Hi Pete Farmer, you wrote on 7/6/99 12:21:53 PM:
>A.M. Rutkowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>It's also important to look at alternatives to the single world government
>approach that's represented by ICANN. The Internet arose and was
>successful
>because of distributed administrative mode
Hi Richard J. Sexton, you wrote on 7/6/99 11:49:15 AM:
>At 09:06 AM 7/6/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 09:03:13AM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> > Yes, especially since NSI is doing everything it can to torpedo
>> > ICANN. Without ICANN there is no realistic way to get new TL
A.M. Rutkowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>It's also important to look at alternatives to the single world government
approach that's represented by ICANN. The Internet arose and was successful
because of distributed administrative models, not centralized ones.
>Even in other Internet leg
> Yeah, new tlds will just never be seen by anybody.
They will be seen by those who choose to see them. When significant
portions of the Internet community want to see them, maybe they will
get in the IANA root. On the other hand, by that time it may not
matter.
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 12:49:15 -0400 (EDT), "Richard J. Sexton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 09:06 AM 7/6/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 09:03:13AM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>>> > Yes, especially since NSI is doing everything it can to torpedo
>>> > ICANN. Without ICANN th
At 09:06 AM 7/6/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 09:03:13AM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> > Yes, especially since NSI is doing everything it can to torpedo
>> > ICANN. Without ICANN there is no realistic way to get new TLDs in
>> > the IANA root, not for years to come.
>>
>>
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 09:03:13AM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > Yes, especially since NSI is doing everything it can to torpedo
> > ICANN. Without ICANN there is no realistic way to get new TLDs in
> > the IANA root, not for years to come.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Christopher
Dream on, Chris.
> Yes, especially since NSI is doing everything it can to torpedo
> ICANN. Without ICANN there is no realistic way to get new TLDs in
> the IANA root, not for years to come.
Wrong.
Christopher
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 03:22:56PM -0400, Craig McTaggart wrote:
> Isn't this kind of like saying that users are free to use any PC operating
> system they like? Or manufacturers are free to market any kind of 'video
> cassette recorder' they like? Is it accurate to say that the IANA root has
>
"A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I would argue that no one should have "the authority to make exclusive
> > assignment of Internet identifiers." Indeed, there is no such thing.
> > You can today use any identifier you choose - and many institutions do.
> > However, unless you hav
"A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would argue that no one should have "the authority to make exclusive
> assignment of Internet identifiers." Indeed, there is no such thing.
> You can today use any identifier you choose - and many institutions do.
> However, unless you have made sp
I got an answer! My style must be improving. I'd better keep at
it...
Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 12:51:31AM -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
>
> > No, huh? Gee, ya coulda fooled me. I thought that's what dat stuff
> > was there for. I mean, what's the point of havin these bylaws
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:
> Gordon Cook wrote:
> >
> > Michael Sondow and Jim Dixon, i respect both your opinions.
>
> > please count to
> > ten...
>
> Did it sound like an argument? I thought we were having a friendly
> discussion.
Same here ;-)
>I guess I've s
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 12:51:31AM -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
[...]
> > Many people are under the delusion that ICANN's bylaws and articles
> > of incorporation provide control. They do not. People also think
> > that membership and representative structures provide
William and all,
And the is oh William the Whiner Walsh? Hu? Or is this
just more of your infamous Whining?
William X. Walsh wrote:
> As humorous as this is, I think it effectively proves my point.
>
> On Sun, 04 Jul 1999 00:51:31 -0400, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
As humorous as this is, I think it effectively proves my point.
On Sun, 04 Jul 1999 00:51:31 -0400, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Well, it seems I've still got more work to do on my writing style so
>that people won't get the wrong idea and think I'm being unpleasant.
>So here goe
Well, it seems I've still got more work to do on my writing style so
that people won't get the wrong idea and think I'm being unpleasant.
So here goes...
