Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1330
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, July 14 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1330

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:37:07 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

- --=======2BFD3364=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-17DAE28; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 05:46 13/07/02, Joop Teernstra said:
>Good question.
>I also agree that there is nothing registrants can do to stop the 
>introduction of WLS.
>They have to focus on regulation that will minimize harm from the WLS.

simple.

1. subscribe a WLS for att.com; mercedes.com, tata.com and cocacola.com
2. wait for ATT, MB, Tata & Sons and Coca-Cola to renew their domain names 
contracts
3. set-up a jolly good lawyers' club
4. inform a few journalists
5. register wls-att.com, wls-mercedes.com, wls-tata.com and wls-cocacola.com
6. make them car, spanish music, family, and agricultural stand-by web 
sites projects
7. wait for the legal fun

jfc

- --=======2BFD3364=======--

- --
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: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 12:36:40 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [ga] Why so long

Yes. Thanks, Thomas.

Saturday, July 13, 2002, 4:09:44 AM, Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> wrote:
TR> On 2002-07-12 10:32:45 -0500, Don Brown wrote:

[inserted '>>' character]

>>">From a slightly different perspective, a party can currently obtain
>>service from several different sources (SnapNames, included) and there
>>is competition between them. If ICANN approves WLS, then there will be
>>only one source. So, in that scope your statement is true, since ICANN
>>would be getting in the way of free enterprise and not fostering
>>competition."

TR> It's a very common problem which has its origins with the "mbox"  
TR> mail folder format first introduced in Version 6 AT&T Unix.  In  
TR> these mail folders, messages are stored as plain text, separated by  
TR> lines like this one:

TR>         From [email-masked]  Sat Jul 13 10:30:00 2002

TR> Of course, when such a line occurs within a message, mail reading 
TR> software would get confused, and would detect a message separator in 
TR> the wrong place.

TR> For that reason, it's still common to escape such lines by  
prepending a ">>" characer in front of them.  

TR> (With MIME's quoted-printable or flowed text, you can play other  
TR> tricks to avoid the problem without changing what's presented to the 
TR> user.)

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 12:51:52 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-07-12 09:31:47 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
>
> >The registrars have already tacitly agreed that not all
> >anticompetitive acts taken by those under contract with ICANN are
> >ICANN's responsibility to sort out.
>
> Nobody could disagree with this.

  I somewhat disagree with this as a blanket statement.  Yes, as Bret said
"anti competitive acts taken by those under contract with ICANN
are ICANN's responsibility", but only in part.  The stakeholders/users
and DOC/NTIA, are also equally responsible as well.  Hence, in that
ICANN is contracted to DOC/NTIA, and the MoU and White paper
require that stakeholders/users are equal partners, than the ICANN
BoD and staff must seek solutions that satisfy their responsibility
contractually and meet the needs and desires of the stakeholders/usres.

>  As I said before, WLS has some
> aspects which may best be dealt with in court, and some aspects
> which can _only_ be dealt with within the ICANN process: Squashing
> existing businesses isn't something you can fix by establishing and
> enforcing a consensus policy - just like illegal advertising,
> defamation, and all that stuff.  Hoarding, however, is an issue
> which could be fixed that way - and it should be fixed, _before_ WLS
> can start.

  Agreed here to a point.  One must first define what HOARDING
as a practice is.

>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>

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: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 13:54:17 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

Thomas Roessler wrote:
> Nobody could disagree with this.  As I said before, WLS has some
> aspects which may best be dealt with in court, and some aspects
> which can _only_ be dealt with within the ICANN process...

That's just right! What I'm trying to articulate -- and I'm doing a fair
amount of thinking out loud here -- is a decision-making philosophy for
ICANN by which ICANN looks to defer a decision to another forum/arbiter
whenever possible. It decides only those matters that only it can decide.

This might mean making a determination as to whether the WLS created
instability for the .com TLD or the Internet as a whole. It might mean
examining other technical issues associated with the implementation of WLS.

