William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 19-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> > William and all,
> >
> > William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > On 20-Mar-99 Gordon Cook wrote:
> > > > NTIA has not a shred of legally defensible authority to be doing what it
> > > > is
> > > > doing. I have trip
On 19-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> William and all,
>
> William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > I don't think PGMedia is a credible plaintiff, Jeff. I know you do (no
> > surprise there in light of, well, that subject is for another time).
>
>I think the fact that pgMedia had the both the gut
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> I don't think PGMedia is a credible plaintiff, Jeff. I know you do (no
> surprise there in light of, well, that subject is for another time).
I think the fact that pgMedia had the both the guts to bring the case
in part, stands for itself as to thei
On 19-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> William and all,
>
> William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > On 20-Mar-99 Gordon Cook wrote:
> > > NTIA has not a shred of legally defensible authority to be doing what it
> > > is
> > > doing. I have triple sourced this. But to challenge NTIA now you need
> >
I don't think PGMedia is a credible plaintiff, Jeff. I know you do (no
surprise there in light of, well, that subject is for another time).
A more credible plaintiff will have more support and be able to make a more
convincing and compelling case. And the appropriate defendent is not NSI,
Jeff
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 20-Mar-99 Gordon Cook wrote:
> > NTIA has not a shred of legally defensible authority to be doing what it is
> > doing. I have triple sourced this. But to challenge NTIA now you need a
> > legally agrieved party. With the PGMedia case now histo
*At 09:11 PM 3/19/99 +, you wrote:
>William and all,
>
> True enough. However by the same token it doesn't mean that the
>appeal won't either. Hence the reason for a court of appeals, william.
>In addition if there is more discovery, which is likely in this particular
>case there is a whole
>Doesn't mean the appeal has any more merit than the original case did.
>
>
>
>On 19-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
>> Gordon and all,
>>
>>As you know, pgMedia has filed an appeal.. So there is still an
>> agrieved party.
ahh, but no new facts or information can be added to an appeal. y
William and all,
True enough. However by the same token it doesn't mean that the
appeal won't either. Hence the reason for a court of appeals, william.
In addition if there is more discovery, which is likely in this particular
case there is a whole new case potentially.
William X. Walsh wrot
On 20-Mar-99 Gordon Cook wrote:
> NTIA has not a shred of legally defensible authority to be doing what it is
> doing. I have triple sourced this. But to challenge NTIA now you need a
> legally agrieved party. With the PGMedia case now history we don't
> presently have a legally aggrieve
Doesn't mean the appeal has any more merit than the original case did.
On 19-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> Gordon and all,
>
>As you know, pgMedia has filed an appeal.. So there is still an
> agrieved party.
>
> Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> > Someone asked: Why was NSI granted a two y
Gordon and all,
As you know, pgMedia has filed an appeal.. So there is still an
agrieved party.
Gordon Cook wrote:
> Someone asked: Why was NSI granted a two year extension to the
> Cooperative Agreement without an open re-bid? The end of the Cooperative
> Agreement wasn't something that j
Someone asked: Why was NSI granted a two year extension to the
Cooperative Agreement without an open re-bid? The end of the Cooperative
Agreement wasn't something that just snuck up and bit NTIA in the bottom
and said "surprise!".
Cook: NTIA wanted to rebid.
NSF saw no need to rebid.. It
Ellen and all,
Nice report. Thank you for sharing it. I look forward to others
reports as well >;)
Ellen Rony wrote:
> We had a good turnout for a two-hour meeting with Esther Dyson (ED). 18
> people gathered in the spacious downtown San Francisco conference room of
> Bronson & Bronso
Frank and all,
Frank Rizzo wrote:
> At 3:41 AM -0800 3/19/99, jeff Williams wrote:
> >Jay and all,
> >
> > Jay, you pose some good questions here. However if history (Short Term)
> >is any guide it seem fairly obvious that ICANN in their "Accreditation
> >Guidelines"
> >and their about face wi
Scott and all,
Scott Bradner wrote:
> Karl sez:
> > The attitude that the IETF/IAB are the only sources of technical knowledge
> > is simply incorrect.
>
> not relevent since the proposal is not to have the IETF be the PSO
Intresting prospective, in tht th proposal is from the IETF...
>
>
>
Thought this might be of interest..
-FW: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>-
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 15:53:55 -0800
From: Domain Defense Advocate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Another big guy backs off...
- Forwarded message from Sean Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Ellen Rony wrote:
>We had a good turnout for a two-hour meeting with Esther Dyson (ED).
Thanks Ellen! A wonderful overview.
-- Bret
On Fri, Mar 19, 1999 at 01:16:55PM -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>
> >And though the DNS works fine, access to it and support for it is seriously
> >skewed.
