[IFWP] RE: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are theyrepresented?

2000-03-14 Thread !Dr. Joe Baptista
I have no problem with collaboration, but I will not participate in revisionism. Facts are facts and facts never change, and Mr. Conradr is well aware of his position in my books. Frankly I don't trust him, but he will be given good opportunity by myself to reform and upgrade himself to the prop

[IFWP] RE: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are theyrepresented?

2000-03-13 Thread !Dr. Joe Baptista
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > and representation in at least one region. I'd be the last to try > to force one region's practices on another region, but we can learn > from each other, and it may be that something useful in this instance > may be learned from the RIPE experienc

[IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are theyrepresented?

2000-03-13 Thread !Dr. Joe Baptista
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Michael Sondow wrote: > It doesn't serve any useful purpose to repeat nostrums and empty > formulas, does it? ICANN is supposed to be open to all stakeholders, > but in fact it hasn't been open to any end-users, either of domain > names or of IP addresses. The former have b

[IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are theyrepresented?

2000-03-13 Thread !Dr. Joe Baptista
You are correct - we did not receive our addresses directly from ARIN. At the time those addresses were distributed by the CA registry, but that was later rolled into ARIN, and the CA registry discontinued the service. Regards Joe Baptista On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Kim Hubbard wrote: > I don't bel