Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1340
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, July 26 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1340

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:43:08 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

sorry if I took a while in replying to this thread but Im just getting
caught up here.
ummmmmm...Todd, I have a problem with the first paragraph. I see nowhere
how you get to the conclusion that WLS requires this assumption. In
fact, I have debated the intellectual property concern with trademark
attorneys many times, icluding representatives of the Intellectual
Property constituency on the task force charges with making a
recommendation to names council on this issue. My position has been that
WLS is IP-neutral. And I dont think you can find anyone who knows their
way around IP arguing with me.

So perhaps you can enlighten me....how does the fact of having a WLS
service turn a domain into a trademark at all, let alone...a separate
class?
speaking of class, are you referring to the various classes of marques
such as they have in the International Trademark Calssification Guide
such as class 26 for fancy goods? or a differnt use of the word 'class'?

todd glassey wrote:
> 
> The problem with the WLS is simple- it will cause a liability in operations
> against ICANN in that it assumes that the marks or Internet Domain Names
> that have to date been treated as trade marks are not that, and that they
> are the ONE and ONLY MARQUE used by that IP Holder.
> 
> This makes the Internet Domain Name a separate class of Marque and this
> would take an act of law to put in place.
> 
> They (the WLS Registrars) also are looking to put in place that because
> these "marques" are only valid during the period of being registered, that
> the instant the registration expires that the owners has officially
> abandoned the marque and that is ludicrous at best. This erroneous
> assumption of US Trademark Law would then place the marque further into the
> control of the registrar and not the real owner of the marque.
> 
> The rules about trademark Intellectual Property are simple and have been in
> effect for much longer than there was an Internet, so without modifying
> them, the WLS itself is probably illegal in my estimation and will likely be
> challenged in court.
> 
> The net effect is that anyone suffering damages due to what I consider a
> "commercially self-centered" policy, should just sue the registrar and ICANN
> jointly for the damages. And I assure you that the veil of the corporation
> is most likely easily pierced in such a situation. And pierced  such that
> the ICANN Board Members can be held financially accountable for damages in
> WLS based damage claims... personally.
> 
> My feeling is that it will be very interesting to see how this works out,
> since I am sure ICANN's director's insurance would not cover a malicious act
> of creating a system that intentionally allows to usurping of existing
> marques.  And what also about certain registrar's refusals to delete expired
> domains or to allow transfers to happen to domains... Seems like we have the
> same problem. The registers controlling access to IP's they do not own.
> 
> Todd Glassey
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
> To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:17 AM
> Subject: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
> 
> >
> >
> > From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
> > >In preparation for the NC discussion and vote on the final report of the
> Transfers task force on the Wait List Service referral, please see below the
> result of the internal vote of the task force on their report. (Edits for
> clarity are mine.)
> > >Philip.
> > >
> > >----------------------------------
> > >I. Recommendation  1:  To deny the WLS:
> > >
> > >A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
> enforce the
> > >proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice
> > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
> > >Accepted by all
> > >
> > >B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to amend
> its agreement to
> > >enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
> > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > >No: IP, gTLD
> > >6 YES          2 NO
> > >
> > >C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS
> for 12 months.
> > >Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
> > >No: gTLD
> > >Abstain: NonC, IP
> > >5 YES            1 NO      2 ABSTENTIONS
> > >
> > >I. Summary Recommendation to deny the WLS:
> > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > >No: IP, gTLD
> > >6 YES              2 NO
> > >
> > >II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF prime
> recommendation.
> > >Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted above
> > >and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12 month
> > >trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be approved
> with
> > >conditions:
> > >
> > >A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation and
> proven
> > >(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
> > >Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
> > >establishment of a standard deletion practise.
> > >Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
> > >No:gTLD
> > >7 YES 1 NO
> > >
> > >B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard
> deletion practise
> > >be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this could
> be
> > >considered separately from WLS.
> > >
> > >(CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
> > >
> > >1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as WLS
> and
> > >implemented before WLS.
> > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA,  Registrars, BC
> > >5 YES
> > >2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be in
> > >place before
> > >WLS is implemented.
> > >Yes: IP, NonC
> > >2 YES
> > >
> > >3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
> > >Yes: gTLD
> > >1 YES
> > >C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
> > >
> > >C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the
> Registry
> > >(through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name when
> a
> > >WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
> > >Yes: GA, NonC,
> > >2 YES
> > >
> > >C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
> > >name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
> > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
> > >Abstain: gTLD,
> > >5 YES         1 Abstain
> > >
> > >D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency as
> to who has placed
> > >a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the option.
> > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > >No: IP
> > >Abstain: gTLD
> > >6 YES         1 NO       1 Abstain
> > >
> > >E. Cost.  WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous
> considerations for
> > >approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
> > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
> > >Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
> > >5 YES        3 Abstain
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --
> > 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

