Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1525
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST        Wednesday, December 11 2002        Volume 01 : Number 1525

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 02:21:45 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails, and system integrity

- --part1_18e.12dd5033.2b26f009_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 9/12/02 11:23:49 GMT Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> >The problems arise from the spontaneous adaptation of a technical 
> >addressing systemto functions and purposes beyond those for which it was 
> >originallydesigned.
> 
> I am sorry to object. The problems arise from the lack of analysis by IAB 
> and USG of what a network system is. That lack of analysis is general and 
> creates as much problems at TM level as at technology level.
> 
> 

> >The problems arise from the spontaneous adaptation of a technical 
> >addressing systemto functions and purposes beyond those for which it was 
> >originallydesigned.
> 
> I am sorry to object. The problems arise from the lack of analysis by IAB 
> and USG of what a network system is. That lack of analysis is general and 
> creates as much problems at TM level as at technology level.
> 
> 

I presume you are objecting to the inferences we are encouraged to draw from 
the extract from WIPO which I quoted in the post. That extract was cited to 
underscore Karl's(?) observation that problems emerging from the trade mark - 
domain name interface are not necessarily unique nor new.

Joseph Savirimuthu
The Liverpool Law School
University of Liverpool
Chatham Street
Liverpool
L69 7ZS
email: [email-masked]
Tel: 0151 794 2806
Fax: 0151 794 2829

- --part1_18e.12dd5033.2b26f009_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  COLOR="#0080ff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Bookman Old Style" LANG="0"><B>In a message dated 9/12/02 11:23:49 GMT Standard Time, [email-masked] writes:
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">&gt;The problems arise from the spontaneous adaptation of a technical 
<BR>&gt;addressing systemto functions and purposes beyond those for which it was 
<BR>&gt;originallydesigned.
<BR>
<BR>I am sorry to object. The problems arise from the lack of analysis by IAB 
<BR>and USG of what a network system is. That lack of analysis is general and 
<BR>creates as much problems at TM level as at technology level.
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#0080ff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Bookman Old Style" LANG="0"><B>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">&gt;The problems arise from the spontaneous adaptation of a technical 
<BR>&gt;addressing systemto functions and purposes beyond those for which it was 
<BR>&gt;originallydesigned.
<BR>
<BR>I am sorry to object. The problems arise from the lack of analysis by IAB 
<BR>and USG of what a network system is. That lack of analysis is general and 
<BR>creates as much problems at TM level as at technology level.
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#0080ff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Bookman Old Style" LANG="0"><B>
<BR>I presume you are objecting to the inferences we are encouraged to draw from the extract from WIPO which I quoted in the post. That extract was cited to underscore Karl's(?) observation that problems emerging from the trade mark - domain name interface are not necessarily unique nor new.
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#8000ff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Garamond" LANG="0">Joseph Savirimuthu
<BR>The Liverpool Law School
<BR>University of Liverpool
<BR>Chatham Street
<BR>Liverpool
<BR>L69 7ZS</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#8000ff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>email: [email-masked]
<BR>Tel: 0151 794 2806
<BR>Fax: 0151 794 2829
<BR></B></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_18e.12dd5033.2b26f009_boundary--
- --
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, 10 Dec 2002 02:23:19 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails,andsystemintegrity

- --part1_a9.33466d75.2b26f067_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 9/12/02 11:29:56 GMT Standard Time, [email-masked] writes:

> Are we wasting air time, intelligence, and efforts by some who want to find 
> endeavors of "good will" even when disagrements exist? So that progress can 
> be made?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Gardner [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 4:22 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit
> trails,andsystemintegrity
> 
> 
> At 4:07 PM -0500 12/9/02, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> >You know that I have nothing to do with that registration, John.
> 
> So your continued use of the name Cade would be violating that TM owners
> rights?
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Please guys---there have been some good exchanges. I for one have benefitted 
from the absence of 'flame wars'.

