<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga-abuse] FW: [IFWP] Re: IP address holders - are they represented?
All,
It seems our friend Mr. Williams is crossposting to different lists. This
is against list rules. He needs to be removed again.
Dave
===============
Received: from m-il06-r1.mot.com ([129.188.137.193]) by
il06exi01.CORP.MOT.COM with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service
Version 5.5.2650.21)
id HMSW25SF; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:37:53 -0600
Return-Path: <owner-list-outgoing@ns1.vrx.net>
Received: from mothost.mot.com by m-il06-r1.mot.com with ESMTP for
xdat11@email.mot.com; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:37:47 -0700
Received: [from ftpbox.mot.com (ftpbox.mot.com [129.188.136.101]) by
mothost.mot.com (MOT-mothost 2.0) with ESMTP id RAA10546 for
<xdat11@email.mot.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:37:42 -0700 (MST)]
Received: [from ns1.vrx.net (ns1.vrx.net [204.138.71.254]) by ftpbox.mot.com
(ftpbox 2.1) with ESMTP id RAA14398 for <xdat11@email.mot.com>; Thu, 23 Mar
2000 17:37:42 -0700 (MST)]
Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix)
id 1FA9DF019; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:38:30 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: list-outgoing@ns1.vrx.net
Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix, from userid 1074)
id 24380F0EC; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:38:29 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: list@vrx.net
Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net
[207.69.200.246])
by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD642F019
for <list@ifwp.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:38:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ix.netcom.com (user-33qseo8.dialup.mindspring.com
[199.174.59.8])
by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA30604;
Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:37:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <38DAD1F1.15734818@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:24:49 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit)
To: ga@dnso.org
Cc: Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>,
"David R. Conrad" <David.Conrad@nominum.com>,
mike.norris@heanet.ie,
"'!Dr. Joe Baptista'" <baptista@pccf.net>
Subject: [IFWP] Re: IP address holders - are they represented?
References: <3F2D1A940FB8D1118A1F00609783612927F1C6@ntserver.heanet.ie>
<38CD2B0D.7B02B97@iciiu.org>
<38CDB621.66C07E80@nominum.com>
<38CE4BEB.37CE6578@iciiu.org>
<38CE5E72.53C7C3EE@nominum.com>
<38D0238B.7722725E@iciiu.org>
<38D0257D.B06A543B@nominum.com>
<38D0271D.78BA0EFD@iciiu.org>
<4.2.0.58.20000323183546.0099b4b0@mail.mindspring.com>
Sender: owner-list@ifwp.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: list@ifwp.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
===============
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 8:25 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Cc: Michael Sondow; David R. Conrad; mike.norris@heanet.ie; '!Dr. Joe
Baptista'
Subject: [IFWP] Re: IP address holders - are they represented?
Jay and all assembly members,
First let me say this should not really be on the DNSO GA list...
More comments below as to the subject....
Jay Fenello wrote:
> At 07:49 PM 3/15/00 , David R. Conrad wrote:
> >Michael,
> >
> > > I know it's in the interests of IBM, MCI,& AT&T to put small
> > > companies out of business, but is it in the interests of the RIRs?
> >
> >Sorry, I have _no_ interest in getting into yet another education effort
on
> >the implications of CIDR, address aggregation, provider based addressing,
and
> >why it is necessary. I have been involved in and seen all the arguments
and
> >counter-arguments more times than I want to recall and have neither the
time
> >nor the interest in wading through it yet again.
> >
> >If this is something you are actually interested in (rather than using it
as
> >yet another rhetorical soapbox to bash ICANN), I suggest you start by
reading
> >the old IEPG and IETF CIDRD and ALE working group archives. You might
also
> >check the APNIC and ARIN archives for the dicussions when they were
> >established. You will find much of the discussion repetitive -- as I
> >indicated, this argument has been repeated _many_ times since people
> >discovered that 32 bits was not infinite, but hopefully informative.
> >
> >The executive summary is: addresses are allocated the way they are
because the
> >folks who work at RIRs are interested in insuring the Internet continues
to
> >work.
>
> Hi David,
>
> What does this have to do with complaints
> about ARIN's regressive pricing policies?
>
> Or the huge @Home delegation?
>
> These are questions of policy.
I can remember and document if necessary when David Conrad made some
statements to the effect that IP numbers were not for sale and could not be
purchased. Of course we all know now that David's statements along these
lines
were inaccurate than and remain so now.
>
>
> >If you do not believe this statement, go read the stuff I mentioned
above.
> >
> > > I've wasted two years reading what ICANN writes or posts. Not a
> > > single thing they've said has been put into practice, just the
> > > opposite. They are professional con artists, whose sole interest is
> > > to take as much power away from individuals as they can. The users
> > > have been swept aside, the ISPs have been swept aside, and sooner or
> > > later you, too, will be swept aside if you don't wise up.
> >
> >Hopefully, you'll someday learn that demonizing in this way does very
little
> >to help your credibility.
>
> Deamonizing aside, Michael's
> complaints are still accurate!
Agreed, Michaels statements/comments are very accurate. I also didn't
see or read any "Demonizing" in them. Rather I did gather that David was
attempting in a snide sort of way, which is his habit of notice, to demonize
Michael or make it appear to the readers that Michael was behaving in his
comments in demonic fashion. This is typical of David on occasion.