- -- 
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: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:57:47 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swiss surveillance catches up with email

"Since the beginning of 2002, all Swiss Internet service providers
(ISPs) have been legally obliged to record the time, date, sender ID
and receiver ID of all emails."

That sounds like an e-mail log to me . . .

Thursday, July 25, 2002, 2:34:18 PM, Ken Stubbs <[email-masked]> wrote:
KS> GA members  might wish to take a look at his article 

KS> ken stubbs

- ----
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: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 11:40:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swiss surveillance catches up with email

On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> GA members  might wish to take a look at his article
>
> ken stubbs
>

Poor ken - technologically deficient and working on it.

These ken are email logs.  all unix systems maintain email logs which
contain the same information as the swiss law requests.  this is an
example of the futility in governments controlling the net.  this assumes
individuals who send email use their local isp servers.

and i don't understand why ga members would be interested in this article?
maybe you sent it to the wrong list ken.

Cheers
Joe Baptista

- --
Planet Communications & Computing Facility
a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
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, 26 Jul 2002 14:24:28 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] French domain registrar ordered to pull music site

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Random-bits] French domain registrar ordered to pull music site
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 14:22:26 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

- -------- Original Message --------

In World eBusiness Law Report

French domain registrar ordered to pull music site

The Paris High Court has ordered the ICANN-accredited domain name
registrar Gandi to prevent the broadcast of music files from website
'www.miditext.com'. The judge ordered the temporary suspension of the
site, and the redirection of users to the official page of the Software
Protection Agency (Agence pour la Protection des Programmes).

The domain name 'miditext.com' was registered by a person who stated
that he was living in Russia, with a US web host. The website held music
files, lyrics and scores, many of which were infringing French copyright
law. As all the pages were written in French and most of the songs were
French, the judge assumed that the webmaster was French.

In order to find out the real identity of the webmaster, the judge
ordered Gandi to provide the court with all the information it had on
the website's editor, namely the transaction number, bank account
details and other factors related to the sale of the domain name. The
judge also ruled that Gandi had to provide the internet protocol address
used for the name's purchase, and the buyer's password. (The judge
authorized a bailiff to enter Gandi's buildings to gain access to the
system and the password if necessary.)

This case may be the first step towards easier identification of
electronic offenders. However, it does not offer a complete answer to
the problem; a few days after the suspension, the website reappeared
under the domain name 'miditext.net'.

_______________________________________________
Random-bits mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits

- -- 
- ------
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, 26 Jul 2002 11:34:15 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>; "Alexander Svensson"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

> sorry if I took a while in replying to this thread but Im just getting
> caught up here.
> ummmmmm...Todd, I have a problem with the first paragraph. I see nowhere
> how you get to the conclusion that WLS requires this assumption.

How do you figure Dan - the Internet Domain Name is either a marque or its
not. If it is, then there are other pre-existing rules about how marques are
used and what constitutes abandonment. If the registrars want to create a
set of Internet Marque rules then then need to take them through Congress.

As for what WLS implies, it is that "the failure to re-register in a timely
manner invalidates the ownership of the IP through abandonment", and that is
simply ludicrous. It also assumes that there is only one of any given marque
and as we are seeing with Countries like China's operating their own ROOT's
that this also simply is not true anymore.

Dont get hung up on the concept that NAT (yes Name to Address Translation)
and the operation of multiple independant roots is now about to change how
DNS is doled out on this planet, it already is.

So with that said, this one domain name only per wordset simply is not true.
The game here is that the Pro-WLS are narrowly focused on the ICANN-ONLY
Root and some of its registrars want to be able to book the sale of names
against the possibility that those names within the ICANN Root may become
abandoned. Which in their book is the same as expired and not re-registered.

