At 04:24 PM 7/1/99 +, you wrote:
YOUR PROPRIETARY RIGHTS You agree that upon posting information
on the Service, you grant eGroups, and its successors and
assigns, a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty free, perpetual,
non-revocable license under your copyrights or other
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Pete Farmer wrote:
I look at the ICANN process a little differently. It isn't really a
substitute for NSI as much as it would be a substitute for the government.
Perhaps the establishment of ICANN was the worst possible way to handle the
situation -- except for all
You wrote:
ICANN in its present form is an accident, a monstrosity, a thing
potentially of great power, but without any practical understanding of
the Internet or any vision of where it should go.
This is a entirely erroneous analysis. ICANN is no accident. It is
the carefully laid plan of a
At 07:10 AM 7/3/99 , Jim Dixon wrote:
Insofar as we are talking about the imperial
ICANN, the one that wants
to regulate the Internet, the one that is trying to obtain legal
authority
over all IP address space and the domain name system, it is of primary
importance that we know who the ICANN
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: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:15:25 -0400 (EDT)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jul 3
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:
ICANN in its present form is an accident, a monstrosity, a thing
potentially of great power, but without any practical understanding of
the Internet or any vision of where it should go.
This is a entirely erroneous analysis. ICANN is no
Jim Dixon wrote:
Unless you are suggesting than Jon Postel's death was no accident,
then you are simply wrong. Postel was supposed to be ICANN's brain.
Take away the brain and you get the shambling farce that we have
today.
No. Postel wanted no part of any added responsibilities, as his
"A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:10 AM 7/3/99 , Jim Dixon wrote:
Insofar as we are talking about the imperial ICANN, the one that wants
to regulate the Internet, the one that is trying to obtain legal authority
over all IP address space and the domain name system, it is of
Jim Dixon wrote (in continuation):
I know how much fun this sort of conspiracy theory is. But if you
look carefully at the numbers, there is nothing to back up the
theory.
Not true. If you look at who is running all the structures of ICANN
you see clearly that it is a put-up job. Every
Gordon Cook wrote:
snip
The "naming and addressing system" is NOT a "public resource. The
language is straight out of the gTLD-MoU. It is a clear unconstitutional
taking of private property.
snip
I've held back on all of the other ridiculous claims in this thread but this
is the one
All,
Please review with those provided by Antony and others that have
been previously reported and news accounts. Seems like there is
some rewriting of history in practice here...
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information
Hi Jim,
Great to see you involved once again.
For the newcomers, Jim Dixon was one of the
members of the IFWP Steering Committee. He
lead the call (along with myself) for a wrap-
up meeting in Boston, which was torpedo'd
by Mike Roberts and others.
Jim and I have agreed on most issues,
The Official minutes from the Names Council Teleconference, June 11 1999
provided by Susan Anthony are on line, replacing ones we get earlier from
Antony Van Couvering.
They don't match my tape of the call but I doubt anybody cares.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Craig McTaggart wrote:
I've held back on all of the other ridiculous claims in this thread but this
is the one that always gets me going.
Some clarifications about private property and identifiers.
You do not own your domain name.
There is now case law on the books
Hi Patrick Greenwell, you wrote on 7/3/99 12:21:45 PM:
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Craig McTaggart wrote:
I've held back on all of the other ridiculous claims in this thread but
this
is the one that always gets me going.
Some clarifications about private property and identifiers.
You do not own
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
The Official minutes from the Names Council Teleconference, June 11 1999
provided by Susan Anthony are on line, replacing ones we get earlier from
Antony Van Couvering.
They don't match my tape of the call but I doubt anybody cares.
There are some people who will
Richard and all,
You are likely correct Richard. But I felt it was necessary that it
be pointed out in general terms at any rate. I have outlined in some
detail to the commerce commission some of the particular glaring differences
in hopes that they will take some notice. (More on this in a
Gene and all,
Gene Marsh wrote:
Hi Patrick Greenwell, you wrote on 7/3/99 12:21:45 PM:
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Craig McTaggart wrote:
I've held back on all of the other ridiculous claims in this thread but
this
is the one that always gets me going.
Some clarifications about private
You do not own your domain name.
There is now case law on the books that says otherwise.
You are quite simply wrong.
This is one of those cases where "ownership' is a soft concept.
