On Fri, 07 May 1999 23:41:21 -0400, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>William X. Walsh a écrit:
>>
>> Replace ICIIU with Michael Sondow, for that is the sole person Mr
>> Sondow is authorized to speak on behalf of.
>
>You are so blinded by envy and jealousy, Billy, I'm amazed that you
>
> Search engine/indexing technology makes it easier to determine how often
> a particular character string occurs in a hostname, URL, etc.
Who's working on the problem of monitoring how often a user
clicks a search-engine hit which is *not the one she wanted? A
remarkable aspect of all the t
William X. Walsh a écrit:
>
> Replace ICIIU with Michael Sondow, for that is the sole person Mr
> Sondow is authorized to speak on behalf of.
You are so blinded by envy and jealousy, Billy, I'm amazed that you
can find the keys to type on.
>At 04:51 PM 5/7/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
The very fact that the terms are not precise makes clear why the WIPO
>>>exclusion List criterion must be something other than those terms.
>>>Otherwise, we will see a sad replay of the old NSI problems where two
>>>like-named companies come i
Thursday, May 6, 1999
Cato Institute, Washington D.C.
Milton Mueller, David Post, and Beckwith Burr were the panelists at
a well-attended forum on Internet governance today at the Cato
Institute in Washington D.C.
Milton Mueller and David Post began the proceedings with
well-for
On Fri, 7 May 1999 20:32:31 -0400, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Why was the agenda for the Berlin GAC meeting removed from the GAC
>website?
>
>The ICIIU will expect a satisfactory reply from Mr. Twomey and/or
>ICANN by the afternoon of Monday, May 10. If that reply is not
>forthcom
On Fri, 7 May 1999 20:32:31 -0400, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Why was the agenda for the Berlin GAC meeting removed from the GAC
>website?
>
>The ICIIU will expect a satisfactory reply from Mr. Twomey and/or
>ICANN by the afternoon of Monday, May 10. If that reply is not
>forthcom
Michael and all,
We [INEGroup] have taken notice of this inconsistency as well and
would
also make the same suggestion as well and call for an in depth
investigation as well.
Michael Sondow wrote:
> Why was the agenda for the Berlin GAC meeting removed from the GAC
> website?
>
> The ICIIU wi
Kerry and all,
Kerry Miller wrote:
> John,
> > The reasons for this discrepancy are obvious to anyone with any working
> > knowledge of the Internet. They are twofold:
> >
> > 1) Trademark enforcement against DNS names at levels below those
> > assigned by TLD registries, or against directory
At 03:32 PM 5/7/99 -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
When did DOJ acquire the authority to deem the information
>extracted from a private company's customer database a
>"public resource?"
Sometime before that private company decided to give itself the authority
to claim ownership over a database that
Ken Stubbs a écrit:
>
> you need to get more sleep & stop smoking so many cigarettes michael
You only reply when someone gets dangerously close to the truth.
At 04:51 PM 5/7/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>>>The very fact that the terms are not precise makes clear why the WIPO
>>exclusion List criterion must be something other than those terms.
>>Otherwise, we will see a sad replay of the old NSI problems where two
>>like-named companies come into co
Miles Marsh wrote:
>Yes, and while the government has attempted to address the issue of
>turning over certain operational characteristics of the Internet, I do
>not believe they have addresses the issue of turning over the database
>directly.
>From Amendment 11 of the Cooperative Agreement (Octo
Why was the agenda for the Berlin GAC meeting removed from the GAC
website?
The ICIIU will expect a satisfactory reply from Mr. Twomey and/or
ICANN by the afternoon of Monday, May 10. If that reply is not
forthcoming, the ICIIU will ask the World Trade Organization to
conduct an investigation int
John,
> The reasons for this discrepancy are obvious to anyone with any working
> knowledge of the Internet. They are twofold:
>
> 1) Trademark enforcement against DNS names at levels below those
> assigned by TLD registries, or against directory names used within
> Web sites, is a practical
Michael and all,
I wish they would TRY to crush our organization or any of our
affiliates.
