[IFWP] Re: list Re: FW: Network Solutions' TLD Zone File Access Program

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William X. Walsh" writes: > > Still waiting for explicit permission to post the information obtained about > you Jeff. > > It is could be considered personal in nature, so I ask that you specifically > state that you grant permission for it to be published. I

[IFWP] Re: list Re: FW: Network Solutions' TLD Zone File Access Program

> Domain Names may or may not be different. There is not existing > legal structure that requires or restricts Domain Names from, of > inclusive of any public access that I am aware of to date. > Currently NSI controls the largest of these Domain Name databases, > as as such has the right to pro

Re: [IFWP] Re: list Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?

Diane and all, Diane Cabell wrote: > I'm still missing the link between a vote (or non-vote) and identification. > How do you know who is casting the compulsory vote? And if the voter lies > about that, how will you prove otherwise. (Questions I throw perhaps > illogically under the title of "

Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Membership

Esther and all, One way, Esther that you can do at least a first level check as I have mentioned before is to use LDAP on your browser (IF it is Netscape that is), against the suspected name and the E-Mail address. Esther Dyson wrote: > We're working on deciding that. What's *your* opinion?

[IFWP] Re: ICANN's Defective Competition Guidelines, etc (was Accredita

Does this mean I have permission to publish the information online with a reference to the location on this list? On 10-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote: > Pisanty and all, > >Agreed. You may not realize this but this is a constant mantra that > William Walsh has taken for some time. He is

[IFWP] Re: list Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?

I'm still missing the link between a vote (or non-vote) and identification. How do you know who is casting the compulsory vote? And if the voter lies about that, how will you prove otherwise. (Questions I throw perhaps illogically under the title of "enforcement.") I can see where it might reso

[IFWP] Re: ICANN's Defective Competition Guidelines, etc (was Accredita

Pisanty and all, Agreed. You may not realize this but this is a constant mantra that William Walsh has taken for some time. He is a extremely disturbed individual, and it may be useful for you to recognize this when reading his posts... Pisanty Baruch Alejandro-FQ wrote: > Hello, > > is thi

[IFWP] Re: ICANN Membership

We're working on deciding that. What's *your* opinion? How should we determine if you're a real individual? (As Jay [Fenello?] suggests indirectly - and respectfully - below, please see all the history on membership at www.icann.org, too!) Esther At 09:32 AM 10/02/99 -0700, Ken Freed wrote: >W

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [Pisanty Baruch Alejandro-FQ ]

>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 21:34:59 -0500 (EST) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Pisanty Baruch Alejandro-FQ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > >>From servidor.unam.mx!apisan Wed Feb 10 21:34:58

[IFWP] Re: list Re: Trademarks vs DNS

On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 07:50:22PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: > Bill: > You are right and Crispin, as usual, is not only wrong, but manipulatively > wrong. WIPO's proposals have nothing to do with trademark law. They are an > attempt to exploit the bottleneck power of ICANN's monopoly over the n

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [Mike Roberts ]

>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:53:43 -0500 (EST) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > >>From darwin.ptvy.ca.us!mmr Wed Feb 10 20:53:42 1999 >Return-Pat

[IFWP] RE: Are you going to take people's domain names away from them?

Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > e. The registrar would register SLDs to SLD holders only for > fixed periods. > > At the conclusion of the registration period, failure to pay a > renewal fee > > within the time specified in a second notice or reminder would result in > > cancellation of the registrati

list Escape clause for friends of the Comintern

Mr. Sims- What have you worked out, in the way of an exemption, so that you, Esther Dyson, and your friends will be exempt from recision when the rest of us have had our domain names cancelled at expiration? I imagine you could make quite a little pile of money tutoring people on how to achieve

Re: list Re: FW: Network Solutions' TLD Zone File Access Program

Still waiting for explicit permission to post the information obtained about you Jeff. It is could be considered personal in nature, so I ask that you specifically state that you grant permission for it to be published. On 10-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote: > William and all, > > William X.

