Mr. Gaetano and Everyone,
Mr. Gaetano, you can review the relevant documents at
http://www.icann.org and http://www.dnso.org . The precise
URL's I am sure you can find for yourself I would hope.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roberto and everybody else,
At 2:20 PM +0200 10/12/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[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
This is one of the few occasions where I agree with
Joe. The NSI/ICANN/Commerce deal does gives NSI some
protections over ICANN's egregious manipulations of
the definition of consensus, but it does little to
protect anyone else. :-(
Jay.
At 11:17 AM 10/12/99 , Joe Sims wrote:
This may be
Mark and all,
Mark C. Langston wrote:
Newsbytes is reporting that at least 5 of the people supporting Rick
White's nomination as a candidate for the ICANN BoD are NOT members of
the DNSO.
Mike Roberts attempts to weasel out of this violation.
Yes he sure did try a cheep weasel job with
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
At 10:28 AM 10/10/99 , Joe Sims wrote:
Jon, I certainly agree with everything in your post below, and do not
believe that anything I have posted is inconsistent with it. It is mildly
amusing but also frustrating to me that Jay and some others feel perfectly
free to attack ICANN, its Board, its
"J. Baptista" wrote:
On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Dan Birchall wrote:
On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 11:14:54PM -0400, J. Baptista wrote:
I has come to my attention that Becky Burr of the Department of Commerce
has frozen the root and even NSI isn't allowed to add new namesevres for
com.
I'm
Joe and all,
You really don't believe that the NTIA or Becky Burr is going to
tell you why this was done do you Joe? Oh sure we will get some
sort of "Official statement" possibly, but that's about it
J. Baptista wrote:
On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Dan Birchall wrote:
On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at
Excuse me, but I don't see
any bio-socialist representation here unless I go to the washroom and look
in the mirror; right now its not to bad, I have a five day old beard, but
in one week I swear to God I will look like Che Guevaras twin, can smebody
tell me wher I can find a supermarket that
Francisco Fanego wrote:
I have spent a fortune on bourgouise
blades, and the only other alternative is the Bic disposable, If
I was a woman I would ask you about another problem, but I just
want to take care of myself before I can really say I am able to
contribute whole-heartedly
I
Mr. Sondow and Everyone,
The whole election process that the DNSO has held has been nothing but
a sham
and a nearly complete fraud. I don't believe that I need to outline the
reasons, as they have already been stated by others... What is amazing
to me
is that the USG in the NTIA/DOC has
Mark and all,
To go along with Mark and Chris's excellent comments here I
would again remind everyone that the current DNSO pNC
and secretariat were not determined on any consensus
decision from the Singapore meeting. In fact this was hotly
contested and protested against to no avail. To me
Kilnam and all,
I too agree with Karl here. But it seems that a very few of the pNC
and those in the Wg-d?, "Outreach" and the DNSO list Admin.
are not. This has been made very evident in that still the DNSO
GA list is still not allowing several folks that are members of that list
cannot
At 10:34 AM 10/8/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
At 08:41 AM 10/8/99 , Joe Sims wrote:
___
This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy,
Mr. Sola and Everyone,
Mr. Sola, I fail to see a direct relevance of cross posting to spam.
I also do not know of a legal definition of spam that is broadly
excepted to date. Could you perhaps provide one?
Javier wrote:
Definitely the best defense of spamming I have seen in a long time.
Andrew McLaughlin wrote:
A set of proposed amendments to the existing ICANN Bylaws has been posted
for public review and comment.
Why don't you take your proposed bylaws amendments, Mr. McLaughlin,
and, as an old Spanish refrain says, "metetelos donde mejor te
quepan".
Eric and all,
No need to an excuse here Eric at all. Many I am sure are confused
or don't know where this is going including myself. Some disagreement
remains as to how and whom should be eligible as Adcom members
and chair and co-chair as well.
What is even more confusing is why the DNSO
Dear list Admin and all,
The only problem with this announcment is it is in part
after the fact. It is now October 4th and the "Next"
telecom has already been heard... I might also add,
thereby in violation of the ICANN bylaws. :(
DNSO Listadmin wrote:
[To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[Cc:
Ken and all,
In a very few instances is what Ken is stating here accurate.
