At 09:28 AM 3/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
Hey, I'll buy all of the below. And just as molecules in a beaker, mixed
one with another, like components will join like and precipitate out into a
significant weight to be applied to relevant issues, by the pure laws of
chemistry without unnatural, bureau
>Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Antony, Karl,
>In message <001201be6b07$fcfdff00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Antony Van Couvering" writes:
>> Karl Auerbach wrote,
> >
> >> There is no meaningful opposite to a registry constituency.
>> >
>> >Balderdash. Registries sell domain name l
Antony, Karl,
In message <001201be6b07$fcfdff00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Antony Van
Couvering" writes:
> Karl Auerbach wrote,
> >
> >> There is no meaningful opposite to a registry constituency.
> >
> >Balderdash. Registries sell domain name licenses, other folks buy them.
> >They are in direct opp
Karl Auerbach wrote,
>
>> There is no meaningful
>> opposite to a registry constituency.
>
>Balderdash. Registries sell domain name licenses, other folks buy them.
>They are in direct opposition.
I wonder how we got to this class-warfare pass. RFC 1591 puts the function
of the registry as bei
Milton Mueller wrote,
>Well, if we're talking Hegelian opposites, yeah, that's
>metaphysical. Although at
>time I believe that I am the thesis and you and Dave Crocker are
>the anti-thesis.
>
>(I just can't wait to see the synthesis.)
It's called the DNSO, and it's just as ugly (though not quite
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karl
>Auerbach
>Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 3:21 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Singapore Update
>
>For any "constituency" there is an opposite.
>
One comment on constituencies: I define constituencies in terms of the
legitimate objectives and well being of the Internet as a whole:
(i) those who provide the infrastructure of the Internet. Without them there
would not be an Internet
(ii) those who are affected by the Internet, such as the l
Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> Bret:
>
> Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>
> > My personal view is that constituencies are defined by the general
> > interest (i.e. the implications of trademarks and other intellectual
> > property on the internet) not by a more narrow political position (i.e.
> > trademar
Milton Mueller wrote:
>Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>
>> My personal view is that constituencies are defined by the general
>> interest (i.e. the implications of trademarks and other intellectual
>> property on the internet) not by a more narrow political position (i.e.
>> trademark owners should have
Bret:
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> My personal view is that constituencies are defined by the general
> interest (i.e. the implications of trademarks and other intellectual
> property on the internet) not by a more narrow political position (i.e.
> trademark owners should have first right on any dom
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kent Crispin writes:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 1999 at 05:10:33PM +, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >
> > > ... I wager you $100 that 3 out of 4 TM owners favor free
> > > expression.
> >
> > In other words you believe that folks the Nike sportswear company are
> > going to
Why does the trademark constitutiency need a counterbalance? They are one
of several constitutiencies that will have an uncertain amount of influence
in selecting three board members out of a nineteen board member. I would
have thought built-in minority status would have been a sufficient
count
>>For the ying of the constituency of trademark owners there is the yang of
>>the constituency of those who desire to use names in those areas in which
>>trademarks do not run, i.e. the legitimate areas not covered by a mark.
>
>My personal view is that constituencies are defined by the general
>
On Sat, Mar 06, 1999 at 05:10:33PM +, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > ... I wager you $100 that 3 out of 4 TM owners favor free
> > expression.
>
> In other words you believe that folks the Nike sportswear company are
> going to favor free expression of the word "nike" in all areas not
> *STRIC
Bret and all,
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
Karl Auerbach wrote:
>For the ying of the constituency of trademark owners there is the yang
of
>the constituency of those who desire to use names in those areas in
which
>trademarks do not run, i.e. the legitimate areas not covered by a
mark.
My personal view
Karl Auerbach wrote:
>For the ying of the constituency of trademark owners there is the yang of
>the constituency of those who desire to use names in those areas in which
>trademarks do not run, i.e. the legitimate areas not covered by a mark.
My personal view is that constituencies are defined
Karl and all,
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > ... I wager you $100 that 3 out of 4 TM owners favor free
> > expression.
>
> In other words you believe that folks the Nike sportswear company are
> going to favor free expression of the word "nike" in all areas not
> *STRICTLY* covered by their mark?
>
>
> ... I wager you $100 that 3 out of 4 TM owners favor free
> expression.
In other words you believe that folks the Nike sportswear company are
going to favor free expression of the word "nike" in all areas not
*STRICTLY* covered by their mark?
As has been widely demonstrated, the tendency of
K*nt
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kent Crispin writes:
> Ie, you are redefining the terms of the conversation to fit your
> point, rather than dealing with the terms as originally presented.
So what? You are doing it all the time! Why should he not be allowed?
(Not that I am saying that he's
On Sat, Mar 06, 1999 at 12:29:03AM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Now you're just playing with words. Opposite, schmopposite.
Milton, you are a sly fraud. I'm not playing with words, you are,
and you know it. I'm using the words in the sense they were
presented by Karl -- go back and look at hi
Now you're just playing with words. Opposite, schmopposite. I am talking about
political constituencies, groupings of people with more or less uniform interests in
specific outcomes or policies. In that sense, a "free expression" constituency, in the
context of domain name trademark disputes, is a
On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 07:32:11PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>
> Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > What on earth makes you think that "free expression" is the opposite
> > of TM? It is perfectly consistent for a TM holder to favor "free
> > expression". I wager you $100 that 3 out of 4 TM owners
Kent Crispin wrote:
> What on earth makes you think that "free expression" is the opposite
> of TM? It is perfectly consistent for a TM holder to favor "free
> expression". I wager you $100 that 3 out of 4 TM owners favor free
> expression.
