RE: [IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [rb1000@ix.netcom.com (Ron Bennett)]

The problem you describe below is a consequence of NSI's 'thin registry' model, under which each registrar runs its own whois. It was not created by ICANN. ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement contains a provision (Section III.D.4) intended to facilitate its solution by requiring all regist

RE: [IFWP] Re: kmm052 Next Meetings

Kerry Miller wrote; > > Jeff, > > > > I trust the contrast to conventional rant is clear. One does > not start > > > with the grounds and somehow try to 'convince' by browbeating or > > > bullshit or specious argument that 'therefore' someone else 'must' > > > agree. > > > > Agreed, one must

RE: [IFWP] Re: Whose Domain Is It Anyway? Nader, NSI Want To Know

Kent Crispin wrote: > On Sat, Jun 12, 1999 at 06:14:11AM +, William X. Walsh wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 22:43:00 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > >Yes, it was NSI that was booted. The ICANN board modified their > > >original position in response to widely held

Re: [IFWP] Re: have you check your company lately

indicates an ill-thoughtout architecture or an > >incomplete implementation. > > > >- > >Roeland M.J. Meyer > >Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc. > >http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer > >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >----- > > > >

RE: [IFWP] Re: Esther Dyson Sells Out Internet Community

Gordon Cook wrote: > > reynolds: > > > > >As has Gordon, if he really believes that NSI can simply walk > away from the > >Cooperative Agreement. Such an action would be a disaster for all > >concerned, and would most assuredly *not* leave NSI in control > of either the > >root or .com/.net/.or

Re: [IFWP] Re: Esther Dyson Sells Out Internet Community

Richard J. Sexton wrote: > At 03:47 PM 6/4/99 -0500, you wrote: > > > >A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > >> At 03:48 PM 6/4/99 , you wrote: > >> >enter into a new Cooperative Agreement with ICANN to run the root and > >> >.com/.net/.org. > >> > >> Yeah, right. Dyson's going to run it off her > >> little l

Re: [IFWP] Re: Esther Dyson Sells Out Internet Community

> a battle. > > But then, I'm not a lawyer and am just guessing. > > -- > Christopher Ambler > Personal Opinion Only, of course > This address belongs to a resident of the State of Washington > who does not wish to receive any unsolicited commercial email >

Re: [IFWP] Re: Esther Dyson Sells Out Internet Community

Gordon Cook wrote: > >Gordon Cook wrote: > >> As ICANN and Commerce continue their arrogant bluster, they might do well > >> to remember that NSI can terminate its participation in the cooperative > >> agreement whenever it chooses. > > > >Assuming NSI is willing to both lose its antitrust protec

Re: [IFWP] Re: Esther Dyson Sells Out Internet Community

A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > At 03:48 PM 6/4/99 , you wrote: > >enter into a new Cooperative Agreement with ICANN to run the root and > >.com/.net/.org. > > Yeah, right. Dyson's going to run it off her > little laptop. :-) I'm sure customers will > flock to that one. > No, ICANN would just contrac

Re: [IFWP] Re: Esther Dyson Sells Out Internet Community

Gordon Cook wrote: > As ICANN and Commerce continue their arrogant bluster, they might do well > to remember that NSI can terminate its participation in the cooperative > agreement whenever it chooses. Assuming NSI is willing to both lose its antitrust protection and watch NTIA enter into a new

RE: [IFWP] Magaziner, Lessig Spar

Magaziner and Lessig's comments, as well as Paul Twomey's comments at the Berlin GAC forum on the suject of what ICANN's successor would be if it were to fail, suggest that few on this list other than Ms. Hauben would consider the likely result of such a review to be an improvement. Jay Fenello

Re: [IFWP] Slanders and impostures

John B. Reynolds wrote: > > Michael Sondow wrote: > > Perhaps you could also explain to us, Mr. Heath, why ISOC has given > > its NCDNHC organizing campaign into the hands of Mr. David Maher, a > > person who is not a non-commercial domain name holder. Mr. Maher is

Re: [IFWP] Slanders and impostures

Michael Sondow wrote: > Perhaps you could also explain to us, Mr. Heath, why ISOC has given > its NCDNHC organizing campaign into the hands of Mr. David Maher, a > person who is not a non-commercial domain name holder. Mr. Maher is, > to my knowledge, a trademark lawyer employed by IBM and a memb

Re: [IFWP] Re: [dnso.discuss] Modifications to ICIIU Guidelines a nd NCDNHC definition

Michael Sondow wrote: > > This is totally false. Every organization that has sent a message of > adherence to the ICIIU has been checked out, and those with any > commercial use of their website, any at all, have been turned down. > That includes a full half of the organizations that sent request

RE: [IFWP] Continued manipulations of the NCDNHC by ISOC: How come to compromise with dishonest people?