The "Registration COntract" is both ambiguous and not legally
enforceable, not to mention it is based on the "Accreditation
POlicy" edicted by ICANN which did not enjoy a measurable
consensus at Singapore. Therefore,
Vany and all,
Any determination of a "GA Chair" should pass the muster of a GA
membership vote for ratification.
Vany Martinez wrote:
Hi to all:
We need also to take into account the ICANN Bylaws,
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm
Article VI, Section 2
(i) The NC shall
What power does the GA actually have? I know I'm treadibng on sacred
ground, but honestly,
you guys have always had your "cup of tea" + newsreal; how can you hope
to make a come back?
Francisco
Jeff Williams wrote:
Vany and all,
Any determination of a "GA Chair" should pass the muster of
"Sr. Francisco Fanego" wrote:
What power does the GA actually have? I know I'm treadibng on sacred
ground, but honestly,
you guys have always had your "cup of tea" + newsreal; how can you hope
to make a come back?
Francisco
Jeff Williams wrote:
Vany and all,
Any determination
When cna I get vback to to the tedium, "CHERNOBYL", if you dont'n you this
critique then you are OK.
Franiswcouawawa. want my real name, prey,..
ff
"Sr. Francisco Fanego" wrote:
"Sr. Francisco Fanego" wrote:
What power does
Jeff Williams wrote:
Vany and all,
Any determination of a "GA Chair" should pass the muster of a GA
membership vote for ratification.
Vany Martinez wrote:
Hi to all:
We need also to take into account the ICANN Bylaws,
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm
Article VI,
Si senior,3
Francisco
Jeff Williams wrote:
Vany and all,
Any determination of a "GA Chair" should pass the muster of a GA
membership vote for ratification.
Vany Martinez wrote:
Hi to all:
We need also to take into account the ICANN Bylaws,
Jeff,
Excellent work. btw Who is Steve Page?
Sounds familiar, but I can't quite place it.
ag
Joop:
Too much of the idno's time is spent on proceedure and not enough time is
being spent on membership drives. You need more members in the idno, not
more proceedure.
You'll find once your membership exceeds the 1,000 mark there will be no
need for this type of protection. There is safety
Joe Judith and all,
Well I have read it, and I don't see all of what you are talking about
here. But in any event, I am not too concerned. If ICANN tries
to make me sigh an agreement upon renewal that is egregious
there are several legal avenues I can take. I may sign it but I will
do so
Judith and all,
No I have not. We signed before these agreements were in place.
At any rate those agreements are not legally enforceable under US law
currently according to my legal staff, and the current legal record,
which is growing bears that out.
Judith Oppenheimer wrote:
Jeff
http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/agreement.html
D. Dispute Policy Changes or Modifications. Registrant agrees that NSI, in its sole
discretion, may change or modify the Dispute Policy, incorporated by reference
herein, at any time. Registrant agrees that Registrant's maintaining the
At 12:52 AM 9/30/99 +1200, you wrote:
Reminds me of a thing I read in the Oregonian today: In this
one country, the penalty for voting against the death penalty
was . . . the death penalty.
Bill Lovell
At 07:39 AM 29/09/1999 -0400, Ken Stubbs wrote:
i am curious here joop
please show me
Andrew McLaughlin wrote:
(Marina del Rey, CA) -- The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) announced today that it had tentatively reached a set of
agreements with the U.S. Department of Commerce and Network Solutions, Inc.
(NSI), to resolve outstanding differences
You wrote:
Reminder to the Internet community:
A set of recommended Bylaws amendments have been posted for public comment
on the ICANN website
You never payed any attention to comments from the public before,
Mr. McLaughlin. Why should we believe that you will do so now?
