Roberto,
For unassigned domains, the IANA rules were basically first-come,
first-served. The admin contact has to be resident in the appropriate
territory, and you have two working nameservers. To get the domain
assigned, you just filled in an InterNIC template and sent it to IANA.
This allowe
>
> But if you believe that there is a ccTLD that is operated without the
> knowledge of the government of the country that was assigned the ISO
> country code in question, then it is your duty to contact that government
> and inform them of this fact. What the government decides to do about it
>
Dave,
Actually, IANA did not delegate TLDs to countries (it was IANA's policy not
to have any view on whether the ISO codes even corresponded to countries).
Rather, they delegated the domains to groups or individuals who resided
within the territory described by the ISO code.
And I would say tha
Sorry, forgot to copy this to this list.
Antony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of Antony Van Couvering
Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 12:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: DNSO participant's list; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ORSC; IATLD Members
Milton,
The "Syracuse Study" you note is the study you did, and you should identify
it as such. As others have pointed out, the sampling methodology you used
makes it, at best, something that can only be applied to NSI domains.
NSI's numbers talk about how many cases go to court. Not sufficien
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mikki
> Barry
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 9:35 PM
> To: IFWP Discussion List
> Subject: [ifwp] Re: DNSO Important update: The "Merged" Draft
>
>
> > What 'legislative' forum do you have in mind
. (sorry) (CAIP)
Jay Fenello (ORSC)
Mikki Barry (IPC, ORSC)
Nicholas Wood (MARQUES)
David Tatham (ICC)
Don Telage (NSI)
Walter van der Weiden (ICC)
David Fares (USCIB)
Theresa Swinehart (MCI)
Ken Stubbs (CORE)
Fay Howard (CENTR)
Bernard Turcotte (.CA)
Kilnam Chon (APTLD)
Antony Van Couvering (IATL
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mikki
> Barry
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 7:21 PM
> To: IFWP Discussion List
> Subject: [ifwp] Re: DNSO Important update: The "Merged" Draft
>
>
> >Many countries have no commercial law to speak of
ity.
Marilyn Cade - Disagree - there can be a contractual relationship which
covers all these areas.
David Johnson - There is a problem with the enforcement of contracts, if all
the contracts are with ICANN.
John Englund - What are ICANN's powers with regard to ccTLDs?
Jay Fenello - DNSO or the
FYI
-Original Message-
From: Mitchel Ahern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
FYI - Sent to AIP members.
Antony
***
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 1999 8:57 PM
Subject: AIP Survey - Official Update
Survey Participants,
Below fin
Forwarded...
Men and Mice: 75.6 Percent of DNSs Poorly Configured
The majority of DNSs are poorly configured with the result that almost a
third are open to spoofing attacks, according to a survey conducted by
Men & Mice. The survey looked at the most common errors in domain name
configuratio
Kent,
Comments requested, I'm complying.
Antony
> 1. The ccTLDs and NSI have in various ways called for what amounts
> to a veto over any policy that they don't like. I believe it is a
> bad idea to cast that into the structure of the bylaws. However, I
> do think some recognition of the real
n 28, 1999 at 12:55:04PM -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> [...]
> > >
> > > The DNSO recognizes that current registries have already existing
> > > relationships with their registrants and, in many cases, with
> > > sovereign governments. The DNSO
Seconded, strongly. I cross-post because the discussion is taking place on
at least four lists, probably others I'm not aware of. It is a trivial
matter for ICANN to set up an open list and to announce that it is the list
of record.
Antony
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, there is the comments page, with all of 15 messages for January,
including one from Mr. Dillon begging ICANN to set up its own list, with
instructions on how to do it.
They really should.
Antony
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
It seems that Marc Chinoy, moderator of the recent meetings in Washington,
is not a stranger to the subject of the DNSO. FICPI (International
Federation of Intellectual Patent Attorneys) sponsored a meeting in
September 1998 about the DNSO, and a report was prepared (and the meeting
moderated by?
John Charles,
Is Patrick Raimond the admin contact or is not? Are you now going to say
that anyone who doesn't speak English natively shouldn't be able to
participate, because s/he might not understand?
In re: support of RFC 1591, .GP answered "YES" to the question of whether
ICANN should put t
Eberhard Lisse wrote,
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John
> Charles Broomfield writes:
>
> > Patrick Raimond (the admin contact for ".gp") speaks reasonably good
> > English.
>
> So let him decide.