Michael Sondow wrote: > > The following message from David Maher appeared on the listserv that > ISOC is using to organize support for its version of the NCDNHC. It > is a serious abuse of the organizational procedures for constituency > formation. No mechanism for the nomination or election of

RE: [IFWP] Re: [dnso.discuss] Modifications to ICIIU Guidelines and NCDNHC definition

Richard J. Sexton wrote: > > At 11:22 AM 5/31/99 GMT, you wrote: > >And back on the thread here > > > >None of this has shown that anyone really is a member of this > >"Congress" called the ICIIU except Mr Sondow.. > > I am. As are the Canadian Killifish Association (300 memebrs) the > I

RE: [IFWP] Board Resolution on Constituencies

Kent Crispin wrote: > > So, Mr Sondow, you claim you worked with those people who signed up > with you. Do you have an archive of the mailing list where you > discussed this stuff, so we can all examine your open and transparent > processes? Could you point us to the web pages of REDI? A cyberl

RE: [IFWP] ICANN neo-colonialism

Michael Sondow wrote: > > Mr. Twomey- > > Is it true that you told Sean Jackson, the delegated governmental > representative of .TC, that he would not be allowed to observe the > Berlin meeting of the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee because > his country is a "colony" of England? > The CI

[IFWP] RE: voting

Michael Sondow wrote: > > Esther Dyson a écrit: > > > > That's really up to the constituencies themselves - as long as > the voting > > rules pass muster: open, nondiscriminatory, broad participation, etc. > > I posted a request to you to allow voting in Berlin. You replied > that it was too soo

[IFWP] Re: voting

Kemt Crispin wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 03:30:06PM +0000, John B. Reynolds wrote: > >If I understand the process correctly, the purpose of the constituency meetings > >is to discuss membership criteria and rules of operation. Voting for officers > >and/or Names Co

[IFWP] RE: voting

If I understand the process correctly, the purpose of the constituency meetings is to discuss membership criteria and rules of operation. Voting for officers and/or Names Council members can not take place until those rules are in place and the constituency has been recognized by ICANN. Other

RE: [Enredo] RE: [IFWP] Credentials for attendance at the NCDNHC organizational meeting in Berlin organizational meeting in Berlin

Michael Sondow wrote: > > John B. Reynolds a écrit: > > > > You have no more authority to unilaterally set NCDNHC > attendance requirements > > than do your opponents to hold Names Council elections. > > It's a standard procedure to require proof of

RE: [IFWP] NCDNHC Credentials - CORRECTION

Michael, You don't get it, do you? As MSVH has already pointed out, you have no authority whatsoever to dictate who will and will not be admitted to a meeting room reserved by ICANN. If you wish to hold a meeting where you determine who can attend, reserve your own room. Of course, you would r

RE: [IFWP] Credentials for attendance at the NCDNHC organizational meeting in Berlin

You have no more authority to unilaterally set NCDNHC attendance requirements than do your opponents to hold Names Council elections. If I were ICANN, I would have hotel security eject you should you attempt to prevent others from entering the meeting room. Michael Sondow wrote: > To: All per

RE: [IFWP] Re: DOJ investigating NSI

A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > They prevailed big time today with the DC Circuit's > decision in the Thomas case. This is probably the > most influential federal appellate court short of the > US Supreme Court - particularly on matters relating > to the US government. The decision was authored by > a

RE: [IFWP] ISOC non-commercial?

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: Owner-Domain-Policy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > > Behalf Of John B. Reynolds > > > > Joop Teernstra wrote: > > > If you ask wether ISOC isn't more "qualified&qu

RE: [IFWP] Non-commercial domain name holders?

Bret A. Fausett wrote: > > John B. Reynolds wrote: > >What part of "individual" don't you understand? ISOC's > individual members > >vastly outnumber its commercial ones. > > And not a single one of them will be allowed to participate directly in

RE: [IFWP] ISOC non-commercial?

Joop Teernstra wrote: > Could the members of this list please address the questions themselves, > rather than the questioner? Kent Crispin has already done so with respect to ISOC. > If you ask wether ISOC isn't more "qualified" than the ICIIU to organize > the non-commercial constituency, sho

RE: [IFWP] Non-commercial domain name holders?

