Mark, William and all,
Actually you both are right as far as it goes, that is. William is
correct in that we are all part of the market, in one form or another.
Mark is correct in that each individual has the ability to choose
what part of the market he/she/it chooses to be.
Cthulhu's Little
>Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:54:21
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Hi
>
>Javier;
>
>I am going to respond to your letter as there seems to be
>some misunderstanding. For accuracy sake, I was going to
>look at the original but I don't seem to have a
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:30:04 -0700, "Cthulhu's Little Helper"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On 29 June 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:39:04 -0700, "Cthulhu's Little Helper"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>The net is no more a market-enabling tec
On 29 June 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:39:04 -0700, "Cthulhu's Little Helper"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>The net is no more a market-enabling technology than the phone is. I =
>mean
>>that literally. As in, the phone enables me to make more
>The Internet was not the "market" when it was born and it isn't
>and won't be a "market now or in the future.
>
>It is a communication medium.
So is a newspaper, and by Jesus look at the ads in that thing.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were o
At 18:44 28/06/1999 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>I notice that the DNRC has posted a press release protesting the
>cybersquatting bill. That points out that it is quite possible that
>the WIPO recommendations could be *better* for the domain holder
>than any particular countries laws.
>[...]
Mark,
I disagree completely. The phone is, indeed, a merket-enabling technology.
Whether you wish it to be used as a method to be targeted for selling to
you, the potential is there... the market is enabled.
The method in which the potential is used has little to do with the
potential which is
>It would seem you need idea of the history and development of
>the Internet to understand the Internet *not* some theories
>that don't work outside of the Interent, and are certainly inappropriate
>to the nature of a communications medium.
Now we get to the crux. You don't believe in a free op
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jun 29 00:13:19 1999
Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id AAA04979
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:13:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix)
id 7B41
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:39:04 -0700, "Cthulhu's Little Helper"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On 29 June 1999, Gene Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Rhonda,
>>
>>You may be missing the point.
>>
>>The Internet is not a merket, any more than the Interstate Highway system
>>is a market. It IS,
On 29 June 1999, Gene Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Rhonda,
>
>You may be missing the point.
>
>The Internet is not a merket, any more than the Interstate Highway system
>is a market. It IS, however, a market-enabling technology, just as the
>Interstate Highway system is. Without it, ou
Rhonda,
You may be missing the point.
The Internet is not a merket, any more than the Interstate Highway system
is a market. It IS, however, a market-enabling technology, just as the
Interstate Highway system is. Without it, our economy would not be nearly
as robust as it is.
In a similar man
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:02:07 -0400 (EDT), Ronda Hauben
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Ronda,
>
>>What the internet started as is of no relevence.=20
>
>>What it is now, is exactly what I stated.
>
>
>>It is time for you to accept that the internet has changed, and move
>>on.
>
>The Internet was not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) writes:
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:14:17 -0400 (EDT), Ronda Hauben
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) wrote:
>
>>>The internet, by definition, is a network of interconnected networks.
>>>These networks are not a "uniform" set of
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Dave Crocker
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:09:19 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon
Diane Cabell wrote:
>How do you verify the identity of a voter or otherwise avoid the same person
>registering under multiple addresses?
All voters on a given voters roll have their unique login and password.
Although the voting result is anonymous, log analysis would show foul play.
There woul
At 10:54 PM 6/28/99 +0200, Onno Hovers wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> Neither does France allow individuals to register in .fr. These two
>> countries, Australia and France, are the organizers and leaders of
>> the GAC. Couple that with the fact that no individuals have been
Cybersquatting bill would harm legitimate communication and small business.
June 28, 1999 - Herndon, Virginia
The Domain Name Rights Coalition (DNRC) is calling for revamping of
the "Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act" to protect vital
free speech and small business interests. "The bi
Michael S wrote,
> Couple that with the fact that no individuals have been allowed in
> the DNSO. What do you see as the future of individual registration
> in the all the TLDs?
That's easy! Obviously, individuality is obsolete; Hungary etc are
the future. Everyone will be 'incorporated' with
All,
David Post has started a new site to increase awareness to the
public of the "ICANN Happenings". see http://www.icannwatch.org
for more details. E-Mail list also available. Spread the word!
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Neither does France allow individuals to register in .fr. These two
> countries, Australia and France, are the organizers and leaders of
> the GAC. Couple that with the fact that no individuals have been
> allowed in the DNSO. What do you see as the futu
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:14:17 -0400 (EDT), Ronda Hauben
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) wrote:
>
>>The internet, by definition, is a network of interconnected networks.
>>These networks are not a "uniform" set of networks. They are diverse,
>>and the attempt to f
Kerry and all,
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Kudos to Dave Farber, quoted by Cook:
>
> > I would object violently to anything with lubricated
> > electronic commerce and violated my rights as a US citizen.
> >
>for prompting a new acronym: IKYANN
Yes indeed Kudos to Dave and yourself as well he
Kudos to Dave Farber, quoted by Cook:
> I would object violently to anything with lubricated
> electronic commerce and violated my rights as a US citizen.
>
for prompting a new acronym: IKYANN
> "A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Which reminds me - are there any historical examples where
> >an entity playing a quasi-governmental role like ICANN has
> >ever displayed such amazing behavior as we've witnessed over
> >the past couple of weeks - and whether it doesn't essen
William,
I hadnt taken you for an idealist!
>
> 1) Is this an area in which we have authority over/charter to address?
>
No, but the proper authorities are neglecting their duty.
> 2) Are there harms that exist that warrant the creation of a policy?
