Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #136
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, September 1 2000          Volume 01 : Number 136

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

Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 11:36:11 -0400
From: "Ronald N. Weikers" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Weikers position on UDRP

James Love asked:

>do these candidates believe ... that the UDRP has gone too far in
>protecting trademark owners ...?

	Ron responded:  

	Yes.

	Changes should be made to the UDRP to require a balancing of interests,
which is found in trademark law.  The following changes will resolve most
consumers groups' very valid concerns, and still uphold trademark law.

	First, we should give panelists the discretion to award the prevailing
party their attorney's fees and costs from the non-prevailing party (like
the U.S.'s Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act), in order to deter
reverse domain name hijacking.  In particular, panelists may (but are not
required to) award costs when a complainant is found to have abused the
administrative process, or when a respondent is found to have acted in bad
faith and to have no legitimate interests.  Read further to see why only a
true, hard-core cybersquatter-respondent might be subjected to this.

	Second, in the case of inherently distinctive marks -- i.e., suggestive
marks (involving a creative association between the mark and the
good/service, such as "Apple-A-Day" for vitamins), arbitrary marks (common
words used for uncommon purposes, such as "Apple" for computers) and
fanciful marks (coined words, such as "Xerox") --, the UDRP should put the
burden of proof by "a preponderance of evidence" of the respondent's bad
faith (UDRP section 4.b.) upon the complainant, and should not put the sole
burden of proof upon the respondent to prove its own good faith, which has
often been the case in UDRP decisions.  In addition, in the case of
inherently distinctive marks, the UDRP should put the burden of proof by a
preponderance of evidence of the respondent's lack of legitimate interests
(UDRP section 4.c.) upon the complainant, and should not require solely the
respondent to prove a presence of legitimate interests, again, which has
often been the case in UDRP decisions. 

	Third, in the case of descriptive marks -- i.e., weak marks that require
secondary meaning (i.e., distinctiveness in commerce, measured by the
extent to which it has become identified in the public mind with the
particular source of the goods/services) for protection, such as
"Tom-Apple" for tomato-apple juice -- the same changes should be made to
UDRP sections 4.b. and 4.c., except that the complainant should bear the
additional burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that the mark
has acquired secondary meaning by some commonly used factors, such as the
length and exclusivity of the complainant's mark's use, sales volume of the
good/service using the mark, promotional efforts that focus on linking the
mark and the source of the good/service, etc.

	Fourth, in the case of generic marks -- i.e., common words used for common
goods/services, such as "Apple" for apples --, and in the case of
geographic regions, the first to register the domain name should have the
right of ownership.

	Fifth, in the case of personal names, complainants must be required to
show by "clear and convincing evidence" that their name is famous
worldwide.  Otherwise, personal names should be on a first-come,
first-served basis.

	Sixth, we should build into the UDRP an appeals process, in the event that
the non-prevailing party cannot afford/does not want to pay for litigation
(UDRP decisions are not binding on courts of law).  The parties would also
have the right to make the appellate decision binding (both must agree,
however), in order to make the process cost-effective.

	Seventh, in the balancing of interests process, common law (unregistered)
marks owned by complainants should be given whatever weight they may have
acquired by secondary meaning.  The fact that a trademark application is
pending should, by itself, be given no weight.  

	Eighth, and finally, we should have no lists of protected names or marks,
as proposed by WIPO, because the organization that assumes the
responsibility for maintaining such directories would be required to make a
preliminary determination whether the foregoing burdens of proof can be met
(like preliminary mini UDRP decisions).  Assuming that myriad
entities/people would seek to register their marks and names, such a task
would be logistically impossible.  Instead, case-by-case UDRP proceedings
should be relied upon to resolve such disputes.  It will be cheaper in the
long run, and more effective. 
====================================
Ronald N. Weikers
Weikers & Co., A High Technology Law Firm
226 West Highland Avenue
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19118
Telephone:     215.242.5333
Facsimile:       215.248.4647
http://software-law.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, 01 Sep 2000 12:01:10 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Alf Hansen wrote:

> I would say that even if the systems using this alternate root are using
> internet technology, they are not part of The Internet. They do not follow
> the rules they have to follow to be part of the global Internet family,
> which is based on cooperation.

What about some of the "intellectual property" interests? There's actually
someone on the names counsel from MPAA, an organisation that sues webmasters
over their links and molests teenagers about code they have posted.

