Re: [wg-c] Re: working group c meeting

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

I must voice my dissent with a conference call. We're doing just as
well as is expected here in the mailing list, and a conference call
could not be attended by all anyway.

Please continue on the list.

--
Personal Opinion Only, of course...
This email address belongs to a resident of the State of Washington,
who does not accept unsolicited commercial email.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark C. Langston <skritch@home.com>
To: J. William Semich <bill@mail.nic.nu>
Cc: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@dninet.net>; Ivan Pope <ivan@netnames.com>;
<wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: working group c meeting


>
> At the very least, the conference call should allow active (i.e.,
> actual call-in) participation from every member of the WG.
>
>
>
> On 19 July 1999, bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich) wrote:
>
>
> >Considering their are Congressional hearings going on right now about
ICANN
> >"closed meetings," I don't think this is a good idea. Unless you'd like
to
> >web cast the conference call as well, or make call-in lines available to
> >each and all (after announcing it on ga@dnso.org)....
> >
> >Bill Semich
> >
> >
> >At 11:47 AM 7/19/99 -0400, Ken Stubbs wrote:
> >>hello ivan.
> >>i am not ducking your question but this is an item along with some other
> >>brought up recently which we could better explore & "vet" out  in a conf
> >>call (we could
> >>"minute"  the call & post to the list  if members wished as well)
> >>what about the idea of considering  a conf call for the wg and hashing
out
> >>some of these issues. i am on a plane right now and unable to fwd this
> >>message to the wg... would you fwd the message please and see if we can
get
> >>some comments from the group.
> >>
> >>thanks
> >>
> >>ken
> >>i believe core would assist on subsidizing the call as long as wg
members
> >>felt comfortable with that. (if any company,group, or individual wants
to
> >>kick in to help defray the cost thats great with me too !!!)
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Ivan Pope <ivan@netnames.com>
> >>To: 'Ken Stubbs' <kstubbs@dninet.net>
> >>Date: Monday, July 19, 1999 7:05 AM
> >>Subject: RE: gTLD Trademark Applications
> >>
> >>
> >>>Well, Javier proposed that the CORE/POC seven names be proposed to the
DNSO
> >>>as the first set of gTLDs. And I said I thought that CORE had applied
for
> >>>Trademarks on them (in other words, making them even more a CORE set of
> >>>names). But no-one seems to know if CORE has, so I thought we should
> >>clarify
> >>>the situation.
> >>>So I asked you. It's a Working Group and we are addressing the
question.
> >>>Chris Ambler is quick to assert his claims on .web, for example, which
as a
> >>>bearing.
> >>>So, I hope you can help us.
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>Ivan
> >>>
> >>>> what bearing does it have on the working group ivan ?
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Ivan Pope <ivan@netnames.com>
> >>>> To: 'Ken Stubbs' <kstubbs@dninet.net>
> >>>> Cc: 'wg-c@dnso.org' <wg-c@dnso.org>
> >>>> Date: Monday, July 19, 1999 5:24 AM
> >>>> Subject: gTLD Trademark Applications
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> >Ken,
> >>>> >It has been suggested (by me) that CORE has applied for
> >>>> Trademarks on the
> >>>> >CORE/POC 'seven' gTLDs. I am sure I read this recently.
> >>>> >As this has a lot of bearing on the Working Group, could you
> >>>> clarify the
> >>>> >situation. Namely, has CORE or does CORE intend to apply for
> >>>> Trademarks on
> >>>> >any gTLDs?
> >>>> >Thanks,
> >>>> >Ivan
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>