[IFWP] Re: Not at all, was Re: the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency, status update

1999-04-27 Thread Joop Teernstra
At 06:22 27/04/1999 -0700, Ed Gerck wrote: >Joop: > >Not at all. > >I think your text is a far stetch and one that is not granted. It should be >recalled in totum. When anyone joins any Internet open group that is >done most of the times if not all, not to oppose anything from the past >but to h

[IFWP] Re: Not at all, was Re: the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency, status update

1999-04-27 Thread Einar Stefferud
Hello Ed and Joop -- I fear that some kind of short circuit has occurred here. Maybe several all at once;-)... So, lets back up and reset/restart. I am not entirely opposed to constituencies, but I am opposed to them as ICANN is using them. I am not organizing one of my own, but I am supporti

[IFWP] Re: Not at all, was Re: the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency, status update

1999-04-27 Thread Ed Gerck
"Bret A. Fausett" wrote: > Ed -- I think you may have misspoken in your reply to Joop. Joop is > helping to organize an "Individual Domain Name Owners" constituency. > Personally, I know very little about that effort. In your response, > however, you mention the "dnso-ip" effort, which is diffe

[IFWP] Re: Not at all, was Re: the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency, status update

1999-04-27 Thread Bret A. Fausett
Ed -- I think you may have misspoken in your reply to Joop. Joop is helping to organize an "Individual Domain Name Owners" constituency. Personally, I know very little about that effort. In your response, however, you mention the "dnso-ip" effort, which is different from what Joop is working o