Karl Auerbach wrote:
I'd be happy to pay the $1/name tax if I had a voice in the making of
the
policies of the Domain Name System or IP address allocation.
But I don't.
There is no constituency of the DNSO that allows individuals who have
domain names to be members.
Adam Peake wrote:
I asked if you had tried. Join the list, submit an application, and if your
application is challenged (probably will be) argue your case.
It appears that the only way to complain about a skewed structure (i.e.,
the gerrymandering of the DNSO constituencies) is to try to get
Ellen and all,
Well said. I couldn't agree more. Pure malfeasance on the part
of the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board from where I sit.
Ellen Rony wrote:
Adam Peake wrote:
I asked if you had tried. Join the list, submit an application, and if your
application is challenged (probably
Karl Auerbach wrote:
That's why I was in favour of financing ICANN in a different way, like for
instance with a $1 fee on domain names, or with a membership fee.
I'd be happy to pay the $1/name tax if I had a voice in the making of the
policies of the Domain Name System or IP address
Karl, have you tried to join the non commercial constituency?
I can't. It is open only to organizations.
Besides. ICANN's bylaws say that any constituency can "self organize".
And the IDNO has done a wonderful job of self organizing. I suggest that
it is better organized than any of the
And the IP constituency has *invited* individual members.
Esther
At 09:31 pm 09/01/1999 +0900, Adam Peake wrote:
Karl Auerbach wrote:
That's why I was in favour of financing ICANN in a different way, like for
instance with a $1 fee on domain names, or with a membership fee.
I'd be happy
esters making a good suggestion here - if you want input - this is a way.
Why dose the idno not join ip in mass.
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Esther Dyson wrote:
And the IP constituency has *invited* individual members.
Esther
At 09:31 pm 09/01/1999 +0900, Adam Peake wrote:
Karl Auerbach wrote:
Karl Auerbach wrote:
There is no reason why a group of people who have a direct interest in
domain name should be refused a constituency when six constituencies
were automatically granted for six types of business entities.
The constituency structure is gerrymandering by another name.
For
And the IP constituency has *invited* individual members.
Those are "observers" and are not allowed to vote.
ester - if they are just observers - what bloody use is it to join.
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Mikki Barry wrote:
And the IP constituency has *invited* individual members.
Those are "observers" and are not allowed to vote.
esters making a good suggestion here - if you want input - this is a way.
Why dose the idno not join ip in mass.
Does everybody have a trademark they can claim they own?
The question that could also be asked is why don't all the people in the
IP consitituency forced to join the business
I see what you mean Karl - ICANN looks like a no win situation.
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Karl Auerbach wrote:
esters making a good suggestion here - if you want input - this is a way.
Why dose the idno not join ip in mass.
Does everybody have a trademark they can claim they own?
The
Esther and all,
Sure the IP constituency has, after the fact that they have
had their elections for representatives. That is sort of closing the barn
door after the horse's are out. Dumb and somewhat disingenuous
of them... They also supported the IDNO in Santiago as well
Esther Dyson
JeffM and all,
JeffM, you must realize that Esther and Mike Roberts have on
several
occasions stated their disenchantment and down right disagreement
with stakeholders of any perswasion having a vote of any kind, in both
the press and on these lists... Can you spell DISINGENUOUS?
Planet
Jeffm and all,
As I posted to J. Baptista earlier, I believe several folks from
the
IDNO have signed up and several tried to and were denied or
not allowed to participate for unknown reasons. See [EMAIL PROTECTED]
archives for further detail. Can you spell DISENFRANCHISING?
Planet
JeffM and all,
It certainly seems like a "No Win" situation for some people or
Stakeholders. This seems to be by design from the edicts of
the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board. I doubt that this ICANN BoD
will change it's practices, maybe an elected one will. However by
that time the
Mikki Barry wrote:
Esther Dyson wrote:
And the IP constituency has *invited* individual members.
Those are "observers" and are not allowed to vote.
As with the so-called "At-Large Membership", that's where Dyson
wants all the end-users of the Internet: watching, gagged, while big
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
Roberto and all,
Financing ICANN with a $1 per domain registration is a tax, and therefore
is not expectable as is basing their financing on membership fees. This
is a poor financing model. They have had several opportunities for financing
from several different sources and either did not
In the words of our american fathers - taxation without representation is
not nice.
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
Roberto and all,
Financing ICANN with a $1 per domain registration is a tax, and therefore
is not expectable as is basing their financing on membership fees.
That's why I was in favour of financing ICANN in a different way, like for
instance with a $1 fee on domain names, or with a membership fee.
I'd be happy to pay the $1/name tax if I had a voice in the making of the
policies of the Domain Name System or IP address allocation.
But I don't.
What I will enjoy most in this documentary is to see all those that were
against alternate sources of funding (membership, $1 domain name fee, and so
on) now complaining that ICANN has taken the money somewhere else, as if
this was not obvious to everybody (and spelled out clearly) since the
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Karl Auerbach wrote:
[Roberto Gaetano:]
That's why I was in favour of financing ICANN in a different way, like for
instance with a $1 fee on domain names, or with a membership fee.
I'd be happy to pay the $1/name tax if I had a voice in the making of the
policies
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 ICANN was for sale by the
Bill and all,
Good points Bill. I just wonder how long this ICANN circus act
is going to be allowed to continue in this manner
Bill Lovell wrote:
My nose insists upon telling me that I smell something putrid.
This malady started when on internet.com I first read "ICANN
Adopts
25 matches
Mail list logo
