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.
On the other hand, the Paris group was completely unresponsive to criticism
that its veto provisions gave too much
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 07:43:57PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
Furthermore, it is explicitly the case that the Names Council only
gives recommendations to ICANN.
That is all the DNSO CAN do Kent, so this is no distinction.
Of course. However, Jay, Einar, and others have
On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 07:34:40AM -0600, John B. Reynolds wrote:
Jay Fenello wrote:
How do you envision ICANN enforcing
policies onto the registries?
If all else fails, ICANN has the authority to remove them from its root
zone. It's admittedly the 'nuclear option', but it's there.
I agree that both drafts have their flaws, but very definitely view the Paris
draft as the lesser of the two evils. In fact, I am not sure that it has any
evil in it at all.
The dnso.org application's recognition of a "Trademark and anti-counterfeiting"
constituency is an unfair and
you think this is any different in the Trademark draft? CORE is the
one behind it, and they have always advocated CORE as the sole solitary new
registry.
You have less chance of exploitation in a open market, which is what the people
behind the paris draft support, since it opens it to competition
have less chance of exploitation in a open market, which is
what the people
behind the paris draft support, since it opens it to competition.]
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
A few comments
John B. Reynolds wrote:
Registries are also businesses, and have had even less difficulty than TM
owners in making themselves heard, yet there has been no opposition to
granting them a constituency.
Good point. My preference would have been for a more flat membership model
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 them in a position to block it.
Granted, you've never been on any
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 them in a position to block it.
On 08-Feb-99 John B. Reynolds wrote:
What would you suggest? I'd like to hear it, and perhaps the
participants here
can contribute and we can come up with something that is workable.
AIP and NSI came pretty close two days ago:
* It is proposed that Section 5.9 be amended to
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
business community than with the incumbent TLD registries.
A good deal of what you said
11 matches
Mail list logo
