>Please forward to IFWP list.
>Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 18:17:02 -0500
>From: "Harold Feld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] From Harold Feld
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>Esther, sorry this got cut off, with your permission, I
At 08:28 PM 3/8/99 -0500, Bob Allisat wrote:
>http://www.sjmercury.com/breaking/docs/057286.htm ...
>> The initial accreditation guidelines called for applicants to
>> have $100,000 in liquid capital, $500,000 in liability insurance,
The $100KUS is onerous, the liability insurance is a normal req
Jay,
I read with interest your report.
Let me point out the couple of points where I don't share your POV.
You wrote:
> Things really got interesting the next day at the open
> ICANN Board meeting. What started out as a presentation
> of the CENTR compromise proposal, quickly devolve
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karl
>Auerbach
>Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 3:21 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Singapore Update
>
>For any "constituency" there is an opposite.
>
>For the ying of the constituency of trade
Milton Mueller wrote,
>Well, if we're talking Hegelian opposites, yeah, that's
>metaphysical. Although at
>time I believe that I am the thesis and you and Dave Crocker are
>the anti-thesis.
>
>(I just can't wait to see the synthesis.)
It's called the DNSO, and it's just as ugly (though not quite
Greg,
> >Just so. However, whatever you or they do with names should
> > not *interfere with Internet operation.
>
> What *I* do with names does not interfere with Internet operation.
>
You said you use domain names to reach desired sites. Catering
slavishly to this *convenience* is e
Roberto Gaetano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responding to
>Jay Fenello who wrote:
>Let me point out the couple of points where I don't share your POV.
>You wrote:
>
>> Things really got interesting the next day at the open
>> ICANN Board meeting. What started out as a presentation
>> of the
Karl Auerbach wrote,
>
>> There is no meaningful
>> opposite to a registry constituency.
>
>Balderdash. Registries sell domain name licenses, other folks buy them.
>They are in direct opposition.
I wonder how we got to this class-warfare pass. RFC 1591 puts the function
of the registry as bei
Ronda Hauben wrote:
>This gives the sense that these are delegates of the Internet
>community. They are *not*. The Internet community is being
>disenfranchised by the whole process of the ICANN which is
>in itself an unauthoritized activity of the U.S. government
>acting outside of any legitimat
Hello Everyone,
One of the results of the Singapore
meeting was the decision to establish
seven, self-forming, DNSO constituencies.
Since ICANN has decided that a person or
organization can belong to more than one
constituency, one of the first orders of
business is to define these constituen
Jay Fenello wrote:
> Questions:
>
> What qualifies as a domain name holder?
> - jay.per.to?
> - johnson.com?
> - bob.aol.com?
> - tom.co.au?
All of the above.
>
> How do we define a NCDNC member?
> - People only?
> - Non-profit organizations?
Both.
> - Educational organi
How will not-for-profit entities such as trade associations, marketing
boards, research consortiums, which exist at the behest of commercial
entities, be treated?
At 09:53 AM 3/10/99 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>Jay Fenello wrote:
>> Questions:
>>
>> What qualifies as a domain name holder?
>> - jay.
Jay Fenello wrote:
>Since ICANN has decided that a person or
>organization can belong to more than one
>constituency, one of the first orders of
>business is to define these constituencies
>in concrete terms. In other words, where
>and how do we draw the lines.
I think we should leave the con
Antony, Karl,
In message <001201be6b07$fcfdff00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Antony Van
Couvering" writes:
> Karl Auerbach wrote,
> >
> >> There is no meaningful opposite to a registry constituency.
> >
> >Balderdash. Registries sell domain name licenses, other folks buy them.
> >They are in direct opp
Hi everyone,
There's a poorly reported article on the .US ccTLD hearing yesterday at NTIA
at http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/18371.html. For one thing,
the Postal Service rep is misidentified (the name he used was on the agenda,
but they switched). The U.S. Postal Service, while i
Antony,
Good summary.
There's a poorly reported article on the .US
ccTLD hearing yesterday at NTIA
at
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/18371.html.
For one thing,
the Postal Service rep is misidentified (the name he used was on the
agenda,
You might also want to check out Jeri's pie
Very poorly :-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Martin B. Schwimmer
How will not-for-profit entities such as trade associations, marketing
boards, research consortiums, which exist at the behest of commercial
entities, be treated?
Roeland and all,
Agreed. The $100k to many corps would be onerous indeed. Very
few small businesses have that much ready cash on hand, and as
a small business they should not have as they need or should have
a much of their capitol as working capitol, not as cash on hand.
This is just one of
Kerry and all,
Well said Kerry. I couldn't agree more, sadly...
