Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #132
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, August 31 2000          Volume 01 : Number 132

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 21:02:32 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Clarification w/r/t Jonathan Cohen's Involvement in Work ing Group B

Kristy,

Some of us, that took part of in WG-B, actually have a technical
background. At least one of us are also participating from a hand-built
network. Mostly, we were the dissenters. IMHO, WG-B failed in one key
area. They never answered the ISP liability indemnifaction issue.
Without that, no kind of exclusion list, or UDRP process, will hold
water for long.

Please understand this, UDRP is not a court. I has no governmantal or
legal backing anywhere. It wouldn't take much for me to get a UDRP
deciosion excluded from a court case, on the grounds that UDRP is
irrelevent wrt trademark enforcement. The UDRP arbitrators do not have
competent jurisditction. Even if you call it an arbitration panel, MHSC
has had their domain since 1995, long before ICANN, and is not bound by
any sort of arbitration mandate in our contract with NSI. Any attempt to
do so would quickly find its way into a Delaware courthouse. More than
likely, were someone to try it, we would ignore the UDRP and stop NSI
from acting, on the UDRP decision, via the TRO mechanism. That being the
cheapest means necessary.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kristy [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:01 PM
> 
> Do any of these folks have any technical knowledge of the systems?
> 
> Could any of these folks build a network and get it online 
> with hardware and
> software only to help them along?
> 
> ?
> 
> ~k
> 
> 
> At 01:22 PM 8/30/2000 , Michael D. Palage wrote:
> >I am writing this email in response to a posting last week regarding
> >Jonathan Cohen's involvement in Working Group B. Let me 
> begin by disclosing
> >that I nominated Jonathan for reelection to the ICANN Board. 
> I believe that
> >I am qualified to describe Jonathan's involvement in Working 
> Group B, as I
> >was the original co-chair with Jonathan. After his election 
> to the ICANN
> >Board, I functioned as sole chair for several months until 
> the Names Counsel
> >appointed Kathy Kleiman and Philip Sheppard as joint Names 
> Counsel Liaisons.
> >
> >Working Group B was created last May at the regional ICANN meeting in
> >Berlin, Germany, along with Working Groups A & C. Jonathan 
> Cohen and Amadeu
> >Abril were appointed co-chairs of Working Group A. Because 
> of some of the
> >criticisms surrounding the procedures in Working Group A, it 
> was decided
> >that the one co-chair would be appointed by the Names 
> Council and the other
> >would be elected by the groups participants. I was elected 
> as the alternate
> >chair by default when no one else expressed an interest. 
> This election took
> >place prior to the ICANN Regional meeting in Santiago, Chile.
> >
> >At this time, Working Group B was still in the formative 
> stage, with no more
> >than twenty initial members. After the Santiago meeting, 
> Jonathan announced
> >his intention to run for a position on the ICANN Board. 
> Following this
> >announcement, Jonathan undertook a less visible role within 
> the Working
> >Group B process, although he continued to offer his insight 
> and expertise
> >leading up to the election.
> >
> >After his election to the ICANN Board for a period of one 
> year, I continued
> >to serve as the sole chair of Working Group B until the 
> appointment of Kathy
> >and Philip by the Names Counsel several months later.
> >
> >Having made this clarification, I would like to offer my 
> insights on some of
> >the candidates running for election to the ICANN Board from the DNSO.
> >
> >The reason that I nominated Jonathan for reelection was 
> because of his
> >diverse skill set and his record to date. Two of the bigger 
> challenges
> >facing the ICANN Board in the near future are overseeing the proof of
> >concept phase for new top-level domains, including any 
> potential issues
> >involving the intellectual property community, and 
> increasing involvement
> >among ccTLD registry operators in the ICANN process. I 
> believe that Jonathan
> >is uniquely qualified to handles these challenges based upon 
> his expertise
> >as an intellectual property attorney and in his involvement 
> in the Canadian
> >ccTLD registry.
> >
> >Although I believe that Jonathan is the most qualified candidate for
> >election to the Board, there are several other candidates 
> with impressive
> >credentials that could make a contribution to the Board. For 
> example, Jamie
> >Love has recently became a very active participant within 
> the ICANN process.
> >The best word to describe Jamie is passionate. Although I 
> may not always
> >agree with Jamie's viewpoints, I respect his unwavering 
> dedication to his
> >beliefs. I personally hope that Jamie considers running for 
> the recently
> >vacant Names Counsel position within the Non-Commercial 
> Constituency. I
> >believe that involvement at the Names Counsel level will 
> provide Jamie with
> >some valuable hands on experience with regard to the ICANN process.
> >
> >Turning my attention to Ron Weikers, I have know Ron for 
> several years and
> >use to working with him at a law firm in Philadelphia. 
> Although Ron has a
> >solid technical and legal background, he is a relative 
> newcomer to the ICANN
> >process. I have reservations about his ability to get up to 
> speed on the
> >issues confronting the Board, specifically those involving 
> the ccTLDs.
> >
> >With regard to the remaining candidates, Peter LeBlanc 
> appears to be a
> >popular candidate although I have never had the privilege of 
> meeting him. I
> >have a great deal of respect for several of the people that 
> have endorsed
> >his candidacy. Peter's strength appears to be in the ccTLD 
> community, which
> >as mentioned above is highly important at this point in 
> time. In reading
> >Peter's acceptance/position statement, however, it appears 
> that his primary
> >focus is advancing the interests of the ccTLD community. I 
> believe that the
> >strongest candidate should be the one that has his/her 
> finger on the pulse
> >of every constituency.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:17:53 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

