Roberto and all,
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Folks,
I liked Jay's summary.
Let me add few lines to Bret's comments.
Bret Fausett wrote:
> Jay Fenello wrote:
> >My impression of this process was that there are only
> >a few, major philosophical differences that must be
> >resolved. One is whether the
I left the [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the CC list, but I STILL have not been able to send
or receive mail from it
On 27-Jan-99 Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Folks,
I liked Jay's summary.
Let me add few lines to Bret's comments.
snipped
Regards
Roberto
Hello Roberto.
It is late, and I am going
Folks,
I liked Jay's summary.
Let me add few lines to Bret's comments.
Bret Fausett wrote:
Jay Fenello wrote:
My impression of this process was that there are only
a few, major philosophical differences that must be
resolved. One is whether the DNSO will feature a top
down, or bottom
Jay Fenello a écrit:
Hi Bret,
You are correct -- I was framing the
debate, rather than describing its
spectrum.
I agree that both the AIP and CENTRE
proposals are somewhere in between.
Looking forward to tomorrow.
What exactly is it that you're "looking forward to tomorrow"? Can
Jay Fenello wrote:
P.S. I have asked that the CC be transcribed,
but this has not yet been confirmed.
I was asked by one of the conference organizers whether I would consent
to the call being recorded and then transcribed or made available on the
internet via RealAudio. Of course, I
Hi Bret,
You are correct -- I was framing the
debate, rather than describing its
spectrum.
I agree that both the AIP and CENTRE
proposals are somewhere in between.
Looking forward to tomorrow.
Jay.
At 1/25/99, 11:35 PM, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
A few comments on Jay's summary, which
A few comments on Jay's summary, which sounds all the right notes.
Jay Fenello wrote:
My impression of this process was that there are only
a few, major philosophical differences that must be
resolved. One is whether the DNSO will feature a top
down, or bottom up decision making process.
Hi Stef,
I agree that ORSC should continue its efforts
at drafting a consensus document.
I also agree that the results of tomorrow's
conference call (CC) should be made available
for incorporation into the ongoing ORSC draft
editing process. After all, it is not outside
the realm of
As I stated emphatically and clearly in the 22 January
DNSO meeting when the INTA and DNSO.ORG participants
argued for setting up a limited particiaption telecon
to resolve the outstanding issues, and that other
drafting efforts should be suspended in
At 08:54 PM 1/25/99 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
The trademark/business community is *much*,
**much** stronger than ORSC, yet ORSC has
been able to block (or at least slow down)
many of the plans that we haven't agreed
with.
Don't you think they can as well?
The nameserver operators of the
On 26-Jan-99 Jay Fenello wrote:
Think of it this way.
The trademark/business community is *much*,
**much** stronger than ORSC, yet ORSC has
been able to block (or at least slow down)
many of the plans that we haven't agreed
with.
Don't you think they can as well?
Maybe I'm naive
At 1/25/99, 08:20 PM, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 26-Jan-99 Jay Fenello wrote:
Hi William,
They have the influence they have,
and that's enough influence to block
*any* proposal put on the table.
People keep claiming this, but I fail to see exactly how they can claim to be
able to do
Jay and all,
Thank you for submitting this impression Jay. It is much appreciated
by many I am sure.
As to your conclusion on these impressions. In what manner will
a "Consensus" be determined? Without a viable method on measuring
that there is "Consensus" for any draft, there cannot be
At 1/25/99, 07:02 PM, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 25-Jan-99 Jay Fenello wrote:
The TB interests, on the other hand, really need a fast
and simple way to establish some rules for the Internet.
They can either build a system of contracts as suggested
in the White Paper, or they can spend
On 25-Jan-99 Jay Fenello wrote:
The TB interests, on the other hand, really need a fast
and simple way to establish some rules for the Internet.
They can either build a system of contracts as suggested
in the White Paper, or they can spend the next 100 years,
and millions of dollars
Jay and all,
I guess I would have to ask, "is this really the point"?
I am a Trademark
Holder and paten holder, yet I do NOT agree with the intent
or verbiage
of the WIPO report, not to mention it overstepped its mandate in the
White Paper. Many companies that I have personally talked to
their
16 matches
Mail list logo
