Eric:
Please tell Mr. Nesson that the capture has already occurred.
The fatal flaw of ICANN, and of the "self-regulation" policy that led
to its creation, is that it allowed a single faction (basically, the
ISOC-gTLD-MoU-CORE group) to name the CEO and interim board
unilaterally. This board is
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Richard J. Sexton" writes:
Any time you folks want to inherit the ORSC moderation and rules
just holler. I suggest using existing ORSC moderators for now
until some other 3 suck^H^H^H^Hvolunteers step forward.
Can someone please tell me which discourse rules
Thank you, Jay. At least someone else understands
--MM
At 04:20 PM 2/14/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
The proposed draft guidelines for ICANN "registrars"
makes our wranglings over the DNSO substantially moot.
Virtually every policy that would normally be considered
by a DNSO is *already*
Milton and all,
Milton Mueller wrote:
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark pressure?
At 11:35 PM 2/14/99 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI
has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do
you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark pressure?
Enforced by whom? Enforced how?
--MM
Milton Mueller wrote,
Bret:
There is only one thing the DNSO will do that is of any
significance. That is
to elect three members of the ICANN board.
Unfortunately, I am beginning to agree with Milton about this. With the
publication of the registrar guidelines, it seems that the ICANN
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has
allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark pressure?
I don't agree with this assumption.
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:49:25 -0500 (EST)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [marion
Cavanaugh [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From netscape.net!patentattorney Mon Feb 15 00:49:23 1999
Return-Path:
On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 08:58:11PM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
At 04:21 PM 2/14/99 -0800, you wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 12:23:32PM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Why are we getting all that header stuff?
Because it's enough of a pain to forward stuff that bounces as it
is and
At 11:13 AM 2/13/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 01:35 AM 2/13/99 -0800, you wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark
At 10:13 PM 2/14/99 -0500, you wrote:
Dyson wrote:
Believe me, we'd be thrilled to have individual sponsors too! Let us
know if you're interested in donating. (But you don't get anything in
return other than satisfaction and your name on our Website, just like
the corporate donors.)
Antony Van Couvering wrote:
If that is not the model, however, and the DNSO is structured such that its
decisions really can be said to represent the consensus of the whole DNSO,
then the DNSO can do one other thing besides electing ICANN Board members --
it can refuse to support ICANN
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 15-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
At this point, the mechanism is unimportant. It may very well be
unmanageable, however we need to discuss desirability first, before wasting
time discussing implementation of something which is possibly
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has
allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark
Antony and all,
Antony Van Couvering wrote:
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI
has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do
you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this
At 10:26 PM 2/14/99 -0800, you wrote:
At 11:13 AM 2/13/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 01:35 AM 2/13/99 -0800, you wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think
enforced TLD charters
At 12:55 AM 2/15/99 -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI
has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do
you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this
All,
Due to some contract conflicts the location of the INEGroup/IIIF
meeting originally scheduled for Feb. 25 thru the 28 has been
changed for Feb. 23rd thru the 26th. The location will be
split on the following schedule between Texas Stadium and
our campus auditorium and conference areas:
At 10:16 AM 2/15/99 +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Antony,
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
Milton's point is the good one and the obvious one. Chartered TLDs only
make sense if the charter can be enforced. They can only be enforced
under the following circumstances:
On 15-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
All,
Due to some contract conflicts the location of the INEGroup/IIIF
meeting originally scheduled for Feb. 25 thru the 28 has been
changed for Feb. 23rd thru the 26th. The location will be
split on the following schedule between Texas Stadium
On 15-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Not necessarily. Given sufficient resources and careful crafting of
requirements, all things are implement able. It is largely a matter of
cost/effectiveness. IOW, is the solution larger than the problem? To answer
that, one must first define the
The Key Issue, which Mr. Zittrain also misses here is the necessary
distinction between NSI and its REgistrars becoming "regulated"
because NSI is a recognized Moopoly which just happens to be the
result of a nasty Market Structure Failure (caused by a lack of proper
USGovt Oversight of IANA and
The rules are simple, Richard: I'll ignore everything
if I'm Dyson/Roberts/theincrowd. All that silly civil
discourse stuff applies only if there's a level playing
field of opportunity. You've seen it yourself. It does
not exist. Civil disobedience appears to be the only
option available.
On 15-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
Due to some contract conflicts the location of the INEGroup/IIIF
meeting originally scheduled for Feb. 25 thru the 28 has been
changed for Feb. 23rd thru the 26th.
As requested before, in my capacity as editor of Cyberworld, please mail me
an invitation
Stef and all,
Einar Stefferud wrote:
The Key Issue, which Mr. Zittrain also misses here is the necessary
distinction between NSI and its REgistrars becoming "regulated"
because NSI is a recognized Moopoly which just happens to be the
result of a nasty Market Structure Failure (caused by a
All,
Things are changing fast! FYI
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_3090.html
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 Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5
In message Pine.LNX.3.93.990215045532.16914C-10@marietta, Bob Allisat wri
tes:
Bill Lovell wrote:
Well, you could have fooled me. I'd have sworn it was going to
be Michael Sexton who would be first into my kill file, but guess
what, Bob: you caught the golden ring!
