Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1335
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, July 20 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1335

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 15:23:28 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Transfers TF Timeline

Marilyn,

As you are aware, the Evolution and Reform Committee stated in their Working 
Paper on the Policy-Development Process that policy development "should have 
a set time period, probably no longer than 30-45 days".  I note that you are 
now on the ERC Task Force assigned to deal with the naming policy development 
process, and that the relative speed of policy development is probably a 
concern that you share.

In your capacity as Chair of the Transfers Task Force, can you offer us some 
assurance that you will comply with the guidance as offered by the ERC and 
attempt to conclude the work of the TF within the next 45 days?  If not, 
would you be willing to post what you deem to be an appropriate timeline?  I 
would very much like to see the issue of transfers finally resolved, wouldn't 
you?
- --
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, 18 Jul 2002 16:54:45 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .info LR2 process and failure of ICANN to heed warnings

On 18 Jul 2002, at 2:28, William X Walsh wrote:

> 
> The landrush you referred to was not a real RCFS.  What you do is you
> make it a violation of the registrars' contracts to accept
> preregistration, and then you just open the registry to real time FCFS
> registrations, NO queues, no lotteries, nothing but real time FCFS as the
> consumer registrations come in.
> 

Add to that no bulk registrations or scripts and you have a good point, 
IMO, at least not during the first few weeks of the landrush.  Let 
everyone register the same way - one at a time.

Leah

- --
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, 18 Jul 2002 18:21:36 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] icannatlarge.com (not at-large.org) STATUS: NOMINATIONS AND SECONDS

This is the current state of nominations for ICANNatlarge.com..., which 
should not be confused with the confusingly similarly named Esther/Denise 
ICANN run at-large.org effort.

   Jamie

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] STATUS: NOMINATIONS AND SECONDS
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:18:29 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

+------------------------------------------------------------+
| This is the current list of nominations and seconds for    |
| the icannatlarge.com elections.                            |
|                                                            |
| If your nominee (who must be a MEMBER of icannatlarge.com) |
| is missing, please send your nomination with the           |
| the subject line NOMINATION as soon as possible!           |
|        DEADLINE: Monday, July 22, 24.00 UTC (midnight)     |
|                                                            |
| If YOUR name is on this list as nominee, please reply as   |
| soon as possible with the subject ACCEPT or DECLINE!       |
|        DEADLINE: Tuesday, July 23, 12.00 UTC (midday)      |
|                                                            |
|                                                   Thanks.  |
+------------------------------------------------------------+

1. Nominees who have ACCEPTED their nomination:

Vittorio Bertola  (nom. by Richard Henderson, Erick Iriarte Ahon)
Diane Cabell (nom. by James Love)
Cordley Coit  (nom. by Jeff Williams)
Bob Crawford  (nom. by Bob Crawford, Jeff Williams)
Vivek Durai  (nom. by Richard Henderson, Joop Teernstra)
Michael Geist  (nom. by James Love, Ted Murray)
Todd Glassey  (nom. by Richard Henderson, Bruce Young)
Satyajit Gupta  (nom. by Richard Henderson, Joop Teernstra)
Ben Kerensa  (nom. by Ben Kerensa)
Milan Kapetanov  (nom. by Philip Saloga)
Hans Klein  (nom. by Giampaolo Bonora)
Joanna Lane  (nom. by Richard Henderson, Erick Iriarte Ahon)
James Love  (nom. by Richard Henderson, Erick Iriarte Ahon)
Jefsey Morfin  (nom. by Jeff Williams, James Love)
Judith Oppenheimer  (nom. by Joanna Lane, James Love)
Marco Pierani  (nom. by Erick Iriarte Ahon)
Sotiris Sotiropoulos  (nom. by Jeff Williams, Richard Henderson)
David Schutt  (nom. by Joop Teernstra)
Jeff Williams  (nom. by Jeff Williams)
Bruce Young   (nom. by Jeff Williams, Richard Henderson)
Ted Byfield  (nom. by James Love) [NON-MEMBER]
- ----------------------------------------------------------
2. Nominees who have not (yet) accepted their nomination:

