Ellen and all,
Well said. I couldn't agree more. Pure malfeasance on the part
of the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board from where I sit.
Ellen Rony wrote:
> Adam Peake wrote:
>
> >I asked if you had tried. Join the list, submit an application, and if your
> >application is challenged (probabl
Adam Peake wrote:
>I asked if you had tried. Join the list, submit an application, and if your
>application is challenged (probably will be) argue your case.
It appears that the only way to complain about a skewed structure (i.e.,
the gerrymandering of the DNSO constituencies) is to try to get
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > > I'd be happy to pay the $1/name tax if I had a voice in the making of
the
> > > policies of the Domain Name System or IP address allocation.
> > >
> > > But I don't.
> > >
> > > There is no constituency of the DNSO that allows individuals who have
> > > domain names to
Mikki Barry wrote:
>
> Esther Dyson wrote:
> >
> >And the IP constituency has *invited* individual members.
> >
>
> Those are "observers" and are not allowed to vote.
As with the so-called "At-Large Membership", that's where Dyson
wants all the end-users of the Internet: watching, gagged, while
The invitations are not very attractive - non voting status only.
Imagine the tables were turned, and there were an individual constituency,
and the IP holders were invited as non-voting observers. Would they be
happy? I doubt it.
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Esther Dyson wrote:
> And the IP constit
JeffM and all,
It certainly seems like a "No Win" situation for some people or
Stakeholders. This seems to be by design from the edicts of
the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board. I doubt that this ICANN BoD
will change it's practices, maybe an elected one will. However by
that time the perverbia
JeffM and all,
JeffM, you must realize that Esther and Mike Roberts have on
several
occasions stated their disenchantment and down right disagreement
with stakeholders of any perswasion having a vote of any kind, in both
the press and on these lists... Can you spell DISINGENUOUS?
Planet Commun
Jeffm and all,
As I posted to J. Baptista earlier, I believe several folks from
the
IDNO have signed up and several tried to and were denied or
not allowed to participate for unknown reasons. See [EMAIL PROTECTED]
archives for further detail. Can you spell DISENFRANCHISING?
Planet Communicati
Esther and all,
Sure the IP constituency has, after the fact that they have
had their elections for representatives. That is sort of closing the barn
door after the horse's are out. Dumb and somewhat disingenuous
of them... They also supported the IDNO in Santiago as well
Esther Dyson w
I see what you mean Karl - ICANN looks like a no win situation.
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > esters making a good suggestion here - if you want input - this is a way.
> > Why dose the idno not join ip in mass.
>
> Does everybody have a trademark they can claim they own?
>
> esters making a good suggestion here - if you want input - this is a way.
> Why dose the idno not join ip in mass.
Does everybody have a trademark they can claim they own?
The question that could also be asked is why don't all the people in the
IP consitituency forced to join the business con
ester - if they are just observers - what bloody use is it to join.
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Mikki Barry wrote:
> >And the IP constituency has *invited* individual members.
> >
>
> Those are "observers" and are not allowed to vote.
>
>
>And the IP constituency has *invited* individual members.
>
Those are "observers" and are not allowed to vote.
Karl Auerbach wrote:
>There is no reason why a group of people who have a direct interest in
>domain name should be refused a constituency when six constituencies
>were automatically granted for six types of business entities.
The constituency structure is gerrymandering by another name.
For e
esters making a good suggestion here - if you want input - this is a way.
Why dose the idno not join ip in mass.
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Esther Dyson wrote:
> And the IP constituency has *invited* individual members.
>
> Esther
>
> At 09:31 pm 09/01/1999 +0900, Adam Peake wrote:
> >Karl Auerbach w
And the IP constituency has *invited* individual members.
Esther
At 09:31 pm 09/01/1999 +0900, Adam Peake wrote:
>Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>> > That's why I was in favour of financing ICANN in a different way, like for
>> > instance with a $1 fee on domain names, or with a membership fee.
>>
>> I'
> Karl, have you tried to join the non commercial constituency?
I can't. It is open only to organizations.
Besides. ICANN's bylaws say that any constituency can "self organize".
And the IDNO has done a wonderful job of self organizing. I suggest that
it is better organized than any of the rec
Adam, respectfully, having observed some of the events of the capture
of the non commercial constituency by ISOC, including the abandonment
of DNCR by Kathy Klieman and the naive participation by Barbara
Simon's on behalf of ACM, I have concluded that this constituency is
tainted.
Karl I susp
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > That's why I was in favour of financing ICANN in a different way, like for
> > instance with a $1 fee on domain names, or with a membership fee.
>
> I'd be happy to pay the $1/name tax if I had a voice in the making of the
> policies of the Domain Name System or IP addres
>Jim Dixon said:
>What matters is that ICANN is responsible to no one. The ICANN board has
>no legitimacy. They were appointed by who knows who to meet who knows
>what agenda. For good reason they lack the trust of the Internet
>community, ICANN's only possible source of authority.
To that e
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> [Roberto Gaetano:]
> > That's why I was in favour of financing ICANN in a different way, like for
> > instance with a $1 fee on domain names, or with a membership fee.
>
> I'd be happy to pay the $1/name tax if I had a voice in the making of the
> pol
Mr. Mason and Everyone,
I will go with Jeff's nose myself. It is generally excepted
that one can smell a pig long before one sees one It
appears that the pigs at the trove are not wanting to wait
on each other to dine But of course, pigs are not known
for dining manners. But once ta
>What I will enjoy most in this documentary is to see all those that were
>against alternate sources of funding (membership, $1 domain name fee, and so
>on) now complaining that ICANN has taken the money somewhere else, as if
>this was not obvious to everybody (and spelled out clearly) since the
>
> That's why I was in favour of financing ICANN in a different way, like for
> instance with a $1 fee on domain names, or with a membership fee.
I'd be happy to pay the $1/name tax if I had a voice in the making of the
policies of the Domain Name System or IP address allocation.
But I don't.
T
In the words of our american fathers - taxation without representation is
not nice.
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Roberto and all,
>
> Financing ICANN with a $1 per domain registration is a tax, and therefore
> is not expectable as is basing their financing on membership fees.
Roberto and all,
Financing ICANN with a $1 per domain registration is a tax, and therefore
is not expectable as is basing their financing on membership fees. This
is a poor financing model. They have had several opportunities for financing
from several different sources and either did not fol
Bill,
You wrote:
>
> My nose insists upon telling me that I smell something putrid.
> This malady started when on internet.com I first read "ICANN
> Adopts Cyber-Squatting Policy" and then "ICANN gets Financial
> Boost." Is that not what many of us have been concerned about
> for years now, tha
Bill and all,
Good points Bill. I just wonder how long this ICANN circus act
is going to be allowed to continue in this manner
Bill Lovell wrote:
> My nose insists upon telling me that I smell something putrid.
> This malady started when on internet.com I first read "ICANN
> Adopts Cyber
28 matches
Mail list logo
