Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1051
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Tuesday, February 26 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1051

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

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:14:29 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Stuart Lynn's Proposal

My comments on Mr. Lynn's "roadmap" are posted at http://www.icannworld.org
- --
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: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:52:17 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: restructuring proposal.

Thomas, Harold and all assembly members,

Harold Whiting wrote:

> <snip>
> >In fact, pursuing such distractions does precisely one thing: Produce
> ample evidence for the reasoning behind Stuart Lynn's restructuring proposal.
> >
> >By the way, some of his rationale is very much worth thinking about. The
> problem lies in the conclusions.
> >
>
> Right on the money. Bingo. Hit the nail on the head.
> well, you get the idea!

  Indeed Thomas is quite right here.  The conclusions do not follow
the thinking very well and some of what Stuart is suggesting is
ONE direction that could be taken with much different conclusions
however.  Again though, the hard fought requirements of the White
Paper and the MoU which now Stuart, Joe, and Louis have been
hinting around for some time now in the Structure TF and now
seemingly culminated in this recent set of of events and announcements,
are now still the best tack by which to continue to go with some
obviously needed changes.  The biggest one of a At-Large and
a GA that is funded, and elects 51% or the BoD and 51% or
the NC in the case of the GA.

>
> --HJW--
> Harold Whiting
> --
> 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 for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
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: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:08:59 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Few preliminary comments on Lynn proposal

I think you comprehend quite well. This proposal is rife with the
smell of a power grab, although it is loosely disguised as a platform of "no
status quo" and a change is needed because it simply hasn't worked yet
or it hasn't worked the best it could.

In the US we hear essentially the same thing, "change," ever four
years, from those running for President, the House, Senate, etc. The
big difference is that they do not have the power to elect themselves
nor is their election controlled by a close knit group of their
cronies. There is a set of checks and balances and the ultimate
arbitrators of every election are those on the bottom - a very similar
bottom-ups and broad based consensus, in the final analysis.

The intent the ICANN proposal is obviously to migrate control further
away from bottoms-up and broad based consensus, to even tighter
control by a board which has the right to essentially elect itself. No
one could possibly bend things to call that type of process fair,
unbiased and even-handed -- at least, not with a straight face, for
those with just an ounce of integrity and pride.

It is said that the most efficient form of government is a
dictatorship. If that is true, then who could it be that most favors
efficiency over substance and so-called distractions? The US
Presidential hopefuls handle substance and distractions both before
and after their elections. Why should the governance of ICANN be any
different and why should any of us surrender the Internet to an ICANN
dictatorship?

In Texas we say "that dog won't hunt!"

Thanks,

Monday, February 25, 2002, 9:42:21 AM, Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]> wrote:

AS> Dear all,

AS> my comments on the Lynn proposal are very preliminary,
AS> since I still have lots of questions about it and
AS> may not understand all parts of it fully.

AS> At http://www.icannchannel.de/lynn-proposal.pdf (43 kB)
AS> I have a chart showing the new ICANN Board structure
AS> (again: I'm not sure if everything is correct and
AS> would appreciate feedback!). 

AS> Frankly, the Board seems to elect itself according
AS> to this proposal:
AS> -- The CEO on the Board is elected by the Board.
AS> -- The 10 "At Large" Trustees are confirmed by the
AS>    Board. (However, since 5 are governmental
AS>    delegates, the de facto veto power may be
AS>    diminished.)
AS> -- 5 of the 10 "At Large" Trustees are nominated
AS>    by the Nominating Committee which consists of
AS>    a Chair (appointed by the CEO -- see above),
AS>    5 members of the Board and 3 members appointed
AS>    by the Board.
AS> -- The Nominating Committee (see above) appoints 
AS>    3 members of the Address+Numbering PC Steering
AS>    Group, 5 members of the Generic TLD Names PC
AS>    Steering Group, 4 members of the Geographic
AS>    TLD Names PC Steering Group and 3 members of
AS>    the Technical Advisory Committee.
AS>    The Chairs of these policy councils and the
AS>    Technical Advisory Committee are ex officio
AS>    members of the Board.

