Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1263
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, June 6 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1263

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:58:59 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

[email-masked] (Wed 06/05/02 at 05:27 PM -0400):

>    that is an incredibly irresponsible statement to make jefsey and has
>    absolutely no basis

on the contrary: it has an absolutely factual basis in events during
the NATO-FYU war. it;s true that FYU didn't lose its connectivity;
but that's due to some sharp activism, not governmental restraint. 

afaik, those events had nothing to do with ICANN -- and it's a good 
thing too, because staff would have caved in a second.

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

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

Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 12:03:44 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
>that is an incredibly irresponsible statement to make jefsey and has 
>absolutely no basis
>in fact..
>

... in reply to JFC:
>
>   But let be clearer; should the USA decide to attack Iraq, be sure that
>   there would be some up-dates into the root file.

My two cents:

I also believe with Ken that the root file would not be updated, but this 
is, IMHO, beyond the point.
The problem is that, if they decide to do it (which I repeat is unlikely), 
they have the right to do so. Again, .iq might be the wrong case, because it 
has sanctions against decided at the international level (UN), but exactly 
the same could happen in cases where US has decided sanctions that are not 
supported internationally, like Cuba.

The unlikelyhood of the event is little excuse for not doing the thing right 
and eliminate the possibility. Let me take an example from my own 
professional life.
What is the likelyhood that US (or France, or any of the other "nuclear 
weapon states") throw a nuclear bomb to another country? For instance, UK 
could have bombed Argentina during the Falkland/Malvinas war!
Well, the unlikelyhood of the event does not prevent the international 
community to make moves in order to establish international traties that can 
prevent this to happen.
What is the likelyhood that countries like Australia or Switzerland go 
bananas and start producing nuclear weapons? Nevertheless, there is a 
NonProliferation Treaty that is signed and enfoced as international law.

The same is true for the control of the root.
To simply rely on the good will of one country not to perform (or not to 
prevent) modifications is insufficient protection. We need to put the 
control of the root under international law jurisdiction.
Note that this is not dramatically hard to achieve, and is completely 
independent from other issues and/or tasks of ICANN.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:09:18 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

> afaik, those events had nothing to do with ICANN -- and it's a good
> thing too, because staff would have caved in a second.

Obeying the law is not "caving", and there is no reason why IANA should have
continued providing service for .yu during the time that relevant sanctions
were in place, and also during which time Milosevic's government was using
gov.yu.

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:18:33 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

If WLS is implemented and it becomes the one and only way to secure
registration of expiring names, it is clear that there will be people who
will hoard WLS slots.  Some of the expiring names will, no doubt, correspond
to trademarks of others, and these trademark owners will be thus prevented
from securing registration of the domain names to which their trademark
entitles them.

Also, quite obviously, there will be parties who will seek to sell WLS slots
in excess of whatever fee they paid to secure a WLS slot.

Hence, we will be faced with WLS-squatting.

In order to deal with the problem of WLS-squatting, a WLS Dispute Resolution
Policy (WLSDRP) will obviously be required as an essential component of any
WLS system.

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

Hi John,

- --- John Berryhill <[email-masked]> wrote:
> If WLS is implemented and it becomes the one and only way to secure
> registration of expiring names, it is clear that there will be people
> who
> will hoard WLS slots.  Some of the expiring names will, no doubt,
> correspond
> to trademarks of others, and these trademark owners will be thus
> prevented
> from securing registration of the domain names to which their
> trademark
> entitles them.

Woah.....that last statement is one that I think needs to be clarified
somewhat, "securing registration of the domain names to which their
trademark ENTITLES them". I hope you're not putting forth the position
that having a TM *entitles* someone to a domain. I think all the other
elements of the current UDRP need to be established, ex post (not ex
ante) before turning over a domain to a TM holder.

For instance, many TMs exist on common dictionary words. One example is
"apple", with many different trademarks, including Apple Records and
Apple Computer (who is the current registrant of apple.com). Suppose I
wanted to sell apple seeds over the internet, and hold a WLS slot on
"apple.com". Through some miracle it expires. I would not be in
violation of the UDRP, as the domain would be used in good faith in a
business category (the food product "apples", yum, yum) where one
cannot have a TM for the term "apple").

