Joop Teernstra a écrit:
> Michael, since you are in this mood, can we expect some more apologies
> especially to those people who broadly share your concerns, but who ,
> instead of finding solidarity, have found themselves the target of your
> most offensive choice of words?
I have no idea who
At 01:18 11/01/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
.
> Anyway, I apologize for
>overreacting.
Yes!
Michael, since you are in this mood, can we expect some more apologies
especially to those people who broadly share your concerns, but who ,
instead of finding solidarity, have found themselves the ta
Greg Skinner a écrit:
>
> Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Well, I think you are exaggerating. It's part of this techno-mystique
> >surrounding the Internet, which technical people who feel insecure
> >about their social and linguistic skills are often pulling. In any
> >case, ther
Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, I think you are exaggerating. It's part of this techno-mystique
>surrounding the Internet, which technical people who feel insecure
>about their social and linguistic skills are often pulling. In any
>case, there was nothing technical in this dialo
At 02:51 PM 1/10/99 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 03:14 PM 1/9/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>I've used Internet video conferencing with a few thousand folks. Audio got
>me even more, on the same bandwidth. If you run a send-only mutli-cast feed
>for video and two-way Internet phone you c
At 03:14 PM 1/9/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
I've used Internet video conferencing with a few thousand folks. Audio got
me even more, on the same bandwidth. If you run a send-only mutli-cast feed
for video and two-way Internet phone you could handle quite a few folks.
The big problem is
Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit:
>
> At 01:45 AM 1/10/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >Dave Crocker a écrit:
> >>
> >> At 04:49 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have stayed out of this for a while recovering from the trial.
> >> > We are drug pushers. We tout our technology but don'
At 01:45 AM 1/10/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Dave Crocker a écrit:
>>
>> At 04:49 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
>>
>> > I have stayed out of this for a while recovering from the trial.
>> > We are drug pushers. We tout our technology but don't ever use it. What
>> > is wrong with live
Gordon Cook a écrit:
>
> No Michael, they are not writing in code
> They just know far far more about the Internet and its technologies that
> you can ever hope to know. I say this despite SERIOUS policy disagreements
> with the both of them.
Don't you realize, Gordon, that your incessant
No Michael, they are not writing in code
They just know far far more about the Internet and its technologies that
you can ever hope to know. I say this despite SERIOUS policy disagreements
with the both of them. BTW from a technical point of view about the m-bone
for sure the crock is correc
Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit:
>
> At 04:22 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >steve a écrit:
> >>
> >> Suggestion:
> >>
> >> Have the ORSC Rep (Jay) tape the meeting, and place the minutes on the
> >> list. If that's not allowed by all in attendance then...make your own
> >> judgement...
>
Dave Crocker a écrit:
>
> At 04:49 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
>
> > I have stayed out of this for a while recovering from the trial.
> > We are drug pushers. We tout our technology but don't ever use it. What
> > is wrong with live mbone, real video, real audio -- pick your poison, so
>
At 04:22 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>steve a écrit:
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> Have the ORSC Rep (Jay) tape the meeting, and place the minutes on the
>> list. If that's not allowed by all in attendance then...make your own
>> judgement...
>
>It doesn't solve the dilemma, Steve. And no
At 05:55 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
>At 05:21 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>At 04:49 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
>>>
>>>So why not??!!
>>
>>
>>Because they don't work well enough in the current Internet.
>>
>>Let's be a little careful about demanding immediate, large-scal
At 05:21 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
Please don't post HTML. *Some* of us still use /usr/bin/mail :-)
(sometimes)
>
>At 04:49 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
>I have stayed out of this for a while
>recovering from the trial.
>We are drug pushers. We tout our technology but don't e
At 05:21 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 04:49 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber
wrote:
I have stayed out of this for a while
recovering from the trial.
We are drug pushers. We tout our technology but don't ever use it. What
is wrong with live mbone, real video, real audio -- pick your poison
At 05:21 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 04:49 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber
wrote:
I have stayed out of this for a while
recovering from the trial.
We are drug pushers. We tout our technology but don't ever use it. What
is wrong with live mbone, real video, real audio -- pick your poison
Dave and all,
Only problem with Mr. Crockers statement below, is that these
technologies mbone, real video, real audio and I would add
Internet Video conferencing are use on the Internet by
literally thousands every day
Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 04:49 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
At 04:49 PM 1/9/99 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
I have stayed out of this for a while
recovering from the trial.
