- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Nevermind....
by Alan B. Clegg 01 Mar '96

01 Mar '96

I would like to withdraw my offer to host the NANOG list. As it has been pointed out to me, the list _IS_ now under the control of a very willing Majordomo(a)merit.edu. -abc \ Alan B. Clegg Just because I can \ Internet Staff does not mean I will. \ gateway.com, inc. \ <http://www.gateway.com/>

1 0

Unsuscribe
by Susan Young/Dinsmore 29 Feb '96

29 Feb '96

Subject: Time: 3:10 PM OFFICE MEMO Unsuscribe Date: 2/29/96 Unsuscribe. Susan Young

2 1

Domain Names: Mercury News article.
by Peter Berger 28 Feb '96

28 Feb '96

Here's a follow-up to last week's forward from the gentleman "auctioning" off domain names that he registered solely for that purpose. TRADEMARKS FACE A BRAVE NEW WORLD -- THE INTERNET By SIMSON L. GARFINKEL Special to the Mercury News BRIAN Cimins is really sorry. Like many people, the 19-year-old student at Stockton State College in New Jersey thought the Internet represented a wonderful opportunity to make money. Last year, he designed a site on the World Wide Web to advertise backpacks. Riding on that success, he started looking around for other companies that weren't yet on the Net -- companies for whom he might be able to create custom-built Web sites, taking advantage of the Web's ability to combine graphics, video, sound and text into interesting areas for people to visit. It wasn't hard. In no time, Cimins found a whole slew of companies that hadn't yet registered their names in cyberspace -- companies for whom there was no ''.com'' address, which essentially is the Cyberspace surname for profit-oriented companies. So on Feb. 6, Cimins submitted registration forms to the InterNIC, the Internet's Network Information Center, claiming for himself the names billclinton.com, canadadry.com, bdalton.com, bauschlomb.com, readersdigest.com and capitolrecords.com. For each name, Cimins paid the Network's nominal $100 registration fee. ''I picked up some names I thought were pretty good names,'' Cimins said. ''I didn't have any negative intentions of doing anything with these names. I wanted to start a forum for these businesses, and possibly be an Internet provider for them. I could design their presence and provide their (Web) site.'' But Cimins' entrepreneurship ran head-long into a growing problem on the Internet: Who owns the names? STATE SENATE STEPS IN In California, the issue has reached the Legislature, where on Feb. 14, State Sen. Charles M. Calderon, D-Montebello, introduced a bill that would prohibit the unauthorized use of trademarks as ''a user identification or electronic mail address on any computer bulletin board, information network, or information system which accepts and relays electronic mail into computers situated in this state,'' according to a statement issued by the California Senate Rules Committee. The bill would also prohibit the unauthorized use of trade or registered names and trademarks on the Internet or the World Wide Web. The bill provides for civil penalties of $1,000, plus court costs and attorney's fees. (A full text of the legislation is available on the California Senate's Web site at http://www.sen.ca/ .) ''What is the state government trying to do regulating the global Internet? That's crazy,'' said Jim Warren, a columnist for MicroTimes, who closely follows attempts by governments to regulate the Internet. One of the problems with the legislation, says Warren, is that a company in another country might obtain a domain name that conflicts with a trademark that is owned by a California corporation. ''My half-baked, knee-jerk reaction is that we don't want to emphasize national borders on the Net,'' he said. The state bill reflects how important the ''name game'' has become on the Internet. NAMES FOR SALE Cimins allegedly offered to sell some of the names to the highest bidders - -- prompting protests from Internet advocates who consider such antics unscrupulous. For companies, the names often represent their corporate identities or some of their most well-known products. For individuals, the domain names often are their names. Meanwhile, for profit-minded individuals like Cimins, trading in the names offers a chance to make a quick buck. In the case of billclinton.com, it turns out Cimins made a good business decision. Shortly after the domain was registered, Cimins discovered a company that was selling a ''Billy-Bob Clinton Bobbing Head Doll.'' As luck would have it, the company decided to take the plunge and set up a Web site using the domain name. ''I bought it (for) quite a bit of money,'' said Marc Cortez, marketing director for Cortrade in Huntington Beach. Cortez said he paid between $1,000 and $10,000 for the rights to the billclinton.com