Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #144
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, September 8 2000          Volume 01 : Number 144

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

Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 10:53:48 +0100
From: Measday Mark <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Admin] Re: [ga] Offense

Harald, there is no need for you to resign, for God's sake.

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 11:26 05/09/2000 +0200, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> >Request to the GA Chair's:
> >
> >I hereby publicly object to the odious offense to each and
> >every human, when targetting Norwegians.
>
> The list monitor has considered the matter.
> The remark that triggered the complaint,
>
>  > >>Yeah, it sounds just like Europe in 1939. It makes me wonder what will
>  > >>happen in Norway to all those using the .KOSHER TLD.
>
> failed to observe a minimum of decorum; implied accusations of potentially
> aiding and abetting in mass murder is neither in good taste nor relevant to
> the business of the GA.
>
> However, the offender promptly apologized for his offense:
>
> > > Jefsey has a point. I apologize to anyone I've offended. I am European too
> > > which is why I used the analogy. The point was not to offend, but to
> > ensure
> > > that period of history was never repeated by what is being done here.
>
> The list monitor is willing to assume for now that the offender has
> realized that this argument was inconsistent with a civilized discourse on
> the issues,
> and will not take any further action at this time.
>
>              Harald Tveit Alvestrand
>              List monitor
>
> --
> 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

- --
___________________________________________________________________________________

Part of the Josmarian Group
72 boulevard St Georges 1025 Geneva Switzerland

Our company does not warrant or guarantee the quality or
accuracy of any of the information contained in this
message and hereby excludes all and any liability of
any kind for the information contained in it, or for
its transmission, reception, storage, or use in any way
whatsoever.

If you have a technical problem with this e-mail,
please mailto:[email-masked] outlining the nature
of the problem.

This e-mail transmission is intended only for the use
of the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information which is privileged and
confidential. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient or the employee responsible for
delivering this communication to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this comm-
unication in error, please forward it to
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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 19:16:40 -0400
From: Dennis Schaefer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Harald's comment discussed on the EU list

Hi William --

I take exception to your claim that IDNO, as an organization, cannot be a
constituency.

The constituency model envisions that constituencies will organize
themselves -- and IDNO is in fact
an organization of people seeking recognition as a constituency.

True it has been riven by dissent --- but the measure of any constituency
is precisely its ability to permit conflicting viewpoints.  Of all
constituencies, the individuals' should be expected to deliver healthy, if
not raucus, internal disagreement.  On this front, IDNO has proven highly
successful:  it has resisted capture by pockets of members, has continued
to draw new members, and continues to urge disgruntled members to come back
and resume the fight.   By this measure, it is far more successful than
some of the recognized constuencies.

Personally I feel that the constituency model has been proven a failure.
Most constituencies are little more than committees of a great trade
association.   If DNSO wants to give ICANN a healthy dose of democracy, it
should stop dithering and act on the repeated requests of the General
Assembly to resolve the matter.

I realize that you've had a bitter personal battle with some members of
IDNO, but shutting down an individuals'
constituency really is like throwing out the proverbial baby.

Regards

>Dennis

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Joop,
>
> Monday, September 04, 2000, 8:56:34 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Such structure will not be cemented by adding a new constituency. If it is
> > fragile by itself it will became even more weak by adding another different
> > voice. If it will collapse by adding the IDNO it will simply mean it was
> > wrong
>
> The IDNO should not be added.  It is not a constituency, and as it
> stands it should not be eligible to be a constituency.
>
> No "organization" should have constituency status bestowed on it.
> That is not what a constituency is or how a constituency should be
> setup.
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 16:23:12 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Harald's comment discussed on the EU list

Hello Dennis,

Wednesday, September 06, 2000, 4:16:40 PM, you wrote:

> Hi William --

> I take exception to your claim that IDNO, as an organization, cannot be a
> constituency.

Dennis, no independent organization can be a constituency.  Look up
the word.   The constituency is a part of the DNSO, not an independent
organization.  The IDNO can certainly organize itself, and participate
in creating a foundation for a constituency, that would include
non-IDNO members as well, but a constituency cannot, by definition, BE
an outside organization.  It is instead, as you say, a self organized
group of people, which is a part of the DNSO structure.

> True it has been riven by dissent --- but the measure of any constituency
> is precisely its ability to permit conflicting viewpoints.  Of all
> constituencies, the individuals' should be expected to deliver healthy, if
> not raucus, internal disagreement.  On this front, IDNO has proven highly
> successful:  it has resisted capture by pockets of members, has continued

This is a joke right? The IDNO was capture by a very small group of
members, and succeeded because one person had a near dictorial control
over all the organs of the organization.  The IDNO is and was a
failure.  And frankly, it has failed to organize anything.  Any new
"members" have not participated in anything IDNO specific, and
frankly, probably have no idea of the history or why the IDNO effort
has in effect failed.

> Personally I feel that the constituency model has been proven a failure.
> Most constituencies are little more than committees of a great trade
> association.

