Here is another proposal currently in progress
http://shutupcockato/proposal2html
At 1:26 PM -0400 7/31/00, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
It's also worth noting that virtually every other major Internet
service has been swamped by unexpected load. Predicting load, and
engineering for it without prior experience in that particular kind (and
popularity) of service is just
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 01:29:39PM -0400, Mikki Barry wrote:
[...]
Regardless of whether predicting load is difficult or not, this was
something that was a part of the contract from the beginning.
Government contractors generally must abide by the terms of their
contract, even
Esther -
Given the overload with the server and the other technical issues,
wouldn't it be prudent to extend the deadline for voter registration
to give another chance to those who have been unable to access it?
The marketplace in action
Any response?
-- ken
I wouldn't mind if it wasn't spam. I received three spams
advertising domain names for auction. I reported them to US West.
I'm curious about something. Many of you have probably seen the
register.com commericals, where they have people touting the domains
they've registered (e.g., sisterearth.com, hydrowatts.com, thefabers.com).
Checking the whois database, of course, reveals all these domains are
actually owned by
At 2:20 PM +0200 10/12/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roberto and everybody else,
Roberto, it seems that you have not been paying very close
attention. Rick White is not a member of the GA and as such
cannot be nominated or elected in accordance with
Does anyone have the date and contest for this outstanding comment?
In a recent New York Times article, Esther Dyson
was quoted as saying "With all due respect, we
are less interested in complaints about process"
and more interested in "doing real work and
moving forward."
Santiago meeting.
Andrew McLaughlin posted the following:
Q: Who is on the drafting committee?
A: The drafting committee consists of Louis Touton (ICANN counsel), Kathryn
A. Kleiman (of the Association for Computing Machinery's Internet
Governance Committee, a member of the DNSO Non-Commercial Domain Name
Since Esther's at the global meeting for establishing mandatory net
content ratings, and seems to be chafing a bit over it, I'd like to
point something out:
Domain names would probably have to be rated as well.
Since Esther *is* at this conference, and is the de facto face of ICANN,
shouldn't
And the IP constituency has *invited* individual members.
Those are "observers" and are not allowed to vote.
I suppose under the universal principle of justice you set forth below that
if you didn't lock your house and somebody came in and stole your stuff,
that you wouldn't consider it theft because, hey, you weren't prudent.
Bad analogy. Your house is, by definition, yours. A character string
Gordon Cook - ignorant and illiterate fool.
Neurotic and obsessive.
'The only good ICANN is a dead ICANN'
Hey, that's clever.
So much for cutting out the fighting amongst ourselves, eh?
No argument from me. I've been trying to convince INTA for years
(obviously with very limited success G). Someone please tell WIPO
so we can all move on to something else?
Tried to tell WIPO, but they don't have an alternate funding scheme in
operation yet.
Ah! Nice to see a little humor here for a change! But we should
be careful: they may line up the same list of contributors as did
ICANN.
Bill Lovell
Then they'll be over 1/2 million in the hole for legal fees alone. Can't
have that :-)
The most objectionable proposal is the amendment to Section 2(f)
of Article VI-B of the Bylaws. This allows a vote of the ICANN
Board to remove duly elected Names Council members from office.
Even with a 3/4 majority requirement, I see no justification for
placing such power in the hands of the
Equally disturbing is why the Commerce Committee has refused to
permit anyone to speak at their hearing who has the integrity and
courage to say these things in public. The cover-up for ICANN
continues.
Gee, thanks
At 11:47 PM 7/5/99 -0400, Bill Lovell 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
Hey,
I think Mr. Lovell was referring to the description of attorneys.
I am referring to the fact that first-come, first-serve doesn't recognize
trademark or other rights as they apply to the use/registration of words.
dc
But the law is not that they need to, which is similar to many other areas
of
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.
And contrary to Jay, I am interested in seeing the process move
forward. Somehow, Jay manages to provide constantly attacking notes that
seek only to create delay (and spread misinformation.) Most of MY
attacking notes try to CORRECT the misinformation of others.
