[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] MOTION PROPOSAL: was WG-WEB: responses to Jamie

Dear Jeff,
what you do not understand is that because icannatlarge.org has been put on hold it does not resolve anymore and the current confirguation which is inadequate but which worked cannot be mended.

The nameserver associated to icannatlarge.org are ns1.codelocal.com and ns1.pcode.com. These namesevers are NOT in operations for months now, but names still are under my control. So they have been allocated the same IP addresses as the name servers in use (which are authoritative). Until end of Septembre it worked. I still tried access when Joop complained it was resolving to the wiki (because Joop never supported icannatalrge.org as an alias to .com).

This was the only thing I could do as long as NSI does not want to respond to demands. As I explained many, many, many times icannatlarge.org has been put on a separate user account I have no access to (due to the additions of mistakes when NSI purchased my registrar) and NSI had never returned it yet to my own partner account. I own the name, but have no access to it to update it or even renew it.

Since no one wants to help with matter of fact assistance and everyone prefers barking at me, I drop the issue. I also see there is absolutely NO interest in the icannatlarge name per se, since I still have NO response from either present and could-be webmaster to tell me if they are ready to support or to allias icann-at-large.xxx and icann-atlarge.xxx names. And NO position whatsoever from ANY member of the panel nor of the Membership.

At this stage the only thing wich could be attempted is to rebuy/transfer the name. I tried yesterday but the system was down (I cannot know if it was the network problem or a default message due to the name being on hold). Why not you to try to buy it? I should then receive a request for approval.

The only good news in all that is that NSI did not give a damn to icannatlarge.org until it was to put to vote (against me and against my propsoitions) and we voted we should use it. Good smoke screening.

jfc


On 08:46 05/10/02, Jeff Williams said:

Chris and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

As has been pointed out time and time again, webalias/tocows, which
owns or is the registrant of record of deleteddomains.com is notoriously
inaccurate. This has been pointed out on the DNSO GA list forum quite
a number of times on that forum.

swhois.net search yields:
Registrant:
The WebAlias Network
29 Red Barn Road
Trumbull, CT 06611
US

Domain Name: DELETEDDOMAINS.COM

Administrative Contact:
Contact, Admin webmaster@webalias.com
29 Red Barn Road
Trumbull, CT 06611
US
203-445-1471

Technical Contact:
Contact, Technical webmaster@webalias.com
29 Red Barn Road
Trumbull, CT 06611
US
203 445 1471



Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
Record last updated on 30-Sep-2002.
Record expires on 21-Feb-2003.
Record Created on 21-Feb-2000.

Domain servers in listed order:
NS3.DOMAINSERVERS.COM 209.50.253.132
NS4.DOMAINSERVERS.COM 209.50.253.133


The Data in the Tucows Registrar WHOIS database is
provided to
you by Tucows
for information purposes only, and may be used to
assist you in
obtaining
information about or related to a domain name's
registration
record.

Tucows makes this information available "as is," and
does not
guarantee its
accuracy.
==============

Take note of the last record entry, and I quote again: "Tucows makes
this
information available "as is," and does not guarantee its accuracy."

Ergo Chris, this information regarding ICANNATLARGE.ORG being
on hold is inaccurate. Not surprising. So the reference source you are
providing themselves, does not guarantee the accuracy of the
information,
and properly so, as at times, perhaps more often than not, it is
inaccurate.

So let this be a lesson for you and everyone here on this forum. One
should be careful to read ALL of the information and do ALL of the
checking
before making such judgments of this nature.

Now, like I said, ICANNATLARGE.ORG is NOT on hold in reality,
it's name servers are not authoritative. Do an NSLOOKUP on them
and the corresponding IP address for each Name server, and you will
or should see that they are not authoritative, and that, as such, are
misconfigured.

