Discussion List
Subject: [ifwp] Re: How not to define membership classes
snipe
Excluding TM interests from representation does nothing to further
that business case. In fact, it probably weakens it: TM interests
are very powerful politically, and are simply "routing around
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roberto
Gaetano
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 9:12 AM
To: IFWP Discussion List
Subject: [ifwp] Re: How not to define membership classes
But my understanding is that the "general user" constituency was
sufficient
for th
is honored for
being blind, even a blind pig will find an acorn once in a while."
Hunter S. Thompson
-Original Message-
From: Michael Sondow [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 1999 8:14 PM
To: IFWP Discussion List
Subject: [ifwp] Re: How
d unchanging.
Does anyone remember the phrase 'capture by special interests'?
David Schutt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roberto
Gaetano
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 9:12 AM
To: IFWP Discussion List
Subject: [ifwp] R
At 02:30 PM 1/6/99 -0700, J.M. Inness-Brown wrote:
And this is what I'm getting to really; I wanted to thank Mr. Sondow for
his amusing comment below that he wants the internet to..
"continue to be used by everyone on an equal and free basis, which won't
happen once the lawyers, whose
At 02:53 PM 1/6/99 -0800, Frank Rizzo wrote:
Everyone who posts, at least from time to time contributes something which
I file away. Indeed, I will admit - sometimes I miss Jim Fleming...
Where is Jim Fleming? I miss him too.
Remember, Jim called it. This is all a waste of time. 4 years
J.M. Inness-Brown a écrit:
Lawyers have been dealing with these things forever. On all sides. You
may find it hard to believe, but not all lawyers work for big business, or
even for money, for that matter...and some make a terrific career out of
actually seeking thier visions of
On 07-Jan-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
While there may be some few people who get through the hell of law school on
their burning passion to do good for their fellow man, the overwhelming
majority are spurred on by the lust for money. Likewise, there may be some
few lawyers who have been drawn
William X. Walsh a écrit:
On 07-Jan-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
While there may be some few people who get through the hell of law school on
their burning passion to do good for their fellow man, the overwhelming
majority are spurred on by the lust for money. Likewise, there may be some
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Karl,
You wrote:
If trademark is included then we also need the other valid groups who use
names outside of trademark:
Small businesses
Local businesses
Churches
Schools
Charitable groups
Amateur sports
Dan,
The difficulty I have in answering to your message, is that I agree
completely with what you say.
I will try, nevertheless, because I think that we are hitting one of the key
points of the domain naming issues.
You have clearly expressed your feelings in favour of "the mere users of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05-Jan-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 05, 1999 at 09:41:14AM -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
[...]
Fine.
Do you have a business case for it? Do you really think that "amateur
sports
teams", for instance, have been so influential in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06-Jan-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 05, 1999 at 12:42:04PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 05-Jan-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
Excluding TM interests from representation does nothing to further
that business case. In fact, it
Kent:
Kent Crispin wrote:
This is not a matter of "correct" or "incorrect". It is a matter of
"consensus". The fact is that the participants of the Barcelona
meeting came up with a list of constituencies that they thought
clearly needed representation; that was a consensus item; there
On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 12:39:23AM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
Kent:
Kent Crispin wrote:
This is not a matter of "correct" or "incorrect". It is a matter of
"consensus". The fact is that the participants of the Barcelona
meeting came up with a list of constituencies that they
At 07:17 PM 1/3/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 1999 at 06:56:01PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
Roberto and anyone else from DNSO who is listening:
You are correct that the opposition of TM interests has been a key factor
holding up the creation of new gTLDs. You are not correct,
At 09:18 AM 1/4/99 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:
milton:
your disappointing me again here !!
for someone whose academic reputation is proportedly founded on accurate
research and interpretation, you are stepping way out-of-bounds here milton.
1. the meeting was not run by CORE members
Right Ken,
Milton,
You wrote:
snip
You are not correct, I believe, in then
jumping to the conclusion that TM interests must be given privileged
membership
status in a DNSO.
