[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[wg-c] list administration
I've unsubscribed Simon for four days, seeing as:
 he's one of the people I had warned.
 After Josh posted his message, I repeated my request that people drop
this topic. Simon went ahead and continued the thread, provoking a bunch
of other responses.
At 10:17 AM 4/13/00 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>At 08:32 AM 4/13/00 -0700, Josh Elliott wrote:
>firstname.lastname@example.org (InterNIC/NSI) has the RFC1591 records too.
>These are also under Federal contract. "Lost" is not an option.
>>I believe that "file" was lost some time ago and is no longer on file at
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Simon
>> > Higgs
>> > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 1:44 AM
>> > To: email@example.com
>> > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call
>> > At 04:49 PM 4/12/00 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> > >On 13-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> > > > I'm sure the majority of people reading this list (and not
>> > posting) aren't
>> > > > fooled by the FUD and rhetoric coming out of you, William.
>> > >
>> > >No Chris, I'm sure that the majority are not fooled by yours and Simon's
>> > >attempts to twist history and facts to bolster claims to TLDs
>> > that you self
>> > >claimed, and have no right to, and have no right to expect any advanced
>> > >standing to.
>> > Who is claiming anything? There's a list of legally binding TLD
>> > applications filed, per RFC1591, sitting in a file in IANA/ICANN. The NSF
>> > has made it clear that only TLDs filed in way will be considered:
>> > http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI08111997.jpg
>> > "The Foundation [NSF] and NSI agreed that new TLDs would be added only in
>> > accordance with Request For Comments 1591."
>> > What part of this don't you understand? Are you still a sore
>> > loser because
>> > you can't have your own ccTLD?