>
>
> Jay.
>
> >Rgds,
> >-drc
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jay Fenello,
> New Media Relations
> ------------------------------------
> http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480
> Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World
> ------------------------------------------------
> "The unexamined life isn't worth living"
> -- Socrates
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
=========================
and
Received: from mothost.mot.com ([129.188.137.101]) by il06exb01.corp.mot.com
with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21)
id HQ8W2DQV; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:39:59 -0600
Received: [from motgate.mot.com (motgate.mot.com [129.188.136.100]) by
mothost.mot.com (MOT-mothost 2.0) with ESMTP id RAA11753 for
<XDAT11@NAMERICA.MOT.COM>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:40:00 -0700 (MST)]
Received: [from lists.internic.net (lists.internic.net [198.41.0.15]) by
motgate.mot.com (motgate 2.1) with ESMTP id RAA16143 for
<XDAT11@NAMERICA.MOT.COM>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:39:59 -0700 (MST)]
Received: from lists.internic.net (lists.internic.net [198.41.0.15])
by lists.internic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10338;
Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:43:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from LISTS.INTERNIC.NET by LISTS.INTERNIC.NET (LISTSERV-TCP/IP
release 1.8d) with spool id 8632957 for
DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:43:19 -0500
Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net
[207.69.200.246]) by lists.internic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP
id
TAA10302 for <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000
19:43:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ix.netcom.com (user-33qseo8.dialup.mindspring.com
[199.174.59.8]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with
ESMTP
id TAA30604; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:37:23 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3F2D1A940FB8D1118A1F00609783612927F1C6@ntserver.heanet.ie>
<38CD2B0D.7B02B97@iciiu.org> <38CDB621.66C07E80@nominum.com>
<38CE4BEB.37CE6578@iciiu.org> <38CE5E72.53C7C3EE@nominum.com>
<38D0238B.7722725E@iciiu.org> <38D0257D.B06A543B@nominum.com>
<38D0271D.78BA0EFD@iciiu.org>
<4.2.0.58.20000323183546.0099b4b0@mail.mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <38DAD1F1.15734818@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:24:49 -0800
Reply-To: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Sender: Owner-Domain-Policy <owner-domain-policy@internic.net>
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
Subject: Re: IP address holders - are they represented?
X-To: ga@dnso.org
X-cc: Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>,
"David R. Conrad" <David.Conrad@nominum.com>,
mike.norris@heanet.ie, "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>
To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
Jay and all assembly members,
First let me say this should not really be on the DNSO GA list...
More comments below as to the subject....
Jay Fenello wrote:
> At 07:49 PM 3/15/00 , David R. Conrad wrote:
> >Michael,
> >
> > > I know it's in the interests of IBM, MCI,& AT&T to put small
> > > companies out of business, but is it in the interests of the RIRs?
> >
> >Sorry, I have _no_ interest in getting into yet another education effort
on
> >the implications of CIDR, address aggregation, provider based addressing,
and
> >why it is necessary. I have been involved in and seen all the arguments
and
> >counter-arguments more times than I want to recall and have neither the
time
> >nor the interest in wading through it yet again.
> >
> >If this is something you are actually interested in (rather than using it
as
> >yet another rhetorical soapbox to bash ICANN), I suggest you start by
reading
> >the old IEPG and IETF CIDRD and ALE working group archives. You might
also
> >check the APNIC and ARIN archives for the dicussions when they were
> >established. You will find much of the discussion repetitive -- as I
> >indicated, this argument has been repeated _many_ times since people
> >discovered that 32 bits was not infinite, but hopefully informative.
> >
> >The executive summary is: addresses are allocated the way they are
because the
> >folks who work at RIRs are interested in insuring the Internet continues
to
> >work.
>
> Hi David,
>
> What does this have to do with complaints
> about ARIN's regressive pricing policies?
>
> Or the huge @Home delegation?
>
> These are questions of policy.
I can remember and document if necessary when David Conrad made some
statements to the effect that IP numbers were not for sale and could not be
purchased. Of course we all know now that David's statements along these
lines
were inaccurate than and remain so now.
>
>
> >If you do not believe this statement, go read the stuff I mentioned
above.
> >
> > > I've wasted two years reading what ICANN writes or posts. Not a
> > > single thing they've said has been put into practice, just the
> > > opposite. They are professional con artists, whose sole interest is
> > > to take as much power away from individuals as they can. The users
> > > have been swept aside, the ISPs have been swept aside, and sooner or
> > > later you, too, will be swept aside if you don't wise up.
> >
> >Hopefully, you'll someday learn that demonizing in this way does very
little
> >to help your credibility.
>
> Deamonizing aside, Michael's
> complaints are still accurate!
Agreed, Michaels statements/comments are very accurate. I also didn't
see or read any "Demonizing" in them. Rather I did gather that David was
attempting in a snide sort of way, which is his habit of notice, to demonize
Michael or make it appear to the readers that Michael was behaving in his
comments in demonic fashion. This is typical of David on occasion.
>
>
> Jay.
>
> >Rgds,
> >-drc
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jay Fenello,
> New Media Relations
> ------------------------------------
> http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480
> Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World
> ------------------------------------------------
> "The unexamined life isn't worth living"
> -- Socrates
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|