94 43 15
> Fax: +(33) (0)4 92 38 52 15
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 1999 17:54
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing
>
> Richard and a
-
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 1999 17:54
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing
Richard and all,
Ohhh NOOO! We certianly don't want THIS ICANN (Initial?) Interim
Board creating any "Neutral Techni
>(As an IP attorney, I have severe doubts that anything that has such a
>functional role as a gTLD would be subject to trademark protection, in the
same way
>that there is no copyright protection for functional components. But wadda
>I know?)
Might it depend on the business model? If you're o
Richard and all,
Ohhh NOOO! We certianly don't want THIS
ICANN (Initial?) Interim
Board creating any "Neutral Technical Coordination Body"!!
It would only end up being populated of staffed by TROLLS of
one
flavor or another or POLICY WONKS that have NO idea of
what they
are doing or talking a
>ICANN could do better. But it doesn't even try.
Thats because we have a prejudicial part time ICANN doing
PR.
I'd love to see a full time neutral technical coordination
body. Somebody WILL create this, and it would be nice if
that sombody was ICANN.
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Saturday, July 24, 1999, 10:58:42 AM, Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To which I would add another type of IP
> -- that of the .com brand.
> It is no small matter that .com is the
> defacto namespace for commercial interests.
> That is a branding success, more than
> anything el
On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 11:39:49AM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> For all your hand waving, it still holds true, for the price of a single
> share of common stock in NSI, one obtains more real voice in the affairs
> of NSI than one has in all of the land of ICANN.
Tell you what, Karl. You use
For all your hand waving, it still holds true, for the price of a single
share of common stock in NSI, one obtains more real voice in the affairs
of NSI than one has in all of the land of ICANN.
And it is absurd to for you to assert that ICANN's trivial, nearly vacuous
disclosures are comparable
>Yet more nonsense. We don't have yet have ANYTHING AT ALL in the way
>of Internet Governance. In fact what we have is a tiny, underfunded,
>powerless, non-profit being pushed by the USG against a ruthless and
>clever monopoly with a huge wad of monopoly cash and an army of
>lawyers and lobbyist
On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 12:13:35AM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > Earth to Karl: You get as many votes in NSI as MONEY CAN BUY.
> > *Every* vote in NSI is a BOUGHT vote. There is no required
> > representative structure whatsoever. Furthermore, the only entities
> > that have meaningful pow
At 12:13 AM 7/25/99 -0700, you wrote:
Grossly plagiarizing a quick remark on another reply:
What he said.
Bill Lovell
>You obviously have never heard of a "derivative action". One share is all
>it takes to give standing to bring an action that can bring down the board
>of directors or officer
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 10:54:40PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >
> > > > > Oh. I see. The "Internet community" can get their data back by
> > > > > collectively buying up a majority of the shares in NSI, and forcing
> > > > > the directors to return it.
>
> Earth to Karl: You get as many votes in NSI as MONEY CAN BUY.
> *Every* vote in NSI is a BOUGHT vote. There is no required
> representative structure whatsoever. Furthermore, the only entities
> that have meaningful power in NSI are entities that control large
> blocks of shares. That is, y
At 11:45 PM 7/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Earth to Karl: You get as many votes in NSI as MONEY CAN BUY.
Hey, just like congress. You should be able to relate to that.
You have a leader of a swiss non-profit direcly competing
with a US for-profit in the US testifying before congress?
Cheeky.
Is co
>
>Of course, one can apologize all day long that ICANN needs to be so closed
>and needs to be so unresponsive. And I'd understand completely. I'd be
>embarrassed to be known as one who allowed Jones Day to run up half a
>million dollars in bills (for, among other things, writing ambigious
>corp
>
>Of course, one can apologize all day long that ICANN needs to be so closed
>and needs to be so unresponsive. And I'd understand completely. I'd be
>embarrassed to be known as one who allowed Jones Day to run up half a
>million dollars in bills (for, among other things, writing ambigious
>corp
On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 10:54:40PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > > > Oh. I see. The "Internet community" can get their data back by
> > > > collectively buying up a majority of the shares in NSI, and forcing
> > > > the directors to return it.
> > > >
> > > > You *are* joking, aren't you?
> > > Oh. I see. The "Internet community" can get their data back by
> > > collectively buying up a majority of the shares in NSI, and forcing
> > > the directors to return it.
> > >
> > > You *are* joking, aren't you? I hope?
> >
> > What is the joke is that NSI, a private for-profit compa
>Karl, you are speaking utter nonsense. One can complain that ICANN
>is not as responsive as a government should be. But it is sheer
>lunacy to say that NSI's operations come anywhere near the standards
>that have been set for ICANN.