Maybe one doesn't have absolute, unlimited title to a domain name, but one
has some collection of
At 12:12 PM 7/3/99 , Craig McTaggart wrote:
Gordon Cook wrote:
snip
The "naming and addressing system" is NOT a "public resource. The
language is straight out of the gTLD-MoU. It is a clear unconstitutional
taking of private property.
snip
I've held back on all of the other ridiculous
At 12:12 PM 7/3/99 , Craig McTaggart wrote:
Thanks for the thoughtful, well articulated analysis.
Thinking back to the earliest days of ARPANET
development, when surely the
property rights of which you speak must have sprung, can you find any
record
of any awareness of 'ownership' of the
"A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would argue that no one should have "the authority to make exclusive
assignment of Internet identifiers." Indeed, there is no such thing.
You can today use any identifier you choose - and many institutions do.
However, unless you have made special
Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Pete Farmer wrote:
I look at the ICANN process a little differently. It isn't really a
substitute for NSI as much as it would be a substitute for the government.
That's true. ICANN is taking over as the government entity to give
out
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 07:37:19PM -0400, James Love wrote:
Pete Farmer wrote:
Can ICANN establish a fee on domain names to cover administration
costs?
Yes -- that's within its charter. Can ICANN impose a fee whose proceeds
would be used to bring Internet access to schools and libraries
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Karl Auerbach wrote:
You do not own your domain name.
There is now case law on the books that says otherwise.
You are quite simply wrong.
This is one of those cases where "ownership' is a soft concept.
Maybe one doesn't have absolute, unlimited title to
Jay Fenello wrote:
snip
If it makes you feel any better, I
object to ICANN's agenda to claiming
superior "property rights" over *all*
coordinated Internet assets.
snip
Cool, so do I. We all share these assets, or as I prefer to call them,
resources. We either all own them (which on this
Karl and all,
The one point Karl makes here in respect to how this thread has
changed, is really the overriding and predominant crux of the
management of the DNS. There are really two parts to Karls point
as well. We [INEGroup] outline them in the following manner:
1.) The current Root or
Craig,
Thanks for a very thoughtful message. Indeed, it does seem like ICANN--or
anything in its position--is whipsawed between its hybrid public/private
role. I'd like to think that 100% of the internet--rather than 99%--could
be decentralized, but there are lots of reasons to see
At 05:07 PM 7/3/99 -0400, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
purely neutral with respect to it: "We just manage the old IANA root; set
up your own if you like and God bless!" ...JZ
You're closer to them than we are Jonothon, why don't you ask them.
Frankly I expect rhetoric out of them: "renegade",
At 05:07 PM 7/3/99 , Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
Craig,
Thanks for a very thoughtful message. Indeed, it does seem like ICANN--or
anything in its position--is whipsawed between its hybrid public/private
role. I'd like to think that 100% of the internet--rather than 99%--could
be decentralized,
Craig McTaggart asks whether it's unfair for people to accuse ICANN of
lacking public virtues when this is a feature rather than a bug in a
private body.
The danger, it seems to me, is having the worst of both worlds. Public
and private have different accountability modes. To oversimplify a
The last authoritative, community-based consensus
on that question was the White Paper, which ICANN
has ignored since its inception.
And that's being overly kind. The changes between the
green paper and white paper could not be justified from
the public comments.
It's the private comments that
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Craig McTaggart wrote:
When people criticize ICANN's methods and power, some essentially argue that
it should be more like a government, with due process controls and
democratic authority before it imposes fees (which many erroneously call
taxes - a curiously American
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Karl Auerbach wrote:
My conclusion is that domain names do come with a bundle of rights and
that those rights do constitute sufficient discretionary power over the
domain name that they, or at least the rights towards the domain name if
not the name itself, could be
Kerry and all,
You ask some very good questions here and offer some potentially
reasonable insight as well. However there are some issues that are
still left dangling to which the Commerce Commission has stated
and submitted questions on that have a direct impact on this
now terribly skewed
Esther, Mike, Joe,
Is there any particular ICANN view on efforts to set up alternative root
systems? I'd figured that ICANN would be neutral on it--it's got a mandate
to (eventually, if all proceeds a particular way) maintain and manage the
contents of the legacy IANA root, without regard to
Jay,
I'm simply suggesting that any organization in ICANN's position is going to
have it tough. The white paper, as I read it, calls for a private
non-profit organization to manage the old IANA root. ICANN has been
designated by the gov't to be that "newco," and there's a path by which
At 03:01 PM 7/3/99 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
The persons behind ICANN have repeatedly stated that what they are doing
is not "governance." Their actions speak otherwise. Some of this be
attributed to confusion in the Green and White Papers as to the role of
At 05:49 PM 7/3/99 -0400,
I don't know how Craig meant to phrase the question, but as you point out,
I'd hate to think that ICANN's being "private" has to dictate anything
about its structure.