Hello Sandy,

Wednesday, August 30, 2000, 8:58:52 PM, you wrote:
>> What especially lacks in the current "constituency" lineup is
>> representation of the Holders of Domain Names *as such* . ..

>> If this constituency will not be rudely outvoted in the NC, it can help the
>> DNSO to recommend more balanced DN policies to the ICANN Board.
>> 
> Yes.

> Then there are the end users, everyone who uses DNS, many without knowing
> it is there. Organisations like EFF or GLIC that work for network civil
> rights, and might claim to represent users' interests, have a far better
> claim to ICANN representation than "IP" lawyers ever will.

Joop is so fixated on trying to turn his failed IDNO effort into a
constituency that he fails to see the bigger picture.  He thinks that
making his group a constituency in the DNSO will be the panacea to
solve the problems in the DNSO.

This is a fallacy.  As Harold already pointed out so well, and your
own statements seem to back up, the constituency structure has
inherent flaws, and no single constituency being recognized
(regardless of the lack of merit of the one being discussed in
specific by Joop) will solve those problems and fix the system.

I agree there needs to be more representation, I also agree with
Harald, Karl Auerbach, and yourself that the constituency structure is
not the best way to achieve that.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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, 31 Aug 2000 09:00:44 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Components of a new DNSO structure

I do not know if it is possible to replace the constituency structure with 
something better.

But I suspect that a better structure would contain at least the following 
elements:

- - A forum where any voice capable of expressing itself reasonably can be
   heard.
   The GA attempts to fulfil this function now; opinions vary on whether it is
   a success at that.

- - A principle that working groups should consist of all the people willing and
   capable of giving competent input, PRESENT AS INDIVIDUALS.
   Working group reports should be given in the name of the working group
   chair(s), with lists of persons "supporting" or "opposing". NOT
   representing; "in MY honest opinion" support or opposition.

- - Some kind of organization capable of accepting or rejecting the output of
   a working group, selected on a basis that people acknowledge as reasonable.
   NOT an organization with the power to make detailed policy on their own.
   This is the place on the organization chart where the current NC sits.

It's possible that the constituencies have a place in determining the 
"reasonable" composition of the decision function; it's certain that the 
constituencies currently serve to activate many of the people we need to 
work in working groups.

But I believe that they do not serve an useful function if we attempt to 
position them as debate partners.

            Harald

- --
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, 31 Aug 2000 08:50:28 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Clarification w/r/t Jonathan Cohen's Involvement in Work ing Group B

At 21:02 30/08/2000 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>The UDRP arbitrators do not have
>competent jurisditction. Even if you call it an arbitration panel, MHSC
>has had their domain since 1995, long before ICANN, and is not bound by
>any sort of arbitration mandate in our contract with NSI.

The UDRP is not an arbitration panel. WIPO carefully avoided recommending 
that it should be one in its report, and later revisions have kept that 
distance.

Arbitration (in most jurisdictions) is legally binding on the parties, and 
not subject to being taken to court if dissatisfied.
The UDRP is different in both aspects.