Of course they don't. They far exceed them. Plus, NSI does
>Perhaps some people believe that. But the language of the document is
>very clear - NSI was to perform a service, there were standards by which
>the performance of that service was measured, there was a fee paid for the
>performance of that service, and there is an explict provision for the
>tra
>And what did it take to find out that ICANN is legally insolvent - a
>Congressional hearing!
All part of the open process.
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.nethttp://www.mbz.orghttp://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario
At 06:02 PM 7/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 03:32:57PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>>
>> > >You missed my point, I think. There is no one else with standing
>> > >vis a vis NSI to do anything at all about it.
>> >
>> > What about the shareholders?
>>
>> And remember, even
All,
I believe it is more than fairly obvious the these missives from
Kent here are utter nonsense (The Troll is drooling it seems...)
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 06:27:08PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > > Oh. I see. The "Internet community" can get their data back
On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 06:27:08PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > Oh. I see. The "Internet community" can get their data back by
> > collectively buying up a majority of the shares in NSI, and forcing
> > the directors to return it.
> >
> > You *are* joking, aren't you? I hope?
>
> What is
> In the context of the Network Solutions Cooperative Agreement, the
> creation of the whois database did not create a US government asset
> nor was it intended to do so.
Perhaps some people believe that. But the language of the document is
very clear - NSI was to perform a service, there wer
> > > >You missed my point, I think. There is no one else with standing
> > > >vis a vis NSI to do anything at all about it.
> > >
> > > What about the shareholders?
> >
> > And remember, even individuals and non-commercial entities can become NSI
> > shareholders. It only takes about $75 p
On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 03:32:57PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > >You missed my point, I think. There is no one else with standing
> > >vis a vis NSI to do anything at all about it.
> >
> > What about the shareholders?
>
> And remember, even individuals and non-commercial entities can b
> >You missed my point, I think. There is no one else with standing
> >vis a vis NSI to do anything at all about it.
>
> What about the shareholders?
And remember, even individuals and non-commercial entities can become NSI
shareholders. It only takes about $75 plus brokerage fees to become
>You missed my point, I think. There is no one else with standing
>vis a vis NSI to do anything at all about it.
What about the shareholders?
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.nethttp://www.mbz.orghttp://lists.aquaria.ne
On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 03:24:42PM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote:
>
[...]
> If there's an "it", then at most, who would "it" belong to? It
would only belong to the Internet
> community at large if it were in the public domain. That's pretty
hard to accomplish these
> days, believe it or not. You p
At 12:12 PM 7/24/99 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 11:38:28AM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote:
>> you have any right in it. If you pay someone to take pictures of your wedding but
>fail to
>> do it under a carefully worded contract, you are only entitled under US law to get
>cop
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 11:38:28AM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote:
> > you have any right in it. If you pay someone to take pictures of your wedding but
>fail to
> > do it under a carefully worded contract, you are only entitled under US law to
>get copies
> > of the photos
On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 11:38:28AM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote:
> you have any right in it. If you pay someone to take pictures of your wedding but
>fail to
> do it under a carefully worded contract, you are only entitled under US law to get
>copies
> of the photos. You have no right to reprodu
> > Anyway, there are merits on both sides of the see-saw. (I still see the
> > balance as being that NSI was merely admistering a government database.
> > But its a balance that apparently others who were close to the situation
> > at the time of the formation of the Cooperative Agreement see o
To which I would add another type of IP
-- that of the .com brand.
It is no small matter that .com is the
defacto namespace for commercial interests.
That is a branding success, more than
anything else.
Easy access, easy registration policies,
a huge reseller channel, significant
invest
This problem also vanishes with even a
moderate amount of competition. Assume
for a moment that the name space allowed
a diversity of business models, and a
much broader distribution of TLDs.
Then, a .law that is poorly run, will
not be able to compete with a .legal
that is. There are many
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
> >Another interesting research issue is whether it was a government asset in the first
> >place. It wasn't exclusively for the benefit of the government since plenty of
> >non-governmental parties were also using it. Even if you take the approach that it
> >was an
Diane and Karl,
In the context of the Network Solutions Cooperative Agreement, the
creation of the whois database did not create a US government asset
nor was it intended to do so.
It wasn't intended for the primary (let alone "exclusive") benefit of
the government. Such benefit was merely i
At 12:18 AM 7/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
>At 10:00 PM 7/23/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>As a former university patent manager I am quite familiar with Bayh - Dole,
>and with the philosophy underlying it. The purpose of granting IP rights to
>the research institute was to help ensure that the federal mon
At 08:48 AM 7/24/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>> Anyway, there are merits on both sides of the see-saw. (I still see the
>> balance as being that NSI was merely admistering a government database.
>> But its a balance that apparently others who were close to the situation
>> at the
Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 09:23 AM 7/24/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Bill Lovell wrote:
> >
> (...)
