Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1228
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, May 25 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1228

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 21:24:16 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions

- --=======5974161D=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-167F648F; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 18:55 24/05/02, Joe Sims said:
>I do note that Bret's suggested revisions to the mission statement and 
>bylaws are fairly limited, and if
>you put aside those dealing with at large elections, where we simply have 
>an honest difference of opinion, very limited.

The needed changes in the bylaws are extremely limited as long as you do 
not follow Stuart's line. They can make the ICANN usefull as long as you 
forget about the contact policy and foster equal competition.

You need to add Members as Brett did. I have some problems in accepting 
them to be @large. I would favor them to be NICs (National Internet 
Communities) to stabilize the ICANN as an international body. They would 
not elect people to the BoD directly but vote the budget (they are all the 
one who pay, the @large are only among those who pay).

You should keep the @large as they were in the by-laws, except that they 
should be filtered in a way or another through their initial participation 
to avoid capture.The @large should only organize as they currently develop 
under Denise. There is no need for them to be controlled by the ICANN. 
Every commercial (Registry, Registrars, national issues like the UDRP, 
etc.)  issue should go to the @large. They form "the Internet campus".

Most of all the Constituencies should be free to form and join whatever SO 
they want. I do not see the need of a particular ccTLD SO, but a need for 
the ccTLDs to share in every SO. Each SO should have a GA.

The disagreement I have with Brett is the 6 @large, as I think that 
stability of the BoD comes form direct (@large) and indirect (SO) selection 
to have the broadest competence and concerns selection and to avoid 
factions. I think it is common sense from millenniums of constitutional 
experience.

>The ccSO issue is complicated, and all bound up in the broader question of 
>the cc relationship to ICANN; it would be odd for the cc's to have the 
>right to elect members to the Board of an organization whose policy 
>decisions they refused to recognize as having any effect on them.

This is the result of the BoD policy and a disagreement they will resolve 
themselves in being within the ICANN/GA. There is no need for a contract if 
there is membership.

You want to protect the interest of the ICANN against the ccTLDs. They want 
to protect their interest against you. Why not to protect your interests 
together? Is this so important to have a no member institution?

>With respect to the other suggested changes, they are all within the realm 
>of reasonable argument, and as such I am sure will be discussed at the 
>Board retreat. Thanks, Bret, for making the effort, and be prepared for 
>the inevitable conspiracy theories to follow,

Let not be paranoid Joe. This has been explained and re-explained by many 
of us here. There is a general rough consensus. The one who refused it ... 
was you. The one who broke it was Stuart.

Now if you want to discuss, perfect.

But you will not make that Stuart is somewhere right. That he called on the 
Govs and that his call rose a lot of Gov thinking. So what Brett, so what 
I, so what others may propose is now to be considered in the light of that 
Gov thinking, of the need to reform non only the ICANN, but the gouvernance 
and to permit the Internet to adapt to innovation.

But you will not make that, with an ICANN in poor or in good standing, you 
will still have to match the real world challenge. This means that we need 
the ITU as much as they need us. And we fall back into the global strategy:

- - concerted relations with Telcos (or ITU) at SO level, SO by SO on  peer 
to peer basis.
- - global administration of the namespace with every stakeholder; parallel 
roots for security and national sovereignty; servicing of the self rooted 
user systems, etc..
- - organization of the "mission creep" (@large) in a way which permits it to 
develop without affecting the ICANN

But you will not make that we voted that the USG is to make a rebid. To 
change the BoD and to confirm his agreement with the above or that they 
disengage.

Again, the ICANN is not badly designed, just too rigid, quite complex for a 
three page Ex ell folder. But if you can fund it (not with my money) ... 
your show.  Just one thing: keep it out of the DNS root server business. It 
works well for 18 years without the ICANN... thank you!
jfc

- --=======5974161D=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-167F648F
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02

- --=======5974161D=======--

- --
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: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:42:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions

I direct your attention to my senate testimony, which was moderately
specific, and UDRP work, on my website, which is very specific.  

I think you owe it to your clients and your public to specify when you
speek for yourself and when you speak for your clients.

