At 10:37 PM 2/22/99 -0500, Diane Cabell wrote:
>Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>> Kent Crispin wrote:
>> ()
>> > are
>> > we changing the caching mechanism?
>>
>> Take a look at the recent European Parliament ruling on caching as a
>violation of
>> copyright.
>
>RAM caching has been deemed a copyrig
Roeland and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> At 08:33 AM 2/23/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >At 08:00 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >>which half to respond to, out of context. The defining clause, to the
> >>paragraph you spoke to was thus;
> >> "Personally, I think it is cause
Milton Mueller wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> ()
> > are
> > we changing the caching mechanism?
>
> Take a look at the recent European Parliament ruling on caching as a violation of
> copyright.
RAM caching has been deemed a copyright violation in the US since MAI Systems Corp.
v. Peak
Compu
Dave Farber has given me permission to post his comments below, which
appeared on another list:
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:59:29 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Dave Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IP: An editorial statement re
The following article was just posted on Wired at
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/18048.html
ICANN Fracas Moves to Singapore by Chris Oakes
It has a couple in errors.
We know that Michael Roberts is Interim President and CEO, not Interim
Chair of ICANN. Also, I consider myself an a
Not really. New gTLDs create new issues that would not exist if the new
gTLDs did not exist. .firm creates issues not currently present with .se
I would imagine that a better formulation for your subjectless "it is
about" would be how to create a just procedure that provides a fair
mechanism for
On 23-Feb-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 09:01:44PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
> >
> > Again, "use" in the legal sense is NOT mere registration, and this point
> > has been hammered home over and over in US cases.
>
> If what you say is true, then my opinion, this is simply
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 09:01:44PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
>
> Again, "use" in the legal sense is NOT mere registration, and this point
> has been hammered home over and over in US cases.
If what you say is true, then my opinion, this is simply a case where
the law has not caught up with the f
Jim Dixon wrote:
The IFWP represented a genuine opportunity for compromise. For the
first time all the warring factions came together in one place, for
the first time there was genuine progress. For whatever reason
certain elements chose to kill off the possibility of peace. They
did everythin
gregbo,
I only copied IFWP with the message "A Model for Community & Global
Governance"; the original went to ICANN's membership advisory committee
list.
I was suggesting to ICANN that an affiliation with our neighborhood
effort (and similar ones around the world) would provide them with the
bo
At 06:30 PM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>Does it matter that your "personal" assessment is factually wrong? Does it
>>matter that the points I made about the funding basis and timing for ICANN
>>are correct?
>
>Sure, if they were correct. IMHO, they weren't.
I said that ICANN was e
At 08:33 AM 2/23/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 08:00 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>which half to respond to, out of context. The defining clause, to the
>>paragraph you spoke to was thus;
>> "Personally, I think it is caused by their business structure.Non-profits
>> *always*
>On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 02:59:30PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
>> >On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
>> >
>> >> As the usage,
>> >
>> >registering a name in DNS is a use of the name.
>>
>> Please provide a case site. The only cases I've read on the subject hold
>
>Do you
At 08:00 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>which half to respond to, out of context. The defining clause, to the
>paragraph you spoke to was thus;
> "Personally, I think it is caused by their business structure.Non-profits
> *always* are short of funds. That's not real good for stabil
At 09:12 PM 2/22/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
>> Jim, had the original "compromise" effort been allowed to proceed, we would
>
>What "compromise" effort?
The IAHC.
It's been convenient for the constant complainers to attack it, as they
attack everything else, but it was created after two years of
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 02:59:30PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
> >
> >> As the usage,
> >
> >registering a name in DNS is a use of the name.
>
> Please provide a case site. The only cases I've read on the subject hold
Do you mean "ca
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
>
> > and not the mere existance of identical character strings as
> > IP number identifiers is the real issue, this is indeed an attempt to
> > re-engineer the DNS to conform with policy, and not with technical
Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> So the topic at issue here is whether the domain name registration system
> should be expanded without recognition of the legal rights of others - or
> perhaps there can be some reasonable compromise.
