All,
For those that don't get the ICANN announcments, this might be
interesting...
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
Greg and all,
Sorry for responding to this post so late. A better and more focused
approach might be to address concerns to the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee. Their web site is located at,
http://www.senate.gov/committees/committee_detail.cfm?COMMITTEE_ID=419
Links
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-a/Archives/msg6.html
My God. That's the scariest thing I've ever seen.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
Mikki and all,
Yep, those were the parts that I found most disturbing, and extralegle
to boot! VERY Scary indeed! :(
Mikki Barry wrote:
Oooh, just noticed part "f"
4. Revocation. We will suspend, revoke, transfer or otherwise modify
Domain
Name registrations in the following
I hate to say I told you so, but:
http://www.open-rsc.org/inc/bylaws/
Last revised Oct 8/98 8:02 pm EST
Commented version
This is a separate proposal to the NTIA from ORSC. The
significant differences between propsals submitted so far
and ours are:
1.Membership
Brian writes:
my vast expertise
my wealth of experience
Cook:
Brian with phrases like the above you aren't exactly modest are you?
Since ICANN reputedly is broke, please sate who is payiong your
salary.. and BTW it is considered appropriate to use a subject line
when announcing one's
d amn.. sorry to fall for williams bullshit. he has been in
my filters for about 6 weeks and I had just about forgotten him
The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave,
I believe there might be a way around the problems we currently face, and
one that seems true to the "spirit" of the global Internet. Perhaps it is
not exactly as I have outlined below, but I do believe there exists a
solution based upon some of the ideas I present and would welcome
discussion.
Gordon and all,
Wrong again. Suckered by William Walsh more than likely...
Gordon Cook wrote:
d amn.. sorry to fall for williams bullshit. he has been in
my filters for about 6 weeks and I had just about forgotten him
Whomever this is and all,
Unfortunately sir, you are a phony! The REAL Brian C. Hollingsworth
cc'ed as a courtasy...
Dr. Brian C. Hollingsworth wrote:
I have been warned through several emails that there is a dedicated group of people
whose sole goal in this process is one of disruption.
All,
FYI...
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
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
Why?
At 08:18 AM 7/7/99 -0700, you wrote:
3. Your Representations. By applying to register for a Domain Name, or by
asking us to administer or renew a Domain Name registration, you hereby
represent to us that (a) the then-current statements that you made in your
Registration Agreement
The standard Unix nameserver ("named") supports the serving of any TLD but
relies on the entrenched administrative infrastructure (the rootservers) to
"discover" the correct place to resolve a domain, and as we all know and
love, this model focuses far too much power into machines controlled by a
Meredith and all,
Yes, sadly it does seem that there are folks that like to play
games
on mailing lists. The REAL Brian C. Hollingsworth has not doubt
forwarded this on to the proper authorities by now. sigh>
Meredith Tupper wrote:
Wasn't me, but it sure was a good laugh.
On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 12:46:19 +0100, Jeff Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Meredith and all,
Yes, sadly it does seem that there are folks that like to play games
on mailing lists. The REAL Brian C. Hollingsworth has not doubt
forwarded this on to
Gene Marsh writes:
While root servers are, indeed, necessary for
resolution, they do not have to be the current root servers.
Additional / alternate root servers can certainly be used
(and ARE being used) for new TLDs.
Certainly. But without some sort of top-level coordination to guarantee
All,
This looks like a pretty bad agenda to me. For those that
have
not reviewed it closely, here it is in detail. It seems that
the
"List Admin." doesn't want too many to know the actual
URL, so I will provide both. I am quite sure that there will
need to be some discussion on this lousy
Currently it seems that there is no single authoritative WHOIS. Rather,
each registrar keeps its own data of its own registrants. This makes it
difficult to figure out whether a domain is truly available for
registration, so we've rigged up a search system to simultaneously query all
operating
Rob and all,
Rob, you make very many good points here, and they have been
made many times before. However there are methods of
solving every one of them currently. The problem with doing
so on a large scale is that there would be a perceived
"Split Root" claim by many if this was done.
Dear Ben,
Name.Space has adjusted its smart Whois (sWhois) to
deal with the fragmented whois. Please see
http://swhois.net It works and will automatically
scale as new registrars come online.
FYI, It took my engineer about 15 minutes to do
what NSI should have done at their end to begin with!
Ben and all,
Nice job Ben, seems to work pretty well and isn't all that slow
as you seem to indicate. However you only check NSI and
Register.com. Didn't you get the announcement on Melbourne
IT yet?
Ben Edelman wrote:
Currently it seems that there is no single authoritative WHOIS.
Paul and all,
I agree with your conclusion here Paul. My (Browser Based
WHOIS
APP) took about 25 mins to build and takes only about 5 mins to update
as new Registrars come online. Of course mine is all JAVA driven...
>;)
I also built a nice little JAVA Serverlett that does the same
thing with
So far they are only permitted registrations from their "partners."
They are expected some time this week or next to open registrations to
the public though.
On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 14:19:18 +0100, Jeff Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben and all,
Nice job Ben, seems to work pretty well and
All,
Intreating musing. This is not what their press release stated
William X. Walsh wrote:
So far they are only permitted registrations from their "partners."
