Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1264
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, June 7 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1264

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

Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 10:31:14 -0700
From: Loren Stocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [ga] WLS Status Report]]

Ross,

You know I'm dead set against WLS. I'm referring to Geroge's comment that the
report was, "giving undue weight to Verisign's statements that it is suffering
due to "add storms." 

I care that this "storm" is fixed in such a way that we all have a fair
chance; that we can all participate; that we can actully win! Having
competitive Registrars go after domains is way, not WLS. I think that we
agree, Ross. 

Best, Loren

"Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]> wrote:
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

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

Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:14:48 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Status Report

Ross and all assembly members,

Ross Wm. Rader 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.]

  I also agree with Ross's remarks and detail nicely yet briefly provided
above.  From a registrants/stakeholders/users point of view, or otherwise
position, it is clear that WLS does not address the current problem in it's
entirety, nor is it reasonable to consider as policy in dealing with Delete
and/or Transfer of Domain Names in a fair and equitable manner.  It also
forces registrars and their registrant customers or potential stakeholder/users
into a policy approach that they have no voice of vote in but yet are directly
effected by it.

>
>
>     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.

  Also agreed here.  Such policies or types of policies do not deserve
consideration.

>
>
> 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.)

  These potential safeguards must be the choice of the original registrant if
that registrant can be contacted in a given period of time (30-60-90 days?)
Other than that I believe that Ross is also correct here as well...

>
>
> -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.)

  Agreed here as well...

>
>
> ----- 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

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: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:27:29 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service - WLS-Squatting policy perhaps needed?

John and all assembly members,

  Well John, I must admit you have a very good point that is no doubt
likely to occur, and "WLS-SQUATTING" will than become a
real problem.  I also got a laugh out of you strait faced approach
to handling the "WLS-SQUATTING", should WLS become a
policy method...  ROFLMAO!  Well done here John!  WLSUDRP
indeed!

  BTW John, are possibly suggesting that WIPO be the managing NGO of
the potential WLSUDRP?  >;)

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.
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:19:34 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

Ted and all assembly members,

  I must strongly agree with Ted and Jefsey here as well.  I don't
see where in hell Ken got this observant response from..  In any
event is is so obviously bias as well as likely off base as to
be not worth serious consideration...

t byfield wrote:

> [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

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: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 07:57:24 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [fwd] Nominating Committee & at-large (from: [email-masked])

On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:27:58 +0200, Thomas Roessler
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>If I'm strongly mistaken about what you folks think, please speak up 
>now, so I can send a correction to the council. ;-)

Looks fine to me.  I think it is crucial that we try to get ICANN to
front up on what the composition of the nominating/selection committee
will be, because I suspect they are going to try and get everyone to
agree to the notion in principle and then once that happens come out
with a composition which will not be particularly diverse and ram it
through as a minor detail.

DPF

>
>
>
>
>
>----- 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 -----

- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 7 Jun 2002 00:45:24 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, at 12:23 [=GMT-0400], 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.

A lottery for which VeriSign sells tickets seems the solution.

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:48:18 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

> A lottery for which VeriSign sells tickets seems the solution.

Something like WLS might be more politic. 

But that seems rather circular.

- -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, 06 Jun 2002 19:41:57 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

ummmmmm what would be the basis for this?
what you are propsing is the essentially the same process that happens
when someone registers a domain name....absent the actual registration.

Don't you think it's bad enough we have to deal with TM claims that may
or may not be valid against domain holders that may or may not be
abusive registrations or may or may not be using the name that in no way
tramples someones rights in a mark....
This is the stuff that a judge or a UDRP tribunal has to think
about...weigh evidence...decide...the whole  0.9 meters.

What on earth would a judge/tribunal/panel be able to 'judge' if it's a
domain name that someone just hopes to use one day?  Will the
prospective registrant have to say what they want it for, in
advance???   Are you expecting a prospective registrant to file
something akin to a TM ITU application (ITU in this case not referring
to a swiss-based organization but for intent to use something...)???? 
Methinks the cost of owning a domain name suddenly becomes the same (or
more) than the cost of a TM.

Please, can we all keep this simple and not let any special interest
tail wag this dog unless it is absolutely necessary?

p.s. I'm no fan of the WLS service as proposed by verisign, but TM
rights are not my reasons. I guess every one has their reasons for being
for or against WLS.

"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.
> 
> 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

- -- 
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: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 19:51:48 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

earlier this morning, 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.

Ummmmmm I have a feeling someone has his tongue firmly in-cheek
but...for those that took John seriously...

a domain name corresponding to the trademark of others does not
automagicall give the others rights.
For example, should delta.com come free I figure there are about 3,459
companies ( I made this number up cause I was too lazy to do a search)
that might consider Delta to be their mark, especially if they didnt
learn about the difference between descriptive and distinctive and
disinfectant (the keen observers will note that the last 'd' has nothing
to do with intellectual property at all).
 
- -- 
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: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 20:01:38 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

>
>
> what you are propsing is the essentially the same process that happens
> when someone registers a domain name....absent the actual registration.

But that's the point of the WLS - it provides an exclusive ability to the
WLS slot holder to register the domain name.  So, it is really no different
from having the domain name itself in that regard.