Re: list Re: FW: Network Solutions' TLD Zone File Access Program

William and all, William X. Walsh wrote: > On 11-Feb-99 Karl Auerbach wrote: > > On the other hand, the database is a *big* privacy intrusion. > > > > And, as I've been indicating, it was paid for and authorized via the > > Cooperative Agreement and is hence subject to the Privacy Act of 1974

RE: list When lawyers break the law...

Mr Connolly, if you need someone else to verify the defamation by Mr Sondow, please let me know. I may disagree with your points of view, but no one deserves the type of attack that Mr Sondow thinks is perfectly acceptable. Aparrantely calling someone a Racist on a public list with no basis for

list Re: Trademarks vs DNS

Bill: You are right and Crispin, as usual, is not only wrong, but manipulatively wrong. WIPO's proposals have nothing to do with trademark law. They are an attempt to exploit the bottleneck power of ICANN's monopoly over the name space to give TM holders far more powerful rights, and a form of pri

RE: list Re: FW: Network Solutions' TLD Zone File Access Program

On 11-Feb-99 Karl Auerbach wrote: > On the other hand, the database is a *big* privacy intrusion. > > And, as I've been indicating, it was paid for and authorized via the > Cooperative Agreement and is hence subject to the Privacy Act of 1974. > > As such, you, or anybody, should not have

list When lawyers break the law...

Mr. Connolly- There was nothing defamatory in the message from me that you forwarded to my ISP. He sent me a copy, with his apology for bothering me with it. On the other hand, your action of interfering with my business relationship with my ISP may be actionable. I have forwarded copies of our

list RE: Look at the known facts, not FCN.

William Walsh wrote: + Especially since they don't accept registrations, and haven't + for months. + (edit) + I seriously doubt the veracity of the claims about FCN anyway. + I fail to see how they could get WIDE interest in something that + isn't even working. Wide does not mean massive. By

list Re: FW: Network Solutions' TLD Zone File Access Program

> Since this is the only source, of which I am aware, for a comprehensive list > of registered domains updated on a daily basis, I believe restricting access > to this publically-owned information is both illegal and provides Network > Solutions with a critical competitive advantage in online mar

list Re: Trademarks vs DNS

Kent Crispin wrote: > Of *course* the WIPO draft "contemplates" > things beyond current law -- that's the whole point. The question is > whether the draft specifies things that can't be implemented because > they would *contradict* current law. For example, contractually > mandated ADRs are c

list Today

Gene Marsh wrote: > BUT, in the mean time it may all well become a moot point. Progress > will not wait for ICANN to get it's act together. This issues to be > addressed today will be addressed, and not wait until ICANN gets going > in 12-18 months. Today we could start by simply turning our

BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from ["vinton g. cerf" ]

>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:24:55 -0500 (EST) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from ["vinton g. cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > >>From MCI.NET!vcerf Wed Feb 10 19:24:54 1999 >Return-Path: <

list Membership? ICANN? Not interested.

Eric Wiseberg wrote: > Raise that issue with the NTIA and Congress. That is not > the question, here. Rather, we are discussing what THIS > leadership should do. What presumptions should it apply in > designing a membership structure? What do you suggest in > that regard? Why? First, thou

list Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?

Diane, > > perhaps the practice of compulsory voting is the > > way to go... > > How ever would this be enforced? > I should have thought the first question is whether it solves or avoids the problem of fraudulent namebasing (either multiple votes or bogus addresses) which keeps coming u

list Re: Trademarks vs DNS

On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 01:57:01PM -0800, Bill Lovell wrote: > >But it's certainly possible I may have missed something -- perhaps > >you could list the things WIPO advocates that would break current TM > >law? > > > > Well, predominantly their whole dispute resolution bit. They don't have > the

Re: ICANN's Defective Competition Guidelines, etc (was Accreditation guidelines, etc.)

Mike Roberts a écrit: > This is the essence of the kind of > republican democracy we have in the United States. It's going > on right now in the Senate. The House Republicans have been > heard, and their assertions are being weighed and measured > by the Senate and a vote will follow. The ICANN

What in WIPO RFC-3 contravenes current law?