Oh please don't say those
Ronda,
The Committee on Science subcommittee on BASIC Research hearing on
March 31 [1998] had some statement to the effect that the U.S. Govt
officials couldn't set up a corporation like the FCC-Schools and
Libraries Corporation.
That this was in violation of the Government Corporation
DNRC was invited to a conference call of the Intellectual Property
Constituency this morning. At this meeting, it was stated that individuals
and organizations who wished inclusion could be given "observer" status and
have access to conference calls and information regarding what was going on
I tired my best. You'll note that about 4:12 pm on wednesday I asked her
to read them and she wouldnt. I don't think "having the scribes
prepare summaries of the remote comments" counts as "remote participation".
You are absolutely correct, Richard. Several people I know noticed that
you did
Diane C wrote:
I forgot to mention that the comments that come in from people listening
to the
webcasts are also read to the assembly.
Only on the first day. On the second day, Esther promised several times
that she would "get to" the written comments from the webcast, but she
never really
e "cash cow" that the Internet has become, before making
significant and far reaching changes to the current model.
Mikki Barry
President
Domain Name Rights Coalition
restraint and careful consideration
exactly BECAUSE they have experience in the Internet's style of decision
making. We have 'running code' right now. There is no necessity to make
changes with far reaching effect without consensus.
Mikki Barry
President
Domain Name Rights Coalition
At 4:36 PM -0400 5/24/99, Esther Dyson wrote:
Yes, we have been listening. We have been listening and thinking so hard we
haven't always had time to respond. But you should see some reasoning as
well as some results over the next few days.
Esther Dyson
Esther, while you have posted on several
I echo Bret's concerns and agree with his suggested course of action.
There is
no urgency to take this action.
I completely agree. It would take longer than the timeframe allocated to
even provide coherrent comments on a report as dense and as far reaching as
this one. There is definitely no
A few isolated cases do not change the facts that the number of trademark
disputes based on third and lower level domains is dwarfed by those
associated with SLDs, and that no trademark holders' group has yet proposed
that lower level domains be subject to dispute resolution procedures.
You
Greg Skinner said:
I think you misunderstood the point of my post. I am not arguing that
"trademark interests" ought to have protection. I was merely
speculating that they might feel existing law does not offer them
enough protection.
Although I may have misunderstood, I still say that a
At 07:29 AM 5/5/99 -0700, you wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/may99/nsi5.htm
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,36116,00.html?tt.yfin.txt.ni
[I typed that last one in -- it's reachable from Yahoo's NSI news]
Interesting thing is that NSI has been under investigation for
At 01:20 PM 5/5/99 -0400, you wrote:
Time to check out the Fed statutes regarding interception of
communications. If the FBI can track down the Melissa author
(um, with a little help) they certainly ought to be able to identify
who is packet sniffing.
One might hope.
And you are perfectly
greg skinner said:
>Kerry Miller wrote:
>
>> I believe its RFC 1591 that states that registering a domain name
>> confers no legal rights to that name and that any disputes between
>> parties over the rights to use a particular name are to be settled
>> between the contending parties using
Jay wrote:
For the most part, I agree with Tamar:
"The Internet also must have a structure. The structure
requires some governance--central authority to establish
the rules of the game. The important decision is where to
draw the line, and avoid standards that are not necessary
for
Mikki Barry wrote:
Constituencies need to
be inclusive rather than exclusive. Individuals AND organizations need to
have voices and votes. If ICANN is going to be a coherrent and harmonious
structure, there has to be more enfranchisement of dissenting opinions,
true incorporation of those
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 15:30:55 -0500
From: "Harold Feld" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Reflections on NSI- A week later
Mime-Version: 1.0
Mikki, can you please froward.
Well, it's been a week now, and I'll venture my own take.
I haven't gotten any NSI money yet, although
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 19:46:15 -0500
From: "Harold Feld" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Goods or Services?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Mikki, please forward.
O.K., let me toss out a different suggestion.
A registry provides a service. It therefore has the right to set the
terms of
Will someone be so kind as to inform us of the plans for the trademark
constituency formation? Thank you.
