Ladies and gentlemen of the ICANN, Secretary Bailey, and all,
I am forwarding this post as it is a typical example of a continuing
thyme of where the vast majority or the participating Stakeholder community
stands on the DNSO.ORG and their now "So called" merged Draft
bylaws for an application
>At 04:53 PM 1/19/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>At 01:34 AM 1/19/99 -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>>>Dave, could you turn off HTML please?
>
>>Any other email enhancements you wish to encourage us to throw away?
No, this one will do.
>>>There's a setting in the Eudora you're using.
>>
>>Get
For those of you who may want a text version,
the Association of Internet Professional's DNSO bylaw draft is below.
The other companion documents are on
the AIP's web site at http://dnso.association.org
-- Bret
===
1.0 INTRODUCTION
These Bylaw
As promised, further comments have been integrated into the following draft
which is also our commentary on the merged dnso.org draft, as well as other
drafts we have seen. The modifications to this draft and commentary is
being solicited on the ORSC list. If you have comments, please send them
Roberto and all,
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Stephen Page wrote:
> Presently, ICANN has
a closed list. ORSC has an open list.
> DNSO.ORG has a closed list.
>
Point of clarification:
If you are referring to the main mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), you
are
wrong, because the list is open.
Abo
> Trade mark registration does not last forever.
In the US, marks can be renewed indefinitely.
--karl--
__
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EM
{ Subject: RE: DNSO Important update: The "Merged" Draft
{ From: "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
{ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:19:49 -0800 (PST)
...
{
{ The interests of 2% of the domain name holders are of EQUAL weight to the
{ interests of 98% of the domain name holders.
{
{ It doesn't
On 20-Jan-99 Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Stephen Page wrote:
>
>> Presently, ICANN has a closed list. ORSC has an open list.
>> DNSO.ORG has a closed list.
>>
> Point of clarification:
>
> If you are referring to the main mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), you are
> wrong, because the lis
>Two comments:
>
>1. The drop in the disputes-per-thousand-registrations figure could simply be
>a factor of the difficulty trademark holders face in tracking new domain names
>and potential infringements. Resources are limited after all, even at large
>companies. Plus, as the aggregate numbers
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 07:58:33PM -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> If Tom Stoppard was a really boring writer, it would sound something like
> this:
>
[...]
>
> 3 characters in search of a life
Lately I've been listening a lot to Bob Dylan's recent album "Time
Out of Mind". The last song i
Stephen Page wrote:
> Presently, ICANN has a closed list. ORSC has an open list.
> DNSO.ORG has a closed list.
>
Point of clarification:
If you are referring to the main mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), you are
wrong, because the list is open.
About ICANN, also it depends on which li
If Tom Stoppard was a really boring writer, it would sound something like
this:
>>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
We are probably approaching the one millonth unpaid domain name in the
.com
TLD.
>>>
>>Richard Sexton wrote:
>>>I wasn't commewnting on the number of domains, but rather on the
>
>Criticism #1 (continued):
>The Interim Reports presentation of evidence and anecdotes is
>selective and biased
>
>* Key members of WIPOs own panel of experts support the charge of
>bias. In particular, the designated public interest repr
"The proof that the report is biased is that it does not agree with me."
p.s. your classification system is bogus. If Mr. Oppedahl and Mr. Davis
feel otherwise, I encourage them to write in and explain their positions.
More to the point, do they vouch for the accuracy of your "study" or is it
c
>* Approximately 80% of the presentations made before the WIPO regional
>consultations were from trademark lawyers or trademark-holding
>businesses. Only a tiny handfulabout four out of 155were from
>individual end users or public interest groups representing domain
>name holder rights, freedom
Assuming the rate is relevant, how does the rate it takes to register 1000
names compare to a year ago? If DNs were registered at a rate of 600/dy a
year ago and a 1000/dy today, then the the number of trademark/domain name
conflicts is not "declining rapidly," then the rate is staying a same (on
At 04:53 PM 1/19/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 01:34 AM 1/19/99 -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>>Dave, could you turn off HTML please?