Specifically, do you bill for these insulting emails, i.e. do so as
ICANN's lawyer, or is this a private effort?

On Fri, 24 May 2002, Joe Sims wrote:

> It is nice to see someone actually make some specific suggestions.  Bret's
> constructively critical approach to ICANN is always a happy contrast to the
> Byfield's and Froomkin's of the world, who have (at least in my memory)
> never met an ICANN action or decision they liked.  And anyone who had any
> naive notion that the tabloid they edit was even remotely intended to be
> objective can see from the exchange between Thomas and Ted that the editors
> have their own unique notion of journalism.  The comparison to Bret's
> ICANNBlog, for example, is pretty stark.    I do note that Bret's suggested
> revisions to the mission statement and bylaws are fairly limited, and if
> you put aside those dealing with at large elections, where we simply have
> an honest difference of opinion, very limited.  The ccSO issue is
> complicated, and all bound up in the broader question of the cc
> relationship to ICANN; it would be odd for the cc's to have the right to
> elect members to the Board of an organization whose policy decisions they
> refused to recognize as having any effect on them.  With respect to the
> other suggested changes, they are all within the realm of reasonable
> argument, and as such I am sure will be discussed at the Board retreat.
> Thanks, Bret, for making the effort, and be prepared for the inevitable
> conspiracy theories to follow,
> 
> 
> 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.<--

- --
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: Fri, 24 May 2002 16:10:22 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions

As I have said on many occasions, I speak for myself unless I state clearly
that I am speaking for ICANN, which you will know if you pay attention is
very rare.  Any insults are free.  How about you; do you speak for yourself
or are you representing particular clients when you publish your regular
contribution of  misrepresentations, and fantasy?

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] Bret Fausett's contributions                        
                    <[email-masked]                                                                               
                    ami.edu>                                                                                       

                    05/24/02 03:42                                                                                 
                    PM                                                                                             

I direct your attention to my senate testimony, which was moderately
specific, and UDRP work, on my website, which is very specific.

I think you owe it to your clients and your public to specify when you
speek for yourself and when you speak for your clients.

Specifically, do you bill for these insulting emails, i.e. do so as
ICANN's lawyer, or is this a private effort?

On Fri, 24 May 2002, Joe Sims wrote:

> It is nice to see someone actually make some specific suggestions.
Bret's
> constructively critical approach to ICANN is always a happy contrast to
the
> Byfield's and Froomkin's of the world, who have (at least in my memory)
> never met an ICANN action or decision they liked.  And anyone who had any
> naive notion that the tabloid they edit was even remotely intended to be
> objective can see from the exchange between Thomas and Ted that the
editors
> have their own unique notion of journalism.  The comparison to Bret's
> ICANNBlog, for example, is pretty stark.    I do note that Bret's
suggested
> revisions to the mission statement and bylaws are fairly limited, and if
> you put aside those dealing with at large elections, where we simply have
> an honest difference of opinion, very limited.  The ccSO issue is
> complicated, and all bound up in the broader question of the cc
> relationship to ICANN; it would be odd for the cc's to have the right to
> elect members to the Board of an organization whose policy decisions they
> refused to recognize as having any effect on them.  With respect to the
> other suggested changes, they are all within the realm of reasonable
> argument, and as such I am sure will be discussed at the Board retreat.
> Thanks, Bret, for making the effort, and be prepared for the inevitable
> conspiracy theories to follow,
>
>
> 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.
==========

- --
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: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:21:15 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WLS Conference Call

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 1:36 PM
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.

This is a response to a friend of mine who is a PTO person from the AC in
charge of TM policy. Her commentary was triggered by my discussing with the
PTO some kind of IP/Domain interplay registry that they might operate. The
response is pretty clear. But the second commentary is that the creation of
such a Internet Specific trademark would take legislation and my take is
that this is not likely to happen unless someone of the lawyers herein
decides to undertake this as a project. [Hey Michael - how about this one?
Having your name on a piece of IP critical legislation would be a good notch
for your CV's...]

