Esther and all,
Noted. However we are in no position to arrange anything with
American Airlines, as they are under some pilot shortage problem at the
moment. In addition as stated in the announcement, arrangements
for travel are your own affair.
Are you planning on attending?
Esther Dyson
Martin Schwimmer wrote:
>When "TM Interests" "equate" DNs and TMs (I use quotes to indicate I don't
>endorse that phrasing) I don't believe that, if they thought about it, they
>would disagree that the DNS system and the TM system are different systems
>with different purposes.
>Nevertheless,
At 12:38 PM 2/9/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I agree that membership will not likely attract the world population en
>>mass. But every reference to "the lists" as being the only voice
>>ignores people who do not use these lists or the English language as
>>the
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>The big rift, between Barcelona/Monterrey and Washington DC, *is* the
>involvement of the trademark contingent. Do you disagree?
Yes. I don't think anyone is suggesting that trademark interests don't
have a legitimate interest in DNS issues. In fact, the White Paper m
Jeff,
May I humbly suggest you arrange special discount fares with American Airlines?
Esther
At 04:11 PM 09/02/99 +, jeff Williams wrote:
>All,
>
> We (INEGroup) are preparing an international Internet Stakeholders
>meeting in Dallas at Texas Stadium for Feb. 25 thru the 28. We have
>ope
At 09:10 AM 2/9/99 -0500, Harold Feld wrote:
Quite a thoughtful analysis of the problem of public representation, which I
won't retain here for purposes of bandwidth. What it does for me is bring
to mind a process long used in Oregon for nursing homes, with respect to
residents that cannot or d
OK, so you say that 70+ ccTLD managers read "The subject says it all" and
then just hit reply?
Come on Mr Broomfield.
And I notice you did not answer my comments about your misstatements on the
points of the 5 registries or any of the other rather salient parts of my
message. Very telling inde
All,
We (INEGroup) are preparing an international Internet Stakeholders
meeting in Dallas at Texas Stadium for Feb. 25 thru the 28. We have
opened this meeting to include any and all "Interested Parties" to
attend to discuss Supporting organization considerations regarding
the ICANN/NTIA/Mo
William and all,
Pot kettle black!
William X. Walsh wrote:
> I see that no one can make comments any longer without getting villified by Mr
> Sondow.
>
> These meetings are actually planned for exactly the purpose you state, so that
> members can attend both sets of meetings.
>
> I won't deba
William and all,
Pot kettle black again!
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Mr Broomfield CONTINUES to take things out of context and make them say things
> they never said.
>
> On 09-Feb-99 John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> > > I'm happy to see that you're not interested in spreading FUD, since in
> >
Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I agree that membership will not likely attract the world population en
>mass. But every reference to "the lists" as being the only voice
>ignores people who do not use these lists or the English language as
>their primary form of communication. It overlo
At 01:21 PM 2/9/99 -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>
>>I'm just tossing this to start things off. It addresses the fundamental
>>issue wrt trademarks. It is an insight that I think we can all agree with
>>at some level. Much of the disagreements between the two drafts are
Milton Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Do you see any danger that if ICANN becomes dependent on revenues
>from accreditation and registration volume fees that it may--like the
>ITU did--become hostile to any major competitive threat to the
>business firms and technologies that threaten to ove
Mr Broomfield CONTINUES to take things out of context and make them say things
they never said.
On 09-Feb-99 John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> > I'm happy to see that you're not interested in spreading FUD, since in
> > recent days you've accused the IATLD of being a fake, me of having some
> > e
Hi Mike -- What we all need is to have one list designated as the
discussion list of record. Perhaps there shoudl be more than one,
given the need to discuss separate topics (DNSO, PSO, ASO, MAC, etc)
on different lists, but without any designation we are essentially
being dealt with in what feel
Esther:
I'd appreciate a frank answer to these questions:
> "ICANN is seeking public comment on... a proposed fee structure based on an
> initial accreditation fee and ongoing charges on registration volume."
Do you recognize the possibility--just the *possibility* mind you--that treating NSI
Must we choose? Can we not have a representation of both?
Tamar
At 09:31 AM 2/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I agree that membership will not likely attract the world population en
>mass. But every reference to "the lists" as being the only voice
>ignores people who do not use these lists or the Englis
Please do not unsubscribe me but keep me on the list
Tamar Frankel
At 08:09 AM 2/9/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
YOUR NAME HERE
Boston University School of Law
765 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 09:15 AM 2/9/99 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, John M. Brown wrote:
>
>> Ok, so now it seems that we can't even run a mailing list
>> program. The headers are constantly changing and this
>> is recking havoc with various filters.