Ellen Rony wrote:
Dan Steinberg wrote:
More evidence of reverse domain name hijacking:
http://www.internetnews.com/rumblings/0,1145,81,00.html
Cyberpiracy comes in two forms. One, which WIPO focuses on, has the
trademark owner as the victim of the predatory behavior of unaffiliated and
bad
Forwarding:
Received: from cbxcs01wa
([172.16.128.131])
by cbxcs01wa; Sun, 07 Mar 1999 12:01:28 -0500
Received: from CB-Message_Server by cbxcs01wa
with Novell_GroupWise; Sun, 07 Mar 1999 12:01:28 -0500
Message-Id: s6e26a98.069@cbxcs01wa
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5
would love to read the rest of this
My mistake, Esther. That's what I get for forwarding without reading. I
will forward it as soon as I get the rest from Harold if he his access to
posting hasn't been fixed by then. Thanks for your patience.
Karl's claim has a specific, concrete, non-metaphysical meaning, in the
context of the trademark constituency in particular. If there is to be a
trademark constituency, why not also a free expression constituency? The DNRC,
and individual domain name holders and advocates such as Karl and myself
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 10:12:18PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
Kent Crispin said:
Not so. The fact is that there are many people like me in the
IAHC/POC/CORE arena that fund this activity entirely on their own
dime -- sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. The CORE registrars
have
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 07:28:53 -0500
From: "Harold Feld" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fwd: USG has no power over NSI?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Can you forward to IFWP? Thanks.
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:51:59 -0500
From: "Harold Feld" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: USG has no power
And if he was liable for infringement and misappropiation, he would have
admitted that to you.
The critical mind at work.
You were talking about the "facts" Martin, not speculation, or your own
bias. The FACTS are that Adam Curry told me the same thing that Milton
stated. If MTV wanted an
I would rather you go to the Southern District's warehouse in Kearny, NJ
and actually read the record in this case before you presume to lecture us
on what the facts really were.
In truth, Milton's account is exactly on track with that Adam Curry told me
directly.
At 05:13 PM 2/25/99 -0500,
Kent Crispin said:
Not so. The fact is that there are many people like me in the
IAHC/POC/CORE arena that fund this activity entirely on their own
dime -- sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. The CORE registrars
have a monetary stake in this, it is true. But the IAHC/POC is
composed of
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:08:42 -0500
From: "Harold Feld" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fwd: How is ICANN (Un)Like an Aquarium?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Mikki, can you please froward this? I am getting a bounce from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:05:22 -0500
From:
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
As the usage,
registering a name in DNS is a use of the name.
Please provide a case site. The only cases I've read on the subject hold
exactly the opposite. The only cases even close to that state that the
offer for sale
See the Glaxo-Wellcome case from the UK, the Payline case in France, and
the Orkin case from Canada and see if that changes your view. These rights
regard protection of the trademark right, they do not "exist solely with
regard to the USAGE of the domain name."
In the US they do, and last I
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 02:59:30PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
As the usage,
registering a name in DNS is a use of the name.
Please provide a case site. The only cases I've read on the subject hold
Do you mean "case
These three cases you cite are not on point because they weren't disputes
between two REGISTERED trademark owners. I'm asking if trademark owners
feel they have priority rights to domain names in cyberspace over common
law marks and other legitimate users, why they don't apply the seniority
Well, the allegation has been made that on-going businesses are threatened
with extinction when NSI sends the 37-day letter, in which case it would
make sense to get together the court filing fees and about a $1000 in
legal fees
to file a declaratory judgment complaint with pendant tort claims
Carl Oppedahl wrote:
What is the domain name holders burden in a filing like that?
Typically a few tens of thousands of dollars.
Which is exactly why pseudo.org may lose their domain name. The
non-infringing non-commercial domain name holder can't afford tens of
thousands of dollars. The
For the WMB application (In the interests of avoiding possible
Intellectual Property entanglements I shall use "WMB" from now on,
instead of "BMW" :-)) we have the following submitters:
ITAA -- 11000 members
INTA -- 3200 members, 113 countries
EuroISPA -- Largest ISP association in the world
ICC
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 08:42:16PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
Sorry, but when an organization does not ASK its membership for its
opinions on an issue it cannot claim to represent them.