Eberhard W Lisse wrote: > > In message <01be9b44$57eec5e0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "John B. Reynolds > " writes: > > > > > > Michael Sondow wrote: > > > > > > John B. Reynolds a écrit: > > > > > >

RE: [IFWP] Non-commercial domain name holders?

Michael Sondow wrote: > > John B. Reynolds a écrit: > > > ISOC has over 6000 individual members, the "ICIIU" has one. > Which is more > > qualified to organize the NCDNHC? > > The answer is clear: One person who is a non-comercial domain name > hold

RE: [IFWP] Non-commercial domain name holders?

Michael Sondow wrote: > > Below is a partial list of the organizational members of ISOC, taken > from their website. ("*" = founding member). > > Are these non-commercial domain name holders? If this is ISOC's > membership, is ISOC an organization that represents non-commercial > domain name hol

RE: Criterion for placement on the List (was Re: [IFWP] Standard for being a famous mark)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The reasons for this discrepancy are obvious to anyone with any working > > knowledge of the Internet. They are twofold: > > > > 1) Trademark enforcement against DNS names at levels below > those assigned > > by TLD registries, or against directory names used withi

RE: Criterion for placement on the List (was Re: [IFWP] Standard for being a famous mark)

A.M. Rutkowski wrote: >At 02:19 PM 5/7/99 , John B. Reynolds wrote: > > > The reasons for this discrepancy are obvious to anyone with any working > knowledge of the Internet. They are twofold: > >do say. :-) It is, of course, more probable that you are intentionally rais

RE: Criterion for placement on the List (was Re: [IFWP] Standard for being a famous mark)

A.M. Rutkowski wrote: >Carl, > > >There is no "world's famous mark practice". The US has a vague list of >eight non-binding factors which is a judge is free to use or ignore as the > > >Very useful, succinct "marks in a nutshell" summary. > >Another dimension of this that came up yesterday at th

RE: [IFWP] Protest proposed phone company Internet charges

Your friend has fallen for a long-running false e-mail rumor. See http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa012099.htm. Ken Freed wrote: > > Dear All, > > My friend Jon Leland at Media Mall today emailed me about a dangerous > move in Congress to permit telephone companies to charge lon

RE: [IFWP] "...for which they qualify"

Michael Sondow wrote: > John B. Reynolds a écrit: > > > This is am unfortunate but entirely predictable consequence of > allowing the > > initial constituencies to "self-organize" - easily the worst Paris Draft > > provision to have found its way i

RE: [IFWP] "...for which they qualify"

Bret A. Fausett wrote: > > ICANN's "Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts" > Statement contains a provision which reads: "Individual domain name > holders should be able to participate in constituencies for which they > qualify." > > Depending on the decisions ICANN makes in appro

RE: [IFWP] ICIIU Comments on M.A.C. Recommendations of 4-26-99

Michael Sondow wrote: > > John B. Reynolds a écrit: > > > you should get all of the members of the ICIIU to join ICANN. > > I can't "get all of the members of the ICIIU to join ICANN" for the > simple reason that the ICIIU has no membership. The ICIIU was

RE: [IFWP] ICIIU Comments on M.A.C. Recommendations of 4-26-99

Michael Sondow wrote: > > Comments on the Recommendations of the Membership Advisory Committee > of 26 April 1999 (http://cyber.harvard.edu/rcs/alp-comment.htm) > > Principles of the At-large Membership > > 2. At-large membership is open to both individuals and > organizations, however, no org

RE: [IFWP] Fwd: Re: Power Politics and the New Internet Order

Kent Crispin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 10:44:41PM -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > [...] > > > >Uh, Roeland, if ICANN decides that it needs to change to a Swiss > > >corporation, what are you going to do? Sue in Swiss Court? Do you > > >have a Swiss trademark? > > > > Irrelevant, they'r

[IFWP] RE: Re: NSOL Possesses No Lock on Domain Registry or Registrar Businesses

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > I got curious and found out that todays NSOL drop was peanuts compared to > Wednesdays drop, of over 100 points, the day before the Asensio > press release. > That's not a real drop, it's a 2-for-1 stock split. See http://biz.y

RE: [IFWP] FYI

ystem)." The phrase "for which NSI now acts as a registry" seems pretty clear to me. > > > > -Original Message- > From: John B. Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 11:46 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [IF

RE: [IFWP] FYI

A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > > At 05:44 PM 3/24/99 , John B. Reynolds wrote: > >The old InterNIC site is still up (presumably maintained in case NSI is > >forced to pull down the new one): It's at http://198.41.0.5/ or > >http://rs0.internic.net/. > > It actua

[IFWP] FYI

The old InterNIC site is still up (presumably maintained in case NSI is forced to pull down the new one): It's at http://198.41.0.5/ or http://rs0.internic.net/.

