Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1405
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, September 1 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1405

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

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:37:11 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Request to ban Basque nationalist sites via DNS

>Spain steps up pressure on Basque militants at home and abroad
(...)
>Spanish prosecutors Friday also requested Judge Garzon to apply to the 
>Australian government and The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 
>and Numbers, based in the United States, to ban Batasuna web sites 
>including www.batasuna.org, www.euskal-herritarrok.org et 
>www.batasuna-barakaldo.org.
>
>The Spanish press reported that Batasuna's site,www.batasuna.org, 
>was registered by an Australian company 

[Melbourne IT is the registrar]

>with a Californian server, 

[VisualRoute actually points to Virginia]

>administered from Bayonne in France.

AFP via Yahoo (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020830/1/329uu.html), found
via http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=929&mode=&order=0&thold=0

Batasuna is a Basque nationalist party and the political arm of 
the Basque terrorist group ETA. It has recently been suspended
by an anti-terrorist judge and the Spanish parliament voted
overwhelmingly for an indefinite ban.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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, 31 Aug 2002 18:36:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request to ban Basque nationalist sites via DNS

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, at 17:37 [=GMT+0200], Alexander Svensson wrote:

> >Spain steps up pressure on Basque militants at home and abroad
> (...)
> >Spanish prosecutors Friday also requested Judge Garzon to apply to the
> >Australian government and The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
> >and Numbers, based in the United States, to ban Batasuna web sites
> >including www.batasuna.org, www.euskal-herritarrok.org et
> >www.batasuna-barakaldo.org.
> >
> >The Spanish press reported that Batasuna's site,www.batasuna.org,
> >was registered by an Australian company
>
> [Melbourne IT is the registrar]
>
> >with a Californian server,
>
> [VisualRoute actually points to Virginia]
>
> >administered from Bayonne in France.
>
> AFP via Yahoo (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020830/1/329uu.html), found
> via http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=929&mode=&order=0&thold=0
>
> Batasuna is a Basque nationalist party and the political arm of
> the Basque terrorist group ETA. It has recently been suspended
> by an anti-terrorist judge and the Spanish parliament voted
> overwhelmingly for an indefinite ban.

And are you in favour of such use (or abuse) of the DNS? Does it help to
fight terrorism?

- --
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, 1 Sep 2002 16:24:00 +0200
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Groundbreaking NAF Decision in NEW.NET Domain Case

Sorry, Joe. I forgot to register steinle.biz with ARNI. Yes it is a Neulevel
one.
That's why I always advise people to register in all registries. The .pro
name
space is the only one in which you can STILL register your domain name in
both registries.
In the .biz name-space there are already colliders.

http://home.arcor.de/easytech/steinle-biz/Von%20Eric%20Lerner%20Kalaydjian%2
0vs%20Simon%20Steinle%20Decision.htm

Simon
http://nic.pro.xs2.net THE .PRO THIRD LEVEL DOMAIN REGISTRY

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
To: "steinle" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Groundbreaking NAF Decision in NEW.NET Domain Case

>
> hi - i can't reach http://sex.shop.steinle.biz - i'm don't use usg root
> servers and the usg .biz is not recognized.  would you have an alternative
> url instead of http://sex.shop.steinle.biz
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, steinle wrote:
>
> > You can browse the decision in full with links to the exhibits and
proofs under http://sex.shop.steinle.biz
> >
> > See e.g. the Complainants "website", see the link to the Complainants
abuse trademark registrations, see the link to the Case "Amazon.com, Inc v.
Von Eric Lerner Kalaydjian et al, docket C00-1740R (U.S.D.C. W.D.Wa.)", look
who has registered the domain name http://www.pizza.hut, ...
> >
> > Simon
> > --
> > 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: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:27:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

I respectfully disagree with this last point.  It is far better for the
staff to display its prejudices in public than in the usual secret manner.

We all know that the Board does what the staff says unless subjected to
excruciating external pressure.

