Greg Skinner wrote:
> My fault. I went back in the archives and checked. Joe Sims and
> Larry Landweber were also mentioned. See the "trust building
> exercise" thread and some other threads it spun off.
>
Are the archives for this list now open again, or are you referring to
you own archive
Richard and all,
Richard is correct here. And form that time forward Mike Roberts is the only
other individual that has "Come Clean" on this score to my knowledge. And he
was very shaky at that in his explanation at the November 14th Boston
meeting.
To this day, we do not have a full open
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
> "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Esther Dysan was the first person to explain who contacted her
> >in a teleconferance with ORSC. She said she was apprached
> >by Ira and Roger Cochetti of IBM.
>
> My fault. I went back in the archives and
At 05:26 PM 1/12/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
>"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Esther Dysan was the first person to explain who contacted her
>>in a teleconferance with ORSC. She said she was apprached
>>by Ira and Roger Cochetti of IBM.
>
>My fault. I went back in the archiv
"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Esther Dysan was the first person to explain who contacted her
>in a teleconferance with ORSC. She said she was apprached
>by Ira and Roger Cochetti of IBM.
My fault. I went back in the archives and checked. Joe Sims and
Larry Landweber were als
At 01:15 PM 1/12/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
>Was ICANN selected by a secret process? From what I recall reading
>some time back, several ICANN interim board members indicated they
>were contacted by either Mike Roberts or Jon Postel and asked to
>serve.
Esther Dysan was the first person to ex
Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Greg Skinner wrote:
>> But the fighting existed even back in the IAHC days.
>Not the fighting over ICANN.
The point I was trying to make is that you can subsitute IAHC or Jon
Postel for ICANN and you get the same result.
>ICANN is su
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Greg Skinner wrote:
> >Much of the fighting is over ICANN itself, and comes from the fact that
> >ICANN operates in secret. A good deal of the fighting is in fact a
> >form of speculation: people are arguing over different interpretations
> >of ICANN's intent, or what today
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
> jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >For instance, it as a body or board, has allowed Mike Roberts (CEO)
> >and Joe Simms (Legal Council) to unfairly and in less than an open
> >manner, assist the DNSO.ORG in formulating the bylaws (Draft7) on a
> >ma
, but the
surrounding political structure does, too.
David Schutt
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Richard
> J. Sexton
> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 1999 8:45 PM
> To: IFWP Discussion List
> Subject: [ifwp] Re: rum
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>For instance, it as a body or board, has allowed Mike Roberts (CEO)
>and Joe Simms (Legal Council) to unfairly and in less than an open
>manner, assist the DNSO.ORG in formulating the bylaws (Draft7) on a
>mailing list that is CLOSED ( Participants List,
Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Much of the fighting is over ICANN itself, and comes from the fact that
>ICANN operates in secret. A good deal of the fighting is in fact a
>form of speculation: people are arguing over different interpretations
>of ICANN's intent, or what today's version o
On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Greg Skinner wrote:
> But this list is (supposedly) a forum for consensus, and yet people
> fight. People were fighting before ICANN appeared on the scene.
> ICANN has no control over the fighting, from what I can see.
This is generous.
Much of the fighting is over ICANN i
>Someone here once said that there are limits to how far you can string
>people along, asking them to write proposals and submit comments, before
>they lose faith that they are ever going to be listened to.
The limits have already been reached.
Christopher
_
Greg Skinner a écrit:
> But this list is (supposedly) a forum for consensus, and yet people
> fight. People were fighting before ICANN appeared on the scene.
> ICANN has no control over the fighting, from what I can see.
Sure there was fighting before. That's why the NewCo was needed: to provid
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
> Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Who's fault is all this? Again, Stef's probably right in pointing to
> >ICANN. It's this competition for applications, this beauty contest
> >that's been set up, where everyone thinks that if they can knock out
>
Gordon Cook a écrit:
>
> Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The NewCo, according to the White Paper, was supposed to be a
> self-regulatory agency taking into account and representing all Internet
> interests.
>
> Cook:.quote me that mike.chapter and verse where white paper
>But this list is (supposedly) a forum for consensus, and yet people
>fight. People were fighting before ICANN appeared on the scene.
>ICANN has no control over the fighting, from what I can see.
Which goes towards my premis that the DNSO is a worthless
entity with respect to the issues at hand,
Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The NewCo, according to the White Paper, was supposed to be a
>self-regulatory agency taking into account and representing all
>Internet interests. Unfortunately, it isn't turning out that
>way. ICANN itself is flawed, perhaps fatally, by the manner of i
Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The NewCo, according to the White Paper, was supposed to be a
self-regulatory agency taking into account and representing all Internet
interests.
Cook:.quote me that mike.chapter and verse where white paper says
**all internet interests**
**
At 04:25 PM 1/10/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Who's fault is all this? Again, Stef's probably right in pointing to
>>ICANN. It's this competition for applications, this beauty contest
>>that's been set up, where everyone thinks that if they can knock out
>>th
Greg Skinner a écrit:
>
> Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Who's fault is all this? Again, Stef's probably right in pointing to
> >ICANN. It's this competition for applications, this beauty contest
> >that's been set up, where everyone thinks that if they can knock out
> >their opp
Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Who's fault is all this? Again, Stef's probably right in pointing to
>ICANN. It's this competition for applications, this beauty contest
>that's been set up, where everyone thinks that if they can knock out
>their opponents they'll be declared the winner
I think it is worth noting in this regard that the study has been praised by Carl
Oppedahl and G. Gervaise Davis III, two of the most prominent *practitioners* of
domain name-trademark law.
Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> "Prof. Mueller argues that name speculation should not be
> counted, as to c
The basic issue which is being ignorred is this:
Under the guise of "protecting one's mark" those who hold trade/service
marks are pushing beyond the boundaries of their rights.
They do this by refusing to acknowldge that their own rights are limited
and by refusing to acknowlede that there can
When Mueller writes:
>
>--"there is no challenge to the way the cases were classified.
>Thus, it has been conceded that of the cases we know about,
>the proportions are correct."
and the critique contained, among other observations about his
classification, the following:
"Prof. Mueller argues t
Yes, the root cause of the problems remains a determination by certain
powers that they are going to continue to play this as a zero-sum
game, where if anyone else gets anything of value, it must have been
taken from the winner, and the game is to capture all the value for
the winner, no holds bar
Einar Stefferud a écrit:
>
> I think that something deeper is going on here, and to the credit of
> the DNSO.ORG, I think that the fault lies more with the International
> Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and INTA, and perhaps ICANN's willingness to
> work in closed meetings with INTA and others, includ
I think that something deeper is going on here, and to the credit of
the DNSO.ORG, I think that the fault lies more with the International
Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and INTA, and perhaps ICANN's willingness to
work in closed meetings with INTA and others, including DNSO.ORG.
I believe that this v
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> Either ignore such rumors and let them fester their way around the
> community, or be happy that someone has the guts to surface them so
> you can deny them straight away.
I recall that during the December 97 IETF meeting DC someone in a hall BOF made
a joke that the gov
I stand corrected. What I meant was that the leadership of the dnso.org
is attempting to do this.
--MM
Michael Sondow wrote:
> Milton Mueller a écrit:
>
> > No, what's really going on here is that the dnso.org is
> > attempting to cut a deal with the trademark interests.
>
> Milton-
>
> The othe
Hi Ken, and all --
DO NOT SHOOT THE MESSENGER!
You (DNSO.ORG and ICANN) have a simple choice.
Either ignore such rumors and let them fester their way around the
community, or be happy that someone has the guts to surface them so
you can deny them straight away.
By becoming angry at the messeng
Milton Mueller a écrit:
>
> I stand corrected. What I meant was that the leadership of the dnso.org
> is attempting to do this.
Thanks for modifying that comment. I feel badly about all these polemics
going on to the utter obliviousness of most of the people who actually make
up dnso.org. There
c: IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 3:18 PM
Subject: [ifwp] Re: rumor: dnso.org and trademark community have cut a deal
>Hi Ken, and all --
>
>DO NOT
Roeland and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> At 12:09 PM 1/7/99 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> >It is highly revealing that INTA and its new-found puppet,
> >Kent Crispin, have chosen to attack the study on grounds of
> >statistical methodology. I don't think this point has been
> >emphasized
Milton Mueller a écrit:
> No, what's really going on here is that the dnso.org is
> attempting to cut a deal with the trademark interests.
Milton-
The other assertions you made in your posting may be true; I have no
information one way or the other. But that the dnso.org per se is cutting
deals
At 12:09 PM 1/7/99 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>It is highly revealing that INTA and its new-found puppet,
>Kent Crispin, have chosen to attack the study on grounds of
>statistical methodology. I don't think this point has been
>emphasized enough: the entire argument they have mounted
>consists
; From: Milton Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 12:14 PM
> Subject: [ifwp] Re: rumor: dnso.org and trademark community have cut a deal
>
> >
> >It is highly revealing that INTA and its
>Gordon -
>
>As usual, there are some grains of truth here, of course: the trademark
>interests have a lot of money.
^^
Cook: Yes indeed they do. One of the problems of ICANN, if I may be
allowe
Esther and all,
Esther Dyson wrote:
> Gordon -
>
> As usual, there are some grains of truth here, of course: the trademark
> interests have a lot of money.
> And we (the Initial Board of ICANN) hope that various groups will come
> together into a consensus DNSO proposal.
Oh yes with Joe Simms
Ken and all,
Well due to the obvious defensive nature of Ken's response to Gordon's
post I am not leaning toward believing that Gordon's post was getting a little
too close to the mark, and his sources were being very accurate and are
creditable. Sorry Ken
Ken Stubbs wrote:
> Gordon & Al
P Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 12:14 PM
Subject: [ifwp] Re: rumor: dnso.org and trademark community have cut a deal
>
>It is highly revealing that INTA and its new-found puppet,
>Kent Crispin,
__
I have been reading the WIPO RFC2 and also catching up
with some of the political machinations surrounding the
dnso.org meeting in Washington Jan 22.
It's apparent now why Kent and other propagandists for the
gTLD-MoU group are trying so hard to bury the results of
my trademark study under a moun
Gordon -
As usual, there are some grains of truth here, of course: the trademark
interests have a lot of money.
And we (the Initial Board of ICANN) hope that various groups will come
together into a consensus DNSO proposal.
HOWEVER, you and I both know that there is no such thing as "a few I
Gordon & All:
LET ME BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR ABOUT THIS !!!
THIS ANANYMOUS ALLEGATION IS A BLATANT LIE !
i also believe it is incredibly irresponsible and unprofessional for you
Gordon to publish unfounded anonymous garbage like this to the lists.
Ken Stubbs
Chairman - Executive Committee
Interne
45 matches
Mail list logo
