Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #134
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, September 1 2000          Volume 01 : Number 134

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

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 23:41:09 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

This is a definition?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 11:25 PM
> To: James Love
> Cc: [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
> 
- --
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 02:47:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] new TLDs

If there are only a few .com clones, then one might expect a lot of
companies just registering more of the same in the new TLDs.  If the
root is really expanded, as it should be, then one would expect
something different, particularly with TLD string that either mean
something by their name (i.e. .airline, .software, .soccer, .books,
etc), or are restricted (.union, .banc, etc).  

   Jamie  

On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Alf Hansen wrote:

> 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
> 

=============================================
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 23:53:08 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Candidate positions on UDRP

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

Please provide the statistical basis for claiming that there is a pattern 
of bad decisions.  Is it one percent out of all the 
decisions?  Two?  Ten?  fifty?

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 00:22:51 -0700 
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Candidate positions on UDRP

If it is even one, it's bad news. However, I count more than 10, on a
cursory count.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 11:53 PM
> To: James Love
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Candidate positions on UDRP
> 
> 
> At 02:02 AM 9/1/00 -0400, James Love wrote:
> >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.
> 
> 
> Please provide the statistical basis for claiming that there 
> is a pattern 
> of bad decisions.  Is it one percent out of all the 
> decisions?  Two?  Ten?  fifty?
> 
> 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
> 
- --
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 09:43:13 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

What about:

Roots that have a different contents than the A-Root

(you may ask for a definition of the A-root - may I give a definition 
"by example": the machine that is physically located at NSI and from 
which the content is copied to the other 12 roots - and probably even 
more machines)

Roberto

>
>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
>
>
>
>
- --
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 00:48:15 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Candidate positions on UDRP

> Please provide the statistical basis for claiming that there is a pattern of
> bad decisions.  Is it one percent out of all the decisions?  Two?  Ten?
> fifty?

There are several people who are doing statistical reviews, but I don't know
whether the results are complete. To understand the problems statistically,
you have to carve the decisions up into categories. For those proceedings
involving strong marks, such as specially coined words or phrases, the
number of "bad decisions" is probably very low. For the so-called "generic"
names, it's been my impression (no statistics, yet) that the "bad decisions"
are very high, possibly as high as 30-40%.

It's also my observation that many of the decisions are trending away from
the purpose for which the UDRP was created: stopping "bad faith"
registrations.

For example, just last week an arbitrator ruled that the word "Tata" was a
famous name, which required a domain name incorporating it to be cancelled.

There are a lot of problems with that.

First, the DNSO never resolved to include famous mark protection in the
UDRP. The WIPO arbitrator, however, allowed his ruling to turn on the
famousness of the word "Tata."

Second, when did the word "Tata" become famous worldwide? Now, you may think
you know what those famous Tatas are, but you'd be mistaken. The famous
Tata, at least in the eyes of WIPO, is associated with an Indian industrial
company.

All this to take the domain "bodacious-tatas.com" away from a domain name
registrant because it incorporated the "famous" word "Tata," an Indian
trademark of Tata Sons, Inc.

Can anyone really think that the registrant of "Bodacious-Tatas.com" thought
one moment about an Indian industrial company when it chose its domain name?
(for those not in the U.S., "bodacious tatas" is a Southern United States
colloquial phrase for large female breasts.)

The opinion states that the domain name registrant failed to appear, which,
you might think, explains why the decision is so bad. But you'd be wrong
there too. While the UDRP panelist *wrote* that the domain name registrant
failed to appear, he lied. In fact, as I understand it, the domain name
registrant *did* file a response, which the arbitrator rejected and refused
to consider because it was "informal."

This decision is a poster-child for UDRP reform. Yes, it's extreme, but
there are more like it. And the trend shows an increasing number of these
turkeys.

Read it yourself: 
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0479.html

              -- 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: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 02:12:20 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Domain Name Rights And Other Fairy Stories

At 06:37 PM 8/31/00 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

Kent is telling you all fairy stories.

Legally binding examples exist right now of domain names which have 
acquired secondary meaning through use and have been granted US Federal 
trademark status. Here's an example:

http://trademarks.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+ALL+3+990081+0+0+264501+F+2+16+1+MS%2famazon%2ecom

So far the stupid IP lawyers tricks expressed here are for trademark 
holders sans domain name. There has been next-to-nothing within wg-b or the 
DNSO that expresses the true spirit and intent of trademark law, which is 
to allow the creation of new marks and therefore trademark protection for 
new & innovative enterprises utilizing new domain names as the identity of 
source of goods and services.