Thanks.
Best
Joseph Savirimuthu
The Liverpool Law School
University of Liverpool
Chatham Street
Liverpool
L69 7ZS
email: [email-masked]
Tel: 0151 794 2806
Fax: 0151 794 2829

- --part1_a9.33466d75.2b26f067_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  COLOR="#0080ff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Bookman Old Style" LANG="0"><B>In a message dated 9/12/02 11:29:56 GMT Standard Time, [email-masked] writes:
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Are we wasting air time, intelligence, and efforts by some who want to find endeavors of "good will" even when disagrements exist? So that progress can be made?
<BR>
<BR>-----Original Message-----
<BR>From: Andy Gardner [mailto:[email-masked]]
<BR>Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 4:22 PM
<BR>To: [email-masked]
<BR>Subject: RE: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit
<BR>trails,andsystemintegrity
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>At 4:07 PM -0500 12/9/02, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
<BR>&gt;You know that I have nothing to do with that registration, John.
<BR>
<BR>So your continued use of the name Cade would be violating that TM owners
<BR>rights?
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>-- 
<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: http://www.tldlobby.com
<BR>--
<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 http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<BR>
<BR>--
<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 http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#0f0f0f" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#0080ff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Bookman Old Style" LANG="0"><B>
<BR>Please guys---there have been some good exchanges. I for one have benefitted from the absence of 'flame wars'.
<BR>
<BR>Thanks.
<BR>Best
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#8000ff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Garamond" LANG="0">Joseph Savirimuthu
<BR>The Liverpool Law School
<BR>University of Liverpool
<BR>Chatham Street
<BR>Liverpool
<BR>L69 7ZS</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#8000ff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>email: [email-masked]
<BR>Tel: 0151 794 2806
<BR>Fax: 0151 794 2829
<BR></B></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_a9.33466d75.2b26f067_boundary--
- --
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, 10 Dec 2002 11:06:39 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails, and system integrity

- --part1_8.310b8073.2b276b0f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 9/12/02 11:23:49 GMT Standard Time,=20
[email-masked] writes:

> On 20:22 09/12/02, [email-masked] said:
> >The problems arise from the spontaneous adaptation of a technical=20
> >addressing systemto functions and purposes beyond those for which it was=20
> >originallydesigned.
>=20
> I am sorry to object. The problems arise from the lack of analysis by IAB=20
> and USG of what a network system is. That lack of analysis is general and=20
> creates as much problems at TM level as at technology level.
>=20
> Let try to make it quickly. When you turn a key in a lock, the hardware=20
> logic says closed/open. That logic has been used in hardware system up to=20
> the Versailles Great Waters, or mid-XX century cashiers.
>=20
> The lamps and then transistors came and millions of electronic lockers=20
> started supporting software. And we developed applications. You facing the=
=20
> application on your screen.  We build big applications. Then they went=20
> remote and computers were accessed though a "network". That network was a=20
> computer access network, hardware and software (the Internet),=20
> interconnecting access and broadcast technologies. That lead to the use of=
=20
> the "information" word which is quite the old "informatique" word in Latin=
=20
> languages.
>=20
> This hide the extension. Progressively millions of brains started using (n=
o=20
> more only watching) the same application through the network. This awaken=20
> the "noosphere" (a word coined by Teilhard de Chardin in the 30s) and=20
> developed the Cybernetics (by Wiener and in here more Coufignal in the=20
> 40s). the science of the feed back. TV has no feed back and is no "cyber".=
=20
> What apply in there is the "brainware". The way all the users' brain=20
> consider the system - never mind if they are mistaken (like in their belie=
f=20
> the root is important) - what counts is what they believe and will do out=20
> of this belief.
>=20
> Now let come back to TM. TMs are commercial mnemonics for a class and a=20
> county. As mnemonics they are in/from your brain. Now, your brain has been=
=20
> induced a brainware rule : "the mnemonic IBM will probably make a good=20
> candidate for ibm.com on the Internet, if not try ibm.net then depending o=
n=20
> your country try ibm.fr or ibm.uk and if it does not work use Goggle".
>=20
> That brainware resolution is a totally separate task from the DNS=20
> resolution into an IP address. Of real different essence. Such brainware=20
> resolution uses a mnemonic which is protected by TM rules. Confusing the=20
> layers make the DN affected by the TM laws what is absurd (the same as if=20
> the printer was sued to have printed a TM label for a customer).and totall=
y=20
> inapplicable as in violation of many TM rules (I note that Michael is only=
=20
> considering the US registrations, what about the Iraqi registrations, or=20
> the French or the Andorran?).
>=20
> Putting the problem back into its proper perspective permits to understand=
=20
> what applies to what. One does not sue a newspaper because it reported on=20=
a=20
> famous or non famous TM. Internet is like a news paper : it is a way to=20
> access information. Only a medium. The confusion beween information=20
> (software) and content (brainware) inh=E9rited from the confusion and lack=
 of=20
> proper English wording above make believe that the Internet is a media and=
=20
> is responsible. It is not. Your brain is resposible, not your voice.
>=20
> When DNs are "misused", it only is because the mnemonic is misused.
> jfc
>=20
>=20

