Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #138
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, September 3 2000          Volume 01 : Number 138

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

Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 18:47:40 +0200 (MEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] AMAZON

On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dames and Gentlemen,
> 
> we had a meeting yesterday at one of the three comities
> for new TLDs I am involved with. The current outcome is as follows:

[...]
> -  the opening of the new TLD will be published. For 3 months
>     we will register DN requests from TM/company name/private
>     name owners. Final registration will be granted to unique
>     demanders. Others will have to participate to a common
>     UDRP to decide the winner.
> 
> -  every domain name registration will be confirmed one month
>     after request and a current registration request list published.
>     Only TM owners having registered their TM less than 30 days
>     before the DN request will be entitled to file an UDRP.

This is not a good idea. I want to be able to register a domain name and
have it in the air ASAP, within 24 hours normally. With com/net/org this
is no problem now. I have done this a number of times, e.g. for a painter
who was arrested in Africa for painting naked women.

If one wants to start a business, waiting is not acceptable. If one
wants to exercise one's rights to free speech, having to wait, is even
worse.

Please, rethink this.

- --
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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 13:06:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] AMAZON

On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Michael F. McNulty wrote:

> Terrible logic. The only reason Amazon would register hundreds and
> hundreds of domains that it does not need or use, is to avoid the
> legal expenses of shutting down the leeches that prey on other
> companies' names. Why should any company have to squander these
> resources just to avoid pirates? Michael McNulty

   Just how broad is Amazon.com's claim to all uses the word Amazon on
the Internet?  Jamie

=============================================
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology    
P.O. Box 19367        | http://www.cptech.org 
Washington, DC 20036  | [email-masked]       
Voice 202/387-8030    | Fax 202/234-5176     
=============================================

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

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

Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 10:54:19 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] AMAZON

Hello Michael,

Friday, September 01, 2000, 5:12:31 PM, you wrote:

> Terrible logic.
> The only reason Amazon would register hundreds and hundreds of domains
> that it does not need or use,
> is to avoid the legal expenses of shutting down the leeches that prey on
> other companies' names.
> Why should any company have to squander these resources just to avoid
> pirates?

What law is it, exactly, that gives Amazon.com the exclusive right to
any domain that has Amazon in its title?

A specific answer please, no talking in circles like our IP
Constituency "friends" are do fond of doing.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 13:50:14 -0400
From: NFT Services <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] AMAZON

Not only do I agree with Mark, but I wonder.....
exactly how will you decide who is a "unique demander" and I suppose even
further, Who exactly will decide who is a "unique demander"?  And my guess is
that once *you* (whoever that might be) decides the unique demander the
"loser" in this affair my decide to go to UDRP anyway - or try some other
litigation to resolve their belief that they have rights of use.

(original text)
>Final registration will be granted to unique demanders.

George Kougias
- -------------------------

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > Dames and Gentlemen,
> >
> > we had a meeting yesterday at one of the three comities
> > for new TLDs I am involved with. The current outcome is as follows:
>
> [...]
> > -  the opening of the new TLD will be published. For 3 months
> >     we will register DN requests from TM/company name/private
> >     name owners. Final registration will be granted to unique
> >     demanders. Others will have to participate to a common
> >     UDRP to decide the winner.
> >
> > -  every domain name registration will be confirmed one month
> >     after request and a current registration request list published.
> >     Only TM owners having registered their TM less than 30 days
> >     before the DN request will be entitled to file an UDRP.
>
> This is not a good idea. I want to be able to register a domain name and
> have it in the air ASAP, within 24 hours normally. With com/net/org this
> is no problem now. I have done this a number of times, e.g. for a painter
> who was arrested in Africa for painting naked women.
>
> If one wants to start a business, waiting is not acceptable. If one
> wants to exercise one's rights to free speech, having to wait, is even
> worse.
>
> Please, rethink this.

