At 09:29 PM 3/28/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
> At 07:02 PM 3/28/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
> >At 04:53 PM 3/26/99 -0500, you wrote:
> We're talking past each other. In your example, the regulator does
> >NOT own "KOIN," "WPBS," etc., in spite of the fact that it "owns,"
> >i.e., has control of
Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Call signs have much of the same character as DNS names, in that they
> may not be used in conflict by two different Electro Magnetic Signa
> Transmitters. But, this has nothing to do with whether or not the
> call sign registrant owns some intellectu
Einar Stefferud a écrit:
> So, there is room for a very clean contract between the registrant and
> the registrar to the effect that for a fee, the registry will
> "advertise" the registered name for the purpose of resolving the DNS
> name to various data that are entered into the Registry databa
At 08:28 PM 3/28/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Call signs have much of the same character as DNS names, in that they
>may not be used in conflict by two different Electro Magnetic Signa
>Transmitters. But, this has nothing to do with whether or not the
>call sign registrant owns some intellectual propert
Call signs have much of the same character as DNS names, in that they
may not be used in conflict by two different Electro Magnetic Signa
Transmitters. But, this has nothing to do with whether or not the
call sign registrant owns some intellectual property in connection
with the Call Sign string.
At 07:02 PM 3/28/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>At 04:53 PM 3/26/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>Bill Lovell a écrit:
>>>
>>> ICANN is saying that
>>> as soon as I tell one of the registrars what that name is,
and tell them
>>> I want to park it there, then the ownership of that domain
name
>>> transmogrifi
At 04:53 PM 3/26/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Bill Lovell a écrit:
>>
>> ICANN is saying that
>> as soon as I tell one of the registrars what that name is, and tell them
>> I want to park it there, then the ownership of that domain name
>> transmogrifies over to ICANN? Horse puckey.
>
>It's no more hors
Bill Lovell a écrit:
>
> ICANN is saying that
> as soon as I tell one of the registrars what that name is, and tell them
> I want to park it there, then the ownership of that domain name
> transmogrifies over to ICANN? Horse puckey.
It's no more horse puckey, I'm afraid, than the restrictive
all
Stef and all,
It has been readily apparent that from the beginning of the ICANN formation
that they were intending to claim ownership of all of the information
even remotely related to DN's, IP addresses, and Protocols. This was
plainly evident in the discussions over the bylaws as I recall.
At 12:08 AM 3/25/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Thanks Bill -- I have been making that point now for about two years,
>and you are the first person to restate it in other words!
>
>I welcome your support for the concept that ICANN is claiming to onw
>things that they have not been conceived.
>
>My claim is
Thanks Bill -- I have been making that point now for about two years,
and you are the first person to restate it in other words!
I welcome your support for the concept that ICANN is claiming to onw
things that they have not been conceived.
My claim is that the "ICANN owns all names" business mod
At 11:49 PM 3/24/99 -0500, you wrote:
The name may be property, but it's the property
>of ICANN, and leased not to the registrant but to the registrar, who
>acts in the name of and retains the prerogatives of the property
>owner, ICANN.
Well, we'll see about that. I have in my mind right now a d
joop a écrit:
>
> Regardless of the merits of the case.
> It strengthens the legal position of Domain Name holders, who can now at
> least call themselves owners without having to argue about it.
I don't think so, Joop. The position of the domain name holder
depends on the holder's contractual re
13 matches
Mail list logo
