No government will ever have the internet's best intrest in mind
when they talk about controlling it. Luckily government control
has been kept some what to a minimum so far but it's growing
rapidly and this is another attempt for a government body to
"control" the internet.
I wonder what new
> the report itself is linked to from
> http://www.itu.int/wsis/wgig/index.html
Many of you may find it more interesting and
useful to read through and comment upon one
or two of the working papers posted here:
http://wgig.org/working-papers.html
I would hope that people with special expertise
Thanks for all the responses.
(However, I didn't get as much responses as I expected)
Here is the summary:
Total responses Received: 05
(including one works for a Fortigate competitor and one for a reseller)
Comments varies from "very bad product" to "I'm impressed".
Certain GUI problems were menti
What if the UN says ITU should run the TLDs, ICANN says yes, and, a
significant portion of the operational internet says no?
Owen
--On Tuesday, February 22, 2005 5:53 AM -0800 Ross
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No government will ever have the internet's best interest in mind when
they talk about c
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Joe Provo wrote:
: On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
: > Scott Weeks wrote:
: > >On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
: > >
: > >: want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the
: > >
: > >Yes, publically. Please.
: >
: > P
> What if the UN says ITU should run the TLDs, ICANN says yes, and, a
> significant portion of the operational internet says no?
Nothing happened beyond a bit of noise on mailing lists when ICANN
did their coup, why should anything happen now?
Now ICANN are ramping up their domain tax to fund th
ICANN won't say yes. Now that a new fee for TLD operators goes to ICANN,
they won't want to give it up. Simple non-profit business practices. If
ITU operates it, they would keep the existing fees and then add a few
others. I think we've already seen the bottom in terms of fees to
operate a regi
On 2/22/2005 2:34 PM, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> Now ICANN are ramping up their domain tax to fund the increasing
> overhead they are imposing, who will tax less ICANN or ITU?
Given that ICANN [probably] won't be doing things like (eg) funding Cuba's
state-run proxies and content filters, I'd
This is a status update on the NANOG program committee.
First, I'd like to thank my fellow PC members for selecting
me as the interim chair. Our primary task and focus for
the next few months will be to ensure the quality of the
agenda for the Seattle meeting, while the broader discussions
on NA
It's been pointed out that my typing skills are somewhat lacking.
Aside from the misspelling in the message subject,
the alias to reach the program committee should be:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve
I usually try not to cross-post, but only do so here
because I thought this would be of interest to the
NANOG community at-large.
FYI,
- ferg
-- Forwarded Message --
February 21, 2005: Call for Nominations to the
Public Interest Registry .ORG Advisory Council
The .ORG Advisor
I am have a routing issues with microsoft could a WAN person from microsoft
please contact me off list thanks.
Thanks
Erik
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Erik Sundberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Engineer
Apps Communications
10470 West 164th Place
Orland Park, IL 60467
http://www.appscorp.net
Phone: 70
I don't think Microsoft _has_ engineers, let alone WAN engineers
:-)
Erik Sundberg wrote:
I am have a routing issues with microsoft could a WAN person from microsoft
please contact me off list thanks.
Thanks
Erik
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Erik Sundberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Engineer
Apps C
At one point, Microsoft employed a number of Internet-savvy folks.
Most familiar to me: Tony Hain and Peter Ford. They're quite knowledgeable.
MS has deep pockets, and has hired talented folks in many disciplines.
It seems reasonable to infer that the chronic problems at MS
have their roots at
14 matches
Mail list logo
