Richard,
You wrote:
The [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list has 53 members.
The IFWP list has 156 members.
Well, in this case, why not having the general discussion on the DNSO on the
IETF list, that has far more members? ;)
Jokes apart, my point is that the purpose of the mailing lists is to
Karl Auerbach wrote:
... I've never met anyone until now who thought that
the ICANN Board couldn't do anything they damn well pleased with SO
recommendations - implement them, throw them out, use them as toilet
paper.
Then there ought to be absolutely no objection to removing
Hi.
Richard Sexton wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say this is a pretty clear determination of the effects NSI's
prepayment requirement is going to have on its new and future
prospective registrars.
Where were you 6 months ago when it seemed like I was the only one on
[EMAIL
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
The "USG" is actually far more complex than just
a couple of staff in Executive Branch agencies. :-)
True.
I tried to say the same thing last year: USG is not just one staff in an
Executive Branch agency.
Why should the people in charge now be less authoritative than
Jay Fenello reported:
From the archives:
=
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/domnam/TWB19980611S0009
Magaziner, Lessig Spar Over Domain Name Plan
(06/11/98, 2:46 p.m. ET)
By Mo Krochmal, TechWeb
NEW YORK -- Ira Magaziner, the Clinton administration's point
Eberhard,
You wrote:
The way I read the notes Mr Simms said under oath (in front of a
Congressional Committee) he didn't do it, whereas he later said he
did it.
As I said before, the "it" in the first part of the sentence is a different
thing of the "it" in the second part. Joe did "one
Michael,
The two cuts you provide are not recent news, and have been discussed at
length since the events, more than six months ago. But since you bring the
subject up again, let me point out that the two cuts refer to two different
facts: the initial contacts to all possible candidates, and the
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
The gTLD constituency report and cover letter is available at:
http://netsol.com/policy/icann427/
Few comments.
First of all, the distinction between "open" and "closed" TLDs vs. "generic"
and "country code" TLDs seem to be reasonable, but should be probably be
William Walsh wrote:
com.au and per.nu and other RFC1591 delegated ccTLD subdomains have as
much right to the ccTLD constituencies as the .NO registry does.
To the best of my knowledge, a TLD is a Domain that is at the highest level
(hence the name) in the Domain Name system tree.
I assume
Hi all.
Jay Fenello wrote:
snip
Iperdome believes that it, and thousands
of small organizations just like it, have a
legitimate claim to be fairly represented
in the constituencies as defined by ICANN,
regardless of our size, age or financial
Roeland Meyer wrote:
At 08:18 AM 4/2/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 10:44:41PM -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
[...]
Uh, Roeland, if ICANN decides that it needs to change to a Swiss
corporation, what are you going to do? Sue in Swiss Court? Do you
have a Swiss
Michael,
You wrote:
BTW, from which source comes the idea of ICANN wanting to "own" all
levels
of the domain space? Up to now I have heard it often, but always as an
opinion of somebody on ICANN's intentions, and I was unable so far to
find
any document where ICANN itself makes this
David,
You wrote:
Careful with the analogies.
You are right.
Analogies only reflect one part of the reality, and are seldom complete.
There is an important public safety issue that justifies the regulation of
airspace.
No such issue exists for ICANN.
Very true.
But nevertheless, I
ars being "certified", how are new gTLDs (Registries) approved, ...)
- how to ensure that international law will prevail over national laws, that
will inevitably protect national businesses over foreign
Regards
Roberto
You wrote:
At 06:05 AM 4/2/99 , Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Bill Lowell wrote:
At 02:47 PM 3/29/99 -0500, you (Jay Fenello, I assume) wrote:
snip
Frankly, this is what all the fighting is
about. ICANN, like the gTLD-MoU before it,
wants to own all levels of the name space,
INCLUDING cerebalaw.com!
Well, we'll see about that, now
Jay,
You wrote (answering to Kent Crispin):
Anyway, David had questioned the last
line in the following paragraph:
"The gTLD-MoU was controversial because it would have
confiscated all generic Top Level Domains, not only from
startups like IO Design (who had been running the .web
The one and only Bob ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
Ivan Pope wrote:
Am I allowed to disclose discussions with Bob, Gabe and Don which
were, to say the least, surprising to me at the time?
Am I allowed to disclose a document that Bob sent to me?
Don't know about Gabe or Don but I sure as
Roeland,
You wrote:
That's exactly the point. ICAN took NONE of the DNSO application. Rather,
they assembled their own from the pieces.
I have the impression that ICANN's final decision did not come out from the
blue, but was based on the "Singapore Draft", that is a compromise between
the
Roeland,
You wrote:
I'm still going over the evidence, but ICANN internalizing the DNSO kind
of
shoots DNSO.ORG in both feet.
I'm not sure to understand this.
Wasn't there general consensus that the DNSO should be part of ICANN and not
separately incorporated?
Roberto
Roeland wrote:
We all have one real good and visible example of such conflict of
interest.
Mike Roberts, the ICANN CEO. Instead of recusing himself, during the final
votes, of the IFWP Steering Committee, wrt the wrap-up meeting. He did his
best to sabotage it because his promised CEO slot
Jay,
I read with interest your report.
Let me point out the couple of points where I don't share your POV.
You wrote:
snip
Things really got interesting the next day at the open
ICANN Board meeting. What started out as a presentation
of the CENTR compromise proposal, quickly
You wanna meet in Namibia?
Good infrastrucure, one hop away from Johannesburg, nice, cheap and safe.
When?
RG
Stef,
You wrote:
I apologize Kilnam for jumping to the same conclusion that Joop came
to -- That selective notification of a pulic meeting was hapening yet
again!