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> -- The Staff Report should not have recommended a particular
>    bidder, and I hope the Board makes it clear to their staff
>    that this should never happen again! How is the Board to
>    retain their judgement if staff posts a press announcement
>    titled "Preliminary Report to ICANN Board: ISOC to Run .org?"?
> 

- -- 
		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 very 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: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request to ban Basque nationalist sites via DNS

This one is a wierd one.  Had it not been for a banning and eviction my 
ancestors would not have moved, from the Basque Highland, to an emerald isle 
and then been forced to move to America where I am pleased to have been born 
on a 7,000 foot mountain above the Grand Canyon.

My point is that if you force an issue like this you create the will and 
desire to route around.  You do not solve problems of heritage by hiding 
information.  Embracing it head on with information is the only answer.
I am very proud of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy.
Issues of feelings and desires and right and wrong do not desolve by 
stopping the voice, they dissolve by hearing the voice.

How can we move out of the hatred that spurns violent acts unless we listen 
to the voices that create violence.  Banning of any sort is wrong because it 
cuts off the dialogue that may create an understanding.  It is the 
embracement of words and the time to listen that will win a war on any front 
becuase the war will not start.

We are now capable of such wonderful acts of understanding and 
communication.  Let us use them in a peaceful and rightful manner to create 
dialogue and learn from one another.

I am working hard on projects between the USA and Vietnam, where we fought a 
war half a lifetime ago.  But neither side is banning information.  Oh the 
words are frightful at times but the communication stays open and so 
understanding and cooperation are being achieved. Hatefullness and contempt 
are being aired and the air is becoming less frigid.

Please let our Spanish breathren allow their Basque people to speak and then 
speak back to them.  Open dialogue and open minds come from ease of 
communication, please let it be so.

Sincerely,
eric

> On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, at 17:37 [=GMT+0200], Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 
>> >Spain steps up pressure on Basque militants at home and abroad
>> (...)
>> >Spanish prosecutors Friday also requested Judge Garzon to apply to
>> >the Australian government and The Internet Corporation for Assigned
>> >Names and Numbers, based in the United States, to ban Batasuna web
>> >sites including www.batasuna.org, www.euskal-herritarrok.org et
>> >www.batasuna-barakaldo.org.
>> >
>> >The Spanish press reported that Batasuna's site,www.batasuna.org, was
>> >registered by an Australian company
>>
>> [Melbourne IT is the registrar]
>>
>> >with a Californian server,
>>
>> [VisualRoute actually points to Virginia]
>>
>> >administered from Bayonne in France.
>>
>> AFP via Yahoo (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020830/1/329uu.html), found
>> via
>> http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=929&mode=&order=0&thold=0
>>
>> Batasuna is a Basque nationalist party and the political arm of
>> the Basque terrorist group ETA. It has recently been suspended
>> by an anti-terrorist judge and the Spanish parliament voted
>> overwhelmingly for an indefinite ban.
> 
> And are you in favour of such use (or abuse) of the DNS? Does it help
> to fight terrorism?
> 
> --
> 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: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WHOIS

One has to ask oneself who abuses who?
I do not think that individuals are ganging up on corps and abusing their IP 
rights.
But I do think that corps are ganging up on individuals and abusing their 
rights to privacy.
So in which way should the Whois be slanted?  SPAM!
I do not really care because I have a six inch delete button, but my 
children complain.  And I do not want anything to interfere with their use 
of the internet.
e

- --
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, 31 Aug 2002 14:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Groundbreaking NAF Decision in NEW.NET Domain Case

This ain't even a thing.
Communication is all it takes.
One post and it is all done.
be good to yourselves.
e