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

Art -- there have been discussions about this at different times.  The tech
world has said emphatically that it does not want domain names tied to
trademarks in any way.  On the other hand--one can only register a mark (in
the US) if it is source identifying for goods and/or services (not all
domain names would qualify).  There is however, no reason that a domain name
holder cannot register its domain name as a trademark now--it it wants
continuing IP protection and if it otherwise qualifies as a TM.

One could also propose a "notice" style register for domain names.  Such a
register could create a legal presumption as to ownership and right to use
the domain name (aside from any trademark rights).  Doing that would take
legislation.

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

>
> 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
>

- --
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: Fri, 24 May 2002 17:12:10 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

To be more precise...that gets you only part of the way. There is
another party to the transaction who may or may not be bound by this. 
and the 'may or may not'...could vary a lot depending on the fact
pattern.

"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> 
> To be more precise (and perhaps less bold ;) Registrars and Registries have
> agreed to the terms under which transfers will be conducted according to the
> laws in the jurisdictions that I mentioned. Everything else flows from
> there.
> 
> -rwr
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
> 
> > actually...I beg to differ. The relevant jurisdiction claimed by one
> > party is that. Just wait till it goes to court before making such bold
> > assertions please?
> >
> > agreement on the rest.
> >
> >
> > "Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is an international environment we are dealing with here folks.
> A
> > > > good chunk of the world does not even operate under common law...so
> > > > agency law as Ross learned it...is totally inapplicable. there are
> > > > analogous concepts, yes. but the correspondence and statute, and
> caselaw
> > > > and interpretation and legal foundations...are completely different.
> > >
> > > Actually no - for 99% of the transfers, the relevant jurisdiction is
> > > Virginia or Delaware.
> > >
> > > > I think Danny Younger makes a good point.  So why not focus on coming
> up
> > > > with a definition we all want to see inserted into contractual terms
> > > > like the agreements between registrant and registrar, etc?
> > >
> > > I think that's the whole purpose of this exercise. Problem being,
> despite
> > > the constant criticism from some quarters, there isn't a lot of drafting
> > > going on. The core of a successful task force will always be competing
> > > proposals surrounding by cogent debate. Without it, nothing effective
> can
> > > really be accomplished.
> > >
> > > I strongly dare the GA to put together a document such as you have
> described
> > > Dan. The TF needs this.
> > >
> > > -rwr
> >
> > --
> > Dan Steinberg
> >
> > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> > 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> > Chelsea, Quebec fax:   (819) 827-4398
> > J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
- --
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: Fri, 24 May 2002 17:57:30 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN  Reform, May 2002

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

>
> I believe Mr. Walsh may be suffering from IDNO flashbacks brought on 
> by his tour of duty there not long ago...  Kind of like John Rambo in 
> the movie First Blood, Mr. Walsh is still fighting his "Charter" war.  
> Sad. Truly sad, and kind of demented.  But, anyone who keeps an 
> amateur investigative journal on Jeff Williams a.k.a Bob Davis etc., 
> is IMHO actually a sadder wretch than the subject of his/her 'research'. 

I was rightly admonished by the GA list administrator on my unfortunate 
phrasing re: "kind of demented" above.  Indeed, the actual remonstrance 
from our list overseer was:

"kind of demented" is on the very border of an insulting personal attack. Please refrain from this choice of words in future postings to the DNSO General Assembly. </end>

In all fairness I must agree.  It does indeed verge on being a personal attack, albeit not quite fully one.  Mr. Walsh, I did not mean to imply actual dementia in your specific instance in any way via this characterization.  It was a literary embellishment, if you will, nothing more or less.

Indeed, in all honesty I have never met Mr. Walsh and I harbour no personal ill will against him. In fact, as I've said often enough in the past, I find his postings quite beguiling at times.

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: Sat, 25 May 2002 10:42:11 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Three years of the General Assembly of the DNSO

Many thanks, Elisabeth, for a great record of the history of the DNSO!

Could I suggest that you also record the ccTLD constituency's decision of
June 2001, and announced in its Stockholm communique, to withdraw from the
DNSO?

I think that was a major step in the growth of the DNSO as the forum for
g-tld issues.

