Given your attitude toward anything I say, I think we have completed
all our useful interactions;-)...
Enjoy the silence;-)...\Stef
At 16:15 -0600 12/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:
>Paranoid, Stef? Do you always presume that everyone is against you?
>Look at your mistaken presumption regarding my vie
Once can acknowledge that ICANN exists without recognizing it as legitimate.
Given its nature & actions, in fact, ICANN merits investigation & replacement.
k
>I cannot at all understand the suggestion, which I read in your
>message, that participating in ICANN is a threat for ... well, what
>exa
I cannot at all understand the suggestion, which I read in your
message, that participating in ICANN is a threat for ... well, what
exactly, as well as a sort of treason. As long as one is clear and
honest? It is impossible to ignore and route around ICANN. Anyone
connecting to the internet uses r
Paranoid, Stef? Do you always presume that everyone is against you?
Look at your mistaken presumption regarding my views on democracy.
Critical thinking helps prevent embrassment by jumping to conclusions,
There are more obvious "leaks" on the list than myself, e.g. Mr. Crispin,
who's arrival effe
Of course, and I assume you will make sure that it is passed along,
in case someone else has not;-)...
Fortunately, "my plans" are just thoughts on the fly;-)...
But thank you very much for informing everyone here that ICANN has
spies all around us, to be sure they know what we think, so they
As for ICANN finding out your plan, Stef, seems wise to presume that
your postings here have already been forwarded to ICANN by lurkers on
this list. There is no stealth on an open mailing list
-- ken
>Well, we run some danger of you going to ICANN meetings and spilling
>our beans;-)...
Well, how about that.
With Kent Crispin here the beans are already spilt, which is why I am leaving.
Cheers...\Stef
At 00:38 -0700 11/09/01, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>Well, we run some danger of you going to ICANN meetings and spilling
>our beans;-)...
>
>So, you will find some hostility here t
Hi Kent -- Now that I see you are here, I shall simply exit stage left;-)...
Enjoy;-)...\Stef
At 23:03 -0700 10/09/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 12:08:16AM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> > >Beautiful. But who gave you your IP number?
> >
> > The same place ICANN got the
Well, we run some danger of you going to ICANN meetings and spilling
our beans;-)...
So, you will find some hostility here to people who insist on
participating in both. We a re not going to try to kill ICANN, but
we also do not want to put our head in the ICANN guillotine for no
good purpos
Of course we cannot and will not ignore ICANN.,.
After all, out plan is to copy the ICANN ROOT, and augment it into
being our superior Inclusive Root, to be offered as a solid well
managed ROOT service to ISP's that want and need such a service.
We should also offer it to the ccTLD operators w
Kent Crispin wrote:
> ...
Well, it really doesn't matter what he wrote. The point is, he's
back, and that means no possibility of any useful discussion on this
list. So, good-bye and good luck to you all.
M.S.
At 11:03 PM 9/10/01 -0700, you wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 12:08:16AM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>> >Beautiful. But who gave you your IP number?
>>
>> The same place ICANN got their. A regional registry. ICANN uses NAT
>> addresses so this is rather moot.
>
>Where did you get that idea?
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 12:08:16AM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> >Beautiful. But who gave you your IP number?
>
> The same place ICANN got their. A regional registry. ICANN uses NAT
> addresses so this is rather moot.
Where did you get that idea?
--
Kent Crispin
Trying to work with ICANN is a double waste of any participant's time,
unless you are one of the people on the inside track.
First, if you are trying to change the status quo,
you are engaging in a fight with them.
they really know how to fight and win.
So, good luck, but don't ask me to any help
>Beautiful. But who gave you your IP number?
The same place ICANN got their. A regional registry. ICANN uses NAT
addresses so this is rather moot.
--
"But at the end of the day, even if you put a calico dress on
it and call it Florence, a pig is still a pig."
-- Bradshaw v. Un
>Beautiful. But who gave you your IP number?
