over here.
Andy Gardner wrote:
What _is_ the point in having a meeting in Santiago?* Has ICANN done a
version of their website en Español? If not, do they expect
Hi.
The message you sent was referring to the discussion in the afternoon, when
clearance was given to sign the PSO MoU.
What I added was that, later on in the evening, the MoU has been physically
signed (which was a piece of information that was not known at the time the
afternoon's message
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
ETSI's requirements are not quite is rigorous, but participation
is hardly open, and I'm not aware in any case, it's open to persons;
and the financial requirements are significant.
Membership is completely open to organizations worldwide.
Maybe the financial
Mark Langston wrote:
On 19 July 1999, Weisberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kent Crispin wrote:
That's a good idea. Right now the IDNO voting software is *not*
being run by a trusted third party at all -- it is being run by a
partisan to the debates.
Please expand upon these two
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
Hi Roberto,
Glad to see you are still usefully participating.
Hi, Tony.
Nice talking to you again.
short snip
The meaning is fairly clear on its face. It says
"...is open to any person or organization." It
doesn't say that, except for the the ITU and ETSI
who
Jay,
I tend not to overestimate the press coverage of these issues, that are
already complicated for those who have been in the debate since long.
I have seen press coverage that is biased and ultra-biased, in one direction
and the other, and I am not shocked. Of course, I understand that you
Ronda Hauben wrote:
I just saw a notice at the House Commerce Committee web site
of a Congressional Hearing by the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations on "Domain Name System Privatization: Is
ICANN Out of Control?"
It is listed as being scheduled for Thursday, July 22, 1999 at
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
It is plainly preposterous to suggest that you need
big bucks to hold an election. This isn't a presidential
election campaign or the United Nations. All the parties
that ever filed in the DOC proceedings, attended a meeting,
or even zinged off a one liner on an
Jay Fenello wrote:
More biased coverage from News.com:
What exactly do you reproach to the coverage?
If it is the part where he pretends that the NSI critics and the Registrars
have not been invited to testify, do you have different information? It will
be good for everybody if you could
Jay,
You wrote:
It started with two processes to find a
community consensus way to self-govern the
Internet. The IFWP featured open meetings
and open discussions, with the result being
a set of compromise and consensus principles
that were reflected in multiple documents,
including
Jeff Williams wrote:
This might be of some interest... FYI
If you want the follow-up, yes, the PSO MoU was signed yesterday night (Oslo
time).
Regards
Roberto
65 matches
Mail list logo
