On Fri, May 14, 1999 at 11:53:53PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 10:49:50PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> Kent intoned:
>
> >Let's see --
> >Governments have standing armies. Does ICANN?
> >Governments can put you in jail. Can ICANN?
> >Governments can have you
> When I speak of "a government of a state like New Zealand" that
> conveys something.
When I speak of "an idiot like the K*nt", that conveys something.
el
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, The K*nt writes:
> On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 10:49:50PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> A few regulatory functions, enforced through contracts, does not
> make a government, Patrick.
Use the Root, Luke!
el
All,
ROFLMAO! Very true Eberhard,
or whomever you really are..
When anyone denigrates any government in any capacity, that
also conveys something.
Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> When I speak of "a government of a state like New
Zealand" that
> conveys something.
When I speak of "an idiot like t
At 11:36 PM 5/13/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 10:49:50PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 May 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 06:32:31PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Legislators know how to put laws on the books. They have
On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 10:49:50PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
Kent intoned:
>Let's see --
>Governments have standing armies. Does ICANN?
>Governments can put you in jail. Can ICANN?
>Governments can have you executed. Can ICANN?
>
We are talking about governance of central internet func
Whomever this is and all,
ROFLMAO K*nt = Something
that smells fishy??
Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
K*nt,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kent Crispin writes:
> 5 years ago the web was just starting to get popular, and look at
it
> now. The Internet, and ICANN, *will* be changing. There
is
> a
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 10:49:50PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 May 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 06:32:31PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Legislators know how to put laws on the books. They hav
At 02:37 PM 5/13/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>>I think it should be adopted, immediately, on a provisional basis. I
>>think that the new registrars need a uniform framework for dispute
>>resolution fairly early on (like: now).
>
>They have a uniform framework. It's called the cour
On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 10:49:50PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 06:32:31PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > >
> > > Legislators know how to put laws on the books. They have little experience
> > > in taking them off.
K*nt,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kent Crispin writes:
> 5 years ago the web was just starting to get popular, and look at it
> now. The Internet, and ICANN, *will* be changing. There is
> absolutely no way they can avoid it.
So, we lay back and enjoy it?
Are you getting paid to write t
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 06:32:31PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >
> > Legislators know how to put laws on the books. They have little experience
> > in taking them off.
>
> We are not talking about legislators. This is not a government.
Sadly Ke
On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 06:32:31PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> Legislators know how to put laws on the books. They have little experience
> in taking them off.
We are not talking about legislators. This is not a government.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and y
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > That is what will be required if the famous
> > marks exclusion becomes part of your so desirable unform base DRP.
>
> Not at all. It is absolutely and completely trivial to implement
> this at the registry level -- for example, the registry simply
First off, we have "competition in DRP's". Theres a Dispute Resolution
Policy for com/net/org theres ones for .mil and .gov and .edu and there's
probably ones for .arps and .int although I dount they've ever been tested
(or maybe even written). There are 240 other ones for cctlds, no dount
they re
On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 02:37:29PM -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> >I think it should be adopted, immediately, on a provisional basis. I
> >think that the new registrars need a uniform framework for dispute
> >resolution fairly early on (like: now).
>
> They have a uniform fr
Mark and all,
Yes, this is typical sort of reply in total disdain that Mike Roberts
would and has made in the past towards stakeholders. He appears not
to have any concern or respect for the Stakeholder community, with the
possible exception of those that have large TM interests and avid
WIPO
Richard and all,
As you may know the INEGroup has already voted upon this Dispute
Resolution Policy described or put forth by WIPO. We voted by
more than a 2/3's majority (72% I believe) against. That is in the
+80,000 member range against this WIPO policy. That post was
cc'ed to the ICANN c
cross-posting to the WIPO list because it's about WIPO.
I am not thrilled with the expression "competition in DRPs" because I think
it will lead to off-shore jurisdictions catering to pirates. I acknowledge
that getting out from under the Damocles sword of NSI's DRP is not
insignificant, but it
e: [IFWP] ICANN's Bylaws and WIPO Report
> Ok, thanks for the answer Kent. Is there consensus that
> a global Dispute Resolution Policy is desirable?