AS> The "Steering Groups" are the equivalent to the current 
AS> "Councils", but they have their own staff and access to 
AS> ICANN resources. The interest groups formerly called 
AS> "Constituencies" are now "Forums".

AS> How do non-commercial and individual users make sure their voice 
AS> is heard? Let's assume there is a Non-Commercial Forum (or 
AS> even more than one) and an Individual Domain Holder or User Forum.
AS> (We don't know what the "well-defined minimal criteria for 
AS> recognition of new self-organized Forums" would be.) These 
AS> Forums could succeed in getting a topic they deem important on the
AS> agenda of e.g. the Generic TLD Names Policy Council Steering 
AS> Group. They could succeed in agreeing with the other members 
AS> of the Steering Group to write a policy recommendation for the
AS> Board of Trustees. However, the Board of Trustees (just like
AS> the current Board of Directors) would be free to ignore any and
AS> all advice ("strong weight based on its persuasive merits, but 
AS> not presumptive validity"). To have an influence on the ICANN
AS> process, having a seat on the Board and/or the new Nominating 
AS> Committee seem to be good places.

AS> Any comments?

AS> Best regards,
AS> /// Alexander 

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:55:31 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Few preliminary comments on Lynn proposal

Don and all assembly members,

  Many of us that have been involved in this process have known
that the ICANN BoD, most especially the "Initial" BoD and
original CEO, one Mike Roberts, never intended to adhere
to the White Paper or the MoU unless forced to do so.
This recent proposal from Joe Simms, and announced
"Officially" by Stuart Lynn is ample evidence of that
clearly.  At least we know that the pretense's have been
dropped finally.  I suppose that is some solace.

Don Brown wrote:

> I think you comprehend quite well. This proposal is rife with the
> smell of a power grab, although it is loosely disguised as a platform of "no
> status quo" and a change is needed because it simply hasn't worked yet
> or it hasn't worked the best it could.
>
> In the US we hear essentially the same thing, "change," ever four
> years, from those running for President, the House, Senate, etc. The
> big difference is that they do not have the power to elect themselves
> nor is their election controlled by a close knit group of their
> cronies. There is a set of checks and balances and the ultimate
> arbitrators of every election are those on the bottom - a very similar
> bottom-ups and broad based consensus, in the final analysis.
>
> The intent the ICANN proposal is obviously to migrate control further
> away from bottoms-up and broad based consensus, to even tighter
> control by a board which has the right to essentially elect itself. No
> one could possibly bend things to call that type of process fair,
> unbiased and even-handed -- at least, not with a straight face, for
> those with just an ounce of integrity and pride.
>
> It is said that the most efficient form of government is a
> dictatorship. If that is true, then who could it be that most favors
> efficiency over substance and so-called distractions? The US
> Presidential hopefuls handle substance and distractions both before
> and after their elections. Why should the governance of ICANN be any
> different and why should any of us surrender the Internet to an ICANN
> dictatorship?
>
> In Texas we say "that dog won't hunt!"
>
> Thanks,
>
> Monday, February 25, 2002, 9:42:21 AM, Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> AS> Dear all,
>
> AS> my comments on the Lynn proposal are very preliminary,
> AS> since I still have lots of questions about it and
> AS> may not understand all parts of it fully.
>
> AS> At http://www.icannchannel.de/lynn-proposal.pdf (43 kB)
> AS> I have a chart showing the new ICANN Board structure
> AS> (again: I'm not sure if everything is correct and
> AS> would appreciate feedback!).
>
> AS> Frankly, the Board seems to elect itself according
> AS> to this proposal:
> AS> -- The CEO on the Board is elected by the Board.
> AS> -- The 10 "At Large" Trustees are confirmed by the
> AS>    Board. (However, since 5 are governmental
> AS>    delegates, the de facto veto power may be
> AS>    diminished.)
> AS> -- 5 of the 10 "At Large" Trustees are nominated
> AS>    by the Nominating Committee which consists of
> AS>    a Chair (appointed by the CEO -- see above),
> AS>    5 members of the Board and 3 members appointed
> AS>    by the Board.
> AS> -- The Nominating Committee (see above) appoints
> AS>    3 members of the Address+Numbering PC Steering
> AS>    Group, 5 members of the Generic TLD Names PC
> AS>    Steering Group, 4 members of the Geographic
> AS>    TLD Names PC Steering Group and 3 members of
> AS>    the Technical Advisory Committee.
> AS>    The Chairs of these policy councils and the
> AS>    Technical Advisory Committee are ex officio
> AS>    members of the Board.
>
> AS> The "Steering Groups" are the equivalent to the current
> AS> "Councils", but they have their own staff and access to
> AS> ICANN resources. The interest groups formerly called
> AS> "Constituencies" are now "Forums".
>
> AS> How do non-commercial and individual users make sure their voice
> AS> is heard? Let's assume there is a Non-Commercial Forum (or
> AS> even more than one) and an Individual Domain Holder or User Forum.
> AS> (We don't know what the "well-defined minimal criteria for
> AS> recognition of new self-organized Forums" would be.) These
> AS> Forums could succeed in getting a topic they deem important on the
> AS> agenda of e.g. the Generic TLD Names Policy Council Steering
> AS> Group. They could succeed in agreeing with the other members
> AS> of the Steering Group to write a policy recommendation for the
> AS> Board of Trustees. However, the Board of Trustees (just like
> AS> the current Board of Directors) would be free to ignore any and
> AS> all advice ("strong weight based on its persuasive merits, but
> AS> not presumptive validity"). To have an influence on the ICANN
> AS> process, having a seat on the Board and/or the new Nominating
> AS> Committee seem to be good places.
>
> AS> Any comments?
>
> AS> Best regards,
> AS> /// Alexander
>
> AS> --
> AS> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> AS> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> AS> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> AS> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> [email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> 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 for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:07:27 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN no longer

