Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #133
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, September 1 2000          Volume 01 : Number 133

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

Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 02:49:39 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  DNSO ICANN board member

Louise

Ignore Kent - he's too ridiculous for words.

Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 12:24 AM
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
>

- --
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 13:05:16 -0700
From: Kristy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Clarification w/r/t Jonathan Cohen's Involvement in   Working Group B

Unfortunately, understanding how the computer works is directly related to job
performance in our arena.  These gentlefolk want to represent us:  nearly all
of us have worked on development of the Internet infastructure at one time or
another.  I suggest that if our candidates do not have basic technological
knowledge, they will not have the ability to make good decisions for us.

:)

~k

At 07:36 PM 8/30/2000 , Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 17:01 30/08/00 -0700, 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?
>>
>
>Why do you think such an aptitude test is necessary?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--Joop--
><http://www.idno.org/>www.idno.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>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 20:46:21 +0200
From: "Alf Hansen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

Liz,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Liz
> Bartlett
> Sent: 30. august 2000 21:08
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)
>
>
> At 07:55 PM 8/30/00 +0200, Alf Hansen wrote:
> >I think we could change a lot if we focused on "DNSO", Domain
> Name Support
> >Organization", as one common group of people (like At-Large
> which also is a
> >large group of people with different interests).
> >
> >This large group of people in DNSO have one thing in common: They are
> >interested in Domain Names and the development of the Domain
> Name structure
> >in the Internet.....
>
> This brings up a point which has worried me for a while - what it
> the nature of the dividing line between members of DNSO, and At-Large
> members? There seem to be a large number of individuals who are
> members of both groups - and no rule in place to stop someone from
> being nominated to stand for the ICANN board in both venues, in the
> hope of doubling their chances of "getting in".
>
> The ICANN web site doesn't help in defining this at all; if a person
> reads the descriptions of the DNSO sections, and finds they fit one of
> them, should they then resign as an At-Large member? (And let's not get
> side-tracked into a discussion on the merits or otherwise of the ICANN
> web site - this has already been covered in many places!)
>
> Alf's second paragraph above would seem to apply equally to the At-Large
> membership as it does to DNSO membership.

That is not exactly what I ment. DNSO elects 3 Directors. At-Large 5 (later
probably 9). That is not equality.

> And if it is the defining
> characteristic of DNSO members, why does it also appear to be the
> most dominent qualification for people standing for At-Large nominations?

I do not think there is simple answer to that question. As I have said
before (on other discussion lists), an ICANN Director is personal
responsible and must work for the best of ICANN as a whole, and not just for
one constituency in DNSO or one group of At-Large members. A Board member
represents himself (herself) and not certain groups, even if she (he) has
support from various groups of people.

It is up to the electorat to vote for the preferred candidate.

>
> --Liz
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Liz Bartlett*http://www.khyri.com/            110 E. Wilshire Ave.#G-1
> Idyll Mountain Internet*http://www.idyllmtn.com/   Fullerton, CA 92832
> Virtual Dog Show Co-ordinator*http://www.dogshow.com/   (714) 526-5656
> Tibetan Mastiff Web Site*http://www.tibetanmastiffs.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
>

Best regards,
Alf H

- --
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 13:58:09 -0700
From: Kristy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Kent,

I suppose I should start looking in the mail for the note from the US Govn't
that arrives every year demanding I not farm my farmland.  Oh never mind, I
just got my check from them.  Is the next government step to remove my rights
to ownership of said land since it is not inuse and would make a damn good
electrical power plant area?

I suggest that this is what you meant by this message below.  I have
written to
you to give you an opportunity to be more clear, agree with my assesment of
your writing or disagree.

Thank you.

:)

~k

At 07:24 AM 8/31/2000 , Kent Crispin wrote:
>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>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 14:05:32 -0700
From: Kristy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN's delay

Well folks,

I am one of many who wrote to ICANN to tell them that with all the technical
problems they have both encountered and created for themselves, they might
consider pushing back the deadlines.  I actually referenced Chirs in a note to
ICANN because I did not feel it was fair to exclude any one from any part of
the process and Chris had not received his PIN.  I think ICANN is trying to
work with us mostly because we are trying to work with them.  Although, I have
not been pleased by any of this Internet Governance Nonsense:  I thank ICANN
for pushing back the deadlines and enabling more People to participate.

Sorry to upset anyone.

