Jim Dixon wrote:
> Dave, you are boring everyone.
Amen to that.
--MM
Jim,
No doubt, folks are getting as tired of this exchange as you and I are, so
this will thankfully be my last posting on the thread, as apparently the
last was yours. I bother making it primarily to document some interesting
disparities.
At 12:14 AM 3/1/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
>Your ori
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 11:27 AM 2/27/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote [replying to Dave's relentless
personal attacks]:
> >Dave, you are boring everyone.
> > ...
> >That's true. You have nothing positive to say, nothing to contribute.
In other words, stop attacking me, stop at
more relevent to the content
> (i kept the above subject line up just to show how far we have drifted on
> this thread)
>
> Original Message-
> From: Roeland M.J. Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EM
At 11:27 AM 2/27/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Dave, you are boring everyone.
> ...
>That's true. You have nothing positive to say, nothing to contribute.
Jim,
Given how vigorously you asserted the incorrectness of my assessment of
your positions concer
CTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, February 27, 1999 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No.
52SBNT9C1020
>At 02:27 PM 2/25/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>>That's very creative. Stef
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
> I did not say that you never contributed. I DID say that you had opposed
> every developed, detailed, pursued proposal that had been put forward. You
> said I was wrong. I have now twice (or perhaps 3 times, I've lost track)
> asked you explicitly
Roeland and all,
There is no doubt that the ORSC has been pretty fair and level headed
in general with its position(s) from the very start ore it's conception,
and fairly reserved as well However it is also true that there have been
many "Position Switching" stances that the ORSC has taken tha
At 02:27 PM 2/25/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>That's very creative. Stef. Perhaps you could point me to the
>hundreds of mail messages from you that are "harshly critical" of NSI?
>In all honesty, I don't remember a *single* one.
Stef is a person of moderation, he wasn't overly harsh of CORE
: Thursday, February 25, 1999 5:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST
Solicitation
No. 52SBNT9C1020
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 10:41:35AM -0800, Einar Stefferud
wrote:
> Hello Chuck and all --
>
> I have been no less harsh in
Kent,
You obviously do not know much about Stef or is position
with regard to NSI.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 5:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest
At 09:19 AM 2/26/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
>You didn't ask a question. You said that I only complained and never
>actually contributed anything. My reply was that in a time in which you
I did not say that you never contributed. I DID say that you had opposed
every developed, detailed, pursue
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 09:38 PM 2/25/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
> >You made a flat assertion without any limitation on it. Your assertion
> >was demonstrably false. What you said was:
> >
> >I then listed real, functioning Internet organizations (ISPA UK, EuroISPA,
> >the
Stef and all,
If you do oppose the ICANN Accreditation Guideline proposal, why
have you not posted that in specific terms to the ICANN on their
relevant list than Stef?
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> I think it woudl be just fine if you, Kent, would stop putting words
> my my mouth, and trying to s
Stef said: I think it woudl be just fine if you, Kent, would stop putting words
>my my mouth, and trying to speak for ORSC;-)...
>
>First, I assure you that this is not a joke;-)...
>
>I in fact am seriously opposed to a lot of NSI policies and I am
>working toward moving to a different TLD, in pa
I think it woudl be just fine if you, Kent, would stop putting words
my my mouth, and trying to speak for ORSC;-)...
First, I assure you that this is not a joke;-)...
I in fact am seriously opposed to a lot of NSI policies and I am
working toward moving to a different TLD, in part to be free of
At 09:38 PM 2/25/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
>You made a flat assertion without any limitation on it. Your assertion
>was demonstrably false. What you said was:
>
>I then listed real, functioning Internet organizations (ISPA UK, EuroISPA,
>the LINX, the Internet Watch Foundation, MaNAP) where I h
verything that ICANN proposes, without careful
> }analysis and evaluation? I really doubt that you feel that way.
> }
> }Chuck
> }
> }-Original Message-
> }From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> }Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 12:05 PM
> }To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 10:41:35AM -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> Hello Chuck and all --
>
> I have been no less harsh in criticism of NSI policies and operations
> than of ICANN polices and operations, or of IAHC/CORE policies and
> operations.