RE: [IFWP] RE: Drawing lines

Michael Sondow wrote: > > John B. Reynolds a écrit: > > > > It is likely that the legal definition of "commercial" varies > from country > > to country. For the purposes of the NCDNC, we need a uniform > definition. > > IMO, that definition shoul

RE: [IFWP] RE: Drawing lines

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > > At 10:31 AM 3/18/99 -0600, John B. Reynolds wrote: > > >I agree with Michael Sondow. Membership criteria will be a lot > clearer if > >we base it on the identity of the domain registrant rather than > the content > >of the Web sit

RE: [IFWP] RE: Drawing lines

Ellen Rony wrote: > > John B. Reynolds wrote: > > > >I agree with Michael Sondow. Membership criteria will be a lot > clearer if > >we base it on the identity of the domain registrant rather than > the content > >of the Web site (if any). > > Maybe I&

RE: [IFWP] RE: Drawing lines

Michael Sondow wrote: > > John B. Reynolds a écrit: > > > > During the previous NCDNC thread (before it degenerated into moot > > discussions of whether constituencies should exist at all and > then fizzled > > out), there appeared to be some disagreement

RE: [IFWP] RE: Drawing lines

Greg Skinner wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ellen Rony) wrote: > > > I think these constituency lines are not going to be so > definitive as you > > suggest. If someone adds a Netscape icon to his/her website, is that a > > commercial use. If I link my book title to its listing at > amazon.com,

RE: [IFWP] RE: Drawing lines

Michael Sondow wrote: > John B. Reynolds a écrit: > > > > There are a number of ways it could be done. One possibility > would be to > > use the language in the Washington draft (I.B.3) as a starting > point, with > > appropriate additions (e.g. individuals)

[IFWP] RE: Drawing lines

Jay Fenello wrote: > > How would you word a qualification clause > to only include "non-commercial" entities? > > Jay. > There are a number of ways it could be done. One possibility would be to use the language in the Washington draft (I.B.3) as a starting point, with appropriate additions (e.g.

[IFWP] RE: Drawing lines

Jay Fenello wrote: > >> Non-commercial domain name holders > >>Iperdome's clients are almost exclusively > >>non-commercial domain name holders. > > > >But Iperdome itself is a commercial entity. On that basis, it is clearly > >ineligible. > > > Well, that's one interpretation. > It's

[IFWP] RE: Drawing lines

Jay Fenello wrote: > For example, Iperdome may desire to join the following > constituencies, for the following reasons: > > ccTLD registries >Iperdome is the official registry for >the .per.nu domain, sub-delegated via >RFC-1591 This would permit any holder of any subdomain under

RE: [IFWP] RE: Forming a NCDNC

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > > At 09:53 AM 3/10/99 -0600, John B. Reynolds wrote: > > >> How do we define a NCDNC member? > >> - People only? > >> - Non-profit organizations? > > > >Both. > > > >> - Educational orga

[IFWP] RE: Forming a NCDNC

Jay Fenello wrote: > Questions: > > What qualifies as a domain name holder? > - jay.per.to? > - johnson.com? > - bob.aol.com? > - tom.co.au? All of the above. > > How do we define a NCDNC member? > - People only? > - Non-profit organizations? Both. > - Educational organi

[IFWP] Summary of Actions Taken by the ICANN Initial Board of Directors at its Meeting in Singapore on March 4, 1999

http://www.icann.org/statement.html ICANN Summary of Actions Taken by the ICANN Initial Board of Directors at its Meeting in Singapore on March 4, 1999 Summary (March 4, 1999) The initial Board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) moved forward to

[IFWP] Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts, March 4, 1999

http://www.icann.org/dnso-formation.html ICANN Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts, March 4, 1999 The following document was adopted by the ICANN Board: Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts To be used by the ICANN staff in prepar

[IFWP] Molotovs and mailing lists

When bomb-throwers target e-mail discussions, no one can escape the carnage. http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/feature/1999/03/03feature.html NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you? Get your FREE Internet Access and Email

RE: [IFWP] Is NSI a monopoly?

ator would have a legitimate claim to do likewise. Therefore, > it is the > principle that is at stake rather than the specific proposals of > an individual > business. Is there an antitrust lawyer in the house? > --MM > > John B. Reynolds wrote: > > > As for the lawsuit, a PGMed

RE: [IFWP] Is NSI a monopoly?