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Greg,
> > >Just so. However, whatever you or they do with names should
> > > not *interfere with Internet operation.
> >
> > What *I* do with names does not interfere with Internet operation.
> >
>Y
Roberto and all,
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Jay,
>
> I read with interest your report.
> Let me point out the couple of points where I don't share your POV.
>
> You wrote:
>
>
>
> > Things really got interesting the next day at the open
> > ICANN Board meeting. What started out as a pres
Jay and all,
And the Constituency Divisiveness begins, eh? How
special! >;)
A warned by many this would be the problem, and it seems that is has
begun. I wonder how long this contentious problem will persist,
3 maybe
4 years?
Jay Fenello wrote:
Hello Everyone,
One of the results of the Singap
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> What *I* do with names does not interfere with Internet operation.
> You said you use domain names to reach desired sites. Catering
> slavishly to this *convenience* is exactly what is leading ICANN
> away from technical superv
At 10:24 AM 3/10/99 +, jeff Williams wrote:
>Roeland and all,
>
> Agreed. The $100k to many corps would be onerous indeed. Very
>few small businesses have that much ready cash on hand, and as
>a small business they should not have as they need or should have
>a much of their capitol as work
Jennifer and all,
Thank you Jennifer for your praise. >;) Though I thought that Nathan's
was quite good as well. What is important here in my caveat/suggested
amendment to Nathan's suggestion was to insure that there is
fair and equitable competition in the market place without compromising
At 3/10/99, 11:14 AM, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>>> What qualifies as a domain name holder?
>>> - jay.per.to?
>>> - johnson.com?
>>> - bob.aol.com?
>>> - tom.co.au?
>>
>
>Do you mean [EMAIL PROTECTED]? does aol allot third level domains?
I'm not sure, but according to the following
James and all,
James Seng wrote:
> At 10:24 AM 3/10/99 +, jeff Williams wrote:
> >Roeland and all,
> >
> > Agreed. The $100k to many corps would be onerous indeed. Very
> >few small businesses have that much ready cash on hand, and as
> >a small business they should not have as they need
"Bret A. Fausett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responding:
>Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>This gives the sense that these are delegates of the Internet
>>community. They are *not*. The Internet community is being
>>disenfranchised by the whole process of the ICANN which is
>>in itself an unauthoritized activit
>Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Antony, Karl,
>In message <001201be6b07$fcfdff00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Antony Van Couvering" writes:
>> Karl Auerbach wrote,
> >
> >> There is no meaningful opposite to a registry constituency.
>> >
>> >Balderdash. Registries sell domain name l
On 10-Mar-99 Ronda Hauben wrote:
> This gives the sense that these are delegates of the Internet
> community. They are *not*. The Internet community is being
> disenfranchised by the whole process of the ICANN which is
> in itself an unauthoritized activity of the U.S. government
> acting
On 10-Mar-99 Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> This became clear upon comments made by ICANN Board
> member Hans Kraaijenbrink, who upon further questions from
> Fay Howard of CENTR, revealed his affiliation to BMW
> supporters.
>
> People that were not there could get the wr
On Wed, Mar 10, 1999 at 01:11:21PM -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
> At 3/10/99, 11:14 AM, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> >>> What qualifies as a domain name holder?
> >>> - jay.per.to?
> >>> - johnson.com?
> >>> - bob.aol.com?
> >>> - tom.co.au?
> >>
> >
> >Do you mean [EMAIL PROTECTED]? doe
Does this template draft sent to the IETF Poised list this
morning work for people? Credit, of course, goes to the
many people in Singapore who made this a reality. Maybe they
should be reflected as the authors.
--tony
===
IETF
Inter
Tony and all,
Let's face the facts here regarding the .US ccTLD. It is
a blatant attempt
to get a semiprivate corporation a cart blanch at capitalizing on control
of a TLD. This would seem in contrast to what the ICANN has publicly
stated
to not be in favor of. I would wonder how the ICANN v
All,
For those that seem to proliferate false rumors, this might be of
some interest to some Hint... Hint. William Walsh, watch out!
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/18346.html
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development En
Actually, Jeff, I've been following this article as a means of perhaps
discovering your true identity. Statements you have made under this pseudonym
have been bordering on slander, and a case such as this against John Doe aka
Jeffrey A. Williams may be one way to ascertain your true identity.
B
The entire PSO as a concept does not work for me at all.
And I find the actual proposals to be exercises to clearly allocate a
significant portion of ICANN's board seats to an extremely small
electorate.
