Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1265
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, June 7 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1265

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 02:22:04 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

John Berryhill wrote:

>
>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?
>

Because you don´t know before they use it if the use is infringing superior 
trademark rights.

In most countries, you are innocent unless proven guilty. What you propose 
is to decide that somebody is guilty even before committing the action.

Let´s make an example.
doors.com is expiring, and Bill Gates gets in the waiting list.
Just before the domain changes hands, Microsoft announces the launch of the 
new "Doors" operating system, that will replace the obsolete "Windows". Of 
course, the launch is supported by filing for trademark.

Anyway, I am against the WLS, and believe that the Trademark/IP rights are 
overprotected by the current system. The combination of the two is really 
over the top for me.
Maybe the next step is that whenever you apply for a trademark you 
automatically get all the related domain names, possibly automatically 
transferred by the current registrant, in particular if he/she is an 
individual that has it for personal use.
"We know in advance the domain name is going to be eventually UDRP-ed away 
from the individual. Why wait until the panel decides?"
It will also be more efficient for corporations, who do not have to lose 
time and money.

Best 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 19:50:38 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GoDaddy files Lawsuit against Verisign over deceptive marketing campaign

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020606/lath037_1.html

"Marketing is one thing. Deception is something else all together,"
said Bob Parsons, Go Daddy's founder and president. "The purpose of
this lawsuit is to protect our customers from being misled and
victimized by VeriSign's deceptive campaign."

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:56:26 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign : "Trust Makes Business Possible"

Verisign's website boasts "Trust Makes Business Possible" in one of
the animated graphic frames.

How amusing the number of court cases pending against them alleging
false or misleading actions on their part, by 2 competitors, a
consumer protection group, several groups of shareholders, and a class
action lawsuit by consumers injured by deceptive Verisign advertising
campaigns.
(Source: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020606/lath037_1.html )

And now this company wants ICANN to entrust them with a new monopoly
income source, the WLS.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 06:23:38 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, at 02:22 [=GMT-0000], Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> John Berryhill wrote:
>
> >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?

> Because you don´t know before they use it if the use is infringing superior
> trademark rights.

Under the UDRP not using the domain does not help you as a defence.

> In most countries, you are innocent unless proven guilty. What you propose
> is to decide that somebody is guilty even before committing the action.

Terrorism, piracy, above all the latter, need to be tackled _before_ the
vile acts are committed. We cannot allow any chances, that a trademark
actually gets hurt.

- --
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 23:49:59 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

Dear Asaad,

Let me answer your questions/propositions with an example.

dotVN.com is not a matter of a simple long distance anonymous carrier.  It is an
attempt to use a ccTLD mark to brand a country and make it more recognizable.
www.it.com.vn is more than a web site or use of a ccTLD, it is an attempt to use
the ccTLD as part of a campaign to bring commercial IT interests into the great
nation of Viet Nam. www.business.com.vn is designed to be a business portal that
will bring commercial business interests into the great nation of Viet Nam.  We at
Hi-Tek are developing business plans to use the ccTLD to market the country.

seetijuana.com is a beginning portal that will soon be changed into a dotMX which
will be developed along the lines of tourism marketing with or without affiliation
with the countries' nic, to promote that great nation where we also have an office.
In this case we are working with departments of tourism.

When we market and participate with a ccTLD our first goal is maintaining the
cultural and national security of that particular country.  We treat the ccTLD as a
national resource and give it the respect that attaches to that country.  In our
opinion that ccTLD is a communication resource unique and properly identified with
the people of the country and should be exploited to the benefit of the people of
the country.  The ccTLD exploitation must be recycled back into the country to
provide online education to the children of Chiapas and provide farming and medical
connectivity to my Mekong Delta rural inhabitants.

So no Asaad we do not help a country run its' ccTLD like a long distance carrier.
We help them run it like a public trust with the main shareholders/stakeholders
being the children, shoeshine boys and flower girls working for a better life
within that geographic designation.  We do not buy into the "local internet
community" we promote and actively look outside that electronic divide and seek to
be inclusive of non-users and how we can benefit others.  The child whose paramedic
uses the internet to learn how to cure a deadly infection is not part of that LIC,
but by God we are working to make sure the connectivity is there to find the cure
by interfacing with such great MD/Phds like my father.