So the real issue here again, is under the PTO's operating standards, is a
Domain Name reliably equatable as IP. If it is then the WLS stuff may
actually become a conspriacy between the Publications Agent and the Party
wishing to acquire the name. here is an example.

Registrar A  registers a domain for Joe Bob. And then sells the first
position to Mazy Sue;

There are immediatly two questions that have to be answered. One of them is
IP centric, the other is operation's centric.

    1)     Is there a fidutiary responsibility from the Registrar booking
the WLS order, to inform Joe Bob that someone has registered for their
domain if it ever is abandoned.

    2)    Now assume that the WLS registrar booking the order, is the same
Registrar publishing the domain. How does this play out with other WLS
enabled Registrars, since if the domain is housed with the Registrar also
has a WLS against it, there is a fairness problem since

> In
> fact, I have debated the intellectual property concern with trademark
> attorneys many times, icluding representatives of the Intellectual
> Property constituency on the task force charges with making a
> recommendation to names council on this issue. My position has been that
> WLS is IP-neutral. And I dont think you can find anyone who knows their
> way around IP arguing with me.
>
> So perhaps you can enlighten me....how does the fact of having a WLS
> service turn a domain into a trademark at all, let alone...a separate
> class?

See above commentary

> speaking of class, are you referring to the various classes of marques
> such as they have in the International Trademark Calssification Guide
> such as class 26 for fancy goods? or a differnt use of the word 'class'?

To some extent. But you mean Classification not Calcification?

>
>
> todd glassey wrote:
> >
> > The problem with the WLS is simple- it will cause a liability in
operations
> > against ICANN in that it assumes that the marks or Internet Domain Names
> > that have to date been treated as trade marks are not that, and that
they
> > are the ONE and ONLY MARQUE used by that IP Holder.
> >
> > This makes the Internet Domain Name a separate class of Marque and this
> > would take an act of law to put in place.
> >
> > They (the WLS Registrars) also are looking to put in place that because
> > these "marques" are only valid during the period of being registered,
that
> > the instant the registration expires that the owners has officially
> > abandoned the marque and that is ludicrous at best. This erroneous
> > assumption of US Trademark Law would then place the marque further into
the
> > control of the registrar and not the real owner of the marque.
> >
> > The rules about trademark Intellectual Property are simple and have been
in
> > effect for much longer than there was an Internet, so without modifying
> > them, the WLS itself is probably illegal in my estimation and will
likely be
> > challenged in court.
> >
> > The net effect is that anyone suffering damages due to what I consider a
> > "commercially self-centered" policy, should just sue the registrar and
ICANN
> > jointly for the damages. And I assure you that the veil of the
corporation
> > is most likely easily pierced in such a situation. And pierced  such
that
> > the ICANN Board Members can be held financially accountable for damages
in
> > WLS based damage claims... personally.
> >
> > My feeling is that it will be very interesting to see how this works
out,
> > since I am sure ICANN's director's insurance would not cover a malicious
act
> > of creating a system that intentionally allows to usurping of existing
> > marques.  And what also about certain registrar's refusals to delete
expired
> > domains or to allow transfers to happen to domains... Seems like we have
the
> > same problem. The registers controlling access to IP's they do not own.
> >
> > Todd Glassey
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:17 AM
> > Subject: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
> > > >In preparation for the NC discussion and vote on the final report of
the
> > Transfers task force on the Wait List Service referral, please see below
the
> > result of the internal vote of the task force on their report. (Edits
for
> > clarity are mine.)
> > > >Philip.
> > > >
> > > >----------------------------------
> > > >I. Recommendation  1:  To deny the WLS:
> > > >
> > > >A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
> > enforce the
> > > >proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and
practice
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
> > > >Accepted by all
> > > >
> > > >B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to
amend
> > its agreement to
> > > >enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > > >No: IP, gTLD
> > > >6 YES          2 NO
> > > >
> > > >C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the
WLS
> > for 12 months.
> > > >Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
> > > >No: gTLD
> > > >Abstain: NonC, IP
> > > >5 YES            1 NO      2 ABSTENTIONS
> > > >
> > > >I. Summary Recommendation to deny the WLS:
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > > >No: IP, gTLD
> > > >6 YES              2 NO
> > > >
> > > >II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF
prime
> > recommendation.
> > > >Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted
above
> > > >and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12
month
> > > >trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be
approved
> > with
> > > >conditions:
> > > >
> > > >A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation
and
> > proven
> > > >(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
> > > >Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
> > > >establishment of a standard deletion practise.
> > > >Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
> > > >No:gTLD
> > > >7 YES 1 NO
> > > >
> > > >B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard
> > deletion practise
> > > >be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this
could
> > be
> > > >considered separately from WLS.
> > > >
> > > >(CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
> > > >
> > > >1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as
WLS
> > and
> > > >implemented before WLS.
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA,  Registrars, BC
> > > >5 YES
> > > >2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be
in
> > > >place before
> > > >WLS is implemented.
> > > >Yes: IP, NonC
> > > >2 YES
> > > >
> > > >3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
> > > >Yes: gTLD
> > > >1 YES
> > > >C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
> > > >
> > > >C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the
> > Registry
> > > >(through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name
when
> > a
> > > >WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
> > > >Yes: GA, NonC,
> > > >2 YES
> > > >
> > > >C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
> > > >name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
> > > >Abstain: gTLD,
> > > >5 YES         1 Abstain
> > > >
> > > >D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency
as
> > to who has placed
> > > >a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the
option.
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > > >No: IP
> > > >Abstain: gTLD
> > > >6 YES         1 NO       1 Abstain
> > > >
> > > >E. Cost.  WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous
> > considerations for
> > > >approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
> > > >Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
> > > >5 YES        3 Abstain
> > >
> >
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
>
> --
> 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
>

