Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1464
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, October 10 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1464

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:18:59 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [fwd] [council] IANA Handling of Root-Zone Changes (from: [email-masked])

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, at 10:55 [=GMT+0200], Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Checking the root zone, both .GR and .AT no longer list NS.EU.NET as
> nameservers.  DE still has DNS.NIC.XLINK.NET listed - Xlink is the
> name under which the German branch of KPNQwest used to be known
> before being bought by them.

.GR and .AT were changed on two subsequent dates. I am curious why, and
also whether they allowed axfr to ICANN before the change was introduced.

- --
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:59:08 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA & the Steady State Future

On 2002-10-10 16:17:09 +0200, ADD-CT wrote:

>excuse my ignorance: I arrived to this list searching the way to  
>belongs or participate in ICANN. 

... and you are very much welcome.

>If you click on "participate in ICANN" (www.icann.org), you will 
>go to www.dnso.icann.org and, from there, to "mailing lists". At 
>this point, I don't know what to think.  Am I a member of the 
>ICANN? Or a member of DNSO? Or only a member of this mailing list?

Well, ICANN doesn't have members, technically.  (And I'll get a  
follow-up from Karl Auerbach in which he'll dispute the effectivity  
of these bylaw provisions in view of the CNPPBL, or however that law 
is abbreviated.)

The DNSO (which has two analogues, the ASO and the PSO) is built up  
out of a number of distinct "constituencies": Business users,  
Non-Commercial Users, Intellectual Property Interests, ISPs,  
Registrars, Registries, and ccTLDs.  In addition to that, there's  
this mailing list, the General Assembly, which also corresponds to a 
"plenary session" at ICANN physical meetings.

Much of the work in the DNSO is supposed to happen on the Names  
Council (where the constituencies are represented) and in Working  
Groups (nowadays: closed Task Forces, consisting of constituency  
representatives).

The GA is supposed to be a forum for intelligent discussion of DNSO  
issues, and for consensus-building.  In the past, it has also  
regularly sent participants to the various Task Forces (who have,  
at times, been very active). The chair and co-chair have been  
regularly participating in Names Council telephone conferences.

In the reformed future ICANN, the DNSO will be renamed GNSO, the  
ccTLDs are going to get their own Supporting Organization.  There  
will be a new "Policy Development Process" which will replace the 
current task force model.

The future GNSO won't have a formal "General Assembly" according to  
the current plans, and the participation in new-style Task Forces  
thus won't be open for individual participants.  Public  
participation will have to go through a beast called ALAC (At-Large  
Advisory Committee).  I hope that it will be possible to persuade  
the board that ALAC participation in the policy-development process  
is a good idea.  

Abolishing the notion of a "General Assembly" (in the current  
bylaws, the GA is almost the incarnation of the DNSO as a whole)  
does not mean that this mailing list will stop to exist, and it also 
does not mean that it won't continue to be read by an astonishing  
number of people.  After all, it's the best discussion forum we have 
for ICANN matters, alongside, maybe, with the NCDNHC's discussion  
list.

Now, what to do if you want to participate beyond that?  If you can, 
join one of the existing constituencies.  If you're just an  
individual participant (like me), look out for the ALAC's future  
activities, or try to contribute some more reason to the folks at  
icannatlarge.com.  When there's an opportunity and you feel  
interested in and knowledgeable on some topic, try to join a task  
force.  (I don't know how that'll work in the future, though - I  
just hope that it will continue to be possible.)

When you believe that you have a valuable comment to make on some  
topic, make it.  Frequently, you'll be ignored, but occasionally, it 
actually works.

PS: There's one web site you should _really_ visit daily. That's  
Bret Fausett's icann.blog.us.  Besides that, you may also wish to  
take an occasional look at icannwatch.org, and at my own blog (see  
.sig).  If you understand German, I'd also recommend Alexander  
Svensson's icannchannel.de.

- -- 
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:57:18 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

At 7:13 PM +1300 10/10/02, DPF wrote:

>It appears from inquiries I have made locally that the application was
>not made by the NZ Government but by Trade New Zealand - a government
>owned organisation, presumably with the consent of their Minister as
>his name was used.  Other sections of the Government with an interest
>in these things were not in the loop on this.
>
>In fact official NZ government policy on the issue of country names as
>domain names is that they should not be precluded.  This can be found
>in the submission at
>http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/sct/comments/0009.html.
>

Interesting.

