Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1216
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, May 23 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1216

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 15:03:22 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Deletes:  Registrar Code of Conduct solution

With regard to "deletes", Thomas writes:  "Creation of such a policy would 
require a formal consensus process".  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00197.html

This is not "exactly" true.  The Registrar Accreditation Agreement stipulates:

3.7.1 In the event ICANN adopts a specification or policy, supported by a 
consensus of ICANN-Accredited registrars, establishing or approving a Code of 
Conduct for ICANN-Accredited registrars, Registrar shall abide by that Code.

All ICANN needs to do is to adopt a policy.  If such policy is supported by a 
consensus of ICANN-accredited registrars that ratify it into a Code of 
Conduct, then the problem is solved without a formal DNSO-wide consensus 
process.  

At issue is whether the registrars will ever adopt a Code of Conduct... 
- --
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: Wed, 22 May 2002 21:09:28 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper

(Last posting to the GA today - posting quota.)

Here are three options which were discussed (bad enough not really  
by their merits) on the Names Council: ICANN sould operate...

... for the benefit of the public.
... for the benefit of the users of the global Internet.
... as a coperative effort of registries, registrants, and 
registrars, for their mutual benefit.

Each one of these options leads to vastly different conclusions,  
structures, processes, and priorities.  As long as there isn't even  
a clear consensus which of these fundamental directions ICANN should 
take, trying to find a mission statement which is supported by  
consensus looks pretty impossible.

On 2002-05-22 09:06:09 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
>Subject: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper
>To: [email-masked]
>From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
>Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 09:06:09 -0400
>
>While these are cogent comments, they do illustrate the difficulty of
>actually writing something called a "mission statement" that is both
>something more than a listing of specific acts that are permissible (which
>is certainly not a mission statement that would be useful on a going
>forward basis) and writing something less specific that is not subject to
>the kind of word-smithing that Thomas has done.  I renew the invitation
>that ICANN has made for several months now:  If anyone thinks they can
>write a better mission statement, please do so.  There seem to be a lot
>more editors than authors in the ICANN population.
>
>
>Joe Sims
>
>
>
>--
>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

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Wed, 22 May 2002 21:07:56 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] deletion policy - what should it look like?

On 2002-05-22 13:12:46 -0500, Kristy McKee wrote:

>> - Delete between M and N days after date of expiry.  (N - M = 7)

>Thomas, the above in conjunction with an ACK from the TC or AC that the 
>deletion is indeed intentional.

What should happen if the registrant does not react?  Wouldn't the 
Redemption Grace Period being a sufficient safeguard against 
inadvertent registrations?  And shouldn't registrars actually 
perceive the entire deletion mess as an opportunity to provide their 
customers with better service, like the one suggested by Elisabeth?

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Wed, 22 May 2002 12:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfer TF teleconf MP3 recording , May 22

Hello,

- --- DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The Names Council Transfer Task Force teleconference, May 22, 2002, 
> MP3
> recording is available at:
> 
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020522.TF-Transfer.mp3

Is there a recording of yesterday's call also? I think Marilyn
mentioned that transcripts of the calls would be made, so if there's a
link to those also it would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.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: Wed, 22 May 2002 12:24:11 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WLS Conference Call

Wednesday, May 22, 2002, 7:00:20 AM, todd glassey wrote:

> Wait List Services are probably inherently illegal at some level (or should
> be)  since there is no way that a DNS entry alone conveys the IP rights
> around a TM or SM. This is a real sore point since I as an individual may

A domain name and IP rights have nothing to do with each other.

And because you own IP rights does not mean you own the exclusive use
of that phrase, word, string, in the dns or outside the dns.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.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: Wed, 22 May 2002 12:26:20 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] deletion policy - what should it look like?

Wednesday, May 22, 2002, 11:12:46 AM, Kristy McKee wrote:

>>- Delete between M and N days after date of expiry.  (N - M = 7)

> Thomas, the above in conjunction with an ACK from the TC or AC that the 
> deletion is indeed intentional.

They did that by not renewing.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.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: Wed, 22 May 2002 12:27:54 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] deletion policy - what should it look like?

The DNS is not setup to protect your IP rights.

Under the law it is you who have that responsibility.

The courts are your vehicle for doing that.