;s legal > challenge to the > AT&T monopoly did not hinge upon its ability to propose an > entirely new system > of long distance regulation. It simply had to prove that AT&T had > engaged in > illegal attempts to shut it out of the market. > --MM > > John B. R

RE: [IFWP] Is NSI a monopoly?

>> So what? Anybody can register names in com net and org now. New > >> registrars don't add new TLDs. > >> > >> My further comment: > >> Where are all those "shared TLD" advocates from the gTLD-MoU days? > >> PGMedia is arguin

RE: [IFWP] Is NSI a monopoly?

Milton Mueller wrote: > > >From the article: > > "Since PGMedia filed its suit, however, the Internet landscape has > changed drastically, throwing a monkey wrench into an > already-complicated lawsuit. Last fall, the National Science > Foundation passed responsibility for the Internet to Commerc

RE: [IFWP] Corporate Sponsorship of NewCorp

Bill Lovell wrote: > > At 12:52 PM 2/17/99 -0500, you [Michael Sondow] wrote: > >Bill Lovell a écrit: > > > >> Again, as to ICANN, is it not understood that a possible result of the > >> NTIA meeting is that ICANN will disappear? > > > >Are you talking here about the NTIA meeting on .US? If so,

RE: [IFWP] Re: Re[2]: Domain dispute hits earth

Martin B. Schwimmer wrote: > > I asked because there is this assumption spread on this list that there is > a roving pack of trademark owners who bring meritless claims against DN > owners, and that there are no legal remedies left to these DN owners, all > of whom are too poor to defend themsel

RE: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority

A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > >>Would you care to tell us how we can substantiate this claim? > >See See http://www.nw.com/zone/WWW/secondnames.html > >Registration in this context includes resolving >named objects, including sub-domains and hosts. >It is the essential service of any registry/registrar

RE: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority

A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > > Craig, > > When you're dimensioning the "industry," consider... > > Question: who is the second largest registry/registrar > in the world? > > Answer: AOL with 1,667,245 registrations as of late > last month in the domain aol.com > > > --tony > Would you care to

RE: [IFWP] Corporate Sponsorship of NewCorp

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/021099dotusmtg.htm Ivan Pope wrote: > > Could you send me this URL? I seem to have missed it. > Ivan > > -Original Message----- > From: John B. Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 1:39 PM &

RE: [IFWP] Corporate Sponsorship of NewCorp

Bill Lovell wrote: > > Again, as to ICANN, is it not understood that a possible result of the > NTIA meeting is that ICANN will disappear? The action that counts is > now March 10 in D. C. > If you're referring to the meeting on 9 March that you posted the URL for last night, that meeting cover

RE: [IFWP] Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?

Kerry Miller wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:29:50 -0500 > > From: Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [IFWP] Re: list Re: The People's Republic of ICANN? > > > > I'm still missing the link between a vote (or non-vote) and > > identification. > > How do you know who is casting th

[IFWP] Public Meeting on the Future Administration and Management of the .us Domain

copied from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/021099dotusmtg.htm : FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 10, 1999 Contact: Sallianne Fortunato (202) 482-7002 ***MEDIA ADVISORY*** Washington, D.C. -- The National Telecommunications and Information

RE: [IFWP] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-12.txt

>From my reading of the text (http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-12.txt), it would be more accurate to state that some reserved words that can *not* be used as TLDs are about to be defined. In any case, I doubt that many Internet users are clamoring for names in th

RE: [IFWP] Re: Are you going to take people's domain names away from them?

Michael Sondow wrote: > > John B. Reynolds a écrit: > > > > The actual language of Section 9.e is a follows: > > > > e. The registrar would register SLDs to SLD holders only for > fixed periods. > > At the conclusion of the registration period, failure to

[IFWP] RE: Are you going to take people's domain names away from them?

Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > e. The registrar would register SLDs to SLD holders only for > fixed periods. > > At the conclusion of the registration period, failure to pay a > renewal fee > > within the time specified in a second notice or reminder would result in > > cancellation of the registrati

RE: Registrar accreditation, WIPO, and the end of freedom.