So who do we need to contact in the govt hierachy to get the UDRP for
newzealand.com withdrawn?

Check out the following news item:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2998418&thesection=technology&thesubsection=general

Quoting:

"The Government has won back the rights to the newzealand.biz internet
domain name"

Firstly, you can't say "won back" when they never had the rights in the
first place, so journalist Adam Gifford needs to get A CLUE. And someone
can forward that message onto him from me if they like.

Secondly, it sounds like "the Government" had no idea this was going on
(thanks to the secrecy surrounding the UDRP process in general - you don't
know who filed a case until it's all over) and the apparent wish of the
complainant to not publish the results.

So Adam Gifford really needs to re-hash his story, and perhap do some
research this time, instead of just repeating quotes from "the Government".

Thirdly:

"Mackenzie said the cost of getting back the name was minimal."

Mackenzie/Trade NZ/"the Government" didn't "get back the name". They STOLE it.

Sheesh.

No points for guessing what the outcome of
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html will
be, now that these crooks have got some precedence behind them.

Note to those that don't know how the UDRP process REALLY works: What you
read in the final "decision" isn't always the full story. The "panel"
frequently leaves out anything (usually submitted by the defendant) that
doesn't fit the outcome they desire. It's pretty much a SCAM being operated
here.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:12:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] IPv6 and child pornographers

Well this is my last article on IPv6 - the next will deal with
infrastructure.

        October 9, 2002, IPv6: In Search Of Internet Security
        http://www.circleid.com/articles/2543.asp

It is important that members of the GA consider the privacy implications
of IPv6 - dissendents in china will be liberated and so will child
pornographers.  My other two artticles are also posted below.

        September 12, 2002, Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat
        http://www.circleid.com/articles/2533.asp

        September 25, 2002, IPv6 Transition: Preparing For The Big Shift
        http://www.circleid.com/articles/2539.asp

Cheers
Joe Baptista

- --
Planet Communications & Computing Facility
a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited

- --
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:15:02 -0500
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

I beg to differ, Andrew. It is my opinion that  New Zealand did win back its
name on .biz. An approach like yours only favors land-rush attitudes towards
domain name registration and cybersquatting. Domain name registration should
begin by acknowledging that certain exclusive rights over other idetifiers
and distinctive signs preceeded its inception.

I insist that the naming of States is a matter of public interest, and
therefore registrars should ban the registration of domain names comprising
the names of States, unless registration is requested by the State
concerned.

Altough Professor Froomkin commented earlier this week that there is no
basis in international public law for the foregoing, I beleive that there
is, specifically in international commity and custom. Each State is entitled
to choose the form of its designation, same which may not be used otherwise
by anyone else, irrepective of the function that eacg gTLD is supposed to
serve.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Andy
Gardner
Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 10:57 AM
Para: [email-masked]
Asunto: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

At 7:13 PM +1300 10/10/02, DPF wrote:

>It appears from inquiries I have made locally that the application was
>not made by the NZ Government but by Trade New Zealand - a government
>owned organisation, presumably with the consent of their Minister as
>his name was used.  Other sections of the Government with an interest
>in these things were not in the loop on this.
>
>In fact official NZ government policy on the issue of country names as
>domain names is that they should not be precluded.  This can be found
>in the submission at
>http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/sct/comments/0009.html.
>

Interesting.

So who do we need to contact in the govt hierachy to get the UDRP for
newzealand.com withdrawn?

Check out the following news item:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2998418&thesection=techno
logy&thesubsection=general

Quoting:

"The Government has won back the rights to the newzealand.biz internet
domain name"

Firstly, you can't say "won back" when they never had the rights in the
first place, so journalist Adam Gifford needs to get A CLUE. And someone
can forward that message onto him from me if they like.

Secondly, it sounds like "the Government" had no idea this was going on
(thanks to the secrecy surrounding the UDRP process in general - you don't
know who filed a case until it's all over) and the apparent wish of the
complainant to not publish the results.

So Adam Gifford really needs to re-hash his story, and perhap do some
research this time, instead of just repeating quotes from "the Government".

Thirdly:

"Mackenzie said the cost of getting back the name was minimal."

Mackenzie/Trade NZ/"the Government" didn't "get back the name". They STOLE
it.