Izumi Aizu  (nom. by Joop Teernstra)
Karl Auerbach  (nom. by Joop Teernstra, Bruce Young)
Dr Johannes K Chiang  (nom. by Joop Teernstra)
Alan Davidson  (nom. by Hans Klein)
Eric Dierker  (nom. by Jeff Williams, Richard Henderson)
Raul Echeberria  (nom. by Gabriel Piñeiro, Norbert Klein)
Ben Edelman (nom. by James Love)
David Farrar  (nom. by Richard Henderson, Joanna Lane)
Bret Fausett  (nom. by Walter Schmidt)
Leah Gallegos  (nom. by Richard Henderson)
Kimberley Heitman  (nom. by Hans Klein)
Richard Henderson  (nom. by Joop Teernstra, Bruce Young)
Jeanette Hofmann  (nom. by Richard Henderson, James Love)
Norbert Klein  (nom. by James Love)
Wolfgang Kleinwaechter  (nom. by Giampaolo Bonora, Hans Klein)
Joseph Lee  (nom. by Joanna Lane, Joop Teernstra)
William Lovell  (nom. by Richard Henderson, Joanna Lane)
Roeland Meyer  (nom. by Joanna Lane, Joop Teernstra)
Dinesh Nair  (nom. by Joop Teernstra)
Wawa Ngenge  (nom. by Giampaolo Bonora, Roberto Roggiero)
YJ Park  (nom. by Richard Henderson, Erick Iriarte Ahon)
Gabriel Piñeiro  (nom. by Erick Iriarte Ahon, Joanna Lane)
Marc Schneiders  (nom. by Erick Iriarte Ahon, Joop Teernstra)
Ron Sherwood  (nom. by Richard Henderson, Elisabeth Porteneuve)
Joop Teernstra  (nom. by Richard Henderson)
Edmundo Valenti  (nom. by Gabriel Piñeiro, Norbert Klein)
- ----------------------------------------------------------
3. Nominees who have DECLINED their nomination:

Susan Crawford (nom. by James Love, Elisabeth Porteneuve)
Kendall Dawson  (nom. by Joanna Lane, Joop Teernstra)
Erick Iriarte Ahon  (nom. by Gabriel Piñeiro, Norbert Klein)
Milton Mueller  (nom. by Joop Teernstra) [NON-MEMBER]
Micheal Sherril  (nom. by Jeff Williams)
Alexander Svensson  (nom. by Joop Teernstra)
Stephen Waters  (nom. by Richard Henderson)
- ----------------------------------------------------------
4. NON-MEMBER nominees (who are INELIGIBLE unless they join):

Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong  (nom. by Hans Klein)
Prof. Michael Froomkin (nom. by James Love)
Myungkoo Kang  (nom. by Hans Klein)
George Kirikos  (nom. by Joanna Lane)
Kathy Kleiman  (nom. by James Love, Joop Teernstra)
Declan McCullagh (nom. by James Love)
Barbara Simons  (nom. by James Love, Joop Teernstra)
Danny Younger  (nom. by Richard Henderson, Erick Iriarte Ahon)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]

- -- 
- ------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040

- --
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, 18 Jul 2002 18:09:36 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com (not at-large.org) STATUS: NOMINATIONS AND SECONDS

At 6:21 PM -0400 7/18/02, James Love wrote:

>1. Nominees who have ACCEPTED their nomination:
>
>Cordley Coit  (nom. by Jeff Williams)
>Bob Crawford  (nom. by Bob Crawford, Jeff Williams)
>Jeff Williams  (nom. by Jeff Williams)

Be sure to let me know the day you manage to get all three in a room together.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:29:45 -0500
From: "Kevin M. Kelly" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] icannatlarge.com (not at-large.org) STATUS: NOMINATIONSAND SECONDS

Andy Gardner wrote:
>
>At 6:21 PM -0400 7/18/02, James Love wrote:
>
>>1. Nominees who have ACCEPTED their nomination:
>>
>>Cordley Coit  (nom. by Jeff Williams)
>>Bob Crawford  (nom. by Bob Crawford, Jeff Williams)
>>Jeff Williams  (nom. by Jeff Williams)
>
>Be sure to let me know the day you manage to get all three in a room together.
>

What are you talking about???!!??

They are ALWAYS in the same room... along with several other personae.

I think a more pertainent questions is "When are we going to develop a mechanism
to verify credentials?"

