<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga-abuse] Jeff Williams - Again
Hi Elisabeth
I think you mentioned that bounced messages cost us money. Certainly they
add to the workload of the Chair and/or the Alternate Chair if they need
corrective action. Despite all the reminders, Jeff Williams continues to
cross-post. This is an abuse of the mailing list which is sufficient to
have his posting privileges completely removed. There is no rule but that
is an acceptable course for email abuse.
I propose that a public warning be sent to Jeff Williams. Should he
continue to cross-post then his posting rights may be removed. The
alternative is to automatically forward all BOUNCED messages to the sender.
Any suggestions?
Regards
Patrick Corliss
----- Original Message -----
From: <owner-ga-ext@dnso.org>
To: <owner-ga-ext@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 3:14 PM
Subject: BOUNCE ga-ext@dnso.org: taboo header:
/^From:.*jwkckid1\@ix\.netcom\.com/i
> >From ga-ext-listadmin@dnso.dnso.org Mon May 7 07:14:13 2001
> Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net
[207.69.200.243])
> by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA10058
> for <ga-ext@dnso.org>; Mon, 7 May 2001 07:14:13 +0200 (MET DST)
> Received: from ix.netcom.com (user-v3qs4rh.dialup.mindspring.com
[199.174.19.113])
> by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA31195;
> Mon, 7 May 2001 01:13:23 -0400 (EDT)
> Message-ID: <3AF64D8E.9CC9729F@ix.netcom.com>
> Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 00:23:59 -0700
> From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
> CC: Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency Discussion List
<ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>,
> ICANN-EU <icann-europe@fitug.de>, ga-ext@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [icann-eu] Re: [IPN] TACD resolution on the Hague
> Convention
> References: <3AF50246.81485A91@cptech.org>
<5.0.2.1.0.20010506225539.021f83c0@pop3.norton.antivirus>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Jefsey and all,
>
> First please excuse my tardiness in replying to this, Jefsey.
>
> Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > Jeff,
> > thank you for passing this information from Jamie Love. (I do not know
> > why I subscribed to the ncdnhc-discuss list but never receive anything
> > from them).
>
> Most likely you received this as a result of you being subscribed to
> the Icann-europe list.
>
> >
> >
> > Would it be not sensible that cross-border e-commerce complaints
> > could be addressed to a common e-commerce jurisdidiction (we have
> > one for war crimes) with representative courts in each country, an
> > UDRP++ like procedure and an international database of the cases?
>
> And very good suggestion Jefsey. I made such a suggestion two years
> ago to WIPO.
>
> >
> > As for DNs this would not remove the cases from the national
jurisdictions,
> > but would simplify the day to day life and augment the protection of the
> > consumers (would there be a choice of the panelist by the defendant,
> > and an appeal or control procedure). This could also be related to a
> > payment control and insurance services. As long as it would be private
> > (a system like TeleCheck for example) I suppose it could be acceptable
> > to all?
>
> Indeed it could.
>
> >
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > - is that a good approach we would like to dig into? Or may be I am
> > stupid and do not know there are a lot of initiatives already?
>
> Yes to the first question. No the the second.
>
> >
> > - is there anythng preventing private interest or an international
> > non-profit association to be set-up to provide such a service with
> > a label on the seller site?
>
> No there shouldn't be.
>
> >
> > - should this be a new initiative or could that be a consumer
> > extension of the ICC arbitration services?
>
> I would think either or both would be acceptable.
>
> >
> >
> > Jefsey
> > france@large
> >
> > At 11:13 06/05/01, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >James and all,
> > >
> > > Thank you for pasing this on. Very interesting. I wonder if the
> > >ICANN
> > >BOD and WIPO is paying any attention as some of the points of
considered
> > >interests would seem to be effectual upon these organizations.
> > >
> > >James Love wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is a statement and the text of a resolution on the
Hague
> > > > convention that was passed by TACD on Friday in Brussels. TACD is a
US
> > > > and EU trade dialogue involving governments and 65 consumer groups
(see
> > > > http://www.tacd.org). Resolutions reflect consensus positions among
the
> > > > TACD members. As noted in the preamble, the TACD is still working
on
> > > > additional text to address the group's position on the
non-negotiated
> > > > ecommerce contracts, an issue raised in both Article 4 and 10 of the
> > > > Convention, and on speech related concerns, an area where there are
> > > > different views in different countries. Note also that the TACD did
> > > > reach consensus on its call to exclude intellectual property from
the
> > > > proposed convention, and also, that the TACD has created a new group
to
> > > > work specifically on intellectual property issues, including (but
not
> > > > limited to) the issues of jurisdiction raised by the Hague
convention.
> > > >
> > > > The Hague Convention begins a diplomatic convention on June
6
> > > in the
> > > > Hague. It will be the first global treaty on Internet jurisdiction,
and
> > > > is highly controversial among those who actually follow it, even
though
> > > > it has never been discussed in a US newspaper story. Contact Manon
> > > > Ress for additional information (mress@essential.org, wk
> > > > 1.202.387.8030). Jamie
> > > >
> > > > Statement:
> > > >
> > > > "The TACD E-Commerce working group asked the negotiators on
the
> > > > proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in
Civil
> > > > and Commercial Matters to ensure that consumers can seek remedies
for
> > > > consumer harm in the countries where they live, and to protect
consumers
> > > > from unfair non-negotiable contract terms in e-commerce. The
current
> > > > draft of the Hague Convention would eliminate these rights, for
> > > > example, for consumers who go online to purchase such items as
airplane
> > > > tickets and software that are used for a business purpose."
