- Original Message -
From: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re:November
Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
AIL PROTECTED]>;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 5:20 PM
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re:
>November Cook Report - intro and part 1 I
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Greg Skinner wrote:
> Richard Sexton wrote:
>
> > Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing,
> > I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled
> > by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the
> > same reasons - i
At 07:20 PM 9/10/99 -0700, Greg Skinner wrote:
>Richard Sexton wrote:
>
>> Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing,
>> I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled
>> by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the
>> same reasons - it
Richard Sexton wrote:
> Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing,
> I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled
> by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the
> same reasons - it is not legitimate, open, transparent or
> representa
At 07:17 PM 9/10/99 -0400, David Farber wrote:
>At 2:20 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote:
>>It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently
>>exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet
>>self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists)
PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re:
November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling
ICANN
> It
Many thanks, yes yes yes
At 2:20 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote:
>It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently
>exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet
>self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists) falls, the process may
>f
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>>Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the result of the
>>laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ
>>that favor big businesses.
> Like what?
Auction of spectrum to cellular phone companies, for example.
Tony and all,
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> At 05:20 PM 9/10/99 , Greg Skinner wrote:
> >fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the
> >result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US
> >seem to employ that favor big businesses.
>
> Like what?
>
> Eve
At 05:20 PM 9/10/99 , Greg Skinner wrote:
>fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the
>result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US
>seem to employ that favor big businesses.
Like what?
Even the telecom industry doesn't have anything as path
Greg and all,
I don't find or see a great possibility of what you say Farber is saying
will happen. It is possible yes, but highly improbable given that the USG
has failed so many times already and a major election is in the offing
soon. Hence there is plenty of time for another stab at all t
It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently
exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet
self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists) falls, the process may
fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the
result
Dave this is a perfectly reasonable comment. There is only one point
on which I STRONGLY disagree with it.
>you say: If ICANN fails it
>will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and
we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like.
Vint, Esther, John and
14 matches
Mail list logo
