On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Karl Auerbach wrote:
In other words, if there were to be established a viable non-ICANN root
system, then all this effort to establish advisory committees, Supporting
Organizations, WIPO rules, ADR, taxes/fees, etc would all exist only on
those things willing to
Sunday, July 18, 1999, 9:02:00 AM, Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. They certainly have that potential. What happens if the name
server owners band together and say "Stuff it"?
Every scenario that I can envision (rewriting
BIND, alternate roots, etc), will result in a
fractured
Consequently, ICANN will have the power
to set the terms and conditions under
which a name server's domain name will
exist.
These "flow down" contracts are the
essence of a strict REGULATORY regime
that will not only affect name servers,
but virtually every aspect of the
At 06:51 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
In other words, if there were to be established a viable non-ICANN root
system, then all this effort to establish advisory committees, Supporting
Organizations, WIPO rules, ADR, taxes/fees, etc would all exist only on
those things willing to voluntarily
At 07:25 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>At 06:51 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>In other words, if there were to be established a viable non-ICANN root
>>system, then all this effort to establish advisory committees, Supporting
>>Organizations, WIPO rules, ADR, taxes/fees, etc would all
Gene and all,
Gene you left out two little details. Although it is true marketing is one element
that is missing in order for an multiple root structure can be competitive
and broadly accepted, the other two elements that are essential are
$$ and a business plan
Gene Marsh wrote:
At
At 10:30 PM 7/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
At 07:25 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
At 06:51 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
In other words, if there were to be established a viable non-ICANN root
system, then all this effort to establish advisory committees, Supporting
Organizations,
At 11:20 PM 7/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
Bill, you miss the point. Your ISP (europa.com) told you to set your DNS
server entries to some specific addresses when you signed up. Those
arbitrary entries are set within your computer's settings, and have little
to do with what ISP you are using.
I
At 08:40 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
At 11:20 PM 7/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
Bill, you miss the point. Your ISP (europa.com) told you to set your DNS
server entries to some specific addresses when you signed up. Those
arbitrary entries are set within your computer's settings, and have little
to
Diane and all,
Diane Cabell wrote:
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
How do you deal with a clueless membership? Say they
voted unanimously to make anybody with a nameserver
pay $1 everytime sombody used it for a lookup and
if you didn't pay this you couldn't run a nameserver
period.
How
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
How do you deal with a clueless membership? Say they
voted unanimously to make anybody with a nameserver
pay $1 everytime sombody used it for a lookup and
if you didn't pay this you couldn't run a nameserver
period.
How do you deal with things like that ?
On 15 July 1999, Diane Cabell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further, ICANN isn't a government with guns to enforce such a policy. If such
a decision was intolerable to the greater number of the constituents having to
pay it, would it really fly at all?
Oh, we will get a choice? I was under the
Mark C. Langston wrote:
On 15 July 1999, Diane Cabell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further, ICANN isn't a government with guns to enforce such a policy. If such
a decision was intolerable to the greater number of the constituents having to
pay it, would it really fly at all?
Oh, we will
On 15 July 1999, Diane Cabell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark C. Langston wrote:
Oh, we will get a choice? I was under the impression it would be passed on
by the registrars, and therefore be made part of the contract between DN
owner and registrar. Thus, it's not an optional thing.
Did I
Kerry Miller a écrit:
If they think that 'elite' and 'rank-and-file' are part of the vocabulary
of democracy, it's no wonder there is confusion.
"Hear, hear", as the British would say.
Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U.
Mark C. Langston a écrit:
Oh, we will get a choice? I was under the impression it would be passed on
by the registrars, and therefore be made part of the contract between DN
owner and registrar. Thus, it's not an optional thing.
You do get a choice: You can either agree, or not. If you
What worries me most is getting the electorate to be
representative in the first place. ... No matter what scheme you
use to weigh and tally votes among them, it'd be hard to generate a
satisfactory election, since the electorate itself wouldn't
approximate what we think of as "fair."
Kerry,
My high school didn't even offer a civics class!
Take #1 on the membership solution: make it an open membership; people
join; that's the electorate; they elect; end of story. If this appeals to
you there's no such thing as a "captured" electorate, because it simply is
what it is.
Jon,
At 04:32 PM 7/14/99 -0400, you wrote:
For those who say that a
particular group--CORE, say--has "captured" the DNSO process, is that the
same kind of "capture" as the Turks with TIME, or the backoffice people
with AIP? ...JZ
This is an excellent descriptive piece, and outline quite
How do you deal with a clueless membership? Say they
voted unanimously to make anybody with a nameserver
pay $1 everytime sombody used it for a lookup and
if you didn't pay this you couldn't run a nameserver
period.
How do you deal with things like that ?
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL
Eric,
Some thoughts:
1/ Pile-up-single-ballots electoral system vs. cumulative voting. There's
an important distinction to be made, here--and, as you point out, the MAC
was well on to it--but to me the distinction is really only meant to solve
problems of properly allocating power *within*
At 08:55 PM 7/13/99 , Jon Zittrain wrote:
This is one reason why the constituencies seem so unwieldy to me, and the
arbitrariness of their definition is clear: commercial trademark interests
get votes both through the tm and commercial constituencies; include
individuals within non-commercial
Jon Zittrain wrote:
This is one reason why the constituencies seem so unwieldy to me, and the
arbitrariness of their definition is clear: commercial trademark interests
get votes both through the tm and commercial constituencies; include
individuals within non-commercial and they get one set,
Jay and all,
Jay, why are you surprised and Jon's switching of positions or
political stances with respect to ICANN. I was well aware of this
some months ago and warned this list of such a potential event.
Like many at the Berkman center, they blow whichever way
the prevailing wind blows
24 matches
Mail list logo