Sheesh.

No points for guessing what the outcome of
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html will
be, now that these crooks have got some precedence behind them.

Note to those that don't know how the UDRP process REALLY works: What you
read in the final "decision" isn't always the full story. The "panel"
frequently leaves out anything (usually submitted by the defendant) that
doesn't fit the outcome they desire. It's pretty much a SCAM being operated
here.

- --
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:48:42 -0400
From: Patricio Poblete <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 12:15:02PM -0500, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
> 
> [...] Each State is entitled
> to choose the form of its designation, same which may not be used otherwise
> by anyone else, irrepective of the function that eacg gTLD is supposed to
> serve.

So, you would argue that, in a hypothetical ".movie" TLD, Terry Gilliam
would have no right to register "brazil.movie"?

Patricio Poblete
- --
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:56:54 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

> I insist that the naming of States is a matter of public interest, and
> therefore registrars should ban the registration of domain names
comprising
> the names of States, unless registration is requested by the State
> concerned.
>

Intellectual Property types tend to rely on this type of logic as well. I've
never understood (nor been adequately convinced) how prior use in a
completely unrelated area should provide one the benefit of complete
protection for all future applications.

toronto.info, newzealand.biz - its all the same - property rights don't
reasonably map to domain names - the "landrush attitude" remains the
fairest.

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodrigo Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Andy Gardner'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 1:15 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

> I beg to differ, Andrew. It is my opinion that  New Zealand did win back
its
> name on .biz. An approach like yours only favors land-rush attitudes
towards
> domain name registration and cybersquatting. Domain name registration
should
> begin by acknowledging that certain exclusive rights over other idetifiers
> and distinctive signs preceeded its inception.
>
> I insist that the naming of States is a matter of public interest, and
> therefore registrars should ban the registration of domain names
comprising
> the names of States, unless registration is requested by the State
> concerned.
>
> Altough Professor Froomkin commented earlier this week that there is no
> basis in international public law for the foregoing, I beleive that there
> is, specifically in international commity and custom. Each State is
entitled
> to choose the form of its designation, same which may not be used
otherwise
> by anyone else, irrepective of the function that eacg gTLD is supposed to
> serve.
>
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Andy
> Gardner
> Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 10:57 AM
> Para: [email-masked]
> Asunto: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
>
>
> At 7:13 PM +1300 10/10/02, DPF wrote:
>
> >It appears from inquiries I have made locally that the application was
> >not made by the NZ Government but by Trade New Zealand - a government
> >owned organisation, presumably with the consent of their Minister as
> >his name was used.  Other sections of the Government with an interest
> >in these things were not in the loop on this.
> >
> >In fact official NZ government policy on the issue of country names as
> >domain names is that they should not be precluded.  This can be found
> >in the submission at
> >http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/sct/comments/0009.html.
> >
>
> Interesting.
>
> So who do we need to contact in the govt hierachy to get the UDRP for
> newzealand.com withdrawn?
>
> Check out the following news item:
>
>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2998418&thesection=techno
> logy&thesubsection=general
>
> Quoting:
>
> "The Government has won back the rights to the newzealand.biz internet
> domain name"
>
> Firstly, you can't say "won back" when they never had the rights in the
> first place, so journalist Adam Gifford needs to get A CLUE. And someone
> can forward that message onto him from me if they like.
>
> Secondly, it sounds like "the Government" had no idea this was going on
> (thanks to the secrecy surrounding the UDRP process in general - you don't
> know who filed a case until it's all over) and the apparent wish of the
> complainant to not publish the results.
>
> So Adam Gifford really needs to re-hash his story, and perhap do some
> research this time, instead of just repeating quotes from "the
Government".
>
> Thirdly:
>
> "Mackenzie said the cost of getting back the name was minimal."
>
> Mackenzie/Trade NZ/"the Government" didn't "get back the name". They STOLE
> it.
>
> Sheesh.
>
> No points for guessing what the outcome of
> http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html will
> be, now that these crooks have got some precedence behind them.
>
> Note to those that don't know how the UDRP process REALLY works: What you
> read in the final "decision" isn't always the full story. The "panel"
> frequently leaves out anything (usually submitted by the defendant) that
> doesn't fit the outcome they desire. It's pretty much a SCAM being
operated
> here.
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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
>

- --
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:09:48 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

- --------------628495529DBE1B9208FA0F81
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sticky wicket,

But I think this argument is on track.  Both points of view are right on the
mark and deserving of consideration.
I do not want blanket restriction, but I appreciate the effort that goes into
branding a name and the right of a peoples to sovereignty.
But;
Take "Columbia". What? records, province, street, country, flower, city?  Now
expand into multi tier considerations of ccTLDs (of which I think dotCOM is an
alternative for the USA).  Now I know we do not like to admit that free
enterprise is righteous but a squatter with foresight has a claim also.

