-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dr. Lisse,
Just as it is YOU who makes the dicision, it is OTHERS who will (and
have) decided to follow an alternative DNS root structure. Lack of
appropriate action by ICANN and others will not stop that appropriate
action.
Gene Marsh
Diebold Inco
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roeland,
Fear does that to some people.
Gene Marsh
Diebold Incorporated
- -Original Message-
From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 1999 1:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
Greg and all,
Gregbo, very good comparison here with the long term Water problem
in the LA area with the ICANN and its pathetic and anal retentive
VERY few supporters such as David Crocker, AKA "The Crock", aka
"Doctor Spin" and Kent Crispin, AKA "Crispy Crispin", (most likely derived
from hi
>Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 19:46:15 -0500
>From: "Harold Feld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Goods or Services?
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>
>Mikki, please forward.
>
>O.K., let me toss out a different suggestion.
>
>A registry provides a service. It therefore has the right to set t
At 12:02 PM 3/29/99 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
>Nice to see you up to your old tricks
"Tricks" involve deception and misrepresentation. Kent and the rest of us
are studiously trying to correct the stream of misinformation that you are
disseminating, so yes there are tricks, but you should be a
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ronda wrote:
>The whole conception of ICANN is fundamentally flawed. It
>is embodying conflict of interest as a principle, and will
>continue to do so with its membership structure if it adopts
>one. The fundamental problem ICANN represents is that
>it is a privati
Kent Crispin a écrit:
> The MoU didn't "confiscate" anything, not from you or
> Ambler or NSI; it didn't establish an "authority control model of
> governance" (whatever that is); and it didn't claim to own the name
> space.
> In fact, it explicitly stated that the name space was a
> public trus
Kent Crispin a écrit:
>
> On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 11:48:19PM -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > In short, the letter code that defines some subset
> > of the nearly infinite domain name space, whether
> > that letter code be "per" or anything else, should be
> > set by international agreem
Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Call signs have much of the same character as DNS names, in that they
> may not be used in conflict by two different Electro Magnetic Signa
> Transmitters. But, this has nothing to do with whether or not the
> call sign registrant owns some intellectu
This is called blowing a gasket. Then
again if I were just told I do not exist
and did not have such a healthy sense of
self I might be prone to flipping out
myself. BTW nice resume "Sam". Must have
taken *hours* to create. And I won't be
taking your unique physiological data
storage meth
On Sat, 27 Mar 1999, Bob Allisat wrote:
> Hm ... I was thinking similar thoughts about
> Jeff Williams, Sam Hayes Merritt, III, Frank Rizzo
^^
> and *you*, good Herr Doctor. Placing unwanted,
> unecessary and definately unethical strains on
Kerry and all,
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Jeff,
> >
> > 1.) The REGISTRY- Owns the database for those gTLD's that are contained
> > within that database(s).
> >
> > 2.) The REGISTRAR- Owns the data for a particular registered DN to
> > which that registrar registered for any particular Re
Roeland Meyer writes:
> I do not think we are in radical disagreement here. You do what
> you want with your space and I'll do what I want with mine.
> However, if someone wants to play in my space then they do so on
> my terms. If I build a large space, on my efforts, and a lot of
> people w
Kent Crispin writes:
> I try to avoid dealing with your happy smears and smiling "Big Lie"
> propaganda, but sometimes I just can't stand it anymore.
Another memorable quote. More fun
than a barrrel full of Metzgers!
Bob Allisat
Free Community Network ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ http://fcn.ne
On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 12:02:59PM -0500, Jay "Big Lie" Fenello wrote:
> At 11:10 AM 3/29/99 , Kent Crispin wrote:
> >Bill, you should know by now that Jay continuously and knowingly
> >spreads disinformation about the MoU and about ICANN.
> >
> >For example, in his message "Power Politics and th
At 02:48 AM 3/29/99 , Bill Lovell wrote:
>>Now, before we begin a debate over exactly what
>>those property rights are, please realize that
>>the problem is recursive. The Root zone relates
>>to a gTLD zone the same way a gTLD zone relates
>>to an SLD zone, etc., ad infinitum.
>>
>>So, before you
Hello Bob,
I do not think we are in radical disagreement here. You do what you want
with your space and I'll do what I want with mine. However, if someone
wants to play in my space then they do so on my terms. If I build a large
space, on my efforts, and a lot of people want to pay to play then i
Roeland Meyer writes:
+ and is precisely what was wrong with it. It left NO room for
+ privately controlled TLDs. In fact this presumes to have ownership
+ control in gTLD-MoU hands. A chartered TLD that limits membership can
+ not operate under such a mode. Registrars *must* be qualified to
http://www.canarie.ca/cdncc/main.html
(www.cira.ca is only a redirection page at present)
Public Consultation On The Administration Of The
Canadian Internet Domain Name .CA By The Canadian
Domain Name Consultative Committee.
"... All admissible comments received electronically will be
archi
Jeff,
>
> 1.) The REGISTRY- Owns the database for those gTLD's that are contained
> within that database(s).
>
> 2.) The REGISTRAR- Owns the data for a particular registered DN to
> which that registrar registered for any particular Registrant as
> it
> relates to the regist
At 08:10 AM 3/29/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 11:48:19PM -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>[...]
