Ron and all,
Well I can see how you might feel this way. but one should be very
careful in using personal feelings to justify a business decision.
Though it is none of my business, I tend to agree with Stef here.
I do so because unless or until Chris Ambler and IOD is willing
to legally challe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
> Let's look at some numbers, e.g. www.domainstats.com. Feel free to
> disagree with the numbers, but then I expect you to come up with some
> more believable ones.
>
> When I looked just now (last update 2. April 7:24:44 PM, according to
> the web page), I find:
>
>
After reading the rest of this thread, which devolves into name
calling and drifts off the topic, I have decided to answer this one
from early in the thread;-)...
As a result of the early discussion in this thread, it suddenly
becomes very clear that if anyone is building a Private INTRAnet, and
All,
Yes indeed this is the case currently. However William seems to have
left out some rather important information that directly impacts this
"Filing". First it is not YET granted (See filing number). Second on january
16th the USPTO made several changes to the classifications, making this
Eric and all,
This is an interesting approach, but I see serious legal problems with it.
I know eric, you are not concerned about that, but as business men/women
we must be.. For instance suppose I decided to register a TM on
.webfm and/or .fmweb. I am sure that you would not be happy
with th
This was probably done to ^&* off Karl Denninger. As far as I know, AIS has
never made any noises about wanting to run a TLD.
D Schutt
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> William X. Walsh
> This has been found :
>
>
> Word Mark
>
Molly, Esther and all,
Thank you for this interesting update. Now i have a question. When
is the membership going to get to vote on the actual adoption of these
bylaw changes as is required in the bylaws themselves along with the
Mou and the White paper principals and requirements?
[EMAIL P
Kent and all,
You may reply to Roeland so that others won't be fooled, but in doing
so you are attempting to fool those same people and ICANN seems
to be heading in this direction as well. Some of us are not as easily
FOOLED by what ICANN is proposing. I can only hope that the
NTIA and the US
On Fri, Apr 02, 1999 at 10:19:20AM -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer splutters:
> >1) Yes, I am going to claim otherwise. The USG has an oversight
> >role for ICANN at this point in time; that won't continue
> >indefinitely. The USG has made that very clear, and there is strong
> >pressure from othe
Thanks. I now understand what your issues are.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: Craig McTaggart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 1999 3:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Regulation? [Was: Re: [IFWP] Fwd: Re: Power
Politics and
the N ew Internet Order]
Since ther
Stef and all,
How would other already existing organizations which are already
or have already completed their contractual definitions and have built
their systems (Though not online yet) fit into this organization which
you are planning? How is what you are proposing competitive in an
open, f
I wouldn't of seen this if Chris had not responded to this imposter's drivel,
but after seeing it I came into some interesting information which I will paste
below the snippets of the original message :
> - Original Message -
> From: Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Christopher
Since there is no competition yet, NSI has not done anything to hinder
it. However, converting what has been considered an Internet community
resource into a marketing opportunity, and asserting proprietary rights
in the information collected through the InterNIC, are indicative of a
willingness
> > Maybe for the vast majority of commercial and non-commercial organizations
> > *in the US*. Outside the US, no. In other words, .com, .org., .net is *not*
> > equivalent to the whole domain name space.
>
> Well, maybe in Norway the majority of companies and organizations
> use the ccTLD, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
> Maybe for the vast majority of commercial and non-commercial organizations
> *in the US*. Outside the US, no. In other words, .com, .org., .net is *not*
> equivalent to the whole domain name space.
Well, maybe in Norway the majority of companies and organizations
use
Richard J. Sexton a écrit:
> 20 years from now there will probbaly be an ICANN office in many
> countires and some sort of summit once a year.
>
> The theory is the memebrs control ICANN, not vice versa. Where it
> is is not really relevant. The notion of a jurisdictin of cyberspace
> may kick i
Craig,
What was done by NSI to hinder competition?
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: Craig McTaggart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 1999 12:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Regulation? [Was: Re: [IFWP] Fwd: Re: Power Politics and
the N ew Internet Order]
[EMAI
ICANN Announcement
April 2, 1999
Preliminary Report, March 31 Special Meeting of the Board of Directors
The Initial Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers conducted a special meeting via telephone on March 31,
1999, at 2:00 pm U.S. East Coast time.
The B
At 08:18 AM 4/2/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 10:44:41PM -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>[...]
>
>> >Uh, Roeland, if ICANN decides that it needs to change to a Swiss
>> >corporation, what are you going to do? Sue in Swiss Court? Do you
>> >have a Swiss trademark?
>>
>>
>1) Yes, I am going to claim otherwise. The USG has an oversight
>role for ICANN at this point in time; that won't continue
>indefinitely. The USG has made that very clear, and there is strong
>pressure from other governments to get the USG out of this role.
>
>2) I'm sure that ICANN has no i
> > 1. is .com, .org., .net equivalent to the whole domain name space?
>
> Yes, effectively, for the vast majority of Americans and for the
> vast majority of commercial and non-commercial organizations.
Maybe for the vast majority of commercial and non-commercial organizations
*in the US*. Outs
Patrick Greenwell a écrit:
> Speed is limited by the time it takes to perform a whois query..