I hope you're not suggesting that Apple Records or any other trademark
holder would have a higher priority than an apple farmer or a
prospective apple seed seller, using the "entitlement" language. This
would introduce issues of "sunrise" periods for WLS or domains in
general, which I'm against, as it is unbalanced towards legitimate
non-trademark holding registrants.

> In order to deal with the problem of WLS-squatting, a WLS Dispute
> Resolution
> Policy (WLSDRP) will obviously be required as an essential component
> of any
> WLS system.

Would the standard be identical to the UDRP? (i.e. the 3 elements that
need to be proved) If so, I'd not have a problem with this. I just want
to ensure that TM holders can only turf out those who are acting in bad
faith, and not those who have legitimate business plans without a
trademark, or for industries where there's a generic term.

A TM is a valuable thing, but it should not be used to stifle
competition in other countries, or in other industries (i.e. TMs
typically have narrow protection, unless they're truly famous like
Kodak,  Coca Cola, Walmart, etc.). With almost every word in the
English language trademarked in one industry or another, it would be an
impossible standard to suggest that someone creating a new business or
new product needs to make sure there's no pre-existing TM on that term,
in *any* industry in *any* country of the world. 

Just as an idle thought, I'd be curious to know roughly how many TMs
you'd consider to be "truly famous", that would need the "entitlement"
standard (I think it should be a very small number, under 1000
world-wide; even Armani couldn't win against A.R. Mani and neither
could Nissan Motors over Nissan Computer).

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.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: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 16:28:26 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, at 09:18 [=GMT-0400], John Berryhill wrote:

> If WLS is implemented and it becomes the one and only way to secure
> registration of expiring names, it is clear that there will be people who
> will hoard WLS slots.  Some of the expiring names will, no doubt, correspond
> to trademarks of others, and these trademark owners will be thus prevented
> from securing registration of the domain names to which their trademark
> entitles them.
>
> Also, quite obviously, there will be parties who will seek to sell WLS slots
> in excess of whatever fee they paid to secure a WLS slot.
>
> Hence, we will be faced with WLS-squatting.
>
> In order to deal with the problem of WLS-squatting, a WLS Dispute Resolution
> Policy (WLSDRP) will obviously be required as an essential component of any
> WLS system.

Maybe we can remedy the grave injustice done to trademark owners a bit by
a WLS sunrise? I think VeriSign could easily demand $500 per domain for
sunrise WLSes.

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:50:14 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

>
> Maybe we can remedy the grave injustice done to trademark owners a bit by
> a WLS sunrise? I think VeriSign could easily demand $500 per domain for
> sunrise WLSes.

That's true. Upon institution of the WLS, there will clearly be a rush of
applicants to get onto the WLS.  This could overload the registry's
capability to deal with management of the WLS, in addition to encouraging
WLS-squatting.

So, yes, a sunrise period for registered trademark holders would make sense.
Then, we'll need a WLS sunrise challenge procedure prior to population of
the actual WLS queue, and then a WLSDRP for claims arising once operation of
the WLS goes forward.

The WLS as currently proposed, contains no protection for IP interests at
all, in contrast to every other new service which has been launched since
the inception of ICANN.  This is reason enough to send the WLS back for a
re-work to explain how they intend to address the concerns of intellectual
property owners.

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:17:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, at 10:50 [=GMT-0400], John Berryhill wrote:

> The WLS as currently proposed, contains no protection for IP interests at
> all,

Or any other interests, except VeriSigns.

> in contrast to every other new service which has been launched since
> the inception of ICANN.  This is reason enough to send the WLS back for a
> re-work to explain how they intend to address the concerns of intellectual
> property owners.

During this revision they should not forget to deal with trademarks that
expire during the period a 'buyer' is waiting. And certainly not in how to
deal with new trademarks, acquired by third parties after a 'buyer' bought
himself the right to wait.