But if the registrars had a remedy at law for a registry's anticompetitive
behavior, then ICANN would intentionally pass on that issue, taking care to
preserve everyone's legal rights so they could be pursued elsewhere.

Of course, if ICANN had adopted such a decision-making philosophy from the
beginning, we never would have had the UDRP. But it's easy to grant the UDRP
a special grandfather status in a reformed ICANN and look to narrow ICANN's
mission for the future to those matters that only it can deal with
effectively.

    -- 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: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 14:00:54 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

Sorry, Bret, but a case could be made for a party to always have a
remedy at law, and thus allow ICANN to avoid making any decisions.

That is just not reasonable or workable.

Saturday, July 13, 2002, 1:54:17 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:

> Thomas Roessler wrote:
>> Nobody could disagree with this.  As I said before, WLS has some
>> aspects which may best be dealt with in court, and some aspects
>> which can _only_ be dealt with within the ICANN process...

> That's just right! What I'm trying to articulate -- and I'm doing a fair
> amount of thinking out loud here -- is a decision-making philosophy for
> ICANN by which ICANN looks to defer a decision to another forum/arbiter
> whenever possible. It decides only those matters that only it can decide.

> This might mean making a determination as to whether the WLS created
> instability for the .com TLD or the Internet as a whole. It might mean
> examining other technical issues associated with the implementation of WLS.

> But if the registrars had a remedy at law for a registry's anticompetitive
> behavior, then ICANN would intentionally pass on that issue, taking care to
> preserve everyone's legal rights so they could be pursued elsewhere.

> Of course, if ICANN had adopted such a decision-making philosophy from the
> beginning, we never would have had the UDRP. But it's easy to grant the UDRP
> a special grandfather status in a reformed ICANN and look to narrow ICANN's
> mission for the future to those matters that only it can deal with
> effectively.

>     -- Bret

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

- -- 
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: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 17:59:48 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

I am not clear about how ICANN, by deferring a decision, has any
bearing on preserving anyone's rights.

Fundamentally, ICANN has certain rights and obligations pursuant to
the MoU. It has contracts with Registries and with Registrars.
Normally, all properly crafted contracts provide that an omission or
inaction is not considered a waiver of rights under a contract and
that the rights and obligations are cumulative and can be exercised at
any time and time from time to time. IOW, if they do not enforce a
provision, for whatever reason, they can still enforce it later.

I fail to see how enforcing a provision or not enforcing a provision
operates to preserve, or not to preserve, any third party's rights.

I think it boils down to ICANN's rights and obligations under the MoU
and its rights and obligations under its contracts with others.

One of ICANN's obligations, and its only success as admitted during
the congressional hearings, is to foster competition.

Transforming an already competitive market into a monopoly registry
service can hardly be considered as fostering competition. Even if the
price was $0.50, 100% of the gross proceeds would be donated to
charity and the service was 100% guaranteed to benefit the consumer,
that would still not justify thwarting free enterprise and open market
competition or for ICANN to ignore its obligation to foster
competition.

Sometime, we make things so complicated that they become convoluted
and we loose track of the forest because of all those darn trees.

Thanks,

Saturday, July 13, 2002, 3:54:17 PM, Bret Fausett <[email-masked]> wrote:
BF> Thomas Roessler wrote:
>> Nobody could disagree with this.  As I said before, WLS has some
>> aspects which may best be dealt with in court, and some aspects
>> which can _only_ be dealt with within the ICANN process...

BF> That's just right! What I'm trying to articulate -- and I'm doing a fair
BF> amount of thinking out loud here -- is a decision-making philosophy for
BF> ICANN by which ICANN looks to defer a decision to another forum/arbiter
BF> whenever possible. It decides only those matters that only it can decide.

BF> This might mean making a determination as to whether the WLS created
BF> instability for the .com TLD or the Internet as a whole. It might mean
BF> examining other technical issues associated with the implementation of WLS.

BF> But if the registrars had a remedy at law for a registry's anticompetitive
BF> behavior, then ICANN would intentionally pass on that issue, taking care to
BF> preserve everyone's legal rights so they could be pursued elsewhere.