These people are far more foreign to the net than anyone playing about
with alternate roots.
- --
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 19:43:52 +0200 (MEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Weikers position on UDRP

On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Ronald N. Weikers wrote:

> James Love asked:
> 
> >do these candidates believe ... that the UDRP has gone too far in
> >protecting trademark owners ...?
> 
> 	Ron responded:  
> 
> 	Yes.
> 
> 	Changes should be made to the UDRP to require a balancing of interests,
> which is found in trademark law.  The following changes will resolve most
> consumers groups' very valid concerns, and still uphold trademark law.

And I was gradually starting to develop a dislike of lawyers. Seems there
are good ones :-)

There are some questions though, the detailed response (for which many
thanks) raises for me.

1. What is this "preponderance of evidence"? Not everyone is in the USA,
and speaks English from day one... 

2. Would your proposals mean that the complainant has to proove that there
was no website up at a certain date? Now it seems to be the reverse. I
would presume it is rather difficult to proove by either party, unless
there was a well-known site about which visitors can testify.

3. Would you not agree that there must be added somewhere (in the light of
WIPO decisions) that the registration of a domain with the primary purpose
of selling it to an interested party, does *not* *in itself* constitute
bad faith?
 
4. Pending TMs have no weight (your 7th). Would it not be better to extend
this a little to any TM filed for after the (first) registration of the
domain? This to avoid any reverse-hijackings by TMing.

5. I have no problem that domain owners have to pay costs who acted in bad
faith without any doubt whatsoever. However, in the face of the developing
lawfinding process now on its way, owners might out of uncertainty of the
outcome (there is absolutely no certitudo juris whatsoever thanks to WIPO)
be forced to give in out of fear that they may loose and have to pay the
legal costs, which they may very well not able to do. I think I would just
have to do that: give in. I do not want to go bankrupt. (I would at the
same time make a lot of noise to be sure. There is no law against that,
is there?)

6. There are over 200 countries in this world, each with their own TM
system. This provides some difficulty to anyone registering a name. One
cannot be expected to check it all over the world. In some (many?) places
it is quite expensive too to check if a name is trademarked.
So when I register bodacious-tatas.net (still free), should I check
whether someone in Bangladesh sells shoes under the mark Boda or Tata? And
if I do not, should I loose the domain name?
 
Thank you for your time!

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

> 	First, we should give panelists the discretion to award the prevailing
> party their attorney's fees and costs from the non-prevailing party (like
> the U.S.'s Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act), in order to deter
> reverse domain name hijacking.  In particular, panelists may (but are not
> required to) award costs when a complainant is found to have abused the
> administrative process, or when a respondent is found to have acted in bad
> faith and to have no legitimate interests.  Read further to see why only a
> true, hard-core cybersquatter-respondent might be subjected to this.
> 
> 	Second, in the case of inherently distinctive marks -- i.e., suggestive
> marks (involving a creative association between the mark and the
> good/service, such as "Apple-A-Day" for vitamins), arbitrary marks (common
> words used for uncommon purposes, such as "Apple" for computers) and
> fanciful marks (coined words, such as "Xerox") --, the UDRP should put the
> burden of proof by "a preponderance of evidence" of the respondent's bad
> faith (UDRP section 4.b.) upon the complainant, and should not put the sole
> burden of proof upon the respondent to prove its own good faith, which has
> often been the case in UDRP decisions.  In addition, in the case of
> inherently distinctive marks, the UDRP should put the burden of proof by a
> preponderance of evidence of the respondent's lack of legitimate interests
> (UDRP section 4.c.) upon the complainant, and should not require solely the
> respondent to prove a presence of legitimate interests, again, which has
> often been the case in UDRP decisions. 
> 
> 	Third, in the case of descriptive marks -- i.e., weak marks that require
> secondary meaning (i.e., distinctiveness in commerce, measured by the
> extent to which it has become identified in the public mind with the
> particular source of the goods/services) for protection, such as
> "Tom-Apple" for tomato-apple juice -- the same changes should be made to
> UDRP sections 4.b. and 4.c., except that the complainant should bear the
> additional burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that the mark
> has acquired secondary meaning by some commonly used factors, such as the
> length and exclusivity of the complainant's mark's use, sales volume of the
> good/service using the mark, promotional efforts that focus on linking the
> mark and the source of the good/service, etc.
> 
> 	Fourth, in the case of generic marks -- i.e., common words used for common
> goods/services, such as "Apple" for apples --, and in the case of
> geographic regions, the first to register the domain name should have the
> right of ownership.
> 
> 	Fifth, in the case of personal names, complainants must be required to
> show by "clear and convincing evidence" that their name is famous
> worldwide.  Otherwise, personal names should be on a first-come,
> first-served basis.
> 
> 	Sixth, we should build into the UDRP an appeals process, in the event that
> the non-prevailing party cannot afford/does not want to pay for litigation
> (UDRP decisions are not binding on courts of law).  The parties would also
> have the right to make the appellate decision binding (both must agree,
> however), in order to make the process cost-effective.
> 
> 	Seventh, in the balancing of interests process, common law (unregistered)
> marks owned by complainants should be given whatever weight they may have
> acquired by secondary meaning.  The fact that a trademark application is
> pending should, by itself, be given no weight.  
> 
> 	Eighth, and finally, we should have no lists of protected names or marks,
> as proposed by WIPO, because the organization that assumes the
> responsibility for maintaining such directories would be required to make a
> preliminary determination whether the foregoing burdens of proof can be met
> (like preliminary mini UDRP decisions).  Assuming that myriad
> entities/people would seek to register their marks and names, such a task
> would be logistically impossible.  Instead, case-by-case UDRP proceedings
> should be relied upon to resolve such disputes.  It will be cheaper in the
> long run, and more effective. 
> ====================================
> Ronald N. Weikers
> Weikers & Co., A High Technology Law Firm
> 226 West Highland Avenue
> Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19118
> Telephone:     215.242.5333
> Facsimile:       215.248.4647
> http://software-law.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
> 