:)

~k

At 07:48 PM 8/3/2000 , Dennis Schaefer wrote:
>Chris and Roberto--
>
>ICANN has succeeded at snowing the lamebrains on the Commerce Committee into
>endless delays.   We won't mention the US Department of Commerce, for
>obvious reasons.
>
>ICANN is an international trade cartel of intellectual property interests.
>DNSO is its principle arm.
>
>Last year Jonathan Cohen (or one of his clones) announced at an NC meeting
>that businesses had a bona fide "interest" in domain names whereas
>individuals had no such interest.
>
>In fact, individuals have a higher interest -- a liberty interest. Now that
>ICANN has created a new world judicial body with the UDRP, hopefully,
>individuals will begin to see that cartels like ICANN are a threat to
>liberty that can only be relieved by throwing out the business-dominated
>machines that control them.
>
>Regards
>
>>Dennis Schaefer
>Marblehead MA
>USA
>
>
>
>Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
>> Chris,
>>
>> >This delay is intolerable. The board voted and passed a resolution with
>>  a
>> >timetable. Now the "staff" decides to delay? Who is the "staff" to
>> overturn
>> >a board-ratified resolution?
>> >
>> >Where is the documentation and evidence for this huge decision? I call
>> upon
>> >ICANN to publish and disclose the "inquiries" that were received that
>> caused
>> >this delay. Where are the minutes of the board meeting where this
>> decision
>> >was made? How did the board members vote - or, as it appears, was this
>> >indeed a decision on the part of "staff?"
>> >
>> >Delaying a month, and cutting the application period down to less than
>> a
>> >month, with no prior notice, and against a board-debated and passed
>> >resolution goes beyond any expectation of fair and open process.
>> >
>>
>> What can I add?
>>
>> Maybe a parallel story.
>> What was the understanding (and expectations) of the people that were in
>>  Yokohama about member-nomination?
>> I heard an affirmation from the Board about a ratio 1:2 in the committee
>> -nominated vs. member-nominated seats, and a 1 month member-nomination
>> period.
>> What this turns out to be in practice (I take the example I am
>> interested into, i.e. Europe) 5 pre-allocated seat on the ballot, and 15
>>  days (moreover in the traditional European vacation period) to get 719
>> endorsements.
>> Additional nicety: no whatsoever answer from "ICANN Staff" to the
>> questions I am repeatedly asking about modalities for submission of
>> candidatures.
>> And, BTW, the recent instructions at ICANN's (see http://
>> members.icann.org/memcand.html) read:
>>
>> "If you would like to submit your name as a candidate for member-
>> nomination, please send an email to [email-masked] to obtain
>> instructions"
>>
>> You would expect to receive an E-Mail in answer to your request. Well,
>> good luck, I'm still waiting.
>>
>> But then, as I commented few minutes ago on a different subject, "so
>> what?". Didn't we know it already? And is it a sufficient reason to give
>>  up?
>>
>> My answer is "no". And I know that yours is "no" as well. The problem is
>>  how to get organized to be effective, not how to express a (sterile?)
>> protest.
>>
>> We are on opposite sides of the fence on many subjects, but we have
>> known eachother for so long that I hope you will accept my friendly
>> advice.
>> Don't be upset, make sure you can make it with the new deadlines, be
>> ready for more surprises.
>> In all fairness, that's what I am doing for *my* issue with ICANN.
>>
>> But what do the others think?
>>
>> Regards
>> Roberto
>> --
>> 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>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 12:26:22 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 01:58:09PM -0700, Kristy wrote:
> Kent,
> 
> I suppose I should start looking in the mail for the note from the US Govn't
> that arrives every year demanding I not farm my farmland.  Oh never mind, I
> just got my check from them.  Is the next government step to remove my rights
> to ownership of said land since it is not inuse and would make a damn good
> electrical power plant area?

Sure -- that's known as "eminent domain".  The government can indeed
take away your land, to, for example, build a power plant, whether it is
in use or not.  This happens all the time.  They are required to 
compensate you for it, but that is an implementation detail -- the 
bottom line is that your "ownership" of real property is not at all 
absolute.  

You can test this easily -- just stop paying your property taxes. 

"Ownership" and "property rights" are *not* simple things.  
Buying real property, for example a house, is a very complicated affair 
legally, and it is vastly different from registering a domain name.

> I suggest that this is what you meant by this message below.  I have
> written to
> you to give you an opportunity to be more clear, agree with my assesment of
> your writing or disagree.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

The arguments that use analogies between "ownership" of real property
and registration of domain names are simple minded idiotic garbage, and
anyone who had even a shred of pride in their intellectual abilities
should avoid them like they were thrice used kitty litter. 

