At 02:16 AM 7/6/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>While TMs are the big money thing here, there are other rights to
>>names, as well. For example, I have a right to use the name
>>"Crispin", in certain contexts. There are many others with a similar
>>right to the name. It is not possible to prioritize amo
At 10:25 PM 7/5/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> Ah, the answer: Mr. Kent Crispin has been caught out blathering legal
>> nonsense,
>> and is looking either to find a scapegoat or change the subject.
>
>The legal stuff I was referring to came from Mr Craig McTaggart, on
>July 3:
>
Gotcha! NOW Mr. Kent
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 07:10:32PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> >That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain
> >names are there to be *used*, not *sold*.
>
> That way there be dragons. I'm no fan of domain speculation
> but if somebody offered me a million dollars
At 11:47 PM 7/5/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Hey, you engineering wonks had first shot at the naming policy. It just
>didn't take US law into account so now we overbearing know-it-alls have to
>come in and clean up the mess.
>
>Diane Cabell
>http://www.mama-tech.com
>Fausett, Gaeta & Lund
>Boston
>
H
All,
Andy posted this on the IDNO list. I thought others might
find
it rather interesting and reveling.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/07/05/BU90199.DTL
Interesting excerpts of note:
`ICANN is a mushy, disorganized hodgepodge
of an organ
Gene and all,
I believe personally, that the optimum word for many on this list is
jealousy
Gene Marsh wrote:
> Hi Diane Cabell, you wrote on 7/5/99 11:17:27 PM:
>
> >
> > >A proposed solution to the "cybersquatting" problem Mr. Crispin raised
> >(one
> > >person registering tons of gene
Diane and all,
I can agree that there should be some "high Water mark" on
how many DN's and individual should be able to register in
any given span or defined span of time. The big problem with doing
this is who, and how is this determined so as to be reasonable, and
than what is truly conside
Diane and all,
I believe also that the IESG also has some say in this procedure
as well.
Diane Cabell wrote:
> >Gene Marsh wrote:
> >
> > Greg,
> >
> > Agreed, or even better, a coordinating entity that examines, discusses
> and
> > recommends competitive root and registry systems. It's like
Bill and all,
Bill, good points here and well put. Kent Crispin's many attempts
at legal expertise are terribly blatant, as this one that you elude to
is as well. His mischaracterization of others an others positions
in an obvious attempt to discredit them, also is well known on this
and othe
>While TMs are the big money thing here, there are other rights to
>names, as well. For example, I have a right to use the name
>"Crispin", in certain contexts. There are many others with a similar
>right to the name. It is not possible to prioritize among us, so
>first come first serve is a re
Graig and all,
I am glad that you apologized to Tony.
Now, what you last two post, including this one are indeed very
interesting
and somewhat thought provoking and seem to run contrary to many others
experience with the ISOC over the past 3 years. In fact, so much so
that one has to wonder
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 12:43:44AM -0500, Gene Marsh wrote:
> >There are no laws to prevent one person from amassing 200 un-trademarked
> >generic domain names which was the scenario presented in the discussion.
> >The discussion, as I understand it, concerns whether or not there should
> >be.
> >
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 08:55:18PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote:
[...]
> >but that a straight sale is not possible. Bill Lovell, who claims to
> >be an IP attorney of distinction,
>
> Why is it that some people cannot carry on a purportedly intelligent
> discourse without sticking in disparaging r
William and all,
Yes william there are, and you should resume your treatments as
soon a possible. Please take your medication
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 18:44:00 -0400, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Patrick Greenwell a écrit:
> >>
> >> Do you have an
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 23:47:36 -0400, "Diane Cabell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Original Message -
>From: Richard J. Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 9:28 PM
>Subject: [IFWP] Trademark Stupidity
>
>
>> Here's a good one. Zenith watches, in
>I could stand education on why it is so critical to have a separate
>registration for taurus.com.
That can be argued either way, nut no matter that's a specific
instanc and is more or less irrelevant. In the general case
a single name ontology will always loose to a more free one.