- --
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 10:49:30 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 11:52:00AM +0100, Louise Ferguson wrote:
> 
> > 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

Doesn't matter.  The question was whether it could happen -- not the 
motives behind it.

> > 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)

Please don't be deliberately dense: obviously I wasn't applying US law
to the rest of the world -- I was merely citing an example.  Moreover, I
rented a house in England many years ago, and I do have some first-hand 
experience with the complexities of the English legal system as it 
applies to real property.  And in fact, your point exactly supports the 
point I was making -- the property "rights" in real property are not 
only intrinsically complex, they vary from country to country.

> > "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?

The person I was replying to made the analogy, not me -- I was trying to
illustrate why it is a dangerous analogy to use.  But it is extremely
common: *many* people, including you, speak of domain names in terms of
analogies with real property, as if the "rights" that are applied to
real property automatically apply.  But obviously, they don't.

In general, one has to be very careful reasoning by analogy.  The real 
estate *metaphor* is very seductive in this context -- I use it 
frequently myself.  But domain names are *not* real estate.

> 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.

...and of course, intellectual property law -- I can't imagine why you
left that one out :-).  And (as Michael McNulty pointed out), there are
interesting principles that one can derive from water rights law.  If we
rifle through the world's legal codes there are *lots* of interesting
principles of justice etc we can find that might or might not apply to
domain names, and clever people such as yourself (and trademark lawyers
and lobbyists) expend a lot of energy digging up theories that support
*their* interests. 

The point I am trying to make is that *none* of those interests is
sacred.  TM interests are certainly not sacred; using domain names as
"free expression" is not sacred; an individual's ability register a
domain name for any particular reason is not sacred.  There are
reasonable views of the use of domain names that exclude any of these
particular interests.  Domain names are relatively new phenomena, and 
it just isn't clear what legal theories should apply.

However, it is quite common, especially on these lists, for people to
use flowery language concerning "rights" and "justice", and to decry the
opposition as being "greedy".  Clearly, some if not most TM owners are
greedy; clearly the primary motivation for name speculation and
cybersquatting is greed.  Clearly many people who want to use domain
names as a means of expression are acting in their own particular self
interest -- that's close enough to greed for me.

So what we really have here is a bunch of greedy interests doing battle. 
Some of them fight by shouting about "justice" and "rights" as loud as
they can; some of them fight through lobbying and legal manipulation. 

Incidentally, loudly proclaiming that one is in favor of "rights" and
"justice" is a common rhetorical gimmick.  Everybody is in favor of
justice and rights, and nothing is proven by how strenuously you shout
about them.

