Stef,
> }I imagine the same thing would apply under .NA. If I could convince you
> }that I was a business in Windhoek, you might delegate me a name in .NA.
> }Once you found out, however, that I had never set foot outside of New York,
> }you might well consider it within your rights to delete my
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
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 to...tha
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,
Craig and all,
Craig Simon wrote:
> 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.
At 03:01 PM 2/16/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>One of my reaons for sayig this is the this appears to be an attempted
>cure for the "TM" conflict with DNS. My reaction is to suggest that
>we accepot this as soon as the TM industry sets up rules wher-in all
>TM onwers must always accompany their TM name
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 o
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?
>
>
I did it myself :)
And here I had tried to be so goo
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 h
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:
> >
> > Que
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
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
Hi Ken -- I am afraid that your barragge of unanwerable questions,
with no effort to answer my rather straightforward questions, simply
leaves our discussion derailed.
So, I will take your point that you do not want to discuss what I want
to discuss, and weill just retirte to the sidelines and se
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
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 formal
Craig:
Craig Simon wrote:
> The "Internet" is a feature arising out of the voluntary interconnection
> between a growing number of autonomous (mostly private) networks. It is
> an emergent property, a constituted structure, and not inherently a
> thing in itself,
By George, you've got it. Now,
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
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? :)
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
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
>
On 16-Feb-99 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
Not to mention t
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> Existence is inherently unstable, and
> the Internet arrangements account for that.
Tony,
Thanks for the link, and thanks for humoring me with meta-talk. The I*
folks have generally been much less willing to do this for me than you,
Milton, Jay, and Stef. (Still, t
> 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 th
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
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
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
n
on-going issue - the trade-off between the tribunal's expertise in the law
or expertise in the subject matter. that's the argument for specialized
administrative law judges or ADR officers who know both.
At 12:28 PM 2/16/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Richard --
>
>No disrespect intended, but my exper
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
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'
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
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
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
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 Internet
Kent's manipulation of language continues to fascinate me.
Let me attempt to translate:
1) ICANN has made no decisions, but it is obvious to any idiot that the WIPO
proposals will be adopted;
2) therefore, the assertion below, that ICANN intends to adopt the WIPO proposals
is stupid.
Perhaps a sl
Craig,
>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?
No. This was Hank Perrit's CILP Conference in Oct 1997
See http://www.cilp.org/~rclarke/conference_fr
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
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 w
>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
"John B. Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would you care to tell us how we can substantiate this claim?
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg04074.html
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
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?
>>
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.
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 r
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
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
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 sh
>
> 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 se
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> 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 so
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
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 t
As a general propositon, once a "charter" is in place, the only enforcement
on the part of the registrar should be whether the applicant has filled in
the form properly. ACtual enforcement would be left to anybody who has a
beef.
In other words, assuming the mythical .museum was in place. Someo
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 'ref
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
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
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.
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 indu
Ellen Rony wrote:
>So I pose a question: Cross-border disputes are not new to commerce. How
>have jurisdictional issues been handled in the past? Which country's
rules
>prevail when they are not in accord and the outcome would differ greatly
>from one country to the next. Is it merely depend
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 qui
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
>
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 PRO
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
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, Februar
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]
> Subje
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
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Jay Fenello wrote:
> Now, it can certainly be argued that these stakeholders
> are too narrow. I would support these broader definitions,
> as well.
>
> ICANN: Any entity that will be impacted by the net.
> DNSO: Any entity that uses a domain name.
> ASO:Any entity t
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
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
>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
>Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:44:29 -0500
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"Becky Burr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[E
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 cover
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 acc
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William X. Walsh" writes:
>
> 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 is
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
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 a
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
Roeland and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> 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
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
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
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
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 forb
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
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 you
Bill and all,
Bill, as you know I do exist, as we have chatted on the phone.
The concern some of these people have here regarding myself and
possibly a few others, is that we may actually have some position that
they find extremely threatening in some odd way that I do not understand
completel
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 stakehol
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 re
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, w
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
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 i
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?
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 so
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.:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/021099dotusmtg.htm
Bill Lovell
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 f
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 don't follow. How would verification of the
Ellen wrote:
>Why, mirable dictu, this AWorks poll received 12,819 responses in only,
>oh, four minutes.
LOL!
Dear all,
I promised you the result of the web page poll with Ellen's questions.
http://www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
On the question whether the DNSO should have constituencies or not,
--
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, t
---
/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
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 e
98 matches
Mail list logo