A properly run ccTLD like that of Viet Nam develops with and for the country and
its' people.  It does not go dotTV or dotWS it goes like dotVN and is developed for
the good of the people.  The development is carefully and craft fully undertaken to
exploit a resource for the reduction of illness and poverty and ignorance.  While
the "news" may carry other stories the majority of ccTLDs are operated with a great
care to take care and do the right thing. Education is Marketing and Marketing is
Education, we must run ccTLDs from the inside to the inside, the inside to the
outside and the outside to the inside. The only borders are ones we create for
ourselves.

I am sorry for what has happened to dotCOM and ICANN but I will never rest but to
fight that it does not happen to the ccTLDs with which I am associated.

Sincerely,
Eric

"Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc." wrote:

> Eric, now which ccTLD you said you represnt or in charge of?
>
> John, if we go by your treasury argument, then at least the leading 25 .com
> registrars are already in violation of the law by selling thousands of names to
> citizens of Iraq & Libya. Do a whois query and you will find out for yourself.
>
> Jeff, can you please be more specific to the laws that ICANN staff broke as you
> do mention in your email!
>
> In my personal opinion, the role and interaction of ICANN is no different than
> that of communications companies providing long distance services to the
> countries you mention here, isn't it?
>
> Regards,
>
> Asaad Alnajjar
> CEO Millennium Inc  ( Los Angeles, CA, USA )
> AINC Executive Director
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[email-masked]>
> To: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>; "Elisabeth Porteneuve"
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues
>
> > Let me make sure that my take is very clear on the issue of ccTLDs.
> >
> > ICANN keep you infested hands off and let the sovereigns run their own show.
> >
> > You have no business interfering with sovereigns and need to stay the hell
> out.
> >
> > Sell a connectivity service and shut up.
> >
> > Is that clear enough?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Eric
> >
> > Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > > John and all assembly members,
> > >
> > > John Berryhill wrote:
> > >
> > > > > stability of the Internet, responsibility and service to the
> > > > > Internet users.
> > > >
> > > > >From the viewpoint of a U.S. corporation, i.e. ICANN, an over-riding
> > > > consideration is obedience to the law.  We have, for example, an economic
> > > > embargo of Libya (.ly)in effect in the United States. We also have
> embargoes
> > > > against Myanmar (.mm), Iran (.ir), North Korea (.kp not delegated), and
> Cuba
> > > > (.cu), among others.
> > > >
> > > > Quite frankly, if ICANN staff are negotiating ccTLD contracts with these
> > > > countries, then they had better get a license from the U.S. Treasury, or
> > > > they should be arrested and imprisoned.
> > >
> > >   I agree with you here John.  The problem is that presently the ICANN
> > > staff has already broke several other laws as you well know.  As such,
> > > they seem to be in the mode or of the opinion as to be above US
> > > law.  Hence I doubt that the ICANN staff is at all concerned if they
> > > are negotiating with any of the above listed ccTLD managers...
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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 11:23:51 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: EU Council thinking about ICANN

[This is a note from the Presidency of the Council of the EU
- -- the body of the member states -- to Coreper, the Committee
of Permanent Representatives, sort of ambassadors to the EU.
The document is from 3 June 2002 and it's preparing the 
Telecom Council meeting on 17/18 June 2002. It confirms the
rumour that there has been an undocumented GAC meeting in
Canberra and gives some insight into the current EU member
states' thinking about ICANN. Some interesting excerpts
follow. /// Alexander]

http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/st09/09526en2.pdf
- ------------------
[...]
1. The ICANN Mission
   ICANN should have a clearly defined, limited and stable mission, 
   giving priority to technical functions that are essential for 
   the coordination and stability of the Internet. Certain existing
   activities could be reduced to improve that focus. Relevant legal 
   and contractual work should be reduced to what is essential.

    The ICANN mission should be stabilized: the agreed definition 
    should be adopted and revised by the Board by a 2/3 majority, 
    after a GAC opinion.

  Bottom-up participation and consensus building should continue to be 
  guiding principles of ICANN's working methods. [...]

  In many cases, ICANN’s mission impinges on public policy issues. In 
  these cases GAC must play a stronger role in the decision making process.