Thanks again.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 1:34 AM
Subject: [ga] Three years of the General Assembly of the DNSO

>
>
>          Three years of the General Assembly of the DNSO
>
> 24 May 2002
>
> The DNSO GA is going to celebrate its 3rd Birthday on 25 May 2002.
>
> Over three years the DNSO has been working in open and transparent way,
> providing the place for essential public representation in debates on
ICANN
> policies, thanks to endless efforts of many individuals.
>
> DNSO Background
>
>   1. The DNSO has been formed as the result of long consultation process
in
>      1998 and 1999, cf. http://www.dnso.org/history/www.dnso.org/
>
>           "There is no single organization that meets the exact
>           requirements for the Domain Name Support Organization
>           ("DNSO") specified in the Bylaws of the reconstituted
>           Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), also known as the
>           Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
>           Therefore, such an organization must be formed."
>
>   2. The structure of the Domain Name Supporting Organization of ICANN was
>      determined in Singapore, on 4 March 1999, see "Domain Name Supporting
>      Organization Formation Concepts at
>      http://www.icann.org/dnso-formation.html
>
>   3. The first General Assembly of the DNSO has been held on 25 May 1999,
in
>      Berlin, cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990527.GAberlin.html
>
>           The first www.dnso.org server was created on 23 September
>           1998 on the initiative of Amadeu Abril i Abril. Until 8 June
>           1999 the old www.dnso.org server was kindly hosted by the
>           International Telecommunication Union at Geneva. Subsequent
>           to the DNSO GA in Berlin, the new www.dnso.org server was set
>           up on 1st June 1999 at AFNIC offices in Paris, and started
>           operations immediately. More at
>           http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990606.GAberlin-dnsoreport.html
>
> DNSO Facts
>
>   1. In August 1999 the DNSO (NC and GA) has been providing on time the
WG-A
>      report on UDRP policies for the gTLD space
>      http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990804.NCwga-to-ICANN.html
>
>   2. In September-October 1999 the DNSO (NC and GA) has been electing on
>      time 3 ICANN Board Directors
>      http://www.dnso.org/elections/1999.DNSO-ICANN-election-result.html.
>
>      Since then every year the DNSO (NC and GA) elects 1 ICANN Board
>      Director.
>      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2000.DNSO-ICANN-election-result.html.
>      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-election-result.html.
>
>   3. In November-December 1999 the DNSO (NC and GA) has been developing
the
>      procedures for election of the GA Chair and hold the first election
>      http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/1999.DNSO-GAchair.html
>
>   4. In 2000 the DNSO GA has been developing its working rules and
>      procedures, and come up with Fundamentals - Membership definition,
>      Voting Registry and two Rules for votes by the GA:
>
>        A. Voting Rules adopted by the GA on 6 July 2000:
>           http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html
>
>        B. Election Rules (Instant Runoff) adopted by the GA on 23 March
>           2001:
>
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html
>
>   5. Between June 2000 and May 2002, 2 years time, the DNSO GA voted 12
>      times.
>
>      The summary of those votes (date, electorate, participation to vote,
>      subject, URL to the full records of vote) are provided in:
>      http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/gavotesummary.html
>
>   6. The current status of the DNSO GA Voting Registry shows 583 persons,
>      from 54 different countries.
>
>           The GA Voting Registry includes members from various sectors
>           of activity (gTLD Registries, Registrars, ccTLD Managers,
>           Business, Universities, Telecommunication Industry,
>           Law firms, Consumers organizations) as well as individuals.
>
>           Some ICANN Board Directors, current or former, are on the
>           Voting Registry records.
>
>           The IETF Chair is on the Voting Registry records.
>
>           One may note on the Voting Registry the participation of Ms
>           Becky Burr, who was representing the US Government and
>           signing the first MoU with ICANN on 25 November 1998, cf.
>
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm,
>           and in the GA archives the participation of Joe Sims, who
>           was signatory to the same MoU on behalf of ICANN newly
>           created.
>
>   7. The DNSO archives shows a 29 months record of participation to
various
>      DNSO GA mailing lists, week by week, at
>      http://www.dnso.org/statistics/dnsostatistics.html
>      It starts with 526 different persons in January 2000. Currently
>      990 persons are subscribers, following debates on Domain Names
>      related issues in ICANN process.
>
>   8. The DNSO publishes monthly statistics of www.dnso.org usage at
>      http://www.dnso.org/webstats/
>
>   9. The current DNSO Secretariat has been chosen by the Names Council in
>      August 2001, subsequent to the determination by the NC of its needs,
>      the selection process and the selection criterias. The RFP of this
>      international bid is available at
>      http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.RFP-DNSO.html.
>
>      The new DNSO Secretariat started to operate in October 2001, and is
>      still awaiting the signature of contract for services with ICANN,
>      acting as legal entity for the DNSO.
>
>      The DNSO Secretariat operates with a budget of $60,000 per year,
which
>      is approximately 2 orders of magnitude smaller than ICANN budget.
>      All documents, agendas, minutes and Mpeg3 recordings of the NC
>      meetings are available in archives. The comprehensive summary
>      of the NC meetings in 2002 is provided at
>      http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html
>
>
>
> Elisabeth Porteneuve, the first DNSO Secretary
> --
> 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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 18:04:26 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions - Only one of many contributions..