BF> Of course, if ICANN had adopted such a decision-making philosophy from the
BF> beginning, we never would have had the UDRP. But it's easy to grant the UDRP
BF> a special grandfather status in a reformed ICANN and look to narrow ICANN's
BF> mission for the future to those matters that only it can deal with
BF> effectively.

BF>     -- Bret

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 21:25:57 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

Don and all assembly members,

  I also fail to see how deferring any decision that is obviously
in the purview of ICANN such as WLS is certainly as a possible
standard or "Best Practice" for registrars, helps to satisfy
any protection of any Registrants or Registrars rights.  The very
thought is completely silly.

  So yes Don, you are quite right that the forest of purposefully
created confusion, as Thomas, our chair has put forth here
yet again.  Too many trees being planted can smother
a healthy stand.  It seems obvious that such is the situation
with WLS and the TR-TF and the delete problem that
needs to be addressed or be allowed to be handled via
the free market approach in accordance with the already
Registrar and Registry contracts.

  So I would have to conclude in part at least, that ICANN
via Joe Sims, is dissatisfied with the original contracts that
he himself crafted for ICANN for registrars and registries,
and is now trying to find a political solution via Verisign
using WLS as the bait..

Don Brown wrote:

> I am not clear about how ICANN, by deferring a decision, has any
> bearing on preserving anyone's rights.
>
> Fundamentally, ICANN has certain rights and obligations pursuant to
> the MoU. It has contracts with Registries and with Registrars.
> Normally, all properly crafted contracts provide that an omission or
> inaction is not considered a waiver of rights under a contract and
> that the rights and obligations are cumulative and can be exercised at
> any time and time from time to time. IOW, if they do not enforce a
> provision, for whatever reason, they can still enforce it later.
>
> I fail to see how enforcing a provision or not enforcing a provision
> operates to preserve, or not to preserve, any third party's rights.
>
> I think it boils down to ICANN's rights and obligations under the MoU
> and its rights and obligations under its contracts with others.
>
> One of ICANN's obligations, and its only success as admitted during
> the congressional hearings, is to foster competition.
>
> Transforming an already competitive market into a monopoly registry
> service can hardly be considered as fostering competition. Even if the
> price was $0.50, 100% of the gross proceeds would be donated to
> charity and the service was 100% guaranteed to benefit the consumer,
> that would still not justify thwarting free enterprise and open market
> competition or for ICANN to ignore its obligation to foster
> competition.
>
> Sometime, we make things so complicated that they become convoluted
> and we loose track of the forest because of all those darn trees.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Saturday, July 13, 2002, 3:54:17 PM, Bret Fausett <[email-masked]> wrote:
> BF> Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >> Nobody could disagree with this.  As I said before, WLS has some
> >> aspects which may best be dealt with in court, and some aspects
> >> which can _only_ be dealt with within the ICANN process...
>
> BF> That's just right! What I'm trying to articulate -- and I'm doing a fair
> BF> amount of thinking out loud here -- is a decision-making philosophy for
> BF> ICANN by which ICANN looks to defer a decision to another forum/arbiter
> BF> whenever possible. It decides only those matters that only it can decide.
>
> BF> This might mean making a determination as to whether the WLS created
> BF> instability for the .com TLD or the Internet as a whole. It might mean
> BF> examining other technical issues associated with the implementation of WLS.
>
> BF> But if the registrars had a remedy at law for a registry's anticompetitive
> BF> behavior, then ICANN would intentionally pass on that issue, taking care to
> BF> preserve everyone's legal rights so they could be pursued elsewhere.
>
> BF> Of course, if ICANN had adopted such a decision-making philosophy from the
> BF> beginning, we never would have had the UDRP. But it's easy to grant the UDRP
> BF> a special grandfather status in a reformed ICANN and look to narrow ICANN's
> BF> mission for the future to those matters that only it can deal with
> BF> effectively.
>
> BF>     -- Bret
>
> BF> --
> BF> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> BF> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> BF> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> BF> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> [email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 14:30:53 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