--
[EMAIL PRO
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 00:36:54 -0400, "Diane Cabell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >There are no laws to prevent one person from amassing 200 un-trademarked
>> >generic domain names which was the scenario presented in the discussion.
>> >The discussion, as I understand it, concerns whether or not
>I could stand education on why it is so critical to have a separate
>registration for taurus.com.
So the astrologers can't have it, of course. Wouldn't want anyone diluting
your trademark now would you? Consumers might become confused and ask
their cars to do today's horoscope or something.
Hi Diane Cabell, you wrote on 7/5/99 11:24:46 PM:
>
>
>Gene Marsh wrote:
>
> By no means do I believe the IETF is a "perfect" model. It has plenty of
>flaws. However, it works and is open. ICANN could certainly learn worlds
>from their approach.
>
>[your turn!]
>
>Being an IETF doofus myself,
> >There are no laws to prevent one person from amassing 200 un-trademarked
> >generic domain names which was the scenario presented in the discussion.
> >The discussion, as I understand it, concerns whether or not there should
> >be.
>
> A person can have hundreds of trademarks but only one doma
Hi Diane Cabell, you wrote on 7/5/99 11:17:27 PM:
>
> >A proposed solution to the "cybersquatting" problem Mr. Crispin raised
>(one
> >person registering tons of generic words and jacking up the price for
>the
> >"real" users). This is the solution that some ccTLDs have used.
>
> There are laws
>
> Trademark law is seriosuly broken and stupid sometimes.
Absolutely! Join the Berkman Center Open Law revolution.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu Help stamp out overextended intellectual
property laws!
>
> >> I think if trademark lawyers are defining the DNS then it's
> >> only fair plan that n
>
>Gene Marsh wrote:
>
> By no means do I believe the IETF is a "perfect" model. It has plenty of
flaws. However, it works and is open. ICANN could certainly learn worlds
from their approach.
[your turn!]
Being an IETF doofus myself, I may be misremembering, but I thought that
the IAB had to
At 12:17 AM 7/6/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> >A proposed solution to the "cybersquatting" problem Mr. Crispin raised
>(one
>> >person registering tons of generic words and jacking up the price for
>the
>> >"real" users). This is the solution that some ccTLDs have used.
>>
>> There are laws to deal w
> >A proposed solution to the "cybersquatting" problem Mr. Crispin raised
(one
> >person registering tons of generic words and jacking up the price for
the
> >"real" users). This is the solution that some ccTLDs have used.
>
> There are laws to deal with this... there are laws to deal with this.
Hi Diane Cabell, you wrote on 7/5/99 10:37:57 PM:
>
>- Original Message -
>From: Richard J. Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 9:28 PM
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) Protection
>Act
>
>
> > Why not one-domai
>> Here's a good one. Zenith watches, in Switzerland, makes the most
>> accurate mechanical watches known. Rolex uses a de-tuned (God nows why)
>> Zenith movement in their high end chrongraph. ("Daytona").
>>
>> Samsung bought American company Zenith, and although they havn't
>> made a watch, ever
Hi Diane Cabell, you wrote on 7/5/99 10:58:21 PM:
>
>Gene Marsh wrote:
>
> Greg,
>
> Agreed, or even better, a coordinating entity that examines, discusses
>and
> recommends competitive root and registry systems. It's like having 10
> million square miles of open land, and fighting over one squa
>> > Why not one-domain-per-customer?
>>
>> Why ?
>
>A proposed solution to the "cybersquatting" problem Mr. Crispin raised (one
>person registering tons of generic words and jacking up the price for the
>"real" users). This is the solution that some ccTLDs have used.
There are laws to deal wit
>Gene Marsh wrote:
>
> Greg,
>
> Agreed, or even better, a coordinating entity that examines, discusses
and
> recommends competitive root and registry systems. It's like having 10
> million square miles of open land, and fighting over one square block.