So when we say "State" are we referring to a Barcelona concept or a ccTLD
concept?
Or are we referring to the "State" of economics and accessibility, reliability
and security?

We here would do well to establish International Standards.  And allocation of
IP addresses which are the platform for such useages should be an integral part
of such discussion.

e

Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:

> I beg to differ, Andrew. It is my opinion that  New Zealand did win back its
> name on .biz. An approach like yours only favors land-rush attitudes towards
> domain name registration and cybersquatting. Domain name registration should
> begin by acknowledging that certain exclusive rights over other idetifiers
> and distinctive signs preceeded its inception.
>
> I insist that the naming of States is a matter of public interest, and
> therefore registrars should ban the registration of domain names comprising
> the names of States, unless registration is requested by the State
> concerned.
>
> Altough Professor Froomkin commented earlier this week that there is no
> basis in international public law for the foregoing, I beleive that there
> is, specifically in international commity and custom. Each State is entitled
> to choose the form of its designation, same which may not be used otherwise
> by anyone else, irrepective of the function that eacg gTLD is supposed to
> serve.
>
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Andy
> Gardner
> Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 10:57 AM
> Para: [email-masked]
> Asunto: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
>
> At 7:13 PM +1300 10/10/02, DPF wrote:
>
> >It appears from inquiries I have made locally that the application was
> >not made by the NZ Government but by Trade New Zealand - a government
> >owned organisation, presumably with the consent of their Minister as
> >his name was used.  Other sections of the Government with an interest
> >in these things were not in the loop on this.
> >
> >In fact official NZ government policy on the issue of country names as
> >domain names is that they should not be precluded.  This can be found
> >in the submission at
> >http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/sct/comments/0009.html.
> >
>
> Interesting.
>
> So who do we need to contact in the govt hierachy to get the UDRP for
> newzealand.com withdrawn?
>
> Check out the following news item:
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2998418&thesection=techno
> logy&thesubsection=general
>
> Quoting:
>
> "The Government has won back the rights to the newzealand.biz internet
> domain name"
>
> Firstly, you can't say "won back" when they never had the rights in the
> first place, so journalist Adam Gifford needs to get A CLUE. And someone
> can forward that message onto him from me if they like.
>
> Secondly, it sounds like "the Government" had no idea this was going on
> (thanks to the secrecy surrounding the UDRP process in general - you don't
> know who filed a case until it's all over) and the apparent wish of the
> complainant to not publish the results.
>
> So Adam Gifford really needs to re-hash his story, and perhap do some
> research this time, instead of just repeating quotes from "the Government".
>
> Thirdly:
>
> "Mackenzie said the cost of getting back the name was minimal."
>
> Mackenzie/Trade NZ/"the Government" didn't "get back the name". They STOLE
> it.
>
> Sheesh.
>
> No points for guessing what the outcome of
> http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html will
> be, now that these crooks have got some precedence behind them.
>
> Note to those that don't know how the UDRP process REALLY works: What you
> read in the final "decision" isn't always the full story. The "panel"
> frequently leaves out anything (usually submitted by the defendant) that
> doesn't fit the outcome they desire. It's pretty much a SCAM being operated
> here.
>
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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

