A transcript of the last WIPO consultation, held in Washington D.C. on
March 10, is now posted at:
http://wipo2.wipo.int/process/eng/dc2-transcript1.html
Among the presenters were Kathryn Kleiman, Milton Mueller, Michael Sondow,
Michael Downey, Shari Steele (staff attorney, EFF), Eric Menge(Smal
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 05:34:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh)
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 01:30:29 -0400, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>William X. Walsh a écrit:
>>>
>>> Michael, your lack of understanding how the law operates never ceases
>>> to amaze me.
>>>
>>> Anyo
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 01:30:29 -0400, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>William X. Walsh a écrit:
>>
>> Michael, your lack of understanding how the law operates never ceases
>> to amaze me.
>>
>> Anyone suing will sue in the court that has the best jurisdiction for
>> them, and ICANN is
William X. Walsh a écrit:
>
> Michael, your lack of understanding how the law operates never ceases
> to amaze me.
>
> Anyone suing will sue in the court that has the best jurisdiction for
> them, and ICANN is most certainly subject to California Law. If the
> likelyhood of winning is in State
Michael, your lack of understanding how the law operates never ceases
to amaze me.
Anyone suing will sue in the court that has the best jurisdiction for
them, and ICANN is most certainly subject to California Law. If the
likelyhood of winning is in State court, they most certainly would
file th
Jonathan Weinberg a écrit:
> The relationship between a California nonprofit corporation and its
> members is governed in the first instance by the California Nonprofit
> Corporation Law. Whether you (or I) think the law is well-written doesn't
> much matter, and the notion that it would
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 22:05:37 -0400 (EDT)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Jonathan Weinberg
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From msen.com!weinberg Mon Apr 12 22:05:35 1999
>Return-
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 04:15:08PM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > > That wasn't quite what my point was. My point was that there is no
> > > way for ICANN to resolve competing TM claims, since there is no
> > > international trademark law that covers th
john and all,
Johnney my lad, you have some serious reality problems here...
Lets review them by the numbers. (See below your comments
for further details)
John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> > Where do I send my bid for the .IBM registry? How about the .AOL
> > registry, as I'd like to run tha
kent and all,
Kent, I think you may be wishing for something that may or may not
occur. In any event it need not occur at all. However if such a
situation should occur you need to review your facts a bit closer.
First of all, IOD did not lose they withdrew. BIg difference right off the
bat.
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:15:28 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 12:35:32PM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>[...]
>> At this point, if ICANN moves to add any new TLDs, and Image Online
>> Design's .web is not one of them, I am quite certain that Image Online
Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit:
> You have just hit upon one of the many reasons that I have argued against a
>California home for what is now the ICANN. Delaware is a much better place for these,
>or most, things corporate. The ICANN BoD, or course, chooses not to listen to good
>sense.
Don't ki
Joop Teernstra a écrit:
> Michael, in the DNSO there is no hard reality yet. We are being asked by
> the ICANN interim Board to help shape reality there.
> This is how I read their webpage and Esther's exhortations.
> You are most welcome to disagree with me and all those who support
> groupings
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bravo, Stef, and you know you are far from alone.
Gene...
- -Original Message-
From: Einar Stefferud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 12, 1999 2:57 PM
To: Michael Gendron
Cc: 'Dr Nii Quaynor'; Michael Sondow; ICANN MAC list; IC
John and all,
John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> Christoper Ambler wrote:
> > Kent argues against himself.
> > Kent states that IOD's claim on .web is moot, since its US trademark
> > is irrelevant if someone trademarks it in Germany.
> > However, if someone in Germany trademarks .info (one of the
Hello Michael,
You have just hit upon one of the many reasons that I have argued against a California
home for what is now the ICANN. Delaware is a much better place for these, or most,
things corporate. The ICANN BoD, or course, chooses not to listen to good sense.
---
All,
Finally, somebody with a clue Good man their Franky!
This is the point I was hinting at all along. Some of these
poor duds just can't seem to see the forest for the trees.
Frank Rizzo wrote:
> Everyone,
>
> At 2:55 AM -0700 4/12/99, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >All,
> >
> > Still long
Everyone,
At 2:55 AM -0700 4/12/99, Jeff Williams wrote:
>All,
>
> Still long on NSOL, 114 +6 ! Gota luv it!!! >;))
Jeff is correct here. Stop complaining, buy some NSOL stock. They're not
going away. They love their monopoly. The US government wants them in
charge.