>
>To whom would it recommend root and regi
- Original Message -
From: Richard J. Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 9:28 PM
Subject: [IFWP] Trademark Stupidity
> Here's a good one. Zenith watches, in Switzerland, makes the most
> accurate mechanical watches known. Rolex uses a de-tuned
Hi Diane Cabell, you wrote on 7/5/99 10:37:57 PM:
>
>- Original Message -
>From: Richard J. Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 9:28 PM
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) Protection
>Act
>
>
> > Why not one-domain-
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 11:32:31PM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote:
[...]
> > >
> > >So they put up 200 nearly blank web pages. How would you then define
> what is a
> > >legitimate use and what is not?
> >
> > Maybe putting up blank web pages would be enough -- I don't know,
> > and I don't think it r
On 5 July 1999, "Diane Cabell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>> On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 06:46:50PM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote:
>> > >
>> > > But if someone registers 200 common words for resale, that s
- Original Message -
From: Richard J. Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) Protection
Act
> > Why not one-domain-per-customer?
>
> Why ?
A proposed solution to the "cybersq
At 06:35 PM 7/5/99 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
Note: This is being sent again; I want to make sure it hits the IFWP list.
Bill Lovell
>On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 05:39:50PM -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami
School of Law wrote:
>> I have not been reading this all as carefully as I should, so forgi
- Original Message -
From: Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 06:46:50PM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote:
> > >
> > > But if someone registers 200 common words for resale, that should
> > > not be protected. It is not only denying access to comm
Connecting ICANN and ISOC: ISOC's 1995 Master Plan for Controling DNS
The line of direct connection between ISOC, DON Heath, Vint Cerf and ICANN
has been pretty apparent to most ICANN watchers for quite a long while.
Consider the cast of characters. ISOC, known as the Internet Society, which
p
Hi Diane Cabell, you wrote on 7/5/99 4:01:13 PM:
>
>
>Gene Marsh wrote:
>
> Greg,
>
> Agreed, or even better, a coordinating entity that examines, discusses and
> recommends competitive root and registry systems. It's like having 10
> million square miles of open land, and fighting over one squa
Greg Skinner wrote:
> Kerry Miller wrote:
>
> > Since whether a 'technical' structure can swing that seems to be
> > a very dubious proposition, the central argument for ICANNs
> > existence is thus demolished: shouldnt the whole 'experiment'
> > therefore be handed back to the folks who set it u
> Why not one-domain-per-customer?
Why ?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
Here's a good one. Zenith watches, in Switzerland, makes the most
accurate mechanical watches known. Rolex uses a de-tuned (God nows why)
Zenith movement in their high end chrongraph. ("Daytona").
Samsung bought American company Zenith, and although they havn't
made a watch, ever, the trademark c
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 06:46:50PM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote:
> >
> > But if someone registers 200 common words for resale, that should
> > not be protected. It is not only denying access to commercial users
> > who might want the name, it is denying access to non-commercial
> > users just as muc
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 17:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> However, I agree with the original statement if it was
>>> intended to convey that the idea was that if you registered a domain name
>>> [...] that you were estab
"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> However, I agree with the original statement if it was
>> intended to convey that the idea was that if you registered a domain name
>> [...] that you were establishing a reference to some set of network resources
>> associated with the name.
> No
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Since whether a 'technical' structure can swing that seems to be
> a very dubious proposition, the central argument for ICANNs
> existence is thus demolished: shouldnt the whole 'experiment'
> therefore be handed back to the folks who set it up?
Assuming, of course, that th
>I wouldn't go so far as to say that domain names shouldn't be sold, or
>transferred, etc. However, I agree with the original statement if it was
>intended to convey that the idea was that if you registered a domain name
>(or arpanet or uucp host name, or whatever) that you were establishing
>a r
> Hel, it was to replace hosts.txt.
That was not the only reason DNS was created. I'm surprised you would
claim otherwise, seeing as you were around at its original creation.
>> That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain
>> names are there to be *used*, not *sold*.
> That way there be dragons. I'm no fan of domain speculation
> but if somebody offered me a million dollars for vrx.net
> I'd find a new domain pretty damn quick.