F**k off
Ellen, yes, it was an accident. WHy on earth should we conspire against
California?
I am still working on my schedule, but please figure on Thursday evening,
probably between Palo Alto and San Francisco. ANyone know of someone who
could lend us some space?
Esther
At 02:51 AM 15/02/99 -0800,
Esther,
U Should ask the organisations hosting their offices at San Franciso and Palo
Alto.
Wei Xian
Esther Dyson wrote:
Ellen, yes, it was an accident. WHy on earth should we conspire against
California?
I am still working on my schedule, but please figure on Thursday evening,
probably
At 01:17 AM 2/15/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 15-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Not necessarily. Given sufficient resources and careful crafting of
requirements, all things are implement able. It is largely a matter of
cost/effectiveness. IOW, is the solution larger than the
At 2/14/99, 05:18 PM, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
For what it's worth, ICANN's been pretty clear from the start that the
initial board would be doing policy, too--this from the Nov. 14 meeting
(I'd been thinking of "interim" and "initial" as interchangeable before this):
Hi Jonathan,
I'm sorry.
Kent wrote,
On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 12:23:32PM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Why are we getting all that header stuff?
Because it's enough of a pain to forward stuff that bounces as it
is and I'm too lazy to edit them out.
It would be easy enough to configure things so that it
Antony,
3. Consumer-driven e-commerce will only work in chartered TLDs if
there are no unchartered TLDs. In other words, who the hell wants
to be ford.automakers when you can be ford.com, especially when
.automakers is one of thousands of chartered TLDs?
I suggest that if the mandate
On 15-Feb-99 Kerry Miller wrote:
Antony,
3. Consumer-driven e-commerce will only work in chartered TLDs if
there are no unchartered TLDs. In other words, who the hell wants
to be ford.automakers when you can be ford.com, especially when
.automakers is one of thousands of
As some of you may know, the trademark search firms now do searches
on domain names as well. Enforcement of TLDs would put more duties on
the owner of the trademark registration to police that whole scene, and would
generate lots of business for the search firms. However, that does not bother
At 11:27 AM 2/15/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 02:49 AM 2/15/99 +00-04, you wrote:
As for *implementation, it seems like an ideal place to use XML.
What browsers/email packages now accommodate XML?
Netscape and IE4 both do partial XML (different parts, of course). It is
generally still
Antony,
In message 001301be58c3$979a6e60$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Antony Van
Couvering" writes:
Milton's point is the good one and the obvious one. Chartered TLDs only
make sense if the charter can be enforced. They can only be enforced
under the following circumstances:
snip)
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Eric Weisberg wrote:
I agree that "design against capture" should be a primary
objective. Do we have consensus on that? Do we need to poll
ourselves?
As a matter of simultaneous discussion, I propose that the best
way to lessen the likelihood of capture is to
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
At 01:07 AM 2/14/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
Oh, isn't this rich.
Is that a subtle way of saying that you approve of Lisse' constant ad
hominem responses to Kent?
Tt is me saying that I find it rather humorous that you would
Esther Dyson wrote:
Ellen, yes, it was an accident. WHy on earth should we conspire against
California?
Well, since you asked, I have speculated on this very question. California
is (a) the largest state in the nation; (b) the home of Silicon Valley
with arguably the largest concentration of
At 11:55 AM 2/15/99 -0800, you wrote:
At 11:27 AM 2/15/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 02:49 AM 2/15/99 +00-04, you wrote:
As for *implementation, it seems like an ideal place to use XML.
What browsers/email packages now accommodate XML?
Netscape and IE4 both do partial XML (different parts,
I'll be baking fudge brownies for the ICANN bake sale to be held in
conjunction with the INEG concert at Texas Stadium. Taft will be making
mint tarts and Bob Allisat will be selling lemonade. We hope to raise
enough money to to fund ICANN's legal defense fund so they can get on with
their
On a lighter note, has anyone noticed the title of this thread?
I be confused.
--MM
Jay Fenello wrote:
At 2/14/99, 05:18 PM, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
For what it's worth, ICANN's been pretty clear from the start that the
initial board would be doing policy, too--this from the Nov. 14 meeting
sigh
i always thought california was part of the usa... what about texas ( home
of dell and compaq) ,south dakota (home of gateway computers).., atlanta..
what about sao paolo, mexico city or peking .. what about substantive
membership issues.. what about concentrating on providing more
See http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,32390,00.html?st.ne.lh..ni.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 07:14:52PM -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
We have heard some proponents of the BMW application say and repeat that
their application automatically protects minority interests, and that the
Names Council as conceived by that document is not a powerful body at all
Well, just when you get to the point of the Director of the U. S. Patent and
Trademark Office who said, at the end of the Nineteenth Century, that the
office should be shut down because "everything had already been invented,"
along come more technical means for today's problems:
On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 12:34:33PM -0800, Michael Dillon wrote:
[...]
