At 13:58 15/02/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
This meeting needs a clear and definitive mandate from the ICANN board that
they are to reach a merged compromise proposal, and that no other result is
acceptable, and that if any party acts in a fashion to be no more than an
obstacle to that end,
---
/William,
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
--
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 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Jay and all,
Whether you wish to believe it or not,
On 16-Feb-99 Joop Teernstra wrote:
At 13:58 15/02/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
This meeting needs a clear and definitive mandate from the ICANN board that
they are to reach a merged compromise proposal, and that no other result is
acceptable, and that if any party acts in a fashion
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Bill Lovell wrote:
Rather than sweat what, so far as one can tell from this list,
will be a meeting of 6 - 7 people in somebody's back bedroom
in California, thought might be given instead to attendance at
the NTIA meeting in D. C.:
Gosh Bill, you make it sound so
At 01:17 PM 2/16/99 +1200, you wrote:
At 15:48 15/02/99 +, Dr Nii Quaynor wrote:
Can we realistically have an ICANN without corporate sponsorship? Why is
corporate sponsorship considered harmful in this case? How can the perceived
dangers of corporate sponsorship be contained?
I'd
At 09:54 PM 2/15/99 -0800, you wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Bill Lovell wrote:
Rather than sweat what, so far as one can tell from this list,
will be a meeting of 6 - 7 people in somebody's back bedroom
in California, thought might be given instead to attendance at
the NTIA meeting in D. C.:
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 16-Feb-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Oh, I agree with you entirely, unless, for instance, the chartering
authority were to take care of that for you by, say, issuing valid PGP keys
before a domain application was even possible.
Among other topics duly worn out in this group, I might suggest
at least a hiatus from the issues of whether or not Jeff Williams
or INEG exist, NDAs, posting of other people's stuff, and so on.
That, along with the suggestions of civility and a fine sense of
humor as exhibited recently by some,
Hi Ken -- Your questrions need some additonal context before the
answers can make any sense..
Are we talking about registrars for only registries that are monoplies
like NSI, or totally shared registeries ala CORE, or all registries
including all ccTLDs and new gTLDs?
Will all TLD
At 2/15/99, 04:56 PM, Ken Stubbs wrote:
hello jay:
i would appreciate some further elightenment in light of your comments
below:
Hi Ken,
As an overall comment, my primary complaint is that
these policies are being developed now, by an interim
board, with little input from the stakeholders
Hi Adam,
I appreciate you defense of me and your correct questioning of William
an "Frosty the snow Mans" supposed documentation which without
any real in depth scrutiny, is obviously both bogus and and obvious
attempt at attempting to smear me and our organization. But please
don't bother
At 08:39 PM 2/15/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 16-Feb-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Oh, I agree with you entirely, unless, for instance, the chartering
authority were to take care of that for you by, say, issuing valid PGP
keys
before a domain application was even possible.
I
I have some interesting value questions (I hope)...
1. What is the value of an SLD in a Chartered TLD if the TLD
"name-string" does not work with the desired SLD name-string.
2. What is the value of an SLD in a chartered TLD if the business
changes over time, such that the charter
On 16-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
charters serve a purpose? In this specific context, will they help with the
TM vs DNS problem? Bill and Marty both say that they will. Personally, I
have always believed in
At 08:40 AM 2/16/99 +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 16-Feb-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Oh, I agree with you entirely, unless, for instance, the chartering
authority were to take care of that for you by, say, issuing valid PGP
keys
On 16-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
I am purely looking at the implementation. If implementation is not
possible, we can stop wasting time and insults on the issue.
I don't think implementation is the major issue at the moment.
Certainly it is.
Arguments have been put out there that
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
charters serve a purpose?
Why should they when they can not be enforced?
el
In message 000501be5955$5a47cde0$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Antony Va
n Couvering" writes:
Eberhard Lisse wrote,
But then, you agree with what I am saying, someone has to decide: "Is
this registration appropriate for the proposed domain?"
Even if AI worked, there is just nothing around that
Bill,
R U SAYING THAT ICANN SHOULD BE DEFORMED AN A NEWCORP SHOULD BE FORMED TO UNDERTAKE
THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF ICANN?
Bill Lovell wrote:
At 01:17 PM 2/16/99 +1200, you wrote:
At 15:48 15/02/99 +, Dr Nii Quaynor wrote:
Can we realistically have an ICANN without corporate
hello stef...
your answers to some of the questions below were not very clear.