Wednesday, May 22, 2002, 11:54:12 AM, todd glassey wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:42 AM
> Subject: [ga] deletion policy - what should it look like?

>> One of the things which have come out of the TF calls is that there
>> have been quite a few people calling for a uniform domain name
>> deletion policy (which I hereby baptise UDNDP).  What should this
>> policy look like?

> One of the things that the records will need to keep in them then is who the
> previous IP user was and what they registered it for. Otherwise this system
> will invalidate IP ownership under current US Law I believe. For instance.
> I register "Embedded-Machines.com" which odlly enough is one of my domains
> and run a computer company from it that builds a greenhouse controller that
> is a pci board.

> Now suppose I let is lapse, but continue to operate the company
> "Embedded-Machines.com". So the marque is regualrly in use under the
> trademark statutes and as such clearly not abandoned. Now someone else wants
> to start a computer company that builds a rbotoics unit and controller for
> it. Would the PTO issue them a TM agsinst the same moniker? I think not, and
> that is the problem...

> As to letting domains lapse, the real issue is the lockout and that it is
> unreasonable. No Registrar can prevent anyone of its customers for
> exercising whatever rights they chose against their IP's being published by
> the Registrar. Lets be real clear on what a Registrat is all about. They are
> a "Publications Agent for the public dissemination of an Internet Marque."

> Todd

>>
>> Options:
>>
>>  - Delete precisely N days after the date of expiry, at HH:00 UTC.
>>  - Delete between M and N days after date of expiry.  (N - M = 7)
>>  - others?
>>
>> Comments welcome.  While I don't believe that a deletion WG could
>> actually get a full consensus policy done until Bucharest (as Danny
>> suggested), producing a suggestion may still be worth the effort.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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
>>

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

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.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: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:56:17 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] deletion policy - what should it look like?

At 09:07 PM 5/22/2002 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>On 2002-05-22 13:12:46 -0500, Kristy McKee wrote:
>
>>>- Delete between M and N days after date of expiry.  (N - M = 7)
>
>>Thomas, the above in conjunction with an ACK from the TC or AC that the 
>>deletion is indeed intentional.
>
>What should happen if the registrant does not react?  Wouldn't the 
>Redemption Grace Period being a sufficient safeguard against inadvertent 
>registrations?  And shouldn't registrars actually perceive the entire 
>deletion mess as an opportunity to provide their customers with better 
>service, like the one suggested by Elisabeth?
>
>--
>Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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

Sorry, I'm not familiar with Elisabeth's contribution or it's where-abouts.

- ----

If neither the TC or AC reacts and the domain name has lapsed, then they 
lose the right to use.

- ---

Notifying the TC and AC provides an opportunity to the persons supporting 
the domain to communicate with their client and discover if there was an 
oversight or that they (for sure) no longer wish to continue using their 
domain.

It has been my experience that sometimes clients AND their Webmasters let 
their domain registrations lapse due to temporary insanity, inaccurate 
whois data, or something unexplainable like that.

In many situations the domain name registrant is completely clueless about 
the Internet, DNS, and bills related to services like these.  They rely on 
their AC and/or TC to make good decisions and protect them from their own 
lack of time to learn.

:)

~k

- --
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: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Deletes:  Registrar Code of Conduct solution

Danny,

see http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02428.html

> At issue is whether the registrars will ever adopt a Code of Conduct...

- --
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: Wed, 22 May 2002 16:26:08 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WLS Conference Call

William X Walsh wrote:

>Wednesday, May 22, 2002, 7:00:20 AM, todd glassey wrote:
>
>>Wait List Services are probably inherently illegal at some level (or should
>>be)  since there is no way that a DNS entry alone conveys the IP rights
>>around a TM or SM. This is a real sore point since I as an individual may
>>
>
>A domain name and IP rights have nothing to do with each other.
>

Please explain that to WIPO, if you don't mind.

>
>
>And because you own IP rights does not mean you own the exclusive use
>of that phrase, word, string, in the dns or outside the dns.
>

Then what the heck is the UDRP all about?  Why didn't they simply ask 
you for your opinion...

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:36:11 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WLS Conference Call

Wednesday, May 22, 2002, 1:26:08 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

>>A domain name and IP rights have nothing to do with each other.
>>

> Please explain that to WIPO, if you don't mind.