>
> Ivan,
>
> You mean the fact that AOL has the largest DNS zone file
> per Lottor's January 1999 survey? Has anyone talked
> to them ab
We had a good turnout for a two-hour meeting with Esther Dyson (ED). 18
people gathered in the spacious downtown San Francisco conference room of
Bronson & Bronson to talk informally with the chair of ICANN. The group
included ISPs, attorneys, system administrators, programmers, Internet
consulta
At 3:41 AM -0800 3/19/99, jeff Williams wrote:
>Jay and all,
>
> Jay, you pose some good questions here. However if history (Short Term)
>is any guide it seem fairly obvious that ICANN in their "Accreditation
>Guidelines"
>and their about face with making the DNSO, an any rate, under the ICANN
>
At 3:27 AM -0800 3/19/99, jeff Williams wrote:
>Esther and all,
>
> Hell of a wy to run a railroad there Esther Seems like some fiscal
>discipline
>
>may be in order...
I've been looking for a nice railroad to invest in. Since ICANN is
railroading us into accepting it's existance and authori
The meeting was actually in two parts. The early part included some
discussion and meeting policy discussions. JW was mentioned in passing. We
agreed not to spend much bandwidth discussing JW. He was NOT in attendance.
Thanks to: Michael Krieger for providing the meeting place and the
excellent f
Ivan, NSF does not have a five year contract. It has a cooperative
agreement and there is no way in hell that the coopertaive agreement will
be rebid without congressional authorization to do so..
>
>
> Tony,
>It seems to me that actually NSI has 'nothing' except an informally granted
>exten
Tony and all,
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> >And though the DNS works fine, access to it and support for it is seriously
> >skewed.
>
> Ivan,
>
> You mean the fact that AOL has the largest DNS zone file
> per Lottor's January 1999 survey? Has anyone talked
> to them about becoming a competitive regi
Whomever you are, and all,
Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> Michael
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Sondow writes:
> > Dr Eberhard W Lisse a =E9crit:
> > >
> > > Actually you may recall that I made the definition in Monterrey of "Write
> > > Permission to a Zone File".
> >
> > That's rig
Roberto and all,
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Roeland,
You wrote:
> That's exactly the point. ICAN took NONE of the DNSO application.
Rather,
> they assembled their own from the pieces.
>
I have the impression that ICANN's final decision did not come out
from the
blue, but was based on the "Singapore D
At 11:54 PM 3/18/99 -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:
>the root. What this meant was that the US Government Interagency committee
>on domain names put things on indefinite hold so that the politicos could
>decide who would be allowed to to control the addition of domain names to
>the root.
The primary r
>And though the DNS works fine, access to it and support for it is seriously
>skewed.
Ivan,
You mean the fact that AOL has the largest DNS zone file
per Lottor's January 1999 survey? Has anyone talked
to them about becoming a competitive registrar? :-)
--tony
Jay and all,
Jay, you pose some good questions here. However if history (Short Term)
is any guide it seem fairly obvious that ICANN in their "Accreditation Guidelines"
and their about face with making the DNSO, an any rate, under the ICANN
umbrella, that the ICANN intends to be THE central aut
Esther and all,
Hell of a wy to run a railroad there Esther Seems like some fiscal discipline
may be in order...
Esther Dyson wrote:
> No, because he is not a director or officer.
>
> And to answer the question in your headline, the people you list below, plus
> people extending us credi
Michael
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Sondow writes:
> Dr Eberhard W Lisse a =E9crit:
> >
> > Actually you may recall that I made the definition in Monterrey of "Write
> > Permission to a Zone File".
>
> That's right. I'd forgotten. Well, you and Stef can fight over who
> gets the bana
Tony,
It seems to me that actually NSI has 'nothing' except an informally granted
extension to an expired 5 year contract from the USG. So it is vital to NSI
as well that a Registry/Registrar system is set up and consolidated.
Otherwise they could lose everything by losing the Registry contrac
Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit:
>
> Actually you may recall that I made the definition in Monterrey of "Write
> Permission to a Zone File".
That's right. I'd forgotten. Well, you and Stef can fight over who
gets the banana, although "write permission" isn't quite good enough
because of the TC proble
Does ICANN expect to control all names in
the name space?
Jay,
You have posed the key question.
It's already answered, in a sense. We're not dealing
with "space" here, but with zones. The contents of
the chaos.com. zone file are mine to control and share
as I wish. I pay Network Solutions to
Roeland,
You wrote:
> That's exactly the point. ICAN took NONE of the DNSO application. Rather,
> they assembled their own from the pieces.
>
I have the impression that ICANN's final decision did not come out from the
blue, but was based on the "Singapore Draft", that is a compromise between
th
Hello Andrew,
I was not present when you and Michael had
your conversation, but your email exchange
raises several questions.
