Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1460
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, October 8 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1460

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 01:14:54 -0400
From: Leah G <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat

On Tuesday 08 October 2002 01:05 am, Joe Baptista wrote:
> I agree - my main concern in the IPv6 or IPv4 debate/issues is a recent
> attempt by the RIR to charge fees for allocations.  It basically works out
> to $2,500 per allocation /19 in IPv4 or /48 in IPv6.
>
>
> The amount being charged is nonsense.  All the RIR's do is provide reverse
> resolution - in-addr.arpa for IPv4 and i'm not sure what they have decided
> on for IPv6.
>
>
> Reverse resolution takes up the same resources as regular domain
> resolution - so at best the charge should be a flat $6 per allocation.
>
>
> The organizations I'm involved with had their IPv4 allocations issued long
> before the ICANN/IANA dance started and we don't get charged anything per
> year for our allocations.  And IANA/ICANN have no power to get them back.
> Control of IP numbers is at the router level.  So to take control the
> RIR's now force people to sign agreements.
>
>
> This will result in making the internet significant;y more expensive to
> the users.

Very true, and one of the issues that some of us tried to address quite some 
time ago.  Small entities will find that costs will increase to an 
intolerable level due to overcharges that do nothing more than keep 
beaurocracies in place.   This is supposed to be the non-profit sector and 
there is no need for such pricing.  The end result is a manufactured "tax" on 
IP addressing, with tremendous profit built in as it goes downstream.  

If IPV6 is the *answer* to the shortage of addressing, then there should be 
even less reason to overcharge for the allocations.

Leah

- --
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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 01:33:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Leah G wrote:

> Very true, and one of the issues that some of us tried to address quite some
> time ago.  Small entities will find that costs will increase to an
> intolerable level due to overcharges that do nothing more than keep
> beaurocracies in place.   This is supposed to be the non-profit sector and
> there is no need for such pricing.  The end result is a manufactured "tax" on
> IP addressing, with tremendous profit built in as it goes downstream.

according to vint cerf the fees support ICANN et al.

>> On the assumption that some day all of Internet will be running IPv6,
>> one might ask what operational infrastructure including RIRs and parts
>> of ICANN will need to be supported. The fees may well change with time
>> as more IPv6 address space is allocated.

> If IPV6 is the *answer* to the shortage of addressing, then there should be
> even less reason to overcharge for the allocations.

I agree.  They should be given out for free just to get IPv6 off the
ground.

regards
joe

- --
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: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:59:05 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat

Now I could be wrong here as I have only been invited to an Apnic meeting
addressing such but it is my understanding that there is an actual campaign going
on to try and market IPv6.  What I wondered is how they get to sell them.  It seems
like a tourist climbing into the Grand Canyon and collecting rocks and then selling
them.  Or maybe more like a tourist going into Yellowstone and collecting Poison
Ivy, and selling it to other tourists.  Where is the title to these addresses, or
the license?  Are we talking Brooklyn Bridge here?

Eric

Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Leah G wrote:
>
> > Very true, and one of the issues that some of us tried to address quite some
> > time ago.  Small entities will find that costs will increase to an
> > intolerable level due to overcharges that do nothing more than keep
> > beaurocracies in place.   This is supposed to be the non-profit sector and
> > there is no need for such pricing.  The end result is a manufactured "tax" on
> > IP addressing, with tremendous profit built in as it goes downstream.
>
> according to vint cerf the fees support ICANN et al.
>
> >> On the assumption that some day all of Internet will be running IPv6,
> >> one might ask what operational infrastructure including RIRs and parts
> >> of ICANN will need to be supported. The fees may well change with time
> >> as more IPv6 address space is allocated.
>
> > If IPV6 is the *answer* to the shortage of addressing, then there should be
> > even less reason to overcharge for the allocations.
>
> I agree.  They should be given out for free just to get IPv6 off the
> ground.
>
> regards
> joe
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:04:00 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] BC discussion draft on new domain names

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C26EB2.06233580
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

- ----- Original Message -----=20
From: Philip Sheppard=20
To: [email-masked]=20
Sent: 08 October 2002 10:02
Subject: Re: BC discussion draft on new domain names

Danny, you do see conspiracies everywhere! A discussion paper is mailed =
directly to members and then usually put under news and debate as well =
for convenience. I'll ask the secretariat to fix the link. Perhaps your =
lack of reply means you have some relationship building do to with the =
BC secretariat?