> put in use and avoided recapture. And therein, of course, lies the rub with
> respect to the data base that WE have created by all of our registrations
> of domain names: there was no "resear
At 08:48 AM 7/24/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>> Anyway, there are merits on both sides of the see-saw. (I still see the
>> balance as being that NSI was merely admistering a government database.
>> But its a balance that apparently others who were close to the situation
>> at the
At 09:23 AM 7/24/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>Bill Lovell wrote:
>
>> At 10:00 PM 7/23/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>> As a former university patent manager I am quite familiar with Bayh - Dole,
>> and with the philosophy underlying it. The purpose of granting IP
rights to
>> the research institute was t
Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 10:00 PM 7/23/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
> As a former university patent manager I am quite familiar with Bayh - Dole,
> and with the philosophy underlying it. The purpose of granting IP rights to
> the research institute was to help ensure that the federal money was well
>
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> Anyway, there are merits on both sides of the see-saw. (I still see the
> balance as being that NSI was merely admistering a government database.
> But its a balance that apparently others who were close to the situation
> at the time of the formation of the Cooperative Ag
At 10:00 PM 7/23/99 -0700, you wrote:
As a former university patent manager I am quite familiar with Bayh - Dole,
and with the philosophy underlying it. The purpose of granting IP rights to
the research institute was to help ensure that the federal money was well
spent, i.e., by the research re
> > > We should expect a
> > > long hard fought legal battle...coming soon. I do not understand how the
> > > folks at NTIA could have made this error (if, indeed, they did) since
> > > the DOC did not have the constitutional authority to transfer a database
> > > held in "public trust" ove
Kerry Miller wrote:
> > We should expect a
> > long hard fought legal battle...coming soon. I do not understand how the
> > folks at NTIA could have made this error (if, indeed, they did) since
> > the DOC did not have the constitutional authority to transfer a database
> > held in "public t
> > We should expect a
> > long hard fought legal battle...coming soon. I do not understand how the
> > folks at NTIA could have made this error (if, indeed, they did) since
> > the DOC did not have the constitutional authority to transfer a database
> > held in "public trust" over to a pri
>(I might add that I don't understand Richard Sexton's response to yours of
>above when he says you've not eliminated the problem but just moved it.
>Richard?)
He said "what of the tld manager goes crazy and charges a lot... we
should use the IAHC model instead". The problem is af a tld manager c
At 06:20 PM 7/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Bill Lovell wrote:
>> I'll admit to having a problem with gTLDs: .web is fine, but
someone
>> was posing the case in which an attorney wanted
"something.law,"
>> but the folks owning .law charge too much, are incompetent,
etc.
>
>This problem vanishes if we d
At 06:20 PM 7/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Bill Lovell wrote:
>> I'll admit to having a problem with gTLDs: .web is fine, but someone
>> was posing the case in which an attorney wanted "something.law,"
>> but the folks owning .law charge too much, are incompetent, etc.
>
>This problem vanishes if we d
Bill and all,
Good for you Bill! Hear hear! Indeed your domain name is yours,
you paid for it. Neither ICANN or NSI can take it away from you
without a fight! The same goes for everyone else or any organization
that has a DN registered, either for commercial on non-commercial
purposes. The
Bill Lovell wrote:
> I'll admit to having a problem with gTLDs: .web is fine, but someone
> was posing the case in which an attorney wanted "something.law,"
> but the folks owning .law charge too much, are incompetent, etc.
This problem vanishes if we demand an administrative infrastructure that
At 03:18 PM 7/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>"Hello. The Internet self organizes. That's what it does, and
>why it's so big, successful and robust.
>
>The Internet community began self organizing to create new top
>level domains a few years ago and was torpedod by IAHC.
>
>Then, after incentive and su
Richard J. Sexton a écrit:
> I think the thing that I missed from yesterdats hearing as eveyrbody
> spoke much and said little was a 90 second statement *somebody* should
> have made that might have gone like this:
>
> "Hello. The Internet self organizes. That's what it does, and
> why it's so b
At 02:23 PM 7/23/99 +, you wrote:
>
>
>
> > We should expect a
> > long hard fought legal battle...coming soon. I do not understand how the
> > folks at NTIA could have made this error (if, indeed, they did) since
> > the DOC did not have the constitutional authority to transfer a database
> >
Kerry and all,
True that many people didn't even know there was such a thing
as Intellectual property. But those that don't on the ICANN (Initial?
Interim Board, which is most of them, with the possible exception
of Frank Fitzimmons and Joe Sims, should have known or not been
selected as "Appo
> We should expect a
> long hard fought legal battle...coming soon. I do not understand how the
> folks at NTIA could have made this error (if, indeed, they did) since
> the DOC did not have the constitutional authority to transfer a database
> held in "public trust" over to a private cor
59 matches
Mail list logo