domain and to set up the Web site. But what about the other names -- the names for companies that already exist? In the case of the capitolrecords.com domain, Cimins said he wanted to build a Web site that had links to Capitol Record's recording artists. In the case of B. Dalton, he wanted to design a ''virtual store.'' There was just one problem: he didn't ask the companies' permission first. TRADEMARKS IN CYBERSPACE Over the past year, the Internet has been struggling with the role trademark law should play in cyberspace. The problem is that while Apple Computer Inc. might want a name like newton.com for a Web site to help promote its Newton personal digital assistant computer, Nabisco might want newton.com to advertise its Fig Newtons. Complicating the matter still is Mark Newton, a computer enthusiast in Brighton, Mich., who runs a bulletin board called the Newtonian BBS. Newton obtained the domain name newton.com in April 1994. For years, Internet domains were registered on a first-come, first-serve basis. Last summer, Network Solutions Inc., the company that runs the InterNIC, decided to change the policy. The InterNIC rules are complicated. But they work roughly as follows, according to David Graves, NSI's business manager: A person or company can register any domain name not already taken. But if another person or company then says it holds a ''valid and existing trademark that is identical'' to that domain name, and if the trademark was registered before the domain name was awarded, the party holding the trademark has the right to get that name. The party that registered the domain name first then has the right to prove that it also has a federal trademark on the name. Assuming the party that registered the domain doesn't hold the federal trademark, NSI gives that person or company ''the ability to register a different name, and will give them 90 days of simultaneous use. The purpose for that is to give them the opportunity,'' to migrate to the new name, said Graves. In the case of newton.com, both Newton and his Internet service provider, Innovative Concepts of Ann Arbor, Mich., say they have been contacted by Apple, which has threatened a lawsuit unless they relinquish the name. ''I haven't done anything wrong,'' Newton said. ''Do I need to trademark my last name to use it?'' Furthermore, Newton believes Apple doesn't need the newton.com address, because the company is already using newton.apple.com. Apple never comments on threatened lawsuits, said Lynne Keast, a company representative. CIMINS CHANGES PLANS Back in New Jersey, Cimins is worried he might soon be receiving legal threats himself from the companies whose names he registered. Complicating matters is a piece of electronic mail, Cimins allegedly sent Feb. 21, in which the author claimed that ''these corporations will pay big bucks for these names.'' Cimins denies sending the message, saying it might have been sent by one of his employees who was using his own account. In fact, Cimins said he now plans to ''dump'' the domain names he has obtained. HOW BAUSCH & LOMB SEES IT At Bausch & Lomb, senior trademark counsel Gregg Marrazzo doesn't take kindly to the idea of anyone trying to sell the company its own name back. ''Our corporate name as well as our product names are very valuable property to us. This fellow was able to get some property and try to sell it back,'' Marrazzo said. ''We would equate that to some extent if someone took something off your front lawn and tried to sell it back to you.'' Marrazzo said the company has a ''hard time keeping up with all of the registrations of all the different corporate names and trademarks.'' The Internet complicates the program, because a Bausch & Lomb brand such as Ray Ban might be registered under many different names, including rayban.com, ray-ban.com, or even ray.ban.com. To the computer system, each of those names would be unique. In the case of bauschlomb.com, said Marrazzo, Cimins should expect to receive a ''cease and desist'' letter in the mail from the $2 billion corporation. Indeed, Cimins said he submitted a series of new requests last week to the InterNIC, asking that all of the domains that he had obtained for other company's names be deleted. ''I'm sorry,'' he said. When Marrazzo heard that Cimins was studying marketing, he burst out laughing. ''I think that he has a very bright future,'' the attorney said. MERCURY CENTER ID: me10010d Transmitted: 96-02-26 05:02:40 EST ============= "Superior technology is no match for superior marketing." ============= Simson on Tour: Feb. 28 - March 1 - Seybold, Boston. March 6-8: NYC. Consulting. March 23 - NYC. MacFair. March 27 - March 30: Cambridge. Computers, Freedom and Privacy. ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