If you can't beat '
All,
Christopher is exactly correct here, and it has been made plainly
evident
to Kent on several occasions as Christopher and others have made
plainly clear on too many occasions in the past. But more importantly
it is exactly this sort of mentality or thinking (Pick your own term)
that
has p
Stef and all,
Well it is wonderful, seriously, to see that you have seen the light
here stef. Sense the Singapore fiasco, the ICANN Interim Board
has gone rogue from the principals and requirements of the White
Paper, and the NTIA seems oblivious to that fact, or doesn't care,
and just wants o
Diane Cabell a écrit:
> No, sir. I'm afraid you are still confusing subject headers with substantive
> recommendations and telephone conversations with official reports. We should
> add a disclaimer on the minutes to make that more clear.
What you don't seem to be cognizant of is that you are
I agree that it is not reasonable to have no criteria at all, whcih is
what this all boils down to, but, far be it from me to tell ICANN what
to do. At this point, as ICANN wonders farther and farther off
course, I am more and more inclined to bow gracefuly as they go by and
let them go competely
All,
FYI,
see:http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?day0/191021385&ticker=nsol
Rock'n and Roll'n!!
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:
At 07:36 PM 4/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Molly E. Shaffer a écrit:
>
>> Have you been in contact with the Internet Society? I see that they
>> have also posted something at
>> http://www.isoc.org/internet/issues/dns/990409.shtml.
>
>No, I haven't. I am collaborating only with organizations that are
Jonathan Weinberg a écrit:
> This assertion is completely mystifying. Can you cite any legal
> basis for it?
I have been researching these questions in federal district and
appeals court cases and, while I have not had time to complete my
study, not by a long shot, I have already found some r
Michael Sondow wrote:
> Diane Cabell a écrit:
>
> > All three of these statements are incorrect.
> > Again, I call attention to the reports submitted to ICANN in Singapore,
> > and caution against drawing incorrect conclusions from the abbreviated
> > notes of the teleconference call.
>
> Singapo
All,
Still long on NSOL, 114 +6 ! Gota luv it!!! >;))
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:09:31 -0400 (EDT)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Brian E Carpenter
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From hursley.ibm.com!brian Mon Apr 12 12:09:30 1999
>Ret
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 01:33:49AM -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> > >
> > >The IFWP list is full of professional nay-sayers, bitchers and
> > >fruitcakes. First the ICANN was attacked for being elitist,
> > >non-democratic and not transparant.
> >
> > AhBUT *
> Go right ahead, Mr. Gehring. Join the boys, get a little publicity,
> have fun, and let IBM and AT&T take over the Internet.
I don't think it's going to happen (IBM & ATT). What we have here is a more elusive
fish.
I thought that copy looked familiar.
D Schutt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kent
Crispin
Sent: Monday, April 12, 1999 11:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
On Mon, Apr 12, 19
Dr Nii Quaynor a écrit:
> MAC deliberations at Singapore made recommendations on criteria. I recall
> that the criteria *did not* exclude people with criminal record because of
> potential problems of dissidents, for example. Hence its not true that no
> criteria were specified. This meeting was
On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 01:33:49AM -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> >
> >The IFWP list is full of professional nay-sayers, bitchers and
> >fruitcakes. First the ICANN was attacked for being elitist,
> >non-democratic and not transparant.
>
> AhBUT *YOU* Onno see fit to propagate Ascencios lies abo
Diane Cabell a écrit:
> All three of these statements are incorrect.
> Again, I call attention to the reports submitted to ICANN in Singapore,
> and caution against drawing incorrect conclusions from the abbreviated
> notes of the teleconference call.
Singapore was two months ago. The March 18th
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:34:43 -0400 (EDT)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Michael Gendron
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From gcstech.com!mgendron Mon Apr 12 08:34:42 1999
>Return
Izumi AIZU a écrit:
> Or, do you really really think that dues is by far that important? I think we
> have
> other more important (and often conflicting) issues.
