> Karl, in the USA his point is very valid. My wife has a number of
> relations, in "Cajun country" that couldn't even prove their right to
> American citizenship.
The point is that all I need to do is look at her to know that she is a
person. In the context of voting, it is not even important
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Eric Weisberg wrote:
> The
> Domain Name Rights Coalition was thrown off the IFWP steering committee because
> it was not incorporated despite the fact that it was an organizer of the
> "entity." We did not like that exercise before, what will make it more
> paletable,
Don't take my comments below to mean that I don't think the idea has merit.
I am just trying to flush it out further.
Chuck
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Dillon [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 1999 1:49 PM
> To: IFWP Discussion List
> Subject: [ifwp] Re
You can carry a calculation out to an accurate but meaningless point.
We do not want to build our governance system around the "Cajun" or homeless
exception. Roeland's point is fine, but I do not think he intends it to be
more than rhetorical.
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> Karl Auerbach wro
Chuck Gomes wrote:>
>Your idea below is interesting. How would you propose collecting the $1
>from those who only apply?
Michael Dillon wrote:
>> I just thought of a simple and presumably legal valid change they could
>> make almost immediately:
>>
>> Charge a $69 registration fee and
>>
Jon and all,
Well thank you for your less than timely reply as the meeting on
January
21st is of course already over. I sent you our original regarding
possible
participation in the CLOSED meeting on January 18th, which was 4
days prior to that meeting taking place. As anyone in any industry
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Your idea below is interesting. How would you propose collecting the $1
> from those who only apply?
First of all, give J.C. Dill credit for the idea.
Next, you would only accept applications from known verified entities. In
other words, we would all
Jeff,
I apologize for not giving you a more prompt reply. I've had an
unusually large volume of e-mail messages over the last couple of weeks,
and am just sorting through some unread messages, which included yours.
If there is an urgent matter that needs to be addressed, feel free to
call us at
I agree, Eric.
The consensus during the breakout session was that it was inappropriate
to establish judgemental criteria for candidates. We spent most of our
time evaluating the dis/advantages of objective criteria such as
citizenship, online access, time commitments, etc. The workshop's
purpos
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 05:22 PM 1/22/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
> Besides waiting for the resident supernerd to surface, my patience has been
> paid
> off as well in waiting for the SPAM. This email is being forwarded to the
> Federal
> Trade Commission spam files.
Why are th
Michael,
I'm listening. I regularly pass on feedback received from this list and the
Domain-Policy list. The fact that specific ideas are not implemented does
not mean that they are not considered. In some cases it's a matter of
planning the necessary changes in software and policies. In othe
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Scott Hillstrom wrote:
> Jim,
>
> At the end of the posing you said, "
TEXT ADDED BACK IN
> >Whether you like it or not (and have you looked up the word "canard" in
> >the dictionary?) the ccTLD / gTLD distinction is here to stay. Foreign
> >(ie, non-US) countries are not
Jim,
At the end of the posing you said, "
>This isn't an issue that can be settled by supposedly logical arguments.
>Many issues can only be settled by diplomacy or, failing that, force.
>This is one of them."
What do you mean by "force"?
Scott Hillstrom
>
-Original Message-
From: Jim
Thanks for your note. I'm sorry you were not able to attend. If you were
not able to follow along in realtime, I suggest you read the transcript,
where you will find the answers to at least some of your questions.
I think you will also see a recognition of the need for openness and
transparen
Roeland,
"Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:
> At 04:53 AM 1/23/99 -0500, Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP, Executive Director wrote:
> >Please do! I encourage any and all to ask any questions about the
> >Association that you wish to. I'll be happy to answer.
>
> So, it looks like ACM, IEEE/CS, ISOC is getting so
At 08:18 PM 1/23/99 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>> This is simply not true. In most societies there are real, physical
>> people and then there are artificial persons, corporations. The
>> existence of the latter is much easier to verify than the existence
>> of the former.
>
>I personally fin
William, Bill and all,
William and Bill, I have a question of both of you. Why make these
comments just to the IFWP list? Do you really believe that it will
be listened to by and creditable authority (And no I don't mean the ICANN)?
p.s. A word to the wise should be sufficient
William X
At 09:30 PM 1/23/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>On 24-Jan-99 Bill Lovell wrote:
>> Yes, but the remedies at present are often way outside the realm of
financial
>> possibility for small parties on either side. USPTO procedures, though they
>> cost also, ought at least to be somewhat less expensive. The
Richard and all,
Not to worry Richard, I doubt that no one except Patrick is suspicious
of you representing NSI. Patrick has on what appears on too many
occasions accused others of many things falsely. This seems to be
a disturbing and unfortunate tendency that he possess
Richard J. Sext
On 24-Jan-99 Bill Lovell wrote:
> Yes, but the remedies at present are often way outside the realm of financial
> possibility for small parties on either side. USPTO procedures, though they
> cost also, ought at least to be somewhat less expensive. The advantage of
> the USPTO is that it DOES H
At 08:11 AM 1/23/99 -0800, you wrote:
>I think that, at least three of us, are in violent agreement here. It
>would seem to me that making the defense of a use easier would be prefered
>to reducing cost of offence. The problem, as I see it, is that there are
>small trademark-holders too and they
21 matches
Mail list logo
