Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #70
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Friday, May 19 2000             Volume 01 : Number 070

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 17:23:06 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Were you consulted?

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I was consulted, but not by the ICANN board itself, on one specific
> selection.

Thanks for responding Harald. Who consulted you, when did they contact you,
and what did they want to know?

       -- Bret

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 14:00:56 -0400
From: Dori Kornfeld <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] court curbs icann

- --============_-1253449637==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>
>Court Curbs Power of ICANN
>The National Law Journal
>In the first ruling of its kind, a federal judge in Illinois said that
>courts are not bound by the administrative proceedings of the organization
>established to provide management of the Internet domain-name system, the
>Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers or ICANN.
>

- --============_-1253449637==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<excerpt>

<bold><fontfamily><param>Verdana</param><color><param>9999,3333,0000</param>=
Court
Curbs Power of ICANN

</color></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Verdana</param><color><param>=
9999,3333,0000</param>The
National Law Journal

</color>In the first ruling of its kind, a federal judge in Illinois
said that courts are not bound by the administrative proceedings of the
organization established to provide management of the Internet
domain-name system, the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers
or ICANN.

</fontfamily></excerpt><fontfamily><param>Verdana</param></fontfamily>

- --============_-1253449637==_ma============--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:21:26 -0700
From: "Roeland Meyer \(E-mail\)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] court curbs icann

Hello Dori,

This is a significant statement, can you please forward the URL?

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Dori Kornfeld
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 11:01 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] court curbs icann

Court Curbs Power of ICANN
The National Law Journal
In the first ruling of its kind, a federal judge in Illinois said
that courts are not bound by the administrative proceedings of
the organization established to provide management of the
Internet domain-name system, the Internet Corp. for Assigned
Names and Numbers or ICANN.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:39:10 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] court curbs icann

On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 11:21:26AM -0700, Roeland Meyer E-mail" wrote:
> Hello Dori,
> 
> This is a significant statement, can you please forward the URL?

I'm not sure why it's significant -- it is explicitly stated that a 
udrp result doesn't prevent you from continuing in court, so obviously 
courts aren't bound by udrp results.  Is there something else going on? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Dori Kornfeld
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 11:01 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] court curbs icann
> 
> Court Curbs Power of ICANN
> The National Law Journal
> In the first ruling of its kind, a federal judge in Illinois said
> that courts are not bound by the administrative proceedings of
> the organization established to provide management of the
> Internet domain-name system, the Internet Corp. for Assigned
> Names and Numbers or ICANN.
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 14:44:14 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] court curbs icann

	The National Law Journal headline is a little over-dramatic.  What the
judge said (correctly) was that if a TM owner *both* initiates a UDRP
proceeding and files a cybersquatting lawsuit against a domain-name
registrant, then the court hearing the cybersquatting case isn't bound by
the outcome of the UDRP proceeding.  Weber-Stephen Products Co. v.
Armitage Hardware & Building Supply.

At 02:00 PM 5/18/00 -0400, Dori Kornfeld wrote:

>>>> 

<excerpt>

<excerpt>

<bold><fontfamily><param>Verdana</param><color><param>9999,3333,0000</param>Court
Curbs Power of ICANN

</color></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Verdana</param><color><param>9999,3333,0000</param>The
National Law Journal

</color>In the first ruling of its kind, a federal judge in Illinois said
that courts are not bound by the administrative proceedings of the
organization established to provide management of the Internet
domain-name system, the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers or
ICANN.

</fontfamily></excerpt>

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 14:34:13 -0500
From: "John B. Reynolds" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] court curbs icann

The NLJ article is online: go to <http://www1.law.com/illinois/> and
scroll down for a link.

    In a ruling on May 3, U.S. District Judge
    Marvin E. Aspen determined that the court
    is not bound by proceedings of an ICANN
    panel. But he indicated uncertainty about
    just how much deference the
    administrative procedures should be given.
    He stayed the federal trademark case
    pending the outcome of the ICANN
    decision and said that "at this time we
    declined to determine the precise standard
    by which we would refuse the panel's
    decision and what degree of deference (if
    any) we would give that decision. Neither
    the ICANN Policy nor its governing rules
    dictate to the court what weight should be
    given to a panel's decision."

Subesequent to the court ruling, the defendant won the UDRP case, see
<http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0187.html>.