yab (yet another BOF) in LA
by William Allen Simpson 27 Feb '96

27 Feb '96

I haven't seen any mention of Bradner's announcement here. There was a very interesting proposal that I remember seeing on this list, where a set of short route exchanges for parts of 192 would be advertised as an aggregation, and then tunnels could be created for the "holes" out to the appropriate terminal AS. Something like IP Mobility. I don't remember who initially proposed this. Would they please stand up for it at the IETF LA meeting? Or would it be OK if I raise it? > Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 15:59:55 -0500 (EST) > Sender: ietf-request(a)IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US > From: Scott Bradner <sob(a)newdev.harvard.edu> > Message-Id: <199602242059.PAA15071(a)newdev.harvard.edu> > To: ietf(a)CNRI.Reston.VA.US > Subject: yab (yet another BOF) in LA > > > There have been a number of threads in the responses to the > Last-Call for draft-ietf-cidrd-addr-ownership-07.txt. I'd like to hold a > BOF to take a closer look at some of these threads. (Since I'm a AD I OKed > my own BOF) This BOF is the result of proposals from Bill Simpson and Tony > Li. > > The BOF will explore options to mitigate the growth in the size and > change frequency of updates of the Internet routing information in the > following two ways: > > 1/ Engineering the Internet Topology - are there ways that the > topology, addressing, or procedures of the current Internet could be > altered to reduce the pressure on the "backbone" routers? This includes > physical and virtual (via tunnels) topologies. > > 2/ Alternate Routing Paradigms - are there alternatives to the > current routing paradigm (BGP/CIDR) that could be developed to mitigate the > effect of the very rapidly growing Internet on the routing infrastructure? > > This BOF will not be an anti- anything BOF; specifically it will > not be an anti-CIDR (or pro-CIDR) BOF. The idea is to get people to > present their ideas about avenues that could be explored for short term and > long term ways to keep the Internet routing structure viable. It will also > not be a BOF to explore other ways to build routers that might scale > differently than existing products. > > BOF procedures > All speakers must register in advance (by sending me email) > indicating that they want to speak - they must include a short (1 or 2 > paragraph) description of their topic. They must also indicate if their > solution is short term (next 12 months), mid term (12-24 months) or long > term (24-N months). > Before I leave for LA I will sort through the requests I've > received. I will weed out those who do not indicate that they will be > presenting a specific proposal then figure out how much time each speaker > will have. I plan to have a discussion period after each presentation. > The discussions will be the same length as the presentations. > > BOF outcome > This BOF may or may not result in one or more working groups in one > or another IETF Area. I would hope that proposals will be presented that > will be worth following up on. This BOF will be in the Operational > Requirements Area but that does not mean that any resulting working groups > would also be in the same area. > > Schedule > The Explorations of Alternate Routing and Topology to Help the > Enormous Net (EARTHEN) BOF is scheduled for Monday at 9:30am (the open slot > selection is poor at this time) > > thanks > > Scott > Bill.Simpson(a)um.cc.umich.edu Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

1 0

Sorry for previous email - Wrong destinations !!!
by Philip Buckley 27 Feb '96

27 Feb '96

Dear all, Sorry for the last email - the only person who didn't get it was Dave Stead! Philip Philip Buckley ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- Internet: philip(a)buckley.demon.co.uk (MIME attachments) Internet: Philip.Buckley(a)mail.sema.co.uk (uuencoded attachments) Voicebank: 0171 706 5260 (+44 171 706 5260) Telephone: Sema Group: 0171 830 4281 (+44 171 830 4281) NHS-wide networking programme Central Communications Management Group: 0121 454 6166 (+44 121 454 6166)

1 0

Additional questions
by Philip Buckley 27 Feb '96

27 Feb '96

Hello Dave, Thanks for the files on the requirements. We'll be incorporating these over the next few days. Please find attached the additional questions that I mentioned last Friday. If you have any problems I'm at home to-day (01525 373136) and at Sema tomorrow (0171 830 4281). Thanks. Philip Philip Buckley ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- Internet: philip(a)buckley.demon.co.uk (MIME attachments) Internet: Philip.Buckley(a)mail.sema.co.uk (uuencoded attachments) Voicebank: 0171 706 5260 (+44 171 706 5260) Telephone: Sema Group: 0171 830 4281 (+44 171 830 4281) NHS-wide networking programme Central Communications Management Group: 0121 454 6166 (+44 121 454 6166)