Philip
- ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C26EB2.06233580
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----=20
<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A=20
title=[email-masked] =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">Philip=20
Sheppard</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=[email-masked]=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> 08 October 2002 10:02</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: BC discussion draft on new domain =
names</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Danny, you do see conspiracies everywhere! =
</FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2>A discussion paper is mailed directly to members and then =
usually put=20
under news and debate as well for convenience. </FONT><FONT =
size=3D2>I'll ask the=20
secretariat to fix the link. Perhaps your lack of reply means you have =
some=20
relationship building do to with the BC secretariat?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C26EB2.06233580--

- --
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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:10:24 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga-abuse] Re: [ga] Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat

Please stop this thread.  The discussion is (1) mostly pointless and 
has (2) nothing whatsoever to do with the DNSO's matters.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/
- --
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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 04:48:00 -0400
From: Leah G <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga-abuse] Re: [ga] Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat

On Tuesday 08 October 2002 04:10 am, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> Please stop this thread.  The discussion is (1) mostly pointless and
> has (2) nothing whatsoever to do with the DNSO's matters.

I'm sorry, Alexander, but it does have everything to do with DNSO matters.  IP 
addressing is what domains map to.  If the cost of IP allocations is going to 
effect domain name holders and users, it is pertinent to the DNSO.  If the 
RIRs are going to charge emormous fees that will trickle down to users, that 
is pertinent.  If the reason is to support ICANN, users need to know why they 
would support ICANN if ICANN does not support them and is disenfranchising 
them.  Domain name matters include the fact that domains map to IP addresses 
and it is increasingly more difficult to obtain IP addresses.  IPV6 presents 
problems for users, both in security and cost.  Issues no longer have totally 
separate boundaries and ICANN would like nothing better than to keep the 
users unaware of the pitfalls of IP addressing issues coming under the 
control of ICANN.  As a matter of fact, IP addressing and allocations are 
probably more important to users than the domain names mapped to them at this 
point in the discussion, but the issues are joined at the hip.

Leah

- --
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: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 02:23:33 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga-abuse] Re: [ga] Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat

Perhaps you may clarify for me TR?

Domain Name Support Organization?

Let us see now.  What "supports" the use of Domain Names?  Could it be IP
addresses?
Could the cost and allocation of said IP addresses be relevant to the
"support" of said names?
Try this one on for size "reliability, accessibility and security", does
that sound familiar at all to you?
UDRP and WLS are icing on a very unstable cake, why would we not want to
look at the cake mix? Maybe add some flour?  Why are the "supernics"
peddling IPv6?  What impact does that have on our available space for
domain names?  What impact does that have on the cost of a dotORG?
IRRELEVANT?

Why would you and Alex be so determined to kill this discussion?  It is
not like the GA is doing anything else under your leadership of demise.
Me thinks the lady do protest too much.

Please do not missundertake me,
Seriously and Sincerely,
Eric

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Please stop this thread.  The discussion is (1) mostly pointless and
> has (2) nothing whatsoever to do with the DNSO's matters.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/

- --
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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 08:39:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BC discussion draft on new domain names

The arrogance of power.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Philip Sheppard 
> To: [email-masked] 
> Sent: 08 October 2002 10:02
> Subject: Re: BC discussion draft on new domain names
> 
> 
> Danny, you do see conspiracies everywhere! A discussion paper is mailed directly to members and then usually put under news and debate as well for convenience. I'll ask the secretariat to fix the link. Perhaps your lack of reply means you have some relationship building do to with the BC secretariat?
> 
> Philip

- -- 
		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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:11:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Now I could be wrong here as I have only been invited to an Apnic meeting
> addressing such but it is my understanding that there is an actual campaign going
> on to try and market IPv6.  What I wondered is how they get to sell them.  It seems

I'm not sure about that.  So far I've seen alot of major players but no
major investment made by them in marketing to the consumer.

> like a tourist climbing into the Grand Canyon and collecting rocks and then selling
> them.  Or maybe more like a tourist going into Yellowstone and collecting Poison
> Ivy, and selling it to other tourists.  Where is the title to these addresses, or
> the license?  Are we talking Brooklyn Bridge here?