Details:
ICANN is a limited body; it has but three roles: DNS, IP addresses, and
"protocol
William and all,
Interesting but, unfortunately flawed logic. Of course
given your premise,
this is not suprising I would say that the John Doe would
be likely
more analogous to William Walsh given that that potential, but not
confirmed pseudonym, is whom you apparently use as a means
of
Karl,
I suspect everybody will say that the holder
of xxx.com holds a domain.
But what about the holder of yyy.xxx.com?
Why not? Are subdelegated domain holders inferior citizens?
If so, then we've just ruled out everyone such as
joe.com.au.
Indeed. As Mark Lottor's host counts make clear, th
On 10-Mar-99 A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> Karl,
>
> >I suspect everybody will say that the holder of xxx.com holds a domain.
> >But what about the holder of yyy.xxx.com?
> >
> >Why not? Are subdelegated domain holders inferior citizens?
> >
> >If so, then we've just ruled out everyone such as joe.
Tony -- Very interesting.
I expect that we need to think about the structural issues where
many ccTLDs use the 2LD level for categories (which really
correspond to gTLDs in some important ways.) So, just cutting
across particular levels is not going to work very well.
So, I come back to "anyone
That is my definition originally used ORSC constituency
definitions.
It makes perfect sense to me still. Cheers...\Stef
David Schutt wrote:
>
> There was a definition of a domain holder floating around. It was anyone
> with administrative control of a zone file. (whether they did the actual
>
There was a definition of a domain holder floating around. It was anyone
with administrative control of a zone file. (whether they did the actual
editing or not)
David Schutt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach
Sent: Wednesday,
I have to agree with Karl. The whole debate about the PSO seems to revolve
around the question of how the IETF gets to pick three people for ICANN's
board of directors.
I'm still questioning *why* the IETF should get to appoint three board
members, versus anyone else, such as W3C, IEEE, etc.
As
Yes, this is an interesting problem. How do you clearly delineate
commercial/non-commercial use on the Internet? There are extremes at each
end of the spectrum that are pretty obvious, but the middle is a muddle.
Any definition is going to be arbitrary.
David Schutt
-Original Message-
F
Karl and all,
You are exactly correct that constituencies are a bad and
nearly indefinable thing to a certainty and as well very divisive
as we are now beginning to see and will see much more of in the coming
months, maybe even years.. We and you warned that such a model for
a DNSO was a mista
As you know, I find constitutiences to be a very, very bad idea.
But that aside, let's look at your single question: Who gets a vote? In
particular the question of "does a nomain holder get a vote"?
What constitutes a "domain"?
I suspect everybody will say that the holder of xxx.com holds a d
> I think we should leave the constituency open to any non-commercial
> individual or organization. The definition of "non-commercial," however,
> should not be "non-profit." The ICC and INTA are both "non-profit"
> entities, but their purpose is to vigorously promote commercial
> interests.
> There was a definition of a domain holder floating around. It was anyone
> with administrative control of a zone file. (whether they did the actual
> editing or not)
Where I work we have a tool that lets people safely (one hopes) update the
company's zone file. (Indeed, it is kind of a crude
Jennifer and all,
There has been much discussion and debate with respect to common law
trademark and Domain names as they relate to commerce. There is
some precedent for it as well. However there is also precedent against common
law Trademark and a domain name as well. Recently, January 16th
Greg wrote:
> I have been using domain names, and hostnames before them, long before
> ICANN or any of these other so-called "governance bodies" appeared on
> the scene. I am using them for their intended purpose.
...
> I resent the notion that just because I am
> using (relatively) easy to un
At 10:34 PM 3/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
>At 17:46 3/4/99 +, jeff Williams wrote:
>>>2) Indicated that he was NOT with NSA, but was attached to ONI
>>>(Office of Naval Intelligence) for approximately a year and a half.
>
>>No, I said NIS, not ONI, william. Please try to get your facts straight!!
Kerry and all,
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Greg wrote:
>
> > I have been using domain names, and hostnames before them, long before
> > ICANN or any of these other so-called "governance bodies" appeared on
> > the scene. I am using them for their intended purpose.
> ...
> > I resent the notion that
Bill and all,
You are correct BIl.
Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 10:34 PM 3/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >At 17:46 3/4/99 +, jeff Williams wrote:
> >>>2) Indicated that he was NOT with NSA, but was attached to ONI
> >>>(Office of Naval Intelligence) for approximately a year and a half.
> >
> >>No,
Jeff,
> > Why do you call it a parody? I identified a problem, outlined a
> > minimum-impact solution, and called for comments -- of which
> > there were, btw, zero (0).
>
> Os! You must have missed ours.
I guess I did -- The Digest seems to be dropping quite a few items
recently. If
54 matches
Mail list logo