- --
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, 26 Jul 2002 11:51:42 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

Jeff- lets take this a step farther...
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>; "Alexander Svensson"
<[email-masked]>; "icann board address" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

> Todd and all assembly members,
>
>   You are quite right that this is one of the more serious deficiencies
> of WLS.  But it is certainly not the only one.  Versign is touting
> WLS as a solution to the DELETE problem.

No the real problem is the Name Squatters and  the Registrars that own a
Name Squatting Company or that are partnered with one. The other problem is
that there is still only one fricken ROOT here. The Root Zone Protocol and
the running of multiple simultaneous and separate roots is critical in
moving forward.

> WLS does not
> completely address the DELETE problem as creates several
> more problems of market fixing and the like that ICANN
> should find as also a COI on several levels...  Making
> WLS a "Best Practice" or standard is just not legitimately
> thinkable.
>
> However there should be no restriction on Verisign in deploying
> WLS of their own accord should they so choose to do so.

Ewww - I disagre with you BIG TIME. No one should be allowed to do anything
like a WLS since it clearly puts the Registrar at odds with their original
customer.

For example -  if the Domain is hosted (published) by Verisign as as booked
for WLS, well that there is an unfair advantage accorded to Verisign in that
the instant the domain becomes expired the WLS factor is triggered and the
domain is automatically re-registered. No one but an idiot would register
across one registrar to another to WLS a domain name. So that means that WLS
really only works with the Registrar that currently has the Domain
published.

So then what WLS is, is a specific set of processes to allow the booking of
futures based pre-payments by the registrar. This can only be a mechanism to
allow the forced keeping of domains with that same registrar.

Now take a bigger picture. The Registrar also operates a Domains-for-Sale
company; so that division registers as a WLS client against all the cool
names and if there is any screwup or lapse, then the same Registrar
ultimately winds up stealing the names from its clients. Only there is no
need to pass actual money in this manner so the Registrar just books all the
cool names it wants and says "Get Sc^&*d" to all its customers.

This is what WLS is all about.