Regards,

Kevin Kelly
www.kevinkelly.net

- --
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, 18 Jul 2002 18:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com (not at-large.org) STATUS: NOMINATIONS AND SECONDS

Hello,

- --- James Love <[email-masked]> wrote:
> This is the current state of nominations for ICANNatlarge.com...,
> which 
> should not be confused with the confusingly similarly named
> Esther/Denise 
> ICANN run at-large.org effort.

> 4. NON-MEMBER nominees (who are INELIGIBLE unless they join):
> George Kirikos  (nom. by Joanna Lane)

Thanks Joanna! :)

But, what's icannatlarge.com all about, though? Is it recognized by
anyone, especially given that there seems to be more than one competing
"at large"? Is the use of the ICANN logo on the website with anyone's
permission, too?

Given limited time, I'm a pragmatist and wouldn't want to waste energy
on matters that are purely academic (unlike WLS, WHOIS, competition and
other stuff, for instance, where input does seem to be having an
impact).

Groucho Marx once said "I could never join a club which would have me
as a member!". :) Although, an even wiser person (Shakespeare) wrote
"Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness
thrust upon ’em."

I remain,

Your cookie monster,

and humble servant,

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: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:10:39 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com (not at-large.org) STATUS: NOMINATIONS AND SECONDS

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:55:32 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>But, what's icannatlarge.com all about, though? Is it recognized by
>anyone, especially given that there seems to be more than one competing
>"at large"?

icannatlarge.com is an independent bottom-up effort that currently has
886 members from 77 countries. Practically, we aim to build an org
that should supply for the lack of an At Large Membership and act,
inside and/or outside ICANN (and of course, whether it should be
inside, outside or both is at the centre of the debate), to grant to
the public some real weight in the technical administration of the
Internet.

We have accepted to participate in ICANN's ALOC, where we have some
representatives, but of course we are an independent thing. I don't
really think that there is any "competing" effort to build a global At
Large Membership, as the other ALOC participants are organizations
which already existed and are not specifically targeted on ICANN
(though, as I said, some in our org would really like to extend its
action beyond ICANN), and are focused on specific geographical areas
(eg ISOC Chapters). And we still have to understand whether the
ALOC/ALAC thing will provide some worthwhile channel of interaction
with ICANN, even if very limited in actual power.

>Given limited time, I'm a pragmatist and wouldn't want to waste energy
>on matters that are purely academic (unlike WLS, WHOIS, competition and
>other stuff, for instance, where input does seem to be having an
>impact).

Of course the ultimate purpose of all this is to build something that
would be able to provide significant input into the policy making
process. 
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- ----------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <--------------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:10:35 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com (not at-large.org) STATUS: NOMINATIONSAND SECONDS

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:29:45 -0500, you wrote:

>What are you talking about???!!??
>
>They are ALWAYS in the same room... along with several other personae.
>
>I think a more pertainent questions is "When are we going to develop a mechanism
>to verify credentials?"

You know... that's the big issue about any online organization who is
supposed to hold elections of any kind. It is very difficult to
imagine a method that's both effective and practical (which also means
not too costly and easily accessible to all online users in all
countries). Said this, I think it is possible to develop mechanisms
that offer a reasonable certainty with reasonable costs, especially if
they are developed locally - for example, in certain countries there
already are provisions and instruments for legally certified online
identities, or you could use a "viral" method such as personal
certification of newcomers by other already certified persons, with
random sample checks from the centre.
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- ----------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <--------------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 08:21:28 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com (not at-large.org) STATUS: NOMINATIONS AND SECONDS

A somewhat different perspective is that Esther and Denise created a site 
with a confusingly similar name, to run what one board member calls a 
"company union" to confuse and undermine participation in a democratic and 
uncontrollable at-large organizing effort.  The Esther/Denise effort has at 
the top of its web page the statement:

"Overview ~ What is the At-Large? Individual Users' Voice in ICANN"

THe "At-Large Organizing Committee" apparently does not elect its own 
leaders (correct me if I am wrong about this), and does not allow 
individuals to join, as individuals.

It is ironic that an organization such as ICANN that was created to protect 
trademark owners from passing off activities on domain names, is resorting 
to this type of name confusion in the at-large area.   But it is working, 
and they they done a good job of marginalizing the democratic at-large 
organizing effort that they wanted to cripple.

