[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] web site
Again Jeff, you speak without all the facts. The domain name
IcannAtLarge.org IS on hold. Quit posting otherwise. It is confusing to some
members and simply a false statement. Links have been posted for you so you
could see for yourself that it is listed as an on hold domain name, but you
refuse to accept this. Why?
Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>; "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin"
<jefsey@club-internet.fr>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] web site
> Richard and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,
>
> Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> > For goodness sakes listen to Jefsey because he's talking good sense -
he's
> > thinking strategically and looking ahead in terms of structure and
> > procedures for operation.
> >
> > As for icannatlarge.org - it's "On Hold" and it's pretty clear NSI has
put
> > it on hold.
>
> This is untrue. ICANNATLARGE.ORG is not on hold, but has
> a misconfigured Name server therefore is not resolvable presently.
> See the following:
> Domain Name: ICANNATLARGE.ORG
> Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
> Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
> Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
> Name Server: NS1.PCODE.COM
> Name Server: NS1.CODELOCAL.COM
> Updated Date: 29-sep-2002
>
>
> >>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 3 Oct 2002
16:58:06 EDT
> <<<
>
> The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG,
> .EDU domains and Registrars.
>
> Domain not found locally, but Registry points back to
local DB.
>
> Local WHOIS DB must be out of date.
>
> ===========
>
> > I maintain that the best way forward is to adopt the second
> > place name www.atlarge.org which is hopefully active and readily
accessible.
> > It also represents a non-icann name which I believe the majority of
people
> > originally opted for.
> >
> > What is needed is a clarification from the membership as to whether they
> > want "ICANN" in our name, and whether they would be prepared to adopt
> > www.atlarge.org as a best practical way forward.
>
> The DN ATLARGE.ORG is already registered to Mark Schniders,
> See:
> Registrant:
> Venster
> Laan van Vollenhove 1733
> Zeist, 3706 GH
> NL
>
> Domain Name: ATLARGE.ORG
>
> Administrative Contact:
> Schneiders, Marc marc@schneiders.org
> Laan van Vollenhove 1733
> Zeist, 3706 GH
> NL
> 31 30 6992825
>
> Technical Contact:
> Schneiders, Marc domadmin@venster.nl
> Treublaan 14
> Zeist, Utrecht 3705 CZ
> NL
> +31 30 6992825
> Fax: +31 30 6990151
> ==========================
>
> Has he at any time mad it clear that he will turn this Domain name over
> to the members without conditions? As far as I know he hasn't.
> Hence choosing that DN would be a mistake up-front without knowing
> that he would.
>
> >
> >
> > This name is neater in terms of the structure and strategy which Jefsey
> > agrees to set in place if we wish.
> >
> > All I'm asking is an immediate review of the status of icannatlarge.org
> > (currently locked and on hold)
>
> No it is not on hold it has a misconfigured Name server.
>
> > and a simple YES or NO vote ... not to
> > overturn democracy, but to clarify democracy... if people vote "YES" we
> > would prefer to have a name without ICANN in it, then THAT'S not
> > anti-democratic... that becomes the democratic will of the membership in
an
> > evolving and fluid situation, with new details coming to light
>
> What new details are you referring to? Be specific AND accurate please.
>
> >
> >
> > When people voted for icannatlarge.org, they did not have full
information
> > on the ballot (as Jefsey has pointed out)... indeed I think most of us
had
> > not fully realised that icannatlarge.org was "off the rails" ...
>
> It is not off the rails. It has a simple misconfigured Name server as
the
> Whois data I listed above clearly indicates.
>
> >
> >
> > So please grasp the structural vision Jefsey has set out... and please
> > consider a simple, YES or NO, clarifying vote on whether to have the
> > despicable icann name in our name!
>
> Here inlies the real crux of your argument. You don't like having the
> string "ICANN" in the DN for our organization. I happen to agree with
you.
> But such an argument is hardly a good reason to try to force a reversal
> of the vote already taken by our members.
>
> >
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
> > To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 11:47 PM
> > Subject: [atlarge-discuss] web site
> >
> > > As member of the WG-WEB I strongly suggest that possible webmasters or
> > > co-webmaster (like Sotiris and NameCritics) tell us about:
> > >
> > > - the machine, platform and accesses they plan.
> > > - the machine IP address and backup-schedule.
> > > - the kind of site they plan
> > > - who will participate/should participate to the site management
> > > - how documents will be produced, accepted
> > > - how will the site relate with the sub-sites.
> > >
> > > before we strike any decision.
> > >
> > > The reason why is that we have experienced the control of Joop. I am
sure
> > > all of us want it to change, but for the better, building on
experience,
> > > with Joop continuous cooperation (nothing prevent some part of the
site to
> > > remain on the existing system: for example the forum).. None of us
wants
> > to
> > > spend time disputing over site details or webmaster's attitude. The
first
> > > one wanting things to be cool being the new Webmaster and his team.
This
> > > means that we also want to have a true agreement on the way we can
> > > terminate the mission; protecting both us and the webmaster (he will
be
> > > controverted by nature, and he must feel stable and supported).
> > >
> > > This means that all the Panel Members and all the WG-WEB are members
of
> > the
> > > editorial committee. We want to work out a solution permitting them to
> > work
> > > together?
> > >
> > > We want good out-reach support. So we want to go the way Richard
defined
> > > it: 190 local sites with possible hundreds of participants. This
should be
> > > well organized through the WG-DNS resource allocation, but the links
from
> > > the main site will have to be maintained and documented. This calls
for a
> > > lot of cooperation, as the site develops.
> > >
> > > jfc
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > ----
> >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de