Not really. All of the threats to pre-existing rights exist--or
Roeland and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> At 05:18 PM 2/22/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >At 12:53 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> >>For whatever it is worth, ORSC is willing and able to lend whatever
> >>support it has or can muster to another protest or move to compete
> >>with
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 01:46 PM 2/22/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
> >Given recent signs of ICANN's wanting to impose rigid central controls
> >on the Internet and given ICANN board's unwillingness to let anyone
> >hear how they come to these odd decisions, the NSI monopoly be
Bill Lovell a écrit:
>
> At 01:59 PM 2/21/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >By using the IETF's nomenclature - calling the WIPO Report on domain
> >names an "RFC" (RFC3) - WIPO is practicing the intellectual property
> >theft that its report pretends to stop.
> >
> Give us a break. The RFC = "R
>See the Glaxo-Wellcome case from the UK, the Payline case in France, and
>the Orkin case from Canada and see if that changes your view. These rights
>regard protection of the trademark right, they do not "exist solely with
>regard to the USAGE of the domain name."
In the US they do, and last I
>On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
>
>> As the usage,
>
>registering a name in DNS is a use of the name.
Please provide a case site. The only cases I've read on the subject hold
exactly the opposite. The only cases even close to that state that the
offer for sale of a
On 22-Feb-99 Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> See the Glaxo-Wellcome case from the UK, the Payline case in France, and
> the Orkin case from Canada and see if that changes your view. These rights
> regard protection of the trademark right, they do not "exist solely with
> regard to the USAGE of
See the Glaxo-Wellcome case from the UK, the Payline case in France, and
the Orkin case from Canada and see if that changes your view. These rights
regard protection of the trademark right, they do not "exist solely with
regard to the USAGE of the domain name."
In any event, no one denies that t
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
> As the usage,
registering a name in DNS is a use of the name.
> and not the mere existance of identical character strings as
> IP number identifiers is the real issue, this is indeed an attempt to
> re-engineer the DNS to conform wi
>I don't think TM owners are asking that the DNS be re-engineered. They
>are asking that if gTLDs are to be added (which I don't think should be
>classified as re-engineering) that those who seek to own and operate these
>new ventures be respectful of other people's pre-existing rights. These
>r
Agreed.
At 09:41 AM 2/22/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>On 22-Feb-99 William X. Walsh wrote:
>>
>> On 22-Feb-99 Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>> > I don't think TM owners are asking that the DNS be re-engineered. They
>> > are asking that if gTLDs are to be added (which I don't think should be
>> >
At 12:40 AM 2/22/99 +00-04, Kerry Miller wrote:
>
> Ellen wrote,
>> I'm looking at an October 1996 article which says a pizza parlor
>> in Phnom Penh, called Pizza Hot, may face legal action
>
>The sooner DNS gives up on lower ascii and supports non-Roman
>scripts, the better. Expanded TLDs co
On 22-Feb-99 William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> On 22-Feb-99 Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> > I don't think TM owners are asking that the DNS be re-engineered. They
> > are asking that if gTLDs are to be added (which I don't think should be
> > classified as re-engineering) that those who seek to o
On 22-Feb-99 Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> I don't think TM owners are asking that the DNS be re-engineered. They
> are asking that if gTLDs are to be added (which I don't think should be
> classified as re-engineering) that those who seek to own and operate these
> new ventures be respectful
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>However, ecommerce can survive in my model. So I suspect most people
>sniffing around here will find it acceptable.