- -- 
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

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

Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 18:57:39 +0100
From: "Louise Ferguson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Weikers position on UDRP

> "Ronald N. Weikers" wrote:
> >
> >         First, we should give panelists the discretion to award the
prevailing
> > party their attorney's fees and costs from the non-prevailing party
(like
> > the U.S.'s Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act), in order to
deter
> > reverse domain name hijacking.

Surely setting a higher filing fee would act as a deterrent: $1500
(depending or arbitrator) seems a low price for putting someone's business
in jeopardy. This would also
provide the panellist with realistic recompense for deciding what are often
complex cases with >100 documents filed as evidence, sometimes in several
languages.
$4-5,000 (split arbitrator/panelists) seems a more reasonable fee to me, and
is still a lot less than a lawsuit.

> >         Fourth, in the case of generic marks -- i.e., common words used
for common
> > goods/services, such as "Apple" for apples --, and in the case of
> > geographic regions, the first to register the domain name should have
the
> > right of ownership.

Some kind of administrative filter to weed out these cases before they reach
the panel stage seems appropriate here. If you are going to have a principle
that for certain types of expressions the 'trademark clause' of UDRP does
not apply - and so the UDRP does not apply - then it seems a great waste -
and unnecessarily stressful and expensive for those concerned - to have
hearings for them at all.

Louise Ferguson

- --
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 13:39:16 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Weikers position on UDRP

Ronald, I would like to share your thoughtful note on the UDRP, which
has a lot of interesting suggestions, with a few other lists.    Jamie

"Ronald N. Weikers" wrote:
>         Changes should be made to the UDRP to require a balancing of interests,
> which is found in trademark law.  The following changes will resolve most
> consumers groups' very valid concerns, and still uphold trademark law.
> 
>         First, we should give panelists the discretion to award the prevailing
> party their attorney's fees and costs from the non-prevailing party (like
> the U.S.'s Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act), in order to deter
> reverse domain name hijacking.  In particular, panelists may (but are not
> required to) award costs when a complainant is found to have abused the
> administrative process, or when a respondent is found to have acted in bad
> faith and to have no legitimate interests.  Read further to see why only a
> true, hard-core cybersquatter-respondent might be subjected to this.

   [snip]
- -- 
James Love  mailto:[email-masked] http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176
- --
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: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:51:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Weikers position on UDRP

I strongly oppose a costs provision in the UDRP -- at least one that might
make defendants pay. It will be used to intimidate poor defendants; rich
companies don't care about paying "costs" (zero) of unrepresented parties,
but can run up vast bills for their lawyers and then make the defendant
pay.

Especially when the UDRP is such a roulette wheel, honest and careful
people will feel a tremendous incentive to give in rather than fight when
faced even with baseless claims.

I wouldn't have as strong an objection to a 'plaintiff pays' rule, but
don't see it as politically feasible.  In any event, I like keeping the
rule that arbitrators don't assess any fines -- next thing you know you
will see a proposal to fine cybersquatters.

Finally, unless fees assessible are fixed, you end up with collateral
debate over fees which wastes everyone's time and money.

On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, James Love wrote:

> Ronald, I would like to share your thoughtful note on the UDRP, which
> has a lot of interesting suggestions, with a few other lists.    Jamie
> 
> 
> "Ronald N. Weikers" wrote:
> >         Changes should be made to the UDRP to require a balancing of interests,
> > which is found in trademark law.  The following changes will resolve most
> > consumers groups' very valid concerns, and still uphold trademark law.
> > 
> >         First, we should give panelists the discretion to award the prevailing
> > party their attorney's fees and costs from the non-prevailing party (like
> > the U.S.'s Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act), in order to deter
> > reverse domain name hijacking.  In particular, panelists may (but are not
> > required to) award costs when a complainant is found to have abused the
> > administrative process, or when a respondent is found to have acted in bad
> > faith and to have no legitimate interests.  Read further to see why only a
> > true, hard-core cybersquatter-respondent might be subjected to this.
> 
>    [snip]
> 

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

- --
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 11:45:18 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] new TLDs

At 12:55 PM 9/1/00 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

It's very easy to avoid a land rush. But the big money interests have no 
incentive to participate in this way. Especially if it prevents them from 
getting their 10x investment back in under 2 years. Their accountability to 
their shareholders is diametrically opposed to preventing a land rush. Even 
the so-called non-profits like CORE showed us not only the corporate greed 
coming from it's membership, but the win-at-all-costs mentality to control 
the root.