>
>
> todd glassey wrote:
>
> > The problem with the WLS is simple- it will cause a liability in
operations
> > against ICANN in that it assumes that the marks or Internet Domain Names
> > that have to date been treated as trade marks are not that, and that
they
> > are the ONE and ONLY MARQUE used by that IP Holder.
> >
> > This makes the Internet Domain Name a separate class of Marque and this
> > would take an act of law to put in place.
> >
> > They (the WLS Registrars) also are looking to put in place that because
> > these "marques" are only valid during the period of being registered,
that
> > the instant the registration expires that the owners has officially
> > abandoned the marque and that is ludicrous at best. This erroneous
> > assumption of US Trademark Law would then place the marque further into
the
> > control of the registrar and not the real owner of the marque.
> >
> > The rules about trademark Intellectual Property are simple and have been
in
> > effect for much longer than there was an Internet, so without modifying
> > them, the WLS itself is probably illegal in my estimation and will
likely be
> > challenged in court.
> >
> > The net effect is that anyone suffering damages due to what I consider a
> > "commercially self-centered" policy, should just sue the registrar and
ICANN
> > jointly for the damages. And I assure you that the veil of the
corporation
> > is most likely easily pierced in such a situation. And pierced  such
that
> > the ICANN Board Members can be held financially accountable for damages
in
> > WLS based damage claims... personally.
> >
> > My feeling is that it will be very interesting to see how this works
out,
> > since I am sure ICANN's director's insurance would not cover a malicious
act
> > of creating a system that intentionally allows to usurping of existing
> > marques.  And what also about certain registrar's refusals to delete
expired
> > domains or to allow transfers to happen to domains... Seems like we have
the
> > same problem. The registers controlling access to IP's they do not own.
> >
> > Todd Glassey
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:17 AM
> > Subject: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
> > > >In preparation for the NC discussion and vote on the final report of
the
> > Transfers task force on the Wait List Service referral, please see below
the
> > result of the internal vote of the task force on their report. (Edits
for
> > clarity are mine.)
> > > >Philip.
> > > >
> > > >----------------------------------
> > > >I. Recommendation  1:  To deny the WLS:
> > > >
> > > >A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
> > enforce the
> > > >proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and
practice
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
> > > >Accepted by all
> > > >
> > > >B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to
amend
> > its agreement to
> > > >enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > > >No: IP, gTLD
> > > >6 YES          2 NO
> > > >
> > > >C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the
WLS
> > for 12 months.
> > > >Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
> > > >No: gTLD
> > > >Abstain: NonC, IP
> > > >5 YES            1 NO      2 ABSTENTIONS
> > > >
> > > >I. Summary Recommendation to deny the WLS:
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > > >No: IP, gTLD
> > > >6 YES              2 NO
> > > >
> > > >II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF
prime
> > recommendation.
> > > >Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted
above
> > > >and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12
month
> > > >trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be
approved
> > with
> > > >conditions:
> > > >
> > > >A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation
and
> > proven
> > > >(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
> > > >Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
> > > >establishment of a standard deletion practise.
> > > >Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
> > > >No:gTLD
> > > >7 YES 1 NO
> > > >
> > > >B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard
> > deletion practise
> > > >be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this
could
> > be
> > > >considered separately from WLS.
> > > >
> > > >(CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
> > > >
> > > >1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as
WLS
> > and
> > > >implemented before WLS.
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA,  Registrars, BC
> > > >5 YES
> > > >2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be
in
> > > >place before
> > > >WLS is implemented.
> > > >Yes: IP, NonC
> > > >2 YES
> > > >
> > > >3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
> > > >Yes: gTLD
> > > >1 YES
> > > >C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
> > > >
> > > >C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the
> > Registry
> > > >(through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name
when
> > a
> > > >WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
> > > >Yes: GA, NonC,
> > > >2 YES
> > > >
> > > >C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
> > > >name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
> > > >Abstain: gTLD,
> > > >5 YES         1 Abstain
> > > >
> > > >D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency
as
> > to who has placed
> > > >a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the
option.
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > > >No: IP
> > > >Abstain: gTLD
> > > >6 YES         1 NO       1 Abstain
> > > >
> > > >E. Cost.  WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous
> > considerations for
> > > >approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
> > > >Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
> > > >5 YES        3 Abstain
> > >
> >
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
>
> 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
>

- --
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, 26 Jul 2002 13:58:18 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

At 11:34 AM -0700 7/26/02, todd glassey wrote:
>If the registrars want to create a
>set of Internet Marque rules then then need to take them through Congress.

Ah. We're talking about .us here, then?

- -- 
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: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 12:23:15 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

Get it through your head, Todd.