At 01:54 p.m. 13/07/2002 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
>Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > Nobody could disagree with this.  As I said before, WLS has some
> > aspects which may best be dealt with in court, and some aspects
> > which can _only_ be dealt with within the ICANN process...
>
>That's just right! What I'm trying to articulate -- and I'm doing a fair
>amount of thinking out loud here -- is a decision-making philosophy for
>ICANN by which ICANN looks to defer a decision to another forum/arbiter
>whenever possible. It decides only those matters that only it can decide.
>
>This might mean making a determination as to whether the WLS created
>instability for the .com TLD or the Internet as a whole. It might mean
>examining other technical issues associated with the implementation of WLS.
>
>But if the registrars had a remedy at law for a registry's anticompetitive
>behavior, then ICANN would intentionally pass on that issue, taking care to
>preserve everyone's legal rights so they could be pursued elsewhere.
>
>Of course, if ICANN had adopted such a decision-making philosophy from the
>beginning, we never would have had the UDRP. But it's easy to grant the UDRP
>a special grandfather status in a reformed ICANN and look to narrow ICANN's
>mission for the future to those matters that only it can deal with
>effectively.

Bret,

Your thinking is  undermining the main raison d'etre of ICANN.
The UDRP was no fluke to be grandfathered now.  It was the prize for the IP 
"constituency" for politically protecting ICANN.
ICANN needs this protection to continue.

As the only global TLD controller, it will be asked to come up with models 
for further supra-national rulemaking.
Only it can impose global "sanctions" and "taxes" on gTLD domains.
(It *can* set price conditions for WLS and surround it with Registrant 
guarantees).

The power is there. It's only a matter of political will.

All this can be defended as long as the global public that is affected can 
participate with its own representatives on a level playing field.

Local courts settling fights between registrars in the US are no substitute 
for that.

- --Joop

- --
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: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:32:14 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

How does Canadian law handle defamation?  Can the plaintiff win if the 
Tucows statements are true?

Leah

On 13 Jul 2002, at 16:11, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 09:31 a.m. 12/07/2002 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> >  Tucows was just
> >sued for defamation (http://comingsoon.tucows.com/.court_case//) by a
> >competitor.
> 
> I think the Honourable Court will know how to judge the merits of that
> lawsuit. :-) 10 million dollars worth of lost business? Hah!
> 
> It's a good illustration of the  sleaze-factor in this industry
> registrants need protection against.
> 
> 
> --Joop
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 21:28:07 -0700
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS is seeing hundreds/thousands NO votes

http://forum.icann.org/wls/

over 200 posts in past 48 hours NO to WLS

http://www.petitiononline.com/antiwls/petition.html
over 1500 signatures in past 48 hours

Considering SnapNames has urged its huge customer base in June to sign
PRO-WLS petition and post on ICANN feedback forum, the showing of
SnapNames supporters pales in compatison to WLS oppostion from a
customer base of competing Registrar, voting AGAINST-WLS

It appears that, when put to a public vote -  a domain owner community
has no affection for WLS

cheers
Genie Livingstone

- --
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: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 21:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: WLS is seeing hundreds/thousands NO votes

Hi Genie,

- --- Genie Livingstone <[email-masked]> wrote:
> http://forum.icann.org/wls/
> 
> over 200 posts in past 48 hours NO to WLS
> 
> http://www.petitiononline.com/antiwls/petition.html
> over 1500 signatures in past 48 hours
> 
> Considering SnapNames has urged its huge customer base in June to
> sign
> PRO-WLS petition and post on ICANN feedback forum, the showing of
> SnapNames supporters pales in compatison to WLS oppostion from a
> customer base of competing Registrar, voting AGAINST-WLS

Amazingly, many of the opponents of WLS are existing SnapNames
customers and even Verisign shareholders. SnapNames was selective in
its recruitment of "supporters", as pointed out previously (e.g. many
are from Oregon, kind of like that AT&T "Friends and Family" strategy,
I suppose...). I'm a SnapNames customer (I love SnapNames, just despise
the monopolistic WLS, and prefer the Status Quo), but never received
their email seeking "supporters". 