A simple idea to show a 'NO' to Lynn's plan:

http://icannolonger.org/

Have a nice day!

- -- 
Marc Schneiders

- --
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: 26 Feb 2002 15:22:57 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Versign GRS Final Feedback for Wait Listing Service Proposal

For an OpenSRS reseller you are sure selling for some strange entities:

http://www.firstplace.com/cgi-bin/dir.cgi?&passurl=/Computers/Internet/Domain_Names/

good thing VGRS will only consider answers from GROUPS :)

abel

On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 23:45, FirstPlace.com wrote:
>  
> To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
> 
>  
> 
> From:  FirstPlace.com®, Your FirstPlace on the Internet®
> 
> Date:  2/29/02
> 
> Subject:  Versign GRS Final Feedback for Wait Listing Service Proposal
> 
>  
> 
> {FirstPlace.com® is a certified OpenSRS reseller, very interested in the most equitable distribution and release of expired domain names.  As an OpenSRS s reseller, we have registered and transferred hundreds of TLD domain names for many clients.  We are a formally incorporated company in the state of Florida and operate among a group of approximately one dozen personnel.  Our company forges business relationships in a variety of fields including domain registration, website development, intellectual property protection matters, and affiliate networks.  We have been proudly serving the Internet community since 1995 with a choice of quality search engines and high-quality affiliate members}.
> 
>  
> 
> We compliment VeriSign GRS for its determined effort to forge a manual, fair and objective method for disseminating expired domain names.  The philosophical concept for the Wait Listing Service (WLS), based upon the licensed SnapNames® patented technology, is a terrific development for equitable distribution of expired domain names.  VeriSign GRS is to be commended for its quest for clarity and equity in this effort.
> 
> We have read the latest published White Paper from VeriSign GRS, titled:  "VeriSign GRS Responses to Domain Name Wait Listing Service Questions", dated February 15, 2002.  The document appears to outline an objective, clearly understood means to fairly register expiring .com and .net domain names.  
> 
> We have little objection to most of the VeriSign GRS positions in this February 15, 2002 publication.  However, the VeriSign GRS Proposal question #18, bullet item #3 is contrary to the interests of both VeriSign GRS and the large, non-speculating domain name community.  Bullet item #3 on question #18 requires immediate remedy.  As currently written, question #18, bullet #3 in the Proposal will be grossly unfair to existing Snapback® subscription holders, and will cede power to the technologically sophisticated speculating Registrars, who will be very encouraged to engage in the same speculative scripting abuse that dominates the expiring domain process today.  Bullet #3 in question #18 in the VeriSign GRS Proposal states:
> 
> "To ensure that no provider of aftermarket domain name services, including SnapNames®, has any advantage in obtaining WLS subscriptions as they are returned to availability, the status updates on availability would pre processed by VGRS in batches, at random times, within 48 hours of the termination of a Snapback® subscription".
> 
> Our very reliable and informed sources reveal several Registrars, including some Asian Registrars, are already preparing an aggressive scripting assault of the new WLS system to lay siege to newly released Snapback® subscriptions the millisecond they become available to the WLS.  Clearly, the proposed 48-hour random release timeframe for newly released Snapback® subscriptions invites and encourages unsavory Registrars to engage in gross, continuous 24/7 scripting abuse of the new WLS system.  These unscrupulous Registrars are seeking to script-blitz the new WLS in attempts to seize unsuspecting Snapback® subscribers who would, in good-faith, release their Snapback® subscriptions in order to place a new WLS subscription.  A VeriSign GRS hope that unscrupulous and speculating Registrars will refrain from such familiar and unsavory activity would be tragically naïve.  Offending Registrars have shown no regard for operating within proper guidelines in the past, and they should not be expected to behave now, especially given this clear opportunity for mischief. 
> 
> Within Section A of  "VeriSign GRS Responses to Domain Name Wait Listing Service Questions", answer to question #2, the VeriSign GRS position on scripting and competition is clearly stated:  
> 