- --
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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 11:44:10 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] AMAZON

Hello NFT,

Saturday, September 02, 2000, 10:50:14 AM, you wrote:

> Not only do I agree with Mark, but I wonder.....
> exactly how will you decide who is a "unique demander" and I suppose even
> further, Who exactly will decide who is a "unique demander"?  And my guess is
> that once *you* (whoever that might be) decides the unique demander the
> "loser" in this affair my decide to go to UDRP anyway - or try some other
> litigation to resolve their belief that they have rights of use.

I don't think the TLDs Jefsey is talking about will be in the ICANN
root, so I doubt there is really much to worry about here.

He can do what he wants with his private TLDs

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 14:46:48 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] AMAZON

>Not only do I agree with Mark, but I wonder.....
>exactly how will you decide who is a "unique demander" and I suppose even
>further, Who exactly will decide who is a "unique demander"?  And my guess is
>that once *you* (whoever that might be) decides the unique demander the
>"loser" in this affair my decide to go to UDRP anyway - or try some other
>litigation to resolve their belief that they have rights of use.

And God only knows what the purchase price of these domains will be. With
all the admin involved in deciding who is and isn't a "unique demander", a
legitimate business would find it cheaper (and faster) to go to their
friendly local "cybersquatter" and buy an instant domain for $5000.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
- --
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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 23:40:49 +0200
From: "Alf Hansen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] new TLDs

Roberto,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 1. september 2000 17:30
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] new TLDs
>
>
> Alf,
>
> IMHO, the only reason for adding TLDs is to add diversity of models.
> - Chartered vs. open
> - with trademark protection / UDRP vs. without

Yes, but even "open" TLDs should "mean something". It should not be
neccessary to register everything everywhere.

> - for-profit vs. not-for-profit Registry

I am not sure if the end users (the public) care about this (profit not for
profit Registry).

> and so on (see http://www.chez.com/rgaetano/TLD-e.htm).
>
> If the models are diversified, it will make no sense (and in some cases
> it will be practically impossible) to re-register in the new TLDs the
> SLDs already registered as .com.
>
> If, OTOH, the ICANN Board selects just some clones of .com (like .firm,
> biz, or whatever), I agree that we are in trouble.
> But why should they?
>
> BTW, may I assume that you, as Director, would not? ;>)

No, I would not support this, unless some new convincing arguments are put
on the table.

>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
>

Best regards,
Alf H

- --
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: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 00:15:21 +0200 (MEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] AMAZON

On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Andy Gardner wrote:

> >Not only do I agree with Mark, but I wonder.....
> >exactly how will you decide who is a "unique demander" and I suppose even
> >further, Who exactly will decide who is a "unique demander"?  And my guess is
> >that once *you* (whoever that might be) decides the unique demander the
> >"loser" in this affair my decide to go to UDRP anyway - or try some other
> >litigation to resolve their belief that they have rights of use.
> 
> And God only knows what the purchase price of these domains will be. With
> all the admin involved in deciding who is and isn't a "unique demander", a
> legitimate business would find it cheaper (and faster) to go to their
> friendly local "cybersquatter" and buy an instant domain for $5000.

They start at approx. $50 at afternic.com. I got a three letter .com for
the fun of having one for $60.
- --
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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 15:35:10 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] new TLDs

Hello Alf,

Saturday, September 02, 2000, 2:40:49 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> If, OTOH, the ICANN Board selects just some clones of .com (like .firm,
>> biz, or whatever), I agree that we are in trouble.
>> But why should they?
>>
>> BTW, may I assume that you, as Director, would not? ;>)

> No, I would not support this, unless some new convincing arguments are put
> on the table.