>It does allow geographically based ISPs to gain a better toehold in the
>distance insensitive and geographically ignorant Internet. I'd guess
>this would
Ellen wrote,
> I'm looking at an October 1996 article which says a pizza parlor
> in Phnom Penh, called Pizza Hot, may face legal action
The sooner DNS gives up on lower ascii and supports non-Roman
scripts, the better. Expanded TLDs could be denominated by ISO
tables (there's a dozen alrea
At 07:58 PM 2/22/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 02:59 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>That's debatable. Their current level of funding leads one to
think
>>otherwise. It is arguable that, if they had the support then
they'd have
>
>
>Their current level of funding? A brand new o
I don't think TM owners are asking that the DNS be re-engineered. They
are asking that if gTLDs are to be added (which I don't think should be
classified as re-engineering) that those who seek to own and operate these
new ventures be respectful of other people's pre-existing rights. These
rights
At 2/22/99, 09:00 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 01:46 PM 2/22/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
>>Given recent signs of ICANN's wanting to impose rigid central controls
>>on the Internet and given ICANN board's unwillingness to let anyone
>>hear how they come to these odd decisions, the NSI monopoly begins
My reply is simple: if the courts are deciding it, I have opinions on how it ought
to be decided, but for the moment I am not worried about it. The topic at issue
here is whether the domain name registration system should be re-engineered to
make it easier for Pizza Hut to challenge the registrati
At 01:46 PM 2/22/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
>Given recent signs of ICANN's wanting to impose rigid central controls
>on the Internet and given ICANN board's unwillingness to let anyone
>hear how they come to these odd decisions, the NSI monopoly begins to
>look like the lesser evil.
>
>In other wo
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 12:53 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> >For whatever it is worth, ORSC is willing and able to lend whatever
> >support it has or can muster to another protest or move to compete
> >with ICANN in this "no-cost" award by NTIA/NIST.
> >
> >What
At 02:59 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>I'm just putting all this together with the things you have stated in the
>past. It is possible that I have mis-interpreted them, of course.
I've never stated that I wanted anything remotely like a pact with the
devil and I've never stated an
At 06:18 PM 2/22/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 02:02 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>So, if I understand your position, you would be willing to deal with the
>>devil himself just to move things forward and crush NSI? That's some pretty
>
>
>Roeland, I'm impressed with the creativ
At 02:02 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>So, if I understand your position, you would be willing to deal with the
>devil himself just to move things forward and crush NSI? That's some pretty
Roeland, I'm impressed with the creativity of your multiple
interpretations, particularly s
Dear Richard Bohn,
Your comment -
RI>I love your humanness and the warm voice you speak with is a welcome
RI>infusion of compassionate motivation. I look forward to the tsunami of
RI>critical comment.
gave me a giggle. Indeed, too often people loose their humanity when the
raw basics seem to
Dear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for your thoughts.
I created the model because ICANN is looking for a mechanism to
facilitate electing At-Large members to the Board of Governors. The
model provides bona fide voters.
An ICANN link with local governments that certify Internet users is one
way to o
At 10:03 PM 2/21/99 +, jeff Williams wrote:
>Roeland, Stef and all,
>
>Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>
>> At 09:56 PM 2/19/99 -0500, you wrote:
>> >>At 03:06 PM 2/19/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>> >>>I have not analyzed this in any depth.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Roeland Meyer replied:
>> >
>> >>Okay,
At 05:18 PM 2/22/99 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 12:53 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>>For whatever it is worth, ORSC is willing and able to lend whatever
>>support it has or can muster to another protest or move to compete
>>with ICANN in this "no-cost" award by NTIA/NIST.
>>
>>What
At 12:53 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>For whatever it is worth, ORSC is willing and able to lend whatever
>support it has or can muster to another protest or move to compete
>with ICANN in this "no-cost" award by NTIA/NIST.
>
>What ORSC is not in position to do is to become an opperat
For whatever it is worth, ORSC is willing and able to lend whatever
support it has or can muster to another protest or move to compete
with ICANN in this "no-cost" award by NTIA/NIST.
What ORSC is not in position to do is to become an opperating compay
able to make a credible proposal;-)... That
48 matches
Mail list logo
