[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 12:46 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [IFWP] The rough consensus in Berlin and ICANN's bylaws
>
> Chuck,
>
> Consider the source.
>
> Gene...
>
> At 09:39 AM 8/9/99 -0400, you wrote:
> &g
Gene Marsh wrote:
>
> Then there was CLEARLY no consensus at Berlin for any topic I
> witnessed,
> except in favor of the IDNO.
>
Obviously we were at different meetings ;>).
At the one I attended (non-com constituency, with participation of to-be
individual constituency), even a straw poll w
Gene,
You wrote:
>
> Yes, but you adroitly miss addressing the other issue...
> Richard Sexton
> also brought up the question of additional gTLD DNSO NC
> representatives.
> That issue has never been properly addressed.
>
True, but the purpose of my post was not to give a comprehensive summ
At 04:06 PM 8/9/99 +0200, you wrote:
>Joop,
>
>You wrote:
>> >
>> Thanks for aiding my memory, Roberto.
>> But if applause indicates consensus, then we also have consensus on
>> admitting the IDNO constituency to the DNSO.
>>
>
>Unfortunately, applause by itself does not indicate consensus.
>A l
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Monday, August 09, 1999 8:00 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [IFWP] The rough consensus in Berlin and ICANN's bylaws
>
At 01:59 PM 8/9/99 +0200, you wrote:
>Joop,
>
>You wrote:
>
>>
>> After the next's day's session with the Board and following deliberation
>in
>> camera the Board came with it's resolution to change the bylaws and limit
>> NSI to one seat.
>>
>> I do not recall any other instance that "consensu
Michael and all,
An excellent question. However I believe the answer is already
known. That answer is that both of those MCI representatives
DID participate in the pNC meetings... If that is so, another violation
of the Bylaws has taken place as well which of course was already
reported. T
Did those two representatives participate in any pNC meetings, or did
the resignation preclude that event?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
>
> Incidentally, may I remind that there were also two persons elected
> independently to the Name Council by two different Constituencies that
> worked f
Monday, August 09, 1999, 11:03:35 AM, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And making semantic distinctions does do not anything to refute the
> complaints, either.
> However, frank and open discussion of the facts does.
Dave,
I find it rather interesting that you claim to stand for fran
At 04:06 PM 9/08/1999 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Joop,
>
>You wrote:
>> >
>> Thanks for aiding my memory, Roberto.
>> But if applause indicates consensus, then we also have consensus on
>> admitting the IDNO constituency to the DNSO.
>>
>
>Unfortunately, applause by itself does not indicat
nday, August 09, 1999 8:00 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [IFWP] The rough consensus in Berlin and ICANN's bylaws
>
> Joop,
>
> You wrote:
>
> >
> > After the next's day'
Tony,
> What's been bothersome is how the NDA - which
> was meant to protect all testbed participants
^^^
> against snipping public remarks - has been used against
> NSI, (...)
When NSI uses confidentiality agreements and performance bonds to
slow down the access of new regis
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IFWP] The rough consensus in Berlin and ICANN's bylaws
Hi, Chuck, how are you?
You wrote:
>
> "Poor management of the testbed by NSI?" I know that there
> have been lots
> of emotionally based claims to this effect but would be
>
At 11:11 AM 8/9/99 , Ivan Pope wrote:
Oh, come ON. NSI imposed an NDA on what was
supposed to be a public learning
process. It doesn't take much to work out that it was imposed to ensure
that
it is as hard as possible for newcomers to compete.
I fail to see that. The NDA seemed intended to provi
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> Karl and Patrick,
>
> The "consensus" in Berlin was so rough, that I can still see my abrasions.
Joop,
Thank you for the view of what occured in Berlin.
Even had there been consensus in Berlin, which, from your account there
wasn't, the far more i
Tony wrote:
> What's been bothersome is how the NDA - which
> was meant to protect all testbed participants
> against snipping public remarks - has been used against
> NSI, with constant innuendos that all
> problems arose only from NSI, and that
> somehow NSI wasn't responsive, when this plainly
Tony,
You wrote:
>
> Especially considering Roberto was at the last testbed
> advisory committee meeting and I don't recall that either
> he or anyone else made such an assertion... :-)
>
I was only at the "first" testbed meeting in Reston, when the testbed
programme was described to us by NS
At 10:19 AM 8/9/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>BTW, I know that the complaints Ken and Richard Lindsay (among others) made
>were real, as at that time I was a member of CORE and participated to the
>testbed.
Roberto,
I think we both observed these developments.
It's not apparent that anyone has
Hi, Chuck, how are you?
You wrote:
>
> "Poor management of the testbed by NSI?" I know that there
> have been lots
> of emotionally based claims to this effect but would be
> interested to see
> some objective facts.
>
Thanks for correcting me.
Re-reading the sentence I realize that it give
At 09:39 AM 8/9/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>"Poor management of the testbed by NSI?" I know that there have been lots
>of emotionally based claims to this effect but would be interested to see
>some objective facts.
Especially considering Roberto was at the last testbed
advisory committee mee
Joop,
You wrote:
> >
> Thanks for aiding my memory, Roberto.
> But if applause indicates consensus, then we also have consensus on
> admitting the IDNO constituency to the DNSO.
>
Unfortunately, applause by itself does not indicate consensus.
A large majority applauding does (= "considerable a
1999 8:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IFWP] The rough consensus in Berlin and ICANN's bylaws
Joop,
You wrote:
>
> After the next's day's session with the Board and following deliberation
in
>
At 01:59 PM 9/08/1999 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The subject of the testbed, and the poor management thereof by NSI,
>triggered again the debate on the gTLD Constituency. I believe that it was
>George Conrades to mention that, if NSI was not willing to autolimit their
>participation to the
Joop,
You wrote:
>
> After the next's day's session with the Board and following deliberation
in
> camera the Board came with it's resolution to change the bylaws and limit
> NSI to one seat.
>
> I do not recall any other instance that "consensus" was asked or measured
> on the gTLD seats.
>
Karl and Patrick,
The "consensus" in Berlin was so rough, that I can still see my abrasions.
There is an audio-video recording of my "speech" (informing the delegates
of the status of the Individual Domain Name Owners' constituency) for the
GA in Berlin.
I argued and pleaded for its immediate
25 matches
Mail list logo