I've tried.  :)  But we should do everything we can to prevent further
encroachment into the dns by the IP interests, don't you agree,
Sotiris?

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.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: Wed, 22 May 2002 16:56:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper (fwd)

I gather I accidentally sent this to Mr. Sims alone rather than the whole
list.  Sorry.

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 09:30:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law <[email-masked]>
To: Joe Sims <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper

You've had Karl's, Randy Bush's, Mikki Barry's, and many others.  I have
decided not to put one in.  The personal animus against me is obviously so
great - see for example Stuart Lynn's comments in Thailand - that there
seems no chance they would be taken seriously, and every chance that it
would be counter-productive. 

As evidence of how ICANN treats those who disagree with it, I note that
ICANN has not posted Karl's paper online, or linked to it, although it did
post many other less radical submissions to the review committee.

Furthermore, it's my belief that the committee appointed by ICANN is
packed with people who have a fairly closed mind on the subject.  I think
the chance of a fair hearing there is low.

Plus, I understand you control the agenda for the upcoming secret,
no-minutes Board meeting (excuse me, 'retreat') this weekend in which you
will evangelize for your views.

In the circumstances, I will not be submitting a draft.  I think I know
what you will decide, and unlike you I don't get paid several hundred
dollars per hour I spend on this.

PS. Do you bill for email too?

On Wed, 22 May 2002, Joe Sims wrote:

> 
> As usual, Michael, lots of talk and no action.  I await your draft.
> 
> 
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
> 
> 
>                                                                                                                    
>                     "Michael                                                                                       
>                     Froomkin -           To:     Joe Sims <[email-masked]>                                     
>                     U.Miami School       cc:     [email-masked]                                                       
>                     of Law"              Subject:     Re: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper                  
>                     <[email-masked]                                                                               
>                     ami.edu>                                                                                       
>                                                                                                                    
>                                                                                                                    
>                     05/22/02 09:15                                                                                 
>                     AM                                                                                             
>                                                                                                                    
>                                                                                                                    
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been done many times: you just don't like to admit it.
> 
> Writing a mission statement is easy when the mission is small.  You want a
> big client.  Your client wants to be big.  They ignore the contrary
> voices, and you come along to shoot the wounded by saying they don't
> exist.
> 
> On Wed, 22 May 2002, Joe Sims wrote:
> 
> > While these are cogent comments, they do illustrate the difficulty of
> > actually writing something called a "mission statement" that is both
> > something more than a listing of specific acts that are permissible
> (which
> > is certainly not a mission statement that would be useful on a going
> > forward basis) and writing something less specific that is not subject to
> > the kind of word-smithing that Thomas has done.  I renew the invitation
> > that ICANN has made for several months now:  If anyone thinks they can
> > write a better mission statement, please do so.  There seem to be a lot
> > more editors than authors in the ICANN population.
> >
> >
> > Joe Sims
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> 
> --
>                      Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's hot here.<--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ==========
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
> or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
> is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you are
> not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
> replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
> dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
> recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==========
> 
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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: Wed, 22 May 2002 17:46:18 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Deletes:  Registrar Code of Conduct solution

Hello Rick,

As I regularly review the registrar's list, I have been aware of the 
as-yet-unratified-code-of-conduct document for some time.   The problem, as I 
see it, is that your constituency seems to be predisposed to using such vague 
language that it potentially creates more loopholes than it closes.

For example:  Item #6 -- "Domain names not renewed must be returned to the 
Registry at the time of expiration or prior to the conclusion of any grace 
period.  Registrars have no claim or right to domain names not renewed 
proactively by the domain name registrant."  

This begs the question... Just how long is a grace period?  If terminology is 
left undefined then the opportunities for abuse ripen quickly.  

Perhaps you and your fellow registrars might be amenable to a joint 
registrar/GA working group to assist in defining both Best Practices for 
Registrars and a Bill of Rights for Registrants... let me know your thoughts.

- --
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: Wed, 22 May 2002 18:05:53 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Deletes:  Registrar Code of Conduct solution

Danny and all assembly members,

  Good point here Danny.  And one that should have been included
in the Registrar contracts from the beginning.