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:23:11 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf minutes May 29, 2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]]

DNSO Names Council teleconference on May 29, 2002 - Minutes

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020502.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Peter de Blanc         ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles/
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD

Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business absent, apologies
Greg Ruth              ISPCP
Antonio Harris         ISPCP
Tony Holmes            ISPCP
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars absent, apologies,
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD  absent, apologies, proxy to Cary Karp
Richard Tindal         gTLD  absent, apologies,
Cary Karp              gTLD
Ellen Shankman         IP
Laurence Djolakian     IP
J. Scott Evans         IP
Harold Feld            NCDNH
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH absent, apologies,
Erick Iriate           NCDNH absent, apologies,

13 Names Council Members

Thomas Roessler GA Chair

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut      MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat

MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020529.NCteleconf.mp3

Quorum present at 16:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summer time in the northern hemisphere).

Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.

Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020529.NCteleconf-agenda.html

The agenda was approved.

Item 1. Summary of last meetings:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020514.NCteleconf-minutes.html
Cary Karp moved the adoption of the summaries.
The motion was carried unanimously. The summary of the last meeting was
adopted
Motion adopted.

Agenda item 4. Report on Wait List Service (WLS) - Marilyn Cade
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020524.TFSummary-deletes-WLS.html

This agenda item was discussed first.

Marilyn Cade reported that the Wait list Service had been referred to the
Names Council by the Board to be guided by input from the Transfer Task
Force. The Transfer Task Force had two open teleconferences, widely
announced to all constituencies, with 19 people on each call. Marilyn Cade,
Task Force chair, prepared a summary and said that there would be a status
report for the next Names Council meeting.
The assignment was to examine the:
- - Deletion issue,
- - Possible solutions
- - Verisign Wait Listing Service proposal
The report will comment on the:
- - the status of deletions,
- - possible steps for ICANN to take on the redemption policy
- - options to ameliorate harm done to Registrants
- - ways of lessening the load on Registries
- - the Wait Listing Service proposal from Verisign.

Discussion showed that there was limited support for the Wait Listing
Service; the time frame for the redemption period needed further discussion;
and a statement should be issued giving the parameters and thinking around
this. The importance of getting the Task Force recommendations out for
discussion before the Board meeting was emphasized.

AOB: Board Retreat

An informal report from at-large director, Andy Mueller-Maughan, was
referred to which Harold Feld said he would send to the Names Council list.
Care should be taken on the accuracy of the report. Thomas Roessler agreed
with Ken Stubbs who said that where  personnel matters were concerned, such
statements needed reconfirmation. Marilyn Cade noted that the Board was not
inclined to have an At Large election, and strong support had been shown for
a Nominating Committee. Documentation on the meeting could be expected by
the end of the week. Later, Thomas Roessler quoted from a mail sent by Joe
Sims to the GA list confirming that there would be:" Committee's production
of recommendations to the Board and the community, which hopefully will be
published later this week."

Agenda Item 2. Discussion and adoption of recommendations 26-33 (from
version 10) http://www.dnso.org/temp/20020529.NCinterimrepv10.html .

Philip Sheppard said that the section looked at the nature of Policy
Development Bodies and a number of options that if adopted would start to
shape Board composition.

Recommendation 26 was a reaction to the possible merging of the addressing
and protocol bodies. Discussion showed that there was broad support for two
separate bodies from the Business constituency (BC) and the Internet Service
Providers and Connectivity Providers constituency (ISPCP). Input from the
technical community is useful at the constituency level and at the Board
level. Marilyn Cade noted that there should be an effective process of
consultation across the supporting organisations.

New wording:
Recommendation 26 - technical bodies
There should be separate policy development bodies for addressing and
protocols. There needs to be an effective mechanism for cross-policy
development bodies consultation.

