Roberto and all,
Forgiven, of course. Forgotten, not likely in the near term.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael,
>
> >
> > Christopher Wilkinson isn't a representative of anything. He's a
> > founder of your organization CORE, and as such is simply your
> > spokesperson. Why don't you stop
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Michael,
> >
> > Christopher Wilkinson isn't a representative of anything. He's a
> > founder of your organization CORE, and as such is simply your
> > spokesperson. Why don't you stop trying to pull the wool over
> > everyone's eyes, Mr. Pretend-To-Be-Fair Gaetano?
>
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does it mean we have a chance to be forgiven, or did you simply forget to
> paste in the sentence? ;>)
Roberto.
Anyone willing to run around naked with a colorful hat on their head is
automatically granted dispensation.
Regards
Jeff Mason
--
Plan
Michael,
>
> Christopher Wilkinson isn't a representative of anything. He's a
> founder of your organization CORE, and as such is simply your
> spokesperson. Why don't you stop trying to pull the wool over
> everyone's eyes, Mr. Pretend-To-Be-Fair Gaetano?
>
This time you did not mention that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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).
No obligation to consult governments, when ICANN is planning to take
registry rights away from private entities and
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Mark R Measday wrote:
> Secondly, the governments have shown a great deal of forbearance in
> allowing the
> ICANN to self-constitute under the terms of the White Paper; with the
Mark - government interest has nothing to do with the forbearance of
anything specific. It is
Hi Roberto,
>... which may give another reason for ICANN using the ITU list.
>If there's an obligation to inform, and this task is delegated to the ITU,
>it seems reasonable that the contacted people be the one on ITU's list.
On the other hand, formation of the GAC is a
*really dumb* way of impl
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>
> However, they may be effectively obliged by the "invites 1" provision,
> Res. [COM5/15], Constitution and Convention of the International
> Telecommunication Union, Minneapolis, 1998. That provision - which
> by virtue of its being part of a treaty instrument signed by
Hi Roberto,
>Nevertheless, I keep the part of my point about ICANN not having any
>obligation to contact individual governments that do not participate in the
>GAC.
However, they may be effectively obliged by the "invites 1" provision,
Res. [COM5/15], Constitution and Convention of the Internati
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 Govern
Roberto and all,
You seem to be still missing the point here Roberto. None of the
GAC representatives were the choices of their respective countries.
This includes Christopher Wilkinson. The EU is highly upset at present
that they were not consulted prior to Christopher Wilkinson being "Appoi
Roberto and all,
one has to remember that the members of the GAC are "Appointed" by the
ICANN (Initial?) Interim board (See Article VII and Article III of the ICANN
bylaws for further reference). Hence insuring that the stakeholders
have a "CHOICE" in whom represents their interests as a GAC m
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 Governmental
Advisory Committee of any p
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 s
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 supposed to consult the others
pri
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 o
>I guess each person on this list may watch closely his/her country's rep on
>the GAC, and put pressure on his/her Government to appoint the best people,
>but you cannot expect ICANN to do this research for each of the 200+
>Governemnts. In fact, if I was a Government ;>), I would be upset if ICAN
Roberto,
different choice, picking a different
"initial list", but I don't think it
is really ICANN's duty to select in each Government the person that
is
supposed to represent best the "real" Government Internet
interests: it is
The process didn't require a lot of intellectual prowness.
The rea
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,
Hi Roberto,
I appreciate the thoughtful comment.
Even supposing that the initial list was
biased at the certain point in time
(which I disagree, but is not the point under discussion), it seems to
me
that if a Government cares there's nothing that prevents it to change
the
contact person.
Unfort
Mr. Gaetano and Everyone,
Your "Labeling" of other organizations as "troglodytes of the
telecommunications field" it a bit extreme. Such belief's or
"Labels" should be kept to oneself if you indeed harbor
such feelings. Other governments have different opinions
that may differ slightly or dra
>It just happens that Governments (on the average) have a different approach,
>and until you cannot find a way to ignore the Governments will, we have to
>live with that.
>
>Regards
>Roberto
For Canada at least, and I suspect other countries, this has not shown to
be "the will of the Government
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
Tony and all,
I believe that one of the thing that Joe neglected to mention
but
I hope is aware of is the the ICANN "Appointed" the members of the
GAC "Advisory Committee". As such is is difficult to believe
that
the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board is not presupposed to give
considerable weight
Mr. Mason and Everyone,
I believe the law(s) to which you are referring to indirectly here are those
of "Eminent Domain" and Treaty agreements, that are therefore adequately
encompassing. I know first hand that several EU members are looking into
this situation in that light and reviewing exis
Jeff and Everyone,
Jeff, I believe that you are essentially correct here in you conclusion,
although overly simply stated. The IANA, or now ICANN, is not in a
legal position to make such decisions, though it seems it is attempting to
put itself in a position to do so through and with it's GAC
JeffM and all,
My guess is that it would depend on which ccTLD that ICANN went after.
If it was say, .TO, I doubt that anybody would get very upset other than
those that are currently managing the .TO ccTLD. Others might be a bit
more high profile so as to cause a stir at least and likely gene
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
> JeffM and all,
>
> JeffM, you may be correct here. But the IANA/ICANN can refuse to
> continue to include those ccTLD's in the Roots should they not wish to
> comply. Of course this would be extreme and could cause some
> legal action.