>
No, but there could be and we s
Whomever and all,
Thank you for correcting the problem, all be it somewhat delayed.
However again as a reminder, the comments now listed at
http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/icann-current/maillist.html
were not present on June 22, when I posted my second query.
Thank you for your somewhat be
All,
I thought this might be of some interest. I especially thought the
"Subject" line was rather funny
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: 972-4
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) wrote:
>The internet, by definition, is a network of interconnected networks.
>These networks are not a "uniform" set of networks. They are diverse,
>and the attempt to force on them a set of policies that are "uniform"
>in nature, when there is no compelling
>Esther Dyson a écrit:
>>
>> Likewise, no individuals in Hungary.
>
>Not the best support for such a policy. :~|
agreed
for than matter no individuals in Russia either
The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of
"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ronda Hauben wrote:
ICANN is illegal and the U.S. government's effort to create
ICANN is unconstitutional.
Is the Government Corporate Control Act law online? If so where?
I will take a look at your article when I get the ch
Michael and all,
Interesting how that woks out isn't it? B. Burr counsels the
formation of the GAC, and than automatically sits on it. Kinda
sounds allot like self serving fix, doesn't it? Maybe I am paranoid?
ROFLMAO!
And the divisiveness continues
Michael Sondow wrote:
> Michael F
Esther Dyson a écrit:
>
> Likewise, no individuals in Hungary.
Not the best support for such a policy. :~|
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law a écrit:
>
> You will note there that most of the corporations the GCCA aimed to squash
> were formed by US government employees and owned in whole or part by the
> USG. ICANN is different: no USG employees formed it
Not strictly speaking true. B. Burr si
Ivan Pope a écrit:
>
> It's restricted to French companies, anyway.
What is? .FR or COM.FR?
Cool. compared to Randy Dave Crocker sounds like a real gentleman
Keep up the good work Randy...
Agreed. It means the academic employees -- the academics (NOT the
"academic institutions") -- are disenfranchised. Which was my point and
Ellen's, and which neither of us se
Likewise, no individuals in Hungary.
Esther Dyson
At 02:25 PM 28/06/99 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >Neither does France allow individuals to register in .fr. These two
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> France put out an interesting announcement last week allowing
>> individuals to register. They're
Michael and all,
Well the reason that France does things in this manner is to a great
extent seeded in it's historic past. They have always been a little
backwards about things. Remember the history of W.W.II? That is why
France fell so quickly and was split between the "Free French" and
"Vi
Michael and all,
I take it that your question was a general one and directed at
this list as a whole. In that light, my observation and opinion
along with the INEGroup's opinion in this instance is a as follows:
1.) The ICANN in it's "Accreditation Policy" is attempting to eliminate
or
All,
For those that are interested...
--
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 75208
POISSON meeting
An article on US federal government corporations appears at
http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/reinvent.htm
You will note there that most of the corporations the GCCA aimed to squash
were formed by US government employees and owned in whole or part by the
USG. ICANN is different: no USG
> A.M. Rutkowski a écrit:
> >
> > France put out an interesting announcement last week allowing
> > individuals to register. They're instituting COM.FR as a
> > domain where anyone can register anything. It's effectively
> > a new French gTLD.
>
> That doesn't make much sense. Why don't they
A.M. Rutkowski a écrit:
>
> France put out an interesting announcement last week allowing
> individuals to register. They're instituting COM.FR as a
> domain where anyone can register anything. It's effectively
> a new French gTLD.
That doesn't make much sense. Why don't they have commercial
e
"A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Which reminds me - are there any historical examples where
>an entity playing a quasi-governmental role like ICANN has
>ever displayed such amazing behavior as we've witnessed over
>the past couple of weeks - and whether it doesn't essentially
>disenf
> >Neither does France allow individuals to register in .fr. These two
>
> Michael,
>
> France put out an interesting announcement last week allowing
> individuals to register. They're instituting COM.FR as a
> domain where anyone can register anything. It's effectively
> a new French gTLD.
No
At 08:12 AM 6/28/99 , you wrote:
Neither does France allow individuals to
register in .fr. These two
Michael,
France put out an interesting announcement last week allowing
individuals to register. They're instituting COM.FR as a
domain where anyone can register anything. It's effectively
a new
Joop Teernstra a écrit:
>
> Prof Froomkin wrote,
>
> >I made a very similar argument in the WIPO process. It's clear they want
> >people to have to pay regularly so that they can check the validity of the
> >contact details so they can serve them. No other reason was ever
> >advanced.
> >
>
>
How do you verify the identity of a voter or otherwise avoid the same person
registering under multiple addresses?
Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
Boston, MA
Joop Teernstra wrote:
> Thanks for letting me know. It is a typical example of a bottom-up effort.
> Th
Prof Froomkin wrote,
>I made a very similar argument in the WIPO process. It's clear they want
>people to have to pay regularly so that they can check the validity of the
>contact details so they can serve them. No other reason was ever
>advanced.
>
In Berlin I had a private argument with the
At 11:43 27/06/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>
>The IDNO has a working electronic voting system. A bit clunky,
>but it
>works.
>
Thanks for letting me know. It is a typical example of a bottom-up effort.
The software is getting better, the bugs are getting caught and new
functions are added as the nee
Roberto and all,
Which IETF list are you refering to? To my knowledge, most, if not all
of the IETF lists are restricted form these sort of discussions.
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Richard,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > The [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list has 53 members.
> >
> > The IFWP list has 156 mem
Dave's system has got the flu:
>Return-Path: <>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 23:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Returned mail: Can't create output
>Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)
>
>The o
52 matches
Mail list logo