>
> (Me: no (!))
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Those who give up a little freedom for a l
Kent Crispin wrote:
>I think it should be adopted, immediately, on a provisional basis. I
>think that the new registrars need a uniform framework for dispute
>resolution fairly early on (like: now).
They have a uniform framework. It's called the court system.
>Modifiability, therefore, is a re
Ok, thanks for the answer Kent. Is there consensus that
a global Dispute Resolution Policy is desirable?
(Me: no (!))
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
--Thomas Jeffer
On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 04:00:25PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> Kent, let me ask you a question. DO you think the WIPO report
> should be adopted, scrapped or modified?
A serious question deserves a serious answer:
I think it should be adopted, immediately, on a provisional basis. I
think
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, The K*nt wrote:
> > Note that last sentence. Since Article VI-B on the DNSO has been added,
> > the DNSO exists.
>
> There are still vast loopholes, tho. In particular, the Board could
> deem that condition 1,2, or 3 were not yet fulfilled, and that
> additio
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bret A. Fau
sett" writes:
> It appears that my concern that ICANN might take action on WIPO in Berlin
> was misfounded. It's Bylaws appear to preclude such an action:
>
> The Board shall refer proposals for substantive policies
> not received from a Supporting O
Bret,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bret A. Fausett"
writes:
> Note that last sentence. Since Article VI-B on the DNSO has been added,
> the DNSO exists.
So, let's sue them :-)-O
el
Kent, let me ask you a question. DO you think the WIPO report
should be adopted, scrapped or modified?
If you think it should be adopted is that because it's
such a great idea or because "if we just pass this we
can get on with it and get that much closer to getting
new tlds in the root".
--
[E
Title: RE: [IFWP] ICANN's Bylaws and WIPO Report
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bret,
The danger is in the "if any" clause. ICANN could misconstrue this as
an open door to take action due to the current lack of a formal SO.
Gene Marsh
anycastN
Bret,
Maybe Michael Roberts hasn't read the Bylaws:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,1087,3_116141,00.html
But ICANN President Michael Roberts said the report has been public since it
was in draft form months ago. And he criticized the petitioners for putting up
what he called p
Bret A. Fausett a écrit:
>
> It appears that my concern that ICANN might take action on WIPO in Berlin
> was misfounded. It's Bylaws appear to preclude such an action:
>
> The Board shall refer proposals for substantive policies
> not received from a Supporting Organization to the Supporting
> O
Bret A. Fausett a écrit:
>
> It appears that my concern that ICANN might take action on WIPO in Berlin
> was misfounded. It's Bylaws appear to preclude such an action
Very funny.
Marsh, Miles (Gene) wrote:
>The danger is in the "if any" clause. ICANN could misconstrue this as
>an open door to take action due to the current lack of a formal SO.
My understanding is that the DNSO already exists. Bylaw VI (3)(a) reads:
Provision for specific supporting organizations shall
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> It appears that my concern that ICANN might take action on WIPO in Berlin
> was misfounded. It's Bylaws appear to preclude such an action:
>
> The Board shall refer proposals for substantive policies
> not received from a Supporting Organization to
On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 11:28:39AM -0400, Bret Fausett wrote:
> Marsh, Miles (Gene) wrote:
>
> >The danger is in the "if any" clause. ICANN could misconstrue this as
> >an open door to take action due to the current lack of a formal SO.
>
> My understanding is that the DNSO already exists. Byla
Bret A. Fausett a écrit:
>
> My understanding is that the DNSO already exists. Bylaw VI (3)(a)
> reads:
Bret-
Why kid yourself that the bylaws mean anything? Doesn't it say in
Art.5 Sec.1: "The initial Board of Directors of the Corporation
("Initial Board") shall consist of nine At Large membe
35 matches
Mail list logo
