Martin B. Schwimmer a écrit:
How will not-for-profit entities such as trade associations, marketing
boards, research consortiums, which exist at the behest of commercial
entities, be treated?
The DNSO Formation Concepts of March 4 give constituency five as
"Non-commercial domain name
William,
What do such domains do to reduce confusion; that is,
to enhance domain namespace (or the net in general) for
communication? Zilch.
I Fail to see why they should HAVE to ensure that registrants in
per were really individuals. The registry is in the business of
At 01:24 AM 3/13/99 +, Karl Auerbach wrote:
I assert that once people understand the issues that there is no
concensus.
Ahh, so the existence of consensus means that people don't really
understand the issues?
If the IETF Poisson work is so terrible, then pursue an alternative
proposal.
Gordon Cook wrote:
Regarding his [Dave Farber's} point 2 and the grey ribbons I was able
to double check
with one of my sources who clearly reiterated that he saw no one wearing a
grey ribbon or handing them out.
I wasn't there, but Prof. Farber initiated contact with me to express him
some
Ronda Hauben writes:
+ The issue of ICANN is not only *timely* but crucial
+ to the existence and development of the Internet,
+ and thus also to the existence and continued development
+ of the IETF.
+
+ Those on the ICANN interim board have been chosen because
+ they have a conflict of
Craig Simon wrote:
= Regardless of my own desire for more openness in ICANN's processes, I
= think he and others at the Berkman Center have behaved in an honest and
= forthright manner, trying to include as many people in the discussions
= as possible. I've listened to the Real Audio feed from
At 12:26 AM 3/13/99 -0800, you wrote:
Dan Steinberg wrote:
More evidence of reverse domain name hijacking:
http://www.internetnews.com/rumblings/0,1145,81,00.html
Cyberpiracy comes in two forms. One, which WIPO focuses on, has the
trademark owner as the victim of the predatory behavior of
Michael and all,
Interesting points here Michael. Don't expect any honest or direct
answers anytime soon
Michael Sondow wrote:
Mr. McLaughlin-
You told me (and others?) in Singapore that the WIPO-inspired
provisions of the Accreditation Guidelines prejudicial to domain
name holders
A question for ICANN.
In the 11th Amendment to the Co-operative Agreement between the USG and NSI:
2.By December 1, 1998, NSI shall create a focused input technical advisory
group consisting of not more than 10 individuals designated by NewCo to
comment on the design of and participate in
Dave and all,
Dave Farber wrote:
There are many cultures represented on the Interim
Board . Many come from cultures that do not engage in open board meetings
nor have legal requirements for public meetings to be open. If the
purpose of openness is to insure visibility of the process then my
Ellen Rony wrote:
Dan Steinberg wrote:
More evidence of reverse domain name hijacking:
http://www.internetnews.com/rumblings/0,1145,81,00.html
Cyberpiracy comes in two forms. One, which WIPO focuses on, has the
trademark owner as the victim of the predatory behavior of unaffiliated and
bad
When I said many cultures represented I DID NOT mean in a democratic fashion but in
the context of an outlook on process. Europeans have a different perspective.
At 09:12 AM 3/13/99 +, jeff Williams wrote:
Dave and all,
Dave Farber wrote:
There are many cultures represented on the
At 01:28 AM 3/11/99 -0500, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
That said, I very much supported cutting you off at the microphone after
you'd (to be sure, just in my and some others' view, clearly not yours!)
abused the privilege to speak at it. I'd like to explain why. The
archives are all online at
One day, we will look back on these discussions,
and realize that the closed nature of the decision
making processes of the IAB, ISOC, and others were
directly responsible for the mess we are currently
in.
I would hardly use it as a standard to emulate ;-)
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
Dave, We disagree on this issue and most likely will continue to disagree. I believe
the ICANN, the IAB etc meetings should be open. It is the best defense for all
concerned against anti-trust, cartel etc accusations. I happen to like the US rules
for federal committees. EFF, ISOC and others
*sigh*
I'll give it one more try ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
Thank you for the suggestion that I pay to become a member of
a group which has 'interests in providing Internet education.'
That's not what I meant.
I suggested that you contact the individuals within ISOC
At 01:26 PM 3/13/99 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
One day, we will look back on these discussions,
and realize that the closed nature of the decision
making processes of the IAB, ISOC, and others were
directly responsible for the mess we are currently
Dave Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are many cultures represented on the Interim Board . Many come
from cultures that do not engage in open board meetings nor have legal
requirements for public meetings to be open. If the purpose of
openness is to insure visibility of the process
Dave, Crock, and all,
We agree completely. "The Crock" aka Doctor Spin as do some of the
existing ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board, do not believe in openness
as is required by the White Paper. In deed this is setting themselves
up for some serious repercussions I am sure they do not wish
Greg and all,
Greg, openness has it's detriments, yours is not withstanding. However
the benefits far outweigh the detriments.
Greg Skinner wrote:
Dave Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are many cultures represented on the Interim Board . Many come
from cultures that do not engage
Andrew McLaughlin wrote:
I'm extremely disappointed that you would stoop to attack my integrity
Not half so disappointed as I am to see that the draconian,
WIPO-inspired, anti-registrant provisions of the Accreditation
Guidelines have been reproduced, in a form still worse than before,
in the
21 matches
Mail list logo