I wouldn't go
At 05:06 PM 7/5/99 -0700, you wrote:
>"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Greg Skinner wrote:
>
>>> It should also be pointed out that a major reason for the development
>>> of DNS was to eliminate some of the arcane email addressing systems,
>>> for the purpose of making things si
"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> It should also be pointed out that a major reason for the development
>> of DNS was to eliminate some of the arcane email addressing systems,
>> for the purpose of making things simpler for users.
> Not even close. I say th
>
> It sucks, but the com/net/org domains have become what the public thinks of
> as the Internet. It's stupid, and there is absolutely no technical, legal
> or logical reason for it, but it's a fact.
Its a fact only because the marketing honchos who burst onto the
'open' Internet circa 1993
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 19:10:32 -0400 (EDT), "Richard J. Sexton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain
>>names are there to be *used*, not *sold*.
>
>That way there be dragons. I'm no fan of domain speculation
>but if somebody offered me
>That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain
>names are there to be *used*, not *sold*.
That way there be dragons. I'm no fan of domain speculation
but if somebody offered me a million dollars for vrx.net
I'd find a new domain pretty damn quick.
Once you saying what do
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 18:46:50 -0400, Diane Cabell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>> That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain
>> names are there to be *used*, not *sold*. If someone does a
>> non-commercial site at "catsup.com" that, in my view,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain
> names are there to be *used*, not *sold*. If someone does a
> non-commercial site at "catsup.com" that, in my view, should be
> strongly protected, and the site owner should be able to thumb their
> n
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 18:44:00 -0400, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Patrick Greenwell a écrit:
>>
>> Do you have any objective refutation of the statements in my original
>> response?
>
>Surely you can see how ridiculous this is, Patrick. I know you're no
>"CORE lover". But you're so
Patrick Greenwell a écrit:
>
> Do you have any objective refutation of the statements in my original
> response?
Surely you can see how ridiculous this is, Patrick. I know you're no
"CORE lover". But you're so intent on throwing mud in my face that
you actually became a CORE apologist. As a matt
At 01:28 PM 7/5/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 01:13:28PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote:
>> >
>> This comment exhibits the mind set of assuming that all domain name
>> registrations involve businesses, or at least providers of goods or
services
>> of some kind, as would be the case with
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 15:28:26 -0700, "Christopher Ambler"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We are having our annual Fireworks Display here at my place over
>> my little lake (48 acres) and smoking off about $150k worth for
>> employees and family. So I am looking forward to it!
>
>As a paid pyrotec
> We are having our annual Fireworks Display here at my place over
> my little lake (48 acres) and smoking off about $150k worth for
> employees and family. So I am looking forward to it!
As a paid pyrotechnician (just coming off of a 3-day setup/teardown
of a Seattle show), I find this highly
Sydney Morning Herald, July 1999
Net dispute: Govt may step in
"Governments will end up taking control of the distribution of
Internet addresses if the Internet industry cannot resolve its
differences, according to Dr Paul Twomey, the Australian head of an
international body set up to study th
Michael and all,
Thank you Michael. However I already informed Poor Kent
or this FACT! Unfortunately he seems to be of the opinion that
his legal knowledge is superior... Interesting thought, that...
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> I have not been reading this all as car
Kent and all,
Now Kent, is not DOn heath the head of the ISOC? And as such
shouldn't he at least KNOW about these events? And if he does not,
than wouldn't it seem that he is not doing his job properly?
In other words, not knowing is NOT and excuse.
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 05,
Kent and all,
I could not agree more with your argument Kent. The same can be said
for the ICANN's "Accreditation Policy" as well and the WIPO "Final
Report" Recomendations... They are all variances of the same
theme...
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 01:13:28PM -0700, Bill Lo
Gene Marsh wrote:
> Greg,
>
> Agreed, or even better, a coordinating entity that examines, discusses and
> recommends competitive root and registry systems. It's like having 10
> million square miles of open land, and fighting over one square block.