So what does ICANN create as a solution? A $50,000 barrier to entry 
allowing only those with land-rush business models through the door. This 
does one thing, and, as Otho correctly states, it duplicates all the 
problems in .COM.

Duplication of stupidity is a very bad thing. Especially when it involves 
the UDRP. This is partly why the trademark lobby has lobbied against new 
TLDs. They've got the right idea, but they've gone about it with myopic 
vision, ignoring the IP requirements of the internet community beyond the 
existing trademark holders.

As to how to avoid the land rush. Let's put it this way, NSI used to 
practice this while they were funded by the NSF. This takes us back to 
RFC1074 (and it's successor - RFC1591) and Draft-Postel.

>Simon,
>I would be interested to know how you avoid a land
>rush. I enjoyed documenting to the ICANN what
>our brave today world will do with this: it is
>tremendously fun. Experts, consulting, special
>programs, tv shows and games, domain names
>lotteries and chases, film scenarios, books, etc...
>and lawyers decades. Last year it was Y2K, it will
>the "C3" (the ".COM clones century'). Probably
>only a few will sue the ICANN and NSI for failing
>to organize the protection of their rights, but then
>probably for millions, but private TLDs will bloom
>around only to reproduce the fun!!!
>Jefsey
>
>At 11:26 01/09/00, you wrote:
>>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
>
>--
>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 20:15:10 +0100
From: "Louise Ferguson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:      Re: Hackers Hijacking ICANN Elections?

From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
>
> Absent a full independent background investigation, you won't ever
> have that.
>
An inherent problem: I can't conduct any kind of background investigation
myself (on the net), as most people on the Europe list are not
English/Spanish/Portuguese speakers (my languages), and certainly no-one who
stands a chance of nomination. This geographical constituency thing is
really artificial. Here we vote in the dark or don't vote at all.

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

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

Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 20:35:51 +0100
From: "Louise Ferguson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:      Re: Hackers Hijacking ICANN Elections?

Bret
Effective organising is fine, but when most of us don't speak the same
language as the organisers.....?
What I mean is, we don't know what is going on, because there is a language
barrier, so we cannot get our hands on 'real' documents and understand them.
Donnerhacke's only post anywhere that I can find in English is to the IBC
Tollfree survey, which is a (presumably deliberate) misrepresentation of his
position. Donnerhacke, Mueller-Maguhn et al are not campaigning at all
within the English/Spanish/Portuguese/French... speaking communities, only
to Germans.

ICANN has thrown us all in the same pot when we can't communicate with one
another.
Perhaps you wouldn't feel quite the same if the US candidates with the bulk
of nominations had their on-line material and web sites in Chinese, only got
any coverage in the Chinese media and only contributed to Chinese forums and
e-mail lists.

Louise

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Bret A. Fausett <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: Hackers Hijacking ICANN Elections?

> > A German hacker group looks set to win a seat on the board of
> > domain name regulator ICANN, the Internet Corporation for
> > Assigned Names and Numbers, possibly confirming fears that the
> > controversial election procedure could be hijacked by special
> > interest groups.
>
> "hijacked?"
>
> Over here we call voter registration and political activism effective
grass
> roots organizing. It's a feature.
>
>       -- 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, 1 Sep 2000 15:01:35 -0500
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Weikers position on UDRP

Hi Michael and all:

On Fri, 01 Sep 2000, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> I strongly oppose a costs provision in the UDRP -- at least one that might
> make defendants pay. It will be used to intimidate poor defendants; rich
> companies don't care about paying "costs" (zero) of unrepresented parties,
> but can run up vast bills for their lawyers and then make the defendant
> pay.
I am agree with this statement.   

Best Regards
Vany

- -- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax: (507) 230-3646
e-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
- --
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 22:33:54 +0200 (MEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:      Re: Hackers Hijacking ICANN Elections?

On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Louise Ferguson wrote:

> From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> >
> > Absent a full independent background investigation, you won't ever
> > have that.
> >
> An inherent problem: I can't conduct any kind of background investigation
> myself (on the net), as most people on the Europe list are not
> English/Spanish/Portuguese speakers (my languages), and certainly no-one who
> stands a chance of nomination. This geographical constituency thing is
> really artificial. Here we vote in the dark or don't vote at all.