> Sorry, Joe. I forgot to register steinle.biz with ARNI. Yes it is a
> Neulevel one.
> That's why I always advise people to register in all registries. The
> .pro name
>space is the only one in which you can STILL register your domain name
>in both registries.
> In the .biz name-space there are already colliders.
> 
> 
http://home.arcor.de/easytech/steinle-biz/Von%20Eric%20Lerner%20Kalaydjian%2
> 0vs%20Simon%20Steinle%20Decision.htm
> 
> Simon
> http://nic.pro.xs2.net THE .PRO THIRD LEVEL DOMAIN REGISTRY
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
> To: "steinle" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 4:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Groundbreaking NAF Decision in NEW.NET Domain Case
> 
> 
>>
>> hi - i can't reach http://sex.shop.steinle.biz - i'm don't use usg
>> root servers and the usg .biz is not recognized.  would you have an
>> alternative url instead of http://sex.shop.steinle.biz
>>
>> regards
>> joe baptista
>>
>> On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, steinle wrote:
>>
>> > You can browse the decision in full with links to the exhibits and
> proofs under http://sex.shop.steinle.biz
>> >
>> > See e.g. the Complainants "website", see the link to the
>> > Complainants
> abuse trademark registrations, see the link to the Case "Amazon.com,
> Inc v. Von Eric Lerner Kalaydjian et al, docket C00-1740R (U.S.D.C.
> W.D.Wa.)", look who has registered the domain name
> http://www.pizza.hut, ...
>> >
>> > Simon
>> > --
>> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>> >
>>
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 10:31:04 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request to ban Basque nationalist sites via DNS

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:37:11 +0200, you wrote:

>>Spain steps up pressure on Basque militants at home and abroad
>(...)
>>Spanish prosecutors Friday also requested Judge Garzon to apply to the 
>>Australian government and The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 
>>and Numbers, based in the United States, to ban Batasuna web sites 
>>including www.batasuna.org, www.euskal-herritarrok.org et 
>>www.batasuna-barakaldo.org.

Well - the usual display of ignorance. Even supporters of the "strong
ICANN" model don't think that ICANN should ever be able to "ban web
sites" :-)

If I were the Spanish government... well, if I actually were, I'd
perhaps try other roads to deal with the persistent Basque terrorism,
and surely I wouldn't go round the world trying to turn off web sites,
but that's another story. However, assuming that I were a government
wishing to close a web site, firstly I'd act on the hosting; and even
in this case, it seems unlikely to me that the DoC will let foreign
governments or law courts force the dissolution of any hosting
contract with an US company, if not on a basis of very informal "moral
suasion".

But for us it is more interesting to understand what might practically
happen about the domain name registration. Of course ICANN does not
have the power of deleting specific registrations, does it? (And I
hope it will never have.) So the Spanish could only challenge the
validity of the registration, either by trying to force Melbourne IT
to delete the registration - but I don't think that a Spanish law
would affect an Australian company, and I don't think that that
registration is in any way illegal under Australian laws - or by
starting an UDRP. 

By the way, the UDRP would possibly be the only "safe" way - if you
simply get the registration deleted, nothing forbids anyone else to go
and register the domain name again one day later; so - given that,
differently from what happens in many ccTLDs, there is not a list of
"forbidden words" that gTLD registries will refuse as domain names -
what you need is really to have the "offending name" owned by
yourself.

Now, if you take the UDRP rules, I don't think there's anything that
says that the Spanish government has any right over batasuna.org more
than Batasuna itself. So either the UDRP rules are modified for this
kind of cases (or simply, a sympathetic ruler invents something funny
to let the Spanish win the cause, perhaps after a set of invisible
international pressures), or we could see the Spanish government
registering "Batasuna" as a trademark trying to exploit it to win the
UDRP - at least if the Basque didn't do it before them :-)

So in the end, my conclusion is partly positive and partly negative:
the positive part is that shutting off web sites still seems to be
very hard, and the negative part is that the only ways you could
possibly use are either by informally and privately exploiting your
power to "convince" service providers to voluntarily close the site,
or by using intellectual property tools. Apparently, the current
international Internet framework is much more favourable to trademark
owners than it is to anti-terrorism efforts.
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- ----------------------> http://bertola.eu.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: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 11:38:53 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request to ban Basque nationalist sites via DNS

Hello Vittorio,

At 01.09.2002 10:31, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:37:11 +0200, you wrote:
>
>>>Spain steps up pressure on Basque militants at home and abroad
>>(...)
>>>Spanish prosecutors Friday also requested Judge Garzon to apply to the 
>>>Australian government and The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 
>>>and Numbers, based in the United States, to ban Batasuna web sites 
>>>including www.batasuna.org, www.euskal-herritarrok.org et 
>>>www.batasuna-barakaldo.org.
>
>Well - the usual display of ignorance. Even supporters of the "strong
>ICANN" model don't think that ICANN should ever be able to "ban web
>sites" :-)

We probably have to be a bit careful here: This is an English AFP
translation of a French AFP report on what Spanish newspapers
are reporting about the plans of Spanish prosecutors -- there
may be some distortion along the way.