2. The Public-Private Partnership
   There is a need for clarification of this open public-private 
   partnership ICANN must be, in which governments should have a greater 
   involvement, particularly in matters of public policy.

   Government involvement in the ICANN processes should be through an 
   enhanced relationship between ICANN and GAC rather than through 
   direct governmental participation in ICANN's Board and Budget.
   [...]

3. ICANN structure, membership and financing
   The private sector participants concerned are responsible for reaching 
   mutually acceptable agreements regarding the structure of ICANN, its 
   membership and financing and its decisionmaking processes. Due 
   consideration should be given to the adequate protection of the
   public interest by strengthening the standing of GAC Advice.

   Such agreements, however, must give full weight to internationalisation, 
   transparency and fairness and to maintaining the principle of geographic 
   diversity and representation throughout the organisation.
 
   Governments should [...] satisfy themselves that the interests of other 
   appropriate international stakeholders are adequately recognised in the 
   final structure.

   Governments should not contribute directly to ICANN's budget.

4. Treatment of public policy issues
   Where ICANN's activities are likely to involve public policy implications, 
   ICANN must consult the GAC. The scope of relevant public policies should be 
   agreed in advance between GAC and ICANN[1 -- Public policy issues may 
   include, for example, competition, DNS Security, ccTLD policy,
   IPR, languages and geographical terms, abusive registrations, data protection 
   and privacy, telecommunications numbering.] The ICANN Board should only 
   be able to ignore or reverse GAC advice in such areas by a super [2/3] 
   majority. In all cases, ICANN should inform GAC on how its advice has been 
   taken into account. The legal implications of this approach need to be 
   considered further.

5. The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
   Governments agree that the GAC is the principal forum for the international 
   discussion of public policy issues related to the ICANN mission and the Domain 
   Name System. In this respect, Governments attach great importance to strengthening 
   the role of GAC and ensuring its independence from ICANN.

   In order to effectively fulfil this role vis-à-vis ICANN, GAC needs to work 
   more effectively and be better integrated into the policy formulation process. 
   This will require the necessary organisation and secretariat and in due course a 
   more appropriate legal structure. Governments should provide the necessary 
   resources to this effect. In anticipation that other administrations
   will also make available such resources, the European Commission is also 
   encouraged to allocate appropriate resources for this purpose. Responsibility 
   for the GAC secretariat could thus be shared between several GAC participants. 
   This secretariat would provide services to GAC both for policy making and logistics.

   GAC may seek the assistance of other qualified international entities for specific 
   tasks or projects.

6. Reserve Powers
   Governments will of course retain reserve powers of last resort in the event of 
   ICANN failing to fulfil its essential tasks and for the public oversight of the 
   maintenance of the authoritative Root Zone File. This responsibility would be 
   exercised through the GAC or another appropriately constituted entity.

7. Control of the Root Zone File
   Governments, in co-operation with the stakeholders concerned, need to work 
   towards internationalising the oversight role currently exercised by the United 
   States government. Implementing the agreed reforms should be phased in the 
   interests of stability. Governments, including the EU, will wish to re-visit the 
   outcome of the current ICANN reform in the foreseeable future. Monitoring the 
   results of the reform and ICANN´s performance should be part of GAC´s remit.
[...]
- ------------------

- --
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 12:55:27 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

- --=======744E1A0C=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1744382B; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 15:09 06/06/02, John Berryhill said:

> > 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 comment - which is a little bit inaccurate about "IANA providing 
service" as they do not provide any other service than not to update .NZ 
street address - is of the utmost interest and the best demonstration of 
the reason why the root must be replicated.

1. John says that the IANA must obey the law. The US law. He is right. But 
we (non US people) do not want the US law to be applied, we want our 
interest to be protected, even against US ones.

2. The root server system is not totally under the US law. The three non US 
law dependent systems may be obliged to obey their local law creating havoc.

3. I fully agree with Roberto when he takes the example of nuclear bombs. 
And with his logic. But in addition to his points, we also have to consider 
that it will necessarily happen, and very soon, if the root is not 
replicated. I explain. Let assume the US are to land in Xu Islands. If 
press uncovers that a few GIs have been killed due to informations they got 
on the Internet that could have been prevented in black holing the Xu 
Islands ISPs or that thousands of US citizens were killed in a incident by 
terrorists who obeyed to e-mails exchanged with Xuist extremists that a 
simple reroute of the ".xu" would have prevented ...

