Michael and all,
Michael Dillon wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Golan Klinger wrote:
Further, the US Department of Commerce has little power and no
interest in this matter.
Clearly you don't have a clue what is going on. The DOC stepped in and
prevented a competitive alternative TLD
Stef and all,
Einar Stefferud wrote:
Hi Antony -- I am having a lot of difficulty with the fact that you
opened this thread with an accusation that I am acting in favor of NSI
for conflict of interest reasons, which is very much like asking when
I am going to stop beating my wife. Of
It's like Vietnam. We've got to kick ourselves in the * before
we realize we've been wrong. Once politicians and lawyers get their
hooks in, there's only one way things can go: legislation and
constraint. Regulation.
Regulation didn't stop the war, acid did.
What happened to the White
At 11:20 PM 3/22/99 -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
continuum. The InterNIC today is about as relevant as the
NSFNet backbone. They both hail from the same era.
So, the fact that it is old means that it is irrelevant.
Interesting logic, since TCP and IP are even older. I gather than IANA is
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:29:25 -0800, "William X. Walsh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Beginning in just a few hours, DSo Internet will turn on a root server serving
the "root" zone as pulled from the ORSC staging root, which includes a number of
TLDs not currently in the NSI operated USG controlled
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Richard J. Sexton" writes:
What happened to the White Paper and Internet self-regulation? A
fairytale for the IFWP.
Ah. The McGovern campaign of the DNS.
Actually, you guys did it yourself.
el
Richard J. Sexton a écrit:
Regulation didn't stop the war
Just what I was saying.
acid did.
Are you referring to acetylsalicylic acid, perchance?
In any case, I doubt if the war in Vietnam was stopped by acid of
any sort, but a little of it might help the present regulators to
find a
At 05:25 PM 3/23/99 +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Richard J. Sexton" writes:
What happened to the White Paper and Internet self-regulation? A
fairytale for the IFWP.
Ah. The McGovern campaign of the DNS.
Actually, you guys did it yourself.
How so ?
--
At 04:01 PM 3/23/99 +0100, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 11:20 PM 3/22/99 -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
continuum. The InterNIC today is about as relevant as the
NSFNet backbone. They both hail from the same era.
So, the fact that it is old means that it is irrelevant.
Interesting logic, since TCP
All,
Looks like there is allot more than enough to go around...
see: http://cnnfn.com/digitaljam/newsbytes/128328.html
So just maybe there is jusst a bit too much whining going
on here???
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Kris and all,
One problem or misconception that you may be under Kris is that
NSI DOES own the registry. This was determined by the NTIA/DOC
some time ago now
Kris Schantz wrote:
All:
Agreed. I think everyone appreciates Chuck's ongoing efforts to act as a
point of contact for NSI,
At 12:43 PM 3/23/99 -0500, you wrote:
Actually, the USG now has the trademark.
Ah, so! Now, inasmuch as trademarks cannot exist in a vacuum but
only in association with the corresponding goods and/or services --
if you're not a trademark attorney kindly don't argue that point --
are you saying
At 10:54 AM 3/23/99 -0800, you wrote:
There have been several articles. Mostly with a negative twinge. Here are
three of them:
http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,3933,00.html?home.tf
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,34090,00.html
I am deeply saddened to see no mention of the issue of anti-competitive
service bundling raised in the various news articles with regards Network
Solutions recent highjacking of the Internic.
Am I the only one who sees how damaging this has been and will continue to be
to those providing mail
I brought them up on the internic's domain-policy lists. ISPs on various other
forums I am one are MOST concerned with this issue. I also express these
concerns to a reporter form the AP this afternoon, but it doesn't appear his
story carried that aspect, focusing on the regulatory/USG/ICANN
This language is quoted from the Industry Standard
article, and seems to present the nub of the problem.
"The registrar is akin to the retailer of domain names
to the public and that is where the competition will be
launched initially. The registry function is akin to the
wholesaler and the
This from the CNET article:
"Under its contract with the U.S. government,
NSI owns the contents of the InterNIC database.
It appears that the government owns the InterNIC
trademark, meaning that only it could object to
NSI's move."
That's drivel. Anyone adversely affected by the use
of a
Bill and all,
Bill Lovell wrote:
This language is quoted from the Industry Standard
article, and seems to present the nub of the problem.
"The registrar is akin to the retailer of domain names
to the public and that is where the competition will be
launched initially. The registry
Monopoly siutuations invite the kind of decision
making and public reaction we are witnessing in
regards to Network Solutions recent abandonment
of the Internic moniker (not to mention the highly
covered up reaction to the ICANN debacle!). We,
as citizens, have nowhere else to turn with
The Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, found on February 3,
1999, that domain names are "property" and subject to judicial sale
to satisfy a monetary judgment against the registrant.
http://www.alston.com/docs/Advisories/199709/Ipwebtxt.htm
20 matches
Mail list logo