That said, I don't think you would need to use the "trademark approach".
The UDRP says:

 (3) We [the registrar] will cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes 
     to domain name registrations under the following circumstances: 
     (...)
  b. our receipt of an order from a court or arbitral tribunal, in 
     each case of competent jurisdiction, requiring such action; (...)

This is not limited anywhere to disputes about trademarks and
Judge Garzon's court could require such action. We had such cases
before (remember vote-auction.com?).  I don't think it would be wise 
- -- mirror sites would spring up, naive people would probably
take Batasuna for the voice of the Basque people -- and I'm strictly 
against any role for ICANN in this. 

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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, 01 Sep 2002 12:16:43 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request to ban Basque nationalist sites via DNS

- --=======41AD41C0=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-64E824D0; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Vittorio, Dear Michael,
I am afraid Vittorio you go by the normal laws we lived with for centuries. 
I am calling now our legal expert, Michael, and I revert to US law. ICANN 
has been created as a front-end for the USG to apply the US law and its 
claim to a worldwide dominance over the data exchanges and relations.

1. this dominance is expressed by 1996 communications acts. They say two 
things:

1.1. the "enhanced" services are now "information" services and as such 
removed from the ITU rules, agreements and jurisprudence protection which 
helped an non US controlled development - and which are replaced by the 
ICANN "contractnet" policy legitimated by the GAC and the constant call of 
ICANN to Govs.

1.2 that the Internet is made of all the computers connected to 
interoperated packet switch networks in the world. Under that dominance 
there is an unique continuum ruled by ICANN under the USG root originated 
name space.

2. What Spains claims is that this continuum is to be used in its favor and 
not only in US favor. This may mean two things: either that Spain puts 
itself under ICANN jurisdiction, ie under the US dominance, or that Spain 
claims that the namespace is to be ruled by a concertance, at least where 
existing antiterrorist rules and agreements apply.

Judge Garzon is unfortunately probably more interested in his name being 
known than in Spanish digital sovereignty. Calling on the Australian 
Government is a proper move - Gov to Gov. Calling on the Spanish Gov to 
implement a serious European and Spanish root policy permitting to address 
that kind of problem (barring Spanish access to Batasunna sites, 
prosecuting people accessing them, sueing the ASP/ISPs permmiting access 
from Spain to their site - like in the French Yahoo case) would be a proper 
move. But calling on ICANN is to acknowledge the US dominance and to create 
a legal doctrine about an ICANN governed International Internet continuum. 
This opposes the exiting/begining practice of more informed countries like 
Viet-Name (national views), China (national root), Saudi (control of adult 
hosts), Tunisia (e-mail control), France (Yahoo), USA (Homeland), etc. and 
the general move towards  specific national rules (about logging the calls) 
and legal protection (privacy).
jfc

