In message v0401178ab2ea72949f7d@[192.168.0.1], Gordon Cook writes:
Moreover the computer facility relevant to function itself is cheap
to replicate.
Started out as a note book after all.
el
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
A trademark is not only a string of ASCII characters, it is (potentially) a
logo that is immediately recognizable even for people that do not read.
Yes, and I wish we could get past the continual comparisons of trademarks
and domain names. A trademark is geographically
I believe that everyone on the AIP/ORSC side of the Paris Draft
Adoption conclusion stands for the change that Bret proposed and cited
below. Is it still on the boards for inclusion?
When is the drafting attempt going to be mde to come up with a meld of
the two applications? This change
Said TM "experts" discount all TLDs as distinguishing one SLD name
from another, so they want to reduce the number of TLDs to only one.
And of course as soon as they achieve this, they will have shifted the
entire problem down one level to the 3LD level, because with only one
TLD, all SLD names
I think this is a fine idea, and in addition please add some other
things that have been proposed.
Like, make sure that Fair Hearing Panels can be initiated by petition
to the Names Council (or maybe also to the General Assembly) after due
consideration given to the petition.
This need not
Well, I have several times proposed using [EMAIL PROTECTED] for this
singular purpose, since it has been rescued, and even suggested
adoption of the ORSC civil discourse rules, with a new panel of
referees to handle complaints. I even nominated the referees, but I
forget who they were. I recall
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:23:13 -0800 (PST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from
["Greg Werstiuk" [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 12 22:23:12 1999
Received: from
Ellen and all,
We couldn't agree with you more here Ellen. It seems that there are some
"Interested Parties" that feel or believe that TM's and DN's have some sort of
relationship that is special with regard to Domain Names. These folks that
argue this point usually have very little in depth
Hi,
Clearly one of the faultlines in the two DNSO applications is the power of
the Names Council -- or lack of it -- to act independently. Christiaan van
der Valk of the ICC mentioned to us several times at the Paris meeting that
there were times when something needed to get done, and that the
William X. Walsh a écrit:
On 13-Feb-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
I strongly second this recommendation, Joop, and will militate for
it in Singapore.
Might I suggest that your militant stance is one of the biggest threats to the
standards you are advocating.
Might I suggest that you
At 10:39 AM 2/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
Clare,
for resolution of these interests, both substantive and procedural. Some
kind of world wide consistency of approach on these issues seems eminently
desirable. The substantive issues need to be agreed, the most likely routes
Although "world wide
On 13-Feb-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
William X. Walsh a écrit:
On 13-Feb-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
I strongly second this recommendation, Joop, and will militate for
it in Singapore.
Might I suggest that your militant stance is one of the biggest threats to
the
standards you
This is now all the more pressing as we see what ICANN has in mind for
Registration, Certification, and Regulation of the entire Registrar
and Registry Industry, World Wide!
Yes, I know, ICANN has not exactly made it known that this is really
what they have in mind, but they also have not
At 07:23 PM 2/12/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 07:10 PM 2/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
Let's rename this thread trademarks/DNS instead of trademarks vs. DNS. The
point of the thread (and btw hats off to Mr. Meyers for trying to get the
class to behave) is hopefully to have discussions which could
At 09:34 PM 2/12/99 -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
A trademark is not only a string of ASCII characters, it is (potentially) a
logo that is immediately recognizable even for people that do not read.
Yes, and I wish we could get past the continual comparisons of trademarks
and
Antony and all,
We would be opposed to this "Expedited Recommendations" provision
in that it represents and provides, under no specific provision, as Antony
has suggested it here (See Below), an effective veto power for the
NC without the approval of the membership and does so without
a
William and all,
William, I wouldn't be a bit suprised if you were dazzeled if you were
able to find your rump with both hands. Others milage may very
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 13-Feb-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
William X. Walsh a écrit:
On 13-Feb-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
I
Stef wrote:
Said TM "experts" discount all TLDs as distinguishing one SLD name
from another, so they want to reduce the number of TLDs to only one.
And of course as soon as they achieve this, they will have shifted the
entire problem down one level to the 3LD level, because with only one
TLD,
How sad that Vint Cerf as co creator of the most important protocol of the
20th century is now prepared to use ISOC as the means of installing an
authoritarian unaccountable regulatory regime over the very internet which
he and Jon Postel played such an extraordinarily important role in creating.
I forwarded the recent exchange between Mike Roberts and Michael
Sondow to some friends and acquaintances, some of whom are long-time
Internet professionals and others who are not. This is a response
from a non-Internet professional who's been using the Internet for a
relatively short time.
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 01:01:15PM -0500, Bret Fausett wrote:
There has been much discussion about the need to give the DNSO Names
Council some executive powers to deal with "emergency" or "pressing" DNS
issues that may arise from time to time.
"Emergency" is not a good term for it. The
At 01:35 AM 2/13/99 -0800, you wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark pressure?
Not being perfectly certain of the
At 2/13/99, 02:08 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 01:01:15PM -0500, Bret Fausett wrote:
There has been much discussion about the need to give the DNSO Names
Council some executive powers to deal with "emergency" or "pressing" DNS
issues that may arise from time to time.
Jay,
he's trying to sneak in NC domination again, this time by a step by
step approach of watering down.
7 on the Kent-Meter.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jay Fenello writes:
At 2/13/99, 02:08 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 01:01:15PM -0500, Bret Fausett wrote:
There has
how abouit sending me the email addresses of the isoc trustees so that I
can send my vint cerf tin cup item directly to them?
***
The COOK Report on Internet 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
(609) 882-2572 (phone
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Einar Stefferud wrote:
}"IF YOUR PROBLEM SEEMS UNSOLVABLE,
} CONSIDER THAT YOU MAY HAVE A META PROBLEM".