To whom would it recommend root and registr
Gordon and all,
I would say more to the point, lord help ESTI! >;)
Gordon Cook wrote:
> >So BTW the job is on the road with first the test bed registrar, this will
> >open the competition at the registrars level and secondly the DNSO will
> >draft recommendations to the ICANN board on how to
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 01:13:28PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote:
> >
> This comment exhibits the mind set of assuming that all domain name
> registrations involve businesses, or at least providers of goods or services
> of some kind, as would be the case with trademarks.
I do not have such a mindset.
At 10:11 AM 7/5/99 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 12:11:25PM -0400, Tom Cottone wrote:
>> What also bothers me is the bashing that goes on regarding
>> "cybersquatters and/or speculators". If I register hundreds of common
>> words (ie. hamburger.com, hotdog.com, ketchup.com,
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 15:50:26 -0400, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Gordon Cook a écrit:
>>
>> Michael, *PLEASE* get a hold of yourself.
>
>Why don't you get a hold of YOURSELF, Gordon? First you accuse Jim
>Dixon and me of having a fight when we're just conversing, and now
>you berat
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 15:56:41 -0400, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Patrick Greenwell a écrit:
>>
>> But I prefer to maintain accuracy when I make assertions.
>
>I see. So you are the arbiter of the truth. Well, I didn't know
>that. I humbly beg your pardon, Lord Greenwell.
>
>> You d
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:
> Patrick Greenwell a écrit:
> >
> > But I prefer to maintain accuracy when I make assertions.
>
> I see. So you are the arbiter of the truth. Well, I didn't know
> that. I humbly beg your pardon, Lord Greenwell.
Michael,
Do you have any objective ref
Patrick Greenwell a écrit:
>
> But I prefer to maintain accuracy when I make assertions.
I see. So you are the arbiter of the truth. Well, I didn't know
that. I humbly beg your pardon, Lord Greenwell.
> You do a great disservice to those
> that you are attempting to aid by your continued attack
>So BTW the job is on the road with first the test bed registrar, this will
>open the competition at the registrars level and secondly the DNSO will
>draft recommendations to the ICANN board on how to put in place new
>registries. So we are on the way.
>
on the way to what? jean michel
a new mo
Gordon Cook a écrit:
>
> Michael, *PLEASE* get a hold of yourself.
Why don't you get a hold of YOURSELF, Gordon? First you accuse Jim
Dixon and me of having a fight when we're just conversing, and now
you berate me for replying honestly to Patrick Greenwell's rather
traitorous post (traitorous t
At 10:33 AM 7/5/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 11:44:51AM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>>
>> If the names council was 80% ORSC people I'd scream saying it was unbalanced
>> and nobody would take it seriously. The bylaws, as implemented, fail to
>> prevent capture by a single org
>My general opinion is that for an expert user, the net was only
>slightly less useful or usable. (The challenge back then was to
>figure out ways to get your email through quickly and consistently.)
>If you were able to do that you were looked upon as an email guru.
>Things were much more confus
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 20:34:47 +0200, Jean-Michel Becar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dear Collegues,
>
>This is my first Email in this list as I'm completely new in this process.
>I'm working for ETSI and I'm in charge like was Roberto Gaetano before he
>left us (I deeply regret him, he was my boss f
So BTW the job is on the road with first the test bed registrar, this will
open the competition at the registrars level and secondly the DNSO will
draft recommendations to the ICANN board on how to put in place new
registries. So we are on the way.
Jean-Michel Bécar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.e
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 11:59:53 +0100, Jeff Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>William and all,
>
> Ohhh poor little Willie, you missed the point or gist of Gordons
>response as well. He was being sarcastic I believe
You believe wrong, as usual.
>William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 5 Jul
William and all,
Ohhh poor little Willie, you missed the point or gist of Gordons
response as well. He was being sarcastic I believe
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 14:24:30 -0400, Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Michael, *PLEASE* get a hold of yourself..