Recommendation 26 Accepted by all

Recommendation 27.
Tony Holmes pointed out that the GAC concept is supported from outside but
that it is not working well.
It lacks in terms of outreach and there is no coordination with ICANN and
the DNSO. Ken Stubbs said the benefits of a consultation process and
increased communications with Government bodies should be acknowledged but
he did not believe the Names Council should say how they should be
organized. Marilyn Cade commented on the importance of a consultation
process across the supporting organisations and the Government Advisory
Committee should be part of these consultations.
New wording:
Recommendation 27 - Government
There should be a Government advisory body. There needs to be an improved
flow of communication and better cooperation with the ICANN policy
development bodies.

Recommendation 27: Accepted by all

Recommendation 28
Ph. Sheppard explained that this was linked to policy development bodies and
on who would give technical advice to the Board. Tony Holmes expressed
concern that a technical advisory committee challenges what has been said in
recommendation 26, as a technical advisory body embraces a much broader
concept than protocols and address bodies. Bruce Tonkin made a distinction
made between giving technical advice and making policy on technical issues.
It was felt that it could be a standing committee but should not replace the
protocol supporting organisation. Discussion followed on whether there
should be board representation, voting or non voting, observer status.
Arguments showed support for a neutral technical advisory committee
available to the Board for expertise and consultative purposes to enhance
communication. Technical expertise and advice should be in the interests of
ICANN and not specific constituencies.

New wording:
Recommendation 28 - technical
There should be ad hoc technical advisory committees providing neutral
technical advice and convened by the ICANN Board. There is no need for a
standing technical advisory body with Board representation.

Recommendation 28: Accepted by all

Recommendation 29.
Philip Sheppard introduced the recommendation dealing with Government
Advisory Committee (GAC) representation on the Board and said that there
were three options:
- - voting representation
- - non-voting representation (observer)
- - liaison

Discussion was in favour of a liaison role. Harold Feld pointed out that
even a non voting Board seat is significant as it provides many levels of
contact and participation. Ken Stubbs believed that a non voting observer
has to bound by the same conditions as a voting participant, especially with
regard to confidentiality. This was echoed by Thomas Roessler who said that
a GAC member acting as a voting member could have a conflict of interest,
but that this would not apply in a liaison position. Bruce Tonkin said that
the Registrars constituency emphasized good communication and coordination
which could be achieved by liaison. Marilyn Cade said the Business
Constituency supported non voting representation. Tony Holmes agreed that
the ISPC constituency could accept this, while Laurence Djolakian said the
IP constituency also gave consideration to expertise liasion but didn't
specifically refer to the GAC.

New wording:
Recommendation 29 - Board seats for Advisory bodies.
The GAC Chair or designee should provide a permanent liaison to the ICANN
Board.

Recommendation 29: Accepted by all.

Recommendation 30
Due to a leaving NC member quorum was then lost. Philip Sheppard invited
discussion on "equal representation". Should the number of Board seats
elected by the Policy Development Bodies be the same?

Ken Stubbs felt that there should be responsibility for financial support
for ICANN based on Board representation. Objection to buying ones way onto
the Board was expressed by Harold Feld and this was clarified by Ken Stubbs
saying that Board members should be obliged to support and follow Board
decisions. He believed a situation should not be created, as for the ccTLDs,
where a group seeks involvement but then chooses to not be subject to the
policy created. Harold Feld believed that there could be reasons why a
group, taking part in policy creation would decide not to be subject to it,
but would not want to give up their opportunity of participating as their
input is important. Tony Harris agreed with Ken Stubbs. Marilyn Cade's
opinion was that there should be a set of standards for all entities to
adhere to.

Thomas Roessler pointed out that there was logic to first discuss
recommendations 30 through 32 and that these points of principle would lead
to certain conclusions on board composition (recommendation 33).

No vote could be taken because there was no quorum and it was decided to add
fresh wording based on the discussion. Essentially there was no opposition
to an equal number of Board members elected by each policy development body.

Recommendations 31 and 32 The concept of a Nominating committee, its
existence and possible composition.

Philip Sheppard asked if there was space on the Board after the seats from
the Policy Development Bodies, should it be filled via a Nominating
Committee? Should the seats selected by that committee be equal, less or
more than the representation from Policy Development Bodies? Could the At
Large be included and how should a nominating committee be composed?

