very little advertising domestically, for one.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, Marc Schneiders wrote:
Why does it look as if .US is not very much in demand? Many short
words are still available.
inject.us
injection.us
Any ideas why?
--
Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
The web site was recently changed. It didn't say that originally.
Cf. http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=450
On 10 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A short trip to ICANN's website clears it up.
http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/
Under Sponsorship Opportunities, they ememphasize/em
As you may know, ICANN suddenly announced last week that it has formed
Election and Nominating Committees, without any visible public input.
The announcement is at
http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr09may00.htm .
Commentary suggesting that there were a few flaws in the process can be
Perphaps you could claim it is confusingly similar? :
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Ellen Rony wrote:
You know, we registered rony.com but didn't have the vision to get irony, too.
Richard Sexton wrote:
File this one under "irony".
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL
I would like to note for the record that participation does not equal
consent in an ad hoc process of this sort. That is especially the case
where the process is continually changed (I will not say "manipulated") so
the ground rules do not remain consistent. Statements of this sort are in
my
Yes, but they've just been slashdotted...
On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 7 Oct 1999 14:30:19 -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: failure notice
Hi. This is the NetZero mail server.
I'm afraid
Sorry, the previous post was in relation to the earlier draft.
It wasn't that it was disruptive to operations. It was POLITCALLY scary...
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Ken Freed wrote:
Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy?
"Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation,
FWIW some of us think Berkman did a great job.
--
A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-- It's hot and humid
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Joe Sims wrote:
the
bylaws make no mention at all of GAC having anything at all to do with
ICANN's "legal obligations", and they are perfectly clear that ICANN is not
required to follow any GAC advice.
FWIW, I have always read the bylaws exactly the same way.
The
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/realtime/GAC-Comminuque-mtg3.html
gives the GAC document
--
A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) |
Combo sounds good to me.
I will say that if someone has to be the moderator IMHO it would be hard
to pick someone better than Prof. Zittrain. But they won't always be that
good -- so adding in a little dash of randomness to season the sauce
sounds about right
I strongly agree that FIFO is
I hope very much that the practice in Berlin of "editing" and
"summarizing" comments will be kept to a minimum, at least in the case of
comments of less than a page. I submitted a short comment, only to have
it reduced to two sentences, losing one of my two points. And that was
the only
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:
That said, there will be two new rules about remote comments. First, that
no comment can be longer than a length still to be decided but likely about
250 words. We don't intend to be mean about this -- but longer comments are
So long as the same
?
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Diane Cabell wrote:
The Chair uses a timer for physical speakers.
dc
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:
That said, there will be two new rules about remote comments. First, that
no comment can be longer than
Might one ask who made this agenda-setting decision, and when?
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Esther Dyson wrote:
Dear Joop and colleagues -
I'm writing to respond personally to your proposal for an Individual Domain
Name Holders' Constituency. As you know, the Initial Board decided not to
Kent Crispin suggests that (1) he doesn't know/trust the groups I am
likely to know/trust; (2) many fourth and fifth parties have trust metrics
that have no overlap with either of us, and implies (3) that only a group
with total or at least enormously wide pre-existing trust can be a TTP in
this
, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
wrote:
Now, crypto happens to be something I know a little
about ( http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/#crypto )
Very impressive. However, crypto and network security are two very
different, though related subjects, and expertise in one does
Joe Sims wrote:
Diane, and I hope you continue; it is helpful. One point I should make: a
very significant hurdle to any election process is the lack of money to run
it. It might well be a sensible strategy, especially at this stage of its
As a late-comer to this debate ... could I have
I have found the lists page at dnso.org
Am I allowed to post to any of the working group mailing lists other than
the public list? Am I a member of any of any subgroups? Am I a
member of these lists? If not, why not?
I have also received private e-mail from various people who allege they
were
publish this.
try proceedings of acm?
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Craig Simon wrote:
Hi folks,
Here's a link that may be of interest to participants in the domain name
debates.
http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/trends.html
The bottom line is that, since I began collecting this data in April
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
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, William X. Walsh wrote (inter alia):
Professor, you have it wrong here. The status quo is the legal
system.
NSI's policy needs to be scrapped to let the legal systems do the job
they exist for.
If you are a DN holder in .com, like it or not the status quo is the NSI
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
If the sole purpose of me buying property is to deny you use of that
desirable property, am I guilty of a crime?
Not a crime, but a tort (in many states). Tortious interference with
prospective business advantage. Or, the venerable "prima facie
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, 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?
All US statutes are online in many places. I like the search form at
I once wrote an article that discusses the government corporation control
act at some length. You can read it at
http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/reinvent.htm
FWIW I think ICANN does not violate the letter of the GCCA, although it
may well violate the spirit of it.
--
A. Michael
Two points:
1) there's an enormous difference between endorsing the entire report
"in principle but not in detail" and taking no view of some very
controversial parts of it. For those who object to the entire proposal
regarding famous marks on he principle of the thing, even an endorsement
"in
It would have seemed cooler if I'd had any sense it was getting through
to the board.
PS - does anyone know who belonged to the voice that made the
anti-academic remark? Was it Roberts or a Board member?
--
A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
U. Miami School
What exactly is the "WIPO recommendations" that the Board is being asked
to adopt: Is it the whole report? Just the annexes? If the latter, it
is hideously unfair, for the reasons set out in my commentary at
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~amf/commentary.htm . If the former, the
tensions
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Kerry Miller wrote:
I am pleased to see your comments here, but I have to object to
your final lines. The bracketed deadline suggests that you accept
the likelihood that ICANN will take action on this in Bonn, and that
therefore public review and comment must try to
29 matches
Mail list logo