My guess is that they won't. But I SURE wish they would try! I for one
would WELCOME the opportunity in open court. >;)
Michael Sondow wrote:
> Jose Soriano a écrit:
> >
> > Dr Eberhard W Lisse
> >
Esther, Mike and all
ATTENTION ESTHER DYSON!
ATTENTION ESTHER DYSON!
ATTENTION MIKE ROBERTS!
ATTENTION MIKE ROBERTS!
We at the [INEGroup] would also yet again request that YOU, Esther
Dyson and/or Mike Roberts answer the questions that have been
put to you directly please!! As a servent of t
Manuel Hurtado a écrit:
> I will try to attend the Berlin meeting, but I am against on-site
> negotiations, as they would exclude most of the ISP community.
The obligation of physical presence at international ICANN meetings,
with no attempt made by ICANN to create proxy- and on-line voting
mech
All,
The mighty William the Great has spoken! Let that be a lesson to you all!
Head the word of WILLIAM THE GREAT, he has spoken, so it MUST be true!
YEAH RIGHT! NOT LIKELY! More like the peanut gallery Whiner has
spoken. ROFLMAO!
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On Fri, 07 May 1999 15:32:1
>At 02:16 PM 5/7/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>>The distinction is meaningless in this discussion, as the poster proposed
>>his personal standard which is lower than the standard for a well-known
>>mark in the most conservative jurisdiction. And the WIPO report uses the
>>term conjunctively
Title: RE: [IFWP] ICANN and WIPO in Berlin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Esther,
I am also curious as to your response. These are important issues for
all of us.
Thanks!
Gene Marsh
anycastNET Incorporated
> -Original Message-
> From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto
On Fri, 7 May 1999, Esther Dyson wrote:
> Thanks for your comments. AS noted, we have not yet decided what we will
> do. It indeed depends on public comments, among other things. But aside from
> our process, do you have any comments on the substance of the WIPO report?
> We would welcome those.
Title: RE: [IFWP] Re: DOJ investigating NSI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yes, and while the government has attempted to address the issue of
turning over certain operational characteristics of the Internet, I do
not believe they have addresses the issue of turning over the
On Fri, 07 May 1999 15:32:18 -0400, "A.M. Rutkowski"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 03:04 PM 5/7/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>>Wired: WHO OWNS WHOIS DATABASE? (POL. Thursday)
>
>>Robert Raisch, who was active in initial commercialization of the
>>domain-name system and now an Internet busi
you need to get more sleep & stop smoking so many cigarettes michael .
best wishes
- Original Message -
From: Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[E
Jose Soriano a écrit:
>
> Dr Eberhard W Lisse
>
> What happen if any ccTLD don't make his work and we have
> a blackout of all the world outside de EEUU? Maybe we must
> ask how much must pay the ICANN to the ccTLDs and any other
> kind of TLD in country outside the USA, or they don't need us
>
At 02:16 PM 5/7/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>The distinction is meaningless in this discussion, as the poster proposed
>his personal standard which is lower than the standard for a well-known
>mark in the most conservative jurisdiction. And the WIPO report uses the
>term conjunctively - the
"John B. Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most trademark holders (Viacom being the proverbial 'exception that proves
> the rule') would not consider trademark.sld.com worth their time. In most
> cases, they would never know about its existence - there are undoubtedly
> still hundreds of ma
Jay Fenello a écrit:
>
> Hi Esther,
>
> Could you please explain this agenda
> from the Governmental Advisory Committee:
>
> >http://www.noie.gov.au/docs/gacmtg2_agenda.htm
> >
> >DRAFT AGENDA
> >
> >1.Welcome
> >
> >2.Internal Communications - Practices and procedures
> >
> >3.Draft Operating
I cannot think of a standard that would work *other than*
>unique-and-coined. The problem, if someone with a dictionary word gets
>their mark on the List, is that the dictionary word is now unavailable as a
>domain name for other like-named companies. United Airlines will clamor to
>get "unite
John and all,
John B. Reynolds wrote:
> A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> >At 02:19 PM 5/7/99 , John B. Reynolds wrote:
> >
> >
> > The reasons for this discrepancy are obvious to anyone with any working
> > knowledge of the Internet. They are twofold:
> >
> >do say. :-)
>
> It is, of course, more prob
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> So the test is "the liklihood of consumer confusion," and there
> is no issue with, for example, porsche.aol.com?
