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 yet, although
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
transmogrifies over to ICANN?
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
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.
When you
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 something,
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
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 property
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 bold I will
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 understand it,
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. :)
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 rights
and ownership.
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 linked to
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 database
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, Registry, and Registrant as
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
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
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
established
Kent Crispin wrote:
snip
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
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 international
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
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
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
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 claim that
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 the New
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.net
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 want
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 Registrant as
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
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
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 intellectual
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 agreement and
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 the
terms of
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
-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
34 matches
Mail list logo