I definitely think that the best protection is to have stable 
multi-replicated root systems. So no one is responsible. It works period. 
All the ccTLDs and gTLDs should have their secondaries scattered on 
different secondary root systems. When a root server system is infected or 
affected, is can then be turned down keeping the worldwide root server 
service clean. The solution is a multiple human root file generation with 
mutual verifications before loading. Permanent mutual cross checks between 
root server systems, and automatic disconnection of the reported faulty 
system and the of the reporting system. This calls for at least four root 
server systems to be in operations.

I note four things:

1. the load on each of these systems will be lower than on the present 
system. They can better accompany the growth of the Internet.

2. these systems should be built - as the one I operate - quickly for test 
and development. Even if my position turns to be wrong. Because if I am 
right, this is not something we can build, experience and validate in a few 
months.

3. They force a better International coordination and mutual concerted 
obligations, as such they are a protection for everyone against arbitrary 
policies and a peace factor.

4. stability, security, national sovereignty, law enforcement call for a 
non-real time root solution. This architecture is also an architecture 
freeing us from market monopolies like MS and VRSN. It is necessary the 
network architecture of the future (because it was the one which prevailed 
in 1982 :-) and we have progressively to adapt to the major changes it will 
introduce in the network economy and in the ICANN and ITU/T structure.

jfc

- --=======744E1A0C=======--

- --
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 12:50:10 +0100
From: "Karen Elizaga" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study

The following is a response by Global Name Registry to the study on .name conducted by Ben Edelman.  It also was sent to Mr. Edelman directly.

We read with great interest the report of Ben Edelman entitled ".NAME Registrations Not Conforming to .NAME Registration Restrictions" and published on 31 May 2002.  As our response below demonstrates, we have designed our registration practices to implement the ICANN-approved Eligibility Requirements in a manner that is practical and, at the same time, consistent with our obligations under the ICANN Agreement.

In drafting the Eligibility Requirements for the ICANN Agreement, we paid particular attention to the definition of a "Personal Name."  A Personal Name, as set forth in Appendix L of the .name ICANN Agreement, is meant to be the personal name of (1) an individual or (2) a fictional character to which a person or entity has rights (together with any additional characters to differentiate it from other Personal Names).  Under the ICANN Agreement, as Mr. Edelman points out, Personal Names are either a person's legal name or a name by which the person is commonly known, which includes, without limitation, a pseudonym used by an author or painter, or a stage name used by a singer or actor.  In addition, both domain names and email addresses within .name can follow the firstname.lastname.name format as well as the lastname.firstname.name format.

The types of names listed in the Agreement by which a person may be "commonly known" was not meant to be exclusive.  As long as a person is commonly known by a particular moniker, whether "President Bush," "Queen Elizabeth," or even "Prime Minister" (as in the case of the United Kingdom's Tony Blair), the Eligibility Requirements permit that person to register a string in the .name space that includes the moniker.  For example, George W. Bush would be permitted to register "president.bush.name" (though his father might object!), Bruce Springsteen would be permitted to register the.boss.name and Fred Rogers of famed American neighborhood fame would be permitted to register mister.rogers.name.  

As Mr. Edelman notes, Appendix L, Section (1)(c)(iv) indicates that as the .name registry operator, GNR is not required to  review, monitor, or otherwise verify that any particular Personal Name Registration was made in compliance with the Eligibility Requirements or the UDRP.  This is so because at the present time, meaningful verification would be difficult and costly.  As an alternative, the .name registry implemented a post-hoc policing system, the Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (the "ERDRP"), designed to permit aggrieved individuals to pursue objections to registrations with a fair amount of ease and based on fairly objective standards.

Mr. Edelman cites some examples of "personal name usage inconsistent with the .name registration conventions." Clearly, some of these examples are not consistent with a rigid interpretation of the Eligibility Requirements.  In most cases, however, these examples are consistent with the spirit of those requirements.  For example, we do not believe that most people would be disturbed by the fact that couples are using .name for mutual email addresses or web sites or that families are using .name for web sites.  These registrations seem consistent with the .name goal of providing domain names and email addresses for  personal use by individuals.  