Kent Crispin wrote:
>
Kent, ole buddy! Ya don't answer my letters! Whassamatta you (like
Chico used ta say)? Ya got writer's cramp or somethi
Hi Craig McTaggart, you wrote on 7/3/99 3:51:29 PM:
>
>Many private parties are involved in making the Internet, and in particular
>the DNS, work (and there would be many more with multiple roots), and their
>servers, routers and their local databases (but not the data in them) are
>unquestionabl
Hi Kent Crispin, you wrote on 7/3/99 2:36:03 PM:
>From the point of view of the "governed" (the Internet at large) an
>out of control ICANN board is absolutely indistinguishable from an
>out of control ICANN membership. And given the almost inevitable
>small size of the ICANN membership (even a
Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> Michael Sondow and Jim Dixon, i respect both your opinions.
> please count to
> ten...
Did it sound like an argument? I thought we were having a friendly
discussion. I guess I've still got more work to do on my style. Now,
where's Kent Crispin...
Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> Michael Sondow and Jim Dixon, i respect both your opinions.
> please count to
> ten...
Did it sound like an argument? I thought we were having a friendly
discussion. I guess I've still got more work to do on my style. Now,
where's Kent Crispin...
That was a good one Jeff, made me laugh. About the only thing your
posts are good for.
On Sat, 03 Jul 1999 17:49:09 +0100, Jeff Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>William and all,
>
> You have the potential for the necessary wisdom, but neither the
>will or the where with all to exercise t
William and all,
You have the potential for the necessary wisdom, but neither the
will or the where with all to exercise that potential. Some day you might.
But it won't be today, and judging from your continued activities of
making false aspersions on Michael, Gordon, Dr. Lisse, myself and
ot
On Sat, 03 Jul 1999 17:39:05 +0100, Jeff Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>All,
>
> Gordon and William, It is obvious to most that YOUR reputation WIlliam,
>is certainly in question. I would say that this post in response to Gordon
>falls into the category of People in glass houses shouldn't
All,
Gordon and William, It is obvious to most that YOUR reputation
WIlliam,
is certainly in question. I would say that this post in response
to Gordon
falls into the category of People in glass houses shouldn't throw
stones
A word to the wise should be sufficient... However in
WIlliam'
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999 19:52:10 -0400, Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Michael Sondow and Jim Dixon, i respect both your opinions. I don't think
>there is any guarantee at this point that any of us who are desirous
>bringing ICANN to heel is 100% right in our assertions. The problem for
>s
Some clarifications about your clarifications...
Craig McTaggart wrote:
>
> Gordon Cook wrote:
>
>
>
> > The "naming and addressing system" is NOT a "public resource. The
> > language is straight out of the gTLD-MoU. It is a clear unconstitutional
> > taking of private property.
>
>
>
At 03:01 PM 7/3/99 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>The persons behind ICANN have repeatedly stated that what they are doing
>is not "governance." Their actions speak otherwise. Some of this be
>attributed to confusion in the Green and White Papers as to the role of
At 05:49 PM 7/3/99 -0400, Mic
> On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > My conclusion is that domain names do come with a bundle of rights and
> > that those rights do constitute sufficient discretionary power over the
> > domain name that they, or at least the rights towards the domain name if
> > not the name itself,
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Craig McTaggart wrote:
> When people criticize ICANN's methods and power, some essentially argue that
> it should be more like a government, with due process controls and
> democratic authority before it imposes fees (which many erroneously call
> taxes - a curiously American
Karl and all,
The one point Karl makes here in respect to how this thread has
changed, is really the overriding and predominant crux of the
management of the DNS. There are really two parts to Karls point
as well. We [INEGroup] outline them in the following manner:
1.) The current Root or (A
Jay Fenello wrote:
> If it makes you feel any better, I
> object to ICANN's agenda to claiming
> superior "property rights" over *all*
> coordinated Internet assets.
Cool, so do I. We all share these assets, or as I prefer to call them,
resources. We either all own them (which on this list
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > > You do not own your domain name.