> "We have proposed a first-come, first served policy with regard to the WLS as well, and believe that the WLS provides all registrars with an equivalent chance to serve their customer on a first-come, first served basis.  This is preferable to the way registrations of just-deleted names are currently happening, where those who a have elaborate automated systems have the best chance and the average end-user/registrant is left with uncertainty and a lower probability of success".
> 
> The VeriSign GRS unambiguous opposition to 'automated systems' is clear.  Given the unscrupulous Registrars' inevitable, and previously-demonstrated designs to aggressively script a new WLS for newly released Snapback® subscriptions, VeriSign GRS can preempt a tragic, automated scripting scenario with a very minor altering of the VeriSign GRS Proposal. Under question #18, 'Grand Fathering', VGRS can maintain bullet items #1 and #2 but change bullet #3 to communicate the following important alternative: 
> 
> The Snapback® subscriber may opt to convert his/her Snapback® subscription to a new WLS subscription within the first 10 days after the launch of the WLS system.  The Snapback® subscriber will, in effect, be afforded an opportunity of first refusal to convert his/her Snapback® subscription and purchase a new WLS subscription with the registrar of their choice. 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> {Rational:  VeriSign GRS states that 'relatively few' and 'minimal' Snapback® subscriptions will exist at the WLS launch date.  Thus, the Registrars logically should not be concerned with such a trivially 'minimal' number of remaining Snapback® subscriptions.  Given the Snapback® holder's certain vulnerability to losing a newly released Snapback® subscription to unscrupulous, automated scripting Registrars, the Snapback® subscription holder should most certainly be afforded the right of first refusal to manually convert his/her Snapback® subscription into a WLS purchased subscription, within a limited number of days after the WLS launch.  After all, every Snapback® subscription was purchased and placed under a First Come First Served policy-exactly the same policy VeriSign now endorses for its WLS.  This way, the unsavory and unscrupulous Registrars' ambitions to create powerful automated scripts for the new WLS would be preempted.  Moreover, the Registrars will profit on the SnapNames®-to-WLS subscription purchase conversion.    
> 
> Since VeriSign GRS states that a 'relatively few' and 'minimal' amount of Snapback® subscriptions will exist at the WLS launch time, this 'minimal' amount of remaining Snapback® subscription conversions should not meet with resistance from the Registrars, especially in light of the fact the Registrars will profit from all converted Snapback® subscriptions to new WLS purchased subscriptions.  Further, since only a percentage of Snapback® subscribers will chose to convert their Snapback® subscription to a WLS purchased subscription (some may see the cost as too high, others may have lost interest, or otherwise neglected their Snapback® subscription), the resultant number of converted WLS subscriptions would be much less than a 'minimal' existing total.  This solution, beautiful, in its simplicity, is a win-win-win-win scenario for the Registrars, the Snapback® subscription holder, SnapNames® Inc, and the integrity of the new WLS system.
> 
> The successful and efficient SnapNames® Snapback® system was a fair and manual process, where automated scripting of the Snapback® system was neither necessary nor advantageous.  With a properly implemented WLS, a similar manual process can also flourish successfully if the existing Snapback® subscriber is afforded fair integration opportunity into the new WLS.  
> 
> Finally, the solution provided also allows SnapNames® to effectively manage messy refund issues and avoid multiple meritorious lawsuits sure to ensue given SnapNames'® stated promise to transfer Snapbacks® to the new WLS. (Reference SnapNames® Incident 020216-000707)}.
> 
> Thank you for inviting us to provide VeriSign GRS this most important solution.  The solution provided is a most equitable answer for ALL concerned parties' interests.  It would be an utter disaster to design and implement a new WLS system with the best intentions, only to have it savaged by the automated Registrars' speculative cottage industry.
> 
> We wish VeriSign GRS the best of luck with the launch of a truly fair, profitable, and manual-advantaged WLS system as the best vehicle to also satisfy the large, non-speculative domain name registrant community.  
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> FirstPlace.com®.  Your FirstPlace On The Internet®.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 

