From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #98 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Wednesday, May 10 2000 Volume 01 : Number 098 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 19:54:36 +0200 (MET DST) From: DNSO Secretariat Subject: [wg-c] Number of participants in the DNSO mailing lists over time [ To: council@dnso.org ] [ To: annouce@dnso.org, ga@dnso.org, WG's ] The information collected since the beggining of this year allows to trace the number of participants in the DNSO mailing lists over time. Since February an automaton takes a snapshot once a week, it will produce now a corresponding HTML page as well. An item "Number of participants in the DNSO mailing lists over time" has been added on the DNSO Website. DNSO Secretariat - -- [ From: http://www.dnso.org/statistics/dnsostatistics.html ] ICANN/DNSO Distribution of participants in the DNSO mailing lists - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Distribution of participants in the DNSO mailing lists 1. 2000011020 All = 526, announce= 245, All ga's = 253, All WGs = 227 2. 2000011416 All = 520, announce= 245, All ga's = 243, All WGs = 226 3. 2000011920 All = 520, announce= 249, All ga's = 242, All WGs = 227 4. 2000012613 All = 526, announce= 256, All ga's = 243, All WGs = 228 5. 2000021011 All = 551, announce= 267, All ga's = 237, All WGs = 257 6. 2000021306 All = 548, announce= 267, All ga's = 230, All WGs = 258 7. 2000022006 All = 550, announce= 272, All ga's = 215, All WGs = 261 8. 2000022706 All = 557, announce= 276, All ga's = 217, All WGs = 263 9. 2000030506 All = 577, announce= 283, All ga's = 231, All WGs = 274 10. 2000031206 All = 587, announce= 291, All ga's = 237, All WGs = 273 11. 2000031906 All = 598, announce= 296, All ga's = 243, All WGs = 275 12. 2000032606 All = 608, announce= 301, All ga's = 242, All WGs = 282 13. 2000040206 All = 610, announce= 306, All ga's = 239, All WGs = 282 14. 2000040906 All = 618, announce= 313, All ga's = 239, All WGs = 283 15. 2000041606 All = 623, announce= 318, All ga's = 244, All WGs = 282 16. 2000042306 All = 628, announce= 323, All ga's = 246, All WGs = 280 17. 2000043006 All = 638, announce= 331, All ga's = 252, All WGs = 279 18. 2000050706 All = 642, announce= 334, All ga's = 253, All WGs = 281 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Created by DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org Edition du 2000050719 © Copyright DNSO ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 21:47:56 GMT From: "Mark Measday" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Number of participants in the DNSO mailing lists over time My email client announced an email from Harald Alvestrand, so, hi Harald. I note that 'annouce' is usually spelled with three 'n's, 'begging' without the intermediate 'in' inserted below. I only cavil -personally I like imaginative spelling, after all Shakespeare used it - as it tends to upset African and Middle Eastern readers, who imagine stupidity rather than deep preoccupation with higher matters. What weeks do the 10 figure numbers below refer to? I get the general drift that more is better, but wonder whether the naive assumption that they are weekly sequential intervals would be challenged by the facts. Dyspeptically yours, MM >From: DNSO Secretariat >To: wg-b@dnso.org, wg-c@dnso.org, wg-d@dnso.org, wg-e@dnso.org >Subject: [wg-c] Number of participants in the DNSO mailing lists over time >Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 19:54:36 +0200 (MET DST) > >[ To: council@dnso.org ] >[ To: annouce@dnso.org, ga@dnso.org, WG's ] > >The information collected since the beggining of this year allows >to trace the number of participants in the DNSO mailing lists over time. >Since February an automaton takes a snapshot once a week, it >will produce now a corresponding HTML page as well. >An item "Number of participants in the DNSO mailing lists over time" >has been added on the DNSO Website. > >DNSO Secretariat >-- > >[ From: http://www.dnso.org/statistics/dnsostatistics.html ] > >ICANN/DNSO > >Distribution of participants in the DNSO mailing lists > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Distribution of participants in the DNSO mailing lists > >1. 2000011020 All = 526, announce= 245, All ga's = 253, All WGs = 227 >2. 2000011416 All = 520, announce= 245, All ga's = 243, All WGs = 226 >3. 2000011920 All = 520, announce= 249, All ga's = 242, All WGs = 227 >4. 2000012613 All = 526, announce= 256, All ga's = 243, All WGs = 228 >5. 2000021011 All = 551, announce= 267, All ga's = 237, All WGs = 257 >6. 2000021306 All = 548, announce= 267, All ga's = 230, All WGs = 258 >7. 2000022006 All = 550, announce= 272, All ga's = 215, All WGs = 261 >8. 2000022706 All = 557, announce= 276, All ga's = 217, All WGs = 263 >9. 2000030506 All = 577, announce= 283, All ga's = 231, All WGs = 274 >10. 2000031206 All = 587, announce= 291, All ga's = 237, All WGs = 273 >11. 2000031906 All = 598, announce= 296, All ga's = 243, All WGs = 275 >12. 2000032606 All = 608, announce= 301, All ga's = 242, All WGs = 282 >13. 2000040206 All = 610, announce= 306, All ga's = 239, All WGs = 282 >14. 2000040906 All = 618, announce= 313, All ga's = 239, All WGs = 283 >15. 2000041606 All = 623, announce= 318, All ga's = 244, All WGs = 282 >16. 2000042306 All = 628, announce= 323, All ga's = 246, All WGs = 280 >17. 2000043006 All = 638, announce= 331, All ga's = 252, All WGs = 279 >18. 2000050706 All = 642, announce= 334, All ga's = 253, All WGs = 281 > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Created by DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org > Edition du 2000050719 © Copyright DNSO > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:55:02 -0700 From: "Roeland Meyer \(E-mail\)" Subject: [wg-c] RE: Sunset for sunrise > Michael Graham: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 11:20 AM spouted; > Presuming as much (incorrect as I may be), I believe it is to > all parties' interest to establish a means for protecting > trademark owner and consumer interest in domain names which > incorporate or are "variations" of their trademarks. (I will > note, however, my discomfort with the use of the term > "variations" but admit my inability to come up with a better > term or description at the moment ¯ what the comment period > might result in). I certainly don't believe this is a > "silly" effort or that the goal of avoiding conflict should > be displaced merely because there are alternate means of > enforcing these rights. I don't see S+20 creating any new rights. You are fighting from quicksand here Michael. Conflict avoidance requires prudent measures, on part of the registrant. It does not require apriori restraint on part of the registry. It is a matter of fact that such apriori restraint may make the registry vulnerable to liabilities, which they certainly may not wish to be responsible for. The registry would very much like to remain a neutral third-party, solely an implementation agent. Currently, the registrant has the right to make the mistake of conflicting with a mark. Universally, the courts and legal systems of the world have made it so, with good reason. Apriori restraint (S+20), on part of the registry, removes this right from the registrant and places the responsibilities and liabilities squarely on the registry. This places the registry in the unenviable position of being a responsible party having to defend their stance against both the mark holder and the registrant, while being singulary under-equiped for such responsibility. Under these conditions, who wants to be a registry? All of this liability for the dubious income generated for registering the domain names? I suspect that this is, in part, the reason that we don't have more registries. Only NSI, protected by USG umbrella, can afford to step into this mess. It can be argued that S+20 does not only represent apriori restraint on names, but is, of itself, apriori restraint on the [ICANN] registry business overall. It makes the liability burden, of being a registry, so onerous that it will supress the formation of the entire industry. (Before anyone makes any other claim, registrars are simply agents of the registry). ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #98 *************************