There are, as Mr. Edelman indicates, a small number of humorous registrations as well as a number of defensive commercial registrations that may not meet the Eligibility Requirements.  These raise some difficult issues; however, currently, we do not believe that it is necessary to prohibit these kinds of registrations or that these registrations undermine the concept that .name was designed for individuals.  

Mr. Edelman suggests a number of ways in which the .name registry can better serve the individuals for whom it was created.  Our responses to these specific suggestions appear below.

Improvements to communications between registrars and customers.    Both the Eligibility Requirements and the ERDRP appear on our web site and have been incorporated into registrar/registrant agreements.  GNR can certainly explore with ICANN and the registrars ways to highlight these requirements.

Automated systems to prevent obviously-nonconforming registrations.  Although this appears at first blush to be a sensible approach, it would be a daunting task to develop a system that is sensitive to the diversity of cultures and naming conventions around the world.  To illustrate cultural sensitivities that need to be taken into account, the English article "the" is a common first name in Vietnam, as are "van," "do," and "long."  In addition, common English words such as "odd," "even," "bull," "butt," "eek," "hole," "hella," "lover," "lie," "moan," "rod," and "saga" are first and last names in mainstream Norway.

In a slightly different context, some time ago Network Solutions developed an automated system to block registrations involving six of the seven so called "dirty words" banned for on-air use by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.  It turns out that blocking the seventh was impracticable, as the offending letter string was a common root in the Japanese language.

Human review.  The economics of domain name registration as contemplated for .name and in general simply will not support the costs involved in human screening of .name registrations for conformity with the Eligibility Requirements on an ongoing basis.  It may sound relatively easy, particularly in the short-term with registrations at current levels.  However, it would take a serious commitment of capital and resources to devote staff to undertake these reviews and the follow-up investigations that would be required.  The costs associated with this kind of review are not trivial and would have to be passed on to consumers, which we have not done.  In addition, this kind of review would expose the registry operator to significant legal liability - for terminating or failing to terminate a registration that seems to be non-conforming.  These costs would also have to be passed along to consumers.  We are unaware of any general interest top level domain that monitors its name space for non-conforming registrations.  The ERDRP is designed to provide a workable, efficient alternative.

Limits on the number of .name registrations per individual.  Many valid registrations can be made by one person on behalf of another.  For example, a father might register all five of his children and his wife, while a net savvy individual might give all of his/her friends .name registrations for Christmas.  This kind of registration activity is completely consistent with the purpose of the .name top level domain, and we certainly do not want to prevent it.  And, as Mr. Edelman points out, restrictions of this sort are easy to evade, and it does not seem desireable to drive individuals in this context to adopt multiple usernames and identities.  It seems preferable to us to allow individuals to register as many names as they wish to, leaving themselves open to the risk of a challenge under the ERDRP if they do so illegitimately.

As a general matter, in exploring the various possibilities in trying to protect the .name space, we, and the general public, also must keep in mind that we are running a business.  As such, we must pay attention to issues of cost, feasibility and practicality.  To the extent that people are not bothered by registrations that do not conform to the exact letter of the Eligibility Requirements, we will not be compelled to take action to investigate such registrations.  

That said, we truly want our .name space to be the address for individuals, and we will continue to market the .name space to customers in that manner.  To the extent we deem feasible and necessary, we will certainly endeavor to pursue abusive registrations that are brought to our attention through the ERDRP, and we will try to influence customer behavior by educating end-users on the .name registration conventions.  Finally, we will explore other options in making this name space for that which it was intended - the exclusive domain for use by individuals.

