Jonathon Weinberg wrote:
+ I'll cast another vote for the proposition that avoiding capture
+ should be a primary goal.
I, Bob Allisat wrote:
> It's already been captured. By Zittrain, Sims,
> IBM and the rest of these creeps. Time to wake
> up and realize what's happened. The capture
> is a fu
Kent,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kent Crispin writes:
[...]
> It doesn't take much of a brain to see which way the wind is
> blowing.
Being probably the only person on the list, that is professionally
qualified in Anatomy and Physiology, I feel it my duty to point out,
that the brain doesn'
Kent's manipulation of language continues to fascinate me.
Let me attempt to translate:
1) ICANN has made no decisions, but it is obvious to any idiot that the WIPO
proposals will be adopted;
2) therefore, the assertion below, that ICANN intends to adopt the WIPO proposals
is stupid.
Perhaps a sl
On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 09:49:10PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>
> Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > ICANN has very little hold over the ccTLDs; the WIPO process will
> > probably therefore be only adopted for gTLDs.
>
> Ah, so ICANN has already decided, without a membership, without a DNSO, and
>
Kent Crispin wrote:
> ICANN has very little hold over the ccTLDs; the WIPO process will
> probably therefore be only adopted for gTLDs.
Ah, so ICANN has already decided, without a membership, without a DNSO, and
without even a final WIPO report, that it will adopt the WIPO proposals? When
was
On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 12:34:33PM -0800, Michael Dillon wrote:
[...]
>
> I propose that the best way to lessen the likelihood of capture of a
> domain name by the rrichest one of many trademark holders with an interest
> in that domain name, is to maximize the number and diversity of TLDs. Part
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Eric Weisberg wrote:
> I agree that "design against capture" should be a primary
> objective. Do we have consensus on that? Do we need to poll
> ourselves?
>
> As a matter of simultaneous discussion, I propose that the best
> way to lessen the likelihood of capture is to m
Eric:
Please tell Mr. Nesson that the capture has already occurred.
The fatal flaw of ICANN, and of the "self-regulation" policy that led
to its creation, is that it allowed a single faction (basically, the
ISOC-gTLD-MoU-CORE group) to name the CEO and interim board
unilaterally. This board is now
What would not constitute capture by these criteria for some group or
other? Capture is therefore a meaningless way of saying that 'they' have
it and 'we' haven't. But the essence of the purportedly democratic
structure here is that this kind of alternance between 'we' and 'they'
take place. There
Jonathon Weinberg wrote:
> I'll cast another vote for the proposition that avoiding capture
> should be a primary goal.
It's already been captured. By Zittrain, Sims,
IBM and the rest of these creeps. Time to wake
up and realize what's happened. The capture
is a full success and what is actu
Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
> I've probably missed it amidst the sea of list emails and announcements; do
> you have a particular "single transferable vote" proposal and description
> up anywhere?
Yes. We have discussed this at length. Anthony Van Couvering
posted a bunch of URLs last week. Plea
Eric,
At 05:36 PM 2/13/99 , Eric Weisberg wrote:
>
>I agree that "design against capture" should be a primary
>objective. Do we have consensus on that? Do we need to poll
>ourselves?
Yes, though I've come to believe that people have different ideas about
capture: a non-captured membership migh
Eric Weisberg:
> I apologize for this cross-post to the IFWP list, but thought I
> would use it as an opportunity to move anyone interested in the
> discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED] where we should be assembling
> the nuts and bolts of the over-all membership structure.
Nuts, yes. Bolts: missin
Eric and all,
IMHO no need to apologize however you can most likely expect
a
warning message from Molly regarding cross posting as that seems
to be forbidden in the rules of the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list
rules. >;)
With respect to your content comments, we have always agreed
that
any policy dec
I apologize for this cross-post to the IFWP list, but thought I
would use it as an opportunity to move anyone interested in the
discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED] where we should be assembling
the nuts and bolts of the over-all membership structure.
Charles Nesson wrote:
> we must defend against c
15 matches
Mail list logo