Harold Feld stated the NCDNHC position on At Large which calls for direct
elections. He believed that unless there is a mechanism to make a nominating
committee open, an oligarchy will be perpetuated. Bruce Tonkin said that the
Registrars support the election of a nominating committee with
representation from the Registrars, Registries, non-commercials users,
commercial users and individual users. Marilyn Cade said that the Business
Constituency supported an At Large process that would lead to elections. A
nominating committee should control too many Board votes . There should be a
method for the At Large to participate in the Nominating committee, for
example by designating 6 seats to the At Large. Tony Holmes said that there
was no support for a nominating committee among the ISPCP constituency.

Thomas Roessler said that the GA prefers direct elections for At Large and
there was not support for a nominating committee. He warned against a
nominating committee electing a number of Board seats close to the number of
members of the nominating committee itself. He believed this would
effectively replicate the committee's composition in its choice of Board
members. He believed a nominating committee should be forced to compromise
and so should be larger than the number of seats that it has to fill.

Conclusions

Philip Sheppard concluded saying that opinions were divided over
recommendations 30 to 32.He would draft a report as edited on this call. He
mentioned that it would be useful to have perspectives on the ccTLD
structure from Elisabeth Porteneuve and Oscar Robles on recommendations 18
to 24. He confirmed the next teleconference on June 6, 2002. Thomas Roessler
promised e-mail input recommendations 18, 19, 23, 24, 25. Marilyn Cade said
that in view of a possible document from the Evolution Reform Committee, the
Names Council should focus on comparing its recommendations to the
committee's.

A status report would be forthcoming from the transfer committee and
constituencies are encouraged to consult with their members on the report.

The teleconference ended at 17:20

Next NC teleconference June 6 at 13:00 UTC.

     See all past agendas and minutes at
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2002calendardnso.html
     and calendar of the NC meetings at
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:27:58 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] Nominating Committee & at-large (from: [email-masked])

If I'm strongly mistaken about what you folks think, please speak up 
now, so I can send a correction to the council. ;-)
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- ----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> -----

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:27:12 +0200
Subject: Nominating Committee & at-large
Mail-Followup-To: [email-masked]

I may have not been as clear as I should be in one of my statements  
during today's call, concerning the relationship between a  
nominating committee and an at-large membership, so let me try to  
clarify this a bit more.

1. It is safe to assume that most of the GA's members (certainly  
most of its active ones) would clearly favor direct at-large  
elections over any nominating (or rather: selection) committee  
approach.

2. Since that doesn't seem to be feasible at this point of time,  
reserving a number of board seats for an at-large membership, and  
having the selection committeee fill these seats as a stop-gap  
measure, is certainly preferable over assigning these seats to a  
selection committee for all future, effectively eliminating even the 
notion of an at-large membership.

3. In order to make such an arrangement more than just a  
lip-service, the reservation of board seats for an at-large  
membership would have to have some teeth - for instance, a bylaws  
provision which mandates at-large elections at a well-defined point  
of time in the future, provided certain factual conditions are  
fulfilled.  Bad enough, it seems unlikely to me that the current 
board would even consider such a change.

4. Maybe having some kind of open election for some (or even all?   
;-) members of the selection committee may be the way to go for at  
least some at-large membership representation within the structure  
currently proposed.
	  
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 12:23:03 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

> Maybe we can remedy the grave injustice done to trademark owners a bit by
> a WLS sunrise? I think VeriSign could easily demand $500 per domain for
> sunrise WLSes.

Some sort of a vetting process would be desirable. Sunrise violates FCFS, so
why not make it a truly even-handed and allow for a filing/objection process
that would allow TM owners to actually sort out the details beforehand.