Since the UDRP is effective to take away unused domain names from
cybersquatters, what difference does it make whether you have a
cybersquatter with an unused domain name, or a WLS-squatter who is merely a
prospective cybersquatter?

With the WLS, we'll know in advance who will get a domain name.  Why wait
until they have it?

- --
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 20:19:54 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

Actually I have to disagree...it's not the same as having a domain name.
You can't go look at the use of the domain, since it's not even
registered let alone 'live'.  You don't even know if it will ever be
used, since the WLS is just a 'place in line' and not actually a ticket.
You cant get evidence of hoarding because they havent hoarded anythign
yet.  Alll you have...is a declaration of intent. In fact...under the
WLS...it is conceivable that someone could pay for a slot for a
particular domain, wait a year or two...then...because business plans
change...decide when the domain comes free, decide...at that time they
don't want it!!!!!!

Now how on earth..are you going to account for all these possibilities?
We are dealing in futures. To me its akin to that sci-fi movie with Tom
Cruise where you get committed of a crime because they figure you are
going to do it one day....

'why wait until they have it? ' John asks.  Simple. cause until they
do....you really dont know what they are going to do with it.  If they
intended an abusive registration (I hate the term cybersquatting) they
could simply lie through their teeth. how would you prove otherwise?
look for a business plan? check financing?

John Berryhill wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > what you are propsing is the essentially the same process that happens
> > when someone registers a domain name....absent the actual registration.
> 
> But that's the point of the WLS - it provides an exclusive ability to the
> WLS slot holder to register the domain name.  So, it is really no different
> from having the domain name itself in that regard.
> 
> Since the UDRP is effective to take away unused domain names from
> cybersquatters, what difference does it make whether you have a
> cybersquatter with an unused domain name, or a WLS-squatter who is merely a
> prospective cybersquatter?
> 
> With the WLS, we'll know in advance who will get a domain name.  Why wait
> until they have it?

- -- 
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: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 21:02:52 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

> used, since the WLS is just a 'place in line'

...a place in line with definite economic value.

In the BIZ STOP policy, those STOP complaints were required to be filed any
time from when the domain name was registered within a very short cutoff
period, and certainly before most .biz domain registrants were able to
establish use of any kind.

In the .info sunrise, TM rights were determined to pre-empt any other use to
which a term might be put.

If you don't believe that TM owners are going to be rattled by finding (a)
they don't have the domain name they want, but it will soon expire, and (b)
someone else is holding the 'place in line' for it, then you are
underestimating the tenacity of these people.

Intellectual property owners constitute an ICANN constituency.  Domain name
registrants don't.  It is that simple.

- --
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 19:55:25 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

Dan and all assembly members,

Dan Steinberg wrote:

> Actually I have to disagree...it's not the same as having a domain name.

  Well no it is not the same as having the Domain Name, but it is the next
thing to it, and it is likely that they will have the Domain Name, which is
so close to the same thing the distinction is hardly worth discussing and
certainly not worth debating...

>
> You can't go look at the use of the domain, since it's not even
> registered let alone 'live'.

  Use, is not relevant here Dan...

>  You don't even know if it will ever be
> used, since the WLS is just a 'place in line' and not actually a ticket.

  Right.  But selling "Places in a line" at a price to the highest bidder
and than as John contends in part, those slots also traded like
baseball cards, is simply a stupid approach at a policy...

>
> You cant get evidence of hoarding because they havent hoarded anythign
> yet.

  True again.  But it is the next thing to it Dan...

> Alll you have...is a declaration of intent. In fact...under the
> WLS...it is conceivable that someone could pay for a slot for a
> particular domain, wait a year or two...then...because business plans
> change...decide when the domain comes free, decide...at that time they
> don't want it!!!!!!

  Yes, and than they can sell that slot to someone else, just like
WLS-SQUATTING as John suggests...

>
>
> Now how on earth..are you going to account for all these possibilities?

  Ditch WLS...

>
> We are dealing in futures. To me its akin to that sci-fi movie with Tom
> Cruise where you get committed of a crime because they figure you are
> going to do it one day....

  Isn't that called reasonable suspicion???

>
>
> 'why wait until they have it? ' John asks.  Simple. cause until they
> do....you really dont know what they are going to do with it.

  Again what they do with it is not relevant.  It is what they do with the
"Place in the Line for it" that matters...

>  If they
> intended an abusive registration (I hate the term cybersquatting) they
> could simply lie through their teeth

  Yes much like Afilias ( .INFO) perhaps?

> . how would you prove otherwise?
> look for a business plan? check financing?

  No.  WLS activity history and/or past business history...

>
>
> John Berryhill wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > what you are propsing is the essentially the same process that happens
> > > when someone registers a domain name....absent the actual registration.
> >
> > But that's the point of the WLS - it provides an exclusive ability to the
> > WLS slot holder to register the domain name.  So, it is really no different
> > from having the domain name itself in that regard.
> >
> > Since the UDRP is effective to take away unused domain names from
> > cybersquatters, what difference does it make whether you have a
> > cybersquatter with an unused domain name, or a WLS-squatter who is merely a
> > prospective cybersquatter?
> >
> > With the WLS, we'll know in advance who will get a domain name.  Why wait
> > until they have it?
>
> --
> 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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1264
*************************