>
>This is par for the course. When vrx.net
Mr. Cerf has identified the essential quality of two different systems
(with different purposes) and correctly observed that there is a
fundamental conflict in that domain names require only uniqueness (defined
as identity) for the DNS to achieve its intended purpose of designating IP
hosts while
Raul and all,
This has been one of the many continuing problems with the ISOC for
some years now, and continues to be so.
Raúl Echeberría wrote:
> >ISOC, in particular, is the most open organisation that I know. This does
> >not mean that they have to consult with the members on every decisio
At 2/9/99, 03:46 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 10:59:52PM -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>>
>> Fundamentally different in where they leave the final decision and
>>the level of detail with which they approach the problem, but hard to
>>call one proposal "far deeper" and "serious
Yes, to answer your question below, we *are* seeking input on these
questions, to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Though I can tell you right
now that customers of other registrars do not automatically revert to NSI if
their registrar goes out of business. As a registrar, NSI had no special
privileges/right
Einar Stefferud a écrit:
> What we have here is a very serious startup problem of bootstraping
> from no members at all to some Interent informed memebers who are
> dedicated to openness and due process.
And of course Einar Stefferud's going to decide who they are.
> Surely we cannot feel comof
On Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 01:11:36AM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> I would have to go back and do a line by line comparison, but I won't be
> surprised if I find most of the language in the current draft came from your
> own draft Kent, which was done by ignoring input from the DNSO.org list
>
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>I'm just tossing this to start things off. It addresses the fundamental
>issue wrt trademarks. It is an insight that I think we can all agree with
>at some level. Much of the disagreements between the two drafts are on
>trademark issues. I feel that it is long past time
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, John M. Brown wrote:
> Ok, so now it seems that we can't even run a mailing list
> program. The headers are constantly changing and this
> is recking havoc with various filters.
This is par for the course. When vrx.net took over the NEWDOM list a
couple of years ago, they n
I'm just tossing this to start things off. It addresses the fundamental
issue wrt trademarks. It is an insight that I think we can all agree with
at some level. Much of the disagreements between the two drafts are on
trademark issues. I feel that it is long past time to resolve them, or
admit that
I really dislike getting personal on these lists, but this
matter has gotten out of hand, and must be addressed.
Jim Fleming has started emailing lots of people lately
with the request that his statement in the DNS Voices
section of Media Visions be removed. He has sent his
removal request to Est
At 12:24 PM 2/9/99 +, Clare Wardle wrote:
>Roeland Meyer wrote:
>>They clearly intend to place a priori restrictions on new Top Level Domain
>>(TLD) names. All of this in the interests of protecting trademark owners.
>
>Trade mark owners don't necessarily benefit by these measures - indeed for
I agree that membership will not likely attract the world population en
mass. But every reference to "the lists" as being the only voice
ignores people who do not use these lists or the English language as
their primary form of communication. It overlooks people who do not rely
on the lists as a
Both professors Frankel and Zitran worry about the problem of protecting the rights
and interests of "passive users" (i.e., those who use the Internet but do not
participate in the "Internet governance" debate).
I first raised this point in 1997, as one of my concerns regarding the gTLD-MoU.
On 09-Feb-99 Elisabeth PORTENEUVE wrote:
> We do agree that ISO3166 match up territories not countries,
> and that RFC1591 states correctly:
>"The IANA is not in the business of deciding
>what is and what is not a country."
> I hope we do agree that governem
Roeland Meyer wrote:
>They clearly intend to place a priori restrictions on new Top Level Domain
>(TLD) names. All of this in the interests of protecting trademark owners.
Trade mark owners don't necessarily benefit by these measures - indeed for every trade
mark owner who does, there is usually
Roeland Meyer wrote:
>They clearly intend to place a priori restrictions on new Top Level Domain
>(TLD) names. All of this in the interests of protecting trademark owners.
Trade mark owners don't necessarily benefit by these measures - indeed for every trade
mark owner who does, there is usually
At 01:39 AM 2/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Bill Lovell a écrit:
>
>> >The fact is that until something happens that directly affects them and
that
>> >they feel they can be an activist about, they will not get involved. And
>> >history tends to indicate that most of those who get involved in such a
>>
On 09-Feb-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 12:28:36AM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > I was not the editor of this draft, and I contributed only small
> > > parts of the text.
> >
> > Then please provide the names of the people who edited and contributed text
> > to
On Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 12:28:36AM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > I was not the editor of this draft, and I contributed only small
> > parts of the text.
>
> Then please provide the names of the people who edited and contributed text to
> this draft.
David Maher, Jon Englund, and Joe A
On 09-Feb-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 07:00:43AM +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> > Roeland
> >
> >
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Roeland M.J. Meyer"
> > writes:
> >
> > > There are some things that are different from the BMW draft and they
> > > have enough mer
On Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 07:00:43AM +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> Roeland
>
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" writes:
>
> > There are some things that are different from the BMW draft and they
> > have enough merit to garner some impressive support, over the BMW
> >
On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 11:15:14PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
[...]