That's very creative. Stef. Perhaps you could p
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 04:53:40PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Stef,
>
> It sounds like you are an antagonist according to Kent's
> definition. So I guess we did provide some support for an
> antagonist, even one who is antagonistic to NSI. :)
Indeed, a good joke, Chuck :-) In fact, of c
999 1:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST
Solicitation
No. 52SBNT9C1020
Hello Chuck and all --
I have been no less harsh in criticism of NSI policies and
operations
than of ICANN polices and operations, or of IAHC/CORE
policie
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >> ICANN has been a difficult issue only because of the gTLD turmoil. All of
> >> the other issues you name were not problems that needed solving. The gTLD
**
> >> turmoil has b
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Greg Skinner wrote:
> Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> The claim of US power [over NSI] is demonstrably false, by virtue of
> >> the continuing pattern of poor decision-making the USG has ma
M
}To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation
}No. 52SBNT9C1020
}
}
}On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 06:45:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
}> Dave,
}>
}> Please name any antagonists that NSI funded to the process.
}> Is
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kent Crispin writes:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 06:45:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Dave,
> >
> > Please name any antagonists that NSI funded to the process.
> > Is an antagonist someone who disagrees with you?
>
> Adam Todd and Richard Sexton have both
Kent and all,
You still did not answer Chucks question... But than again you likely
did not understand it either
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 06:45:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Dave,
> >
> > Please name any antagonists that NSI funded to the process.
> > Is a
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 12:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation
No. 52SBNT9C1020
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 06:45:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Please name any antagonists
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 06:45:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Please name any antagonists that NSI funded to the process.
> Is an antagonist someone who disagrees with you?
Adam Todd and Richard Sexton have both publically stated that NSI
funded their travel expenses. Both have
: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST
Solicitation
No. 52SBNT9C1020
At 03:02 AM 2/24/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
>> ICANN has been a difficult issue only because of the gTLD
turmoil. All of
>> the other issues you name were not problems that needed
solving. The gTLD
>>
At 03:02 AM 2/24/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
>> ICANN has been a difficult issue only because of the gTLD turmoil. All of
>> the other issues you name were not problems that needed solving. The gTLD
>> turmoil has been built up nicely to create confusion and concern in the
>> other areas, though
Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> The claim of US power [over NSI] is demonstrably false, by virtue of
>> the continuing pattern of poor decision-making the USG has made with
>> respect to NSI and
> If it's demonstrably false, demonstrate it. Pr
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 09:00 AM 2/23/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
> >ICANN has four objectives: management of the top level of the DNS,
> >management of IP address space, protocols, and operation of the
> >root name servers.
>
> ICANN has been a difficult issue only because
-Original Message-
From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Jim, had the original "compromise" effort been allowed to proceed, we would
>not be faced with the "vast bureaucracy" that is now developing.
The "vast bureaucracy" is a result of the U.S. Government
Department of Commerce cavi
At 09:00 AM 2/23/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
>ICANN has four objectives: management of the top level of the DNS,
>management of IP address space, protocols, and operation of the
>root name servers.
ICANN has been a difficult issue only because of the gTLD turmoil. All of
the other issues you nam
"Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Actually, I was speaking to two different issues simultaneously. Perhaps
>that was wrong since it so muddied them in your mind. I should have
>bifurcated them. One is the issue that non-profits can raise sufficient
>funding for major projects. I ha
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 09:12 PM 2/22/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
> >> Jim, had the original "compromise" effort been allowed to proceed, we would
> >
> >What "compromise" effort?
>
> The IAHC.
ROFL.
> Its focus was solely upon gTLD adiministration, but that is, in fact
Roeland and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> At 08:33 AM 2/23/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >At 08:00 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >>which half to respond to, out of context. The defining clause, to the
> >>paragraph you spoke to was thus;
> >> "Personally, I think it is cause
At 06:30 PM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>Does it matter that your "personal" assessment is factually wrong? Does it
>>matter that the points I made about the funding basis and timing for ICANN
>>are correct?
>
>Sure, if they were correct. IMHO, they weren't.