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 14:24:30 -0400, Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Michael, *PLEASE* get a hold of yourself.. It looked to me like all he
>was doing was saying that the ilk of POC, PAB, CORE and the MOUvement had
>found some t echnical language in the way their organization was set u
Michael, *PLEASE* get a hold of yourself.. It looked to me like all he
was doing was saying that the ilk of POC, PAB, CORE and the MOUvement had
found some t echnical language in the way their organization was set up now
so that the involvement of umpty nine "mou"ies did not violate the icann
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 11:16:25 +0100, Jeff Williams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >William and all,
> >
> > I certainly don't see your take on Michaels post at all. It appears
> >readily apparent in Michael's post that he was using himself as
> >an E
Patrick and all,
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:
>
> > Patrick Greenwell a écrit:
> > >
> > > Doubtlessly you'll scream at me for not agreeing with your assesment.
> >
> > I sceram at no one. But are you content, then, that the NC is in the
> > hands of CORE
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 11:16:25 +0100, Jeff Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>William and all,
>
> I certainly don't see your take on Michaels post at all. It appears
>readily apparent in Michael's post that he was using himself as
>an EXAMPLE, not for personal gain or recognition of any kind.
William and all,
I certainly don't see your take on Michaels post at all. It appears
readily apparent in Michael's post that he was using himself as
an EXAMPLE, not for personal gain or recognition of any kind.
But as we have all learned that YOU William, have a personal
problem with Michae
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:
> Patrick Greenwell a écrit:
> >
> > Doubtlessly you'll scream at me for not agreeing with your assesment.
>
> I sceram at no one. But are you content, then, that the NC is in the
> hands of CORE (and ISOC)?
Not really. But I prefer to maintain accura
If there was any doubt about Michael caring more about personal
recognition than about the goals he purports to support, let this
message below put them to rest.
Michael, Patrick said no such thing, and nor is he guilty of any of
the charges you hastily posted below.
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 13:50
Patrick Greenwell a écrit:
>
> Doubtlessly you'll scream at me for not agreeing with your assesment.
I sceram at no one. But are you content, then, that the NC is in the
hands of CORE (and ISOC)? Is this, according to you, the fulfillment
of the White Paper's call for self-organization by all st
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 11:44:51AM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> >
> > If the names council was 80% ORSC people I'd scream saying it was unbalanced
> > and nobody would take it seriously. The bylaws, as implemented, fail to
> > prevent capture by a single
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 11:44:51AM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
> If the names council was 80% ORSC people I'd scream saying it was unbalanced
> and nobody would take it seriously. The bylaws, as implemented, fail to
> prevent capture by a single organzation.
The bylaws, no matter what they
Tom, Roeland and all,
Tom Cottone wrote:
> >What worries me is the potential of an Class E felony on multiple
> >counts. If I had three of such names, innocently created, I would be an
> >instant felon. Talk about "chilling effect" on first amendment rights!
> I
> >am surprised that the ACLU isn
Jonathan Zittrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It'd be interesting to see what would happen in a world of multiple
> roots--I don't see how anyone can authoritatively predict what would
> happen to the internet of today with such things--and I'd hope
> ICANN's position would be purely neutral wit
Richard and all,
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> >Hi Michael,
> >
> >CORE's Articles of Association are available at:
> >http://www.corenic.org/about_core/articles.htm. The only officers of the
> >organization as far as I can tell are the Executive Committee members.
> >Currently, Ken is the only Exc
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> >Hi Michael,
> >
> >CORE's Articles of Association are available at:
> >http://www.corenic.org/about_core/articles.htm. The only officers of the
> >organization as far as I can tell are the Executive Committee members.
> >Currently, Ken is the only E
>Hi Michael,
>
>CORE's Articles of Association are available at:
>http://www.corenic.org/about_core/articles.htm. The only officers of the
>organization as far as I can tell are the Executive Committee members.
>Currently, Ken is the only Excom member holding a position within
>the ICANN structure
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, 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 one.
>
> While the case of the tw
Tom and all,
Tom Cottone wrote:
> John Gaskill wrote:
>
> >As I see it, there are some alternatives which
> >are presented to us at this time:
> >
> >1.) Keep on 'postin;
>
> And we will as this gets our point across.
This depends or what and to whom you post too, not to mention if
they are
99 matches
Mail list logo