You set out two axes:
- accountable/free. Yes! We need ICANN to be accountable, and
ultimately ballots are the way it'll
Jay,
I think we may be writing each other synchronously. In any event, I
thought my note below makes it clear that ICANN has not yet inherited the
IANA root--I said, with parenthetical:
it's got a mandate
to (eventually, if all proceeds a particular way) maintain and manage the
contents
Jonathan and all,
None of this implies, or reflects on if that ICANN has the right
to set
Policy on what Domains can be registered and under what
conditions, how many or what gTLD's can be added, and in what
manner, what sort of arrangement for registry functionality is
reasonable (Other than
At 07:08 PM 7/3/99 -0400, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
through governments, that might even be solace, but my point is that even
in its current incarnation ICANN seems to me to have quite tight
constraints on what it can do.
I don't know how you can say that when it's ignoring it's own bylaws
Some clarifications about your clarifications...
Craig McTaggart wrote:
Gordon Cook wrote:
snip
The "naming and addressing system" is NOT a "public resource. The
language is straight out of the gTLD-MoU. It is a clear unconstitutional
taking of private property.
snip
I've
At 07:29 PM 7/3/99 , Richard Sexton wrote:
At 07:08 PM 7/3/99 -0400, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
through governments, that might even be solace, but my point is that even
in its current incarnation ICANN seems to me to have quite tight
constraints on what it can do.
I don't know how you can say
At 07:18 PM 7/3/99 , Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
Jay,
I think we may be writing each other synchronously. In any event, I
thought my note below makes it clear that ICANN has not yet inherited the
IANA root--I said, with parenthetical:
it's got a mandate
to (eventually, if all proceeds a
At 07:40 PM 7/3/99 -0400, Jon Zittrain wrote:
I don't know how you can say that when it's ignoring it's own bylaws
Jonothon.
I've probably not been following the list enough lately, but I'd want to
talk specifics here.
Well, the two names council members that are employees of MCI in
Michael Sondow and Jim Dixon, i respect both your opinions. I don't think
there is any guarantee at this point that any of us who are desirous
bringing ICANN to heel is 100% right in our assertions. The problem for
sure is ICANN not which of you is precisely right. please count to
ten...
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999 19:52:10 -0400, Gordon Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Michael Sondow and Jim Dixon, i respect both your opinions. I don't think
there is any guarantee at this point that any of us who are desirous
bringing ICANN to heel is 100% right in our assertions. The problem for
sure
All,
Gordon and William, It is obvious to most that YOUR reputation
WIlliam,
is certainly in question. I would say that this post in response
to Gordon
falls into the category of People in glass houses shouldn't throw
stones
A word to the wise should be sufficient... However in
WIlliam's
On Sat, 03 Jul 1999 17:39:05 +0100, Jeff Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
Gordon and William, It is obvious to most that YOUR reputation WIlliam,
is certainly in question. I would say that this post in response to Gordon
falls into the category of People in glass houses shouldn't throw
William and all,
You have the potential for the necessary wisdom, but neither the
will or the where with all to exercise that potential. Some day you might.
But it won't be today, and judging from your continued activities of
making false aspersions on Michael, Gordon, Dr. Lisse, myself and
That was a good one Jeff, made me laugh. About the only thing your
posts are good for.
On Sat, 03 Jul 1999 17:49:09 +0100, Jeff Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William and all,
You have the potential for the necessary wisdom, but neither the
will or the where with all to exercise that
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frankly I expect rhetoric out of [ICANN}: "renegade", "pirate",
"anarchist" and so on and so forth.
Why do you care what they think? Again, why haven't you taken your case
(as long as it takes) to the Internet community at large? If you have, and
That's what I understand to be in progress today. You may think the gov't
unwise to have designated ICANN "newco" and to be in the process of
transitioning IANA's functions to it--but that doesn't mean the gov't isn't
in the process of giving it just that mandate. ...JZ
the gov't.. who
Mikki and all,
Quite right Mikki, quite right indeed. Unfortunately there are those
that believe that some DN's that are not Trademarked or have filed
for one, are illegal. Of course the answer to if they are or not,
is still unclear. The WIPO "Final Report" Recommendations in Chapter
3
Greg, this has nothing to do with new tlds.
