[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) wrote:
Since you seem to think marketing is the answer, lets let the market
prove it. Lets count registrations.
Case closed.
I disagree. Supply me with some proof that all other factors equal,
SLD registrations do better than 3LD, etc. registrations in
At 09:20 AM 7/9/99 -0700, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) wrote:
Since you seem to think marketing is the answer, lets let the market
prove it. Lets count registrations.
Case closed.
I disagree. Supply me with some proof that all other factors equal,
SLD registrations do
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:37:08 -0700 (PDT), Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
Is anyone having trouble mailing to your palo-alto.ca.us address? Do
they need it to be [EMAIL PROTECTED] in order to communicate with
you?
The down side is that they didn't allow personal domain registrations,
although I believe they are about to do so under a second level domain (?
bing.per.no or something like that). If strictly enforced, it would
certainly avoid a great deal of the expensive, unnecessary litigation that
we
Interesting to see further analysis of this. Who prevails and why, etc.
"Richard J. Sexton" wrote:
.
Any serious student of nameing systems used on the
Internet has seen the "control freaks" vs. "the anarchists"
argument happen over and over again - this is not new.
Mark Measday
True the WORLD doesn't owe me or anyone a Domain name.
But the USG DOES! I know because my tax dollars helped
PAY for the DNS, the Internet as a whole and helps pay for
the privilege for ICANN very existence
Why does the USG owe you or anyone else a domain name? There was nothing
in
The .us registrations are still free, I believe.
Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta Lund
Boston
- Original Message -
From: Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
True the WORLD doesn't owe me or anyone a Domain name.
But the USG DOES! I know because my tax dollars
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:23:51 -0400, "Diane Cabell"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The .us registrations are still free, I believe.
Forth level registrations under city.state.us are not all free. Many
if not most are now charging anywhere from $5 to $25 a year.
And this does nothing to address
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) wrote:
And this does nothing to address usability issues of such a long drawn
out, and unmemorable namespace.
I imagine people are able to memorize long names if they want or need to.
People memorized things like 'supercalifragilisticexpialidocious'. For
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) wrote:
And this does nothing to address usability issues of such a long drawn
out, and unmemorable namespace.
I imagine people are able to memorize long names if they want or
William X. Walsh wrote:
Greg, [3LDs, etc.] may be usable for some narror purposes, but the simple fact
is that they are not usable in a real commercial setting, and even for
personal use they are difficult and bulky and harder for people to remember.
Prove it.
Let's see some statistics.
I fail to see how an SLD is eminently more usable than a 3LD, etc.
So ?
If you were czar of the entire known internet that might mean something
but you're not and it doesn't.
Tell you what, you observe and respect other peoples ideas and then
you can expect the same from them.
I assert the
A person can have hundreds of trademarks but only one domain ?
Thats pretty silly Diane.
That's your opinion, Richard and you are certainly entitled to it.
Nonetheless, this silly method is used by some of the Scandinavian ccTLDs.
hmm, and shall we discuss the customer approval ratings
On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 01:06:33 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having only one domain name per comany (plus some other restrictions)
has worked rather well in Norway to prevent cybersquatting.
Thats one way to do it - at the expense of personal freedoms.
New Zealand has also eliminated
Kent and all,
True the WORLD doesn't owe me or anyone a Domain name.
But the USG DOES! I know because my tax dollars helped
PAY for the DNS, the Internet as a whole and helps pay for
the privilege for ICANN very existence
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 06:58:05PM -0400,
A person can have hundreds of trademarks but only one domain ?
Thats pretty silly Diane.
That's your opinion, Richard and you are certainly entitled to it.
Nonetheless, this silly method is used by some of the Scandinavian
ccTLDs.
hmm, and shall we discuss the customer approval
You'd have to poll them. I don't think you could impose it here; barn door
and all that.
The down side is that they didn't allow personal domain registrations,
although I believe they are about to do so under a second level domain (?
bing.per.no or something like that). If strictly enforced, it
Diane and all,
Though I can see your point regarding litigious concerns in the
US vs NORWAY, I am still at a loss as to why the difference in
policy should be viewed as better situation irrespective of Norway's
solution ( 2nd level for personal DN registration) really making the
that much
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 07:10:32PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain
names are there to be *used*, not *sold*.