Not sure how this would work but, I'm not a TM lawyer either ;)

- -rwr

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 11:40:39 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

At 12:23 PM -0400 6/6/02, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>> Maybe we can remedy the grave injustice done to trademark owners a bit by
>> a WLS sunrise? I think VeriSign could easily demand $500 per domain for
>> sunrise WLSes.
>
>Some sort of a vetting process would be desirable. Sunrise violates FCFS, so
>why not make it a truly even-handed and allow for a filing/objection process
>that would allow TM owners to actually sort out the details beforehand.

Verisign could load a keyword system on top of the WLS. You pay Verisign a
horrendous amount of money up front (plus rights to your firstborn) and
they give you first dibs at any WLS that has that keyword in it.

Loaded on top of that would be the BastardCorporation service. Subscribers
to that would pay Verisign $1,000,000 per day. All domain owners would then
be required to pay BastardCorporation (via Verisign) $1 for permission to
fart.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:06:29 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf MP3 recording June 6, 2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

The MP3 recording of the Names Council teleconference is now available at:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020606.NCteleconf.mp3

Happy listening!

DNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 10:13:55 -0700
From: Loren Stocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] WLS Status Report]

George,

And I oppose. 

It's not that your comments are way off base but that this deletion mess has a
great effect on new Subscribers! Why can't it be fixed with Subscribers in
mind? This is not an irrelevent issue.

You are ALL too hung on "periods" and "process." It's PEOPLE, real live PEOPLE
who are victims here. It was Elliot Noss of Tucows who has proposed a fix that
would give PEOPLE a greater chance of success -- while fixing the "add storm"
situation. 

Frankly, I don't care about Verisign's load either. This is NOT about
Verisign's load. It is and should be about everyones fair chance to get a
domain. Think Hockey! Fair, fast, and efficient.

Best, Loren
www.evil.biz!

"Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]> wrote:
[cc'ed to [email-masked]]

George,

I completely agree with your remarks in this regard. As previously
mentioned, the community has really been dealing with two separate issues
here;

    1.) Verisign's initial failure to deal with registration activity
generated by registrars [the ensuing arguement boiled down to whether or not
the registrar behavior was appropriate or whether Verisign was failing to
live up to its obligations under the registry contract with ICANN and the
registrars. Tucows still contends that the batch pool system implemented by
Verisign represents an arbitrary establishment of policy contrary to the
FCFS methodology that was previously in place and that in fact, Verisign has
an obligation to establish and maintain systems infrastructure commensurate
with, and capable of dealing with the policy implications of their contract.
Verisign contents that registrars are engaging in an illegitimate activity
that they therefore should not support.]

    2.) The introduction of a new (monopoly) registry service that would
affect (adversely or positively, I leave it to the reader to determine which
theology they prescribe to) the (pre-)existing market for services.

I recommend that the passage below be  removed[1] from the final report
unless it can be clearly established that a) registrars were engaging in
illegitimate behaviour, or conversely, b) that Verisign did not live up to
their contractual obligations and provide the infrastructure necessary to
support the existing policy instead of arbitrarily establishing new policy
that lead to the batch pool methodology.

To your second point concerning the fast-track recommendation, it is my
understanding that this will consist of a policy analysis (and
recommendations) concerning standardizing the process of deletion and
re-registration (and other related policy issues.) Tucows fully supports
this approach provided that it is not inconsistent with the views that have
been widely held as being "appropriate practice" over the last few years
(ie - specific and finite period during which a domain name must be deleted
by a registrar after it expires, safeguards for registrants, re-registration
pricing equivalent to original registration pricing, FCFS, etc.)

- -rwr

[1]The statements provided in bullet five and six of this section tend to
support the conclusion that this entire should be removed, perhaps with the
exception as being a historical note (which, if this is the case, the
passage need be reworded to function as a statement of fact.)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 11:28 PM
Subject: [ga] WLS Status Report

Hello,

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00236.html

has an update by the DNSO Transfers Task Force (TF) chair, and makes
excellent reading (unless you happen to work for VGRS).

Essentially, after reviewing everything, the task force is against WLS,
as expected.