> > > >
> > > > "The TACD resolution also called on the Hague Convention
> > > negotiators to
> > > > exclude all intellectual property litigation from the convention,
> > > > because differences in national laws on intellectual property are
great,
> > > > and cross border enforcement could undermine consumer rights and
> > > > choice. For example, the TACD is concerned that the Hague
Convention
> > > > would force European consumers to be subject to US patents on
business
> > > > methods, even though such patents are not legal under European law."
> > > >
> > > > <----------resolution----------------------------------->
> > > >
> > > > TACD RESOLUTION ON THE PROPOSED HAGUE CONVENTION
> > > > ON JURISDICTION AND FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL
MATTERS
> > > >
> > > > WHEREAS:
> > > >
> > > > Access to justice is one of the cornerstones of consumer protection.
The
> > > > principle that consumers should be able to seek justice in the
courts of
> > > > their home jurisdictions is founded on that cornerstone and reflects
the
> > > > need to ensure effective redress for unfair, deceptive, and abusive
> > > > business practices. This principle is especially important in the
> > > > electronic marketplace, where consumers could be at a considerable
> > > > disadvantage if they are subjected to the jurisdiction of distant
courts
> > > > when disputes arise. Depriving consumers of access to their own
courts
> > > > in the case of cross-border disputes is effectively denying them
their
> > > > right to redress via the public justice system.
> > > >
> > > > Businesses can limit the jurisdictions in which they transact with
> > > > consumers to those jurisdictions in which they are comfortable being
> > > > subject to litigation.
> > > >
> > > > While the emergence of alternative dispute resolution options for
> > > > consumers in cross-border disputes is welcome, such options vary
> > > > considerably, have yet to prove their effectiveness, and will not
meet
> > > > the needs of consumers in all cases. The existence of ADR options
does
> > > > not diminish the need of consumers for access to judicial redress.
> > > >
> > > > As a practical matter, court actions are usually a last resort for
> > > > consumers. If effective ADR options for cross-border disputes are
> > > > established and well-publicized, consumers will choose to use them.
> > > > There is no need to make court redress contingent upon the prior
> > > > exercise of ADR options.
> > > >
> > > > It is unfair to enforce choice of forum clauses in standard form
> > > > contracts against consumers as these contracts are not negotiated.
In
> > > > such cases, the seller's choice of forum is imposed on the consumer;
> > > > there is no meaningful choice of forum by the consumer.
> > > >
> > > > It is important that the definition of consumer in the Hague
Convention
> > > > is sufficiently broad to reflect the reality of consumer
transactions.
> > > > For example, members are concerned that individuals who purchase
airline
> > > > tickets or computer software for business purposes under
non-negotiable
> > > > contract terms are not protected under the current draft Convention.
> > > > TACD intends to produce a separate resolution on this issue prior to
the
> > > > June meeting of the Hague Conference.
> > > >
> > > > Concerns have been raised within the TACD over the potential
chilling
> > > > effect of the Convention on speech, for example the expression of
> > > > dissent or criticism of corporate and government policies. TACD is
> > > > reviewing this issue prior to the June meeting.
> > > >
> > > > There are important differences in national laws regarding
intellectual
> > > > property, including such issues as "fair" or "innocent" use, limits
to
> > > > trademark rights in the areas of criticism, parody or comparative
> > > > advertising, scope of patent protection, and term of copyright
> > > > protection. Cross border recognition and enforcement of
Internet-based
> > > > intellectual property judgements raises the prospect of reduced
public
> > > > rights to fair use of such property, contrary to the public
interest.
> > > >
> > > > RESOLVED THEREFORE THAT:
> > > >
> > > > The proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements
in
> > > > Civil and Commercial Matters should promote and protect the consumer
> > > > interest in access to justice. Specifically:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Consumers who transact from their home jurisdictions should not
be
> > > > denied the right to litigate disputes regarding those transactions
in
> > > > the courts of their home jurisdictions.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Claims by businesses against consumers should always be brought
in
> > > > the courts of the consumers' home jurisdiction.
> > > >
> > > > 3. There should be no "prior resort" conditions (e.g., prior resort
to
> > > > ADR) for the application of jurisdiction in the case of consumer
> > > > contracts.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Non-negotiable choice of forum clauses in standard form
contracts
> > > > should never be enforced against consumers.
> > > >
> > > > 5. Consumers should be able to have local judgements against
foreign
> > > > businesses easily recognized and enforced in foreign jurisdictions.
> > > >
> > > > 6. Intellectual property should be excluded from the Convention.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > James Love
> > > > Consumer Project on Technology
> > > > P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
> > > > http://www.cptech.org
> > > > love@cptech.org
> > > > 1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Info-policy-notes mailing list
> > > > Info-policy-notes@lists.essential.org
> > > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/info-policy-notes
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >--
> > >Jeffrey A. Williams
> > >Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > >E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > >Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|