Hi.
While this discussion on the IETF list has been very
interesting, it is probably worth noting that the odds of ICANN
staff following the IETF list to the extent needed to pull out
this thread and make use of it are not high.
Instructions for making comments that they, and presumably the
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 05:12:07PM +0300, Aki Niemi allegedly wrote:
I find it hard to interpret that text in any other fashion -- they want
to describe end-to-end protocols by DNS name.
I don't quite see what the difference here is to .edu for example. Isn't
this indeed very similar to how the
So what is the rationale for organizing ourselves based on our
respective countries?
to match legal jurisdictions
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:47:17AM -0400, Scott W Brim wrote:
I don't quite see what the difference here is to .edu for example. Isn't
this indeed very similar to how the .edu provides a clearly
recognisable label for educational services and content?
.edu was an administrative
At 03:42 30/04/04, John C Klensin wrote:
http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/stld-public-comments.htm
Dear John,
it seems that (one of the) most important entry (the letter from ITU
regarding the .tel/.mobi requests) cannot be accessed.
jfcm wrote:
At 03:42 30/04/04, John C Klensin wrote:
http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/stld-public-comments.htm
Dear John,
it seems that (one of the) most important entry (the letter from ITU
regarding the .tel/.mobi requests) cannot be accessed.
Jefsey (and others),
Due to prompt action on the part of ICANN staff once this was
called to their attention, the problem is now fixed and, due to
some spam-cleaning done at the same time, the posting is now at
http://forum.icann.org/lists/stld-rfp-general/msg00039.html/.
The implication of
At 21:04 30/04/04, John C Klensin wrote:
Jefsey (and others),
Due to prompt action on the part of ICANN staff once this was called to
their attention, the problem is now fixed and, due to some spam-cleaning
done at the same time, the posting is now at
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dean Ande
rson writes:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
You're confusing URI methods, protocols, and TLDs disastrously.
I think it is you who is reading too much into the .tel and .mobi TLD.
These are not proposals to put URI method functionality into
% There are two proposals for .tel; here's text from one of them:
%
% Sub-domains of .tel may not be arbitrarily defined; rather
% they are defined in accordance with the ITU E.164 standard.
% A valid e164 domain name under the .tel TLD is defined
% as follows:
%
%
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Markus Stumpf wrote:
No new TLD helps for the overcrowding, as all owners of trademarks
have to and will register their name and enforce delegation of the name
by law.
This isn't true. No one is required by law to register their trademark as
a domain name.
So at best a
ext Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Sure there are. Here's a direct quote from the .mobi proposal:
Businesses and consumers that utilise mobile devices will
be able to take advantage of a wide range of Internet
services and content under the mTLD that have been specifically
, peterf
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Bill Manning
Sent: Thu 4/29/2004 6:21 AM
To: Steven M. Bellovin
Cc: Dean Anderson; Stephen Sprunk; jfcm; Tim Chown; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Ietf] New .mobi, .xxx, ... TLDs?
% There are two proposals for .tel
Dean Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Markus Stumpf wrote:
No new TLD helps for the overcrowding, as all owners of trademarks
have to and will register their name and enforce delegation of the name
by law.
This isn't true. No one is required by law to register their trademark as
a
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 06:21:20AM -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
This is -exactly- the tpc.int. model,
the e164.int. model,
the e164.arpa. model...
in a phrase...
This is the sort of thing ISOC should speak out on.
doh! ISOC can't as they are the major benefactor from the .org divestature
from verisign.
sorry, try again.
-rick
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 29-apr-04, at 21:18, Tony Hain wrote:
This isn't true. No one is required by law to register their
trademark as
a domain name.
IANAL, but in my discussions with lawyers focused on trademark law, in
effect they are required. The perception that they are not defending
their
rights effectively
So, place your bets on which slippery slopes ICANN takes us down...