Karen Elizaga
Vice President - Policy
Global Name Registry
125 High Holborn
London WC1V 6QA UK
Tel:  +44 (0)20 7025-2231
Mob:  +44 (0)7740 871-698
Fax:  +44 (0)20 7242-9105
Email:  [email-masked]  
Web:  www.name

- --
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 09:01:23 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] CIRA Board Elections

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C20E01.E5B6BDF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

CIRA is currently running it's elections for the open seats on the board of
directors. If you are a CIRA member, read on:

There are three excellent candidates running that need your support - they
certainly have ours:

1. Mark Jeftovic (bio -
http://www.cira.ca/cira/election?FN=PUB_VIEW_CAN_STMT&cand_id=423556&first_n
ame=Mark&middle_name=&last_name=Jeftovic&lang=en&status=CNM)
2. Denis Tanguay (incumbent, bio - http://www.cira.ca/en/about_ca.html)
3. Rick Anderson (bio -
http://www.cira.ca/cira/election?FN=PUB_VIEW_CAN_STMT&cand_id=425464&first_n
ame=Richard&middle_name=M.%20&last_name=Anderson&lang=en&status=CNM)

Instructions on voting and process can be found here -
http://www.cira.ca/en/elections-2002.html

Vote early and Vote often.

Best of luck to the candidates!

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal
Old Skool DNS Address: http://www.byte.org/heathrow

- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C20E01.E5B6BDF0
Content-Type: text/x-vcard;
	name="Ross Wm. Rader.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Ross Wm. Rader.vcf"

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Rader;Ross Wm.
FN:Ross Wm. Rader
KEY;X509;ENCODING=3DBASE64:
    =
MIICeDCCAeGgAwIBAgIDBkCIMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAgUAMIGSMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTEVMBMG
    =
A1UECBMMV2VzdGVybiBDYXBlMRIwEAYDVQQHEwlDYXBlIFRvd24xDzANBgNVBAoTBlRoYXd0
    =
ZTEdMBsGA1UECxMUQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2VydmljZXMxKDAmBgNVBAMTH1BlcnNvbmFsIEZy
    =
ZWVtYWlsIFJTQSAyMDAwLjguMzAwHhcNMDExMjA1MTk1NDA0WhcNMDIxMjA1MTk1NDA0WjBB
    =
MR8wHQYDVQQDExZUaGF3dGUgRnJlZW1haWwgTWVtYmVyMR4wHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFg9yb3Nz
    =
QHR1Y293cy5jb20wgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAOCjoNR8ejCtPJDVmFbU
    =
0g72Lu2hOtWUjXuwwbq85Bf0igIYwXIY83H5QX8Ib436TI0fS2imHLEw3cmzU1sU6NMIqctH
    =
/PyRfwPZd+D4uNP8vwaGeEJ5ZJmUfKbRPNyzv+Ts58sO1Y/f+Ou+SMaDHxMbzJRXfJmEoxZu
    =
t9Sm7EerAgMBAAGjLDAqMBoGA1UdEQQTMBGBD3Jvc3NAdHVjb3dzLmNvbTAMBgNVHRMBAf8E
    =
AjAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAgUAA4GBAL/mgUJCx/fGLlhzDHaP3uAFq9dh17nuIsgURT4rKBFN
    =
DLDOpm6UWe19rqy0iTQqtoUbP9FBQqqNt/0A1n+xOFe02RquUCFsgwu1E4D21tuQiMBQzild
    V3ES8RMZrdzTe5kfgQCo1h3R0UycnOmZpLPV9UFFcO0RyudIuGbynMwI

EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[email-masked]
REV:20020607T130123Z
END:VCARD

- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C20E01.E5B6BDF0--

- --
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 09:30:59 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] CIRA Board Elections

         If we're discussing the CIRA elections here, I want to put in a 
good word for Michael Geist.  Michael was elected to the CIRA Board last 
year, in CIRA's first online election, and is now running for 
re-election.  In his day job, he's a professor at the University of 
Ottawa.  He's a tremendously solid guy.  He played an important role in 
CIRA's adoption of a Canadian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy that is 
superior to the UDRP, with more free speech protection, a better approach 
to arbitrator selection, and the prospect of compensation by reverse domain 
name hijackers.  He's worked to maintain CIRA's financial stability and 
promote dot-ca.  Vis-a-vis the relationship with ICANN, he writes:  "I will 
not support any agreement with ICANN unless Canadian interests are 
adequately protected. I believe that ICANN must represent the interests of 
all stakeholders by ensuring that there are appropriate levels of 
accountability and public participation. Without such assurances, CIRA 
should be wary of entering into any permanent obligations with ICANN."

