>From netmagic.com!amr Sun Jun 27 02:12:01 1999
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from exchange.agent.org([206.5.17.8]) (4419 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
via sendmail with P:smtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
(sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 02:12:00 -0400 (EDT)
(Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
Received: from [206.5.17.2] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 3.03.0018/1.acsd) with
ESMTP id ra016761 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:19:19 -0400
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:19:41 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: "thin" registries
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<000201bec011$6392e1a0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=====================_612408296==_.ALT"
--=====================_612408296==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Jon,
>I'm not feeling a fan of strict dispute resolution policies--I don't like
>the idea of domain name registrants forced to park whatever traditional
>legal rights they may have for a cookie-cutter arbitration simply to
>acquire a name--but I can see how they only work if they're uniform across
>a registry.
I guess that's the rub. If you presuppose an all powerful
global body capable of dictating everything to everyone,
everywhere, it's possible to roll out a one-size-fits-all
cookie. It's probably that chimera that's driven
the actors, if not the raison d'etre of the policies -
irrespective of reality or any other factors. I find the
whole ICANN-GAC thing as one big deck of cards.
>While I'm using a message slot: do you know what the basis is for the idea
>of "renting" domain names at the registry level instead of owning them,
I suppose this was born out of an interest in acquiring
a domain zone without actually populating it with anything
more than a name server. Seems like little more than a
definitional alias.
>(Whose shill crapola was to be inserted below, btw?) ...JZ
For those who like to play the NSI shill game.
Which reminds me - are there any historical examples where
an entity playing a quasi-governmental role like ICANN has
ever displayed such amazing behavior as we've witnessed over
the past couple of weeks - and whether it doesn't essentially
disenfranchise it from playing that role? It's worthy of
research.
--tony
--=====================_612408296==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
Jon,<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>I'm not feeling a fan of strict dispute
resolution policies--I don't like<br>
the idea of domain name registrants forced to park whatever
traditional<br>
legal rights they may have for a cookie-cutter arbitration simply
to<br>
acquire a name--but I can see how they only work if they're uniform
across<br>
a registry.</blockquote><br>
I guess that's the rub. If you presuppose an all powerful<br>
global body capable of dictating everything to everyone,<br>
everywhere, it's possible to roll out a one-size-fits-all <br>
cookie. It's probably that chimera that's driven<br>
the actors, if not the raison d'etre of the policies -<br>
irrespective of reality or any other factors. I find the<br>
whole ICANN-GAC thing as one big deck of cards.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>While I'm using a message slot: do you know
what the basis is for the idea<br>
of "renting" domain names at the registry level instead of
owning them,</blockquote><br>
I suppose this was born out of an interest in acquiring<br>
a domain zone without actually populating it with anything<br>
more than a name server. Seems like little more than a <br>
definitional alias.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>(Whose shill crapola was to be inserted below,
btw?) ...JZ</blockquote><br>
For those who like to play the NSI shill game.<br>
<br>
Which reminds me - are there any historical examples where<br>
an entity playing a quasi-governmental role like ICANN has<br>
ever displayed such amazing behavior as we've witnessed over<br>
the past couple of weeks - and whether it doesn't essentially<br>
disenfranchise it from playing that role? It's worthy of <br>
research.<br>
<br>
--tony
</html>
--=====================_612408296==_.ALT--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