If this is a possible reading of my post, I apologize for lack of clarity.
My position is that, if we assume that we
]
Date: Monday, January 04, 1999 10:13 AM
Subject: [ifwp] Re: How not to define membership classes
At 09:18 AM 1/4/99 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:
milton:
your disappointing me again here !!
for someone whose academic reputation is proportedly founded on accurate
research and interpretation, you
At 12:45 PM 1/4/99 -0500, you wrote:
What would be an example of a gTLD which would be operational today were it
not for "TM interests"?
pentium.sucks
--
"To find out what your opponent is up to, look at what he
says about you" - unknown
__
If ICANN is to "administer the name space" so that
"collisions between name holders don't occur" then ICANN will need to
develop trademark-like registration procedures and trademark-like dipsute
resolution, at least as far as commercial domain names are concerned.
Thank you for this
The problem, as I see it, is that we are getting confused between top level
and second level names. ICANN has no authority over second level names,
IMHO. That is for the top level to decide. It is even arguable that ICANN
has authority over the top level, beyond obvious name conflicts.
I
At 12:07 PM 1/4/99 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
The problem, as I see it, is that we are getting confused between top level
and second level names. ICANN has no authority over second level names,
IMHO. That is for the top level to decide. It is even arguable that ICANN
has authority over the
Well, if the "objective" is "first come first served" then we are probably
all in agreement.
Trading name rights are, for the most part, awarded on a first-come
first-served basis. There is, however, some disagreement as to who was first.
__
To
At 02:32 PM 1/4/99 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
I asked Mueller to identify a TLD that TM interests alone have prevented
from being operational today and he did not reply.
During the IAHC days there wasn't much argument over whether to add new
TLDs, but rather how many. It is the pressure
During the IAHC days there wasn't much argument over whether to add new
TLDs, but rather how many. It is the pressure from the various
trade/service mark folks which has changed that situation to the current
one of immobility (and vast financial value to NSI.)
So, I would agree
As to the assertion that pentium.sucks would possibly deliver useful
information about Pentium computers, so what. If I bought a counterfeit
Pentium computer I might find that useful too but the sale would still be a
criminal act. Claimed usefulness is not a defense to a tort.
I asked
Milton Mueller a écrit:
These kinds of comments have just about dissuaded me from any further comments on
the DNSO
proposals. It appears that while the more reasonable members of dnso.org were
sincerely
soliciting comment, it is evident that Crispin, Crocker, and others have utterly no
On Fri, Jan 01, 1999 at 07:27:59PM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
In this case, since the DNSO.org is allowing INTA to determine the
bylaws,
You are misinformed.
[erroneous conclusions deleted]
This is exactly what is happening here. One special interest group is
going to
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Fri, Jan 01, 1999 at 07:27:59PM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
In this case, since the DNSO.org is allowing INTA to determine the
bylaws,
You are misinformed.
[erroneous conclusions deleted]
This is exactly what is happening here.
However, unlike ORSC, INTA has
committed to working with DNSO.org to try to work on those
differences. Since DNSO.org is in *fact* an open organization, we
will of course negotiate with them, and see if something can be
worked out.
This seems, to me, to suggest that if a group does not
It is my position that "groups" should not have any voting role
whatsoever in any part of ICANN or its SO's.
I suppose that I agree with this. I just don't see it happening, that's all,
and I want to ameliorate the pernicious effects of group power as much as
possible.
If it gets
Brandon and all,
BrandonButterworth wrote:
It is my position that "groups" should not have any voting role
whatsoever in any part of ICANN or its SO's.
I suppose that I agree with this. I just don't see it happening, that's all,
and I want to ameliorate the pernicious effects of
On Fri, Jan 01, 1999 at 11:25:49PM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
However, unlike ORSC, INTA has
committed to working with DNSO.org to try to work on those
differences. Since DNSO.org is in *fact* an open organization, we
will of course negotiate with them, and see if something can be
Where is this latest draft located? On the DNSO web page, the "latest"
thing listed is the 12/18 INTA draft. Thanks.