See EXAMINATION GUIDE NO. 2-99:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/notices/guide299.htm

The USPTO don't have it 100% correct (I find it humorous that they 
explicitly accept trademark registrations for non-ICANN root domain names), 
but they have a much, much better handle on it than the fairy stories we 
hear from Kent Crispin.

>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

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

- --
It's a feature not a bug...

- --
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 02:26:23 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] new TLDs

At 11:26 PM 8/31/00 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

Thanks for sharing Otho. This is old news. And it doesn't have to happen 
this way.

May I point out that the get-rich-quick crowd (CORE demonstrated this 
mentality to us in 1997) subscribe to this doctrine. Others, like myself, 
who have more concern for the stability of the internet, know how to 
introduce new TLDs without the land rush.

The problem is we don't know if ICANN is serious this time around (this is 
the third time around for me), or whether it's just a money raising 
exercise @ $50,000 per application with no guarantees, while selling out to 
special interests behind the scenes.

The amount of money is much less important than the stability of the 
application process. Without some kind of assurance, the application 
process can only be perceived as unstable.

>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

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

- --
It's a feature not a bug...

- --
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 02:37:25 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 11:41 PM 8/31/00 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

Try this then:

"An Alternative Root is a DNS root zone containing both ICANN administered 
Top Level Domains and additional non-ICANN administered Top Level Domains."

Dave has the concept right. But, in order for the DNS root not to fragment, 
the ICANN root has to act as the baseline as that is the lowest common 
denominator. You mileage may vary with time.

>This is a definition?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 11:25 PM
> > To: James Love
> > Cc: [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
> >
>--
>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,

Simon Higgs

- --
It's a feature not a bug...

- --
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 11:54:33 +0200 (MEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> What about:
> 
> Roots that have a different contents than the A-Root
> 
> (you may ask for a definition of the A-root - may I give a definition 
> "by example": the machine that is physically located at NSI and from 
> which the content is copied to the other 12 roots - and probably even 
> more machines)

Seems this definition is defied (is that the word?) by the facts that came
to light after the recent problems with the .com zone being lost on four
root-servers (posted on the nanog and domain-policy lists). They
apparently do not get their zone files from a.root but from
what NSI calls a "stealth" server. So there are two locations, if I
understand these lofty matters correctly. Well, we are all supposed to
have two for redundancy and better functioning, two eyes, ears, ... :-)

- --
Marc Schneiders ------- Venster - http://www.venster.nl 
 [email-masked] - [email-masked] - [email-masked]

> 
> Roberto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> 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
> 

- --
Marc Schneiders ------- Venster - http://www.venster.nl 
 [email-masked] - [email-masked] - [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, 01 Sep 2000 12:07:24 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

I wait for that definition!

May I comment on the "unique public space" notion which
is worth for NSI 4.05 millions of dollars ($250.000 per capita).
As we know, this notion only comes from a "for information"
RFC by the IAB. The only reason why alternative roots would
be a technical thread is that the user might then not be linked
to the page that author intended.

1) due to the importance given to this notion, I dont think
     acceptable that the money received from it is not used
     to make it possible, ie that:
     - all the discarded pages would be kept accessible
       (some kind of public Alexia)
     - pages may not be updated/changed without the
       approval of all the authors having made a link to them
     - authors quoting an inexisting or erroneous page are
       submited to an automated UDRP

2) this is against the emerging right of receiving: such
     a policy obliges me to receive the current version of
     a page which may not be the one known by the
     author or the one I would like to receive. This is pure
     spamming, on a very high scale if you consider the
     number of banners imposed on you every day. This
     means that the domain organization is made in bad
     faith to the users since alternatives do exists. This
     should entitle an UDRP against the organizer, ie
     ICANN should be removed its charge to the benefit
     of more legitimate users.
     This RFC is not inexact, it only does not cover all
     the "if then else" permited. It is a small bug.
     A so small bug for so many bucks.

3) IMHO there is an important difference between an
     alternative root, privates roots and Big Bro[w]ther:

     - an alternative root subsitutes itself to the a-root
       so         a-root # alternative root.

     - a private root is a root including privately selected
       TLDs which may [and usually would] default to
       the a-root.
       so         private root = a-root + private TLDs

     - big bro[w]ther is a non call to a root because the
       root is already on the calling machine (this was
       the solution before the DNS was introduced, and
       is still the solution at booting time, before the
       DNS program is started on the machine: this
       file is named "host.txt").

