[ back on list ]
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 05:34:53PM -0400, Jerry B. Altzman wrote:
There was a HUGE one about that domain name between Nissan Motors and
some computer consultant named Nissan (a Hebrew name) in NC.
vis http://www.nissan.com/Lawsuit/The_Story.php
I don't know exactly how to
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:24:48AM -0700,
Scott Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 32 lines which said:
what problem is ICANN trying to solve with this
proposal? What about the current system that's broken, does this new
system fix?
ICANN is simply responding to demand. Some
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:24:48AM -0700, Scott Francis wrote:
more to the point ... what problem is ICANN trying to solve with this
proposal?
Oh, that's quite straightforward: insufficient registrar revenue.
---Rsk
On Jun 27, 2008, at 6:11 PM, Jean-François Mezei wrote:
But my uneducated opinion is that this current project appears to let
the .TLD loose and this will result in top level domains being
meaningless, without any trust.
Given the complexity of the new gTLD process, I think it safe to say
On Jun 27, 2008, at 8:59 PM, WWWhatsup wrote:
David Conrad wrote:
With that said, personally, I agree that more attention should be
spent on the welfare of the registrants. Unfortunately, given I work
for ICANN, my providing comments in the RAA public consultation along
those lines would be a
One way to provide protection is too allow those who have the domain portion
of any domain.(com|net|org|...) to have first dibs for the domain of any new
gTLD. i.e. if nanog.org, nanog.com, nanog.net, etc. would have first dibs
on nanog.thisisgreatstuff.
Or is that too simplistic and fraught
On Jun 27, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Bill Nash wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Scott Francis wrote:
perhaps somebody with more insight can explain the rationale to me
(DRC?) - is there a purpose served here aside from corporate/legal
interests?
It strikes me as fomenting another gold rush. The notion
David Conrad (drc) writes:
Other folks believe that anything that reduces the effective monopoly
VeriSign has (through .COM and .NET) would be a good thing. This view
holds that by increasing the number of top-level domains, you increase the
opportunities for consumer (that is, domain
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:23:28PM -0700, Scott Francis wrote:
that's exactly my point! it's _not_ reliable, but it's the behavior
that the average user has come to expect. If we can't even guarantee
reliability with the small handful of TLDs currently in use, when we
start introducing
On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Bill Nash wrote:
I'd rather see ICANN spend time on current problems instead of
making new ones.
Out of curiosity, what are the problems you feel ICANN should be
spending its time on?
Regards,
-drc
On Jun 27, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Phil Regnauld wrote:
The process ensures that too few new TLDs will be created for
it being a threat to VeriSign
This remains to be seen, at least from my perspective. I have no idea
how many TLDs are going to make it through the gauntlet or
On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Scott Francis wrote:
If we can't even guarantee
reliability with the small handful of TLDs currently in use, when we
start introducing arbitrary new ones to anybody that can pay, I'm
concerned that it's going to make user support even more of a headache
I might
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:49 PM, David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Scott Francis wrote:
If we can't even guarantee
reliability with the small handful of TLDs currently in use, when we
start introducing arbitrary new ones to anybody that can pay, I'm
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill
Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I agree with Scott, I'd rather see ICANN spend time on current problems
instead of making new ones.
Did you express that opinion to the Paris meeting?
[Not an attack on you specifically, but as this process has been ongoing
for
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:04:19 EDT, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Mezei?= said:
Say I am a pastry chef, and I pay $40 per year for pastry.com, I got
it because I signed up early and now cherish my domain name. I am a
small business.
But now, some rich guy can come in and bid for .pastry
On Jun 27, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Scott Francis wrote:
what little assurance we have that e.g. bankofamerica.com is the
legitimate (or should I say, _a_ legitimate) site for the financial
institution of the same name becomes less certain when we have e.g.
bank.of.america, www.bankofamerica.bank,
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Bill Nash wrote:
I'd rather see ICANN spend time on current problems instead of making new
ones.
Out of curiosity, what are the problems you feel ICANN should be spending its
time on?
For starters, has Verisign ever
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Bill Nash wrote:
Except for domain registrars, who are only really a registrar when they make
a mistake that could cost your entire commercial enterprise.
Edit: s/when/until/
Beer:30.
- billn
On Jun 27, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Bill Nash wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Bill Nash wrote:
Out of curiosity, what are the problems you feel ICANN should be
spending its time on?
For starters, has Verisign ever been sanctioned by ICANN for it's
business practices,
You mean like
While doing the groceries, I got to think about this issue.
There have been complaints in the past about difficulty in getting new
legitimate TLDs approved by ICANN. (image of ICANN being too USA centric
etc etc etc).
So I understand a move towards a more documented and logical process
to get
David Conrad wrote:
With that said, personally, I agree that more attention should be
spent on the welfare of the registrants. Unfortunately, given I work
for ICANN, my providing comments in the RAA public consultation along
those lines would be a bit ... awkward.
Would you agree with
21 matches
Mail list logo