         Bio and statement at 
http://www.cira.ca/cira/election?FN=PUB_VIEW_CAN_STMT&cand_id=423455&first_name=Michael&middle_name=&last_name=Geist&lang=en&status=CNB

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

At 09:01 AM 6/7/2002 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>CIRA is currently running it's elections for the open seats on the board of
>directors. If you are a CIRA member, read on:
>
>There are three excellent candidates running that need your support - they
>certainly have ours:
>
>1. Mark Jeftovic (bio -
>http://www.cira.ca/cira/election?FN=PUB_VIEW_CAN_STMT&cand_id=423556&first_n
>ame=Mark&middle_name=&last_name=Jeftovic&lang=en&status=CNM)
>2. Denis Tanguay (incumbent, bio - http://www.cira.ca/en/about_ca.html)
>3. Rick Anderson (bio -
>http://www.cira.ca/cira/election?FN=PUB_VIEW_CAN_STMT&cand_id=425464&first_n
>ame=Richard&middle_name=M.%20&last_name=Anderson&lang=en&status=CNM)
>
>Instructions on voting and process can be found here -
>http://www.cira.ca/en/elections-2002.html
>
>Vote early and Vote often.
>
>Best of luck to the candidates!
>
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
>"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
>idiot."
>- Steven Wright
>
>Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal
>Old Skool DNS Address: http://www.byte.org/heathrow

- --
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 06:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GoDaddy files Lawsuit against Verisign over deceptive marketing campaign

Hello,

- --- William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020606/lath037_1.html
> 
> "Marketing is one thing. Deception is something else all together,"
> said Bob Parsons, Go Daddy's founder and president. "The purpose of
> this lawsuit is to protect our customers from being misled and
> victimized by VeriSign's deceptive campaign."

Without reading the press release, it makes me wonder if Go Daddy was
describing WLS? ;)

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: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 10:50:37 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> > In most countries, you are innocent unless proven guilty. What you propose
> > is to decide that somebody is guilty even before committing the action.
> 
> Terrorism, piracy, above all the latter, need to be tackled _before_ the
> vile acts are committed. We cannot allow any chances, that a trademark
> actually gets hurt.

I hope you were joking or being sarcastic in writing that. If not,
methinks you're insane.

A murderer or child molester is treated as innocent until proven guilty
in
many countries, and has some right to due process almost anywhere. You
appear to be claiming that "piracy" against trademark right is so
heinous
a crime that it demands special measures, more severe than those against
murder or child molestation. This is utterly ludicrous.

You might make that case for terrorism. It is at least arguable that,
against such enemies, even democratic nations should go outside their
normal legal principles and resort to arrest without habeas corpus, or
even to assasination. I'm unconvinced, but there are certainly some
strong arguments for that position.

But "terrorism, piracy, above all the latter ...". Even without "above
all", this would be lunacy. With it, it is utterly unbeleivable.
- --
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 11:13:44 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

         Lighten up, everyone.  Marc was joking.  *John* was joking when he 
started this thread.

Jon Weinberg
[email-masked]

At 10:50 AM 6/7/2002 -0700, Sandy Harris wrote:
>Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> > > In most countries, you are innocent unless proven guilty. What you 
> propose
> > > is to decide that somebody is guilty even before committing the action.
> >
> > Terrorism, piracy, above all the latter, need to be tackled _before_ the
> > vile acts are committed. We cannot allow any chances, that a trademark
> > actually gets hurt.
>
>I hope you were joking or being sarcastic in writing that. If not,
>methinks you're insane.
>
>A murderer or child molester is treated as innocent until proven guilty
>in
>many countries, and has some right to due process almost anywhere. You
>appear to be claiming that "piracy" against trademark right is so
>heinous
>a crime that it demands special measures, more severe than those against
>murder or child molestation. This is utterly ludicrous.
>
>You might make that case for terrorism. It is at least arguable that,
>against such enemies, even democratic nations should go outside their
>normal legal principles and resort to arrest without habeas corpus, or
>even to assasination. I'm unconvinced, but there are certainly some
>strong arguments for that position.
>
>But "terrorism, piracy, above all the latter ...". Even without "above
>all", this would be lunacy. With it, it is utterly unbeleivable.
>--
>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 #1265
*************************