>From a quick initial reading, I see two major potential problem areas: Section 9.f: f. The registrar would not insert or renew any SLD name in any registry for which the registrar is accredited in a manner contrary to a list or specification of excluded SLD names that is in effect at the time o

RE: Are you going to take people's domain names away from them?

The actual language of Section 9.e is a follows: e. The registrar would register SLDs to SLD holders only for fixed periods. At the conclusion of the registration period, failure to pay a renewal fee within the time specified in a second notice or reminder would result in cancellation of the regi

RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN

Michael Sondow wrote: > It's not delegated to the tech contact. It's arrogated by the > tech contact. > There's a big, big difference. The only ISP who lets the client > have control > over the zone file is pgmedia, where the client is not only the admin and > billing contacts but also the tech c

RE: Enforcement Provisions (was: Support for Paris draft)

Jay Fenello wrote: > > At 2/8/99, 08:34 AM, John B. Reynolds wrote: > > > > > >Jay Fenello wrote: > >> > >> At 2/7/99, 06:15 PM, John B. Reynolds wrote: > >> > > >> >Milton Mueller wrote: > >> >> > >>

RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN

Bret A. Fausett wrote: > > Einar Stefferud wrote: > > >Here I am in strong agreement that the whole concept of Fair Hearing > >Panels has been subvertted by inavertant editing whcih converts them > >into a mecahisim to be used to stop progress on any Research Committee > >proposal that someone do

RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN

> You contact with an ISP to create and maintain a zone file on your behalf. > If you don't like what they do with it, you can move to another > ISP or make > other arrangements. Ultimate control remains vested in you. I don't see > how I could make this any more clear than I already have. Oop

RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN

Michael Sondow wrote: > > John B. Reynolds a écrit: > > > You administer your zone indirectly by controlling which ISP runs it > > directly. > > Administer the zone indirectly? What are you talking about? Is this a game > of semantics to you? It's a file. How do

RE: Enforcement Provisions (was: Support for Paris draft)

Jay Fenello wrote: > > At 2/7/99, 06:15 PM, John B. Reynolds wrote: > > > >Milton Mueller wrote: > >> > >> The Paris draft group, on the other hand, was responsive to this > >> same criticism. > >> I commend them for this. > > >

RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN

Michael Sondow wrote: > > John B. Reynolds a écrit: > > > Every domain name holder directly or > > indirectly administers a DNS zone file. Are you sure you're not > > confusing "DNS zone" with "root zone"? > > No, the domain holders do

RE: Support for Paris draft

William X. Walsh wrote: > > On 07-Feb-99 John B. Reynolds wrote: > > The problem is that I am not convinced that all of the > incumbent ccTLDs (or > > even a majority thereof) or the incumbent gTLD share your commitment to > > competition, and the Paris draft puts

RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN

Michael Sondow wrote: > > Einar Stefferud a écrit: > > > I agree with this concern, and I suggest that the initial membership > > be defined in some other more well defined way. One suggestion that > > makes sense to me is "Anyone with a DNS Zone file to administer" to be > > used to elect an INI

RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN

I would have to see the specific wording, but my initial reaction is that the changes you suggest would largely answer my concerns (although I would still prefer explicitly defined initial constituencies), along with a revision to Section 5.9 similar to that suggested by AIP and NSI. I am not sur

RE: Support for Paris draft

William X. Walsh wrote: > > On 07-Feb-99 John B. Reynolds wrote: > > As an advocate of expansion of the TLD space and policies that > would protect > > domain registrants from exploitation based on registry > lock-in, I prefer to > > take my chances with the bu

RE: Support for Paris draft

ctually > need. It is, for a change, actually a forward-looking and > constructive approach > instead of a defensive and paranoid one. It is clear that the > developers of the > dnso.org draft were more interested in controlling policy than in > understanding, > formulating, and

RE: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN

William X. Walsh wrote: > > I call for a vote of participants on this list for which draft > they support. > > It is time to vocalize your support, and clearly indicate who you > represent. > OK, I'll bite: There are number of problems with the Paris draft. Section 2.1 leaves the issue of who

[ifwp] HTML and MIME

At Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:53:38 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote: >At 01:34 AM 1/19/99 -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote: >>Dave, could you turn off HTML please? >well, gosh. while we're at it, let's stop using MIME, too. >Any other email enhancements you wish to encourage us to throw away? >>There's a set