__
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
Agreeing with Karl who wrote...
How about eliminating membership classes and organizational membership
altogether?
Bravo.
Classes are merely arbitrary categories.
Like the attempts to categorize the spectrum of historical human
lineage into colors, any form of classification
Kent:
The issue before us is whether the business interests who want to use the DNS
to reduce the costs of policing trademarks and to strengthen trademark rights
in cyberspace should be granted a special membership class.
Is this one of those organizational suggestions that you, personally are
Onno Hovers a écrit:
Milton has a good point there. Trademark interests should not be put in
a special membership class.
I also think that the registry membership class should be merged with the
registrar membership class into a domain name services provider class.
Putting gTLD registries
Uh, I see that somebody has cc-in a newsgroup. I un-cc'd it.
Milton has a good point there. Trademark interests should not be put in
a special membership class.
I also think that the registry membership class should be merged with the
registrar membership class into a domain name
Karl Auerbach a écrit:
How about eliminating membership classes and organizational membership
altogether?
(snip)
In other words, one person, one vote. One organization, zero vote.
It seems to work reasonably well in most democratic countries -- Here in
the US, neither General Motors
Karl and all,
Karl Auerbach wrote:
In other words, one person, one vote. One organization, zero vote.
Sounds like a reasonable proposal. Onno's is interesting, too. But what's
the point of just passing around these good alternative proposals amongst
yourselves (ourselves), when the
Karl Auerbach a écrit:
In other words, one person, one vote. One organization, zero vote.
Sounds like a reasonable proposal. Onno's is interesting, too. But what's
the point of just passing around these good alternative proposals amongst
yourselves (ourselves), when the creation of
jeff Williams a écrit:
Don't hold you breath that the ICANN will reject such proposals
Karl :(
I'm afraid that Jeff's right, here. And if ICANN recognizes them, it's going
to be a lot harder to change their membership structure than if it's done
now and included in the applications.
The Barcelona/Monterrey DNSO has a quite broad base of participation:
registries, ccTLD NICs, ISOC, various telcos, business and trademark groups,
etc.
It is my position that "groups" should not have any voting role whatsoever
in any part of ICANN or its SO's.
People should have the sole
Karl Auerbach wrote:
Uh, I see that somebody has cc-in a newsgroup. I un-cc'd it.
I use a simple mail to news gateway to read those mailinglists that
interest me. Don't worry. These groups are private and not distributed
to usenet. But some netnews headers may slip in my messages.
Milton has
... the USA,
uses an equivalant of membership classes called states and congressional
districts.
We have a census every 10 years that reallocates the Congressional seats
according to population. It's an objective method of ensuring that the
per-capita voting power remains roughly
If you people do not listen to Mr. Auerbach then
you are even greater fucking idiots than I have
always believed ya'll to be. Personally I am tired
of presenting the same damned message over and over
and over again to no response. Listen to Karl. The
consequences of not listening to Karl
In this case, since the DNSO.org is allowing INTA to determine the
bylaws,
You are misinformed.
[erroneous conclusions deleted]
This is exactly what is happening here. One special interest group is
going to dictate the "rules"
No, it's not.
Unfortunately, direct observation seems to be
Michael and all,
Michael Sondow wrote:
Karl Auerbach a écrit:
In other words, one person, one vote. One organization, zero vote.
Sounds like a reasonable proposal. Onno's is interesting, too. But what's
the point of just passing around these good alternative proposals amongst
Milton and all,
Certainly we have recognized what the DNSO.ORG folks are attempting
to do with making specialized "Classes" or stakeholders/users to thwart
the principals and requirements of the White Paper. It is hoped that
the NTIA and the US Commerce department will also recognize this
This is a correct and timely comment by M. Mueller, IMHO. I have
been making the same point to the DNSO. I posted a preliminary
critique of the INTA's proposal on this and the [EMAIL PROTECTED] lists, and
will be posting a full critique along these lines later today or tomorrow.
FYI, the INTA
51 matches
Mail list logo
