-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:50:17 -0500 (EST)
From: !Dr. Joe Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FYI - stats on Multiligual domain names
Some time ago people here expressed concerns that there were many
preregistrations of domains sta
FYI,
-- Security Alert Consensus --
Number 053 (00.29)
Thursday, July 13, 2000
Created for you by
Network Computing and the SANS Institute
Relevant Info on BSD security bugs a
rge Nominating Committe's members have been drawn from the same
group of people who have run ICANN since its inception, none of whom
represents the independent user community. This alone abrogates any
democratic foundation or authenticity to the At-large election
procedure. What do C
[IFWP
There should be no electoral "inside track" for
candidates put on the ballot by the Committee. In this light, we are
concerned that the schedule proposed contemplates that the official
nominations process will conclude by the end of July, and the
self-nomination process start only the
FYI: More ccTLD's say no to ICANN FEES
Joe Baptista
dot.GOD Hostmaster
+1 (805) 753-8697
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:29:46 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ga] European ccTLDs refuse to pay ICANN fee?
Dear
The illustrious Mr. Walsh is attempting to engage me in conversation on
other discussion lists.
Just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. Officially Mr. Walsh has
promissed he would never interact with me in email and I feel this attemp
by Walsh is another clear example the poor can't kee
The deadline for nominations, statements of support for a nomination, and
statements of acceptance is tomorrow, October 8th, (18:00 CET) (see
http://www.dnso.org/timeworld.html for local time in other places).
The list of nominees to date, suppporters, and the template to submit
support are all
Apologies for duplicates.
For those of you heading to ICANN's LA meeting, the Berkman Center will
be holding a briefing program on Sunday, October 31. Our students are
researching key issues so that participants will have more of the
relevant data that bears on the decisions ahead.
The agenda w
FYI
Regards
Jeff Mason
--
Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 22:22:15 -0400
From: Planet Communications <[EMAIL PROTEC
> This listing output on postings to several mailing lists on comments
> and other statements made by Kent Crispin and Dave Crocker in
> particular should give you and indication at least as to their accuracy
> in any future comments they may make definitive claims.
The postings previously made
All,
For over 3 years I have been segmenting out postings into a
E-Mail database with respect to Kent Crispin and Dave Crocker
missives and other inaccurate claims/statements/pronouncments.
Here is the current output.
>>> Crispin_Crocker_Table by segment (Output) <<<
Records meet
net.internet.dns.policy #443 (1)--(1)+-(1)--(1)--[1]
From: Jim Kingdon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \-(1)
[1] Re: ICANN on the (internet) radio
Date: Fri Jun 18 10:53:29 EDT 1999
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Lines: 14
Distribution: 4gh
Ron and all,
No I understood you concern very clearly, hence my response to it
as I share your concern. It appears however that this concern, along
with several others that have sense been reported regarding Register.com
are going unheaded, or are not considered serious enough to act
upon by t
Ellen,
You wrote:
> The answer is simple. NSI, the registrar, has a different policy as
> regards "offensive" words (although I'm not certain this word fits that
> description) than does register.com. NSI officials confirmed to me late
> in
> April that this might occur in the Shared Registry
Ellen, Ron and all,
Yes this was discussed on the DOmain Policy list even before
April. The point is that to do so is foolish on ICANN's and any
registrar to do as it is in most countries including the US
an established violation of freedom of expression. This will
only lead to eventual court
Richard, Ron and all,
Another interesting observation on this post as well. I noticed
the TITTIES.COM is an active domain... There is even a "Free"
area as well! >;) Shocking, just shocking! I guess the relative
filters didn't work in this instance, eh?
This sort of thing kinda gets yo
Someone wrote:
>>
>>SO HOW COULD SOMEONE REGISTER TITS.COM AT REGISTER.COM WHEN THEY BLOCK
>>REGISTRATION *REQUESTS* FOR SUCH DOMAINS!??
>>
>>Just to be sure that the TITS.COM and similar are still blocked, I tried
>>registering various profane domains at both NSI webpage and via NSI
>>registratio
Richard, Ron and all,
Yes Ron, you seem the have noticed the lack of consistency and total
lack of oversight of the ICANN in this "Experiment" of the introduction of
Registrar competition as well. It actually is allot worse than your
notice (See below). We[INEGroup] have four folks tracking t
"The beauty of competition is having somebody else to complain about"
>Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains,alt.domain-names.registries,alt.censorship
>Subject: Register.com CHEATING Exposed!! Important please read!!
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ron Bennett)
>Organization: Netcom
>X-Newsreader
Brian,
I received about an hour ago, a very interesting threatening
call regarding
my forwarding your post "[Advisory Notice from IHOJ] Subject: Unsavory
Individuals "NetKooks", from someone, which will remain nameless
at Mindspring/Netcom customer service. He attempted to inform
me that the p
All,
Here is an FYI for you. It seems like the ICANN is attempting to
gather
constituents in support for future qualifications for ASO guidelines
to be incorporating them into future changes in the "Accreditation
Policy" from the Singapore meeting.