I'm sorry, Aizu, but paying dues is part of the legal relationship
between a member and an organization in California, the state where
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 06:45:55 -0400 (EDT)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from ["Dr Nii Quaynor"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From ghana.com!quaynor Mon Apr 12 06:45:53 1999
>Return-P
> >> No definition of who are members and who are not? No exchange of
> >> dues for a certificate, even if only a card, giving me the rights of
> >> a member? No defined process for electing representatives of the
> >> membership to the organization's management? No, my friend. I don't
> >> play t
drop his name into a meta search engine and look at what comes out.
on the mac with OS8.5 this meta search engine is called sherlock and comes
with the OS. I didn't save the url... basically he's a geek at a dutch
university.
>At 01:38 AM 4/12/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Translate, please, or pu
At 08:16 1999/04/12 -0700, Michael Gendron wrote:
>
> Dues will separate out those that are casual observers from those that hav
e a
real interest in the work of this organization.
I think we have to understand the other side of the world, not only where we
live
and work, if ICANN really wants
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi, I'd like to ask for any final comments on this draft
> spec of the technical work of the IANA. This is just
> an update of earlier drafts, with all technical comments
> incorporated and all non-technical aspects removed.
>
> Thanks
>Brian
>
> SPECIFICATION OF
All,
FYI. It might be worth while to comment here...
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas
Michael Sondow wrote:
> Okay. No exclusionary definition of the At large membership, that
> is, all the world can join. Two: no membership dues, that is, no
> legal contract between the members and the organization. Three: no
> voting mechanism defined in the bylaws, nothing that says how
> candi
Joop Teernstra a écrit:
> And also note this "open door" phrase on the ICANN website (do I see
> Esther's hand here?):
>
> Self-organized groups other than the initial groups set forth above may be
> recognized by the
> ICANN Board as DNSO constituency groups upon a proper showing pursuant
David and all,
How come I am not surprised! ROFLMAO. You may want to try
to contact Geoff Huston at telstra I believe. Adam Todd might also be
able to point you in the right direction as well.
David Sean McNicholl wrote:
> Any Telstar people on this list ?
>
> Just want to know what your UC
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 10:19:30AM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
- snip other diatribe a la Kent "Crispy" Crispin -
>
> >
> > In that case, ICANN wouldn't have a choice, as long as it is
> > California-based. In your example, IOD and ICANN are both
> > i
Words Of Onno Hovers:
> The IFWP list is full of professional nay-sayers, bitchers and
> fruitcakes. First the ICANN was attacked for being elitist,
> non-democratic and not transparant.
> And now the same people are attacking the ICANN for not being
> elitist enough. I cannot understand what is
At 12:30 AM 4/12/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At 11:08 PM 4/11/99 , Bill Lovell wrote:
Some time in the distant past I spoke of a buck or so per web site to
ICANN.
>>>
>>>A tax on websites is insane. A membership fee is rational.
>>>
>>"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word
>
Gordon-
You really shouldn't be so hard on Sascha. I believe he may be in
treatment at the Center for Attention Deficit and Behavioral
Disorders. At least, he said he would call them when I suggested it
to him. He probably needs all the kindness and understanding we can
give him.
I just took a look at onno's home page. I see i just flamed the sascha
ignatovic of holland... unfortunate waste of everyones time apologies
extended.
The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> I support most of the MAC recommedations, Mr. Cook. Not all of them,
>>but most of
>> them. I want the At-large Membership to be a large, open, democratic
>>body; not a
>> selective, wealthy group. I want any Internet user to be eligible to
>>serve
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I support most of the MAC recommedations, Mr. Cook. Not all of them, but most of
> them. I want the At-large Membership to be a large, open, democratic body; not a
> selective, wealthy group. I want any Internet user to be eligible to serve on the
> B
At 11:08 PM 4/11/99 , Bill Lovell wrote:
>>>Some time in the distant past I spoke of a buck or so per web site to ICANN.
>>
>>A tax on websites is insane. A membership fee is rational.
>>
>"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word
>would smell as sweet." Shakespeare, Romeo an
At 01:38 AM 4/12/99 -0400, you wrote:
Translate, please, or put in onno's URL -- I don't have it -- so we can
glean out what your meaning is here. :-)
Bill Lovell
>I just took a look at onno's home page. I see i just flamed the sascha
>ignatovic of holland... unfortunate waste of everyones
> Words Of Onno Hovers:
>
> > The IFWP list is full of professional nay-sayers, bitchers and
> > fruitcakes. First the ICANN was attacked for being elitist,
> > non-democratic and not transparant.
> > And now the same people are attacking the ICANN for not being
> > elitist enough. I cannot unde
55 matches
Mail list logo