A vast generality that can't possibly be true. Your congressperson
can legitimately claim to represent you
Any rules which automatically require a user to ceritify they will not use
this
name to violate a trademark is a violation of their fundamental rights.
That would be the fundamental right to violate other people's rights?
How can use of a character string that someone else just happened to
Indicating the intended use would minimize the pokey.org/veronica.org
scenarios.
Very doubtful. In pokey, veronica, AND pseudo, the corporations involved
were informed that the uses were non commercial and non infringing. In
both pokey and veronica, it was not until the press was informed and
I understand the situation very well, Mikki. What I was working towards was
a useful series of responses from C. Gomes that could be used as evidence
for your thesis. I won't be able to elicit those statements from him if you
cram the answers down his throat. Please try to hold back a little.
At 4:18 PM -0500 1/31/99, Einar Stefferud wrote:
It is quite amazing to me that people seem to not be reading what I
proposed for 10 constituencies. I continue to see statements that NO
contituency proposals include ANY PUBLIC INTEREST SEGMENT. And yet,
my 10 contituency proposal clearly does
Without even going into any of the personal and professional attacks
against the Syracuse Study, it is quite clear that if this were the ONLY
evidence of trademark interests gone overboard, it may not be enough to be
convincing. However, there have been no other studies brought forth that
refute
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Eric Weisberg wrote:
The
Domain Name Rights Coalition was thrown off the IFWP steering committee
because
it was not incorporated despite the fact that it was an organizer of the
"entity." We did not like that exercise before, what will make it more
paletable, now?
there is a lot of talk about the "public interest" on these lists. The
public interest here has come to mean the rights of DN holders to not get
sued by the (pause for demonization effect) TM interests.
That is rather disingenuous IMHO. Public interest to me means that the
right of freedom of
At 6:04 AM -0500 1/13/99, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
At 12:01 AM 1/13/99 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
Look at the DNSO propsal a la ORSC
http://www.dnso.net/library/dnso-orsc.proposal.shtml
To whit:
The Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) shall be composed of any
individual, firm,
I dunno, but I'm planning on showing up with my touring rig. If it's
not open, I'll file suit in the appropriate jurisdiction and venue
(probably where I an refused entry g).
For an encore, plan on playing "Take Five" in all keys. The ability
to do same can be used as technical criteria for
It's obvious, however, from the continual "cc's" to the
"bwg-n-friends" list in Mikki's messages that things were being
decided on the closed bwg-n-friends list as far as the ORSC draft was
concerned. Most of Mikki's draft just appeared on the ORSC list --
the comments from the ORSC list are
On Sat, Jan 09, 1999 at 01:18:01AM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Not form my observation.
BWG was cc'd as a courtesy. Poepel simply kept the cc line.
So you say.
And so says the editor of the draft.
Nothing gets decided on the BWG list.
So you say.
I agree the foul stencg of secret
On Sat, Jan 09, 1999 at 09:02:17AM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
I agree the foul stencg of secret deals from IAHC
days still lingers, but you're on a witch hunt Kent.
Something you should be very familiar with, I must admit.
So much for working together for the common good of the Internet
+ AFAIC, they [trademark interests] are the single largest force, against
human
rights, on the planet.
This list is either the primary open discussion of an experiment in
Internet self-governance, or it is street corner filled with lunatics
shouting at each other (and will deserve as much
After examining the two proposals that have been presented on the DNSO.org website, we felt that rather than submit disjointed commentary, that we would instead submit a full proposal as our vision of a better set of by-laws. This set of by-laws is the result of open commentary on several mailing
Carl Oppedahl says:
The vast majority of domain name disputes that I have seen (and I have seen
dozens in detail and hundreds in general terms) are nothing like real
trademark cases. They are cases where somebody covets another domain name,
has no real legal claim over it, but uses NSI's policy
Where is this latest draft located? On the DNSO web page, the "latest"
thing listed is the 12/18 INTA draft. Thanks.
__
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
73 matches
Mail list logo