>
dhcp.sorry
--
The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Index to 9 years
of the COOK Report at http
>Is this true?
yes it is true
>Does it not depend on _how_ you work inside ICANN?
no it does not depend on how you work inside of icann since the
private BWG mail list started in 1998 I have been an active
participant in that group of people who have all tried to work within
ICANN an
If they haven't, they will. Much easier to be under ICANN than under
your government. See ccTLDs.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 19:56 [=GMT-0400], Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> i don't think the routing registries have signed contracts with ICANN yet
>
> >On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 17:58 [=GMT-0400], Richard
Beautiful. But who gave you your IP number?
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 19:54 [=GMT-0400], Gordon Cook wrote:
> > >> We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
> >>> cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
> >>
> >>Burying your head in the sand and wishing the
i don't think the routing registries have signed contracts with ICANN yet
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 17:58 [=GMT-0400], Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
>> >> We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
>> >> cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
>> >
>> >Buryin
> >> We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
>>> cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
>>
>>Burying your head in the sand and wishing the problem away won't make it
>>so.
>>
>>Ignore ICANN to your own detriment.
>
>Perhaps, but saying "these ISO protocol
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 19:08 [=GMT-0400], Michael Sondow wrote:
> Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> > ICANN is way more clear than
> > any alternative I know of.
>
> IFWP=Institute For Wankers and Poltroons?
Could we keep this to basic 2000 words English for those, like me,
whose native language is
Marc Schneiders wrote:
> ICANN is way more clear than
> any alternative I know of.
IFWP=Institute For Wankers and Poltroons?
'Bye-'bye, Tootsie, 'bye-'bye.
'Bye-'bye, Tootsie, don't cry.
M.S.
Is this true? Does it not depend on _how_ you work inside ICANN? I see
a lot of people active on the ncdnhc list who 'hate' ICANN as much as
possible. Still they vote for the ICANN board seat (maybe without
success) if they happen to be on the Names Council. Lets not ostracize
each other. I am not
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 17:58 [=GMT-0400], Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> >> We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
> >> cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
> >
> >Burying your head in the sand and wishing the problem away won't make it
> >so.
> >
> >Ignor
>> We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
>> cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
>
>Burying your head in the sand and wishing the problem away won't make it
>so.
>
>Ignore ICANN to your own detriment.
Perhaps, but saying "these ISO protocols suck and s
Working within ICANN lends legitimacy to an innately illegitimate enterprise.
There has never been any public vote for privatization or any vote for ICANN.
Please do not ignore that the would-be emperor still wears no clothes.
-- ken
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>
>> In my view,
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> Ignore ICANN to your own detriment.
Looks like you don't have much choice in the matter, Patrick. You've
been thrown out:
Joe Sims: "The existing bylaws of ICANN make no provision for
further At Large elections...the ICANN bylaws are a blank sheet on
this subject,
a
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 17:32 [=GMT-0400], Michael Sondow wrote:
> Einar Stefferud wrote:
> >
> > In my view, ICANN is no longer worthy of further attention,
> > as their deliberate intention is to disenfranchise all of us.
>
> I agree with you totally. The title of my posting was intended as
>
Einar Stefferud wrote:
>
> In my view, ICANN is no longer worthy of further attention,
> as their deliberate intention is to disenfranchise all of us.
I agree with you totally. The title of my posting was intended as
sarcasm, as the content of Sims' email indicates. They have
eliminated the me
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> In my view, ICANN is no longer worthy of further attention,
> as their deliberate intention is to disenfranchise all of us.
>
> We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
> cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
In my view, ICANN is no longer worthy of further attention,
as their deliberate intention is to disenfranchise all of us.
We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
Cheers...\Stef
At 12:58 -0400 10/09/01, Michael Son
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Sims" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sandy Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Evaluation of NAIS and ALSC Reports
> The existing bylaws of
> ICANN make no provision for further At
33 matches
Mail list logo