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 
> The National Law Journal headline is a little over-dramatic. What the judge said (correctly) was that if a TM owner *both* initiates a UDRP proceeding and files a cybersquatting lawsuit against a domain-name registrant, then the court hearing the cybersquatting case isn't bound by the outcome of the UDRP proceeding. Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware & Building Supply.
> 
> At 02:00 PM 5/18/00 -0400, Dori Kornfeld wrote:
> >>>>
> 
>           Court Curbs Power of ICANN
>           The National Law Journal
>           In the first ruling of its kind, a federal judge in Illinois said that courts are not bound by the administrative proceedings of the organization established to provide management of the Internet domain-name system, the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers or ICANN.
>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 12:39:37 -0700
From: "Roeland Meyer \(E-mail\)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] court curbs icann

> Kent Crispin: Thursday, May 18, 2000 11:39 AM
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 11:21:26AM -0700, Roeland Meyer E-mail"
wrote:
> > Hello Dori,
> >
> > This is a significant statement, can you please forward the
URL?
>
> I'm not sure why it's significant -- it is explicitly stated
that a
> udrp result doesn't prevent you from continuing in court, so
> obviously
> courts aren't bound by udrp results.  Is there something else
> going on?

Aside from the obvious? I'm not sure, at this point, how this
effects the UDRP. I explicitly asked for a URL. Obviously this is
in order to get either the original article, or othre sources of
further information on this issue.

But, then I'm not surprised at your attempts to spin something
that isn't yet well known. I also note that you don't provide
links to this either.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 16:00:25 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] court curbs icann

Dori and all remaining assembly members,

Court Curbs Power of ICANN
The National Law Journal

"In the first ruling of its kind, a federal judge in Illinois said that
courts are not bound by the administrative proceedings of the
organization
established to provide management of the Internet domain-name system,
the
Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers or ICANN."

  It's about time I would say, and something I had been expecting for
some
time now.  Although a bit late, I find this court's and the judge to
have acted properly and appropriately.  It seems that MHO in this
matter and with direct respect to ICANN and it's Boards questionable
actions over the past year and a half at least are beginning to be borne

out.  The amazing thing with respect to this decision is that the
DOC/NTIA
along with the DOJ did not take some action along these lines before
hand as had been requested my myself and a host of others....

  Thank you Dori for bring this to our attention.  Would you
happen to have a URL for this?

Dori Kornfeld wrote

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 16:14:18 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] court curbs icann

John and all,

  For those interested, the complete URL is:
http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZI5DBFD8C&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0&s=News&ExpIgnore=true&showsummary=0
This will take you directly to the review...

John B. Reynolds wrote:

> The NLJ article is online: go to <http://www1.law.com/illinois/> and
> scroll down for a link.
>
>     In a ruling on May 3, U.S. District Judge
>     Marvin E. Aspen determined that the court
>     is not bound by proceedings of an ICANN
>     panel. But he indicated uncertainty about
>     just how much deference the
>     administrative procedures should be given.
>     He stayed the federal trademark case
>     pending the outcome of the ICANN
>     decision and said that "at this time we
>     declined to determine the precise standard
>     by which we would refuse the panel's
>     decision and what degree of deference (if
>     any) we would give that decision. Neither
>     the ICANN Policy nor its governing rules
>     dictate to the court what weight should be
>     given to a panel's decision."
>
> Subesequent to the court ruling, the defendant won the UDRP case, see
> <http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0187.html>.
>
> Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >
> > The National Law Journal headline is a little over-dramatic. What the judge said (correctly) was that if a TM owner *both* initiates a UDRP proceeding and files a cybersquatting lawsuit against a domain-name registrant, then the court hearing the cybersquatting case isn't bound by the outcome of the UDRP proceeding. Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware & Building Supply.
> >
> > At 02:00 PM 5/18/00 -0400, Dori Kornfeld wrote:
> > >>>>
> >
> >           Court Curbs Power of ICANN
> >           The National Law Journal
> >           In the first ruling of its kind, a federal judge in Illinois said that courts are not bound by the administrative proceedings of the organization established to provide management of the Internet domain-name system, the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers or ICANN.
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 18:09:50 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Post lagging to the DNSO GA list again...

Dear list admin and all remaining Assembly members,

  It seems that my posts are lagging to the DNSO GA  list again.
Can this be addressed or is there still some selective censorship
going on?  Please advise.

Thank you for your cooperation in advance...

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:24:19 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [IFWP] more .god yada yada yada

Joe and all,

  The URL you are refrencing seems to mostly be dealing with
the good idea of .GOD TLD.  Are you sure you have the right URL?

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/18/2346226
>
> You can all consider the slashdot disscussions our contribution to the
> Sunrise + 20 crap.
>
> Love and kisses
> Joe Baptista

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #70
***********************