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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, 31 Aug 2000 11:17:05 +0200
From: Jean-Michel Becar <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Components of a new DNSO structure

Harald,

My perception of the actual constituency system is the following: each
constituency is working from its point of view (they defend their interets,
that's fair) but we don't have any structure to consolidate the different
views, so too many voices go to the NC... the idea could be to give to GA
the ability to build and to ensure consensus before to pass to the NC a
Working Group Paper or Recommendation. 

My view may be add a step in the process but could bring to the DNSO a way
for all constituencies to meet and to discuss. My experience of the ICANN
meetings gives to me the perception (but may be I'm wrong here it's just a
personnel feeling) of clubs (constituencies) working in their own corner,
behind the doors without talking to each other. So I believe that the GA
could be the ideal place for that and I would like to see a closer
collaboration between each of the constituencies through the GA.
This should be easy to put in place.

For example today I assume that the regsitar constituency is working on the
introdution of new gTLDS and they are working hard, but we don't know and we
don't have a clue of what is going on ....and this is one of the most
important subject of the today DNSO's mision.

Those are my personnel opinions for today and feel free to tell me if I'm
wrong.

Regards,

Jean-Michel Becar
Project Manager
www.etsi.org
tel: + 33 4 92 94 43 15
fax: +33 4 92 38 52 15
gm: +33 6 82 80 19 31

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 9:01 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Components of a new DNSO structure

I do not know if it is possible to replace the constituency structure with 
something better.

But I suspect that a better structure would contain at least the following 
elements:

- - A forum where any voice capable of expressing itself reasonably can be
   heard.
   The GA attempts to fulfil this function now; opinions vary on whether it
is
   a success at that.

- - A principle that working groups should consist of all the people willing
and
   capable of giving competent input, PRESENT AS INDIVIDUALS.
   Working group reports should be given in the name of the working group
   chair(s), with lists of persons "supporting" or "opposing". NOT
   representing; "in MY honest opinion" support or opposition.

- - Some kind of organization capable of accepting or rejecting the output of
   a working group, selected on a basis that people acknowledge as
reasonable.
   NOT an organization with the power to make detailed policy on their own.
   This is the place on the organization chart where the current NC sits.

It's possible that the constituencies have a place in determining the 
"reasonable" composition of the decision function; it's certain that the 
constituencies currently serve to activate many of the people we need to 
work in working groups.

But I believe that they do not serve an useful function if we attempt to 
position them as debate partners.

            Harald

- --
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, 31 Aug 2000 06:02:41 -0300
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Components of a new DNSO structure

Harald, et al...

Your comment about WGs being composed of people "PRESENT AS INDIVIDUALS"
is a good point. The "stakeholders" (the constituencies) presumably are all
interested in  "keeping the Internet going". Ultimately, without some solid
policy, which, by the very nature of the Internet, must be international in
scope, the Internet cannot grow and expand. It IS in the working groups that
the policy is devloped. (albeit sometimes very slowly). One can only assume
that those who are in the working groups are there because they are
committed to the work. One can hope that they will think and act with
consideration for all stakeholders (constituencies) while they pursue an
outcome which will contribute to the advancement of the Internet as a whole.

The concept of an organization "accepting or rejecting" the output of a
working group _could_ be construed as making policy, if only by negation.

Perhaps any output of a working group that is unacceptable in its current
form should simply be returned to that group with comment for further work,
rather than being summarily rejected.

peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Harald
Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 3:01 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Components of a new DNSO structure

I do not know if it is possible to replace the constituency structure with
something better.

But I suspect that a better structure would contain at least the following
elements:

- - A forum where any voice capable of expressing itself reasonably can be
   heard.
   The GA attempts to fulfil this function now; opinions vary on whether it
is
   a success at that.

- - A principle that working groups should consist of all the people willing
and
   capable of giving competent input, PRESENT AS INDIVIDUALS.
   Working group reports should be given in the name of the working group
   chair(s), with lists of persons "supporting" or "opposing". NOT
   representing; "in MY honest opinion" support or opposition.

- - Some kind of organization capable of accepting or rejecting the output of
   a working group, selected on a basis that people acknowledge as
reasonable.
   NOT an organization with the power to make detailed policy on their own.
   This is the place on the organization chart where the current NC sits.