Mr. Baptista and Everyone,
Mr. Baptista, your observations here are likely very close to being
correct, given Mr. Stubbs history. I would add that he seems to have
a fixation problem with anyone interfering in what you outline here
in brief as well
My observations an reading on ICANN,
Mr. Baptista and Everyone,
Your opinion of Esther Dyson is commendable, but I fear misplaced
and a bit extreme. I had not thought that the possible purpose of registering
this Domain could be a ploy such as you suggest, Mr. Baptista. But now
that you mention it, it could be. I for one hope
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, John D. Goodspeed wrote:
Joe and pccf,
Your often vulgar tone makes it hard for anyone to believe that you have any
particular respectability. I for one have serious doubts about both you and
the pccf organization which you purport to represent. Perhaps if you were a
From what I can see, Ken Stubbs and friends have not only lost the battle,
they have lost the war. If they feel they have the right to run the
world, then they can appeal to those who control it, just like everyone
else will have too.
Regards
Joe
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Brian C. Hollingsworth
Pity - we will be incorporating a root server check into our bind2000
survey. If even a slim survey exists I would be interested in seeing it.
I hope your wrong and Kent is not full of hot air. Too much hot air in
these conferences.
But winter is here, so it may not be such a bad thing, all
Darrell and all,
Yes, the full text is as follows:
Management of the Authoritative Root Server
Nothing in these agreements affects the current
arrangements regarding management of the authoritative root server. NSI
will continue to manage the authoritative root server in accordance with
the
Pappas and all,
Yep, and that is the price that ICANN forced upon the stakeholders
for being so stupid. But all in all this tentative agreement is always
open for renegotiations, though I doubt that that can occur now.
At least this gives the stakeholder to work with ELECTED officials
in
Joop and all IDNO'ers,
I don't want to take away from Mikkis effort, but it is just possible
at the very least that Joop here has a very strong argument.
Is there really a need for a UDRP. I wonder this myself? BUt
we [INEGroup] have our prepared in response anyway. But now
that I think on
On September 25, 1999, a message from John Patrick of IBM was posted on
several of the the DNS-related mailing lists that I inhabit.
It is certainly important for those of us monitoring ICANN's activities to
hear the reasons behind IBM's involvement and bridge grant to ICANN.
Nonetheless, as
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Ken Stubbs wrote:
its sad to see the recent events with baptista, hollingsworth, rizzo etc
Ken. You have nothing to say with respect to hollingsworth or rizzo,
because in your own words, you don't know if their real or imaginary.
Now - with respect to myself, you know
Ken. Let's get real, what this is about is if Ken ever makes the millions
he needs to live a great life, and will Ken's friends make those millions
with Ken. Ken's afraid all his plans and those of his friends are going
to go down the drain. Ken worried he's going to lose power, a power he
If Esthers good, and I know she's top drawer - I'm certain she won't even
blink. Domainac's chance in being sued by Esther is remote.
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Rusty H. Hodge wrote:
I suspect that Domainac is trying to get himself sued by Esther, so
he can get some of the ICANN issues he's
That's "libel", Ken, not "liable".
And thats "they're = they are", not "their", Joe.
Carry on the good work. You both make me proud.
At 09:50 PM 9/27/99 -0400, you wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Sep 27 21:50:56 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received:
Joe and all,
I think it is more likely that Esther knows that if she did sue,
she would lose and lose badly. I just wish that the site that
Russ put up was a little more lively! ;)
J. Baptista wrote:
If Esthers good, and I know she's top drawer - I'm certain she won't even
blink.
Ed and all,
Well done here Ed. You couldn't be more correct. But as you can
tell from John Patricks own words, is that this is not of great concern
to the GIP , IBM or the ICANN for that matter.
Ed Gerck wrote:
John:
I applaud your initiative of coming forward with a reasoning for the
Professor Froomkin and Elisabeth,
It seems like the current election process for NC members currently
underway is also very distorted. Could this be a contrived situation?
One wonders.
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
Mr. Langston and Everyone,
Mr. Langston, it is not beginning to look like the current NC election
process underway is very much as you describe. Several nominees,
such as Jeff Williams have been prevented purposfully from being
even nominated by members of the DNSO GA list as the instructions
Mr. Gaetano and Everyone,
Your question Mr. Gaetano is a very good one. Such a situation should not
occur. It seems now that several others that have been involved in these
debates, such as myself and Jeff Williams as well are also prevented form
posting to the GA DNSO list as well as any
Diane Cabell wrote:
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.
That is,
David and all,
Yes, I and I have noticed others having this very same problem.
