At 06:16 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
At 06:04 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote:
No!! Shocker! The press - even the tech trade press didn't understand
about vulnerabilities in their bind! Come on, most of the trade press move
around beats with reasonable regularity and cannot be expected to have
At 09:24 AM 8/5/99 , Nick Patience wrote:
Thank you - and none taken that way Jay, I assure you. I see your point,
but don't necessarily agree. OK, editors etc are the conduits through which
the ICANN story must flow, and cortrect me if I'm wrong, you're saying
they're not letting the story get
At 11:07 AM 8/5/99 -0400, you wrote:
At 09:24 AM 8/5/99 , Nick Patience wrote:
Thank you - and none taken that way Jay, I assure you. I see your point,
but don't necessarily agree. OK, editors etc are the conduits through which
the ICANN story must flow, and cortrect me if I'm wrong, you're
Thank you - and none taken that way Jay, I assure you. I see your point,
but don't necessarily agree. OK, editors etc are the conduits through which
the ICANN story must flow, and cortrect me if I'm wrong, you're saying
they're not letting the story get out because they're part of a conspiracy
to
yeah, I do remember when you called memust have been at least 2
years ago you sounded dreadfully reasonable It took other
people at least 4 to 6 weeks to convince me that you were part crazy
alternic/edns crowd and therefore not taken seriously
This stuff is far to much off
At 10:28 PM 7/28/99 , Ellen Rony wrote:
FWIW, I don't concur with Jay's theories about a biased press. We have
not bias but confusion. This evolution of the DNS is complicated,
convoluted, and contentious, so it isn't easy to report on the activities
of ICANN and the Department of Commerce in
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote:
My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of
Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns
that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter
must then also describe the whole
At 05:10 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote:
My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of
Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns
that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter
Hi Ellen,
I too applaud your efforts, several
years strong.
In actuality, none of us have a
monopoly on truth, and it is only
through an open exploration of these
issues, that a collective truth may
emerge.
Please continue to fight your battles,
just as I will continue to fight mine :-)
At 05:34 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote:
At 05:10 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote:
My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of
Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns
that it isn't easily given to
At 05:54 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
At 05:34 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote:
At 05:10 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote:
My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of
Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and
At 06:04 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote:
No!! Shocker! The press - even the tech trade press didn't understand
about vulnerabilities in their bind! Come on, most of the trade press move
around beats with reasonable regularity and cannot be expected to have the
same level of understanding on
Ellen Rony wrote:
Nick Patience wrote:
Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said:
"Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of
functions from NSF to NTIA,
from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say
IFWP."
Sorry Nick, I
At 10:27 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
There are powerful forces keeping it all quiet and the
problem isn't that the story is complicated.
Agreed. There are far more complicated storie in the paper every day.
The problem is that what is being grabbed is big time
loot and those doing the
At 10:28 PM 7/28/99 , Ellen Rony wrote:
FWIW, I don't concur with Jay's theories about a biased press. We have
not bias but confusion. This evolution of the DNS is complicated,
convoluted, and contentious, so it isn't easy to report on the activities
of ICANN and the Department of Commerce in
For the record, of the 10 feedback comments to Mr. Cooper's op/ed piece, 6
are "on Jay's side," 2 are pro-Dyson, and 2 offer no opinion. Of the 6 "on
Jay's side," 4 are formatted normally. I
Reality check, Jay. Possibly you and Ellen pasted your replies, instead of
typing them directly?
Pete Farmer wrote:
For the record, of the 10 feedback comments to Mr. Cooper's op/ed piece, 6
are "on Jay's side," 2 are pro-Dyson, and 2 offer no opinion. Of the 6 "on
Jay's side," 4 are formatted normally.
Reality check, Jay. Possibly you and Ellen pasted your replies, instead of
typing them
17 matches
Mail list logo
