Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1341
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, July 26 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1341

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 12:49:32 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

Friday, July 26, 2002, 11:51:42 AM, todd glassey wrote:

> Jeff- lets take this a step farther...

No, the only thing your post does is show that you have no
understanding of what the WLS is, and what the true issues are.

But I am seeing this as a pattern with you about most issues here
it seems, Todd.

> ----- 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

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 14:54:09 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

So tell me then, Why is it right for someone to have a root-level monopoly on selling a service?

What right does ICANN have to define the business models of registrars and TLD holders?
(hint: they dont).

What right do they have to claim they are any kind of authority?  (hint: none - they have no power).

What real authority do they have? (hint: none, unless people continue to be sheep and point
their ISP resolvers or individual machines at ICANN/USG roots).

They are a corrupt monopoly. Plain and simple.

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>; "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>; "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 2:23 PM
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
> 
> 

- --
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 13:28:33 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

So why do you use a .net domain name, John?

Go play with your dns network, it has nothing to do with this forum.

Friday, July 26, 2002, 12:54:09 PM, John Palmer wrote:

> So tell me then, Why is it right for someone to have a root-level monopoly on selling a service?

> What right does ICANN have to define the business models of registrars and TLD holders?
> (hint: they dont).

> What right do they have to claim they are any kind of authority?  (hint: none - they have no power).

> What real authority do they have? (hint: none, unless people continue to be sheep and point
> their ISP resolvers or individual machines at ICANN/USG roots).

> They are a corrupt monopoly. Plain and simple.

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
> To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>; "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>; "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 2:23 PM
> 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
>> 
>> 

> --
> 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 #1341
*************************