Kent asks what in RFC-3 violates the law of any nation. To provide a meaningful answer, it appears to me this question must be broken down into meaningful parts. I limit myself to American law, and invite folks from other countries to comment. 1) What actually breaks any laws if ICANN adopted

Re: Trademarks vs DNS /discussion

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote: >But it also leads me to wonder if we have been too literal in >construing the *third level namespace. Is there a functional problem >if www.nma.com was one ownership, and xxx.nma.com was >another? (Each one of course could register whatever space the

Trademarks vs DNS

Who said anything about breaking current law? The objection is to the extension of rights and protections beyond what the law currently provides, and what the law will likely provide in the future. Non elected, unaccountable self regulating bodies should not be contemplating moves that touch on

Trademarks vs DNS /discussion

Roeland wrote: > The first question I have is whether we want to restrict this to the > IFWP > list, or one of the other lists? IMHO, the IFWP list seems to be neutral > ground. Posting to all four lists is a PITA for everyone. Could we think of it as a tree, with subsections branching into o

Re: ICANN & DNSO

Roberto, > > > "IF YOUR PROBLEM SEEMS UNSOLVABLE, > > CONSIDER THAT YOU MAY HAVE A META PROBLEM". > > > What is exactly the problem that you perceive as unsolvable? > I think that to merge the drafts is not at all an impossible task! Nothing is impossible, except t

Re: ICANN's Defective Competition Guidelines, etc (was Accredita

On 10-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote: > > Well, Jeff, if you still feel you have nothing to hide, please give me > > permission to post the information. > >You may post whatever you wish, it is a free country after all. Of > course, > most of your postings have been of questionable origin in

Re: ICANN's Defective Competition Guidelines, etc (was Accredita

William and all, William X. Walsh wrote: > First of all I am still awaiting an answer to this request. > > Secondly, apprarently the people in charge at the Texas Stadium indicate that > there is NO meeting for that day, or any day. We are still working on the finalization of said contract fo

RE: FW: Network Solutions' TLD Zone File Access Program

On 10-Feb-99 Robert Raisch wrote: > Since this is the only source, of which I am aware, for a comprehensive list > of registered domains updated on a daily basis, I believe restricting access > to this publically-owned information is both illegal and provides Network > Solutions with a critic

Re: ICANN's Defective Competition Guidelines, etc (was Accredita

Greg and all, However the ICANN has been challenged legally an from the contract through the NIST on January 19th by at least 5 other organizations, as Beck Burr is well aware of and has thus far has not completely reviewed those protests under that contract Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020. Hen

FW: Network Solutions' TLD Zone File Access Program

For the last year, I have had FTP access to the daily updates of the root zone files at rz.internic.net. I was granted access to these files based upon an ongoing market research project I conduct centered around online service migration between major ISPs. At no time were these data used to spa

RE: ICANN Membership

David -- Sad to say, some would not read this as sarcasm. Many here would take your humor as gospel truth. Now, seriously, I'd still kike an answer to my query. Is ICANN participation open to little guys like me? -- ken Ken Freed Media Visions Webzine http://www.media-visions.com - - - - - - - -

Re: Trademarks vs DNS

At 01:28 PM 2/10/99 -0800, you wrote: >On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 03:09:57PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote: >> Kent Crispin said: > >Please re-read what I wrote. Of *course* the WIPO draft "contemplates" >things beyond current law -- that's the whole point. The question is >whether the draft specifies t

Re: Trademarks vs DNS

At 11:40 AM 2/10/99 -0800, you wrote: >On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 10:33:33AM -0800, Bill Lovell wrote: >[...] >> The ideas that I have advanced have been, among others, to >> (a) use the time-honored Swedish concept of the Ombudsman >> to look after the average citizen's rights; (b) take the whole >>

Re: Trademarks vs DNS

On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 03:09:57PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote: > Kent Crispin said: > > >Your point is completely irrelevant. *ALL* of the discussions have > >been concerning what can be done in the context of existing trademark > >law. The WIPO procedures etc are *ALL* things that can be done in

Re: ICANN's Defective Competition Guidelines, etc (was Accredita

First of all I am still awaiting an answer to this request. Secondly, apprarently the people in charge at the Texas Stadium indicate that there is NO meeting for that day, or any day. Of course, anyone with any bit of common sense knew this already. When an event that might draw 25,000 people t

RE: Look at the known facts, not FCN.