As for ICANN doing whats best for the Internet community,
the first order of business for any organization is
self preservation.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
Richard and all,
Exactly right Richard. The best thing a organization such as ICANN
which is somewhat unusual as an organization, is to get the broad
support of the stakeholder community for it's own self preservation.
. The White Paper and it's authors recognized this. ICANN either
does
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Jon Zittrain wrote:
At 07:29 PM 7/3/99 , Richard Sexton wrote:
At 07:08 PM 7/3/99 -0400, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
through governments, that might even be solace, but my point is that even
in its current incarnation ICANN seems to me to have quite tight
constraints on
Gordon Cook wrote:
Michael Sondow and Jim Dixon, i respect both your opinions.
snip
please count to
ten...
Did it sound like an argument? I thought we were having a friendly
discussion. I guess I've still got more work to do on my style. Now,
where's Kent Crispin...
Gordon Cook wrote:
Michael Sondow and Jim Dixon, i respect both your opinions.
snip
please count to
ten...
Did it sound like an argument? I thought we were having a friendly
discussion. I guess I've still got more work to do on my style. Now,
where's Kent Crispin...
You wrote:
Well, the two names council members that are employees of MCI in contravention
to the bylaws that state no more than one employee of a company may
be on the names council is the most obvious one.
While the case of the two MCI employees on the Names Council is
ceratinly a
Richard Sexton wrote:
Deciding who gets to run ".biz"
RFC1591 says "first come, first served" and the document says it
appies to all levels od the domain tree.
I can't see how we "decide" who run a top level domain any more than
we "decide" who should run the domain amazon.com. The DNS has been
Hi Kent Crispin, you wrote on 7/3/99 2:36:03 PM:
From the point of view of the "governed" (the Internet at large) an
out of control ICANN board is absolutely indistinguishable from an
out of control ICANN membership. And given the almost inevitable
small size of the ICANN membership (even a few
Hi Craig McTaggart, you wrote on 7/3/99 3:51:29 PM:
Many private parties are involved in making the Internet, and in particular
the DNS, work (and there would be many more with multiple roots), and their
servers, routers and their local databases (but not the data in them) are
unquestionably
Michael and all,
(See below Michaels comments for mine)
Michael Sondow wrote:
You wrote:
Well, the two names council members that are employees of MCI in contravention
to the bylaws that state no more than one employee of a company may
be on the names council is the most obvious
...You agree that upon posting information on the Service,
you grant eGroups... a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty free,
perpetual, non-revocable license under your copyrights or other
intellectual property rights
Um, I think there is confusion here. Claiming a copyright
Well, it seems I've still got more work to do on my writing style so
that people won't get the wrong idea and think I'm being unpleasant.
So here goes...
Kent Crispin wrote:
Kent, ole buddy! Ya don't answer my letters! Whassamatta you (like
Chico used ta say)? Ya got writer's cramp or
As humorous as this is, I think it effectively proves my point.
On Sun, 04 Jul 1999 00:51:31 -0400, Michael Sondow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, it seems I've still got more work to do on my writing style so
that people won't get the wrong idea and think I'm being unpleasant.
So here goes...
William and all,
And the is oh William the Whiner Walsh? Hu? Or is this
just more of your infamous Whining?
William X. Walsh wrote:
As humorous as this is, I think it effectively proves my point.
On Sun, 04 Jul 1999 00:51:31 -0400, Michael Sondow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jay Fenello wrote:
Sorry again, Jonathan,
This question presumes that ICANN has inherited
the IANA root. I most strongly object to such
a conclusion.
To repeat, ICANN does NOT have any *legitimate*
claim to manage the old IANA root.
The last
In article v04020a33b3a45e4b8826@[192.168.0.1] Gordon Cook wrote:
That's what I understand to be in progress today. You may think the gov't
unwise to have designated ICANN "newco" and to be in the process of
transitioning IANA's functions to it--but that doesn't mean the gov't isn't
in the
Hi Onno Hovers, you wrote on 7/3/99 8:34:50 PM:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jay Fenello wrote:
Sorry again, Jonathan,
This question presumes that ICANN has inherited
the IANA root. I most strongly object to such
a conclusion.
To repeat, ICANN does NOT have any *legitimate*
claim to
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 12:51:31AM -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
Kent Crispin wrote:
[...]
Many people are under the delusion that ICANN's bylaws and articles
of incorporation provide control. They do not. People also think
that membership and representative structures provide control.
73 matches
Mail list logo