1. are you saying that you don't have a position on a code of ethics for
registrars
2. rather than coming back to me with questions... are you reluctant to
state your personal position on the question of registrar
Bill Lovell wrote:
Again, as to ICANN, is it not understood that a possible result of the
NTIA meeting is that ICANN will disappear? The action that counts is
now March 10 in D. C.
If you're referring to the meeting on 9 March that you posted the URL for
last night, that meeting covers
that the USG is holding such a meeting makes clear its position WRT the
ccTLD "sovereignty" issue.
John,
The US government host meetings on all kinds of subjects
without implications of sovereignty. They can be simply
facilitative, without asserting sovereignty.
--tony
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
Question to the list : anyone familiar with Texas law? Is the public
posting of a message here for a meeting that does not exist a violation
of any Texas Laws? If someone were to make this trip and find (not
surprisingly) that the meeting was
Could you send me this URL? I seem to have missed it.
Ivan
-Original Message-
From: John B. Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 1:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IFWP] Corporate Sponsorship of NewCorp
Bill Lovell wrote:
Again, as to ICANN,
At 12:44 AM 2/16/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 16-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
charters serve a purpose? In this specific context, will they help with the
TM vs DNS problem? Bill and Marty both say that
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/021099dotusmtg.htm
Ivan Pope wrote:
Could you send me this URL? I seem to have missed it.
Ivan
-Original Message-
From: John B. Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 1:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE:
Mr. Stubbs only seems to use the lists to vent when he's feeling cranky.
I think this most recent post has sent his credibility right down the
toilet.
David Schutt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ellen
Rony
Sent: Monday, February
hello tony..
i personally believe that there has to be some sort of basic set of codes
with some enforcement mechanism to assure the integrity of the registrar.
essentially at this point in time in the com,net org registry there is
only essentially one registrar as i define the process and
tony:
minor typo in example # 3 below :
it should read : avoidance of conflict of interests - i.e. REGISTRAR owns or
has a financial interest in a company that
speculates or facilitates speculation of domain names
i apologize
ken stubbs
-Original Message-
From: Ken Stubbs [EMAIL
On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 09:49:10PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
Kent Crispin wrote:
ICANN has very little hold over the ccTLDs; the WIPO process will
probably therefore be only adopted for gTLDs.
Ah, so ICANN has already decided, without a membership, without a DNSO, and
without
Ken,
rules,standards, codes ... call them what you will but i feel that they are
essential components for insuring confidence in the growth in the registry
system.
ken
p.s. i feel advocating business standards or codes of ethics only enhances
public confidence. as a CPA it has worked quite
I agree with Ken.
As I understand her, Tamar Frankel has stressed from the beginning that
voluntary, self-organized trade associations are more likely to be
successful if the membership makes a collective effort to protect itself
against bad apples. This implies to me that members of the DNS
At 11:28 AM 2/16/99 +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
charters serve a purpose?
Why should they when they can not be enforced?
That is the second part of the question. To
To simplify matters, and to accommodate those who wish to have foreign language
input on the IFWP list, would it be fair to approximate this to 'quis custodes
ipsos custodiet?'. A question which has never been rigorously or logically
answered in any domain of human affairs? And, consequently, for
Craig Simon wrote:
This says nothing of the substance of such a code, nor of how to make it
binding and enforceable. But I would argue: 1) Members of the DNS
industry should try to map out and level the playing field by making
this sort of a formal commitment to each other, and; 2) Internet
The
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Craig Simon wrote:
2) Internet consumers/users deserve a publicly stated standard of
reference against which they can test individual entities for "bad
appleness," and with which they can begin to assess the quality of the
industry as a whole.
As long as the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Roeland M.J. Meyer" wri
tes:
At 11:28 AM 2/16/99 +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
charters serve a purpose?
Why should they when they
Marty,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Martin B. Schwimmer"
writes:
So I think the short answer to Mr. Meyer's question is that the registrar
only ensure that the form be filled out properly (Without having to make
discretionary deciisons as to the content of an answer)
Actually, come to
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
charters serve a purpose?
Why should they when they can not be enforced?
el
[AVC] - Even though they are unenforceable, they might well serve a purpose.