- --------------628495529DBE1B9208FA0F81
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Sticky wicket,
<p>But I think this argument is on track.&nbsp; Both points of view are
right on the mark and deserving of consideration.
<br>I do not want blanket restriction, but I appreciate the effort that
goes into branding a name and the right of a peoples to sovereignty.
<br>But;
<br>Take "Columbia". What? records, province, street, country, flower,
city?&nbsp; Now expand into multi tier considerations of ccTLDs (of which
I think dotCOM is an alternative for the USA).&nbsp; Now I know we do not
like to admit that free enterprise is righteous but a squatter with foresight
has a claim also.
<p>So when we say "State" are we referring to a Barcelona concept or a
ccTLD concept?
<br>Or are we referring to the "State" of economics and accessibility,
reliability and security?
<p>We here would do well to establish International Standards.&nbsp; And
allocation of IP addresses which are the platform for such useages should
be an integral part of such discussion.
<p>e
<p>Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>I beg to differ, Andrew. It is my opinion that&nbsp;
New Zealand did win back its
<br>name on .biz. An approach like yours only favors land-rush attitudes
towards
<br>domain name registration and cybersquatting. Domain name registration
should
<br>begin by acknowledging that certain exclusive rights over other idetifiers
<br>and distinctive signs preceeded its inception.
<p>I insist that the naming of States is a matter of public interest, and
<br>therefore registrars should ban the registration of domain names comprising
<br>the names of States, unless registration is requested by the State
<br>concerned.
<p>Altough Professor Froomkin commented earlier this week that there is
no
<br>basis in international public law for the foregoing, I beleive that
there
<br>is, specifically in international commity and custom. Each State is
entitled
<br>to choose the form of its designation, same which may not be used otherwise
<br>by anyone else, irrepective of the function that eacg gTLD is supposed
to
<br>serve.
<p>Atentamente, Regards
<br>Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
<p>-----Mensaje original-----
<br>De: [email-masked] [<a href="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</a>]En
nombre de Andy
<br>Gardner
<br>Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 10:57 AM
<br>Para: [email-masked]
<br>Asunto: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
<p>At 7:13 PM +1300 10/10/02, DPF wrote:
<p>>It appears from inquiries I have made locally that the application
was
<br>>not made by the NZ Government but by Trade New Zealand - a government
<br>>owned organisation, presumably with the consent of their Minister
as
<br>>his name was used.&nbsp; Other sections of the Government with an
interest
<br>>in these things were not in the loop on this.
<br>>
<br>>In fact official NZ government policy on the issue of country names
as
<br>>domain names is that they should not be precluded.&nbsp; This can
be found
<br>>in the submission at
<br>><a href="http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/sct/comments/0009.html">http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/sct/comments/0009.html</a>.
<br>>
<p>Interesting.
<p>So who do we need to contact in the govt hierachy to get the UDRP for
<br>newzealand.com withdrawn?
<p>Check out the following news item:
<p><a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2998418&thesection=techno">http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2998418&amp;thesection=techno</a>
<br>logy&amp;thesubsection=general
<p>Quoting:
<p>"The Government has won back the rights to the newzealand.biz internet
<br>domain name"
<p>Firstly, you can't say "won back" when they never had the rights in
the
<br>first place, so journalist Adam Gifford needs to get A CLUE. And someone
<br>can forward that message onto him from me if they like.
<p>Secondly, it sounds like "the Government" had no idea this was going
on
<br>(thanks to the secrecy surrounding the UDRP process in general - you
don't
<br>know who filed a case until it's all over) and the apparent wish of
the
<br>complainant to not publish the results.
<p>So Adam Gifford really needs to re-hash his story, and perhap do some
<br>research this time, instead of just repeating quotes from "the Government".
<p>Thirdly:
<p>"Mackenzie said the cost of getting back the name was minimal."
<p>Mackenzie/Trade NZ/"the Government" didn't "get back the name". They
STOLE
<br>it.
<p>Sheesh.
<p>No points for guessing what the outcome of
<br><a href="http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html">http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html</a>
will
<br>be, now that these crooks have got some precedence behind them.
<p>Note to those that don't know how the UDRP process REALLY works: What
you
<br>read in the final "decision" isn't always the full story. The "panel"
<br>frequently leaves out anything (usually submitted by the defendant)
that
<br>doesn't fit the outcome they desire. It's pretty much a SCAM being
operated
<br>here.
<p>--
<br>Andrew P. Gardner
<br>barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the
UDRP?
<br>We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
<br>Get active: <a href="http://www.tldlobby.com">http://www.tldlobby.com</a>
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a>
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>
</html>

- --------------628495529DBE1B9208FA0F81--

- --
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:20:05 -0500
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

Good point, Patricio, specially because the hypothetic gTLD you mention is
highly distinctive indeed. But say that Brazil had one of these national
intitutes devoted to the promotion and production of Brazilian cinema.