- --
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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:23:15 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Unresponsive registrars

Excerpt from:  
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/25/technology/ebusiness/25NECO.html

The Whois debate has been brewing for some time, but it could come to a boil 
soon, as Congress, the group overseeing the Internet's address system and 
privacy advocates all weigh in on how well the system is working. In 
December, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and 
Intellectual Property sent letters to 50 United States registrars requesting 
information about whether and how the companies verify customer data and how 
they deal with complaints about fraudulent information. 

Responses were due by Feb. 1, but Chris J. Katopis, counsel to the 
subcommittee, said that as of last week many registrars had not replied. "If 
they're not going to respond to a government inquiry," he said, "what are 
they going to do to respond to an aggrieved individual when something 
happens?" 
- --
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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:50:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Unresponsive registrars

Danny,

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Excerpt from:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/25/technology/ebusiness/25NECO.html
>

[snip]

> Responses were due by Feb. 1, but Chris J. Katopis, counsel to the
> subcommittee, said that as of last week many registrars had not replied. "If
> they're not going to respond to a government inquiry," he said, "what are
> they going to do to respond to an aggrieved individual when something
> happens?"

We responded and sent a lengthly letter discussing how dificult it is to
identify invalid addresses. There is no known method of verifying a snail
mail address in over 100 countries.

Registrars must rely on notification of an registration to investigate
until there is a mechanism to validate addresses and phone numbers world
wide. Its a bit orwellan to even wish for something like that to exist.

We told this to Katopis and other staffers from the committe; If the
choose to ignore facts it won't change the reality of the problem of
verification of registrant data.

- -rick

- --
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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:04:52 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Unresponsive registrars

Dear Rick,

At issue is why many US registrars failed to provide a response to a House 
Judiciary Subcommittee inquiry.  This is more troubling than the current 
technological limitations on authentication.  
- --
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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:39:30 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Unresponsive registrars

Hello,

- --- [email-masked] wrote:
> replied. "If 
> they're not going to respond to a government inquiry," he said, "what
> are 
> they going to do to respond to an aggrieved individual when something
> 
> happens?" 

