[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
Maybe (again) I have used the wrong word. What would it take to
loosen the concept of 'meeting' from the temporal constraints/
intensity/ concentration your response seems to imply?
I wasn't trying to imply anything.
I envision that under ideal
Greg,
Maybe (again) I have used the wrong word. What would it take to
loosen the concept of 'meeting' from the temporal constraints/
intensity/ concentration your response seems to imply?
I wasn't trying to imply anything.
Please don't take it as an insult ;-). In response to my
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
Please don't take it as an insult ;-). In response to my suggestion
for a *digital meeting, your reply, involving publicity, funding,
providing RA relays (and presumably transcribers for the text-
bound?) etc seemed more relevant to an analog (f2f)
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
Please don't take it as an insult ;-). In response to my suggestion
for a *digital meeting, your reply, involving publicity, funding,
providing RA relays (and presumably transcribers for the text-
bound?) etc
Greg Skinner wrote:
I think there is a preference among people to have face-to-face, or at
least telephone conferences because there are some things that are not
communicated very well in email and other text-based media. Tone of
voice and facial expression lend much to the communication
"[IFWP] has come together to sponsor a
framework of coordinated international meetings, to be held around
the world, at which stakeholders will discuss the transition to
private sector management of the technical administration of
Internet names and numbers as outlined in the
*sigh*
I'll give it one more try ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
Thank you for the suggestion that I pay to become a member of
a group which has 'interests in providing Internet education.'
That's not what I meant.
I suggested that you contact the individuals within ISOC
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
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 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, 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
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
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 discussion group
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
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
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 as
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
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
membership
[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."
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
[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)
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
[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 policy
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:
Greg
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 you
25 matches
Mail list logo