> >
> > There is now case law on the books that says otherwise.
> >
> > You are quite simply wrong.
>
> This is one of those cases where "ownership' is a soft concept.
>
> Maybe one doesn't have absolute, unli
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 07:37:19PM -0400, James Love wrote:
> Pete Farmer wrote:
> > Can ICANN establish a fee on domain names to cover administration
> costs?
> > Yes -- that's within its charter. Can ICANN impose a fee whose proceeds
> > would be used to bring Internet access to schools and li
Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Pete Farmer wrote:
>> > I look at the ICANN process a little differently. It isn't really a
>> substitute for NSI as much as it would be a substitute for the government.
That's true. ICANN is taking over as the government entity to giv
"A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I would argue that no one should have "the authority to make exclusive
>assignment of Internet identifiers." Indeed, there is no such thing.
>You can today use any identifier you choose - and many institutions do.
>However, unless you have made spec
At 12:12 PM 7/3/99 , Craig McTaggart wrote:
Thanks for the thoughtful, well articulated analysis.
Thinking back to the earliest days of ARPANET
development, when surely the
property rights of which you speak must have sprung, can you find any
record
of any awareness of 'ownership' of the identif
At 12:12 PM 7/3/99 , Craig McTaggart wrote:
>Gordon Cook wrote:
>
>
>
>> The "naming and addressing system" is NOT a "public resource. The
>> language is straight out of the gTLD-MoU. It is a clear unconstitutional
>> taking of private property.
>
>
>
>I've held back on all of the other ridic
> > You do not own your domain name.
>
> There is now case law on the books that says otherwise.
>
> You are quite simply wrong.
This is one of those cases where "ownership' is a soft concept.
Maybe one doesn't have absolute, unlimited title to a domain name, but one
has some collection of r
Gene and all,
Gene Marsh wrote:
> Hi Patrick Greenwell, you wrote on 7/3/99 12:21:45 PM:
>
> >On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Craig McTaggart wrote:
> >
> > I've held back on all of the other ridiculous claims in this thread but
> >this
> > is the one that always gets me going.
> >
> > Some clarifications a
Hi Patrick Greenwell, you wrote on 7/3/99 12:21:45 PM:
>On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Craig McTaggart wrote:
>
> I've held back on all of the other ridiculous claims in this thread but
>this
> is the one that always gets me going.
>
> Some clarifications about private property and identifiers.
>
> You do n
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Craig McTaggart wrote:
> I've held back on all of the other ridiculous claims in this thread but this
> is the one that always gets me going.
>
> Some clarifications about private property and identifiers.
>
> You do not own your domain name.
There is now case law on the b
Hi Jim,
Great to see you involved once again.
For the newcomers, Jim Dixon was one of the
members of the IFWP Steering Committee. He
lead the call (along with myself) for a wrap-
up meeting in Boston, which was torpedo'd
by Mike Roberts and others.
Jim and I have agreed on most issues, bu
Gordon Cook wrote:
> The "naming and addressing system" is NOT a "public resource. The
> language is straight out of the gTLD-MoU. It is a clear unconstitutional
> taking of private property.
I've held back on all of the other ridiculous claims in this thread but this
is the one that alw
Jim Dixon wrote (in continuation):
>
> I know how much fun this sort of conspiracy theory is. But if you
> look carefully at the numbers, there is nothing to back up the
> theory.
Not true. If you look at who is running all the structures of ICANN
you see clearly that it is a put-up job. Every
"A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 07:10 AM 7/3/99 , Jim Dixon wrote:
>>Insofar as we are talking about the imperial ICANN, the one that wants
>>to regulate the Internet, the one that is trying to obtain legal authority
>>over all IP address space and the domain name system, it is o
Jim Dixon wrote:
>
> Unless you are suggesting than Jon Postel's death was no accident,
> then you are simply wrong. Postel was supposed to be ICANN's brain.