What impressed me most was that so many people, individuals and small
businesses for the most part, took the time to research the issues, and
posted well-informed statements against the WLS.

I had posted earlier about "Do you hear the people sing?", and it shall
be interesting to see whose tune ICANN marches to, the People's, or
Verisign's.

Sun Tzu wrote in "The Art of War" that "He will win who knows when to
fight and when not to fight." The opponents of WLS know that this is
something worth fighting for -- if Verisign was smart, they would
realize this is a case where it's smarter not to fight, and instead
make a hasty retreat. Get the $100 million by renegotiating the R&D
commitment to ICANN, not at the expense of consumers and other market
participants via WLS.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.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: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 23:07:45 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

At 10:32 PM 13/07/02 -0400, L. Gallegos wrote:

>How does Canadian law handle defamation?  Can the plaintiff
>win if the Tucows statements are true?

IANAL, but I think one of the most cited differences between
Canadian and US law is that truth is considered an absolute
defence against slander. Cheers, -g

- --
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: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 03:49:58 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

????? and how is this different between CND and US law ????
....oh...and while we are here...who is citing the difference?

thanks.

Gary Osbourne wrote:
> 
> At 10:32 PM 13/07/02 -0400, L. Gallegos wrote:
> 
> >How does Canadian law handle defamation?  Can the plaintiff
> >win if the Tucows statements are true?
> 
> IANAL, but I think one of the most cited differences between
> Canadian and US law is that truth is considered an absolute
> defence against slander. Cheers, -g
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:14:16 +0100
From: Michael Froomkin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

Leaving aside the question of the economics of any lawsuit, if WLS is in fact
anti-competitive and ICANN blesses it, does ICANN acquire any potential
anti-trust liability?  (Assume that ICANN lacks immunity, for the reasons set out
in the paper Mark Lemely and I are writing on "ICANN and Anti-Trust")

PS.  I'm away from my office so there may be a very long delay before I can reply
to any followups...

"John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." wrote:

> > on the fact that it is allegedly anticompetitive. It strikes me that ICANN,
> > with its limited staff resources and its necessary reliance on volunteer
> > policy contributions from the stakeholder community, ought not be placed in
> > the position of deciding what is or is not "anticompetitive." Surely even
> > those registrars who most oppose the WLS appreciate the danger in creating
> > an ICANN that becomes a market regulator.
>
> You are confusing ICANN's charter with a mandate to enforce antitrust law.
> Nobody asked ICANN to be a market regulator, or to see that antitrust law is
> not violated.  However, ICANN is required to do what it does (a) by
> consensus, and (b) in such a manner as to foster and promote some concept of
> "competition".  Because you are a lawyer, you translate that into some legal
> standard.  But that is not necessarily how the MoU is to be interpreted.  The
> MoU requirement to favor competition is simply that, and did not import
> whatever extrinsic constructs one might attach to the term.
>
> Mr. Neumann's consensus of 4, along with the ccTLD folks who generally won't
> pee in anyone's pool as long as they are treated the same way, is hardly a
> thundering consensus that the proposed service comports with that which ICANN
> is indeed chartered to do, but for which precise legal definitions are not
> incorporated into the MoU.
>
> >When I say ICANN should remain neutral, I mean just that. It
> > should be careful to ensure that Verisign cannot argue later that ICANN
> > either required or blessed the WLS.
>
> It is clear that you anticipate exactly what one line of defense would be, no
> matter how "carefully" ICANN were to permit the service.  Expect a lot of
> PGMedia citations in the brief.
>
> I doubt that there is enough money involved in the present circumstances to
> support litigation, even after you propose that we kill the revenue stream
> and then have them litigate.  If you look at the numbers posted here earlier
> by Dotster, it is clear that WLS will generate a fat lot of revenue in one
> place, whereas a much smaller amount of revenue is more thinly distributed
> now.  Interesting how "helping consumers" will generate an aggregate higher
> income from the same folk.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                -->   It's hot there.   I'm elsewhere.   <--

- --
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: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 09:04:41 -0400
From: Ken Stubbs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

please define "ICANN blesses it"  ...?