It's possible that the constituencies have a place in determining the
"reasonable" composition of the decision function; it's certain that the
constituencies currently serve to activate many of the people we need to
work in working groups.

But I believe that they do not serve an useful function if we attempt to
position them as debate partners.

            Harald

- --
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, 31 Aug 2000 10:52:02 +0100
From: "Louise Ferguson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

James and all
Some reactions to James Love's remarks:
- - what is your definition of a domain name? On which grounds do you think
> IP is concerned? Do you consider that owning a domain name is the same as
> using it? Which solutions would you propose to get rid legally and fairly
> of cybersquatting?

    When the question is raised 'what do you propose to do about
cybersquatting', you first have to answer the question 'what is a
cybersquatter'. And a trademark lawyer hired by WIPO will not have the same
definition as you or me. When we say we must have a policy to tackle
squatting, he will agree, and you will both believe you agree, but both will
have different idea of what cybersquatting is. Hence the confusion we have
now.

>     From a perspective of national law in most developed countries, I
> think we are past the point where there is a serious effort to assert
> that domain names have nothing to do with trademarks.

They don't have 'nothing to do with' but by their very nature they cannot
map one to one. 42 classes x 200 countries  = a lot of possible registered
marks for a single term, never mind common law marks. Any attempt to map -
and granting rights under UDRP is an attempt to map - can only be fully
resolved either through 42x200 gTLDs, or by the kind of unwieldy suffix
system such as that introduced in Spain (dell-42.es is the only permissible
domain for the owner of brand 'dell' for class 42), which is just driving
more and more people to dot-com.

>
>     From a traditional consumer/public interest perspective, trademark
> rights should protect the public from misleading representations,

This sounds like trademark lawyer or Francis Gurry-speak: trademark owners
do not have the exclusive right to use a term under trademark law. So why
should they be granted such a right under domain name regulation? Use can
only be misleading if for the same class of goods and services, from the 42
international classes. Which is why any trademark registry will allow me to
register the mark 'Dell' or 'Cadbury' or 'Clue' to operate an airline, run a
meatpacking empire or a shoeshine shop (provided the class has not been
registered), and there's nothing anyone can do about it, WHEREAS Dell
Computer, Cadbury chocolates and Hasbro (Clue boadgame) claim under domain
regulation that they and only they have the right to any use of those terms
in domain names. Trademark lawyers are trying to win territory by pulling
the wool over the eyes of people - and most don't seem to realise it's
happening.

> they should also be limited in important ways, to avoid anticompetitive
> uses of trademarks, or to accommodate a number of other important
> values, such as free speech.

Agreed
>
>    Much of the current problems stem from the artifical scarcity of
> TLDs.  If ICANN would permit an expansion of the TLD space, for a
> variety of names and TLD management policies, there would be far less
> need to litigate disputes.

I am in favour of new TLDs, but I beg to differ with this argument.
Litigeous trademark holders will want each and every occurence of a term,
regardless of whether it's .shop, .web or .troll or .poppycock. Proof of
that is the way for eg l'Oreal tries to litigate every domain name with
'vichy' out of existence (it regularly files £100,000 lawsuits against those
registering domains with 'vichy' - and vichy is the name of a town, a radio
station etc (same goes for Chase Manhatten, which forced small software
company Chase Business Solutions in the UK (chase.co.uk) to charge its whole
corporate ID under threat of litigation, and Barcelona City Council, which
is trying to trademark domain names ranging from barcelona.edu - which it
cannot legally use - to barcelona.net, .org, .com etc etc). It's no longer
just a question of trademark holder against non-trademark holder. It's a
powerful organisation (Chase Manhatten etc) against a smaller one, both of
whom probably have legitimate interests and either registered or common law
trademarks.

Give the airline industry .air or .airlines,
> and let them manage it they way they want.

I'm afraid the airlines won't accept that. Everyone now wants dot-com. In
countries such as Spain, everyone registered .es before and is now
registering .com. Barcelona city Council has applied for 10+ trademarks
identical to other people's domain names, including barcelona.es, but who
did it decide to take to WIPO? Barcelona-dot-COM.
They want .es, .org, .net. etc not to use them, but to stop others from
using them. They own 30+ domain names, but most are unused. People like
Pricewaterhouse Coopers own hundreds, others thousands, most unused. The
difference is PWC and the rest are not getting complaints filed under UDRP.