If porsche.aol.com were used by AOL as a site to sell Porsches without
proper authorization, perhaps. However, generally speaking, people don't
register famo
>A few isolated cases do not change the facts that the number of trademark
>disputes based on third and lower level domains is dwarfed by those
>associated with SLDs, and that no trademark holders' group has yet proposed
>that lower level domains be subject to dispute resolution procedures.
You c
At 12:36 PM 5/7/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>>And the usual remedy for infringement or dilution, worldwide, is at most
>>cease-and-desist relief, not a transfer-of-property relief.
>
>Well, seizures provide transfer-of-property relief.
Under the Lanham Act, the only permitted seizure that is
The distinction is meaningless in this discussion, as the poster proposed
his personal standard which is lower than the standard for a well-known
mark in the most conservative jurisdiction. And the WIPO report uses the
term conjunctively - the title of the Section is "The problem of notoriety;
Fa
yada..yada..yada...
same choirbook ...different soloist
- Original Message -
From:
A.M. Rutkowski
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: DOJ investigating
NSI
When did DOJ acquire the authority
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The reasons for this discrepancy are obvious to anyone with any working
> > knowledge of the Internet. They are twofold:
> >
> > 1) Trademark enforcement against DNS names at levels below
> those assigned
> > by TLD registries, or against directory names used withi
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>At 02:19 PM 5/7/99 , John B. Reynolds wrote:
>
>
> The reasons for this discrepancy are obvious to anyone with any working
> knowledge of the Internet. They are twofold:
>
>do say. :-)
It is, of course, more probable that you are intentionally raising 'issues'
that you
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "A.M. Rutkowski"
writes:
> Is anyone aware of when you could download "Whois" en masse?
I just LOVE these "Experts" who know as much as the K*nt about these
things.:-)-O
To me it looks like he mixes this together with the COM zone file that
has now been restric
At 03:04 PM 5/7/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
Wired: WHO OWNS WHOIS DATABASE?
(POL. Thursday)
Robert Raisch, who was active in initial
commercialization of the domain-name system and now an Internet business
consultant, said if the investigation is successful the Whois database
will be deemed
>
> A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> >Carl,
> >
> >
> >There is no "world's famous mark practice". The US has a vague list of
> >eight non-binding factors which is a judge is free to use or ignore as the
> >
> >
> >Very useful, succinct "marks in a nutshell" summary.
> >
> >Another dimension of this that
> At 10:56 AM 5/7/99 -0600, you wrote:
> >At 10:33 AM 5/7/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> >
> >>You hadn't made it clear that you were asking ICANN to adopt your own
> >>personal proposal for criteria, rather than follow the world's famous mark
> >>practice.
> >
> >Oppedahl: There is no "world's
Jay, Paul and Esther,
Yes, Paul, Esther and Becky, whey were Jays question and comments
removed from the URL listed below? Is there some embarrassment in that an honest
answer is not available or otherwise unknown? Why not answer Jays
questions, directly this time BTW, if you please. >:) Ar
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> Like I said before, there will always be people around who will tryto
>> make an easy buck if they see an opportunity to do so and there are people
>> who will pay for the service.
> Academic calls for more social impact research on economic rationali
Excerpts from:
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration/declaration.html
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the
powers of the earth, the separate and equa
On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 02:59:09PM -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
[...]
>
> So the test is "the liklihood of consumer confusion,"
Precisely.
> and there
> is no issue with, for example, porsche.aol.com?