Joe and all assembly members,

  Joe, Bretts contributions are only one of many that have been made
in recent moths, and one of many more over the past two years.
Had you been paying adequate attention perhaps you would have
noticed that fact.  By you comments below, it appears that your
memory and attention span does not extend adequately enough.
Please try to redouble efforts in those two areas and augment
those efforts by doing some review...

Joe Sims wrote:

> It is nice to see someone actually make some specific suggestions.  Bret's
> constructively critical approach to ICANN is always a happy contrast to the
> Byfield's and Froomkin's of the world, who have (at least in my memory)
> never met an ICANN action or decision they liked.  And anyone who had any
> naive notion that the tabloid they edit was even remotely intended to be
> objective can see from the exchange between Thomas and Ted that the editors
> have their own unique notion of journalism.  The comparison to Bret's
> ICANNBlog, for example, is pretty stark.    I do note that Bret's suggested
> revisions to the mission statement and bylaws are fairly limited, and if
> you put aside those dealing with at large elections, where we simply have
> an honest difference of opinion, very limited.  The ccSO issue is
> complicated, and all bound up in the broader question of the cc
> relationship to ICANN; it would be odd for the cc's to have the right to
> elect members to the Board of an organization whose policy decisions they
> refused to recognize as having any effect on them.  With respect to the
> other suggested changes, they are all within the realm of reasonable
> argument, and as such I am sure will be discussed at the Board retreat.
> Thanks, Bret, for making the effort, and be prepared for the inevitable
> conspiracy theories to follow,
>
> 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

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: Sat, 25 May 2002 13:30:38 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions

Hi Joe
Just a quick comment on one part of your post below.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 4:55 AM
Subject: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions

>.  The ccSO issue is
> complicated, and all bound up in the broader question of the cc
> relationship to ICANN; it would be odd for the cc's to have the right to
> elect members to the Board of an organization whose policy decisions they
> refused to recognize as having any effect on them.

This is not the situation at all -the reverse is true in fact, and I am glad
of the oportunity to correct any misunderstanding.

The cctlds meeting in Montevideo agreed that there * were * a narrow range
of issues about which ICANN-made policy would be binding on ccTLDs.

There is no agreement yet, admittedly, on what those issues are, but they
will relate to technical issues of interoperability -at first.(I personally
believe that once a stable and mutually trusting cooperation is reached on
those issues, there is an excellent opportunity to build on, and to develop
other policies of mutual advantage.)

It is also apparent that each cctld will have a contract with ICANN, and
that those contracts are likely to include an undertaking by the cc to
contribute to the funding of ICANN. The amount of that funding will probably
not be specified, but rather provide for a process by which those amounts
are calculated. (This is, indeed, the method adopted in the 2 contracts
signed to date).

