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 wi
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:31:15 -0700 (PDT), Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If you were czar of the entire known internet that might mean something
>> but you're not and it doesn't.
>
>Point?
>
>> Tell you what, you observe and respect oth
"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?
> It's worked ok since 1986. Are you having a problem ?
> There are 246 pla
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>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?
It's worked ok since 1986. Are you having a problem ?
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns
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 registrati
"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you were czar of the entire known internet that might mean something
> but you're not and it doesn't.
Point?
> Tell you what, you observe and respect other peoples ideas and then
> you can expect the same from them.
You must be confusing me w
[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
>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 ma
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:07:52 -0700 (PDT), Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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 difficul
Greg and all,
I am afraid old Greg has got you by the short hair's on this one there,
Willie my boy! >:) And yes Greg, I also would like to see some
PROOF as well from WIllie on this one as well... Not much chance
though, as it is really not reasonable for him to provide it given the
circum
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.
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
[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 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 usabi
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 dol
Greg and all,
Greg, if you read closely what I posted in my response, the answer
to your question is in PLAIN site. However in that you seemed
to
have missed it, I will put in in Bold and larger fond here
so you can SEE it and therefore read it more clearly.
To Wit, and repeating:
"True the WO
> 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
- Original Message -
From: Richard J. Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >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
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
_
> >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 th
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 diffe
>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
> > >> 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 th
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, Ri
At 04:50 PM 7/7/99 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 06:58:05PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton 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
On Wed, 7 Jul 1999 16:50:11 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Likewise, the idea that domain names represent a significant venue
>for "protected speech" is ridiculous. "microsoftsucks.com" -- it
The courts disagree with you.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Ser
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 06:58:05PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton 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.
Linking the term "personal
> >Mainly the following:
> >
> >- We have had a lot of people coming out very explicitly in *favor* of
> >the current policy, and stating this in emails, phone conversations etc.
> >with the Norwegian registration authority.
> >
> >- There is a formalized process to handle complaints (ie. of a dom
On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 01:16:49 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> The fact that they register names doesn't imply that they agree with
>> your policy.
>
>Of course not.
>
>> So with that in mind, I'd like to know how you gauged their agreement?
>
>Mainly the following:
>
>- We have had a lot of peo
Steinar and all,
Hu? Your statements seem to countardict each other
here Steinar. Why is that? If the MAJORITY of Norwegian
folks are so fond of the "One DN per organization" policy,
why is ti that, as you state, a "liberalization" of the policy
to allowing more than one even being consi
> The fact that they register names doesn't imply that they agree with
> your policy.
Of course not.
> So with that in mind, I'd like to know how you gauged their agreement?
Mainly the following:
- We have had a lot of people coming out very explicitly in *favor* of
the current policy, and sta
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 elimi
> >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 cybersquatting, without the
> onerous dark side.
You are of
>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 cybersquatting, without the
onerous dark side.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> 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 ap
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."
> Isn't there a famous case in England that shot
> down people who were camping on domain names with the intent to
> 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
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
>> bu
> > > 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
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
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
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 conside
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 othe
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 r
>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 PRO
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 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 doma
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
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 w
> >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.
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) Protec
>> > 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 wit
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
&g
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 r
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 s
- 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
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 forgi
- 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 comm
> 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."
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 muc
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 estab
"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 reference to some set of network resources
>> associated with the name.
> No
>I wouldn't go so far as to say that domain names shouldn't be sold, or
>transferred, etc. However, I agree with the original statement if it was
>intended to convey that the idea was that if you registered a domain name
>(or arpanet or uucp host name, or whatever) that you were establishing
>a r
>> 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
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
>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 do
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,
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
> n
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
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 car
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 Lo
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.
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,
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
75 matches
Mail list logo