Without the introduction of new generic top level domains, there is no
point in expansion.   All of the arguments against that type of
expansions are based on long known fallacies.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 18:43:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] new TLDs

With open TLDs, one can imagine different UDRP outcomes.  For example,
with .books *and* .sports, .comix, and .birds, I can imagine different
outsomes than if everyone was trying to work with .com.  Jamie

On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Alf Hansen wrote:

> Roberto,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: 1. september 2000 17:30
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] new TLDs
> >
> >
> > Alf,
> >
> > IMHO, the only reason for adding TLDs is to add diversity of models.
> > - Chartered vs. open
> > - with trademark protection / UDRP vs. without
> 
> Yes, but even "open" TLDs should "mean something". It should not be
> neccessary to register everything everywhere.
> 
> > - for-profit vs. not-for-profit Registry
> 
> I am not sure if the end users (the public) care about this (profit not for
> profit Registry).
> 
> > and so on (see http://www.chez.com/rgaetano/TLD-e.htm).
> >
> > If the models are diversified, it will make no sense (and in some cases
> > it will be practically impossible) to re-register in the new TLDs the
> > SLDs already registered as .com.
> >
> > If, OTOH, the ICANN Board selects just some clones of .com (like .firm,
> > biz, or whatever), I agree that we are in trouble.
> > But why should they?
> >
> > BTW, may I assume that you, as Director, would not? ;>)
> 
> No, I would not support this, unless some new convincing arguments are put
> on the table.
> 
> >
> > Regards
> > Roberto
> >
> >
> 
> Best regards,
> Alf H
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

=============================================
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology    
P.O. Box 19367        | http://www.cptech.org 
Washington, DC 20036  | [email-masked]       
Voice 202/387-8030    | Fax 202/234-5176     
=============================================

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

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

Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 02:32:17 +0200 (MEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] bodacious-tatas.ORG

A recent UDRP case, which is both sad and funny, made me set up a website
under a domain very similar to that deleted by WIPO.

If you are interested in WIPO versus free speech issues, I kindly invite
you to have a look at

http://www.bodacious-tatas.ORG

Please, note the ORG. The disputed domain was .COM.

Any further info, refs to articles, comments in the press or elswhere
would be much appreciated!

Thanks for your time! 
- --
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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 03:48:04 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] bodacious-tata[s].NET 

Marc,
it seems that you went faster than me as I registered this after-noon
bodacious-tata.net and bodacious-tatas.net to see if there is a difference
between one breast (the Tata TM as no 's') and two breasts.

My idea was to propose to name a WIPO big flop a "bodacious tata".
And to open a "bodacious-tata" contest for WIPO panelists, with a
yearly award. This to protect people against panelists misbehavior. As
there is no appeal: it could provide some kind of a community control
and a de facto increased protection. The site would certainly want to
be a positive part of the UDRP system. I would then be interested in
an UDRP against it. My intent was to call on all the UDRP pros to
nominate panelists as they are shocked by a decision.
May be could we join forces?
Jefsey

At 02:32 03/09/00, you wrote:
>A recent UDRP case, which is both sad and funny, made me set up a website
>under a domain very similar to that deleted by WIPO.
>
>If you are interested in WIPO versus free speech issues, I kindly invite
>you to have a look at
>
>http://www.bodacious-tatas.ORG
>
>Please, note the ORG. The disputed domain was .COM.
>
>Any further info, refs to articles, comments in the press or elswhere
>would be much appreciated!
>
>Thanks for your time!
>--
>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

- --
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: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 05:07:19 +0200 (MEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [icann-candidates] Re: [ga] bodacious-tata[s].NET 

Jefsey,

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Marc,
> it seems that you went faster than me

I can be fast, yes, let us keep that possibility open for new domains :-))

> as I registered this after-noon
> bodacious-tata.net and bodacious-tatas.net to see if there is a difference
> between one breast (the Tata TM as no 's') and two breasts.

I nearly registered the .net myself, but thought .org was more in tune
with the original purpose of the TLDs. Even if this has been given up
officialy.

> My idea was to propose to name a WIPO big flop a "bodacious tata".
> And to open a "bodacious-tata" contest for WIPO panelists, with a
> yearly award. 

You could make this a weekly award. Plenty candidates.

> This to protect people against panelists misbehavior. As
> there is no appeal: it could provide some kind of a community control
> and a de facto increased protection. The site would certainly want to
> be a positive part of the UDRP system. I would then be interested in
> an UDRP against it. My intent was to call on all the UDRP pros to
> nominate panelists as they are shocked by a decision.