NameCritic wrote:

> You may need to look at the archives. Go to http://www.DeletedDomains.com
> and do a search for any domain name containing the words ICANN for on hold
> domain names. IcannAtLarge.org is in the list.
>
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "NameCritic" <chris1@telnor.net>
> Cc: <atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 7:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] MOTION PROPOSAL: was
> WG-WEB: responses to Jamie
>
> > Chris and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,
> >
> > NameCritic wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, one more time. Why is it you think this domain name is not on hold
> Jeff?
> > > It is listed in the "on hold" domains list, indicating that it is in
> fact on
> > > hold and not just a nameserver issue. Do you know something that
> > > NSI/Verisign/?The whole list doesn't?
> >
> > Verisign has not said that ICANNATLARGE.ORG is on hold.
> > Neither has Jefsey. Please show me where Verisign said that it was.
> > Please show me where Jefsey said that it was on hold.
> >
> > > Then please share your proof that this
> > > domain name is not on hold.
> >
> > I already did twice as I have already stated three times. See
> > archives of this forum for further information... ALso see
> > swhois.net whois look up on ICANNATLARGE.ORG. At the bottom
> > of the results of that lookup will be your proof. Or you can run a
> snapnames
> > inquiry and see that it is not in "On Hold" status... Also you yourself
> can
> > do s DIG on ICANNATLARGE.ORG and the two Name Servers
> > it is associated with. You will than see that they are misconfigured if
> > you know what you are looking at and understand DNS name server
> > configuration.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > > To: "NameCritic" <chris1@telnor.net>
> > > Cc: <atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 4:25 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] MOTION PROPOSAL: was
> > > WG-WEB: responses to Jamie
> > >
> > > > Chris and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,
> > > >
> > > > NameCritic wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So what you're saying here jeff, is there is no turning back no
> matter
> > > > > what. A revote can never be taken. Where is this written Jeff.
> > > >
> > > > No I am not saying that at all. That is YOUR interpretation or
> > > > mis interpretation of what I said. I said that "in effect trying to
> > > > > negate a previous vote of the members. That is decidedly not
> > > > > a healthy democratic process..." Which is far different from your
> > > > statement.
> > > >
> > > > > If new
> > > > > considerations are developed and a sufficient number of members want
> to
> > > > > revisit an issue, then I think that it should be considered.
> > > >
> > > > I do too. Hence I think now that the motion has been seconded
> > > > we should all vote on it. On problem though, we do not have a
> > > > voting process of our own to do so with. Or is this to be a
> > > > "List Vote"?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Since new issues have been brought to our attention since the vote
> for
> > > the
> > > > > name, then a motion is made to revote or consider other name choices
> > > then
> > > > > lets do it.
> > > >
> > > > They are not new issues. The strings "ICANN" and "ATLARGE" or
> > > > "At-Large" have been brought up long before the vote on the
> > > > DN was taken. See archives of this forum for further info.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The new issues? Glad you asked.
> > > >
> > > > There are none. And I didn't ask. You did! >;)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. ICANN cannot have a membership therefore may cause issue with the
> > > name
> > > > > implying that we are somehow members of that organization or at
> least
> > > giving
> > > > > that impression.
> > > >
> > > > This is not only not true it is the complete opposite of the actual
> > > legal
> > > > facts. Hence it is not a new issue at all as this issue has been
> > > discussed
> > > > at great length on the ALSC, and the DNSO GA Forums. So, no new issue
> > > > here Chris...
> > > >
> > > > Next?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. The domain name is on hold, therefore we cannot use it. You did
> get
> > > that
> > > > > right?
> > > >
> > > > It is not really "On Hold" it is not resolving because the Name
> servers
> > > > are misconfigured. Big difference.. However as this is not really
> and
> > > > issue, it therefore cannot be a "New Issue"...
> > > >
> > > > Next?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Several members have expressed concern and rightly pointed out
> that
> > > > > enough people voted for a non-icann name that it deserves a chance
> for
> > > > > voices to be heard.
> > > >
> > > > Not a new issue here either. Yes, there were other DN's that were
> part
> > > of
> > > > the ballot. They, combined, received more votes than did
> > > ICANNATLARGE.ORG.
> > > > So what? This in no way construes or justifies a new re-vote on the
> DN
> > > > for our organization. The members have already chosen.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. So far I have only seen you post that we have to keep this name.
> > > Everyone
> > > > > else seems to think it worthy of looking at again.
> > > >
> > > > I have no problem with Richards motion as it has been properly
> seconded.
> > > > I do believe that it would be a mistake as to overturning the members
> > > > choice by majority vote for ICANNATLARGE.ORG. I did not however
> > > > vote for ICANNATLARGE.ORG, but as Richard previously stated,
> > > > the members have chosen. But the choice was not of his liking. To
> > > > bad, the members didn't agree with him or me. So be it, IMHO. But to
> > > > again vote on the same set of choices except to change the ballot
> > > > to disinclude any DN with the string "ICANN" as part of that
> > > > DN is kinda foolish, unnecessary, and impeding the will of the members
> > > > without just cause.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > How about an informal poll to see how many people think that this