I wonder if there's been any discussion of appointing an Ombudsperson
to be able to mediate those kinds of disputes? Although, it would
require registrars to give up a little power, it might improve matters.
Even individual registrars (just like some Canadian banks, for example)
might want to consider having their own ombudsperson, who is
semi-independent.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
- --
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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:29:41 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: FC: How to respond to cease-and-desist nastygrams:chillingeffects.org]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------732EE0E7F578052AB6983ACA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

All assembly members,

  FYI...

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --------------732EE0E7F578052AB6983ACA
Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="nsmailOK.TMP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="nsmailOK.TMP"

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:31:43 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
Subject: FC: How to respond to cease-and-desist nastygrams:
  chillingeffects.org
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

- ---

From: Donna Wentworth <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Chilling Effects.org
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:47:36 -0500

Declan,

The Berkman Center is announcing the launch today of a
collaborative project that may be of interest to politech
readers.

Conceived by Berkman Fellow Wendy Seltzer, the project is
intended to serve as a tool for Internet users to understand
their legal rights in the face of potentially intimidating/
confusing cease-and-desist letters.

The website is here:
<http://www.chillingeffects.org>

Amy Harmon's NYT piece is here:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/25/technology/ebusiness/25CHIL.html>

Below is our press release:

  Berkman Center Announces Project to Counter Chilling Effects
  of Legal Threats

  ChillingEffects.org Aims to Educate Internet Users About
  Online Rights

  San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
  and four major law school legal clinics announced the
  launch today of a project and website to empower Internet
  users with detailed information about their legal rights in
  response to cease-and-desist letters designed to restrict
  their online activities.

  The project brings the EFF together with Internet law
  clinics at Harvard, Stanford, the University of California
  at Berkeley, and the University of San Francisco, and is
  expected to grow to include additional law schools.

  Called Chilling Effects in reference to the way legal
  threats can freeze out free expression, the project invites
  Internet users to add their cease-and-desist letters to an
  online clearinghouse at ChillingEffects.org. Students at
  the participating law school clinics will review the
  letters and annotate them with links to explain applicable
  legal rules.

  "The Internet makes it easier for individuals to speak to
  a wide audience, but it also makes it easier for other
  people and corporations to silence that speech," said
  Berkman Center Fellow Wendy Seltzer, who conceived the
  project and programmed the website. "Chilling Effects aims
  to level the field by helping online speakers to understand
  their rights in the face of legal threats."

  The Chilling Effects project works by publishing
  cease-and-desist letters received by Internet users and
  providing detailed information about the relevant law.
  For example, if an Internet user receives a letter
  demanding that she remove a synopsis of a "Star Trek"
  episode from her website, members of the Chilling Effects
  team would post the letter online, embedding it with links
  to information about basic copyright protections, the rules
  governing synopses, and the fair use doctrine.

  "EFF receives hundreds of requests for help and information
  from recipients of cease-and-desist letters," said EFF
  Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "This project should help
  individuals gain access to greatly needed information as
  well as allow us to track who is sending these letters and
  research larger trends."

  The project currently provides basic legal information on
  issues like fan fiction, copyright and the Digital
  Millennium Copyright Act, trademark and domain names,
  anonymous speech, and defamation. New topics will be added
  as new issues arise. In addition to publishing
  cease-and-desist letters, the Chilling Effects team will
  offer periodic "weather reports" assessing the legal
  climate for Internet activity. The reports will seek to
  answer such questions as what types of Internet activity
  are most vulnerable to the chilling effects of legal
  threats.