Good question - I've been asking myself who owns what.  Who owns IPv4 and
who owns IPv6.

regards
joe baptista

>
> Eric
>
> Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Leah G wrote:
> >
> > > Very true, and one of the issues that some of us tried to address quite some
> > > time ago.  Small entities will find that costs will increase to an
> > > intolerable level due to overcharges that do nothing more than keep
> > > beaurocracies in place.   This is supposed to be the non-profit sector and
> > > there is no need for such pricing.  The end result is a manufactured "tax" on
> > > IP addressing, with tremendous profit built in as it goes downstream.
> >
> > according to vint cerf the fees support ICANN et al.
> >
> > >> On the assumption that some day all of Internet will be running IPv6,
> > >> one might ask what operational infrastructure including RIRs and parts
> > >> of ICANN will need to be supported. The fees may well change with time
> > >> as more IPv6 address space is allocated.
> >
> > > If IPV6 is the *answer* to the shortage of addressing, then there should be
> > > even less reason to overcharge for the allocations.
> >
> > I agree.  They should be given out for free just to get IPv6 off the
> > ground.
> >
> > regards
> > joe
> >
> > --
> > 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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:17:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga-abuse] Re: [ga] Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Please stop this thread.  The discussion is (1) mostly pointless and
> has (2) nothing whatsoever to do with the DNSO's matters.

You are completely and absolutly wrong.  Domain names and IP addresses are
inter dependent.

Now you tell me in detail why you think they are not.  Give me some
technical reasons or political as to why they are not dependent and
therefore our business.

Why Thomas Roessler is this discussion pointless?

Why Thomas Roessler has this noting whatsoever to do with DNSO matters?

It would seem to me Thomas Roessler that a few people here do find it
relevant and their business.  So please explain to them why it is not.

regards
joe baptista

- --
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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:22:25 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] Comment Impl3: Initial ALAC; role of the committee. (from: [email-masked])

FYI.
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/

- ----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> -----

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:21:35 +0200
Subject: Comment Impl3: Initial ALAC; role of the committee.

Dear members of the Evolution and Reform Committee:

I appreciate the ERC's and ALAC-AG's efforts to find new ways for
public, individual participation in ICANN.

In order to facilitate such participation in a meaningful manner,
further discussion of some of the recommendations and ideas
contained in the recently-posted documents is necessary:

- - As has already been noted by Vittorio Bertola, section III.E.2 of
  the Final Report seems to indicate that, in a transition phase,
  the ALAC is expected not to select members of the Nomination
  Committee. It is unclear what is meant by the language used in the
  Final Report ("to be selected by the ALAC once it becomes fully
  operational"): Is this supposed to mean the time after the
  implementation of an alternative mechanism as suggested by XI. (5)
  (b) of the proposed new bylaws?

  I would strongly recommend that the ALAC should be considered
  "fully operational" as soon as all its members have been
  determined, even if this determination is going to happen through
  a decision of the board.  I would also suggest that the board
  should determine an initial ALAC as quickly as possible, so ALAC
  can be operational as early as during the annual meeting 2002
  (i.e., December 2002).

  Ideally, any subsequent ALAC should already be determined
  according to the mechanisms imagined by the ALAC-AG.  Should these
  mechanisms not be fully available (for instance because some
  regional at-large organizations have not yet been formed), the
  board as a whole should make any decisions and appointments which
  would normally be these regional organizations' task.

  That is, the board should leave as many decisions as possible (and
  this as early as possible) to regional at-large organizations, and
  should only step where such organizations are not available.

  This mode of transitioning an interim ALAC to the final one should
  be codified in the new bylaws.
  
- - Section X.3 of the proposed new bylaws: If individual users'
  participation and representation in ICANN is to be concentrated in
  the ALAC, then it should be entitled to appoint a liaison to the
  GNSO Names Council.

- - By the same argument, the ALAC should routinely be invited to
  appoint a member to any Task Forces created by the GNSO council.

  It may be a good idea to consider this approach with _all_
  advisory committees, in order to make sure that both special
  perspectives not represented in the GNSO (ALAC, GAC), and
  technical and feasibility concerns (TAC, SAC, RSSAC) can be
  adressed as early in the process as possible.  (Obviously,
  advisory committees would be free to decline any invitation to
  participate in a particular task force.)

To summarize, the ALAC should be (1) considered operational as early
as possible, and (2) should have a credible and effective role in
the global names policy development structure.

Additional concerns:

- - The proposed Policy Development Process lists a maximum number of
  three "outside advisors" per Task Force which can be appointed by
  the Council.  I would suggest to replace this by a _recommended_
  maximum number of outside advisors which can, if necessary, be
  overridden by the GNSO Names Council.  (Maybe in cooperation with
  the Staff Manager.)

- - Section X.5 (4), (5) of the proposed new bylaws: The proposed new
  bylaws do not indicate any time frame for the board to decide and
  for the Names Council to comment on an application of a proposed
  new constituency.  Such a time frame being absent, there may be an
  incentive for existing constituencies to unnecessarily delay a new
  constituency's application out of fear that their own power may be
  diminished.