Though I have sent several queries to Elisabeth, Esther, and Becky
Burr, as well as calling both Becky BUrr and Esther Dyson on the phone
there does not seem to be a resolution to this problem. It seems that
some
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Dr. Brian C. Hollingsworth wrote:
If any of you have brief questions - I will address them.
Yeah, I got one brief question. Why is that you think that anyone here
even gives a flying fuck about you and your one-man "think tank" that
Easy answer there. They keeping
Dear Ms. Wiening:
I am replying to your email communication in respect of a Mr. Robert Shaw
of the International Telecommunications Union and your obvious
misunderstanding of your position in this.
I am making this a public issue as I feel it is critical to expose
publically bad service within
I disagree with you Ken.
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Ken Stubbs wrote:
this is getting comical pathetic.
this kind of stuff really diminishes the value of this list.
No it does not. These very issues are critical to the GA DNSO and ICANN.
Bad civil servants simply put are one good reason why
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Kevin M. Kelly wrote:
Hey Jeff!
Before you lay your credibility on the line, you may want to note that
PCCF.Net is registered to a Canadian Company. So, PCCF et al. probably does
not pay Mary Wiening's salary.
Mr. Kelly:
Thank you so much for our privacy. May I
Before anyone believes a word this particularly personality in the PCCF
repertoire spoots off accusing Mr Kelly of acting inappropriately, it should be
noted that the information mentioned is PUBLICLY available, and this is just
more evidence of his drivel that is intended to do nothing more
Ya' know Willy the Whiner, we're all REALLY impressed over here with
unix prowess. Could you really set a filter?!!!
Let's all say "wow" in unison.
Most folks can handle their own filtering. Most folks aren't as
paranoid as you. Most folks respect the 1st ammendment. Most folks
ignore the
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
Before anyone believes a word this particularly personality in the PCCF
repertoire spoots off accusing Mr Kelly of acting inappropriately, it should be
noted that the information mentioned is PUBLICLY available, and this is just
more evidence
On 20-Sep-99 J. Baptista wrote:
[lots of inane grandstanding which nobody outside of PCCF really gives a
flying-f about, and then cc-ed it all over the place...]
Why the hell all the crackerjacks are attracted to domain policy is something
I'll never understand.
*plonk*
---
mark
On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Mark Jeftovic wrote:
[lots of inane grandstanding which nobody outside of PCCF really gives a
flying-f about, and then cc-ed it all over the place...]
Mark, people do care. Remember, it's all of us who finance Mr. Shaw in
the long run via our taxes. Mr. Shaw is also
Ellen, Michael and all,
Ver good points here Ellen. You to Michael. ;)
Ellen Rony wrote:
Michael Sondow wrote:
Why should the actual registrant, who has paid fees for entry of the
domain name in the root server databases and has invested in a
website that depends on domain name
Bill, Michael and all,
Good possible points here Bill and Michael. I prefer to believe
Bills assesment, but Michales may also have some merit. Only
Joop can know this for sure...
Michael Sondow wrote:
Bill Lovell wrote:
You've shown a lot of sense in
most of your comments, Joop, but
David and all,
Thank you for also following up on this problem. I guess it
is now up to Becky Burr , Elisabeth Porteneuve and/or Esther Dyson
to see that this problem is correct post very quickly.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Elisabeth and everyone else,
It seems that Jeff Williams is
David and all,
Thank you for also following up on this problem. I guess it
is now up to Becky Burr , Elisabeth Porteneuve and/or Esther Dyson
to see that this problem is corrected very quickly.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Elisabeth and everyone else,
It seems that Jeff Williams
Jeff and Everybody,
[Special Attention Becky Burr, Esther Dyson and Elisabeth
Porteneuve]
I think you mean this problem need corrected. I agree,
it does. The DNSO
will be stained badly if it is not. And the ICANN as well as
the NTIA
would likely be complicit.
Jeff Williams wrote:
David and all,
Mr. Pisanty and Everyone,
Your recognized history of making false comments
on the NCDNHC mailing list is well known and well
documented. Given that, I must agree with Jeff
here completely.
Alejandro Pisanty, DGSCA y FQ, UNAM wrote:
Hello all,
for the record, I have not cast false or
Brian and all,
Thank you fro you support here Brian. I thought it was fairly obvious
myself...