At 10:31 01/09/02, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:37:11 +0200, you wrote:
>
> >>Spain steps up pressure on Basque militants at home and abroad
> >(...)
> >>Spanish prosecutors Friday also requested Judge Garzon to apply to the
> >>Australian government and The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
> >>and Numbers, based in the United States, to ban Batasuna web sites
> >>including www.batasuna.org, www.euskal-herritarrok.org et
> >>www.batasuna-barakaldo.org.
>
>Well - the usual display of ignorance. Even supporters of the "strong
>ICANN" model don't think that ICANN should ever be able to "ban web
>sites" :-)
>
>If I were the Spanish government... well, if I actually were, I'd
>perhaps try other roads to deal with the persistent Basque terrorism,
>and surely I wouldn't go round the world trying to turn off web sites,
>but that's another story. However, assuming that I were a government
>wishing to close a web site, firstly I'd act on the hosting; and even
>in this case, it seems unlikely to me that the DoC will let foreign
>governments or law courts force the dissolution of any hosting
>contract with an US company, if not on a basis of very informal "moral
>suasion".
>
>But for us it is more interesting to understand what might practically
>happen about the domain name registration. Of course ICANN does not
>have the power of deleting specific registrations, does it? (And I
>hope it will never have.) So the Spanish could only challenge the
>validity of the registration, either by trying to force Melbourne IT
>to delete the registration - but I don't think that a Spanish law
>would affect an Australian company, and I don't think that that
>registration is in any way illegal under Australian laws - or by
>starting an UDRP.
>
>By the way, the UDRP would possibly be the only "safe" way - if you
>simply get the registration deleted, nothing forbids anyone else to go
>and register the domain name again one day later; so - given that,
>differently from what happens in many ccTLDs, there is not a list of
>"forbidden words" that gTLD registries will refuse as domain names -
>what you need is really to have the "offending name" owned by
>yourself.
>
>Now, if you take the UDRP rules, I don't think there's anything that
>says that the Spanish government has any right over batasuna.org more
>than Batasuna itself. So either the UDRP rules are modified for this
>kind of cases (or simply, a sympathetic ruler invents something funny
>to let the Spanish win the cause, perhaps after a set of invisible
>international pressures), or we could see the Spanish government
>registering "Batasuna" as a trademark trying to exploit it to win the
>UDRP - at least if the Basque didn't do it before them :-)
>
>So in the end, my conclusion is partly positive and partly negative:
>the positive part is that shutting off web sites still seems to be
>very hard, and the negative part is that the only ways you could
>possibly use are either by informally and privately exploiting your
>power to "convince" service providers to voluntarily close the site,
>or by using intellectual property tools. Apparently, the current
>international Internet framework is much more favourable to trademark
>owners than it is to anti-terrorism efforts.
>--
>vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
>----------------------> http://bertola.eu.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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/02

- --=======41AD41C0=======--

- --
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: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 17:29:08 +0200
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Groundbreaking NAF Decision in NEW.NET Domain Case

Now you could use http://www.steinle.law.pro or http://sex.shop.law.pro
instead of http://sex.shop.steinle.biz .
This works in the ORSC, in the Name.Space and in the Pacific Root.

Simon

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
To: "steinle" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Groundbreaking NAF Decision in NEW.NET Domain Case

>
> hi - i can't reach http://sex.shop.steinle.biz - i'm don't use usg root
> servers and the usg .biz is not recognized.  would you have an alternative
> url instead of http://sex.shop.steinle.biz
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, steinle wrote:
>
> > You can browse the decision in full with links to the exhibits and
proofs under http://sex.shop.steinle.biz
> >
> > See e.g. the Complainants "website", see the link to the Complainants
abuse trademark registrations, see the link to the Case "Amazon.com, Inc v.
Von Eric Lerner Kalaydjian et al, docket C00-1740R (U.S.D.C. W.D.Wa.)", look
who has registered the domain name http://www.pizza.hut, ...
> >
> > Simon
> > --
> > 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, 1 Sep 2002 13:54:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Groundbreaking NAF Decision in NEW.NET Domain Case

thank you Simon - that works perfectly

kindest regards
joe baptista

p.s. looks like this chap Von Eric Lerner Kalaydjian has a bit of a
history.

On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Now you could use http://www.steinle.law.pro or http://sex.shop.law.pro
> instead of http://sex.shop.steinle.biz .
> This works in the ORSC, in the Name.Space and in the Pacific Root.
>
> Simon
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
> To: "steinle" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 4:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Groundbreaking NAF Decision in NEW.NET Domain Case
>
>
> >
> > hi - i can't reach http://sex.shop.steinle.biz - i'm don't use usg root
> > servers and the usg .biz is not recognized.  would you have an alternative
> > url instead of http://sex.shop.steinle.biz
> >
> > regards
> > joe baptista
> >
> > On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, steinle wrote:
> >
> > > You can browse the decision in full with links to the exhibits and
> proofs under http://sex.shop.steinle.biz
> > >
> > > See e.g. the Complainants "website", see the link to the Complainants
> abuse trademark registrations, see the link to the Case "Amazon.com, Inc v.
> Von Eric Lerner Kalaydjian et al, docket C00-1740R (U.S.D.C. W.D.Wa.)", look
> who has registered the domain name http://www.pizza.hut, ...
> > >
> > > Simon
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1405
*************************