That way there be dragons. I'm no fan of domain speculation
but if somebody offered me a million dollars for
At 10:25 PM 7/5/99 -0700, you wrote:
Ah, the answer: Mr. Kent Crispin has been caught out blathering legal
nonsense,
and is looking either to find a scapegoat or change the subject.
The legal stuff I was referring to came from Mr Craig McTaggart, on
July 3:
Gotcha! NOW Mr. Kent Crispin
Why not one-domain-per-customer?
Why ?
A proposed solution to the "cybersquatting" problem Mr. Crispin
raised (one person registering tons of generic words and jacking up
the price for the "real" users). This is the solution that some
ccTLDs have used. dc
Ah, but how does
At 12:21 AM 7/6/99 -0700, you wrote:
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 07:10:32PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain
names are there to be *used*, not *sold*.
That way there be dragons. I'm no fan of domain speculation
but if
While TMs are the big money thing here, there are other rights to
names, as well. For example, I have a right to use the name
"Crispin", in certain contexts. There are many others with a
similar right to the name. It is not possible to prioritize among
us, so first come first serve is a
Isn't there a famous case in England that shot
down people who were camping on domain names with the intent to
At 04:32 PM 7/6/99 -0400, you wrote:
Isn't there a famous case in England that shot
down people who were camping on domain names with the intent to
Yes.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
Tom, Roeland and all,
Tom Cottone wrote:
What worries me is the potential of an Class E felony on multiple
counts. If I had three of such names, innocently created, I would be an
instant felon. Talk about "chilling effect" on first amendment rights!
I
am surprised that the ACLU isn't all
At 10:11 AM 7/5/99 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 12:11:25PM -0400, Tom Cottone wrote:
What also bothers me is the bashing that goes on regarding
"cybersquatters and/or speculators". If I register hundreds of common
words (ie. hamburger.com, hotdog.com, ketchup.com,
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 01:13:28PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote:
This comment exhibits the mind set of assuming that all domain name
registrations involve businesses, or at least providers of goods or services
of some kind, as would be the case with trademarks.
I do not have such a mindset.
Kent and all,
I could not agree more with your argument Kent. The same can be said
for the ICANN's "Accreditation Policy" as well and the WIPO "Final
Report" Recomendations... They are all variances of the same
theme...
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 01:13:28PM -0700, Bill
Michael and all,
Thank you Michael. However I already informed Poor Kent
or this FACT! Unfortunately he seems to be of the opinion that
his legal knowledge is superior... Interesting thought, that...
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
I have not been reading this all as
At 01:28 PM 7/5/99 -0700, you wrote:
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 01:13:28PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote:
This comment exhibits the mind set of assuming that all domain name
registrations involve businesses, or at least providers of goods or
services
of some kind, as would be the case with
Kent Crispin wrote:
That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain
names are there to be *used*, not *sold*. If someone does a
non-commercial site at "catsup.com" that, in my view, should be
strongly protected, and the site owner should be able to thumb their
nose
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 18:46:50 -0400, Diane Cabell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kent Crispin wrote:
That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain
names are there to be *used*, not *sold*. If someone does a
non-commercial site at "catsup.com" that, in my view, should be
That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain
names are there to be *used*, not *sold*.
That way there be dragons. I'm no fan of domain speculation
but if somebody offered me a million dollars for vrx.net
I'd find a new domain pretty damn quick.
Once you saying what
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 19:10:32 -0400 (EDT), "Richard J. Sexton"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain
names are there to be *used*, not *sold*.
That way there be dragons. I'm no fan of domain speculation
but if somebody offered me a
That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain
names are there to be *used*, not *sold*.
That way there be dragons. I'm no fan of domain speculation
but if somebody offered me a million dollars for vrx.net
I'd find a new domain pretty damn quick.