So, as you see, it is much more reasonable when posting this kind of
message to visibly cross post it to avoid causing people
Chon,
You wrote:
snip. is it too expensive? if so, we need to find sponsors to
subsidize
further like Washington Meeting.
I have developed a deep mistrust for the last minute's sponsors in this
domain.
Please remember that the balance of the first IFWP conference in Reston is
still
Roeland,
I find this issue (Trademark vs. DNS) very interesting and important, but I
disagree on the fact that this is the key difference on the two drafts.
In fact, this (Trademark vs. DNS) will be one of the endless debates within
the DSNO, if and when it will be formed, but is not a divide
William,
You wrote:
On 06-Feb-99 Javier SOLA wrote:
snip
Please people, do not take these people's word on this stuff. READ THE
DRAFTS
and ask yourself these questions. Form your own opinion and PLEASE, above
all,
MAKE YOUR OPINION KNOWN by posting to the various lists of this
Ellen,
You wrote:
Einar Stefferud wrote:
I stongly agree that you should keep all drafts for the historical
record to prevent further rewriting of DNSO history!
I'm pleased that you find these comparisons so useful.
Once again, an outstanding job.
The two proposals that have been
Folks,
I liked Jay's summary.
Let me add few lines to Bret's comments.
Bret Fausett wrote:
Jay Fenello wrote:
My impression of this process was that there are only
a few, major philosophical differences that must be
resolved. One is whether the DNSO will feature a top
down, or bottom
Jay,
You wrote:
Go figure,
The IFWP list just came back on line.
That does not change my message however.
We need a list of record. The IFWP has
acted as a central discussion list, but
it has not been sanctioned as such by
ICANN.
In fact, I never received your original posting
William,
You wrote:
On 15-Jan-99 Christopher Ambler wrote:
And what of the ccTLDs that are not run by the governments? What of
those
who are operated out-of-country? What of those who are operated without
the oversight (and perhaps even the knowledge) of the government in
question?
Tony,
Thanks for answering, but I'm still in the dark.
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
The Internet is not a public telecommunications network regime.
It is a shared user network.
Thanks for the information.
Under the PTO regime, the authoritative TLDs are designated
Kent,
You wrote:
Ms Burr:
I must protest this proposed teleconference (see below) with "ORSC
folks". This is a matter some importance, and of wide interest to
many people. Privileged, closed access for the ORSC is simply not
fair to all these other interested parties, and is in fact
Ellen,
You wrote:
In light of the past few days of comments, let's just shine a mirror on
your message, with a few words replaced (see caps)
I must protest this proposed JANUARY 21 MEETING with DNSO.ORG "SPONSORS
AND
INVITEES". This is a matter some importance, and of wide interest to
Folks,
Kent wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 12:34:12PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
snip
It sounds however, that this time there is no pretense of it being
merely
a meeting to deal with administrative issues but, rather, is to create
an
interest block with
Chris,
Did I mention that I play keyboards and drums?
No, but I suspected that seeing your post on the rythm.
Roeland wrote:
It looks like we have the makings of the "Internet Blues/Jazz Band". When
do we rehearse?
We could try to do something over the Net, but I'm afraid that this is
Patrick,
You wrote:
The only persons I have
heard defending this position has been the ICANN board itself, IBM(in
Boston), and perhaps some of the other "unamed third parties" that the
ICANN board has been meeting with who will not self identify.
Without being one of the
another F2F meeting, we should bring our instruments
along and have a little jam while the others kill themselves over the
Internet Governance.
(and then maybe have a bowl of chili, or a Nasi Goreng, while Chris eats his
cold sandwiches)
Roberto Gaetano
Tenor Sax
P.S. About Take Five, may I call
Hi.
Maybe I can add the bits I know.
The open meeting of Jan.22 will be preceded by a preparation session, that
will involve only the "sponsoring" organizations.
If I may comment on this, I would say that it is very difficult for
commercial organizations to understand the philosophy of open
Chris,
You asked:
Image Online Design has arranged for a representative
at the DNSO.ORG meeting on 22 January. Would someone
please advise where the meeting is, and the times, so
that arrangements may be finalized?
Chris, I promise I will tell you as soon as I know myself.
For the time
William,
You wrote:
Not to mention the rest of the West Coast states, for which any west coast
location would be significantly closer.
You could also add the whole Asia-Pacific.
About India, I assume that the East Coast people prefer the US West Coast,
while I tend to think that people
Joop,
You wrote:
Roberto and all,
Some humble suggestions.
If you give voting rights to participants in one list, (and announce it on
the other lists) everybody interested in voting on the substantial issues
will gravitate to that list.
This will benefit your discussion on substance.
Dan,
The difficulty I have in answering to your message, is that I agree
completely with what you say.
I will try, nevertheless, because I think that we are hitting one of the key
points of the domain naming issues.
You have clearly expressed your feelings in favour of "the mere users of the
Joop,
You wrote:
In view of the fact that there is little time to rewrite a balanced
position paper and alternative clauses in your bylaws, will you consider
the positions and comments that have been made so far in the DNSO discuss
list?
There's an explicit address for comments and
Joop,
I see too many subjects treated under the same title, so, if you don't mind,
I isolate this topic.
You wrote:
At 23:24 3/01/99 +0100, Roberto wrote:
Onno wrote:
snip
I like this approach.
I think it is worth considering for a compromise solution, once we could
come to a good
Milton,
You wrote:
snip
You are not correct, I believe, in then
jumping to the conclusion that TM interests must be given privileged
membership
status in a DNSO.
If this is a possible reading of my post, I apologize for lack of clarity.
My position is that, if we assume that we
45 matches
Mail list logo