I propose that the best way to lessen the likelihood of capture of a
domain name by the rrichest one of many trademark holders with an interest
in that domain name, is to maximize the number and diversity of TLDs. Part
of
-Original Message-
From: Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Becky Burr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Esther
In today's Oregonian there is a Knight Ridder News Service article with
the byline of David Plotnikoff that describes Mike Roberts and the start
of ICANN, the latter, we are told, presently consisting of "a cluttered
back bedroom of Roberts' . . . home." The tale of the Oct. 25, 1998,
meeting at
On 15-Feb-99 William X. Walsh wrote:
Will ICANN mandate that the two processes come together and created a merged
consensus?
Just so anyone doesn't criticize me for not saying how this could work, I
suggest that ICANN setup a meeting, and that 5 or 6 members from each process
be
All,
We have just completed our list vote with our AWorks
members regarding the existence of INEGroup.
The results follow:
INEGroup exists?
Yes, it is for real:0.0005%
Nope, there's no record, no proof: 92.25%
Donkeys can fly
At 04:27 PM 2/15/99 -0500, you wrote:
On a lighter note, has anyone noticed the title of this thread?
I be confused.
--MM
Jay Fenello wrote:
At 2/14/99, 05:18 PM, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
For what it's worth, ICANN's been pretty clear from the start that the
initial board would be doing
Not only are issues of substance separating the Paris proposal from the
dnso.org proposal, but the style of the drafts (IMHO) is preventing even
an attempt at merging them. As a recent post from Kent Crispin made
clear, the dnso.org draft is "explicitly high level," while the Paris
proposal
Would any of the "real" engineers reading here say that the item below
offers a good reason why the less that the IETF has to do with ICANN the
better?
Does the RFC editor position now need political protection?
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:27:57 -0700 (MST)
From: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL
The lack of civility on these lists is counterproductive.
Please focus on the issues, not the personalities.
Why give attention to people desperate for attention?
If you agree with this principle, please stop replying
to those who would distract us from useful dialog.
Who else is willing to
So why not meet here in Denver?
We're convenient from both coasts,
equidistant from Europe and Asia,
relatively neutral turf (cable aside),
our climate can't be beat, and we
offer excellent meeting facilities.
I could help with logistics.
-- Ken
Ken Freed
Media Visions
Denver
Esther Dyson
William and all,
To bad they (Ml.org) did not do a very good check on you. However I am
not suprised given your rather weak efforts in other areas.
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 15-Feb-99 Kerry Miller wrote:
Antony,
3. Consumer-driven e-commerce will only work in chartered TLDs
Yeah, Jeff, ok :)
Still waiting for a factual refutation of the facts at :
http://www.dso.net/wwalsh/jeffw/
--
E-Mail: William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 15-Feb-99
Time: 15:06:18
--
"We may well be on our way to a
At 2/15/99, 05:55 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
I see a lot of thrashing to and fro on "intentions." I choose to believe
that all of us involved, and working, sometimes very long hours, have good
intentions, but still sometimes misunderstand or mistrust each other.
I'm for working on a
William and all,
Problem is they are obvious fakes. I already talked to your Mr
Frosty!
Is he a relation to "Frosty the snow Man" By any chance! LOL!
Facts my ass!
William X. Walsh wrote:
Yeah, Jeff, ok :)
Still waiting for a factual refutation of the facts at :
OK, I'll post this response on the website as a response to a request for a
factual response.
However, if this report is false, then it would be a real simple matter for you
to prove it and silent all critics. All you need is a few simple facts. That
you won't (and have never) posted these
What kind of meeting is this expected to be?
Does it have an agenda? Is it just a social gathering?
Or a Birds Of A Feather thing?
Or just a meeting to enable saying that ICANN held one in California?
Seriously, we should have more of an idea about why and what.
Cheers...\Stef
It seems abundantly clear to me that ICANN has a large role to play in
making it very clear that they will not favor any application whose
supporters refuse to reasonably participate in a process of resolving
differences. And this included doing so in public on the Internet.
It is not good
Esther and all,
Is this to say the some decisions will be "Decided" in Singapore, and
therefore the impromptu meeting in California will mearly be a coffee
clutch type affair Esther? It seems that you let out a "Tell", a poker term,
if follow that parlance or are familiar with it.
If there
Einar Stefferud wrote:
What kind of meeting is this expected to be?
Does it have an agenda? Is it just a social gathering?
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but since the Singapore meeting will
be over, and since ICANN has not included on its agenda a discussion about
whether to open board
67 matches
Mail list logo