>
> This is a perfect example of a situation where the so called "sovereign"
> language Kent Crispin seems to want to enshrine can be abused.
I have proposed no such language. My position has been that *no*
language abo
Yes Indeed Joop!
What we have here is a very serious startup problem of bootstraping
from no members at all to some Interent informed memebers who are
dedicated to openness and due process.
Surely we cannot feel comofrtable saying the we mus start out with the
least well informed consituencies t
Hello Kent --
I may live to regret responding to you on this, but...
>From Kent's message Mon, 8 Feb 1999 01:47:33 -0800:
}
}On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 07:43:57PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
}
}> > Furthermore, it is explicitly the case that the Names Council only
}> > gives recommendations t
Hi Esther and all ...
Thanks for clearly stating that you support our continued work on
finding ways to meld the better parts of both proposals into something
that will obtain greater consensus support than either of them do by
themselves.
We need to be very careful to understand that they corre
Hi Ken and all --
What prey tell is the problem with this same very large bunch of
people exchanging EMail to get the same job done?
By my count you want to get at least 27 people together on a phone
call to edit text? Or to build a chart of differences and work on
reducing them. Or somethign
Kent,
You wrote:
> According to the dnso.association.org web page the attendees of the
> Paris meeting were:
>
> Antony Van Couvering
> Bernard Turcotte
> David Johnson
> Don Telage
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Fay Howard
> Jay Fenello
> Kilnam Chon
> Oscar Robles-Garay
> Roberto Gaetano
>
> Is
At 06:41 PM 2/4/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>You might see it that way. Another characterization might be that TM
>>interests have noted that under current social reality domain names
>>have value as advertisment, and also that the DNS, in conjunction
>>with t
On 09-Feb-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
> What I'm afraid of is that, due to the cost of supporting new registries,
> and of supporting ICANN, domain names will cost %200 or more per year.
Well, I think we can't jump to such conclusions when there is no evidence of
that happening.
Jumping to concl
Einar Stefferud a écrit:
> And, for Michael's information, the fact that he has contractred with
> an ISP to do everythig for his DNS Zone, and not let him have password
> control of it is his decision and not a feature of the DNS!
>
> In my own case, I cvontrol all aspects of the content of my
On 09-Feb-99 Teddy A Purwadi wrote:
>
> It was at slashdot.org discussions. Yes, I think we should ask to ISO-3166
> Maintenance Agency, what kind of their authority to put these *flame* name
> into standard name and country code into the international list.
> Who responsible?. Its take a m
William X. Walsh a écrit:
> Well, that will depend on the registries, and whether they charge the $35/yr
> that NSI charges, or whether they pass it along at cost, and do collateral
> marketing of other services.
>
> I don't see this as a question that ICANN answer, or indeed has any place being
Is ICANN still thinking of holding meetings in Singapore at the end of
February (as the ICANN website said)?
Is the M.A.C. meeting going to be held on the same day, March 2nd, as the
DNSO meeting?
Will there be DNSO meetings on March 5th?
...
We e
On 09-Feb-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
> These are no more than self-serving lies told by people who are so insecure
> that they fear extinction of their own weak voices in the mass.
> The public is involved in every facet of life, from local community boards
> deciding what is done in their neig
Bill Lovell a écrit:
> >The fact is that until something happens that directly affects them and that
> >they feel they can be an activist about, they will not get involved. And
> >history tends to indicate that most of those who get involved in such a
> >fashion, tend to get involved only for th
On 09-Feb-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
> The preface to the recently published ICANN registry accreditation
> guidelines includes the following about money:
>
> "NSI will be required to provide equal access to registry services through
> the shared registration system to all accredited registra
Diane Cabell a écrit:
>
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>
> > I support the creation of a public interest, or netizens SO, if you
> > like.
>
> That's what the At Large Membership is supposed to be.
Why, then , are there no spokespeople for the public interest on the
Membership Advisory Committee?
The preface to the recently published ICANN registry accreditation
guidelines includes the following about money:
"NSI will be required to provide equal access to registry services through
the shared registration system to all accredited registrars (including
itself) at prices to be agreed upon b
Greg Skinner a écrit:
> The public has the right to file license challenges against licensees
> they do not feel are acting in the public interest. The public may
> also challenge a licensee at its renewal time.
That's right. There are public review boards. They aren't always active, but
someti
Roeland
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" writes:
> There are some things that are different from the BMW draft and they
> have enough merit to garner some impressive support, over the BMW
> draft.
PLEASE, it's not a BMW draft. It is Kent's/INTA Draft. It has almost
no suppo
60 matches
Mail list logo