It might be important to note that there i
Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit:
>
> Ah, the K*nt again. At least disingenous obfuscation is an area where
> he has genuine expertise.
Like the fat woman who accuses everyone else of eating too much,
Kent is projecting (as Sigmund would say).
Ivan Pope a écrit:
>
> I look forward to the day when I can phone up a Registry office who will
> actually enthusiastically work with me to increase the numbers of
> registrations. When I feel that I am getting support from a party who
> doesn't regard me as little more than an interloper. Who isn
At 08:08 AM 3/25/99 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I know many refuse to accept this, but the old InterNIC was
>a hybrid site involving both registry (DNS) and registrar
>(customer) functions and it is very easy to establish that
>most of the functions on the InterNIC site were registrar
>relate
Whomever this might be and all,
Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kent Crispin writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 08:08:58AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I know many refuse to accept this, but the old InterNIC was
> > > a hybrid site involving both registry (
At 07:26 AM 3/25/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 08:08:58AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I know many refuse to accept this, but the old InterNIC was
>> a hybrid site involving both registry (DNS) and registrar
>> (customer) functions and it is very easy to establish th
In message <000201be76ca$2c4f04c0$010a@jbr>, "John B. Reynolds" writes:
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I know many refuse to accept this, but the old InterNIC was
> > a hybrid site involving both registry (DNS) and registrar
> > (customer) functions and it is very easy to establish t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kent Crispin writes:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 08:08:58AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I know many refuse to accept this, but the old InterNIC was
> > a hybrid site involving both registry (DNS) and registrar
> > (customer) functions and it is very easy to es
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 08:08:58AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I know many refuse to accept this, but the old InterNIC was
> a hybrid site involving both registry (DNS) and registrar
> (customer) functions and it is very easy to establish that
> most of the functions on the InterNIC site wer
]]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 9:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IFWP] FYI
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I know many refuse to accept this, but the old InterNIC
was
> a hybrid site involving both registry (DNS) and registrar
> (customer) functions and it is very easy
ystem)."
The phrase "for which NSI now acts as a registry" seems pretty clear to me.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John B. Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 11:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [IF
, but there will be shortly.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: John B. Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 11:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IFWP] FYI
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>
> At 05:44 PM 3/24/99 , John B. Reynolds wrote:
> >The
If that were the case, it would be appropriate
for
http://www.internic.net
and
http://rs.internic.net
to continue to point to it, since InterNIC is the
registry (the registrar is WorldNIC).
John,
Yep. Thought it might be a staging site for a
new registry home page, but it just looks like
the ol
hidden away in a corner.
Ivan
> -Original Message-
> From: A.M. Rutkowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 11:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] FYI
>
>
> At 05:44 PM 3/24/99 , John B. Reynolds wrote:
> &g
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>
> At 05:44 PM 3/24/99 , John B. Reynolds wrote:
> >The old InterNIC site is still up (presumably maintained in case NSI is
> >forced to pull down the new one): It's at http://198.41.0.5/ or
> >http://rs0.internic.net/.
>
> It actually looks like the site for the new regi
At 06:02 PM 3/24/99 -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>At 05:44 PM 3/24/99 , John B. Reynolds wrote:
>>The old InterNIC site is still up (presumably maintained in case NSI is
>>forced to pull down the new one): It's at http://198.41.0.5/ or
>>http://rs0.internic.net/.
>
>It actually looks like the sit
At 05:44 PM 3/24/99 , John B. Reynolds wrote:
>The old InterNIC site is still up (presumably maintained in case NSI is
>forced to pull down the new one): It's at http://198.41.0.5/ or
>http://rs0.internic.net/.
It actually looks like the site for the new registry
home page, doesn't it?
--tony
The old InterNIC site is still up (presumably maintained in case NSI is
forced to pull down the new one): It's at http://198.41.0.5/ or
http://rs0.internic.net/.
All,
Looks like there is allot more than enough to go around...
see: http://cnnfn.com/digitaljam/newsbytes/128328.html
So just maybe there is jusst a bit too much whining going
on here???
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Inform
All,
FYI, http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2187903,00.html
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Bl
All,
Interesting FYI. One wonders why the ICANN did not put this out'
on an announcment. That openness thing again I suppose
>From Commerce Business Daily, January 6, 1999 PSA-2256
INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY
Category : (Automatic Data Processing and Telecommunication
Services)
For those interested in address aggregation as it pertains to IP address
assignment issues...
--karl--
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 12:00:04 -0800
From: Tony Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTE
42 matches
Mail list logo