On 10-Feb-99 Eric Weisberg wrote: > > > Bob Allisat wrote: > > > My experience with FCN has been most > > illuminating. > > Why is FCN equivalent to ICANN for the purpose of projecting > membership? Is the traffic to a candy store in the mall > relevant in projecting the number o

Re: Trademarks vs DNS

On 10-Feb-99 Mikki Barry wrote: > Kent Crispin said: > > >Your point is completely irrelevant. *ALL* of the discussions have > >been concerning what can be done in the context of existing trademark > >law. The WIPO procedures etc are *ALL* things that can be done in > >the context of existin

RE: NSI Registrations

Stats are available by month for September 97 and earlier at http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/stats.html Quarterly stats are available through SEC filings if you look at the earnings releases at http://www.netsol.com/news/ under Investor Relations. Chuck Gomes -Original Message---

Re: Trademarks vs DNS

Kent Crispin said: >Your point is completely irrelevant. *ALL* of the discussions have >been concerning what can be done in the context of existing trademark >law. The WIPO procedures etc are *ALL* things that can be done in >the context of existing law. Please re-read the WIPO draft, Kent. I

RE: Look at the known facts, not FCN.

BUT, in the mean time it may all well become a moot point. Progress will not wait for ICANN to get it's act together. This issues to be addressed today will be addressed, and not wait until ICANN gets going in 12-18 months. -Original Message- From: Eric Weisberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED

NSI Registrations

I believe this was posted a while back, but could we see again the number of NSI domain name registrations made in, say, 97 and 98 by quarters? Bill Lovell

Re: Trademarks vs DNS

On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 10:33:33AM -0800, Bill Lovell wrote: [...] > The ideas that I have advanced have been, among others, to > (a) use the time-honored Swedish concept of the Ombudsman > to look after the average citizen's rights; (b) take the whole > trademark issue out of the picture by letti

Re: Trademarks vs DNS

At 01:38 AM 2/10/99 -0800, you wrote: >At 07:24 PM 2/9/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote: > >>Like I said before, quit legislating chimera: put all the companies into >>the internet yellow pages and forget it. NONE OF THIS IS IN THE >>HANDS OF IFWP, MAC, CHEESE, SPAGHETTI, OR WHATEVER >>ALPHABET YOU WA

Look at the known facts, not FCN.

Bob Allisat wrote: > My experience with FCN has been most > illuminating. Why is FCN equivalent to ICANN for the purpose of projecting membership? Is the traffic to a candy store in the mall relevant in projecting the number of parking spaces I will need at my law office? > We opened

RE: ICANN Membership

NO. As an insignificant individual with little or no political or economic influence, your participation would just complicate matters, and prevent the agendas of various commercial trade and lobbying organizations from being implemented in a timely manner. If you truly wish to participate, yo

Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote: >As a gesture of inclusivity towards the customs of countries and >other than the US, perhaps the practice of compulsory voting is the >way to go. Even if the idea itself is later voted out, its a chance to >learn something about the actual user popula

comments on DNSO application

All - As promised, here are my comments on the DNSO application. There has been a lot of misunderstanding and misstatements about the content of this draft, and I hope that these clarifications will be helpful. Please note that these are my personal comments, and are not necessarily repre

RE: Are you going to take people's domain names away from them?