I would have to point out, though, that the TF is giving undue weight
to Verisign's statements that it is suffering due to "add storms", and
I object to its inclusion (or at least one should point out the counter
arguments, for balance). The TF writes:

"1. It was acknowledged that present practices of competitive services
result in “add storms” which are affecting the registry’s services, and
according to the registry, adding significant costs for support of all
the attempts to “grab” names but without resulting in transactions
which provide revenue to the registry." (III.1)

I'd like to remind people that by Verisign's own admissions, at:

http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf

In the answer to B.1:

"The WLS is not intended or designed to deal with deleted
registrations nor has VGRS ever made that claim."

and in reply to B.2.

"registry load is no longer an issue. The multiple pools and rate
limiting technology have solved that problem."

I repeat "registry load is no longer an issue."!!

Thus, I think the Task Force should remove any references to these
technical issues from their report, or note that they do not apply. WLS
should be treated as a BUSINESS PROPOSAL for a new MONOPOLY SERVICE at
the registry level, and it should be delinked from any discussion over
technical concerns. Any "technical" concerns are self-serving fiction
and misinformation by Verisign.  "Registry load is no longer an issue"
and "solved that problem" cannot be more clear. "Significant costs" is
entirely inappropriate language, as VGRS has never said what those
costs are, and has refused to provide any data whatsoever to backup
their misinformation. To some people, $5,000 or $10,000/yr is
"significant". If anyone but Arthur Andersen were to do a cost
accounting, the solution to the technical problems was likely a minimal
expenditure, and insignificant. I remind folks that CIRA in Canada
handled similar domain deletions (TBR names) without a cost increase of
any kind, and could handle the spike in traffic without hiccups. VGRS
is equally capable. I'm sure CIRA would gladly take the job, for $180
million/yr, if VGRS can't stomach the job...

Also, I think given the findings by the task force, full consensus
process should be invoked (or just reject WLS outright), given the harm
to numerous parties, and WLS could not and should not be fast-tracked.
As a policy concern for any new registry offering, only products that
would not unduly harm existing market participants should ever be
fast-tracked. I'm not sure why the TF hesitated in this regard in the
report.

Will there be more teleconferences before the coming ICANN meeting, to
iron out outstanding issues? (the possibility of 2 more had been
mentioned)

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.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

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:18:57 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] WLS Status Report]

But Loren, isn't the open market the best place to address these needs?

The registry need continue to be a supplier of database and administrative
services that provides raw infrastructure to registrars - who beat the crap
out of each other in the marketplace in an attempt to walk away with the
most dollars. This is best accomplished through providing services that
people need.

It is about people, but its also about ensuring that these people get a
chance at the best products and services rather than a presupposed notion
about what the best product and service is right now. This is all about
allowing evolution and darwinism in the open market to deal with the
ineffeciencies - which get you the best of breed solution that you are
looking for.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Loren Stocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] WLS Status Report]

George,

And I oppose.

It's not that your comments are way off base but that this deletion mess has
a
great effect on new Subscribers! Why can't it be fixed with Subscribers in
mind? This is not an irrelevent issue.

You are ALL too hung on "periods" and "process." It's PEOPLE, real live
PEOPLE
who are victims here. It was Elliot Noss of Tucows who has proposed a fix
that
would give PEOPLE a greater chance of success -- while fixing the "add
storm"
situation.

Frankly, I don't care about Verisign's load either. This is NOT about
Verisign's load. It is and should be about everyones fair chance to get a
domain. Think Hockey! Fair, fast, and efficient.

Best, Loren
www.evil.biz!

"Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]> wrote:
[cc'ed to [email-masked]]

George,

I completely agree with your remarks in this regard. As previously
mentioned, the community has really been dealing with two separate issues
here;

    1.) Verisign's initial failure to deal with registration activity
generated by registrars [the ensuing arguement boiled down to whether or not
the registrar behavior was appropriate or whether Verisign was failing to
live up to its obligations under the registry contract with ICANN and the
registrars. Tucows still contends that the batch pool system implemented by
Verisign represents an arbitrary establishment of policy contrary to the
FCFS methodology that was previously in place and that in fact, Verisign has
an obligation to establish and maintain systems infrastructure commensurate
with, and capable of dealing with the policy implications of their contract.
Verisign contents that registrars are engaging in an illegitimate activity
that they therefore should not support.]