Brian C. Hollingsworth wrote:
Mr. Pisanty and Everyone,
Your recognized history of making false comments
on the NCDNHC mailing list is well known and well
documented. Given that, I must
karl and all,
I agree with you here Karl. I would add though, that I DO believe that the
"General Ledger" and all accounting's of the ICANN should be made
available upon demand for anyone.
Karl Auerbach wrote:
Can we get your commitment to get the books of account open.
Article III,
Everyone and all,
1. Full name: Brian C. Hollingsworth
2. E-mail address:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. Organization you work for (if apply): IHOJ
4. Name of the person being supported: James Love
Jeff Williams wrote:
All,
1. Full name: Jeff Williams
2. E-mail address:
Dennis and Everyone,
Than the only reasonable conclusion that I can draw from this is
that the process is VERY selective. If that is the situation, than
it is very inadequate and inappropriate.
d3nnis wrote:
I have my gripes about DNSO too, but I have to tell
you that Elisabeth has
Jeff Williams wrote:
Peter and all,
You observation and point here is well taken. I don't see the
updates
to:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/icann-nominations/Archives/maillist.html
either as well as http://www.dnso.org/dnso-icann-nominees.html
Hence, we have yet again another
Jeff Williams wrote:
Randy and all,
Randy, all I can say to your response here to Mark is, Goose meet
apologist. In case you don't understand clearly: "Excuses such as you
provided, are like posterior orifices, we all got them, and they all
stink". Your
apologetic attitude and
"J. Baptista" wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Darrell Greenwood wrote:
Oddly, you don't advance your reasons for believing the opposite.
No problem. Here's my answer. I think if NSI ran the roots, it's
shareholders would make more money. Why? Well anyone running the planets
Hello Ken:
Have not heard back from you on your reasoning as to why NSI running root
servers would not be in the best interests of it's shareholders.
I would be very interested in your reasons as I feel the opposite would be
true.
Regards
Joe
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, J. Baptista wrote:
I
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Darrell Greenwood wrote:
Oddly, you don't advance your reasons for believing the opposite.
No problem. Here's my answer. I think if NSI ran the roots, it's
shareholders would make more money. Why? Well anyone running the planets
infrastructure is going to make a few
Peter and all,
You observation and point here is well taken. I don't see
the updates
to: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/icann-nominations/Archives/maillist.html
either as well as http://www.dnso.org/dnso-icann-nominees.html
Hence, we have yet again another of many examples that the DNSO
web
Randy and all,
I agree. But ICANN (Initial?) Interim board spent or shot the wad already! ;)
Shame that. Fiscal responsibility is a very demanding responsibility...
It also seems to me that if you decide to "Volunteer" you should understand
just what you are volunteering for. If you
Randy and all,
Randy, all I can say to your response here to Mark is, Goose meet
apologist. In case you don't understand clearly: "Excuses such as you
provided, are like posterior orifices, we all got them, and they all
stink". Your
apologetic attitude and lack of ability or time for the
Dear Listadmin and Everyone,
Perhaps you could explain why the archives for both [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] are not reflective of the posts made to those addresses
or
correct whatever problem that is obviously occurring?
DNSO Listadmin wrote:
According to the NC decision of
I disagree Ken. I think running the root-server infrastructure would be
good for NSI shareholders. Why do you think the contrary is true. I
don't understand.
I was under the impression NSI has been thinking about it for awhile. I
could be wrong, i just don't understand your position that the
Mark and all,
I have the same concern regarding Dr. Nii N. Quaynor myself.
He on two occasions tried to register two different organizations
as constituent members of the NCDNHC (See NCDNHC
mailing list archives for more info). I find both his nomination and
exceptence extreamly circumspect.
Alejandro and all,
Your accusation can only be applied to yourself and Nii in this instance
the record speaks for itself. Nii deliberately tried to, in an unrepresented
fashion represent himself as a representative of TWO different organizations
in his own application to the NCDNHC. As such
I have no issue with Quaynor's nomination. I am concerned that he not
allow himself ever to be bullied by the lawyers. The IDNO/ICANN scandal
in Santiago in which he lost control is the reference I'm reffering to.