By creating 50 new TLDs, you are not thereby multipying by 50 the possible
domains, unless the trademark lobby is brought under control.

 Let the labor unions have
> .union, or a rival group have .workers, to manage as they want.  Let the
> music industry get .music, the film industry .cinema or .film (or other
> language versions), and then we would not have everyone fighting over
> .com and .org.

See above
>
>     I think the cybersquatting issue is real, particularly now with few
> TLDs.  I can't get cpt.org, an unused domain.

People have the right NOT to use a domain, for 6 months, for 6 years or for
ever. Since when have I been able to take possession of one of your houses
because you don't live in it? Are my rights to do so affected by the number
of houses you own, by how high you let the grass grow, by whether you put
the house up for sale, or by its state of repair? Can it be repossessed if
your mad dog bites the postman, or if you organise demonstrations in your
front yard? No. The key to economics is the word scarcity. Everything is
limited. But most western nations have established a means of allocating
scarce resources through the medium of money. It's called a market. Markets
have been around for a few thousand years.

I own usability101.com. No site built. Why? I bought it in May. It's for
course-based stuff for my MSc in Human-Computer Interaction, which doesn't
start 'til October. It may later develop into something bigger, commercial,
after the course. I have received a serious offer for the name from the US
(he approached me). If I sell the name and buy another not so good one
because I could do with the money to pay the mortgage, am I speculating?
Usability is a widely used word in the world of internet. I later found out
there's a corporation in the US called something like The Usability Corp,
who owns usability.com. No doubt they have trademarks. I do not. The way
things are going, if they felt litigeous, they could grab usability101.com
off me and the .org and .net (if they've been registered) and a thousand
similar domains, under the UDRP. How can I disprove bad faith, when someone
can wave an e-mail in the air showing money being discussed (for all I know,
the guy who made the offer works for them)?; how can I document legitimate
interest when there's nothing on the web site, I have no trademark etc? Why
do domain owners have to prove they are saints? As they say, let he who is
without sin cast the first stone.

Many of the really
> twisted WIPO UDRP decisions are efforts by the panel members to take
> domains away from speculators.

I disagree - many of the really twisted decisions are taking domains away
from legitimate owners. See Marino Porzio's "better rights" and "more
legitimate interests" argument in case 505, for eg. Many of the really
twisted decisions are coming from (I'm sorry to say this), Latin American
and other non-western panellists who don't seem to know anything about the
internet and show every sign of not ever having used it (see, for eg,
Porzio's argument that users would 'expect to see an official body at
barcelona.com and therefore by the mere fact of having any material at that
domain the domain owner is demonstrating bad faith')

Unfortunately, in their efforts to
> attack the speculators, WIPO panels are creating global trademark policy
> that is far too restrictive, in term of the public's rights.

WIPO panels are not creating global trademark policy. They are creating
global domain name policy.
For
> example, in several cases WIPO panels take away generic names and award
> them to firms that have registered trademarks that use the generic
> name.

thus giving trademark holders more rights over domains than trademark law
gives them in the 'meat' world. See above.

 WIPO panels have been very aggressive with respect to the issue
> of what constitutes a confusingly similiar name.  The notion that
> natwest.com will be confused with natwestsucks.com is absurd, of course,
> but so are the decisions in domains such as catmachine.com and
> caterpillar, crew and jcrew and others.

But what else can you expect when you give trademark lawyers the job of
panellists? This is a fundamental problem with the UDRP. Panellists should
be disinterested neutrals, not people regularly hired to pursue IP claims on
behalf of corporate clients. It's like asking lions to look after a herd of
gazelles, and then wondering why they ate them....
>
> Decisions like kwasizabantu.org
> (http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000-August/000260.html)
> are particularly troubling, where the WIPO panel flatly rejected free
> speech or critiscim as a legitimate use for a domain.   In my opinion,
> the ICANN board has to be more responsive to the problems with the
> UDRP.  I would push for a clearer statement regarding the public's
> rights in these disputes, particularly in the areas of the public's
> rights to use names of firms, products or organizations in a domain that
> was used for criticsm (walmartsucks.com), parody, organizing
> (exxon.union), or for competitive purposes, such as comparisons of rival
> products (cokevpepsi.comparison, aolflaws.com, etc).
>
Hear, hear.