  However, shouldn't such a "Code of Conduct" for Registrars also
apply to the "Registries"?  And, shouldn't such a "Code of Conduct"
be approved and voted upon by registrants?

  I would rather see however the Registrar Contracts amended, as
we recommended way back when, to include provisions for protection
of the registrants rather than a "Code of Conduct".  This would give
the the registrar and registry contracts some actionable teeth by which
the ICANN BOD or staff could than adequately enforce on a much
more uniform basis as part of their oversight authority/responsibility.
Also the DOC/NTIA, which also has oversight authority could
take action(s) if such amendments were added to the Registrar
and Registry contracts...

  Of course I would also suggest strongly that Registrants/stakeholders
should have a voice and a vote on such amendments to the Registrar
and Registry contracts as it directly effects them...

[email-masked] wrote:

> With regard to "deletes", Thomas writes:  "Creation of such a policy would
> require a formal consensus process".
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00197.html
>
> This is not "exactly" true.  The Registrar Accreditation Agreement stipulates:
>
> 3.7.1 In the event ICANN adopts a specification or policy, supported by a
> consensus of ICANN-Accredited registrars, establishing or approving a Code of
> Conduct for ICANN-Accredited registrars, Registrar shall abide by that Code.
>
> All ICANN needs to do is to adopt a policy.  If such policy is supported by a
> consensus of ICANN-accredited registrars that ratify it into a Code of
> Conduct, then the problem is solved without a formal DNSO-wide consensus
> process.
>
> At issue is whether the registrars will ever adopt a Code of Conduct...
> --
> 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 124k members/stakeholders 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: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:16:11 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Byfield comments

[email-masked] wrote:
                                                                                          
 really, if i may say so, your message is a bit bratty. basically,                        
 you're saying that ICANN will do whatever it wants unless someone                        
 puts an alternative program in front of their collective face. we                        
 know how that works, though: if we did what you insist on, staff                         
 would (a) ignore it, (b) kibbitz it to death, (c) mangle it into                         
 something entirely different and call it 'consensus,' (d) accept                         
 it, go off on a frolic if its own, and then subject all challenges                       
 to absurdly litigious readings, and/or (e) some or (*amazingly*)                         
 all of the above on an ad hoc basis.                                                     
                                                                                          
 alternatively, if ICANN would like to hire me to edit their new                          
 mission statement, i'm all ears. now there's a proposition. :)                           

                                                                                          

How convenient it must be to be able to sit on the sidelines and carp at
the people trying to do the work, and then refuse to offer alternatives
because they might not be accepted.  It's the ICANN version of "its my
ball, so we will either do it my way  or I'll take my ball and go home."
And yet you still seem to sincerely wonder why you have little influence?
Self-delusion is a powerful force.

Joe Sims

- --
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: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:19:41 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper

Here is the whole string.

Joe Sims

- ----- Forwarded by Joe Sims/JonesDay on 05/22/02 07:17 PM -----
                                                                                                                   
                    Joe Sims                                                                                       
                    Extension            To:     "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law"                        
                    Internal: 4-3863       <[email-masked]>                                                
                                         cc:                                                                       
                    05/22/02 09:51       Subject:     Re: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper(Document link:   
                    AM                     Joe Sims)                                                               

Right.  That makes it all clear.

Joe Sims

                                                                                                                   
                    "Michael                                                                                       
                    Froomkin -           To:     Joe Sims <[email-masked]>                                     
                    U.Miami School       cc:                                                                       
                    of Law"              Subject:     Re: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper                  
                    <[email-masked]                                                                               
                    ami.edu>                                                                                       

                    05/22/02 09:49                                                                                 
                    AM                                                                                             

Writing a 'mission statement' for the grand icann is a pointless exercise.
First you define the mission.  Then you can write the statement.