> Take away the brain and you get the shambling farce that we have
> today.
No. Postel wanted no part of any added responsibilities, as h
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:
> > ICANN in its present form is an accident, a monstrosity, a thing
> > potentially of great power, but without any practical understanding of
> > the Internet or any vision of where it should go.
>
> This is a entirely erroneous analysis. ICANN is no a
At 07:10 AM 7/3/99 , Jim Dixon wrote:
Insofar as we are talking about the imperial
ICANN, the one that wants
to regulate the Internet, the one that is trying to obtain legal
authority
over all IP address space and the domain name system, it is of primary
importance that we know who the ICANN boa
You wrote:
>
> ICANN in its present form is an accident, a monstrosity, a thing
> potentially of great power, but without any practical understanding of
> the Internet or any vision of where it should go.
This is a entirely erroneous analysis. ICANN is no accident. It is
the carefully laid plan o
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Pete Farmer wrote:
> > I look at the ICANN process a little differently. It isn't really a
> substitute for NSI as much as it would be a substitute for the government.
>
> Perhaps the establishment of ICANN was the worst possible way to handle the
> situation -- except for
uh mr. farmer before you make a fool of yourself with your inane
pontifications you ought to spend a few minutes following what you claim
to have figured out.
farmer from on high
>
>But these jingoistic/paranoid attacks on ICANN (e.g. Gordon's claim that
>NTIA has "sold out" American Intern
Pete,
At first (quick) glance, I agreed with some of your suggested directions
for review of ICANN and its procedures.
On closer look, you are really putting down a nice smoke screen. If you
truly believe in the principlas you outline, please refrain from deflecting
attention from the issues at
I would also add:
- Review ICANN's process of controlling DNSO constituency membership.
- Review ICANN's "open meeting" policy and methods
Gene Marsh
+++
Hi Pete Farmer, you wrote on 7/2/99 7:58:32 PM:
> I look at the ICANN process a little differently. It isn't really a
>substitute for NSI
Pete Farmer wrote:
>
> I'm fairly inflexible as an advocate of due-process and sunshine.
Really? Then why haven't we heard a peep out of you during the past
eight months of takeover of all ICANN'S structures by ISOC and CORE?
Oh, I see, you advocate due process and sunshine, but then when they
a
Mr. Love,
The "major power" of ICANN is not necessarily their potential control of
the A root server. If there were a "free market" root zone, one where
there were alternative gTLDs and competitive "root zones" from which to
derive DNS services, ICANN would be relegated to what most believed it
> I look at the ICANN process a little differently. It isn't really a
substitute for NSI as much as it would be a substitute for the government.
Perhaps the establishment of ICANN was the worst possible way to handle the
situation -- except for all of the alternatives.
I don't think it would
Hi Jamie,
What "charter" is
that? Becky Burr says after next year, ICANN
will be a free agent.
The only limits here are those that are found in ICANN's
Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. Of course, they can
ignore those pretty much with impunity - which they do
regularly - or simply cha
(Quiet period over :-)
At 07:37 PM 7/2/99 , James Love wrote:
>Pete Farmer wrote:
>> Can ICANN establish a fee on domain names to cover administration
>costs?
>> Yes -- that's within its charter. Can ICANN impose a fee whose proceeds
>> would be used to bring Internet access to schools and li
Pete Farmer wrote:
> Can ICANN establish a fee on domain names to cover administration
costs?
> Yes -- that's within its charter. Can ICANN impose a fee whose proceeds
> would be used to bring Internet access to schools and libraries in
> sub-Sahara Africa? I don't think so -- it's clearly outs
At 05:20 PM 7/1/99 , Pete Farmer wrote:
Gerstner's not silly enough to think that
ICANN does or ever will set
transnational policy regarding Internet taxation, security and
encryption,
privacy, or universal access.
However, there is a significant group of players that
seems to include IBM, that
61 matches
Mail list logo