The meta-problem is that some people are determined that we should have
new privately-owned TLDs and other are determined that all new
On 13-Feb-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
1. There is a vast disparity between the levels of support
For the WMB application (In the interests of avoiding possible
Intellectual Property entanglements I shall use "WMB" from now on,
instead of "BMW" :-)) we have the following submitters:
Michael and all,
You are right here IMHO. But it seems reasonable to assume that
both shared and non-shared gTLD's can coexist. If not, why not?
I have yet to see an answer to that question that is logical to date.
Michael Dillon wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Einar Stefferud wrote:
}
William and all,
William is correct here and it should be noted. Kent's claim for the
support that the WMB draft has is grossly overstated at best, same
however goes for the Paris draft as well. For instance the INEGroup
does NOT support either the WMB draft not the Paris draft in it's
Since Kent invokes my comments during the conference call, I feel compelled to
respond.
The following are my own views only.
They are premised on the assumption that we should be considering the merits of
the drafts, not claiming levels of support from organizations that have various
large
On 13-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
William and all,
William is correct here and it should be noted. Kent's claim for the
support that the WMB draft has is grossly overstated at best, same
however goes for the Paris draft as well. For instance the INEGroup
does NOT support either
I apologize for this cross-post to the IFWP list, but thought I
would use it as an opportunity to move anyone interested in the
discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED] where we should be assembling
the nuts and bolts of the over-all membership structure.
Charles Nesson wrote:
we must defend against
It was also pointed out to me that if we are going to count "members/users"
NSI's support of the Paris draft would add an additional 3 million supporters.
Apparently some of the directors of EuroISP didn't even KNOW about the DNSO
drafts, much less that there was more than one proposal.
So it
David,
Well done. I hope that you stick around to deal with the various
spluttering vituperations that are bound to emerge...
Antony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David
R. Johnson
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 1999 5:27 PM
To:
At 2/13/99, 04:32 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:34:45PM -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
At 2/13/99, 02:08 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 01:01:15PM -0500, Bret Fausett wrote:
There has been much discussion about the need to give the DNSO Names
Council some
Eric and all,
IMHO no need to apologize however you can most likely expect
a
warning message from Molly regarding cross posting as that seems
to be forbidden in the rules of the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list
rules. >;)
With respect to your content comments, we have always agreed
that
any policy
Eric Weisberg:
I apologize for this cross-post to the IFWP list, but thought I
would use it as an opportunity to move anyone interested in the
discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED] where we should be assembling
the nuts and bolts of the over-all membership structure.
Nuts, yes. Bolts: missing.
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 06:00:23PM -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
David,
Well done. I hope that you stick around to deal with the various
spluttering vituperations that are bound to emerge...
Indeed, it was a masterpiece. Unfortunately, inaccurate in important
sections
But did
Jay Fenello a écrit:
2) if no consensus was reached within that time
frame, it could be forwarded to ICANN as such?
If no consensus were reached, that would be the proof that it could
not be forwarded as such.
Kent Crispin a écrit:
Here's another very concrete, time-bounded example: NSI's contract
with the USG runs out in about two years. Some reasonable time
before that ICANN may *very well* want policy determinations on a
number of issues.
This is precisely what must not be permitted to be
Kent Crispin a écrit:
For the WMB application... we have the following submitters:
ITAA -- 11000 members
INTA -- 3200 members, 113 countries
EuroISPA -- Largest ISP association in the world
ICC -- 7000 members, 63 countries
AILPA -- over 1 members
ISOC -- 6000 members, 150 countries
Eric,
At 05:36 PM 2/13/99 , Eric Weisberg wrote:
I agree that "design against capture" should be a primary
objective. Do we have consensus on that? Do we need to poll
ourselves?
Yes, though I've come to believe that people have different ideas about
capture: a non-captured membership might
Eric Weisberg wrote:
I agree that "design against capture" should be a primary
objective. Do we have consensus on that? Do we need to poll
ourselves?
Okay. How about this as the question:
"Has the process already been captured and is all
of this scrabbling about only aiding and abeding
For the WMB application (In the interests of avoiding possible
Intellectual Property entanglements I shall use "WMB" from now on,
instead of "BMW" :-)) we have the following submitters:
ITAA -- 11000 members
INTA -- 3200 members, 113 countries
EuroISPA -- Largest ISP association in the world
ICC
Esther and all,
Esther Dyson wrote:
Maybe there should be a meeting *about* constituencies, as opposed to
necessarily *of* constituencies.
Why? It seems to us that the need for pre-defined constituencies is
fairly much opposed. The polls that we and Joop ran showed this
to be the case
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 08:42:16PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
Sorry, but when an organization does not ASK its membership for its
opinions on an issue it cannot claim to represent them.
A vast generality that can't possibly be true. Your congressperson
can legitimately claim to represent
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 08:42:16PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
Sorry, but when an organization does not ASK its membership for its
opinions on an issue it cannot claim to represent them.
A vast generality that can't possibly be true. Your congressperson
can legitimately claim to represent you,
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 09:28:40PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 08:42:16PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
Sorry, but when an organization does not ASK its membership for its
opinions on an issue it cannot claim to represent them.
A vast generality that can't possibly be
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 05:27:15PM -0500, David R. Johnson wrote:
Since Kent invokes my comments during the conference call, I feel compelled to
respond.
[...]
David, thanks for putting together your voluminous document -
indeed, I think it will be very useful in furthering the debate, and
Kent Crispin a écrit:
For
example, consider the American Cancer Society. It can reasonably
claim to represent cancer patients who aren't even members.
Then you agree that I can reasonably claim to represent other users
in my situation (non-commercial use of the Internet), or at least
all
50 matches
Mail list logo