>
>
> Antony,
>
> ask Patrick specifically whether he, as the GP ccTLD Aministrator and
>
John Charles,
Your accusations are the worst sort of unsupported mudslinging. Ordinarily
I would ignore it, but this is one of those cases where silence could be
dangerous. You seem to doubt the veracity of the IATLD support, presumably
because you and your purported not-for-profit (should I ask
I have argued in the past that the creation of new gTLDs is of critical
importance precisely because some ccTLDs are so limited. There are many in
which you cannot register a name if you are a natural person (instead of a
business), and some have restrictions where you can't get a name unless you
t a week ago when I asked him about STV:
-Original Message-
From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 12:13 PM
To: Antony Van Couvering
Subject: STV
Single Transferable Vote
Eur.-Ing. Nigel Roberts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
The following is a description of th
Hi,
Clearly one of the faultlines in the two DNSO applications is the power of
the Names Council -- or lack of it -- to act independently. Christiaan van
der Valk of the ICC mentioned to us several times at the Paris meeting that
there were times when something needed to get done, and that the s
David,
Well done. I hope that you stick around to deal with the various
spluttering vituperations that are bound to emerge...
Antony
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David
> R. Johnson
> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 1999 5:27 PM
> To
We have heard some proponents of the BMW application say and repeat that
their application automatically protects minority interests, and that the
Names Council as conceived by that document is not a powerful body at all
but instead one whose powers are greatly limited by the requirement to
consul
> I note the following interesting inconsistency in the Paris Model --
> it makes an assumption of competence on the part of the membership,
> in the sense that the membership is considered capable of developing
> policy. At the same time it assumes that the membership is not
> competent to elect
>
> Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>
> > Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI
> has allowed
> > them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do
> you think
> > enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark pressure?
>
> Enforced by whom? Enforced
Milton Mueller wrote,
> Bret:
> There is only one thing the DNSO will do that is of any
> significance. That is
> to elect three members of the ICANN board.
Unfortunately, I am beginning to agree with Milton about this. With the
publication of the registrar guidelines, it seems that the ICANN bo
Eberhard Lisse wrote,
>
> Antony,
>
> On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>
> > Milton's point is the good one and the obvious one. Chartered TLDs only
> > make sense if the charter can be enforced. They can only be enforced
> > under the fol
Eberhard Lisse wrote,
>
> But then, you agree with what I am saying, someone has to decide: "Is
> this registration appropriate for the proposed domain?"
>
> Even if AI worked, there is just nothing around that can make these
> decisions.
>
Oh, I agree with you entirely, unless, for instance, the
>
> On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>
> > NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
> > charters serve a purpose?
>
> Why should they when they can not be enforced?
>
> el
>
[AVC] - Even though they are unenforceable, they might well serve a purpose.
A se
I would *love* to go to Namibia!
Antony
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dr
>Eberhard W Lisse
>Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 2:51 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: Roberto Gaetano; 'Kilnam Chon'; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sub
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karl
>Auerbach
>Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 3:21 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Singapore Update
>
>For any "constituency" there is an opposite.
>
>For the ying of the constituency of trade
Milton Mueller wrote,
>Well, if we're talking Hegelian opposites, yeah, that's
>metaphysical. Although at
>time I believe that I am the thesis and you and Dave Crocker are
>the anti-thesis.
>
>(I just can't wait to see the synthesis.)
It's called the DNSO, and it's just as ugly (though not quite
Karl Auerbach wrote,
>
>> There is no meaningful
>> opposite to a registry constituency.
>
>Balderdash. Registries sell domain name licenses, other folks buy them.
>They are in direct opposition.
I wonder how we got to this class-warfare pass. RFC 1591 puts the function
of the registry as bei
Hi everyone,
There's a poorly reported article on the .US ccTLD hearing yesterday at NTIA
at http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/18371.html. For one thing,
the Postal Service rep is misidentified (the name he used was on the agenda,
but they switched). The U.S. Postal Service, while i
Thank you NSI for giving us such a stunningly stark example of monopolist
behavior.
I think it's plain as day now that NSI will not work with the "community" to
deal with domain registration problems. The redirection of all traffic from
internic.net to networksolutions.com without the least warn
Jay,
I agree, new names in the root would help a lot, it's something that needs
to be done sooner than later.
However, until that time, we have NSI to deal with. I would like to know
your thoughts on the recent death of the InterNIC and the behavior of NSI.