They are expected some time this week or next to open registrations to
the public though.
On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 14:19:18
On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 14:48:18 +0100, Jeff Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
Intreating musing. This is not what their press release stated
Perhaps you should read the news more often. I posted a story well
over a week ago from news.com about them beginning to accept
registrations,
A person can have hundreds of trademarks but only one domain ?
Thats pretty silly Diane.
That's your opinion, Richard and you are certainly entitled to it.
Nonetheless, this silly method is used by some of the Scandinavian ccTLDs.
hmm, and shall we discuss the customer approval ratings
Richard J. Sexton a écrit:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-a/Archives/msg6.html
My God. That's the scariest thing I've ever seen.
This sort of madness, where lawyers of AOL are deciding what the
uniform dispute policy will be for millions of registrants who have
absolutely nothing to do
All,
I would say that news.com's article that William posted needs
a bit more research, as it does not jive with Melbourne IT's own
announcement which I posted yesterday I believe.
There is also another copy (Exact) of Melbourne IT's own announcement
available at www.businesswire.com as
On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 15:11:17 +0100, Jeff Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
I would say that news.com's article that William posted needs
a bit more research, as it does not jive with Melbourne IT's own
announcement which I posted yesterday I believe.
There is also another copy (Exact)
All,
Again, poor william seems to have been confused, as is not surprising
considering the "Source" of his information is rather inaccurate
in context.
To Wit from:
On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 15:32:10 +0100, Jeff Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
Again, poor william seems to have been confused, as is not surprising
considering the "Source" of his information is rather inaccurate
in context.
No, it isn't out of context Jeff, they began letting partners
Gordon Cook wrote:
Brian writes:
I am pleased to announce that after meeting with Esther Dyson,
Michael Roberts, and other members of the ICANN Initial Board of
Directors, I have decided to accept their offer of the position of
Director, Government Affairs and Policy.
I hope to use my
I'm really glad Brian has finally entered the fray and
hope to see more of this.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 01:06:33 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having only one domain name per comany (plus some other restrictions)
has worked rather well in Norway to prevent cybersquatting.
Thats one way to do it - at the expense of personal freedoms.
New Zealand has also eliminated
On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 16:37:34 +0100, Jeff Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael and all,
It wasn't MY Joke Michael. I had NOTHING what so ever
to do with it. It was likely WIlliam Walsh, as he has done this
sort of thing before.
No, Jeff, I never have done this kind of thing before.
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,38847,00.html?st.ne.fd.gif.l
P.S. I am maintaining links to recent news information at:
http://stealthgeeks.net/background.html.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick GreenwellTelocity
Michael and all,
It is likely that you did Michael. William does bare in attitude and
action, this sort of resemblance
Michael Sondow wrote:
William X. Walsh a écrit:
Hey Michael, I heard the x-files writers were going to be contacting
you about concepts for future episodes.
Kent and all,
True the WORLD doesn't owe me or anyone a Domain name.
But the USG DOES! I know because my tax dollars helped
PAY for the DNS, the Internet as a whole and helps pay for
the privilege for ICANN very existence
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 06:58:05PM -0400,
William and all,
Nope! Just got routed that way I guess.. Shrug Otherwise
I have no earthly idea... On second thought, it is possible I suppose
he dialed through, though that is no longer necessary for Brian to do...
William X. Walsh wrote:
There Jeff, oops I mean Brian, goes again
On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 17:58:29 +0100, Jeff Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William and all,
Nope! Just got routed that way I guess.. Shrug Otherwise
I have no earthly idea... On second thought, it is possible I suppose
he dialed through, though that is no longer necessary for Brian to
All,
Well this is not surprising coming from this group. They
are Deadbeats in more ways than one it seems. I guess
old Mike (Captian Hook) Roberts just doesn't want to cough
up some $$ from his own pocket, eh ya old sea dog swabbie
you! My hart bleeds... I guess you could also say that
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 21:52:24 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Martin B. Schwimmer" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Admin request of type
/\bcancel\b/i at line 2
A person can have hundreds of trademarks but only one domain ?
Thats pretty silly Diane.
That's your opinion, Richard and you are certainly entitled to it.
Nonetheless, this silly method is used by some of the Scandinavian
ccTLDs.
hmm, and shall we discuss the customer approval
Rob,
Now we reach the crux of where the discusions *should* be... how do we
incorporate multiple "root" systems into the existing model?
I (and many others) have no difficulty resolving new TLDs, because we have
our systems pointing to other DNS servers for resolution. It is that
simple from
You'd have to poll them. I don't think you could impose it here; barn door
and all that.
The down side is that they didn't allow personal domain registrations,
although I believe they are about to do so under a second level domain (?
bing.per.no or something like that). If strictly enforced, it
with jamie love's permission let me say that ralph handed Esther a
copy of patrick greenwells letter. (presumably because he wanted to
discuss it?) Esther to ralph: sorry I haven't found the time to
read it.
The COOK Report
Diane and all,
Though I can see your point regarding litigious concerns in the
US vs NORWAY, I am still at a loss as to why the difference in
policy should be viewed as better situation irrespective of Norway's
solution ( 2nd level for personal DN registration) really making the
that much
47 matches
Mail list logo
