Kerry, I give up. You have made your points, and I have made mine.
I have no further comments. Good luck.
--gregbo
On 12-Mar-99 Kerry Miller wrote:
> But now we're on the verge of having 1LDs all over the place: has
> Williams or Allisat or you or anyone else even suggested that they
> would (let alone should) act to ensure that registrants in .per for
> example really were individuals, either on reg
Greg,
>
> What is 'unintelligible' today might be 'intelligible' tomorrow. Why
> artificially constrain the namespace?
>
I'm not sure if you have intentionally elided the terms 'confusing'
and 'unintelligible,' or not; the first is from trademark law, while the
second is meant to refer s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> "... our public belief in atomism legitimates the position of those
> who argue that fixing the parts is sufficient as well as the
> position of those who argue that fixing the parts has not been
> effective in the past and that thus nothing can be done.
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My comments are indeed relevent ( Above ) as to what eh real interest
> of the ISOC is with respect to using Internet Education as a guise or
> BAIT for attaining new members. It appears you missed that gist of
> my post ( See above ).
I did not.
Your
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
> jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No you didn't DIRECTLY say so, though you implied as much, I also
> > notice her that you carefully edited out those comments along with
> > most my two replies. Clever. None the less, the ISOC is a closed
> > m
William and all,
William! Please take your medicine. You are beginning to have
another of your mental lapsing periods yet again. It is both unseemly
and detrimental to you to put on such displays of severe delirium
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Kinda like INEG?
>
> Claims to represent the
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No you didn't DIRECTLY say so, though you implied as much, I also
> notice her that you carefully edited out those comments along with
> most my two replies. Clever. None the less, the ISOC is a closed
> membership only organization that properties to
Kinda like INEG?
Claims to represent the largest group of stakeholders ever assembled, but keeps
a closed structure on information about what INEG really is (or isn't in this
case).
On 12-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> Greg and all,
>
>No you didn't DIRECTLY say so, though you implied a
William and all,
As usual we see another ad hominan approach to a comment
I have made taken FAR out of context and totally incorrect.
Even if invited, I would not "Play" as little William's phrases
his response here. There are many more and, no cost educational
forums available for others whom
Greg and all,
No you didn't DIRECTLY say so, though you implied as much, I
also
notice her that you carefully edited out those comments along with
most
my two replies. Clever. None the less, the ISOC is a closed
membership only organization that properties to be representative of
internet sta
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William X. Walsh" writes:
>
> Jeffrey is just upset because he wasn't invited to play.
>
> On 12-Mar-99 Greg Skinner wrote:
> > jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, regarding the ISOC
> > discussion group mailing list:
> >
> > > This is NOT an open discu
Jeffrey is just upset because he wasn't invited to play.
On 12-Mar-99 Greg Skinner wrote:
> jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, regarding the ISOC
> discussion group mailing list:
>
> > This is NOT an open discussion group mailing list.
>
> Did I say it was?
>
> Recall my initial
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, regarding the ISOC
discussion group mailing list:
> This is NOT an open discussion group mailing list.
Did I say it was?
Recall my initial statements. I suggested that Kerry Miller contact
members of the ISOC who have expressed similar interests in pro
Greg and all,
This is NOT an open discussion group mailing list. It is available for
members only to post there, al la the "Particpants" list of the DNSO.ORG
fiasco. It is a complete sham! Hence my earlier comments apply on this
thread.
Greg Skinner wrote:
> jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where is this discussion group that you are eluding to? I will
> endeavor to give it the once over.
Go to www.isoc.org and follow the links to 'NEW' ISOC-Members-Discuss.
Then follow the instructions.
--gregbo
Greg,
> at.om.ism \'at-*-miz-*m\ \-m*st\ n : a doctrine that the universe is
>composed of simple indivisible minute particles - at.om.ist n
>
> I wish you would not use language like this, as it comes off as
> denigrating and insulting, even if it's not meant to be.
>
"... our public
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
> As I am not an ISOC member, my observations are based on my readings
> of the ISOC discussion group, which was recently made public. I will
> defer to Don Heath in case I have made an incorrect assumption.
>
> jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Gr
As I am not an ISOC member, my observations are based on my readings
of the ISOC discussion group, which was recently made public. I will
defer to Don Heath in case I have made an incorrect assumption.
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> If you are as serious abou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> As it happens, one can read my 'parodies' in just this light: What
> prevents ICANN from tying registrar certification (say) to the
> requirement that only 'unintelligble' names (say) will be registered
> until such time as an *intelligible TM/DN polic
David,
>
> The problem is not the lack of good ideas, it is the lack of a mechanism
> for implementing them.
I'm glad you agree with me, that in conflating 'implementing an idea' with
'implementing the consequences of an idea,' we end up with no
mechanism at all. Instead of waiting for top-t
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
>
> > Two weeks later, I suggested the 'Grndl alternative' that serves the
> > same principal purpose (of *educating users to the fact that names
> > are merely names, and have no meaning -- or value -- other than
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> Two weeks later, I suggested the 'Grndl alternative' that serves the
> same principal purpose (of *educating users to the fact that names
> are merely names, and have no meaning -- or value -- other than
> that which they themselves 'read into' them)
ssage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kerry
Miller
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 6:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
It may be worth clarifying that the RFC was not to *re*name
domains, but t
Kerry and all,
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Jeff,
> > > Why do you call it a parody? I identified a problem, outlined a
> > > minimum-impact solution, and called for comments -- of which
> > > there were, btw, zero (0).
> >
> > Os! You must have missed ours.
>
> I guess I did -- The Digest seems
Jeff,
> > Why do you call it a parody? I identified a problem, outlined a
> > minimum-impact solution, and called for comments -- of which
> > there were, btw, zero (0).
>
> Os! You must have missed ours.
I guess I did -- The Digest seems to be dropping quite a few items
recently. If
26 matches
Mail list logo