I wouldn't go so far
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 17:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I agree with the original statement if it was
intended to convey that the idea was that if you registered a domain name
[...] that you were establishing a
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 06:46:50PM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote:
But if someone registers 200 common words for resale, that should
not be protected. It is not only denying access to commercial users
who might want the name, it is denying access to non-commercial
users just as much (if not
Why not one-domain-per-customer?
Why ?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
- Original Message -
From: Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 06:46:50PM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote:
But if someone registers 200 common words for resale, that should
not be protected. It is not only denying access to commercial users
At 06:35 PM 7/5/99 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
Note: This is being sent again; I want to make sure it hits the IFWP list.
Bill Lovell
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 05:39:50PM -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami
School of Law wrote:
I have not been reading this all as carefully as I should, so forgive
- Original Message -
From: Richard J. Sexton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) Protection
Act
Why not one-domain-per-customer?
Why ?
A proposed solution to the "cybersqua
On 5 July 1999, "Diane Cabell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 06:46:50PM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote:
But if someone registers 200 common words for resale, that should
not be
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 11:32:31PM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote:
[...]
So they put up 200 nearly blank web pages. How would you then define
what is a
legitimate use and what is not?
Maybe putting up blank web pages would be enough -- I don't know,
and I don't think it really matters
Hi Diane Cabell, you wrote on 7/5/99 10:37:57 PM:
- Original Message -
From: Richard J. Sexton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) Protection
Act
Why not one-domain-per-customer
Why not one-domain-per-customer?
Why ?
A proposed solution to the "cybersquatting" problem Mr. Crispin raised (one
person registering tons of generic words and jacking up the price for the
"real" users). This is the solution that some ccTLDs have used.
There are laws to deal with this...
Hi Diane Cabell, you wrote on 7/5/99 10:37:57 PM:
- Original Message -
From: Richard J. Sexton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) Protection
Act
Why not one-domain-per-customer
A proposed solution to the "cybersquatting" problem Mr. Crispin raised
(one
person registering tons of generic words and jacking up the price for
the
"real" users). This is the solution that some ccTLDs have used.
There are laws to deal with this... there are laws to deal with this...
At 12:17 AM 7/6/99 -0400, you wrote:
A proposed solution to the "cybersquatting" problem Mr. Crispin raised
(one
person registering tons of generic words and jacking up the price for
the
"real" users). This is the solution that some ccTLDs have used.
There are laws to deal with this...
Hi Diane Cabell, you wrote on 7/5/99 11:17:27 PM:
A proposed solution to the "cybersquatting" problem Mr. Crispin raised
(one
person registering tons of generic words and jacking up the price for
the
"real" users). This is the solution that some ccTLDs have used.
There are laws to deal
There are no laws to prevent one person from amassing 200 un-trademarked
generic domain names which was the scenario presented in the discussion.
The discussion, as I understand it, concerns whether or not there should
be.
A person can have hundreds of trademarks but only one domain ?
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 00:36:54 -0400, "Diane Cabell"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are no laws to prevent one person from amassing 200 un-trademarked
generic domain names which was the scenario presented in the discussion.
The discussion, as I understand it, concerns whether or not there
I could stand education on why it is so critical to have a separate
registration for taurus.com.
That can be argued either way, nut no matter that's a specific
instanc and is more or less irrelevant. In the general case
a single name ontology will always loose to a more free one.
--
[EMAIL
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 08:55:18PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote:
[...]
but that a straight sale is not possible. Bill Lovell, who claims to
be an IP attorney of distinction,
Why is it that some people cannot carry on a purportedly intelligent
discourse without sticking in disparaging
Bill and all,
Bill, good points here and well put. Kent Crispin's many attempts
at legal expertise are terribly blatant, as this one that you elude to
is as well. His mischaracterization of others an others positions
in an obvious attempt to discredit them, also is well known on this
and
Diane and all,
I can agree that there should be some "high Water mark" on
how many DN's and individual should be able to register in
any given span or defined span of time. The big problem with doing
this is who, and how is this determined so as to be reasonable, and
than what is truly
56 matches
Mail list logo