>Any other email enhancements you wish to encourage us to throw away?
>
>>There's a setting in the Eudora you're using.
>
>Get a modern email viewer. There
Criticism #1 (continued)
The Interim Reports presentation of evidence and anecdotes is
selective and biased
* The report ignores or minimizes evidence that trademark holders can,
and often do, abuse the rights of legitimate domain name reg
Criticism #1 (continued):
The Interim Reports presentation of evidence and anecdotes is
selective and biased
* Key members of WIPOs own panel of experts support the charge of
bias. In particular, the designated public interest representa
Observations on the WIPO Interim Report:
Criticism #1:
The Interim Reports presentation of evidence and anecdotes is
selective and biased
* The report ignores clear statistical evidence that the number of
trademark-domain name conflicts is
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>The Berkman study group has assembled a chart at
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/models.html of some sample membership
>models for ICANN. We describe three models representing points along a
>spectrum -- open, individual, and organizational membership -- and set them
>out
The Berkman study group has assembled a chart at
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/models.html of some sample membership
models for ICANN. We describe three models representing points along a
spectrum -- open, individual, and organizational membership -- and set them
out as strawmen for criticism
i give you and "a" for effort with michael but i analogize your efforts
with "screaming into the wind ""
see you thurs ...
ken
-Original Message-
From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTE
Jonathan Zittrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
> Could someone easily generate a report of how many different people have
> posted to the list over a given period of time--say, the past three
months,
> or since last August--and with what frequency?
Certainly!
I've just tabulated more or less what
Jay Fenello a écrit:
>
> Damn Michael,
>
> Even though I've been called a cyber-cowboy,
> at least I keep my 6-shooter holstered until
> I have something to shoot at ;-)
Nothing to shoot at? You're joking. Corporate trademark lawyers are half way
to co-opting the DNSO, and you say there's nothi
All,
FYI. The attached has been sent to the NIST pursuant to GAO and
NIST requirements for filing a protest.
Kindest Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Numbe
Roberto Gaetano a écrit:
>
> Michael,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > As to the myself and the ICIIU, now that the NSI has come out in favor of
> > broad participation I suggest that they simply use the entire
> > .com/.org./.edu second-level domain database as a distribution list, and
> > send the variou
At 10:07 AM 1/19/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>In the past, some may have thought that we were radically opponent, because
>>each group wanted to have "his" gTLDs added. Time has shown that unless we
>>join forces, neither gTLD will be added. That's why we ally, and why CORE is
>>
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>In the past, some may have thought that we were radically opponent, because
>each group wanted to have "his" gTLDs added. Time has shown that unless we
>join forces, neither gTLD will be added. That's why we ally, and why CORE is
>happy to sit next to ORSC in the Jan.21 mee
Damn Michael,
Even though I've been called a cyber-cowboy,
at least I keep my 6-shooter holstered until
I have something to shoot at ;-)
At 1/19/99, 05:13 AM, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Jay Fenello a écrit:
>
>> I've only read up to the point clipped below,
>> but if the intro is any indication,
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> At 08:12 AM 1/19/99 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>> Richard,
>>
>> I happen to agree with Dave here.
>> I'm sure we have much better things to talk about on this (and other)
>> lists.
>
> If it is the consensus of this listthat it should be allowed
At 08:12 AM 1/19/99 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>Richard,
>
>I happen to agree with Dave here.
>I'm sure we have much better things to talk about on this (and other)
>lists.
Show me any other list where this is allowed, even encouraged. Posting
html gets you reprimands thenturfed off if you don't
At 04:53 PM 1/19/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 01:34 AM 1/19/99 -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>>Dave, could you turn off HTML please?
>
>well, gosh. while we're at it, let's stop using MIME, too.
If everybody used an email client that interpreted HTML you'd
have a point. Until then clearte
Richard and all,
We agree with Richard here. It is our hope and desire that the ORSC and
for that matter the BWG as well will find the courage of their stated
convictions
file protest's to the GAO and the NIST with respect to this contract as we
have done.