That would
JeffM and all,
JeffM, you may be correct here. But the IANA/ICANN can refuse to
continue to include those ccTLD's in the Roots should they not wish to
comply. Of course this would be extreme and could cause some
legal action.
Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
> In any case, many people believe that a government has fairly strong
> rights vis a vis choice of which registry runs the associated ccTLD,
> so this example is perhaps not a good one. Government policies
> concerning encryption might be more intere
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 10:08:48PM -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
wrote:
>
> FWIW, I have always read the bylaws exactly the same way.
>
> The issues that matter strike me as completely political and not a bylaws
> issue. Would ICANN have the spine to stand up to a strong dem
>A right to be heard, perhaps. What is perverse is the concept of
>government "representatives" being so afraid of the people that they
>purportedly represent that they have to close meetings. Further, as we are
>bearing witness to, those mere "recommendations" are being rubberstamped
>by ICANN.
"A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Clearly what is being crafted is a new species of international
>law, but one which bypasses normal checks and balances, and
>constitutes a serious undermining of the international legal system.
>That it is also autonomous and self-defining in its jur
Hi Joe,
Glad to see you back on the list.
bylaws make no mention at all of GAC having
anything at all to do with
ICANN's "legal obligations", and they are perfectly clear that
ICANN is not
required to follow any GAC advice. Now, it is theoretically
possible that
I think you've overlooked the in
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Joe Sims wrote:
>
> > the
> > bylaws make no mention at all of GAC having anything at all to do with
> > ICANN's "legal obligations", and they are perfectly clear that ICANN is not
> > required to follow
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Joe Sims wrote:
> the
> bylaws make no mention at all of GAC having anything at all to do with
> ICANN's "legal obligations", and they are perfectly clear that ICANN is not
> required to follow any GAC advice.
FWIW, I have always read the bylaws exactly the same way.
The
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, 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. Any recommendations they make to
> ICANN's board will certainly be lis
s has been pointed out in EU on several
occasions as I know you are very well aware of. Continuing to be
befuddled by this in rhetoric here, does nothing to change that fact.
>
>
>
> (Extension:
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
> Su
to file: 08/24/99 08:16 PM
pic03501.pcx)
Extension:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Late
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>
> One wonders how long it will take GAC to recommend that all DNS
> registrants be subject to a requirement to honor a law such
> as the Aussie's have adopted as condition of registering a
> domain name.
SS! The walls have ears.
==
Mr. Rutkowski and Everyone,
I find myself in agreement with Mr. Rutkowski.
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
Hi Mark,
If NSI can use its business model to build the
same value for others as
it has done for itself, why the necessary opposition to GAC? They'd
do
While I agree that the NSI business model
Hi Mark,
If NSI can use its business model to build the
same value for others as
it has done for itself, why the necessary opposition to GAC? They'd do
While I agree that the NSI business model can be cloned and
bring the same the same value to others, it's unclear how this
is facilitated by GA
Tony:
If NSI can use its business model to build the same value for others as
it has done for itself, why the necessary opposition to GAC? They'd do
better to cooperate when the admission policy is sorted out. However,
your point that the laisser-faire governments who by their absence
outnumb
Tony and all,
Very good point or observation Tony. And one that is likely missed
by many in these discussions. Though I believe that Michael Sondow
has a good handle on it.
It might also be a consideration that the ICANN's GAC intent to use
it's
influence to promulgate their policies and t
Roberto and all,
Oh Roeberto? And what words did the president of the ACLU
use that were not proper english language words pray tell??
Who appointed you their or anyone's censor czar? When did you
become a judge of proper use of language?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael,
>
> >
> > I f
Actually - here is data on Twomey's boss.
http://www.pccf.net/references/icann/GAC-Toomey-Alston.html
Regards
Jeff Mason
--
Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
William and all,
Good point William. Sort of gives one a hint of what to expect
from the GAC, doesn't it???
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Tuesday, August 24, 1999, 3:35:05 AM, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The following Ministerial Media Release is available at:
>
> > http://ww
Hi Michael,
The more interesting issue and question is whether Twomey
will act as a global cats paw for the sponsoring minister
behind all this - who is also Twomey's mentor and sponsor.
The GAC's purpose is to make findings on the legal obligations
of ICANN - which is effectively obligated to h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Please read the messages you receive before answering them ;>).
I tend to read messages carefully before replying. I also reflect
before doing so. You might want to try doing the same.
> I did not say anything in favour of Australian censorship.
> (hint: I am agains
Michael,
>
> I find it surprising that you would try to defend the Australian
> censorship by attacking the ACLU this way. But then, I suppose you
> feel the necessity for defending your man Paul Twomey.
>
Please read the messages you receive before answering them ;>).
I did not say anything
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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 f
Tuesday, August 24, 1999, 3:35:05 AM, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following Ministerial Media Release is available at:
> http://www.dcita.gov.au/cgi-bin/trap.pl?path=4226
> ACLU president insults Australia
> The President of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Nadin
The following Ministerial Media Release is available at:
http://www.dcita.gov.au/cgi-bin/trap.pl?path=4226
ACLU president insults Australia
The President of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Nadine
Strossen,
yesterday described Australia as a "global village idiot" because it
has
tr
53 matches
Mail list logo