> e. The registrar would register SLDs to SLD holders only for fixed periods. > At the conclusion of the registration period, failure to pay a renewal fee > within the time specified in a second notice or reminder would result in > cancellation of the registration. One should explicitly state i

Re: Trademarks vs DNS

>X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 >Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:15:24 -0500 >From: "Harold Feld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: DNS v. TM >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com >id IAA1

Re: ICANN's Defective Competition Guidelines, etc (was Accredita

jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Gordon Cook makes a good point that has been made over and over again >Mike. What is the essence of the ICANN's authority? It is not even >completely constituted yet. ICANN derives its authority from the NTIA, under the DoC, etc. So what is the US gov

Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?

Kerry Miller wrote: > As a gesture of inclusivity towards the customs of countries and > other than the US, perhaps the practice of compulsory voting is the > way to go. Even if the idea itself is later voted out, its a chance to > learn something about the actual user population instead of rely

Re: ICANN's Genetic Defect (was Re: Fees, costs, and domain name prices)

Steve - I received this and want to answer it thoughtfully, so I hope you don't mind waiting until the weekend. Esther At 03:05 PM 09/02/99 -0800, steve wrote: >2/9/99 > >TO: Esther Dyson, Chair, ICANN, & Mike Roberts, President & CEO, ICANN (& >Interim Board Members) > >FROM: Steve Page, In

Re: ICANN Membership

Would an individual like me, without any financial interest in DNS registrations (beyond wanting URLs to be affordble and fair), be "qualified" to join ICANN and to participate within the DNSO? And would there be any bounds on speaking up, electronically or in person? Is the door truly open to an

Re: Look at the known facts, not the clouds.

Eric Wiseberg wrote: + The "great unwashed" will not join and vote in ICANN + elections no matter how hard you beat the bushes. I, Bob Allisat, replied: > I figure a lot of average people > will want to get involved if it ever comes to that. Eric, in rebuttal: ++ I've seen such figuring, but

Pledging Allegiance to ICANN

http://www.icann.org/draftguidel ines.html Q2. Are there any reasons why resellers should be accredited? Are there any reasons why *registrars* should be accredited? I have just finished reading these draft guidelines, and I must say that they are

DNS v. TM

Mr. Schwimmer Writes: >Write a post asking for working together to harmonize and they say "drop dead." If you read this as the intent of my post, you seriously misunderstood. As you should know from reading what I have written over the last several months, I have never adopted such an attitud

Re: The Revenge of the IAHC

Gordon Cook wrote: > and one of the ironies is that the US Gov't got involved to prevent > what is now happening. i am utterly disgusted with what is in effect > a don heath isoc lead rape of the net on behalf of the largest business > interests world wide. The USGOV pursues it's own corporati

Re: ICANN Releases Draft Accreditation Guidelines

I dont think this got through yesterday. My apologies if it (and the next couple) did. == Jeff wrote: > > The ICANN released through yet another inoculious "Press Release" Not to worry, Jeff. As it says: > The *proposed* accreditation guidelines, comprising nearly 30 > pages of

Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?

As a gesture of inclusivity towards the customs of countries and other than the US, perhaps the practice of compulsory voting is the way to go. Even if the idea itself is later voted out, its a chance to learn something about the actual user population instead of relying on assumptions and

Re: RFC 1591 and ccTLD's (was Draft new draft)

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Einar Stefferud writes: > I can certainly see the logic of axxepting that Goverments do have > sovereign rights of control over things like a ccTLD. I can not. > After all, ISO3166 CCodes are politically established in > negotiations with the country or territo

Re: The Revenge of the IAHC

and one of the ironies is that the US Gov't got involved to prevent what is now happening. i am utterly disgusted with what is in effect a don heath isoc lead rape of the net on behalf of the largest business interests world wide. any individual who would join ISOC under these circumstances woul

Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?

Unfortunately, I seem to have done something to trigger Mihael Sondow into attacking everything I say. If I knew what it was, I would try to undo it. Since I do not know, I cannot do much to atone for my sins. So, I will just say "Michael: What ever it was, I apologize for it!" Now can we go

Re: The Revenge of the IAHC

On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Michael Sondow wrote: > Javier Sola wrote (to the discuss list): > > > ISOC has been involved in this process from day one, when they started, > > together with IANA, the Internet Ad Hoc Committee, > > What's so pitiful about all this is that ISOC and ICANN will kill the >

RE: Registrar accreditation, WIPO, and the end of freedom.