We are drug pushers. We tout our technology but don't ever use it. What
is wrong with live mbone, real video, real audio -- pick your poison, so
all can at least attend the meetings if no
Dave and all,
Completely agreed Dave. We (INEGroup) and myself made this suggestion
to the ICANN before the November 14th Boston Meeting as well as all the
subsequent Brussels meeting as well. It didn't seem that the Berkman Center
could get it act together to get it done even after I persona
I have stayed out of this for a while recovering from the trial.
We are drug pushers. We tout our technology but don't ever use it. What is wrong with
live mbone, real video, real audio -- pick your poison, so all can at least attend the
meetings if not the coffee breaks. If you tell me it is
steve a écrit:
>
> Suggestion:
>
> Have the ORSC Rep (Jay) tape the meeting, and place the minutes on the
> list. If that's not allowed by all in attendance then...make your own
> judgement...
It doesn't solve the dilemma, Steve. And no one would agree to it. Who would
want to listen to that t
Suggestion:
Have the ORSC Rep (Jay) tape the meeting, and place the minutes on the
list. If that's not allowed by all in attendance then...make your own
judgement...
Steve
T: 925-454-8624
>I'd be happy to comment on this. There is apparently a
>meeting the day before among the organizers of th
sondow wrote: (not a ecrit in self affected french)
>
>ORSC was "invited". The users and their representatives haven't been, nor
>have any people from CABASE or ALCI, or anywhere else in the developing
>countries, because the INTA and their friends don't want opposition. It's
>clear as day, isn't
This sounds so ominous Michael :)
To my knowledge this meeting was NOT arranged by ORSC, and Stef merely inquired
(publicly on the list I might mention) that Jay represent ORSC at this meeting
if possible.
As to the specifics of the meeting, and who set it up, those details have not
been publi
>Yeah, me too. I've always considered myself to be a fairly well polished
>hypocrite.
I'm not as polished as I am clean-shaven. I wanted to grow a beard,
but my wife made me scrape it all off today.
Seriously, though - think about the position we're all in. When a group
like ICANN has closed
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> You're a bunch of lousy hypocrites. Nothing more and nothing less.
>
> On that remark, this discussion just ended, as far as I'm concerned.
>
Yeah, me too. I've always considered myself to be a fairly well polished
hypocrite.
--
Alex Kamant
Christopher Ambler a écrit:
>
> >That's the same logic used by everyone who participates in closed
> processes.
> >Did you ask whether the meeting was open to everyone who is interested? Did
> >you refuse to participate in a closed meeting? Is it alright when ti's the
> >ORSC that does it, but a
Michael chooses to ignore this part of what I said :
On 09-Jan-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
>> Makes perfect sense for ORSC, and for any organization electing to be
>> represented, to make sure they crash these closed meetings if at all
>> possible,
>> to force them to be open, despite any plans oth
>Oh, so it's just fine when the ORSC accepts invitations to closed,
exclusive
>meetings, in order to "force them to be open"? There's only one way to
force
>them to be open: demand that everyone who wants to attend can go, and
refuse
>to participate if they aren't.
As I said, it's very difficult
>That's the same logic used by everyone who participates in closed
processes.
>Did you ask whether the meeting was open to everyone who is interested? Did
>you refuse to participate in a closed meeting? Is it alright when ti's the
>ORSC that does it, but a terrible crime when it's someone else?
William X. Walsh a écrit:
>
> This sounds so ominous Michael :)
>
> To my knowledge this meeting was NOT arranged by ORSC, and Stef merely inquired
> (publicly on the list I might mention) that Jay represent ORSC at this meeting
> if possible.
>
> As to the specifics of the meeting, and who set
Christopher Ambler a écrit:
>
> I'd be happy to comment on this. There is apparently a
> meeting the day before among the organizers of the
> meeting on the 22nd. I have no idea what's to be
> discussed, and that's why I'm rather glad that an ORSC
> rep will be there. I was asked, but I cannot at
I'd be happy to comment on this. There is apparently a
meeting the day before among the organizers of the
meeting on the 22nd. I have no idea what's to be
discussed, and that's why I'm rather glad that an ORSC
rep will be there. I was asked, but I cannot attend, as my
plane leaves Thursday afterno
34 matches
Mail list logo