A set of rules
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Einar Stefferud writes:
Are we talking about registrars for only registries that are
monoplies like NSI, or totally shared registeries ala CORE, or all
registries including all ccTLDs and new gTLDs?
[...]
Will all TLD registries be required to operate as shared
Craig,
When you're dimensioning the "industry," consider...
Question: who is the second largest registry/registrar
in the world?
Answer: AOL with 1,667,245 registrations as of late
last month in the domain aol.com
--tony
Einar Stefferud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, when this reality dawns on [TM interests], they will see that
more TLDs will in fact solve their problems by providing lots of
qualifiers and differentiators. How many "qualifier" categories does
TM law already recognize?
Good question. When I
Mr. Williams most certainly does exist, as has been proven by Frosty the
SnowMan.
If any of you need proof of INEG's existance I suggest you pack your bags
and scoot off to Arlan Texas to attend the INEG Music, Arts, and Internet
Governance Festival. I just received insider information that the
Todd, Adam, willy, and all
Since then, you have:
critised me
attacked my personal values
attacked my credibility without any evidence
attacked my company and it's credibility
insulted me without just cause
attacked my wife
attacked my baby
I will not stand for child abuse. That
Bill Lovell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 15:48 15/02/99 +, Dr Nii Quaynor wrote:
Can we realistically have an ICANN without corporate sponsorship? Why is
corporate sponsorship considered harmful in this case? How can the perceived
dangers of corporate sponsorship be contained?
Isn't this
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
Craig,
When you're dimensioning the "industry," consider...
Question: who is the second largest registry/registrar
in the world?
Answer: AOL with 1,667,245 registrations as of late
last month in the domain aol.com
--tony
Would you care to tell us how
Would you care to tell us how we can substantiate this claim?
See See
http://www.nw.com/zone/WWW/secondnames.html
Registration in this context includes resolving
named objects, including sub-domains and hosts.
It is the essential service of any registry/registrar.
--tony
Following up several points in this thread...
I presume the DC conf. Tony was talking about was the "Forum on Internet
Domain Names" announced at http://www.itaa.org/dnsconf.htm . Are there
links to reports or transcripts handy?
If there is about to be another go 'round on the carrousel, it
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
Would you care to tell us how we can substantiate this claim?
See See http://www.nw.com/zone/WWW/secondnames.html
Registration in this context includes resolving
named objects, including sub-domains and hosts.
It is the essential service of any registry/registrar.
No,
This is a splendid example of why ICANN is going wrong. The ISOC/gTLD-MoU faction
wants to take a relatively straightforward problem of resource allocation and
technical coordination and grab hold of it to turn themselves into global
professionalizers and credentializers. Craig thinks the
In message 19990216204943.AAC22788@LOCALNAME, Kerry Miller writes:
Jay wrote,
2.who do believe should be accrediting registrars and the development of
mechanisms to insure that they operate in "the best interest of the
internet" ?
I don't necessarily agree with the premise. We
Bill,
Again, as to ICANN, is it not understood that a possible result of the
NTIA meeting is that ICANN will disappear? The action that counts is
now March 10 in D. C.
Is it premature to look over the DNSO proposals with an eye to
their being promoted to NewCo procedures?
kerry
Jay wrote,
2.who do believe should be accrediting registrars and the development of
mechanisms to insure that they operate in "the best interest of the
internet" ?
I don't necessarily agree with the premise. We
have 100s of registrars today. What problems are
we trying solve,
Kent,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kent Crispin writes:
[...]
It doesn't take much of a brain to see which way the wind is
blowing.
Being probably the only person on the list, that is professionally
qualified in Anatomy and Physiology, I feel it my duty to point out,
that the brain doesn't
I also agree with Ken and would like to comment on Tony's remarks and concerns.
First, there was no need for codes of ethics in the past. Perhaps
there were such codes but they were not formalized. We are moving toward a
more formalized relationship among the various stakeholders of the
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,32397,00.html
Reuters/ CNET News.com
February 15, 1999
GENEVA--International applications for
patents rose by 23.1 percent last year,
led by U.S. inventors and industry,
according to the World Intellectual
Property Organization.
The
In the context of trademarks, WIPO administers the trademark registration
aspect of the Madrid Protocol and Agreement, international treaties which
allow for "one-stop shopping" for 60+ countries (the US belongs neither to
the Agreement for arcane TM-law reasons nor to the Protocol for an arcane
William,
If chartered TLDs are the rule rather than an option, we will be
stifling business and innovation, by forcing people to narrowly
categorize their intents.