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> At 11:01
Richard,
I happen to agree with Dave here.
I'm sure we have much better things to talk about on this (and other)
lists.
On a more fundamental level, people have a right to choose how they
communicate. With that right comes trhe responsibility that others
may not understand or choose to not unde
Michael,
You wrote:
> As to the myself and the ICIIU, now that the NSI has come out in favor of
> broad participation I suggest that they simply use the entire
> .com/.org./.edu second-level domain database as a distribution list, and
> send the various DNSO bylaws proposals to everyone for sele
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> At 02:01 PM 1/17/99 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
>
> >Speaking of the Washington meeting, I want to
> >publicly thank CORE for their invitation to the
> >closed meeting, which I am planning on attending.
> >This olive branch has not gone un-noticed.
>
> I've always fo
Jay Fenello a écrit:
> I've only read up to the point clipped below,
> but if the intro is any indication, this is
> going to be a very impressive document.
What is this, diplomacy? Jay Fenello, the mediator, friend to all?
You like this draft, Jay? You approve of the corporate takeover? No ope
The new DNSO.ORG merged draft is posted on the DNSO proposal comparison page at
http://www.domainhandbook.com/comp-dnso.html
Thanks to David Duchovny, who helped keep me awake.
Ellen Rony Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook
Dave,
Actually, IANA did not delegate TLDs to countries (it was IANA's policy not
to have any view on whether the ISO codes even corresponded to countries).
Rather, they delegated the domains to groups or individuals who resided
within the territory described by the ISO code.
And I would say tha
At 12:53 AM 1/19/99 -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>Actually, IANA did not delegate TLDs to countries (it was IANA's policy not
>>to have any view on whether the ISO codes even corresponded to countries).
>>Rather, they delegated the domains to groups or individuals who resided
>>within the te
At 01:34 AM 1/19/99 -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>Dave, could you turn off HTML please?
well, gosh. while we're at it, let's stop using MIME, too.
Any other email enhancements you wish to encourage us to throw away?
>There's a setting in the Eudora you're using.
Get a modern email viewer.
Richard Sexton wrote:
> It is just me, or would is be easier to figure out what
> new top level domains should be recognized and when, than
> it is to work out the details of the DNSO?
It's just you. My problem is it's pretty simple to
see what's occuring. Wrap everyone up in a thousand
simul
Below are the ICIIU's comments on the most recent DNSO.org application draft
written by Kent Crispin and the DNSO.org drafting team.
ICIIU comments on merge5.txt.
> - A very precise set of bylaws designed to meet the
> requirements of corporate law.
>
> - A charter for a unique In
It is just me, or would is be easier to figure out what
new top level domains should be recognized and when, than
it is to work out the details of the DNSO?
--
"That's why there is a Protocol SO. To decide what the next
number after 16 is." - Dixon (tinc)
__
Dave, could you turn off HTML please?
There's a setting in the Eudora you're using.
At 01:10 PM 1/19/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>At 02:57 PM 1/18/99 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Richard J. Sexton
>wrote:
>This is not even true in the country you and I
>live in.
>Sure
At 1/18/99, 06:56 PM, Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Below you will find a "nearly final" draft of the announced (and hopefull
>awaited) DNSO "Merged Draft" App Form/Bylaws, duetoday ;-)
>
>As you will remember form earlier announcments form the Tranisition Team, this
>is an attempt
At 02:57 PM 1/18/99 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Richard J. Sexton
wrote:
This is not even true in the country you and I
live in.
Sure it is. The Canadian government knows who runs the .CA domain and
how
Governments have almost nothing to do with
cctlds.
That's because most g
At 02:25 AM 1/19/99 -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
What's important is the basis on which the government acts.
In the public networks side, they act because
they have the
exclusive authority under law, and they delegate the responsibility
to a third party. In the Internet arena, they act to
facilit
49 matches
Mail list logo