Let me spell it out very slowly for you:

D-o-m-a-i-n   n-a-m-e-s   a-r-e   n-o-t   a-u-t-o-m-a-t-i-c-a-l-l-y
i-n-t-e-l-l-e-c-t-u-a-l   p-r-o-p-e-r-t-y.

Do you understand that now, Todd?

A domain name is a service, paid for, for a fixed period of time.  Let
it lapse, and someone can register it and use it, and can do without
necessarily violating your IP rights.  They MAY use it in a fashion
that violates your IP rights, but it is not the requirement of the
domain name system to protect your IP rights for you.

Do you need it explained to you yet again, Todd?  How many times have
you had this explained to you by myself and others?

Friday, July 26, 2002, 11:34:15 AM, todd glassey wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
> To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>; "Alexander Svensson"
> <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 2:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

>> sorry if I took a while in replying to this thread but Im just getting
>> caught up here.
>> ummmmmm...Todd, I have a problem with the first paragraph. I see nowhere
>> how you get to the conclusion that WLS requires this assumption.

> How do you figure Dan - the Internet Domain Name is either a marque or its
> not. If it is, then there are other pre-existing rules about how marques are
> used and what constitutes abandonment. If the registrars want to create a
> set of Internet Marque rules then then need to take them through Congress.

> As for what WLS implies, it is that "the failure to re-register in a timely
> manner invalidates the ownership of the IP through abandonment", and that is
> simply ludicrous. It also assumes that there is only one of any given marque
> and as we are seeing with Countries like China's operating their own ROOT's
> that this also simply is not true anymore.

> Dont get hung up on the concept that NAT (yes Name to Address Translation)
> and the operation of multiple independant roots is now about to change how
> DNS is doled out on this planet, it already is.

> So with that said, this one domain name only per wordset simply is not true.
> The game here is that the Pro-WLS are narrowly focused on the ICANN-ONLY
> Root and some of its registrars want to be able to book the sale of names
> against the possibility that those names within the ICANN Root may become
> abandoned. Which in their book is the same as expired and not re-registered.

> So the real issue here again, is under the PTO's operating standards, is a
> Domain Name reliably equatable as IP. If it is then the WLS stuff may
> actually become a conspriacy between the Publications Agent and the Party
> wishing to acquire the name. here is an example.

> Registrar A  registers a domain for Joe Bob. And then sells the first
> position to Mazy Sue;

> There are immediatly two questions that have to be answered. One of them is
> IP centric, the other is operation's centric.

>     1)     Is there a fidutiary responsibility from the Registrar booking
> the WLS order, to inform Joe Bob that someone has registered for their
> domain if it ever is abandoned.

>     2)    Now assume that the WLS registrar booking the order, is the same
> Registrar publishing the domain. How does this play out with other WLS
> enabled Registrars, since if the domain is housed with the Registrar also
> has a WLS against it, there is a fairness problem since

>> In
>> fact, I have debated the intellectual property concern with trademark
>> attorneys many times, icluding representatives of the Intellectual
>> Property constituency on the task force charges with making a
>> recommendation to names council on this issue. My position has been that
>> WLS is IP-neutral. And I dont think you can find anyone who knows their
>> way around IP arguing with me.
>>
>> So perhaps you can enlighten me....how does the fact of having a WLS
>> service turn a domain into a trademark at all, let alone...a separate
>> class?

> See above commentary

>> speaking of class, are you referring to the various classes of marques
>> such as they have in the International Trademark Calssification Guide
>> such as class 26 for fancy goods? or a differnt use of the word 'class'?

> To some extent. But you mean Classification not Calcification?