Kind regards,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler			    <[email-masked]>

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:29:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga-abuse] Re: [ga] Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Let us see now.  What "supports" the use of Domain Names?  Could it be IP
> addresses?

yes - domain names are used to map resources to IP addresses - without IP
there would be no need for domain names.

> Could the cost and allocation of said IP addresses be relevant to the
> "support" of said names?

Yes and it's also going to affect our pocket book.  Forget IPv6 - just
look at whats happening to a dependent protocol IPv4.  At this time ARIN
and the other RIR's want $2,500 per /19 to /24 allocation.  That
translates into a cost to the user of $0.31 to $9.84 per IPv4 per year.

I think thats relevant.  Considering Vint Cerf has admitted it mainly to
fund ICANN and friends.

> Why would you and Alex be so determined to kill this discussion?  It is
> not like the GA is doing anything else under your leadership of demise.
> Me thinks the lady do protest too much.

Ya - I would like to know that too.  I welcome some reasons from those who
are in charge.  Dictates don't work well for me either.

regards
joe baptista

- --
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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 08:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

Hello,

I came across the following today:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/dbiz2002-00270.html

It was quite a strange matter, and the Respondent basically wanted it
transferred to the New Zealand government.

For those who follow UDRP cases, though, I hope this one doesn't set a
precedent, as it seems to be a poor complaint in the first place. For
instance, they wrote:

"Complainant indicates that "‘NEW ZEALAND’ is a trade and service mark
owned collectively by all NZ citizens, organizations and the State,
i.e. by the Complainant", and

"Persons seeking to do business in a country via the Internet will
assume that the domain name [country].biz is run by or on behalf of its
institutions, so that the mere acquisition of a [country].biz name by a
person who is not a citizen, organization of or the state is an act in
bad faith."

I think that'd be a new low in terms of poor reasoning for "bad faith".
I would hope that if there had been a stronger defence, a case like
this wouldn't have been decided in this manner, as it weakens the
claims of other legitimate domain owners.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:53:51 -0500
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

I'd have to give it thorough reading, but this argument that the name of a
country constitutes a trade and service mark seems quite flimsy, as
generally the names, acronyms, etc. of official instutions can not be used
as trade or service marks, unless so authorized by the institutions to which
they correspond; ergo, the name of a country would also be banned from use
as a trade or service mark.

In the end, it seems to me that it all amounts to the lack of controls on
the registration of domain names, as stated in WIPO's Final Report for the
Second Domain Name Process when dealing with those that replicate the names
and acronyms of international institutions.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de George
Kirikos
Enviado el: Martes, 08 de Octubre de 2002 10:42 AM
Para: [email-masked]
Asunto: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

Hello,

I came across the following today:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/dbiz2002-00270.html

It was quite a strange matter, and the Respondent basically wanted it
transferred to the New Zealand government.

For those who follow UDRP cases, though, I hope this one doesn't set a
precedent, as it seems to be a poor complaint in the first place. For
instance, they wrote:

"Complainant indicates that "NEW ZEALAND is a trade and service mark
owned collectively by all NZ citizens, organizations and the State,
i.e. by the Complainant", and

"Persons seeking to do business in a country via the Internet will
assume that the domain name [country].biz is run by or on behalf of its
institutions, so that the mere acquisition of a [country].biz name by a
person who is not a citizen, organization of or the state is an act in
bad faith."

I think that'd be a new low in terms of poor reasoning for "bad faith".
I would hope that if there had been a stronger defence, a case like
this wouldn't have been decided in this manner, as it weakens the
claims of other legitimate domain owners.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 19:44:35 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Call for Volunteers: Deletes Task Force.

We need a volunteer for the Names Council's Deletes Task Force.

If you're interested, please contact me off-list before Friday.  You 
should have some prior knowledge of the process which is currently  
used to release expired domain names and the issues created by this  
process (alternatively, you should be willing and capable to learn  
the details within relatively short time).  Finally, you should be  
prepared to invest a considerable amount of time into this task  
force's work.

Candidates should, ideally, not just replicate some constituency's  
position.

If there are multiple candidates, I hope that we can quickly agree  
upon one representative to the Task Force, with the other candidates 
possibly serving on some kind of a "GA drafting group" for the  
topic which would assist the representative.

Note that there won't be a vote on the GA representative to this  
task force due to the short time frame.
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/

- ----- Forwarded message from Bruce Tonkin <[email-masked]> -----

From: Bruce Tonkin <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:51:30 +1000 
Subject: [council] Representative for Deletes Task force

Hello All,

Would each constituency please identify a representative to 
participate in the Deletes Task Force.  