>From a quick initial reading, I see two major potential problem areas: Section 9.f: f. The registrar would not insert or renew any SLD name in any registry for which the registrar is accredited in a manner contrary to a list or specification of excluded SLD names that is in effect at the time o

RE: Are you going to take people's domain names away from them?

The actual language of Section 9.e is a follows: e. The registrar would register SLDs to SLD holders only for fixed periods. At the conclusion of the registration period, failure to pay a renewal fee within the time specified in a second notice or reminder would result in cancellation of the regi

Re: Trademarks vs DNS

Hello, As I stated on the ORSC list, I will be focusing exclusively on this issue for the duration. These discussions tend to take four to six weeks, so be it. IMHO, we need to get enough agreement that the Paris and Washington DC drafts can be reconciled. Let's see if we can ignore the flame-war

Re: Trademarks vs DNS

At 07:24 PM 2/9/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote: >Like I said before, quit legislating chimera: put all the companies into >the internet yellow pages and forget it. NONE OF THIS IS IN THE >HANDS OF IFWP, MAC, CHEESE, SPAGHETTI, OR WHATEVER >ALPHABET YOU WANT. Bill, this is not helping consensus.

RE: Registrar accreditation, WIPO, and the end of freedom.

> Guidelines for Accreditation of Internet Domain Name Registrars > (http://www.icann.org/draftguidelines.html#IIC) > > "In addition, the proposed accreditation agreement includes various > provisions relevant to, although not necessarily motivated by, trademark > concerns, which should mak

The Revenge of the IAHC

Javier Sola wrote (to the discuss list): > ISOC has been involved in this process from day one, when they started, > together with IANA, the Internet Ad Hoc Committee, What's so pitiful about all this is that ISOC and ICANN will kill the Internet as we know it. Why?

Re: ICANN's Defective Competition Guidelines, etc (was Accredita

On 10-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote: >Our responsibility legally has bee fulfilled. If it is specific > information > that you request, it is YOUR responsibility to acquire it through channels > that are publicly available. Any information that I or any of us would > provide would just be

Registrar accreditation, WIPO, and the end of freedom.

Guidelines for Accreditation of Internet Domain Name Registrars (http://www.icann.org/draftguidelines.html#IIC) "In addition, the proposed accreditation agreement includes various provisions relevant to, although not necessarily motivated by, trademark concerns, which should make it possible to i

Are you going to take people's domain names away from them?

Esther Dyson- How do you expect people to develop their activities, whether commercial or otherwise, under a domain name when it is going to be taken away from them? This will kill their initiative, won't it? Are you going to give up your domain name, edventure.com? .

RE: ICANN & DNSO

Stef, I agree with all the parts of your message where you state your willingness to find a way to gather wider consensus on a "compromise solution", and I share with you your commitment to come to a fair solution that will not "kick out" a part of the Internet Community. What I don't understand

Re: ICANN's Defective Competition Guidelines, etc (was Accredita

William and all, William X. Walsh wrote: > Jeff, it is not our responsibility to get it, it is your responsibility to post > it to the forums you claim to be representing your "members" on. We respectfully don't agree. > > > It is YOUR responsbility to post it here. Our responsibility leg

Re: Fees, costs, and domain name prices

I asked someone to go off to look at the ICANN website to get the update on draftguidelines. They came back confused saying they could only purchase domain names there. There were right. icann.org may be defending all that is true beautiful and fair, but icann.de and icann.co.uk appear to be ...t

Re: Dyson's real estate analogy

Thank you, Milton, You have just summarized many of the same positions that the prospective registries have argued for several years now. Jay. At 2/4/99, 06:11 PM, Milton Mueller wrote: >The analogy is interesting. >The "real estate" is created by the registry. It represents a reserved and >