One of the biggest problems that I find in domain names is that the
registration of those which include generic names and terms commonly used,
like the name of a country, is not banned, unlike trade and service marks.
However the former is also true in the naming of works of art, such as a
movie. In my opinion, were things as you say, Terry Gilliam would require to
have authorization from the Brazilian government to register that domain.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: Patricio Poblete [mailto:[email-masked]]
Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 12:49 PM
Para: Rodrigo Orenday Serrato
CC: 'Andy Gardner'; [email-masked]
Asunto: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 12:15:02PM -0500, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
>
> [...] Each State is entitled
> to choose the form of its designation, same which may not be used
otherwise
> by anyone else, irrepective of the function that eacg gTLD is supposed to
> serve.

So, you would argue that, in a hypothetical ".movie" TLD, Terry Gilliam
would have no right to register "brazil.movie"?

Patricio Poblete

- --
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:21:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

I would be most interested in hearing where this rule of "comity and
custom" has been enforced in private law contexts.  Are you seriously
suggesting that if I open a restaurant here in Miami called "New Zealand"
I am guilty of some offense sounding in either public or private
international law? Or if I name the computers on the campus network
"France" and "China" I've committed an offense?

Can you site one single judgment to that effect?  Or anything else that
would be recognized as a source of international law?

It may be -- maybe! -- that there's a norm about states not taking the
same name as other states (but see revolutions, civil wars); more likely
there's a norm that states can call themselves whatever they like.  But
where on earth does this norm you have asserted come from, and what
evidence is there for its existence other than your no doubt sincere
beliefs and a few statements by the GAC, a body with no standing in
interantional law since it's an advisory committee to a private company?  

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

> I insist that the naming of States is a matter of public interest, and
> therefore registrars should ban the registration of domain names comprising
> the names of States, unless registration is requested by the State
> concerned.
> 
> Altough Professor Froomkin commented earlier this week that there is no
> basis in international public law for the foregoing, I beleive that there
> is, specifically in international commity and custom. Each State is entitled
> to choose the form of its designation, same which may not be used otherwise
> by anyone else, irrepective of the function that eacg gTLD is supposed to
> serve.
> 
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Andy
> Gardner
> Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 10:57 AM
> Para: [email-masked]
> Asunto: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
> 
> 
> At 7:13 PM +1300 10/10/02, DPF wrote:
> 
> >It appears from inquiries I have made locally that the application was
> >not made by the NZ Government but by Trade New Zealand - a government
> >owned organisation, presumably with the consent of their Minister as
> >his name was used.  Other sections of the Government with an interest
> >in these things were not in the loop on this.
> >
> >In fact official NZ government policy on the issue of country names as
> >domain names is that they should not be precluded.  This can be found
> >in the submission at
> >http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/sct/comments/0009.html.
> >
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> So who do we need to contact in the govt hierachy to get the UDRP for
> newzealand.com withdrawn?
> 
> Check out the following news item:
> 
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2998418&thesection=techno
> logy&thesubsection=general
> 
> Quoting:
> 
> "The Government has won back the rights to the newzealand.biz internet
> domain name"
> 
> Firstly, you can't say "won back" when they never had the rights in the
> first place, so journalist Adam Gifford needs to get A CLUE. And someone
> can forward that message onto him from me if they like.
> 
> Secondly, it sounds like "the Government" had no idea this was going on
> (thanks to the secrecy surrounding the UDRP process in general - you don't
> know who filed a case until it's all over) and the apparent wish of the
> complainant to not publish the results.
> 
> So Adam Gifford really needs to re-hash his story, and perhap do some
> research this time, instead of just repeating quotes from "the Government".
> 
> Thirdly:
> 
> "Mackenzie said the cost of getting back the name was minimal."
> 
> Mackenzie/Trade NZ/"the Government" didn't "get back the name". They STOLE
> it.
> 
> Sheesh.
> 
> No points for guessing what the outcome of
> http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html will
> be, now that these crooks have got some precedence behind them.
> 
> Note to those that don't know how the UDRP process REALLY works: What you
> read in the final "decision" isn't always the full story. The "panel"
> frequently leaves out anything (usually submitted by the defendant) that
> doesn't fit the outcome they desire. It's pretty much a SCAM being operated
> here.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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 #1464
*************************