Jamie

Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:55:32 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
> 
> 
>>But, what's icannatlarge.com all about, though? Is it recognized by
>>anyone, especially given that there seems to be more than one competing
>>"at large"?
> 
> 
> icannatlarge.com is an independent bottom-up effort that currently has
> 886 members from 77 countries. Practically, we aim to build an org
> that should supply for the lack of an At Large Membership and act,
> inside and/or outside ICANN (and of course, whether it should be
> inside, outside or both is at the centre of the debate), to grant to
> the public some real weight in the technical administration of the
> Internet.
> 
> We have accepted to participate in ICANN's ALOC, where we have some
> representatives, but of course we are an independent thing. I don't
> really think that there is any "competing" effort to build a global At
> Large Membership, as the other ALOC participants are organizations
> which already existed and are not specifically targeted on ICANN
> (though, as I said, some in our org would really like to extend its
> action beyond ICANN), and are focused on specific geographical areas
> (eg ISOC Chapters). And we still have to understand whether the
> ALOC/ALAC thing will provide some worthwhile channel of interaction
> with ICANN, even if very limited in actual power.
> 
> 
>>Given limited time, I'm a pragmatist and wouldn't want to waste energy
>>on matters that are purely academic (unlike WLS, WHOIS, competition and
>>other stuff, for instance, where input does seem to be having an
>>impact).
> 
> 
> Of course the ultimate purpose of all this is to build something that
> would be able to provide significant input into the policy making
> process. 

- -- 
- ------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040

- --
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, 19 Jul 2002 09:51:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com (not at-large.org) STATUS: NOMINATIONS AND SECONDS

On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, James Love wrote:

> It is ironic that an organization such as ICANN that was created to protect
> trademark owners from passing off activities on domain names, is resorting
> to this type of name confusion in the at-large area.   But it is working,
> and they they done a good job of marginalizing the democratic at-large
> organizing effort that they wanted to cripple.

so ??? your surprised ??? it's the Esther and Denise show - an icann
sponsored theatrical event.  for years i've made it clear esther is an
evil icann sponsored tour d'force - dirty tricks are not the exception - i
have always expected them as the norm - and anyone who's been following
this ship of fools has known it's been rotten for years.

so ??? your surprised ???

i'm surprised if your surprised.  you've been here doing the icann tango
for a few years - at least two right?  i think by now you should know that
those incontrol of icann are dirty of deed.  they always lie and deceive
the people they deal with - while people like you participate in this
icann sponsored consensus building which the icann hoard never listens too
but the consensus is then used to rationalize their existence.

they call it an open bottom up process.

i've called it nonsense from the begginning and most of what i see here is
more nonsense.  meanwhile fraud - litteraly sponsored by this nonsense -
remember - icann duplicated a tld.  .biz is useless legally speaking - so
is .info - and abuse of existing namespace continues

http://www.dot-god.com/communications/TLD_Networks_Ltd/public_announcement.html

much of that abuse ends up the consumers have to pay = and pay and pay

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/03/tld.htm

http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/Consumer+alerts/01+02.htm

namespace expansion is a happening reality - and people like you who are
hip to consumer needs are wasting your time stating the obvious.  you are
a pioneer - i'll give you that much - but only in meat space - in
namespace your a primitive.

regards
joe

www.dot-god.com

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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:19:20 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: .info LR2 process and failure of ICANN to heed warnings

As a point of reference, I'd like to draw attention to a letter that we
sent to the chair of working group B at the time that these sunrise
proposals were being put together (April 2000). The conclusions are
still valid today and may merit further attention from the ?NSO.

"The essence of ICANN's problem is the disproportionate attention which
is
being given inside the working groups, and, increasingly outside, in
private conferences, to the pretensions of the IP community to stall the
process of domain name expansion, on grounds that we and our Internet
users consider to be dubious and, in some cases, in outright error:
error
both as to policy as regards the future direction of the Internet, and
more fundamentally, as to their power to hold up domain name expansion
based on the monopoly of the NSI over the root server.

You have received commentary from John Berryhill, which, in our view,
devastates the position of the IPC that they are entitled to extra-legal
privileges in the matter of establishing domain names for famous names,
and lately, for all trade mark holders in all countries.

The IPC's contentions that trade mark holders are owed a special set of
privileges regarding domain names, different from and superior to those
worked out in national legislatures, is not something that other users
of
the Internet need to accept. Moreover, it is unnecessary. The fastest
way
to eradicate the problem that the IPC pretends to solve is to have a
rapid, large expansion of domain names.  The IPC is threatened by this
approach because it diminshes the value of what they are protecting, and
the value fo the services they render.