1 0

NANOG Attendee List
by William B. Norton 23 Feb '96

23 Feb '96

Hi all - Some folks asked for the NANOG attendee list, electronic (much like the IETF attendee list) or otherwise. I'd like to find out if you all have a problem with this. The options appear to be: a) On-Line (WWW) Attendee list updated and available as people register b) On-Line (WWW) Attendee list installed after the meeting c) Attendee list handed out only in paper form at the site d) Attendee list unavailable Please respond directly to me if you have strong feelings one way or the other. Thanks, Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- William Norton <wbn(a)merit.edu> (313) 936-2656

1 0

NANOG Announce: CIX NANOG Date Changes!
by William B. Norton 22 Feb '96

22 Feb '96

Hi all - Looks like the next NANOG dates have been changed and finalize (see note below). The next NANOG is now scheduled for May 30-31. See you there. More detailed logistics to follow.... Bill ------------------ >Bill, > >Unfortunately I received word today from George Washington University >that the May 23-24 dates are wrong, and the correct dates are May 30-31. > >Apparently we had a major miscommunication! May 30-31 are absolutely >the correct dates and I hope that you will be able to communicate this >to the people in San Diego today. We will update our members. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- William Norton <wbn(a)merit.edu> (313) 936-2656

3 2

"Stephen Peters": (Fwd)
by Peter Berger 22 Feb '96

22 Feb '96

In light of the recent discussions about auctioning off domain names, I found this to be very interesting -- personal solicitations to -sell- domain names trademarked by other organizations..... ------- Forwarded Message From: "Stephen Peters" <sbp(a)halcyon.com> Message-Id: <960221203958.ZM11269208(a)ppp-dialup11.3rdplanet.com> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 20:35:25 -0800 Reply-To: sbp(a)halcyon.com To: peterb(a)psc.edu, dug(a)lm.com, myke(a)cyberport.net Subject: (Fwd) Cc: amazing(a)halcyon.com, kevingo(a)microsoft.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The scum is beginning to seep out of the internet. Check out the mail someone left on our corporate web site today. This is almost the equivalent of someone opening his overcoat to you on a crowded city street to sell you a wristwatch. Hey buddy! Wanna buy a domain name?! - --- Forwarded mail from nobody <nobody(a)www1.wa.com> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 19:27:31 -0800 From: nobody <nobody(a)www1.wa.com> To: amazing(a)halcyon.com Incoming Feedback to Amazing name = Brian Cimins title = Manager company = Cimins Corp. email address = AgentWeb(a)aol.com comments = NICE PAGE!!! I was wondering if you guys were interested in obtaining some big names on the internet. Some examples are: >>>http://www.capitolrecords.com<<< GREAT FOR YOU GUYS!!! http://www.canadadry.com http://www.bauschlomb.com If you are interested in obtaining any of these sites please send a bid for what you are willing to pay for the transfer of these names over to your names and over to your server. Thank you for your time!!! Sincerely, Brian Cimins 609-652-7116 P.S. I have already sold such names as http://www.billclinton.com, http://www.powerrangers.com, and readersdigest.com, bdalton.com, and barnes-noble.com!!! These corporations will pay big bucks for these names!!! - ---End of forwarded mail from nobody <nobody(a)www1.wa.com> - -- sbp(a)amz.com http://www.amz.com/ Amazing Online Marketing For all your Web advertising needs Fax: 503.768.3865 Custom Web Sites, Soup to Nuts ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd)
by Walter O. Haas 22 Feb '96

22 Feb '96

> > Creating a consortium [akin to the NAP model] of small ISP's could > > easily resolve this problem, if all address space allocated to each > > ISP was contiguous and could be aggregated to a larger prefix. > > But, this would require working with your direct competition in your > local geographic area. > > Ain't gonna happen. > > No way, No How. Why not? We already have competing TV stations sharing an antenna site, and competing newspapers sharing a printing press and distribution mechanism. I don't see why ISPs couldn't do something similar where it's in everybody's interest. -- Walt

5 5