Hello Kent --
I may live to regret responding to you on this, but...
>From Kent's message Mon, 8 Feb 1999 01:47:33 -0800:
}
}On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 07:43:57PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
}
}> > Furthermore, it is explicitly the case that the Names Council only
}> > gives recommendations t
On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 07:34:40AM -0600, John B. Reynolds wrote:
> Jay Fenello wrote:
> >
> > How do you envision ICANN enforcing
> > policies onto the registries?
>
> If all else fails, ICANN has the authority to remove them from its root
> zone. It's admittedly the 'nuclear option', but it's
Jay Fenello wrote:
>
> At 2/8/99, 08:34 AM, John B. Reynolds wrote:
> >
> >
> >Jay Fenello wrote:
> >>
> >> At 2/7/99, 06:15 PM, John B. Reynolds wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Milton Mueller wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The Paris draft group, on the other hand, was responsive to this
> >> >> same criticism.
> >>
At 2/8/99, 08:34 AM, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>
>
>Jay Fenello wrote:
>>
>> At 2/7/99, 06:15 PM, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>> >
>> >Milton Mueller wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Paris draft group, on the other hand, was responsive to this
>> >> same criticism.
>> >> I commend them for this.
>> >
>> >On the o
At 2/8/99, 04:47 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 07:43:57PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>> > Furthermore, it is explicitly the case that the Names Council only
>> > gives recommendations to ICANN.
>>
>> That is all the DNSO CAN do Kent, so this is no distinction.
>
>Of cou
Jay Fenello wrote:
>
> At 2/7/99, 06:15 PM, John B. Reynolds wrote:
> >
> >Milton Mueller wrote:
> >>
> >> The Paris draft group, on the other hand, was responsive to this
> >> same criticism.
> >> I commend them for this.
> >
> >On the other hand, the Paris group was completely unresponsive
> t
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 07:43:57PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > Furthermore, it is explicitly the case that the Names Council only
> > gives recommendations to ICANN.
>
> That is all the DNSO CAN do Kent, so this is no distinction.
Of course. However, Jay, Einar, and others have contin
At 2/7/99, 06:15 PM, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>
>Milton Mueller wrote:
>>
>> The Paris draft group, on the other hand, was responsive to this
>> same criticism.
>> I commend them for this.
>
>On the other hand, the Paris group was completely unresponsive to criticism
>that its veto provisions gave
William X. Walsh wrote:
> > * It is proposed that Section 5.9 be amended to read:
> >
> > The
> > Names Council shall establish an implementation preview process that will
> > determine whether a substantial plurality of those registries which vote
> > to support such implementation or
William and all,
Language will need to be added to the effect that the General membership
must approve such Implementation consideration review by majority
vote before the NC can than present it to the ICANN.
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 08-Feb-99 John B. Reynolds wrote:
> > > What would you
On 08-Feb-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
> However, the Barcelona/Monterrey/Washington (BMW?!?!) draft is
> substantially better: minority opinions may *always* be submitted to
> ICANN, regardless of the vote of the Names Council. No
> implementation preview is required, no 3/4s vote, and any
> con
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 06:44:57PM -0600, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>
>
> AIP and NSI came pretty close two days ago:
>
> * It is proposed that Section 5.9 be amended to read:
>
> In addition to filing a Fair Hearing Petition, any member of the
> Registry, Registrar or ISP constituency which may
John B. Reynolds wrote
> As an advocate of expansion of the TLD space and policies
> that would protect domain registrants from exploitation based
> on registry lock-in, I prefer to take my chances with the
> business community than with the incumbent TLD registries.
A good deal of what you s
On 08-Feb-99 John B. Reynolds wrote:
> > What would you suggest? I'd like to hear it, and perhaps the
> > participants here
> > can contribute and we can come up with something that is workable.
> >
>
> AIP and NSI came pretty close two days ago:
>
> * It is proposed that Section 5.9 be am
William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> On 07-Feb-99 John B. Reynolds wrote:
> > The problem is that I am not convinced that all of the
> incumbent ccTLDs (or
> > even a majority thereof) or the incumbent gTLD share your commitment to
> > competition, and the Paris draft puts them in a position to block
On 07-Feb-99 John B. Reynolds wrote:
> The problem is that I am not convinced that all of the incumbent ccTLDs (or
> even a majority thereof) or the incumbent gTLD share your commitment to
> competition, and the Paris draft puts them in a position to block it.
Granted, you've never been on an
A few comments
John B. Reynolds wrote:
> Registries are also businesses, and have had even less difficulty than TM
> owners in making themselves heard, yet there has been no opposition to
> granting them a constituency.
Good point. My preference would have been for a more flat membership model
William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> On 07-Feb-99 John B. Reynolds wrote:
> > As an advocate of expansion of the TLD space and policies that
> would protect
> > domain registrants from exploitation based on registry
> lock-in, I prefer to
> > take my chances with the business community than with the i
On 07-Feb-99 John B. Reynolds wrote:
> As an advocate of expansion of the TLD space and policies that would protect
> domain registrants from exploitation based on registry lock-in, I prefer to
> take my chances with the business community than with the incumbent TLD
> registries.
What makes
Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> I agree that both drafts have their flaws, but very definitely
> view the Paris
> draft as the lesser of the two evils. In fact, I am not sure that
> it has any
> evil in it at all.
>
> The dnso.org application's recognition of a "Trademark and
> anti-counterfeiting"
>
I agree that both drafts have their flaws, but very definitely view the Paris
draft as the lesser of the two evils. In fact, I am not sure that it has any
evil in it at all.
The dnso.org application's recognition of a "Trademark and anti-counterfeiting"
constituency is an unfair and discriminator
21 matches
Mail list logo