The issue is not, as  they suppose, "confusion" in the marketplace, or
the protection of consumers. It is the protection of the economic
position of intellectual property lawyers.

What we are actually observing in the saga of domain name expansion is a
power-grab of major proportions over the architecture of the Internet,
using ICANN not so much as a representative forum for IP interests as
the
embodimenet of IP lawyers' interests. This tendency is not good for the
Net, for Internet users, for small businesses which need the increase of
namespace, and ultimately it will lead, if unchecked by common sense and
contrary interests, to the avoidance of the DNS and the downfall of
ICANN.

The policy that should be followed in relation to IP interests is this:
no privilege shall be granted to any trade mark or famous name holder by
ICANN that is not available under domestic trade mark law. We understand
that this principle will need adjustment to accord with the global
nature
of top level domains, but by sticking to it ICANN will do better for the
Internet, for millions of users, and even for the interests of IP
owners,
than a policy of restriction.

TUCOWS has been supporting reasonable compromise between IP owners and
domain name expansion for some time. On reflection, We have decided that
we are not going to get domain name expansion in this way, and that we
are
in fact acceding to a takeover of the political processes of ICANN by a
set of interests that oppose what the Internet stands for. We urge you
to
reconsider the nature of the compromises you may be making, and what you
may consider to be realistic. To us at TUCOWS, compromise with the kinds
of proposals we are seeing coming from the IPC will get us nowhere."

                       -rwr

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

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of L. Gallegos
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 4:55 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .info LR2 process and failure of ICANN 
> to heed warnings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 18 Jul 2002, at 2:28, William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The landrush you referred to was not a real RCFS.  What you 
> do is you 
> > make it a violation of the registrars' contracts to accept 
> > preregistration, and then you just open the registry to 
> real time FCFS 
> > registrations, NO queues, no lotteries, nothing but real 
> time FCFS as 
> > the consumer registrations come in.
> > 
> 
> Add to that no bulk registrations or scripts and you have a 
> good point, 
> IMO, at least not during the first few weeks of the landrush.  Let 
> everyone register the same way - one at a time.
> 
> Leah
>   
> 
> --
> 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, 19 Jul 2002 17:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Tucows letter, was RE: [ga] Re: .info LR2 process ...

On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> The policy that should be followed in relation to IP interests is this:
> no privilege shall be granted to any trade mark or famous name holder by
> ICANN that is not available under domestic trade mark law. We understand
> that this principle will need adjustment to accord with the global
> nature of top level domains, but by sticking to it ICANN will do better
> for the Internet, for millions of users, and even for the interests of
> IP owners, than a policy of restriction.

I agree with you in general, however, let me suggest what I believe is an 
even more clear principle:

ICANN ought to adhere solely to those technical matters that directly
pertain to the ability of the Internet to reliably, accurately, and
promptly move packets from one IP address to another and for the
ICANN/NTIA DNS root to reliably, accurately, and promptly return answers
DNS queries.

Intellectual property concerns are, under that definition, outside the
proper scope of ICANN and are best left to those bodies, primarily
national legislatures and some treaty organizations, that have been
established to promulgate such rules.

ICANN spokespersons, such as we have heard on this list, once one elides
all abusive and scurrilous language, have lately started to "argue" for a
"new" "small" ICANN with limited powers.  I too, have advocated a small,
limited ICANN, and I have been doing so ever since the days of the green
and papers.  If those spokespersons truely wish to put their actions where
their mouths are then they should recognize that things such as UDRP
itself, the system of adjudication that exists to apply it, the
micromanaging regulatory scheme imposed on DNS registries/registrars, and
the glacial "procedures" to chose new TLDs, are all creations that go well
beyond any small or limited definition of ICANN's duties.

I'm sure I will hear all kinds of assertions from this or that person
that ICANN has undertaken the protection of intellectual property under
the MoU from NTIA.  However, there is a serious question whether NTIA has
any power to delegate with respect to the creation of supranational laws
over intellectual property.  And ICANN could have refused to accept that
task by saying, as it out to have said, that such a task has absolutely
nothing to do with the technical stability of the Internet.

		--karl--

- --
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 #1335
*************************