On Wed, 22 May 2002, Joe Sims wrote:

>
> Right.  Now I understand why this particular dialogue is private.
>
>
> Joe Sims
>
>
>
>

>                     "Michael

>                     Froomkin -           To:     Joe Sims
<[email-masked]>
>                     U.Miami School       cc:

>                     of Law"              Subject:     Re: [ga] Roessler
Comments on Mission Paper
>                     <[email-masked]

>                     ami.edu>

>

>

>                     05/22/02 09:47

>                     AM

>

>

>
>
>
>
>
> They are a definition of a narrow mission.  That's a statement of what
the
> mission should be.
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2002, Joe Sims wrote:
>
> >
> > excuse me?  is any of those a mission statement?  I understand that it
is
> > tough to keep the facts straight and maintain an unblemished record of
> > criticism, but you might try it sometime.
> >
> >
> > Joe Sims
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >                     "Michael
>
> >                     Froomkin -           To:     Joe Sims
> <[email-masked]>
> >                     U.Miami School       cc:
>
> >                     of Law"              Subject:     Re: [ga] Roessler
> Comments on Mission Paper
> >                     <[email-masked]
>
> >                     ami.edu>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >                     05/22/02 09:30
>
> >                     AM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You've had Karl's, Randy Bush's, Mikki Barry's, and many others.  I
have
> > decided not to put one in.  The personal animus against me is obviously
> so
> > great - see for example Stuart Lynn's comments in Thailand - that there
> > seems no chance they would be taken seriously, and every chance that it
> > would be counter-productive.
> >
> > As evidence of how ICANN treats those who disagree with it, I note that
> > ICANN has not posted Karl's paper online, or linked to it, although it
> did
> > post many other less radical submissions to the review committee.
> >
> > Furthermore, it's my belief that the committee appointed by ICANN is
> > packed with people who have a fairly closed mind on the subject.  I
think
> > the chance of a fair hearing there is low.
> >
> > Plus, I understand you control the agenda for the upcoming secret,
> > no-minutes Board meeting (excuse me, 'retreat') this weekend in which
you
> > will evangelize for your views.
> >
> > In the circumstances, I will not be submitting a draft.  I think I know
> > what you will decide, and unlike you I don't get paid several hundred
> > dollars per hour I spend on this.
> >
> > PS. Do you bill for email too?
> >
> > On Wed, 22 May 2002, Joe Sims wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > As usual, Michael, lots of talk and no action.  I await your draft.
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe Sims
> > > Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> > > 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> > > Washington, D.C. 20001
> > > Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> > > Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> > > Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >                     "Michael
> >
> > >                     Froomkin -           To:     Joe Sims
> > <[email-masked]>
> > >                     U.Miami School       cc:     [email-masked]
> >
> > >                     of Law"              Subject:     Re: [ga]
Roessler
> > Comments on Mission Paper
> > >                     <[email-masked]
> >
> > >                     ami.edu>
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >                     05/22/02 09:15
> >
> > >                     AM
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's been done many times: you just don't like to admit it.
> > >
> > > Writing a mission statement is easy when the mission is small.  You
> want
> > a
> > > big client.  Your client wants to be big.  They ignore the contrary
> > > voices, and you come along to shoot the wounded by saying they don't
> > > exist.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 22 May 2002, Joe Sims wrote:
> > >
> > > > While these are cogent comments, they do illustrate the difficulty
of
> > > > actually writing something called a "mission statement" that is
both
> > > > something more than a listing of specific acts that are permissible
> > > (which
> > > > is certainly not a mission statement that would be useful on a
going
> > > > forward basis) and writing something less specific that is not
> subject
> > to
> > > > the kind of word-smithing that Thomas has done.  I renew the
> invitation
> > > > that ICANN has made for several months now:  If anyone thinks they
> can
> > > > write a better mission statement, please do so.  There seem to be a
> lot
> > > > more editors than authors in the ICANN population.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Joe Sims
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >                      Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > > A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> > > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > > +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
> > >                         -->It's hot here.<--
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ==========
> > > The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> > > information that may be confidential, be protected by the
> attorney-client
> > > or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.
> It
> > > is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If
you
> > are
> > > not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender
by
> > > replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
> > > dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by
> > unintended
> > > recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> > > ==========
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >                      Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
> >                         -->It's hot here.<--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==========
> > The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> > information that may be confidential, be protected by the
attorney-client
> > or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.
It
> > is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you
> are
> > not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
> > replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
> > dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by
> unintended
> > recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> > ==========
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>                      Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's hot here.<--
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
> or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
> is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you
are
> not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
> replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
> dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by
unintended
> recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==========
>
>
>
>

- --
                     Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

==========
The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you are
not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
==========

==========
The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you are
not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
==========

- --
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 #1216
*************************