Do you think that NSI owes anything t
Roeland,
You wrote,
>Political positions and alliances are a strange set of beasts. They also
>have many facets. One can not make assumptions that just because one has a
>collaborration on one hand, that a disagreement on the other hand is not
>possible. Likewise, disagreement on one front does
> ICC DNSO Principles
>
> These Principles are submitted by ICC as a potential input
> to the drafting process for a unified submission of the
> Domain Name Supporting Organization. The Principles can be
> used for introductory or contextual purposes or as a
> chapeau text.
I say this as a matter of practicality. Are you seriously going to tell the
Chinese how run .CN? If you attempt it, you will see the Chinese interfere
at governmental levels, making the meddling of the U.S. and European
governments seem trivial by comparison.
Each ccTLD has a natural constituen
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Dixon
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 4:38 PM
> To: IFWP Discussion List
> Subject: [ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission
>
>
>
> IANA always treated ccTLDs differently from gTLDs. Specifically
Well, we're looking at NSI holding on to their registrar-interface software.
BTW, there will be six "beta" registrars for the new .COM regime, not five,
because NSI gets a "bye" -- they are number six. We don't know when the
software will be released. Looks to me like NSI has a leg up there.
A
arket themselves outside their area, so what? Wouldn't
you agree that Coca-Cola is an American company, subject to American mores,
even though they sell Coke in China?
>
> Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>
> > I say this as a matter of practicality. Are you seriously
> goi
Kent Crispin wrote,
>
> ccTLDs have a more interesting conundrum. They don't want to submit
> to ICANN regulation. But on the other hand, they want ICANN to
> endorse rfc1981 to give ccTLDs some protection against their
> associated sovereignties. Of course, if I were ICANN I know how I
> woul
Michael,
I don't suppose you'd care to forward more details
Antony
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael
> Dillon
> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 1999 2:54 PM
> To: IFWP Discussion List
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [ifwp]
Jonathan,
Whatever the answer is, I wouldn't trust the numbers. A lot of people,
myself included, were excluded from the IFWP list for a long time because of
a screw-up with their list server. And you should include in your survey
the same kinds of numbers for the InterNIC domain policy list, t
ible, and I
wouldn't be on the transition or drafting team if I didn't think that the
other members were too. We invited ORSC before to be on the transition
team, I'm asking again. I'll join your team, send someone over to join
ours.
Antony
> -Original Message-
> From
d
outreach - publicizing meetings would seem to me to be the least we could
do.
Antony
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
>Of Javier SOLA
>Sent: Saturday, June 12, 1999 7:25 PM
>To: Antony Van Couvering; IATLD Members list
>Cc:
Don, Jay,
Given the breathtakingly brazen stunts that NSI has pulled at the expense of
the Internet community, I never thought it would be possible for ICANN to
make them look like the aggrieved party. But lo, it has come to pass.
This is getting sickening. I've never seen so many people who w
The wish to have a uniform dispute resolution policy makes sense, BUT:
1. It really should be handled at the registry level. ICANN (or the Dept.
of Commerce) got snookered by NSI's "thin registry" model, which amounted to
a wholesale landgrab of registry assets (e.g. customer data) by the
Regist
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Onno
>Hovers
>
>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 fa
Tony,
This is a very excellent question and one that has not escaped my mind. If
you know of any initiative in this regard, or would like to initiate one,
let me know.
Antony
+-Original Message-
+From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of A.M.
+Rutkowski
+Sent: Thur
Oh please, some fat-trimming all around is indicated.
NSI is a million-pound gorilla in need of liposuction, not to mention
prozac.
BUT ... on the other side of the pond, someone certainly needs to look into
the cozy little arrangements in Europe - now what exactly are the
requirements to becom
To paraphrase Karl Auerbach, any prudent prospective country should check
out its domain name first: CY is the country code for Cyprus.
Antony
+-Original Message-
+From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kerry
+Miller
+Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 9:10 PM
+To:
It was a huge bestseller book, made into a web site. I think quite a few
people have heard of it.
+-Original Message-
+From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jay
+Fenello
+Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 2:56 PM
+To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+Subjec
>-Original Message-
>From: Owner-Domain-Policy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
>Behalf Of Chuck Gomes
>If you have Adobe Acrobat Reader you can download the Registrar License and
>Agreement that contains the NDA at http://www.nsiregistry.com/registrar/
>
This for the lazy and the PDF impair
56 matches
Mail list logo