I agree with you completely here.

> If DNSO wants to give ICANN a healthy dose of democracy, it
> should stop dithering and act on the repeated requests of the General
> Assembly to resolve the matter.

I agree. A domain owners constituency should exist, but it will NOT
solve the problems of the DNSO.  And that constituency should NOT
exist as any organization, regardless of whether it is the IDNO, the
ADOR, or any other specific organization.  The constituency should be
a loosely organized structure defining who qualifies as a member, and
very little more, like the current constituencies.

Giving constituency status to an organization like the IDNO confers
way too much power on a small group of people, who have proven their
inability to act in the best interests of the group as a whole.

> I realize that you've had a bitter personal battle with some members of
> IDNO, but shutting down an individuals'
> constituency really is like throwing out the proverbial baby.

My comments did nothing to shut down the idea of a domain owners
constituency.  I merely pointed out that the IDNO has no business
being considered as a constituency in and of itself.  No organization
does.

- -- 
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 09:22:21 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] David Streitfeld in WP: Making Bad Names for Themselves

Subject: [Nc-tlds] David Streitfeld in WP: Making Bad Names for
Themselves
   Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 09:15:42 -0400
  From: James Love <[email-masked]>
    To: [email-masked]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30525-2000Sep7.html

Making Bad Names for Themselves 

By David Streitfeld
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday , September 8, 2000 ; A01 

SAN FRANCISCO -- No one has ever heard of Stonepath Group. In fact, a
company by that name won't exist for another two weeks, when the
stockholders of Net Value Holdings will vote to dump that dull moniker
and go with the sleeker Stonepath.

But if Stonepath is yet to be officially born, it's already prepared for
a lifetime of brickbats. Among the Internet addresses it has reserved
for itself are StonepathLosers.com and StonepathBadThings.com, as well
as half a dozen other cruder variations.

   [snip]

"Ultimately I suppose you can't control what anyone says about you,"
said President Lee Hansen. "But why make it easy for them? You can call
this paranoid, but it's also proactive and protective."

You can also call it popular. The start-up Stamps.com just registered
six Internet names, all variations on its corporate title with a
vulgarism attached. The consumer-products conglomerate Johnson & Johnson
locked up 43. United Parcel Service signed up for UPSstinks.com,
IHateUPS.com and UPSBites.com as well as four names containing words
that UPS executives probably don't let their children use.

   [snip] 

 . . Intuit, whose best-known product is Quicken financial software,
just registered a Web address whose name boldly states that the program
is despicable. Intuit officials will probably never activate this site.
They just didn't want someone else to be able to register and activate
it.

   [snip]

That tussle was nothing compared with the high passions aroused by
Verizon Communications, the telecommunications company formed by the
merger of GTE and Bell Atlantic. Before the new brand name was announced
on April 3, Verizon registered 724 new Internet addresses that had
Verizon in them, according to Company Sleuth.

On April 4, the hacker magazine 2600--best known for being the leading
defendant in Hollywood's ongoing legal efforts against those who would
break the encryption on DVD movies--decided to tweak Verizon by
registering VerizonSucks.com.

"If our experience with past phone companies is any indication, Verizon
will in all probability be thought of this way in the near future," the
editors later explained.

But that name, it turned out, had already been registered by the company
itself, along with 56 other self-critical names. So 2600 registered
VerizonReallySucks.com.

Shortly thereafter, the magazine received a letter accusing it of
trademark infringement violating the Anticybersquatting Consumer
Protection Act, and demanding the transfer of the unused domain name to
Verizon under threat of suit.

The editors for 2600 fired back that this was a misapplication of the
anti-squatting act. "This law was designed to protect companies against
those who would register their name and hold it for ransom," they
responded. "But this is a statement, an opinion, one which in no way
would be confused with the actual name of the company."

The magazine essentially turned over its anti-Verizon domain name to the
Communication Workers of America; it now documents CWA's strike against
Verizon. The magazine called on other hackers to exercise their free
speech rights by criticizing Verizon in domain names, and registered for
itself
VerizonShouldSpendMoreTimeFixingItsNetworkAndLessMoneyOnLawyers.com.

At this point, Verizon--confronted with Web sites like
VerizonDoesReallySuck.com, VerizonMonopolisticBastards.com and dozens of
others that can't be printed in a newspaper--says it's so sorry the
whole thing happened.

   [snip]

Of course, none of the companies interviewed said its goal was to
squelch free speech. But a few said they didn't mind making it a bit
harder. "You build a lot of brand equity in a name," said Hansen of
Stonepath. "The last thing you want to do is see it tarnished."

  [snip]

Danaher Corp., the huge tool manufacturer based in the District, has not
only registered the usual self-critical variations on its corporate
name, but gone a step further.

Danaher's chief executive is George Sherman. Among the domain names
recently registered by the company: GeorgeShermanSucks.com.

- -- 
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

_______________________________________________
Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #144
************************