       No more a-root, needed. The user directly access
       the TLDs nameservers. Or to the browser developper
       own root.

       So        a-root = 0 ;  ICANN = $0

Jefsey

At 08:13 01/09/00, you 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?
>
>   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

- --
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 12:07:32 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] new TLDs

Hear, Hear.

This is obviously not what Mike Roberts has in mind when he
writes about domain names international business and asks for
K$50 a project donation. I do not know why people could not gather
together and say they want to manage their own TLD, set-up a
non-profit organization and become a Member of ICANN/DNSO
independent TLD structure. As GNU people shown, all included,
it costs $10 to set-up the ".gnu" .TLD.

".shop", ".ecom", ".banc" duplicates of ".com" may help ICANN
to make money at $.33 a duplicated domain name, but I am not
sure that having so many alias domain names is good for users.

The only thing in keeping the current tack is that  we will end
with scores of new free TLDs by Xmas. Happy new century!!!
I want to be the first to start ".2001" to see if "Space Odyssey"
people have an U[TLD]DRP...
Jefsey

At 07:34 01/09/00, you wrote:
>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

- --
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 10:07:11 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Very Interesting as the US Gov. participated in the
Internet funding.
Does that act defines what are:
- - registrars
- - registries
- - registration authority
- - electronic address (IP or not IP)
- - Internet (BTW "on" the Internet seems very awkward)
and defines what is that "authority" (the word is actually
defined in the DNS system)?
Would some legal linguist have a definition of
"designation"?
Do you know where I can find the text on line?
The first main point here is that it excludes third level
and dynamic names.
Anyone else knows about domain name legal
definition.
Thx. Jefsey

At 05:06 01/09/00, Bret Fausett:
> >> 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

- --
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 12:07:46 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] new TLDs

Thank you for reminding this Atty.
Most of the people are convinced that new gTLD will be merely
used by most of the users as you say, as duplicates of ".com",
so in a way which will be "identical or confusingly similar."

I therefore feel there are very good grounds for an UDRP against
ICANN by registrars/registries which would not be included in the
new gTLD business.

I would be interested in lawyers/politics comments?
Either there is an UDRP, or this use as an argument by the
cybersquatters, as such gTLDs would be another "right"
violation by the ICANN on a very high scale.
Jefsey

At 05:26 01/09/00, you wrote:
>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 11:52:00 +0100
From: "Louise Ferguson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

> 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.

Think there's an element of 'public good' in there somewhere Kent, not
private greed
> You can test this easily -- just stop paying your property taxes.

Kent, prehaps you should take a 'high school year abroad' before trying to
apply US law to the rest of the world. (we don't have property tax here in
the UK and local taxes attach to the person, not property)
>
> "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.

Of course it is vastly different - who said it was the same?
But there are certain principles of natural justice that have been adopted
into the legal code of many countries, including in the areas of land law,
commercial law and contract law.

Why is the domain name dispute procedure implemented by Nominet (.co.uk
registrar) voluntary for both parties? Probably because under the Unfair
Contract Terms Act now in place in many EU countries following an EU
directive, a unilateral and compulsory change to contract terms issued by a
seller to a consumer, substantially changing the conditions of the contract,
would probably be deemed 'unfair'. So when arbitration was put in place, it
was made voluntary. Why do we have such an Act? Why was there such a
directive? Because a contract where one powerful party calls all the shots
is deemed unjust by many of us.

I'm just waiting for someone to take the
NSI/Register/etc registration contracts to bits under the UCTA and see how
they stand up (terms found unfair are deleted from the contract).

With the UDRP, there now seem to be implied terms in these contracts that
should be written up front, for everyone to see. If (a) I have to accept the
UDRP when I sign the
contract and (b) every registrar for gTLDs includes the UDRP in their
contract and (c) under the UDRP I am providing evidence of  bad faith
registration or use if I try to resell for greater than purchase price, then
maybe the contract should state that it is forbidden to transfer for more
than purchase price.

If not having set up a web site on a domain can count against me under UDRP,
maybe we should be warned: "Failure by the registrant to set up a web site
within x months of registering this domain may be interpreted as lack of any
rights or legitimate interests exisiting in this domain on the part of the
registrant, with reference to the UDRP" or in plain English, "you may lose
this domain if you do not built your site immediately."

> 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.
>
So you have experience of thrice used kitty litter? Sad.

Louise
>

- --
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 #134
************************