>>
>>
>> todd glassey wrote:
>> >
>> > The problem with the WLS is simple- it will cause a liability in
> operations
>> > against ICANN in that it assumes that the marks or Internet Domain Names
>> > that have to date been treated as trade marks are not that, and that
> they
>> > are the ONE and ONLY MARQUE used by that IP Holder.
>> >
>> > This makes the Internet Domain Name a separate class of Marque and this
>> > would take an act of law to put in place.
>> >
>> > They (the WLS Registrars) also are looking to put in place that because
>> > these "marques" are only valid during the period of being registered,
> that
>> > the instant the registration expires that the owners has officially
>> > abandoned the marque and that is ludicrous at best. This erroneous
>> > assumption of US Trademark Law would then place the marque further into
> the
>> > control of the registrar and not the real owner of the marque.
>> >
>> > The rules about trademark Intellectual Property are simple and have been
> in
>> > effect for much longer than there was an Internet, so without modifying
>> > them, the WLS itself is probably illegal in my estimation and will
> likely be
>> > challenged in court.
>> >
>> > The net effect is that anyone suffering damages due to what I consider a
>> > "commercially self-centered" policy, should just sue the registrar and
> ICANN
>> > jointly for the damages. And I assure you that the veil of the
> corporation
>> > is most likely easily pierced in such a situation. And pierced  such
> that
>> > the ICANN Board Members can be held financially accountable for damages
> in
>> > WLS based damage claims... personally.
>> >
>> > My feeling is that it will be very interesting to see how this works
> out,
>> > since I am sure ICANN's director's insurance would not cover a malicious
> act
>> > of creating a system that intentionally allows to usurping of existing
>> > marques.  And what also about certain registrar's refusals to delete
> expired
>> > domains or to allow transfers to happen to domains... Seems like we have
> the
>> > same problem. The registers controlling access to IP's they do not own.
>> >
>> > Todd Glassey
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
>> > To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:17 AM
>> > Subject: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
>> > > >In preparation for the NC discussion and vote on the final report of
> the
>> > Transfers task force on the Wait List Service referral, please see below
> the
>> > result of the internal vote of the task force on their report. (Edits
> for
>> > clarity are mine.)
>> > > >Philip.
>> > > >
>> > > >----------------------------------
>> > > >I. Recommendation  1:  To deny the WLS:
>> > > >
>> > > >A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
>> > enforce the
>> > > >proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and
> practice
>> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
>> > > >Accepted by all
>> > > >
>> > > >B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to
> amend
>> > its agreement to
>> > > >enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
>> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
>> > > >No: IP, gTLD
>> > > >6 YES          2 NO
>> > > >
>> > > >C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the
> WLS
>> > for 12 months.
>> > > >Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
>> > > >No: gTLD
>> > > >Abstain: NonC, IP
>> > > >5 YES            1 NO      2 ABSTENTIONS
>> > > >
>> > > >I. Summary Recommendation to deny the WLS:
>> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
>> > > >No: IP, gTLD
>> > > >6 YES              2 NO
>> > > >
>> > > >II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF
> prime
>> > recommendation.
>> > > >Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted
> above
>> > > >and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12
> month
>> > > >trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be
> approved
>> > with
>> > > >conditions:
>> > > >
>> > > >A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation
> and
>> > proven
>> > > >(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
>> > > >Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
>> > > >establishment of a standard deletion practise.
>> > > >Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
>> > > >No:gTLD
>> > > >7 YES 1 NO
>> > > >
>> > > >B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard
>> > deletion practise
>> > > >be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this
> could
>> > be
>> > > >considered separately from WLS.
>> > > >
>> > > >(CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
>> > > >
>> > > >1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as
> WLS
>> > and
>> > > >implemented before WLS.
>> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA,  Registrars, BC
>> > > >5 YES
>> > > >2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be
> in
>> > > >place before
>> > > >WLS is implemented.
>> > > >Yes: IP, NonC
>> > > >2 YES
>> > > >
>> > > >3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
>> > > >Yes: gTLD
>> > > >1 YES
>> > > >C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
>> > > >
>> > > >C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the
>> > Registry
>> > > >(through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name
> when
>> > a
>> > > >WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
>> > > >Yes: GA, NonC,
>> > > >2 YES
>> > > >
>> > > >C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
>> > > >name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
>> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
>> > > >Abstain: gTLD,
>> > > >5 YES         1 Abstain
>> > > >
>> > > >D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency
> as
>> > to who has placed
>> > > >a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the
> option.
>> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
>> > > >No: IP
>> > > >Abstain: gTLD
>> > > >6 YES         1 NO       1 Abstain
>> > > >
>> > > >E. Cost.  WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous
>> > considerations for
>> > > >approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
>> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
>> > > >Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
>> > > >5 YES        3 Abstain
>> > >
>> >
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > 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
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>

> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1340
*************************