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin" <[email-masked]>
To: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

> Leaving aside the question of the economics of any lawsuit, if WLS is in
fact
> anti-competitive and ICANN blesses it, does ICANN acquire any potential
> anti-trust liability?  (Assume that ICANN lacks immunity, for the reasons
set out
> in the paper Mark Lemely and I are writing on "ICANN and Anti-Trust")
>
> PS.  I'm away from my office so there may be a very long delay before I
can reply
> to any followups...
>
> "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." wrote:
>
> > > on the fact that it is allegedly anticompetitive. It strikes me that
ICANN,
> > > with its limited staff resources and its necessary reliance on
volunteer
> > > policy contributions from the stakeholder community, ought not be
placed in
> > > the position of deciding what is or is not "anticompetitive." Surely
even
> > > those registrars who most oppose the WLS appreciate the danger in
creating
> > > an ICANN that becomes a market regulator.
> >
> > You are confusing ICANN's charter with a mandate to enforce antitrust
law.
> > Nobody asked ICANN to be a market regulator, or to see that antitrust
law is
> > not violated.  However, ICANN is required to do what it does (a) by
> > consensus, and (b) in such a manner as to foster and promote some
concept of
> > "competition".  Because you are a lawyer, you translate that into some
legal
> > standard.  But that is not necessarily how the MoU is to be interpreted.
The
> > MoU requirement to favor competition is simply that, and did not import
> > whatever extrinsic constructs one might attach to the term.
> >
> > Mr. Neumann's consensus of 4, along with the ccTLD folks who generally
won't
> > pee in anyone's pool as long as they are treated the same way, is hardly
a
> > thundering consensus that the proposed service comports with that which
ICANN
> > is indeed chartered to do, but for which precise legal definitions are
not
> > incorporated into the MoU.
> >
> > >When I say ICANN should remain neutral, I mean just that. It
> > > should be careful to ensure that Verisign cannot argue later that
ICANN
> > > either required or blessed the WLS.
> >
> > It is clear that you anticipate exactly what one line of defense would
be, no
> > matter how "carefully" ICANN were to permit the service.  Expect a lot
of
> > PGMedia citations in the brief.
> >
> > I doubt that there is enough money involved in the present circumstances
to
> > support litigation, even after you propose that we kill the revenue
stream
> > and then have them litigate.  If you look at the numbers posted here
earlier
> > by Dotster, it is clear that WLS will generate a fat lot of revenue in
one
> > place, whereas a much smaller amount of revenue is more thinly
distributed
> > now.  Interesting how "helping consumers" will generate an aggregate
higher
> > income from the same folk.
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                 -->   It's hot there.   I'm elsewhere.   <--
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:03:12 +0400
From: "Boris Passer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Why Bret Fausett likes WLS?

It is evident that the WLS debate has recently changed its pro/con vector. I
see that the majority of WLS supporters are those who will have direct relation
to the monopoly if WLS is adopted. Among several single supporters who do not
seem to be connected to Verisign/Snapnames I was very surprised to see Bret
Fausett, a person who obviously has respect from the domain community for his
perfect ICANN.Blog site.

I tried to find logical basis of Bret's position and found the only one in
Bret's words: "I like the WLS. I think it would benefit consumers"
(http://icann.blog.us/categories/bucharest/). 

Now, Bret, look at http://forum.icann.org/wls/. Who are all these people who
made these hundreds of posts in opposition of WLS? Aren't they that very
consumers who you thought should benefit from WLS? 
Wouldn't you like to revoke your pro-WLS argument? Are you still a supporter of
WLS?

Regards,
Boris Passer

- --
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 #1330
*************************