My main concern is that this case sets a precedent. The TM lobby cleverly
moves ahead with a case against a porn domain for which nobody has much
sympathy, or rather does not want to show sympathy. Next time someone from
wherever who calls his company Fun may claim all domains with fun in it.

I doubt the owner of bodacious-tatas.com will fight this case in court. It
is probably not worth the money it costs. So we must fight it in the
press. Setting up a little site is a good (and inexpensive) way to get
attention. I hope...

> May be could we join forces? 

By all means!

Marc

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

> At 02:32 03/09/00, you wrote:
> >A recent UDRP case, which is both sad and funny, made me set up a website
> >under a domain very similar to that deleted by WIPO.
> >
> >If you are interested in WIPO versus free speech issues, I kindly invite
> >you to have a look at
> >
> >http://www.bodacious-tatas.ORG
> >
> >Please, note the ORG. The disputed domain was .COM.
> >
> >Any further info, refs to articles, comments in the press or elswhere
> >would be much appreciated!
> >
> >Thanks for your time!
> >--
> >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
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email-masked]
> 
> 
> 

- --
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: Sun,  3 Sep 2000 13:05:26 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] AMAZON

Jamie,

>
>   Just how broad is Amazon.com's claim to all uses the word Amazon on
>the Internet?

They do register each and every variation just because their claim is 
weak.

In other words, they are putting everybody in a de-facto situation, 
where they own the names (and make it difficult for everybody to take 
the names away from them).

Regards
Roberto
- --
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: Sun,  3 Sep 2000 13:10:59 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] AMAZON

Marc, Jefsey,

The 30-days waiting time was widely discussed at the IAHC timem few 
years ago - gee, it is only three years, in fact, but it seems another 
millennium ;>).

The public enquiry clearly rejected it.

Thios said, why could not different Registries implement different 
policies? In a TLD where TMs are stricly enforced, this would make sense
, while in a TLD for strictly individualm or non-commercial use this 
would not maker sense.

Regards
Roberto

>On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
>> Dames and Gentlemen,
>> 
>> we had a meeting yesterday at one of the three comities
>> for new TLDs I am involved with. The current outcome is as follows:
>
>[...]
>> -  the opening of the new TLD will be published. For 3 months
>>     we will register DN requests from TM/company name/private
>>     name owners. Final registration will be granted to unique
>>     demanders. Others will have to participate to a common
>>     UDRP to decide the winner.
>> 
>> -  every domain name registration will be confirmed one month
>>     after request and a current registration request list published.
>>     Only TM owners having registered their TM less than 30 days
>>     before the DN request will be entitled to file an UDRP.
>
>This is not a good idea. I want to be able to register a domain name 
and
>have it in the air ASAP, within 24 hours normally. With com/net/org 
this
>is no problem now. I have done this a number of times, e.g. for a 
painter
>who was arrested in Africa for painting naked women.
>
>If one wants to start a business, waiting is not acceptable. If one
>wants to exercise one's rights to free speech, having to wait, is even
>worse.
>
>Please, rethink this.
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>
- --
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: Sun,  3 Sep 2000 13:24:49 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Simon,

>>
>>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.

The main thing I am worried about is that two alt.roots have different 
name servers for the same TLD.

And this I don't like.

>
>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.
>

First of all, the intention was not at all to fragment the root and to 
start an alt.root.
As for the overseeing role of POC, I will not argue, just notice that I 
was not a POC member at that time.
For the record, I spoke against the "experiment" at the CORE Assembly in
 Washington, DC, that was ongoing when the events happened. I assume I 
would have had the same attitude in POC ;>).