ICANN loves these sponsored TLDs. It's the only kind they are presently
considering. Sponsors generally have the cash needed to cover ICANN's
application fee (which is typically on the order of $35,000 to $50,000,
and is
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 29-apr-04, at 21:18, Tony Hain wrote:
This isn't true. No one is required by law to register their
trademark as
a domain name.
IANAL, but in my discussions with lawyers focused on trademark law, in
effect they are required. The perception that they are
Hi.
While this discussion on the IETF list has been very
interesting, it is probably worth noting that the odds of ICANN
staff following the IETF list to the extent needed to pull out
this thread and make use of it are not high.
Instructions for making comments that they, and presumably the
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
You're confusing URI methods, protocols, and TLDs disastrously.
I think it is you who is reading too much into the .tel and .mobi TLD.
These are not proposals to put URI method functionality into domain names,
but to qualify general business types,
Thus spake Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
These are not proposals to put URI method functionality into domain names,
but to qualify general business types, such as telephone companies, and
mobile phone companies. This is no different from using .museum for
museums and .aero to represent
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 01:34:06PM +0200, jfcm wrote:
Dear Markus,
to know where your remarks may lead, let come back to 1993.
You mean like in
http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/archives/WWW-TALK/www-talk-1993q4.messages/579.html
At 21:16 23/04/04, Markus Stumpf wrote:
Hmmm ...
For instance,
Thus spake Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, jfcm wrote:
.tel and .mobi are technically inconsistent propositions. They
confuse
what belongs to the scheme (protocol/application) with what belongs to
the
naming (users group). The same as was .web did in 2000.
...
I
Dear Markus,
to know where your remarks may lead, let come back to 1993.
At 21:16 23/04/04, Markus Stumpf wrote:
Hmmm ...
For instance, Internet addresses ending in .mobi would allow sites
built for the small screens of mobile phones.
For instance, Internet addresses (names?) ending in
At 23:49 22/04/04, Dean Anderson wrote:
Is it sensible to think of tel and mobi as business functions?
Absolutely yes. As I noted it, there are at least two possiblities:
- .tel is accepted as the TLD of the ITU-T Sector's members. The same as
for .aero. And .mobi is for all the companies,
Hi Folks,
OK, I'll bite.
(i) Have all of the folks commenting actually read these proposals
all the way through (plus RFCs
2916 and 2806, along with the drafts RFC2806bis, and RFC2916bis
that will replace them)?
Some of the earlier examples in this thread make me wonder.
At 19:08 21/04/04, Dean Anderson wrote:
I suspect I am going to regret asking, but how is this a slippery slope,
and why should anyone be against it? Perhaps more to the point, why
should the IETF have any interest whatsoever?
May be should I respond this as I do agree with slippery slope and I
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, jfcm wrote:
.tel and .mobi are technically inconsistent propositions. They confuse
what belongs to the scheme (protocol/application) with what belongs to the
naming (users group). The same as was .web did in 2000.
To better understand, let take the mnemonic IBM and
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Joe Touch wrote:
The tel: part is sufficient to get you to VOIP - in fact, that's what
tel: ought to mean -- no more, no less. If you want IBM to differentiate
the switchboard from the headquarters, try:
tel://ibm.com/hq- headquarters-specific
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Joe Touch wrote:
What difference does it make to the IETF whether there are more TLD's or
less?
Nothing in general; what matters, as jfc already put very well, is that
these particular TLDs are acting in place of a function that is already
provided by the protocol
Hi,
Is the IETF or ISOC going to take any stance against this slippery slope?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/20/new.domains.ap/
Comment period closes April 30th.
Tim
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On Wednesday, 21 April, 2004 15:46 +0100 Tim Chown
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Is the IETF or ISOC going to take any stance against this
slippery slope?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/20/new.domains.ap/
Comment period closes April 30th.
Tim,
Addressing the IETF part of your
I suspect I am going to regret asking, but how is this a slippery slope,
and why should anyone be against it? Perhaps more to the point, why
should the IETF have any interest whatsoever?
--Dean
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Tim Chown wrote:
Hi,
Is the IETF or ISOC going to take any
34 matches
Mail list logo