>>
>> In short, the letter code that defines some subset
>> of the nearly infinite domain name space, whether
>> that letter code be "per" or anything else, should be
>> set by inte
Kent Crispin wrote:
> Neither the gTLD-MoU (note, by the way the "gTLD" part of the name),
> nor ICANN, claim "ownership" of the name space, and the very notion
> is almost totally meaningless.
>
Precisely. But there's a lot of other people who disagree.
Using certain characters as a trade-m
At 11:10 AM 3/29/99 , Kent Crispin wrote:
>Bill, you should know by now that Jay continuously and knowingly
>spreads disinformation about the MoU and about ICANN.
>
>For example, in his message "Power Politics and the New
>Internet Order" he wrote about the MoU as follows: "It would have
>establi
On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 11:48:19PM -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
[...]
>
> In short, the letter code that defines some subset
> of the nearly infinite domain name space, whether
> that letter code be "per" or anything else, should be
> set by international agreement and freely available
> to every pr
Adam Rothschild wrote:
> Quite frankly, I think FCN would be best off keeping central
> DNS, and abandoning Bob Allisat.
FCN is a two person operation. We have
come to the conclusion separately that
pursuing any central DNS solution only
makes us a part of the problem. We are
forced into es
Bill and all,
Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 01:28 AM 3/29/99 +, you wrote:
> >Bill and all,
> >
> >Bill Lovell wrote:
> >
> >> At 09:13 PM 3/28/99 +, you wrote:
> >> >Jay, Bill and all,
> >> >
> >> > It appears that there is again some need to clarify terms with respect
> >> >to Registrar, Re
Einar Stefferud a écrit:
> So, there is room for a very clean contract between the registrant and
> the registrar to the effect that for a fee, the registry will
> "advertise" the registered name for the purpose of resolving the DNS
> name to various data that are entered into the Registry databa
At 03:36 AM 3/29/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Bill Lovell a écrit:
>>
>> Just back from the coast and find:
>>
>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dotusagenda.htm
>
>That meeting took place on March 9, Bill. :)
What's that ad that says "I KNOW THAT!" Point is, I had not
seen anything that
At 01:28 AM 3/29/99 +, you wrote:
>Bill and all,
>
>Bill Lovell wrote:
>
>> At 09:13 PM 3/28/99 +, you wrote:
>> >Jay, Bill and all,
>> >
>> > It appears that there is again some need to clarify terms with respect
>> >to Registrar, Registry, and Registrant as they relate to property right
Bill Lovell a écrit:
>
> Just back from the coast and find:
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dotusagenda.htm
That meeting took place on March 9, Bill. :)
Bill and all,
Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 10:29 PM 3/28/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >I am reluctant to describe legal concepts to
> >a legal scholar, but maybe you can keep me on
> >track.
>
> Well, I'm not the most you ever saw on internet techie
> stuff either, so welcome to the club!
> >
> >As I u
Bill and all,
Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 09:13 PM 3/28/99 +, you wrote:
> >Jay, Bill and all,
> >
> > It appears that there is again some need to clarify terms with respect
> >to Registrar, Registry, and Registrant as they relate to property rights
> >and ownership.
> >
> >So if I may be so bo
At 08:28 PM 3/28/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Call signs have much of the same character as DNS names, in that they
>may not be used in conflict by two different Electro Magnetic Signa
>Transmitters. But, this has nothing to do with whether or not the
>call sign registrant owns some intellectual propert
Stef and all,
Well I see that this subject matter has come yet again. Lets see if we
can handle it this time in some sort of coherent manner together.
So in that sprit, I will start off, with some comments to Stefs
observations/comments. (See below)...
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> Subject: Is t
At 10:29 PM 3/28/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>I am reluctant to describe legal concepts to
>a legal scholar, but maybe you can keep me on
>track.
Well, I'm not the most you ever saw on internet techie
stuff either, so welcome to the club!
>
>As I understand it, whenever someone has rights
>to somethi
>Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 01:26:51 -0500 (EST)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Notification of Changes to Network Solutions' Web Site
>Precedence: Bulk
>
>
>
>
>Dear Valued Customer:
>
>
>This is to inform you that changes are taking place at Network Solutions'
>Web site.
At 09:13 PM 3/28/99 +, you wrote:
>Jay, Bill and all,
>
> It appears that there is again some need to clarify terms with respect
>to Registrar, Registry, and Registrant as they relate to property rights
>and ownership.
>
>So if I may be so bold I will offer the following understanding:
>
>1.)
Call signs have much of the same character as DNS names, in that they
may not be used in conflict by two different Electro Magnetic Signa
Transmitters. But, this has nothing to do with whether or not the
call sign registrant owns some intellectual property in connection
with the Call Sign string.
At 07:02 PM 3/28/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>At 04:53 PM 3/26/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>Bill Lovell a écrit:
>>>
>>> ICANN is saying that
>>> as soon as I tell one of the registrars what that name is,
and tell them
>>> I want to park it there, then the ownership of that domain
name
>>> transmogrifi
>Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 15:30:55 -0500
>From: "Harold Feld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Reflections on NSI- A week later
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>
>Mikki, can you please froward.
>
>Well, it's been a week now, and I'll venture my own take.
>
>I haven't gotten any NSI money ye
40 matches
Mail list logo