> 
> Thank you.

Thanks once again for the opportunity to clarify. :-)

Kent

- -- 
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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:33:05 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Hello Kent,

Thursday, August 31, 2000, 12:26:22 PM, you wrote:

> Sure -- that's known as "eminent domain".  The government can indeed
> take away your land, to, for example, build a power plant, whether it is

With due process of law, and with adequate compensation for its worth.

Neither of which is in place for domain names being unlawfully taken
away from domain name holders under a supralegal policy called the
UDRP, which has consistently set a higher level of protection for
trademarks and other marks than the laws of any country allow.

The UDRP needs to be completely scraped, the issues of marks
protection belongs in the courts, not in the hands of the UDRP panels.

- -- 
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 13:49:00 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 01:33:05PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello Kent,
> 
> Thursday, August 31, 2000, 12:26:22 PM, you wrote:
> 
> > Sure -- that's known as "eminent domain".  The government can indeed
> > take away your land, to, for example, build a power plant, whether it is
> 
> With due process of law, and with adequate compensation for its worth.

Of course.

> Neither of which is in place for domain names being unlawfully taken

Irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that property rights are
not simple, and that comparisons between ownership of real property and 
registration of domain names are worthless and misleading.  

Whatever rights may exist in domain names are being created; they do not
preexist.  

- -- 
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

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

Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 00:41:34 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Dear Kent,
I have not the pleasure yet to know you and your positions.
I am rather new on this ML. I am quite excited to find at last
some of these bad people: when you want to evaluate a
situation you like to meet con and pros.

However I am rather dispointed too because you just speak
loud, but not clear. Could you please substantiate some
points?

At 16:24 31/08/00, you wrote:
>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.

What is your legal difinition of a Domain Name? You may know that
I am like Diogene calling for it. At least I did not find it the definitions
of the U[DN]DRP. Could you please tell me wich *law* do you refer
to (I am quite excited about this big piece of news). I am not a lawyer
but I suppose you cannot oppose Louise "rights" (I like you put the
word between brakets as you meant they are no real rights) which
are not yet developped. Would they be ad hominem rights?

> > 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.

This requires an authority to determine the circumstances and legitimate
the restriction or the removal. Internet belongs to everyone as it is nothing
(inter-net is like inter-national or the air you breath). There is no other
legitimacy for a decision to be taken and respected than mutual agreement
or war. Do you really mean "your rights are okay until I invade you"?

>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.

Could you elaborate on this.
Thx. Jefsey

- --
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 18:37:48 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 12:41:34AM +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
[...]
> >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.
> 
> What is your legal difinition of a Domain Name?

There is no legal definition of a domain name, but laws are being passed
that deal with domain names, and those laws define the rights that apply
to domain names. 

[...]

> >Yes.  Every one of those things, under some circumstance or another,
> >can affect your "right" to your real property.
> 
> This requires an authority to determine the circumstances and legitimate
> the restriction or the removal. 

Of course.

> Internet belongs to everyone as it is nothing
> (inter-net is like inter-national or the air you breath). There is no other
> legitimacy for a decision to be taken and respected than mutual agreement
> or war. Do you really mean "your rights are okay until I invade you"?

That's not what I wrote.

> >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.
> 
> Could you elaborate on this.

There are actively competing theories about what rights belong to domain
names.  These are theories, not realities.  Protagonists for the various
theories try to convince lawmakers to implement their view, with varying
degrees of success.  But the situation is not stable, 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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:13:17 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Clarification w/r/t Jonathan Cohen's Involvement inWorking Group B

At 10:12 AM 8/31/00 -0400, Mike Palage wrote:
>[snip]
>To my knowledge Working Group A & C pretty much adopted the
>WIPO recommendations in whole.
>[snip]

	The gist of the WIPO report relevant to Working Group C was that once
UDRP, famous mark protection, and whois changes were in place, it would be
possible to contemplate slow and controlled introduction of new gTLDs,
contingent on findings that the new trademark-protective procedures really
were working to address trademark owners' concerns.  Working Group C took
the opposite approach, declining to establish any linkage between the
creation of new trademark protections and the WG's recommendations for the
rollout of new gTLDs (six to ten in the initial deployment, followed by an
evaluation period).  To quote the WG-C report:  "Within the working group,
the argument that ICANN should impose substantial delays on the initial
deployment of new gTLDs in the interest of adopting or perfecting
trademark-protective mechanisms won little support except from Intellectual
Property constituency members."