There might be. SLDs are more visible and more likely to cause
confusion. But under some c
Wired: WHO OWNS WHOIS DATABASE? (POL. Thursday)
http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/politics/story/19539.h
tml
Mikki and all,
We [INEGroup] completely concur with MIkki's comments here as
I indicated yesterday. We are still in detailed review of the WIPO RFC-3
"Final Report" currently and have no completed that in depth review
process. It is my understanding that the EU council is also still
in review
At 02:19 PM 5/7/99 , John B. Reynolds wrote:
The reasons for this discrepancy are obvious
to anyone with any working
knowledge of the Internet. They are twofold:
do say. :-)
1) Trademark enforcement against DNS
names at levels below those assigned
by TLD registries, or against directory names
Bret A. Fausett a écrit:
>
> The latest agenda items for the Berlin ICANN meeting
> (http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-details.html) suggest that "[t]he
> ICANN Board of Directors will meet to discuss and vote on any pending
> resolutions with regard to...WIPO Final Report, including annexes." I
[Note: this is a copy of the previous message. I am re-sending it
because the "Subject" of the former message was incorrect.]
Bret A. Fausett a écrit:
>
> The latest agenda items for the Berlin ICANN meeting
> (http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-details.html) suggest that "[t]he
> ICANN Board of
All,
More FUD and whining from the WWW man himself.
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On Fri, 07 May 1999 14:33:31 +0100, Dr Eberhard W Lisse
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Ah, Willie the Whiner Woke up Again.
> >
> >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, William X. Walsh writes:
> >
> >> Wish Dr Lisse t
At 10:56 AM 5/7/99 -0600, you wrote:
>At 10:33 AM 5/7/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>>You hadn't made it clear that you were asking ICANN to adopt your own
>>personal proposal for criteria, rather than follow the world's famous mark
>>practice.
>
>Oppedahl: There is no "world's famous mark pra
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>Carl,
>
>
>There is no "world's famous mark practice". The US has a vague list of
>eight non-binding factors which is a judge is free to use or ignore as the
>
>
>Very useful, succinct "marks in a nutshell" summary.
>
>Another dimension of this that came up yesterday at th
Just a reminder. I'll be leading a BoF on Internet Governance at
Networld+Interop in Las Vegas next week.
It's Tuesday, May 11, at 6pm.
--karl--
Carl,
There is no "world's famous mark
practice". The US has a vague list of
eight non-binding factors which is a judge is free to use or ignore as
the
Very useful, succinct "marks in a nutshell" summary.
Another dimension of this that came up yesterday at the CATO
gathering, and remains an en
On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 10:56:47AM -0600, Carl Oppedahl wrote:
[...]
> What I am suggesting is that such a plum should be given only to the
> company that can establish that its mark is coined and unique.
I don't think that such a criteria really gets to the heart of the
matter, however: "coined
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Charles Broomfield writes:
> > > Indeed, the fact that NSF approved fees contains an implicit statement
> > > that there is a contact database upon which the contractor, NSI, can
> > > administer to process renewals.
> >
> > Yes, and? Does it say this must b
At 15:27 07/05/99 +0100, you wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard J. Sexton" writes:
>> At 06:42 AM 5/7/99 -0400, you wrote:
>> >RFC1183 provides a nice way to do this with RP and
>> >associated TXT resources. However, it's not apparent
>> >whether this is supported or used. That ma
At 10:33 AM 5/7/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>You hadn't made it clear that you were asking ICANN to adopt your own
>personal proposal for criteria, rather than follow the world's famous mark
>practice.
There is no "world's famous mark practice". The US has a vague list of
eight non-binding
You hadn't made it clear that you were asking ICANN to adopt your own
personal proposal for criteria, rather than follow the world's famous mark
practice.
OK, let's not adopt Mr. Oppedahl's personal criteria of "coined and
unique", as it is a marked departure from the existing case law, and would
Hello Esther and Paul,
If I may be so bold as to ask,
what's going on now?