    2.) The introduction of a new (monopoly) registry service that would
affect (adversely or positively, I leave it to the reader to determine which
theology they prescribe to) the (pre-)existing market for services.

I recommend that the passage below be  removed[1] from the final report
unless it can be clearly established that a) registrars were engaging in
illegitimate behaviour, or conversely, b) that Verisign did not live up to
their contractual obligations and provide the infrastructure necessary to
support the existing policy instead of arbitrarily establishing new policy
that lead to the batch pool methodology.

To your second point concerning the fast-track recommendation, it is my
understanding that this will consist of a policy analysis (and
recommendations) concerning standardizing the process of deletion and
re-registration (and other related policy issues.) Tucows fully supports
this approach provided that it is not inconsistent with the views that have
been widely held as being "appropriate practice" over the last few years
(ie - specific and finite period during which a domain name must be deleted
by a registrar after it expires, safeguards for registrants, re-registration
pricing equivalent to original registration pricing, FCFS, etc.)

- -rwr

[1]The statements provided in bullet five and six of this section tend to
support the conclusion that this entire should be removed, perhaps with the
exception as being a historical note (which, if this is the case, the
passage need be reworded to function as a statement of fact.)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 11:28 PM
Subject: [ga] WLS Status Report

Hello,

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00236.html

has an update by the DNSO Transfers Task Force (TF) chair, and makes
excellent reading (unless you happen to work for VGRS).

Essentially, after reviewing everything, the task force is against WLS,
as expected.

I would have to point out, though, that the TF is giving undue weight
to Verisign's statements that it is suffering due to "add storms", and
I object to its inclusion (or at least one should point out the counter
arguments, for balance). The TF writes:

"1. It was acknowledged that present practices of competitive services
result in “add storms” which are affecting the registry’s services, and
according to the registry, adding significant costs for support of all
the attempts to “grab” names but without resulting in transactions
which provide revenue to the registry." (III.1)

I'd like to remind people that by Verisign's own admissions, at:

http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf

In the answer to B.1:

"The WLS is not intended or designed to deal with deleted
registrations nor has VGRS ever made that claim."

and in reply to B.2.

"registry load is no longer an issue. The multiple pools and rate
limiting technology have solved that problem."

I repeat "registry load is no longer an issue."!!

Thus, I think the Task Force should remove any references to these
technical issues from their report, or note that they do not apply. WLS
should be treated as a BUSINESS PROPOSAL for a new MONOPOLY SERVICE at
the registry level, and it should be delinked from any discussion over
technical concerns. Any "technical" concerns are self-serving fiction
and misinformation by Verisign.  "Registry load is no longer an issue"
and "solved that problem" cannot be more clear. "Significant costs" is
entirely inappropriate language, as VGRS has never said what those
costs are, and has refused to provide any data whatsoever to backup
their misinformation. To some people, $5,000 or $10,000/yr is
"significant". If anyone but Arthur Andersen were to do a cost
accounting, the solution to the technical problems was likely a minimal
expenditure, and insignificant. I remind folks that CIRA in Canada
handled similar domain deletions (TBR names) without a cost increase of
any kind, and could handle the spike in traffic without hiccups. VGRS
is equally capable. I'm sure CIRA would gladly take the job, for $180
million/yr, if VGRS can't stomach the job...

Also, I think given the findings by the task force, full consensus
process should be invoked (or just reject WLS outright), given the harm
to numerous parties, and WLS could not and should not be fast-tracked.
As a policy concern for any new registry offering, only products that
would not unduly harm existing market participants should ever be
fast-tracked. I'm not sure why the TF hesitated in this regard in the
report.

Will there be more teleconferences before the coming ICANN meeting, to
iron out outstanding issues? (the possibility of 2 more had been
mentioned)

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.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

- --
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 #1263
*************************