I said that ICANN was e
At 08:33 AM 2/23/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 08:00 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>which half to respond to, out of context. The defining clause, to the
>>paragraph you spoke to was thus;
>> "Personally, I think it is caused by their business structure.Non-profits
>> *always*
At 08:00 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>which half to respond to, out of context. The defining clause, to the
>paragraph you spoke to was thus;
> "Personally, I think it is caused by their business structure.Non-profits
> *always* are short of funds. That's not real good for stabil
At 09:12 PM 2/22/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
>> Jim, had the original "compromise" effort been allowed to proceed, we would
>
>What "compromise" effort?
The IAHC.
It's been convenient for the constant complainers to attack it, as they
attack everything else, but it was created after two years of
Roeland and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> At 05:18 PM 2/22/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >At 12:53 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> >>For whatever it is worth, ORSC is willing and able to lend whatever
> >>support it has or can muster to another protest or move to compete
> >>with
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 01:46 PM 2/22/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
> >Given recent signs of ICANN's wanting to impose rigid central controls
> >on the Internet and given ICANN board's unwillingness to let anyone
> >hear how they come to these odd decisions, the NSI monopoly be
At 07:58 PM 2/22/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 02:59 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>That's debatable. Their current level of funding leads one to
think
>>otherwise. It is arguable that, if they had the support then
they'd have
>
>
>Their current level of funding? A brand new o
At 2/22/99, 09:00 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 01:46 PM 2/22/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
>>Given recent signs of ICANN's wanting to impose rigid central controls
>>on the Internet and given ICANN board's unwillingness to let anyone
>>hear how they come to these odd decisions, the NSI monopoly begins
At 01:46 PM 2/22/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
>Given recent signs of ICANN's wanting to impose rigid central controls
>on the Internet and given ICANN board's unwillingness to let anyone
>hear how they come to these odd decisions, the NSI monopoly begins to
>look like the lesser evil.
>
>In other wo
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 12:53 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> >For whatever it is worth, ORSC is willing and able to lend whatever
> >support it has or can muster to another protest or move to compete
> >with ICANN in this "no-cost" award by NTIA/NIST.
> >
> >What
At 02:59 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>I'm just putting all this together with the things you have stated in the
>past. It is possible that I have mis-interpreted them, of course.
I've never stated that I wanted anything remotely like a pact with the
devil and I've never stated an
At 06:18 PM 2/22/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 02:02 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>So, if I understand your position, you would be willing to deal with the
>>devil himself just to move things forward and crush NSI? That's some pretty
>
>
>Roeland, I'm impressed with the creativ
At 02:02 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>So, if I understand your position, you would be willing to deal with the
>devil himself just to move things forward and crush NSI? That's some pretty
Roeland, I'm impressed with the creativity of your multiple
interpretations, particularly s
At 10:03 PM 2/21/99 +, jeff Williams wrote:
>Roeland, Stef and all,
>
>Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>
>> At 09:56 PM 2/19/99 -0500, you wrote:
>> >>At 03:06 PM 2/19/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>> >>>I have not analyzed this in any depth.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Roeland Meyer replied:
>> >
>> >>Okay,
At 05:18 PM 2/22/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 12:53 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>>For whatever it is worth, ORSC is willing and able to lend whatever
>>support it has or can muster to another protest or move to compete
>>with ICANN in this "no-cost" award by NTIA/NIST.
>>
>>What
At 12:53 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>For whatever it is worth, ORSC is willing and able to lend whatever
>support it has or can muster to another protest or move to compete
>with ICANN in this "no-cost" award by NTIA/NIST.
>
>What ORSC is not in position to do is to become an opperat
For whatever it is worth, ORSC is willing and able to lend whatever
support it has or can muster to another protest or move to compete
with ICANN in this "no-cost" award by NTIA/NIST.
What ORSC is not in position to do is to become an opperating compay
able to make a credible proposal;-)... That
Roeland, Stef and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> At 09:56 PM 2/19/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >>At 03:06 PM 2/19/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> >>>I have not analyzed this in any depth.
> >>
> >
> >Roeland Meyer replied:
> >
> >>Okay, I'm going from memory here, as I don't have time to look it
55 matches
Mail list logo