The cctlds believe that the proper forum for the process by which such a
funding policy, and those technical interoperability policies are developed
is the ccSupport Organisation under development.

One of the proper functions of an SO is to elect Board members familiar at
least with the policy issues emanating from the SO which elected them. The
ccSO will be no different.

So, the correct position is that if there are to be policies binding on the
ccTLDs, then they are to be made in a forum dedicated to that process, AND
that they will be carried forward to a board containing their elected reps.
And the Montevideo decision was that  there were such policies.

I have always been surprised that the Board did not react favourably to what
I thought was an historic decision in relation to the cctld -ICANN
relationship.

I hope this is useful.

Regards

Peter Dengate Thrush
Senior Vice Chair
Asia Pacific TLD Association

- --
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: Fri, 24 May 2002 23:58:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Joe Sims and Scholarship [Was Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions]

As you well know, I speak entirely for myself, and represent no
organization or client. In fact have I no clients, paying or pro-bono, on
any ICANN-related matter.

I have acted as an arbitrator in a few UDRP matters, all of which are
public, but none since e-resolution folded. 

Your posts, and Stuart Lynn's public remarks, illustrate the extraordinary
vindictiveness on part of the key players at ICANN towards those who stand
up to it. There are not many of us involved in this process who have no
financial interests that ICANN can harm.  I suppose you must find us quite
galling.

But enough of that.  Let's have some substance.

On the subject of misrepresentation and fantasy, I direct readers to my
recent dissection of your legal scholarship.  It can be found at:
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/formandsubstance.pdf

There are two other articles in this series that you (co)authored, one to
which I am responding, and another in which you reply. Are they on line
somewhere so that readers can seee what I am talking about in context?  
If not, I would be able to host copies for you if you can email them to me
in a suitable file format.

On Fri, 24 May 2002, Joe Sims wrote:

> 
> As I have said on many occasions, I speak for myself unless I state clearly
> that I am speaking for ICANN, which you will know if you pay attention is
> very rare.  Any insults are free.  How about you; do you speak for yourself
> or are you representing particular clients when you publish your regular
> contribution of  misrepresentations, and fantasy?
> 
> 
> 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] Bret Fausett's contributions                        
>                     <[email-masked]                                                                               
>                     ami.edu>                                                                                       
>                                                                                                                    
>                                                                                                                    
>                     05/24/02 03:42                                                                                 
>                     PM                                                                                             
>                                                                                                                    
>                                                                                                                    
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I direct your attention to my senate testimony, which was moderately
> specific, and UDRP work, on my website, which is very specific.
> 
> I think you owe it to your clients and your public to specify when you
> speek for yourself and when you speak for your clients.
> 
> Specifically, do you bill for these insulting emails, i.e. do so as
> ICANN's lawyer, or is this a private effort?
> 
> 
> On Fri, 24 May 2002, Joe Sims wrote:
> 
> > It is nice to see someone actually make some specific suggestions.
> Bret's
> > constructively critical approach to ICANN is always a happy contrast to
> the
> > Byfield's and Froomkin's of the world, who have (at least in my memory)
> > never met an ICANN action or decision they liked.  And anyone who had any
> > naive notion that the tabloid they edit was even remotely intended to be
> > objective can see from the exchange between Thomas and Ted that the
> editors
> > have their own unique notion of journalism.  The comparison to Bret's
> > ICANNBlog, for example, is pretty stark.    I do note that Bret's
> suggested
> > revisions to the mission statement and bylaws are fairly limited, and if
> > you put aside those dealing with at large elections, where we simply have
> > an honest difference of opinion, very limited.  The ccSO issue is
> > complicated, and all bound up in the broader question of the cc
> > relationship to ICANN; it would be odd for the cc's to have the right to
> > elect members to the Board of an organization whose policy decisions they
> > refused to recognize as having any effect on them.  With respect to the
> > other suggested changes, they are all within the realm of reasonable
> > argument, and as such I am sure will be discussed at the Board retreat.
> > Thanks, Bret, for making the effort, and be prepared for the inevitable
> > conspiracy theories to follow,
> >
> >
> > 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1228
*************************