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[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 20:06:17 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

>> What is your legal difinition of a Domain Name?
> 
> There is no legal definition of a domain name,...

FYI. The Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act includes:

  "The term 'domain name' means any alphanumeric designation
   which is registered with or assigned by any domain name
   registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name
   registration authority as part of an electronic
   address on the Internet."

         -- Bret

- --
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 23:26:36 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] new TLDs

OK.  I rarely post to this list, but I have something to say.
I have received several emails recently that basically said
everybody will immediately register everything in any new TLD
that is put up.  I don't know if this is good or not.  Yes, I am
in the IP group, but I am independent and I thought I should
share this observation.
Otho Ross
- --
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 20:40:13 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 08:06:17PM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> >> What is your legal difinition of a Domain Name?
> > 
> > There is no legal definition of a domain name,...
> 
> FYI. The Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act includes:
> 
>   "The term 'domain name' means any alphanumeric designation
>    which is registered with or assigned by any domain name
>    registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name
>    registration authority as part of an electronic
>    address on the Internet."

I stand corrected.  Of course, it is defined in terms of "domain name 
registrars" and so on -- ie, it's circular.  :-)

- -- 
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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 21:56:08 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 08:40 PM 8/31/00 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>I stand corrected.  Of course, it is defined in terms of "domain name
>registrars" and so on -- ie, it's circular.  :-)

Somehow, it is comforting that a hierarchical system has a circular 
definition...

d/

- --
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, 1 Sep 2000 07:34:58 +0200
From: "Alf Hansen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] new TLDs

Hi,

If this is the result of new gTLDs, we have lost.

A TLD should really mean something. The policy for each TLD should be clear
and well published, and give the registrant a clear idea about which TLD he
should registrer under.

This scheme is for the best of the consumer, and also for the provider.

Best regards,
Alf H

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: 1. september 2000 05:27
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] new TLDs
>
>
> OK.  I rarely post to this list, but I have something to say.
> I have received several emails recently that basically said
> everybody will immediately register everything in any new TLD
> that is put up.  I don't know if this is good or not.  Yes, I am
> in the IP group, but I am independent and I thought I should
> share this observation.
> Otho Ross
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 02:02:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Candidate positions on UDRP

Having commented extensively on my views on the issue of trademarks,
domain names and the UDRP, I would like to hear from Jonathan Cohen,
Peter de Blanc and Ronald Weikers about their views.  In particular, do
these candidates believe, as I do, that the UDRP has gone too far in
protecting trademark owners, and that ICANN should do more to protect the
public's rights to use firm, product or organization names in domains in
connection with free speech, criticism, parody, for competitive or
comparative purposes, or to organize.  Also, do they feel, as I do, that
the WIPO panels are making bad decisions on the issues of what is
"identical or confusingly similar," or if they are as concerned as I am
that WIPO panels are taking away generic names from domain holders.

  Jamie Love

=============================================
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology    
P.O. Box 19367        | http://www.cptech.org 
Washington, DC 20036  | [email-masked]       
Voice 202/387-8030    | Fax 202/234-5176     
=============================================

- --
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, 1 Sep 2000 02:13:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

What is the ICANN definition an alternative root?  The ICANN staff
stated in the TLD RFC that:

     "The introduction of the proposed TLD should not disrupt current
operations, nor should it create alternate root systems, which threaten
the existence of a globally unique public name space."

    Does a definition of an aternative root system exist?

  Jamie

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 08:40 PM 8/31/00 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >I stand corrected.  Of course, it is defined in terms of "domain name
> >registrars" and so on -- ie, it's circular.  :-)
> 
> 
> Somehow, it is comforting that a hierarchical system has a circular 
> definition...
> 
> d/
> 
> --
> 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
> 

=============================================
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology    
P.O. Box 19367        | http://www.cptech.org 
Washington, DC 20036  | [email-masked]       
Voice 202/387-8030    | Fax 202/234-5176     
=============================================

- --
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 23:24:52 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

DNS root subject to independently administered TLD assignments.

d/

At 02:13 AM 9/1/00 -0400, James Love wrote:

>What is the ICANN definition an alternative root?  The ICANN staff
>stated in the TLD RFC that:
>
>      "The introduction of the proposed TLD should not disrupt current
>operations, nor should it create alternate root systems, which threaten
>the existence of a globally unique public name space."
>
>     Does a definition of an aternative root system exist?

- --
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 #133
************************