Louise Ferguson
[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, 31 Aug 2000 10:12:43 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Clarification w/r/t Jonathan Cohen's Involvement inWorking Group B

Dear Dennis:

You raise several excellent points that I would like to provide some further
clarification on.

1) Thanks for the Political Correct "PC" label.  There have been many
e-mails that I have written only to delete them before hitting the send
button. The ICANN process has a way of raising one's blood pressure.

2) I genuinely regreted your resignation from Working Group B and I asked
you on several occasions to reconsider your decision.  As I have disclosed
in most reports associated with Working Group B, the majority of the
participants were trademark owners. However, because of the restrictions
placed on participation in Working Group A, any one that asked to join was
added to the list. I did not believe that I had the authority to pick and
choose participants. During the first months I spent a significant amount of
time getting representation from ALL constituencies. After LA, I saw that
the heavy concentration of trademark types was a problem. That is why I
contacted Eric Menge and asked for his help in increasing participation
among the little guys.  As a result, Eric was able to arrange for several
Working Group B teleconferences. As I reported to the Names Counsel, lack of
proper funding limits the outreach and effort of a Working Group.

3) As a trademark attorney I acknowledge that trademark rights are NOT
absolute. I also acknowledge that there are probably situtations that exist
where a trademark owner prevails in a dispute NOT based upon the merits of
the case but because of the economics of the situation. However, life is not
fair. Although the trademark community had a significance representation in
Working Group B, they did not dictate the process (but they did have a LOUD
voice). If they did hijack the process I believe that WIPO would be working
on the creation of a Famous Marks list as we speak. The fact that Working
Group B reached consensus in NOT creating a list is a MAJOR departure from
the WIPO report. To my knowledge Working Group A & C pretty much adopted the
WIPO recommendations in whole. I think that the remaining non-trademark
Working Group B participants made a difference and it should not be
overlooked.

4) I agree with you that Jamie is a valuable addition to the ICANN family.
People like Jamie, Allen Davidson and Kathy Kleiman keep people honest and
that is invaluable. That is why I stated that he was a qualified candidate.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Schaefer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 8:37 PM
To: Kristy
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Clarification w/r/t Jonathan Cohen's Involvement
inWorking Group B

Kristy--

Michael Palage has written a nice, politically-correct assessment  of the
candidates.

Let me offer a politically incorrect alternative.

I was one of the original volunteers for Working B.  I was also one of the
people
who endorsed Jonathan Cohen for the Board.   I came to regret both these
actions.

Michael is a lawyer, and he seems to benefit from a job that permits him to
travel to meetings, and to work intensively on this topic.  I give him total
credit for what he has done.

I also fault him for failing to include individuals who make up the vast
majority
of domain name owners, and who do not have his resources.   That blind spot
has
made him contribute to the evolution of a Web that is little more than a
global
shopping mall.  If he would care to argue publically about the serious
defects
that caused me to resign from Working Group B, I would be more than happy to
do
so.

If Michael (and Jonathan) could come to realize that free speech trumps
commerce
- -- and that democracy is better than autocracy --   both of them would be
far
better candidates.

Vote for Jamie Love --  the Net is a human resource for the benefit of all
people.

>Dennis Schaefer

Kristy wrote:

> Do any of these folks have any technical knowledge of the systems?
>
> Could any of these folks build a network and get it online with hardware
and
> software only to help them along?
>
> ?
>
> ~k
>
> At 01:22 PM 8/30/2000 , Michael D. Palage wrote:
> >I am writing this email in response to a posting last week regarding
> >Jonathan Cohen's involvement in Working Group B. Let me begin by
disclosing
> >that I nominated Jonathan for reelection to the ICANN Board. I believe
that
> >I am qualified to describe Jonathan's involvement in Working Group B, as
I
> >was the original co-chair with Jonathan. After his election to the ICANN
> >Board, I functioned as sole chair for several months until the Names
Counsel
> >appointed Kathy Kleiman and Philip Sheppard as joint Names Counsel
Liaisons.
> >
> >Working Group B was created last May at the regional ICANN meeting in
> >Berlin, Germany, along with Working Groups A & C. Jonathan Cohen and
Amadeu
> >Abril were appointed co-chairs of Working Group A. Because of some of the
> >criticisms surrounding the procedures in Working Group A, it was decided
> >that the one co-chair would be appointed by the Names Council and the
other
> >would be elected by the groups participants. I was elected as the
alternate
> >chair by default when no one else expressed an interest. This election
took
> >place prior to the ICANN Regional meeting in Santiago, Chile.
> >
> >At this time, Working Group B was still in the formative stage, with no
more
> >than twenty initial members. After the Santiago meeting, Jonathan
announced
> >his intention to run for a position on the ICANN Board. Following this
> >announcement, Jonathan undertook a less visible role within the Working
> >Group B process, although he continued to offer his insight and expertise
> >leading up to the election.
> >
> >After his election to the ICANN Board for a period of one year, I
continued
> >to serve as the sole chair of Working Group B until the appointment of
Kathy
> >and Philip by the Names Counsel several months later.
> >
> >Having made this clarification, I would like to offer my insights on some
of
> >the candidates running for election to the ICANN Board from the DNSO.
> >
> >The reason that I nominated Jonathan for reelection was because of his
> >diverse skill set and his record to date. Two of the bigger challenges
> >facing the ICANN Board in the near future are overseeing the proof of
> >concept phase for new top-level domains, including any potential issues
> >involving the intellectual property community, and increasing involvement
> >among ccTLD registry operators in the ICANN process. I believe that
Jonathan
> >is uniquely qualified to handles these challenges based upon his
expertise
> >as an intellectual property attorney and in his involvement in the
Canadian
> >ccTLD registry.
> >
> >Although I believe that Jonathan is the most qualified candidate for
> >election to the Board, there are several other candidates with impressive
> >credentials that could make a contribution to the Board. For example,
Jamie
> >Love has recently became a very active participant within the ICANN
process.
> >The best word to describe Jamie is passionate. Although I may not always
> >agree with Jamie's viewpoints, I respect his unwavering dedication to his
> >beliefs. I personally hope that Jamie considers running for the recently
> >vacant Names Counsel position within the Non-Commercial Constituency. I
> >believe that involvement at the Names Counsel level will provide Jamie
with
> >some valuable hands on experience with regard to the ICANN process.
> >
> >Turning my attention to Ron Weikers, I have know Ron for several years
and
> >use to working with him at a law firm in Philadelphia. Although Ron has a
> >solid technical and legal background, he is a relative newcomer to the
ICANN
> >process. I have reservations about his ability to get up to speed on the
> >issues confronting the Board, specifically those involving the ccTLDs.
> >
> >With regard to the remaining candidates, Peter LeBlanc appears to be a
> >popular candidate although I have never had the privilege of meeting him.
I
> >have a great deal of respect for several of the people that have endorsed
> >his candidacy. Peter's strength appears to be in the ccTLD community,
which
> >as mentioned above is highly important at this point in time. In reading
> >Peter's acceptance/position statement, however, it appears that his
primary
> >focus is advancing the interests of the ccTLD community. I believe that
the
> >strongest candidate should be the one that has his/her finger on the
pulse
> >of every constituency.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >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>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

- --
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, 31 Aug 2000 07:24:56 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 10:52:02AM +0100, Louise Ferguson wrote:
> >     I think the cybersquatting issue is real, particularly now with few
> > TLDs.  I can't get cpt.org, an unused domain.
> 
> People have the right NOT to use a domain, for 6 months, for 6 years or for
> ever.

No, they don't.  The "rights" that go with a domain are purely defined 
through contracts and laws, and those "rights" are being developed as 
we speak.

> Since when have I been able to take possession of one of your houses
> because you don't live in it? Are my rights to do so affected by the number
> of houses you own, by how high you let the grass grow, by whether you put
> the house up for sale, or by its state of repair? Can it be repossessed if
> your mad dog bites the postman, or if you organise demonstrations in your
> front yard? No.

Yes.  Every one of those things, under some circumstance or another, 
can affect your "right" to your real property.

There are no a priori "rights" to domain names -- no rights of free 
speech or expression, no rights of possession or ownership.  People are 
busily trying to *assert* rights to domain names, but nobody is 
special, it's just a free-for-all of people saying "mine mine mine", 
and the winners are yet to be determined.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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 #132
************************