Cheers
Joe Baptista
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Alejandro Pisanty, DGSCA y FQ, UNAM
Joe and all,
Yes indeed, another good reason for opposing Nii's nomination
as well.
J. Baptista wrote:
I have no issue with Quaynor's nomination. I am concerned that he not
allow himself ever to be bullied by the lawyers. The IDNO/ICANN scandal
in Santiago in which he lost control is
Alejandro and all,
Nice statement of political diatribe, but that is all it is. Your
BS here is not convincing to anyone who is truly honorable.
Alejandro Pisanty, DGSCA y FQ, UNAM wrote:
Dear Mark, and all,
it seems we go back to June or sometime around then. The GA is made up of
all
Dr. Nii N. Quaynor and all,
You meger attempt to side step the issue at hand or dismiss it
out of hand is noc sufficently convencing IMHO, nor do I doubt,
that after a review of the NCDNHC archives, will it be by
any ressonable person orGA member either.
Dr. Nii N. Quaynor wrote:
I have
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Dr. Nii N. Quaynor wrote:
I have no issue with Quaynor's nomination. I am concerned that he not
allow himself ever to be bullied by the lawyers. The IDNO/ICANN scandal
in Santiago in which he lost control is the reference I'm reffering to.
The challenge of the
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
Joe and all,
Yes indeed, another good reason for opposing Nii's nomination
as well.
I'm not opposed to him. I'm just wanted to address that specific issue
and move on.
J. Baptista wrote:
I have no issue with Quaynor's nomination. I am
Oh no, I'm very grateful for what you did. As for the lawyers behaviour,
i'm not that impressed.
Good luck to you on the election. You can count on our support.
Cheers
Joe Baptista
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Dr. Nii N. Quaynor wrote:
Hi Joe,
I will appreciate your support note independently.
I completely understand the pressures you were under. I was annoyed by
the fact a decision was reached by the assembly, and under Robert's that
should have been it, as respect the IDNO vote. But the lawyers forced the
chair to reconsider the motion made and voted on. The scandal is the fact
it
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
I completely understand the pressures you were under. I was annoyed by
the fact a decision was reached by the assembly, and under Robert's that
should have been it, as respect the IDNO vote. But the lawyers forced the
chair to reconsider the
Dr. Nii N. Quaynor and all,
You use of the term "Grateful" in respect to the IDNO being recognized
as a constituency is absurd here. I hope you will retract that comment
with the use of the term of "Grateful".
Whether or not Lawyers are part of the GA is not in question. I
support and
At 08:40 AM 9/16/99 -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
Further, registrars
are not legal bodies; they do not understand the legal nuances of the
Lanham Act. .
A bit of tongue in cheek here:
Since when is that a problem? It certainly hasn't stopped
ICANN, WIPO, various registrars, would be
Mark and all,
I agree with you completely. I was not even allowed on the conference
call.
Just yet another example of lack of openness, transparency and
accountability
on the part of the pNC and the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board.
Again I will ask and call for the NTIA to do it's DAM job!
Diane and all,
DIane, Ken Stubbs knows that he deliberately and with malice, mislead
folks. He should not have done that. However he has a long
history of doing so. Carl O. pointed out clearly just how far folks
like Ken Stubbs is willing to go. So I think your now lashing Ellen
here for
Carl and all,
All good points in your bullets here. I think we here at
INEGroup
could agree with your draft for the most part.
The should be some emphasis placed on "Reverse Name Hijacking"
provisions in final policy, that is not even mentioned in ICANN's version
or Ken Stubbs version either.
Dave,
Fascinating and imaginative hypothesis by a wonderful
friend and colleague with a lifelong passion for railroads.
With that said, however, the hypothesis plainly doesn't
hold together.
[Great stories about the rise and fall of railroads omitted.]
that any such infrastructure with the
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:13:43 -0400
From: Andrew McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Icann-Announce [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: UPDATE: Uniform Dispute Resolution
At its Santiago meetings on August 25-26, the ICANN Board adopted a uniform
dispute resolution policy and directed ICANN's
901 - 1000 of 4415 matches
Mail list logo