> name
> > > is
> > > > > the end all of this organization and we must keep it in order to
> > > function or
> > > > > on the other hand hear from those who think we should either
> re-vote,
> > > take
> > > > > the second choice, or what.
> > > >
> > > > Fine. Propose such a poll Chris...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > > > > To: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
> > > > > Cc: "Bruce Young" <bruce@barelyadequate.info>;
> > > > > <atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:45 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] MOTION PROPOSAL:
> was
> > > > > WG-WEB: responses to Jamie
> > > > >
> > > > > > Richard and all stakeholders or other interested parties and
> members,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I cannot second this motion. Reason: We have already voted
> > > > > > on what should be or new Name. That new name by democratic
> > > > > > process which you were so proud of Richard is ICANNATLARGE.ORG.
> > > > > > Now we must live with the will of the members. So such a motion
> > > > > > although I personally agree with it's motive, is in effect trying
> to
> > > > > > negate a previous vote of the members. That is decidedly not
> > > > > > a healthy democratic process...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard Henderson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well I move that we ask the membership whether they want the
> word
> > > > > "ICANN" in
> > > > > > > our name - YES or NO
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can't have a much simpler question than that, and then I'd
> be
> > > happy
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > accept the democratic will more easily. At present I genuinely
> think
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > is ambiguity as to whether most of our members actually wanted
> ICANN
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > name. I believe a coalition of not-have-Icann-in-the-name voters
> > > would
> > > > > > > actually outnumber those who wanted Icannatlarge.org, though of
> > > course I
> > > > > > > could be wrong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A vote will clarify that point. I propose the motion:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you want the word "ICANN" in our name - YES or NO or Abstain
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: Bruce Young <bruce@barelyadequate.info>
> > > > > > > To: <atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de>
> > > > > > > Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 7:17 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] WG-WEB:
> responses
> > > to
> > > > > > > Jamie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't disagree with this thinking. But without a clear
> mandate
> > > from
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > > members rejecting the vote results, I don't see that we have
> the
> > > > > freedom
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > reject their will as reflected in the vote.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bruce Young
> > > > > > > > Portland, Oregon USA
> > > > > > > > bruce@barelyadequate.info
> > > > > > > > http://www.barelyadequate.info
> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > Support democratic control of the Internet!
> > > > > > > > Go to http://www.icannatlarge.com and Join ICANN At Large!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > | -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > | From: Richard Henderson
> [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com]
> > > > > > > > | Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:19 AM
> > > > > > > > | To: atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de; J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin
> > > > > > > > | Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> > > > > > > > | Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] WG-WEB:
> > > responses to
> > > > > > > > | Jamie
> > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > | What I'm trying to say is that in the world of democratic
> > > > > > > > | politics, a "minority" may get the highest number of votes,
> but
> > > > > > > > | the democratic will of the people may be expressed through
> a
> > > > > > > > | "coalition" of smaller parties.
> > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > | Eg : Imagine a UK election where
> > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > | Conservatives 40%
> > > > > > > > | Labour 31%
> > > > > > > > | LibDem 16%
> > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > | Clearly a coalition *could* be formed to outvote the
> > > Conservative
> > > > > group
> > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > | The same may apply with regard to our name vote (we just
> don't
> > > > > > > > | know without a clarifying poll)
> > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > | I believe you'd find a majority coalition in favour of
> > > > > > > > | jettisoning the "minority" ICANN name
> > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > | I don't actually think icannatlarge.org is REALLY the name
> most
> > > > > > > > | of our membership wants.
> > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > | And as the name doesn't even resolve, and as the owner of
> the
> > > > > > > > | name would prefer an alternative anyway - why do we stick
> with
> > > > > > > > | an (arguably) non-working non-accessible non-popular name?
> > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > | I argue the majority of voters did NOT want the name we've
> been
> > > > > > > > | landed with.
> > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > | And then there's the legality issue, which has yet to
> unfold
> > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > | Richard
> > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >

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



---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 19/09/02


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de