I am afraid you sketch a rather dark picture of the list of candidates, of
which I am one. My English is far frpom perfect, I've seen other
candidates whose English is difficult to understand, but most do try,
including most of the German candidates. 

Certainly the candidate who is now second, and whom I advise to endorse at
this stage, Jeanette Hofman, has responded to the two mailing lists I am
aware off dedicated to the ICANN elections. In English.

Further information and views below in a message I sent to
[email-masked], in reply to your message (bit confusing all
these lists...)

There is really some interesting exchange of ideas on the list I mentioned
below.

Marc

- -------------------------------
[Louis Ferguson wrote:]
> I don't think the point is whether they'd be good or bad. What concerns 
me
> is that in the rest of Europe, we have no way of knowing who these
people
> are, cannot read their web sites (in German), and are effectively being
> misled by what is on their ICANN At Large page. I think we should know
> relevant facts about people up for nomination in the only zone we can
vote
> in.
> 

You are quite right in a way. There are many candidates though, most I
would think, that communicate in English on their webpages. (Take me
for instance :-) So maybe you could show your position by voting for
one of those?

There is also a mailing list, from Germany but 99% in English, where
the candidates (some) discuss matters. It is archived at:

http://www.fitug.de/icann-europe/index.html

It seems the choice in Europe is really only for the second member
nominee (the other 5 ICANN in its wisdom did appoint, one of whom
refuses to talk to the press before the elections are over...). The
first one has so many endorsements already, that it is unlikely he
will be beaten.

There are two candidates really still in the race for the second place
on the ballot. I strongly suggest to favour Jeanette Hofmann. My
reasons for doing so, will be apparent from the messages I exchanged
with the other one (now third in the race) on the list mentioned above
about 10 days ago. (Haven't seen him there since then by the way.) He
has very rigid, and in my eyes erroneous, views on the nature of
domains in real life. He will be useless on the Board.

- -- 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, 1 Sep 2000 23:09:56 +0100
From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:      Re: Hackers Hijacking ICANN Elections?

> 
> From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> >
> > Absent a full independent background investigation, you won't ever
> > have that.
> >
> An inherent problem: I can't conduct any kind of background
> investigation myself (on the net), as most people on the Europe list are
> not English/Spanish/Portuguese speakers (my languages), and certainly
> no-one who stands a chance of nomination.

I can't believe this. Do you really think that germans communicate in 
german only? 	

[email-masked] is a mailing list for european candidates and 
voters. 
Its archive can be found here: http://angua.rince.de/icann-europe/

Hopefully, this of any help for further background investigations.

jeanette

 This geographical constituency
> thing is really artificial. Here we vote in the dark or don't vote at
> all.
> 
> 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
> 

- --
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 13:09:34 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Roberto,

> >"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.
>
>How would you call a root that does not use the ICANN root as baseline?

I'd call it a "Private Root" since it does not reflect the publicly 
viewable internet name space (anything less than the ICANN baseline is a 
private name space). It would not be an "Alternative Root" (alt.root) to 
the "IANA/ICANN root" in the publicaly-viewable sense.

>(BTW, I assume that you cannot make sure that an alternate root does not
>  point to different name servers for the TLDs that are also in ICANN's
>root)

While it's possible, what incentive is there at the end user level to use a 
zone missing any TLDs? Maybe an organization can set it's DNS servers up to 
boycott a ccTLD (think about protesting .ZA during Apartheid), but it's 
localized to those organizations end users, and can easily be circumvented 
by anyone knowledgeable.

Thinking about it some more, there's an inherent trust given to all DNS 
server operators by the end users served. There's nothing stopping the glue 
records for any domain name or TLD from being changed on any server 
anywhere on the planet. You can do this at any level - it is not restricted 
to root servers.

We all saw what John Postel and Paul Vixie (at John Gilmore's prompting) 
did a couple of years ago in splitting the root servers up into US 
Gov-controlled and non-USG-controlled groups by changing the 
non-USG-controlled root servers to pull their root zone from an IANA server 
instead of a.root. What they actually did was attempt to create an alt.root 
out of the non-USG-controlled root servers. Had no-one noticed the change 
of root authority then the 7 CORE TLDs would have been added to half the 
root servers and the root would have been fragmented from that point on. As 
a POC member you were supposed to oversee and prevent this from happening. 
Instead the USG intervened.

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
I hope you're taking good notes. 'Coz history will be reported differently.

- --
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 #136
************************