Not only have my questions gone
un-answered, but the GAC agenda
has now been removed from the
URL below.
This is all very curious, hardly an
example of "open, bottom-up policy
making" as described by Becky Burr
las
At 09:03 AM 5/7/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>Without commenting on the proposed 'exclusionary" practice itself, I note
>that Mr. Oppedahl impliedly misstates the standard for being a famous mark.
> It is not "coined and unique." Non-coined marks which are famous include
>JOHNNIE WALKER, CAD
On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 02:31:38PM +0100, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> > Being a TLD administrator, you know as well as I do that the info in
> > the SOA record isn't always correct, and postmaster@ addresses don't
> > always work.
>
> That is totally besides the point.
Nope. It is precisely t
Richard,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard J. Sexton" writes:
> Buf, if there were TXT records in the zone at the namesevrer
> that served the domain that would decentralise whois nicely.
What different is this from following established, RFC mandated
procedures and maintain a proper SOA
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kent Crispin writes:
> OTOH, users have a *real* incentive to keep at least their billing
> contact information up to date. This spills over to keeping the
> other contact data for a SLD at least somewhat up-to-date.
.NA applicants have a *REAL* incentive to ke
Without commenting on the proposed 'exclusionary" practice itself, I note
that Mr. Oppedahl impliedly misstates the standard for being a famous mark.
It is not "coined and unique." Non-coined marks which are famous include
JOHNNIE WALKER, CADILLAC and NIKE.
Demonstrably unique (or more to the
At 07:26 AM 5/7/99 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote:
>Thanks for your comments. AS noted, we have not yet decided what we will
>do. It indeed depends on public comments, among other things. But aside from
>our process, do you have any comments on the substance of the WIPO report?
>We would welcome those
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 08:32:14 -0400 (EDT)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Sean Jackson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From jackson.tc!sean Fri May 7 08:32:13 1999
>Return-Path: <[
One of NSI's vendors wrote:
>
> I'm not speaking for NSI
You mean "as an openly designated representative."
Well, let's hear from Chrisotpher Clough or Don Telage what was meant when
Clough said to the Washington Post that the data is intellectual property.
, but there is the zone file
> T
Quite an interesting event.
Some "inside the beltway" types are
finally getting the big picture:
http://cato.org/realaudio/cpf-05-06-99.ram
A Crisis in Internet Governanace: ICANN, Trademarks, and Domain Names (05/06/99)
A Cato policy forum, featuring Professor Milton Mueller, Syracuse Un
At 03:23 PM 5/7/99 +0200, you wrote:
>> >Being a TLD administrator, you know as well as I do that the info in
>> >the SOA record isn't always correct, and postmaster@ addresses don't
>> >always work.
>>
>> The whois information isn't always correct either.
>
>I agree. But I'd much rather trust in
Richard,
Voss iss mit Digital Millenium Act
?
See
http://www.ngi.org/pub/copyright.htm
--tony
On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 03:23:17PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >Being a TLD administrator, you know as well as I do that the info in
> > >the SOA record isn't always correct, and postmaster@ addresses don't
> > >always work.
> >
> > The whois information isn't always correct either.
>
>
>I echo Bret's concerns and agree with his suggested course of action.
>There is
>no urgency to take this action.
I completely agree. It would take longer than the timeframe allocated to
even provide coherrent comments on a report as dense and as far reaching as
this one. There is definitely no
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard J. Sexton" writes:
> At 06:42 AM 5/7/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >RFC1183 provides a nice way to do this with RP and
> >associated TXT resources. However, it's not apparent
> >whether this is supported or used. That may change
> >significantly with the Digita
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > >Being a TLD administrator, you know as well as I do that the info in
> > >the SOA record isn't always correct, and postmaster@ addresses don't
> > >always work.
> >
> > The whois information isn't always correct either.
>
> I agree.