I would like to post an initial membership of the task force and 
draft terms of reference by 15 October 2002 (14 days prior to the 
next meeting of the names council on 29 October 2002).

If your constituency requires a longer period of time to appoint a 
representative, please provide the name of an individual that can 
serve in the interim.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

Hello,

- --- [email-masked] wrote:
> Am I missing something?
> 
> But should not geographics be given to the local of the geographic?
> But what happens when there are twenty one El Pasos?
> Countries are easier.

There are country codes, e.g. .nz, if they need geographic names.
They're not entitled to that name in every namespace, especially not
the gTLD spaces. e.g. Canada.com is run by a commercial company, not
the Canadian government. If I had the foresight to have registered it
first, I wouldn't want the government yanking it back from me, ala
Barcelona.com and other poor decisions. If they want the name, they can
pay market rates for it, and not expropriate the name without
compensation.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:17:53 -0500
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

I strongly disagree; the naming of States is a matter of public interest,
which supersedes private interests in the DNS. Please refer to the Final
Report of the Second Domain Name Process of WIPO, in the section that deals
with names of international organizations.

ccTLDs help individuals refer their websites to persons located within the
locations to which the former correspond, but they are no DNS substitute for
the name of a country, which registration as a domain names (whether in a
gTLD or a ccTLD) should only be granted to the corresponding national
government.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de George
Kirikos
Enviado el: Martes, 08 de Octubre de 2002 12:47 PM
Para: [email-masked]
Asunto: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

Hello,

- --- [email-masked] wrote:
> Am I missing something?
>
> But should not geographics be given to the local of the geographic?
> But what happens when there are twenty one El Pasos?
> Countries are easier.

There are country codes, e.g. .nz, if they need geographic names.
They're not entitled to that name in every namespace, especially not
the gTLD spaces. e.g. Canada.com is run by a commercial company, not
the Canadian government. If I had the foresight to have registered it
first, I wouldn't want the government yanking it back from me, ala
Barcelona.com and other poor decisions. If they want the name, they can
pay market rates for it, and not expropriate the name without
compensation.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 14:29:11 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for Volunteers: Deletes Task Force.

Thomas,

The invitation to participate on the Deletes Task Force was only offered to 
the constituencies, not to the GA. 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00118.html 

Do you have independent confirmation of a request from the Council for GA 
participation?  
- --
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: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 14:35:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

1. States are not international organizations; the two cases are
different.

2. WIPO is an international organization; its conclusions that bodies of
its ilk deserve special protection are self-serving and thus suspect.

3. There is no basis in public international law for any such conclusion
relating to either state names or international organization names, and
WIPO fails to make any convincing case that such a public international
law or even norm exists.

4. Other than whatever trademark interest international organizations may
have in their names (and in some cases there may well be one), there is no
private law interest at work here, at least none any given state can
assert outside its own borders. 

5. WIPO's continuing attempts to fabricate international law, or even to
bootstrap some new kind of soft law, do not deserve our respect.  They
are, rather, something to criticize.

People who claim that this name-claiming is based on law should cite to
the source of that law.  And citing WIPO is not sufficient: it is not a
law-making body in this domain.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

> I strongly disagree; the naming of States is a matter of public interest,
> which supersedes private interests in the DNS. Please refer to the Final
> Report of the Second Domain Name Process of WIPO, in the section that deals
> with names of international organizations.
> 
> ccTLDs help individuals refer their websites to persons located within the
> locations to which the former correspond, but they are no DNS substitute for
> the name of a country, which registration as a domain names (whether in a
> gTLD or a ccTLD) should only be granted to the corresponding national
> government.
> 
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> 
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de George
> Kirikos
> Enviado el: Martes, 08 de Octubre de 2002 12:47 PM
> Para: [email-masked]
> Asunto: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> --- [email-masked] wrote:
> > Am I missing something?
> >
> > But should not geographics be given to the local of the geographic?
> > But what happens when there are twenty one El Pasos?
> > Countries are easier.
> 
> There are country codes, e.g. .nz, if they need geographic names.
> They're not entitled to that name in every namespace, especially not
> the gTLD spaces. e.g. Canada.com is run by a commercial company, not
> the Canadian government. If I had the foresight to have registered it
> first, I wouldn't want the government yanking it back from me, ala
> Barcelona.com and other poor decisions. If they want the name, they can
> pay market rates for it, and not expropriate the name without
> compensation.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
> http://faith.yahoo.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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1460
*************************