Were you the source of this language in the
registrar guidelines?
Based on Michael's comments, why is ICANN so
severe in their policies. Canada has adopted
what app
Mike Roberts is an Officer.
Does Director equal board member?
Given Sims critical role if he were interested in building any trust I
would think he would reveal any conflicts voluntarily.
***
The COOK Report on Internet
Gorodon Cook, in his article titled: "$208,600 in the pot for
ICANN - awesome - who is really paying its bills?" writes:
+
+ The current roster of start up fund contributers. Note IBM vice
+ president and GIP chair John Patricks personal $2500 contribution.
+
+
+ America Online, $25,000
+
Michael Sondow wrote:
>
> John B. Reynolds a écrit:
> >
> > It is likely that the legal definition of "commercial" varies
> from country
> > to country. For the purposes of the NCDNC, we need a uniform
> definition.
> > IMO, that definition should be based on the purposes of the organization
>
No, because he is not a director or officer.
And to answer the question in your headline, the people you list below, plus
people extending us credit, plus directors' credit cards.
Esther
At 10:26 PM 16/03/99 -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:
> The current roster of start up fund contributers. Note
Nothing but more hot air from Jeff.
On 19-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> William and all,
>
> William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > Jeff, I could create and have operational registries for hundreds if not
> > thousands of TLDs within days (the software is ready, would just need
> > minor
> > mods
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Jeff, I could create and have operational registries for hundreds if not
> thousands of TLDs within days (the software is ready, would just need minor
> mods).
Than do it.
>
>
> But I am not so arrogant to believe that I should run hundreds or thou
Michael,
On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:
> John B. Reynolds a écrit:
> >
> > It is likely that the legal definition of "commercial" varies from country
> > to country. For the purposes of the NCDNC, we need a uniform definition.
> > IMO, that definition should be based on the purpose
Jeff, I could create and have operational registries for hundreds if not
thousands of TLDs within days (the software is ready, would just need minor
mods).
But I am not so arrogant to believe that I should run hundreds or thousands of
TLDs.
Of course, lack of arrogance is not a trait you are t
William and all,
William, you logic escapes me in this response actually. What
difference does it make whether a company decides to have
1 or 1000 new TLD's added to the root? How does a number,
effect in any way anyone's creditability. To follow further
on this question consider:
Bill Ga
>I find it interesting that PGMedia would sue NSI when it is clearly NOT NSI
>that was forbiding them entry.
>
>What does that say about the merits of PGMedia's case?
>
>
>
did they know this at the time? i believe they did not
*
Well I think that is your problem to be honest.
Your hundreds of TLDs.
You would have a lot more credibility and probably support if you had one or no
more than say 3.
Even my own support.
It is PGMedia's insistance on this hundreds of TLDs it "services" that leads to
the lack of support even
First of all William, my company filed suit against NSI BEFORE
this "proposal" was drafted. Second, although I first saw this
section of the document when I read the Court's decision
yesterday, I was aware of a "proposal" by NSI as described
to my by my former counsel. It was a definite NO DEAL
William and all,
Well William, again, if you have done your homework, NSI is only about
1/3 or the story here. I think you should d a bit more research. The IANA
is also a co-litigant in this case, separately filed I believe. As that is
the situation, as well as much more, the strategy I agr
Whatever the case, Gordon, there has been a lot of "dirty dancing"
going on between all the parties concerned. I don't take any of this
at face value, and I am still curious to see the full text of the letter
outlining the terms by which NSI was "willing" to open up the root.
I fear, as always,
Gordon and all,
Yes indeed politics makes interesting bedfellows, doesn't it! It kinda
makes you think of who has been in whose pants, or should I say
"Panties". >;)
Gordon Cook wrote:
> Yes indeed paul pretty interesting. when the response came on june 25
> 1997 from I think Don Mitch
John B. Reynolds a écrit:
>
> It is likely that the legal definition of "commercial" varies from country
> to country. For the purposes of the NCDNC, we need a uniform definition.
> IMO, that definition should be based on the purposes of the organization
> involved, not how it uses its domain(s).
I find it interesting that PGMedia would sue NSI when it is clearly NOT NSI
that was forbiding them entry.
What does that say about the merits of PGMedia's case?
On 19-Mar-99 Gordon Cook wrote:
> Yes indeed paul pretty interesting. when the response came on june 25
> 1997 from I think
Yes indeed paul pretty interesting. when the response came on june 25
1997 from I think Don Mitchel it instructed NSI not to put any new names in
the root. What this meant was that the US Government Interagency committee
on domain names put things on indefinite hold so that the politicos cou
55 matches
Mail list logo