It is a well-established part of the practice of rea
Mikki and all,
Mikki, have you informed the ICANN regarding this information?
Mikki Barry wrote:
> >Karl's claim has a specific, concrete, non-metaphysical meaning, in the
> >context of the trademark constituency in particular. If there is to be a
> >trademark constituency, why not also a fre
On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 03:34:13PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Karl's claim has a specific, concrete, non-metaphysical meaning, in the
> context of the trademark constituency in particular. If there is to be a
> trademark constituency, why not also a free expression constituency?
What on earth
>Karl's claim has a specific, concrete, non-metaphysical meaning, in the
>context of the trademark constituency in particular. If there is to be a
>trademark constituency, why not also a free expression constituency? The DNRC,
>and individual domain name holders and advocates such as Karl and myse
Karl's claim has a specific, concrete, non-metaphysical meaning, in the
context of the trademark constituency in particular. If there is to be a
trademark constituency, why not also a free expression constituency? The DNRC,
and individual domain name holders and advocates such as Karl and myself a
Karl and all,
You hit the nail on the head here Karl. This has been par of what
we have been warning folks about for some time and have tried
to diswage. But it looks like WIPO and the TM gang have won
this round, and the DN owner and possibly future DN owners
are in for some real problem in
> > For any "constituency" there is an opposite.
>
> This is a metaphysical claim. It has no relation to reality. The
> reality is that political relationships are very much more
> complicated.
Nonesense. The DNSO has presumed and empowered constituencies for
trademark owners yet ignorred
On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 08:21:09AM +, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > Precisely the same thing could be said about *any* measure designed
> > to protect a minority -- a minority is a special interest, by
> > definition.
>
> For any "constituency" there is an opposite.
This is a metaphysical cl
The CENTR document was not a specific proposal at all. It was merely a summary of
the points on which the Paris and BMW groups found consensus in Singapore. That's
the only reason it didn't include the remaining interests.
dc
>
> > The CENTR document names these initial constituencies:
> > 1.T
Karl and all,
Good points. ANd of course they have been stated over and over again
by many. It is truly astounding how the ICANN along with the
DNSO meeting could have possibly come up with the decisions
that they did. I seems as though that the comments that the ICANN
itself has requested w
> Precisely the same thing could be said about *any* measure designed
> to protect a minority -- a minority is a special interest, by
> definition.
For any "constituency" there is an opposite.
For the ying of the constituency of trademark owners there is the yang of
the constituency of those
What minority is being protected?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kent
Crispin
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 6:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Singapore Update
On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 08:39:43AM -0600, David Schutt
The real-time scribe notes from the 3 March ICANN session in Singapore is at
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/singapore-0399/archive/
dc
Ellen Rony wrote:
> Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> >> Given the number
> >> of business/tm and registry related constituencies, the game is pretty
> >> well stack
Kent and all,
But there is always the choice of picking the lesser of two evils
is there not? If so, than MOST would likely live under the,
"tyranny of the majority" and the least of all would be effected
in a perceivable manner.
Minority views and protections/needs must be protected.
On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 08:39:43AM -0600, David Schutt wrote:
[...]
> In case anyone is unclear about this, the whole point of a constituency is
> to solidify a power base, and defend it against dilution. Constituencies are
> by *definiton* 'capture by special interests'.
Precisely the same thing
At 10:02 AM 3/4/99 -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:
>didn't i read from either joop or michael that becky burr had declared
>ICANN newco? Can others confirm this? If so we know how little the word
>of commerce was worth. elliot maxwell where were you when the net needed
>you?
>
>time for legal action.
Milton Mueller wrote:
>> Given the number
>> of business/tm and registry related constituencies, the game is pretty
>> well stacked against the little-guy domain holder.)
Let's not characterize the non-commercial world using the Internet as the
"little guy domain holder". A substantial use of t
didn't i read from either joop or michael that becky burr had declared
ICANN newco? Can others confirm this? If so we know how little the word
of commerce was worth. elliot maxwell where were you when the net needed
you?
time for legal action. hello out there. IOdesign? where are you?
e measured.
David Schutt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karl
Auerbach
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 3:08 AM
To: Bret A. Fausett
Cc: DNSO; IFWP
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Singapore Update
Once more, it is made clear to me that the only unit of
Karl:
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> Once more, it is made clear to me that the only unit of interest should be
> the individual human -- one person, one vote. Giving special recognition
> (and votes) to any aggregation is an invitation to abuse and manipulation.
Sorry if I sound cynical, but by now i
I just scanned the CENTR document.
I find it quite unacceptable in the way it carves up the world into
pre-supposed "constituencies".
I also object its very obvious premise that somehow registries have a
bigger stake in things than those who need and use domain names -- It's
analogous to saying
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> The group found this very helpful, and after the lunch break, we decided
> to use the CENTR principles as a list of talking points to review our
> areas of agreement and disagreement. Much to our surprise, as we worked
> our way down the list we found consensus on virtual
Just a quick message to let you know what's going on in Singapore on the
DNSO front.
A meeting was held on Tuesday, March 2nd among many of the parties active
in the DNSO process to review the two DNSO proposals and look for areas
of consensus. In the morning session, we reviewed many of our a
45 matches
Mail list logo