Regards
Roberto
- --
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: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 13:41:11 +0200 (MEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] AMAZON

Roberto,

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Marc, Jefsey,
> 
> The 30-days waiting time was widely discussed at the IAHC timem few 
> years ago - gee, it is only three years, in fact, but it seems another 
> millennium ;>).
> 
> The public enquiry clearly rejected it.
> 
> Thios said, why could not different Registries implement different 
> policies? In a TLD where TMs are stricly enforced, this would make sense
> , while in a TLD for strictly individualm or non-commercial use this 
> would not maker sense.
> 

Great idea: differentiation. Let the TM lobby have their .TOP (Trademark
Or Patent) TLD (chartered). They can have their legal battles in there and
pay for it. Only TM's of standing (meaning not just applied etc.) could
apply for a .TOP. Application needs human checking, so would cost at least
$1000. Which makes it exclusive (not interesting fro cybersquatters),
which makes it interesting commercially. Great business opportunity and
great for free speech. What more can we ask?

A lease of this great idea is available from me for a nominal fee (per
domain registered) :-)

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

> 
> >On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >
> >> Dames and Gentlemen,
> >> 
> >> we had a meeting yesterday at one of the three comities
> >> for new TLDs I am involved with. The current outcome is as follows:
> >
> >[...]
> >> -  the opening of the new TLD will be published. For 3 months
> >>     we will register DN requests from TM/company name/private
> >>     name owners. Final registration will be granted to unique
> >>     demanders. Others will have to participate to a common
> >>     UDRP to decide the winner.
> >> 
> >> -  every domain name registration will be confirmed one month
> >>     after request and a current registration request list published.
> >>     Only TM owners having registered their TM less than 30 days
> >>     before the DN request will be entitled to file an UDRP.
> >
> >This is not a good idea. I want to be able to register a domain name 
> and
> >have it in the air ASAP, within 24 hours normally. With com/net/org 
> this
> >is no problem now. I have done this a number of times, e.g. for a 
> painter
> >who was arrested in Africa for painting naked women.
> >
> >If one wants to start a business, waiting is not acceptable. If one
> >wants to exercise one's rights to free speech, having to wait, is even
> >worse.
> >
> >Please, rethink this.
> >
> >--
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 

- --
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: Sun,  3 Sep 2000 14:03:27 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:      Re: Hackers Hijacking ICANN Elections?

Louise,

I think that Jeannette has already drawn your attention on the fact that
 there is a list, in English, where the debate is going on and the 
German candidates are participating.
Incidentally, the list owner has contacted also the NomCom candidates, 
and invited them to join.

The reason why I am intervening is because, on second thoughts, I think 
that your comments, even if done in perfectly good faith, may be 
misinterpreted in a dangerous way.

I believe that it is perfectly legitimate for the Germans to speak in 
German, and to seek for local support. In fact, I wonder whether you 
raise this problem just in principle, or because the Germans are more 
than 50% of the voters, and therefore potentially can decide the outcome
 of these elections.
I am sure that there is a russian mailing list, or other form of 
Internet communication, that allowed Dmitri Bourkov to collect 400+ 
endorsements: he is also not participating too much in other fora (I 
remember having seen only 1 message from him so far).
But this seems to be less of a problem. Why? Because the Russians voters
 are less likely to be able to determine the outcome.

I would like to reduce the nationalistic aspect of this election. If 
there are more German members, it is because in Germany these elections 
have been taken seriously. There are debates on the press, activities of
 all sort, while in other countries this did not happen. Who are we, the
 non-native Germans, to force them to behave differently? In my opinion,
 the German-speaking Internet community is better informed, up to now, 
than the Italian or Spanish or any other. And this is laudable from 
their part, and a shame for the others that were unable to provoke the 
public interest to the same extent.

As I commented to Jeannette in a private message, it is likely that we 
will have a German AtLarge Director. So what? For instance, now we have 
two French Directors and no Germans, and this did not create any 
problem.

My bottom line is that in building the Internet it is very important to 
have a common language, that may be English, but it is equally important
 not to forget that people have different cultures and also different 
mother-languages, and to stigmatize activities that are not going on in 
English can be a dangerous approach.

Regards
Roberto

>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
>
>
>
>
- --
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 #138
************************