Time they got some faster CPUs over there (or stopped trying to run
all the NS on the same machine) :)
Tony,
When I read Robert's message, I was thinking the same thing you were.
But, as Esther said in the SF BayArea meeting, outside the US, people are
much more prone to, and tolerant of, regulation. USA is the only
absolutely free-market system right now. Everyone else is regulated up to
their ey
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 10:44:41PM -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> [...]
>
> > >Uh, Roeland, if ICANN decides that it needs to change to a Swiss
> > >corporation, what are you going to do? Sue in Swiss Court? Do you
> > >have a Swiss trademark?
> >
> > Irrelevant, they'r
On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:
> > Comments/suggestions/bug reports welcome.
>
> Why does it take so long to load the registration pages?
Speed is limited by the time it takes to perform a whois query..
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell a écrit:
> http://209.133.38.12 (yes, I know it doesn't have a host name, that's up
> to you...)
To heck with the *&%#$* domain name. :)
> What I have done is created an identity neutral website where you can
> register domain names, get whois information via a web interface,
Roberto Gaetano a écrit:
> >From the mentioned document (see
> http://www.icann.org/policy_statement.html), the opening sentence past the
> Table of Contents sais:
>
> ICANN adopts the following policies concerning accreditation
> of registrars for the .com, .net, and .org top-le
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Roberto,
>
> Please help me understand your thinking.
>
> Chuck
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> But something happened, that I would call the "uncle
> Scroogy" syndrome: the
> recent actions from NSi seem to
Roberto,
Please help me understand your thinking.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 1999 8:59 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Regulation? [Was: Re: [IFWP] Fwd: Re: Power
Politics and the N
ew Internet Order]
(Text dele
On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 10:44:41PM -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
[...]
> >Uh, Roeland, if ICANN decides that it needs to change to a Swiss
> >corporation, what are you going to do? Sue in Swiss Court? Do you
> >have a Swiss trademark?
>
> Irrelevant, they're definitely NOT going to do that, t
Many of you were upset about the redirection of internic.net to
www.networksolutions.com.
So was I.
Rather than just scream about it, which is great for getting all that
pent-up frustration out but doesn't really address the issue, I decided
to try to find a solution.
Here's what I came up w
Thanks Dan for wiping out windsheilds again so we can see more
clearly.
I also agree with Chris Ambler's proposal that Well Know Name Holders
and Famous Name Holders should all have the same opportunity to
establish a TLD in their name, if they want to do so, and that if they
do, they have to mee
Tony,
Thank you for stripping a sentence out of the context, and starting a
completely different reasonment that does not take into account the matter
under debate.
This gives me the chance to answer to the new problem you address, i.e. "The
justification of the regulation".
The need for regulat
William and all,
PLEASE take your medication, as you are yet again beginning to
drift into a fantasy of obviscation and confusion. It is very unbecoming
and unseemly for most of us here. We all know that you seem to have
a gross propensity for playing "Net Cop" although your past fraudulent
beh
Roberto and all,
To answer your questions, yes effectively they ICANN is by definition,
through their Accreditation Policy, to which you referenced in your
questions, are controlling the LEGACY DNS name space... As such
the ICANN is effectively locking out through this Accreditation Policy,
wh
Tony,
You AOL argument is as disingenuous as your argument on the internic hosted
list that NSI does not have a monopoly because 80 ccTLDs permit global
registratins.
AOL names within it's own network, and as such, none of this discussion is
affected by that.
Please Tony, stop trying to obfusc
At 06:05 AM 4/2/99 , Roberto Gaetano wrote:
The Internet is becoming more and more the
carrier of very important
exchanges.
E-Commerce is a reality that is involving billions of $$$, and it would
not
be wise to leave the matter unregulated (or regulated only by national
laws,
that are different i
David,
You wrote:
> Careful with the analogies.
>
You are right.
Analogies only reflect one part of the reality, and are seldom complete.
> There is an important public safety issue that justifies the regulation of
> airspace.
>
> No such issue exists for ICANN.
>
Very true.
But nevertheless
Michael,
You wrote:
> > BTW, from which source comes the idea of ICANN wanting to "own" all
> levels
> > of the domain space? Up to now I have heard it often, but always as an
> > opinion of somebody on ICANN's intentions, and I was unable so far to
> find
> > any document where ICANN itself mak
At 10:56 PM 4/1/99 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>
>
>"Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:
>>
>> At 08:14 PM 4/1/99 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>> >Notsofast...
>> >
>> >Before we (or anyone else) can cede famous names, we need an
>> >appropriate international definition of 'famous names'. Right now
>> >mo
At 08:26 PM 4/1/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 11:37:13PM -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>[...]
>>
>> There are a number of complications if the root-servers started to point to
>> a different TLD root-server than the one set up by the VPN TLD registry.
>> Were ICANN, or
Siegfried Langenbach a écrit:
> great,
> I will forward that to ICANN and MAC.
Would you mind, at the same time, correcting the names of the
constituencies to reflect more accurately their names as they appear
in ICANN's Statement of DNSO Principles and its draft bylaws
amendment? In them, there
When will the outcome of the ICANN board's March 31st
teleconference, and the adopted bylaws amendment, be made public?
43 matches
Mail list logo