At 05:26 AM 5/7/99 , Esther Dyson wrote:
>Thanks for your comments. AS noted, we have not yet decided what we will
>do. It indeed depends on public comments, among other things. But aside from
>our process, do you have any comments on the substance of the WIPO report?
>We would welcome those.
>
> >Being a TLD administrator, you know as well as I do that the info in
> >the SOA record isn't always correct, and postmaster@ addresses don't
> >always work.
>
> The whois information isn't always correct either.
I agree. But I'd much rather trust information that *I* (as a TLD admin)
maintain
>Being a TLD administrator, you know as well as I do that the info in
>the SOA record isn't always correct, and postmaster@ addresses don't
>always work.
The whois information isn't always correct either. Oen could put
th enformation from whois in the DNS itselt as TXT records. You
could then use
At 06:42 AM 5/7/99 -0400, you wrote:
>RFC1183 provides a nice way to do this with RP and
>associated TXT resources. However, it's not apparent
>whether this is supported or used. That may change
>significantly with the Digital Millennium Act.
Voss iss mit Digital Millenium Act ?
--
[EMAIL PRO
On Fri, 07 May 1999 14:33:31 +0100, Dr Eberhard W Lisse
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ah, Willie the Whiner Woke up Again.
>
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, William X. Walsh writes:
>
>> Wish Dr Lisse took such a strong position with regards to the letter
>> of the RFC when it came to RFC1591
I echo Bret's concerns and agree with his suggested course of action. There is
no urgency to take this action.
> Esther Dyson wrote:
>
> >Thanks for your comments. AS noted, we have not yet decided what we will
> >do. It indeed depends on public comments, among other things. But aside from
>
Tony,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "A.M. Rutkowski"
writes:
> Steinar,
>
> >There is a real, *technical* need to be able to get hold of domain
> >contact persons. The info needed to do this sometimes includes phone/
> >fax number and street address - email isn't always enough.
>
>
> RFC11
Ah, Willie the Whiner Woke up Again.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, William X. Walsh writes:
> Wish Dr Lisse took such a strong position with regards to the letter
> of the RFC when it came to RFC1591...
Go and run after Jeff the Man if you haven't got anthing to do,
please, but stop inte
Steinar,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > The whois database is part and parcel, a necessary element of DNS
> > > operation. It is impossible (or at least unreasonable) to conceive of
> > > running a TLD zone file without keeping track of who is associated with
> >
Esther Dyson wrote:
>Thanks for your comments. AS noted, we have not yet decided what we will
>do. It indeed depends on public comments, among other things. But aside from
>our process, do you have any comments on the substance of the WIPO report?
>We would welcome those.
>
>Esther
Yes, ICANN h
Thanks for your comments. AS noted, we have not yet decided what we will
do. It indeed depends on public comments, among other things. But aside from
our process, do you have any comments on the substance of the WIPO report?
We would welcome those.
Esther
At 11:53 AM 06/05/99 -0400, Bret A. Fau
Steinar,
There is a real, *technical* need to be able
to get hold of domain
contact persons. The info needed to do this sometimes includes
phone/
fax number and street address - email isn't always
enough.
RFC1183 provides a nice way to do this with RP and
associated TXT resources. However, it'
Wish Dr Lisse took such a strong position with regards to the letter
of the RFC when it came to RFC1591...
On Fri, 7 May 1999 10:09:25 +0200 (South Africa Standard Time), Dr
Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Karl,
>
>On Thu, 6 May 1999, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>> The whois databa
> > The whois database is part and parcel, a necessary element of DNS
> > operation. It is impossible (or at least unreasonable) to conceive of
> > running a TLD zone file without keeping track of who is associated with
> > each second level domain.
>
> Actually, that's incorrect. The DNS SOA re
Karl,
On Thu, 6 May 1999, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> The whois database is part and parcel, a necessary element of DNS
> operation. It is impossible (or at least unreasonable) to conceive of
> running a TLD zone file without keeping track of who is associated with
> each second level domain.
Actua
92 matches
Mail list logo