  The Chilling Effects project website:
  <http://www.chillingeffects.org/>

  About Berkman Center for Internet & Society:

  The Berkman Center for Internet & Society is a research
  program founded to explore cyberspace, share in its study,
  and help pioneer its development:
  http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/

  About EFF:

  The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil
  liberties organization working to protect rights in the
  digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and
  challenges industry and government to support free
  expression, privacy, and openness in the information
  society. EFF is a member-supported organization and
  maintains one of the most-linked-to websites in the world at
  http://www.eff.org/

  About Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic:

  The Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic at
  Boalt Hall was the first clinic in the country to provide
  law students with the opportunity to represent the public
  interest in cases and matters on the cutting-edge of high
  technology law. Since January 2001, students participating
  in the Clinic have worked with leading lawyers in nonprofit
  organizations, government, private practice, and academia
  to represent clients on a broad range of legal matters
  including Internet free speech and online and wireless
  privacy.
  http://www.law.berkeley.edu/news/releases/20000424Samuelson.shtml

  About Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society:

  The Center for Internet and Society (CIS) is a public
  interest technology law and policy program at Stanford Law
  School. The CIS brings together scholars, academics,
  legislators, students, hackers, and scientists to study the
  interaction of new technologies and the law and to examine
  how the synergy between the two can either promote or harm
  public goods like free speech, privacy, public commons,
  diversity, and scientific inquiry. The CIS strives as well
  to improve both technology and law, encouraging decision
  makers to design both as a means to further democratic
  values.
  http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/

  About University of San Francisco Internet and Intellectual
  Property Justice Project:

  This University of San Francisco School of Law program
  provides legal services to parties who require help with
  intellectual property matters. The project is currently
  available to help parties in domain name disputes under
  ICANN online dispute resolution proceedings as well as with
  other trademark and copyright work that the faculty
  supervisors feel is appropriate. Legal work is performed
  free of charge by students under the direction of faculty
  members.
  http://www.usfca.edu/law/html/iipjp.html

  Contact:

  Wendy Seltzer
  Fellow
  Berkman Center for Internet & Society at
  Harvard Law School
  [email-masked]
  +1 212-715-7815

  Diane Cabell
  Director
  Clinical Program in Cyberlaw
  Berkman Center for Internet & Society
  Harvard Law School
  +1 617 495-7547
  [email-masked]

  Cindy Cohn
  Legal Director
  Electronic Frontier Foundation
  [email-masked]
  +1 415 436-9333 x108 (office), +1 415 823-2148 (cell)

  Jennifer Stisa Granick
  Clinical Director
  Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society
  [email-masked]
  +1 650 724-0014

  Deirdre Mulligan
  Acting Clinical Professor and Director
  Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic,
  Boalt Hall School of Law,
  University of California at Berkeley
  [email-masked]
  +1 510 642-0499

  Professor Robert Talbot
  Professor of Law and
  Director of
  Internet and Intellectual Property Justice Project
  University of San Francisco School of Law
  +1 415 422-6218 (office), +1 415 717-2826 (cell)
  [email-masked]

..........
Donna Wentworth
Editor
The Filter <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filter>
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
Phone: (617) 495-0662
Fax:   (617) 495-7641
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

- --------------732EE0E7F578052AB6983ACA--

- --
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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:35:45 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Unresponsive registrars

George and all assembly members,

  Your suggestion here is not a bad idea.  It has been considered
and offered in the past as well.  This is something that the ICANN
BOD and staff should have considered when originally suggested
when the formation of the Registrars and the Registrar contracts
were underway.  It was of course ignored at that time.

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- [email-masked] wrote:
> > replied. "If
> > they're not going to respond to a government inquiry," he said, "what
> > are
> > they going to do to respond to an aggrieved individual when something
> >
> > happens?"
>
> I wonder if there's been any discussion of appointing an Ombudsperson
> to be able to mediate those kinds of disputes? Although, it would
> require registrars to give up a little power, it might improve matters.
> Even individual registrars (just like some Canadian banks, for example)
> might want to consider having their own ombudsperson, who is
> semi-independent.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
> http://sports.yahoo.com
> --
> 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 for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
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 #1051
*************************