WHy should categorization be stifling? Wouldn't second-level
space give you enough room to move?
kerry
On 16-Feb-99 Antony Van Couvering wrote:
[AVC] - Even though they are unenforceable, they might well serve a purpose.
A set of rules governing use don't have to be applied beforehand, although
there should be an element of this. A set of rules can also serve to
disqualify any protest
Please bear in mind that when I suggest that "charters" or "structuring"
can alleviate certain types of DN/TM disputes I am referring only to TLDs
that will be used for commercial purposes - where the applicants themselves
choose to be designated as such.
Now Antony has asked the
On 16-Feb-99 Kerry Miller wrote:
William,
If chartered TLDs are the rule rather than an option, we will be
stifling business and innovation, by forcing people to narrowly
categorize their intents.
WHy should categorization be stifling? Wouldn't second-level
space give
At 01:40 PM 2/16/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 16-Feb-99 Antony Van Couvering wrote:
[AVC] - Even though they are unenforceable, they might well serve a
purpose.
A set of rules governing use don't have to be applied beforehand, although
there should be an element of this. A set of
On 16-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
This argument was made, in the past, for complaining about COM/NET, in
that, ISPs had to have both domains as NET was supposed to be for Internet
infrastructure-only.
And we've seen how well that worked, huh? :)
--
Craig,
Speaking of keeping things unstable, what ever happened to that stop
ICANN action you initiated at the time of the November open meeting in
Boston? Did it ever come together? Is it currently working behind the
scenes? Or do you expect ICANN to fail of its own accord?
Nothing further
continuing the meta-logue
Tamar Frankel wrote:
First, there was no need for codes of ethics in the past.
There were highly developed norms and codes surrounding the Internet. The concept of
"netiquette" is but one example.
Perhaps there were such codes but they were not
Hi Antony -- I need to challenge some of your points;-)...
From your message Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:33:43 -0500:
}
}
} On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
}
} NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
} charters serve a purpose?
}
} Why should they when they
Kerry and all,
The only two documents that somewhat address your question to
my knowledge are the White Paper and the ICANN/NTIA/MoU.
Kerry Miller wrote:
Jay wrote,
2.who do believe should be accrediting registrars and the development of
mechanisms to insure that they operate in "the
Can we either remove the exploder list from our responses, or remove the lists
that the exploder list sends to, so that the lists don't get two copies of
every message in this thread?
--
E-Mail: William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 16-Feb-99
Time: 16:00:46
Alex and William,
Please do attempt this legal approach. After you have been made a
fool of in court, we will than pursue legal abuse and filing a false
legal action against anyone whom makes such an attempt.
Alex Kamantauskas wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
David and all,
I agree. However I would submit that Mr Stubbs credibility has been
in the toilet for some two years now ,since his supposed leadership
role with CORE/gTLD-MoU. But than again that is just my opinion.
David Schutt wrote:
Mr. Stubbs only seems to use the lists to vent when
On 17-Feb-99 William X. Walsh wrote:
Can we either remove the exploder list from our responses, or remove the
lists
that the exploder list sends to, so that the lists don't get two copies of
every message in this thread?
grumble I did it myself :)
And here I had tried to be so
Esther and all,
A very true an accurate statement indeed. And as such, the ICANN
"Initial" and Interim Board has shown many times now it cannot be
trusted based on it's behavior.
Esther Dyson wrote:
Fine, but we all know that trust does not come from discussion alone, but
from behavior
Alex and all,
You should know if you have been alive long enough that no level
of "Fee" is going to have a significant impact of the reduction of
what Creig calls "Bad Appleness". Just look at the drug cartels
for instance. Nice try, no cigar.
Alex Kamantauskas wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999,
Milton is absolutely correct. Set of rules my hind end. The internet
needs an ICANN like set of rules for one reason only and that is so that
special interest behind Icann's rule can use them to their own advantage
and the detriment of others.
Esther is talking more here than she used
Tamar and all,
Tamar Frankel wrote:
I also agree with Ken and would like to comment on Tony's remarks and concerns.
To a point we agree with Ken as well. However as Tony states there needs
to be limits. Not only that it is even more important that the Stakeholders
play the central role in
76 matches
Mail list logo