RE: Trademarks vs DNS

Um - which two drafts are we talking about? Of the two submitted to ICANN, the major difference seems to be that one is about who, and the other is about how. The first draft talks a lot about who gets to make the decisions and recommendations. The composition of the DNSO is laid out as constitu

Re: Trademarks vs DNS

At 2/9/99, 01:00 PM, 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

Dallas Stakeholders/SO and ICANN meeting Announcment

>> Thus far some 25,000 organizations, companies, and individuals have >>registered to attend. ROTFL >> Attendance fee: Users (Non Domain Name holders) $65.00 Domain >> name holders $85.00 Isn't using public mail for fraudulent solicitation a punishable offense? Ellen Rony

BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [John Charles Broomfield ]

>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:56:31 -0500 (EST) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [John Charles Broomfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > >>From manta.outremer.com!jbroom Tue Feb 9 16:56:30 19

BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [Jonathan Weinberg ]

>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 17:34:16 -0500 (EST) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Jonathan Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > >>From mail.msen.com!weinberg Tue Feb 9 17:34:15 1999 >Retur

Re: ISOC -Reply -Reply

I sincerely hope my quick translation of this is sufficiently flawed enough for me to be incorrect in that I believe you have called someone a racist. If this is the case, I now move for your censure. Your actions of late on these lists has grown reprehensible, and gets worse every day. On 0

RE: Fees, costs, and domain name prices

Outstanding! I almost hurt myself when I snorted my seltzer water. (tm) David Schutt > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark > Measday > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 3:36 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Fees, costs, and dom

Re: Dyson's real estate analogy

Yes, and isn't it interesting that Ms. Dyson has time to reply to Jeff Williams but not to these and other more serious posts? --MM Jay Fenello wrote: > Thank you, Milton, > > You have just summarized many of the same > positions that the prospective registries > have argued for several years no

Re: Trademarks vs DNS

Hello Bret and Roeland and all -- I am afraid that the implications of policy positions of various factions has a great deal to do with the entire issue of allocation of membership constituency votes to board seats, as the policy issues guide submerged motives for favoring one or another proposa

Re: Trademarks vs DNS

"vinton g. cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >roughly what I said is that domain names must be unique (that is, >only only target "host" can have a given domain name) but that >trademarks, because of the way they are granted, can be applied >to more than one entity (product, service). It is not un

Re: Dallas Stakeholders/SO and ICANN meeting Announcment

On 09-Feb-99 Esther Dyson wrote: > Jeff, > > May I humbly suggest you arrange special discount fares with American > Airlines? > > Esther Excellent response Esther :) I laughed quite a bit when I read this. 2 points. I hope I'm not the only one who caught the irony of this message.

Fwd: Re: ICANN / DNSO: Internet Service Provider (ISP) Membership

>Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 00:40:23 -0800 >To: "John D. Goodspeed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: ICANN / DNSO: Internet Service Provider (ISP) Membership I note this was not sent to the list, so here 'tis. Bill Lovell > >At 01:07 PM 2/5/99 -0500, you wrote:

Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?

> Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN? > > Einar Stefferud a =E9crit: > > > 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 openn

RE: RFC 1591 and ccTLD's (was Draft new draft)

On 09-Feb-99 Joop Teernstra wrote: > Kent, Anthony,Eberhart, Javier and William, > > I would like to add my lowly 2ct to this discussion. > Rather than enshrining RFC 1591, or take parts of Jon's memo out of context > ,we should take a hard look at the reality of today. > There is no unif

Re: TM v. DNS?

> >Any rules which automatically require a user to ceritify they will not use this >name to violate a trademark is a violation of their fundamental rights. That would be the fundamental right to violate other people's rights?

Re: TM v. DNS?

On 10-Feb-99 Martin B. Schwimmer wrote: > > > >Any rules which automatically require a user to ceritify they will not use > this > >name to violate a trademark is a violation of their fundamental rights. > > That would be the fundamental right to violate other people's rights? No, a fundamen

  1   2   >