...and hilarity ensued. Not.
http://www.icannwatch.org/articles/05/04/11/132201.shtml
Sigh. I am certainly not happy to see this and I must confess dismay
that the subject rears its ugly head. My life has been better since
i stopped paying attention to these people hoping that they
I thought you were doing these on a blog now
On 4/12/2005 8:25 PM, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
...and hilarity ensued. Not.
http://www.icannwatch.org/articles/05/04/11/132201.shtml
- ferg
--
Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
[EMAIL
This is all a tempest in a teapot and it is all caused by a poor choice of
headings and seems to be a knee jerk reaction to several possible ways in
which the heading can be misunderstood.
Auerbach complains about ICANN.
He challenges process rather than outcomes.
He even cites the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Gordon Cook
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:22 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Auerbach Accuses ICANN Board of Dereliction of Duty on IP
Allocation
...and hilarity ensued. Not.
Why is it anyone thinks this sort of icann-bashing-as-usual, is somehow
significant and worthy of burdening nanog?
we should return to fergie's endless news items?
procmail is your friend
randy
On 4/13/2005 6:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ICANN is not perfect but it is hard to see anything
wrong with this particular action.
what's got to be wrong about it? ICANNwatch is the unelected opposition
party to ICANN's unelected majority party. Whatever ICANN does, ICANNwatch
finds
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:24:13 PDT, Dave Crocker said:
(citing out of order to make a point...)
The input turns out to be markedly minimal, where he comprises 25% of it.
Whether Karl is in fact right or a raving net.loon, there is indeed something
very
wrong with the process if he's 25% of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether Karl is in fact right or a raving net.loon, there is indeed something
very
wrong with the process if he's 25% of the input.
It may be useful to keep in mind that this is the tail end of a long process
that we're talking about here. There was already a lot of
Not so. The idea of an opposition party suggests the editors of ICW have
some desire to be in control. Not at all.
Further, we run a slash server. Most of the content is contributed. We
don't have to go hunt for it.
If ICANN ran decent discussion boards, it would put us out o business.
...and hilarity ensued. Not.
http://www.icannwatch.org/articles/05/04/11/132201.shtml
- ferg
--
Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ferg's tech blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/fergdawg/
...and hilarity ensued. Not.
http://www.icannwatch.org/articles/05/04/11/132201.shtml
- ferg
Sigh. I am certainly not happy to see this and I must confess dismay
that the subject rears its ugly head. My life has been better since
i stopped paying attention to these people hoping that they
11 matches
Mail list logo