This was an offline email sent by jfc:
In a message dated 9/12/02 11:23:49 GMT Standard Time,=20
>[email-masked] writes:
>> >The problems arise from the spontaneous adaptation of a technical
>> >addressing systemto functions and purposes beyond those for which it was
>> >originallydesigned.
>>
>>I am sorry to object. The problems arise from the lack of analysis by IAB
>>and USG of what a network system is. That lack of analysis is general and
>>creates as much problems at TM level as at technology level.
>
>I presume you are objecting to the inferences we are encouraged to draw=20
>from the extract from WIPO which I quoted in the post.

I object to the quoted sentence of yours.

>That extract was cited to underscore Karl's(?) observation that problems=20
>emerging from the trade mark - domain name interface are not necessarily=20
>unique nor new.

I documented what and why I objected. Got problems reading it?
Karls observations are exact but everything boils down to the erroneous=20
analysis and just repeats that ad nauseam. When something is wrng, it is=20
wrong and every aspect of will repeat it is wrong.
jfc

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Joseph

- --part1_8.310b8073.2b276b0f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT  COLOR=3D"#0080ff" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=
=3D"SERIF" FACE=3D"Bookman Old Style" LANG=3D"0"><B>In a message dated 9/12/=
02 11:23:49 GMT Standard Time, [email-masked] writes:
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Ar=
ial" LANG=3D"0"></B>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-=
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">On 20:22 09/12/02, Jsavirim=
[email-masked] said:
<BR>&gt;The problems arise from the spontaneous adaptation of a technical=20
<BR>&gt;addressing systemto functions and purposes beyond those for which it=
 was=20
<BR>&gt;originallydesigned.
<BR>
<BR>I am sorry to object. The problems arise from the lack of analysis by IA=
B=20
<BR>and USG of what a network system is. That lack of analysis is general an=
d=20
<BR>creates as much problems at TM level as at technology level.
<BR>
<BR>Let try to make it quickly. When you turn a key in a lock, the hardware=20
<BR>logic says closed/open. That logic has been used in hardware system up t=
o=20
<BR>the Versailles Great Waters, or mid-XX century cashiers.
<BR>
<BR>The lamps and then transistors came and millions of electronic lockers=20
<BR>started supporting software. And we developed applications. You facing t=
he=20
<BR>application on your screen. &nbsp;We build big applications. Then they w=
ent=20
<BR>remote and computers were accessed though a "network". That network was=20=
a=20
<BR>computer access network, hardware and software (the Internet),=20
<BR>interconnecting access and broadcast technologies. That lead to the use=20=
of=20
<BR>the "information" word which is quite the old "informatique" word in Lat=
in=20
<BR>languages.
<BR>
<BR>This hide the extension. Progressively millions of brains started using=20=
(no=20
<BR>more only watching) the same application through the network. This awake=
n=20
<BR>the "noosphere" (a word coined by Teilhard de Chardin in the 30s) and=20
<BR>developed the Cybernetics (by Wiener and in here more Coufignal in the=20
<BR>40s). the science of the feed back. TV has no feed back and is no "cyber=
".=20
<BR>What apply in there is the "brainware". The way all the users' brain=20
<BR>consider the system - never mind if they are mistaken (like in their bel=
ief=20
<BR>the root is important) - what counts is what they believe and will do ou=
t=20
<BR>of this belief.
<BR>
<BR>Now let come back to TM. TMs are commercial mnemonics for a class and a=20
<BR>county. As mnemonics they are in/from your brain. Now, your brain has be=
en=20
<BR>induced a brainware rule : "the mnemonic IBM will probably make a good=20
<BR>candidate for ibm.com on the Internet, if not try ibm.net then depending=
 on=20
<BR>your country try ibm.fr or ibm.uk and if it does not work use Goggle".
<BR>
<BR>That brainware resolution is a totally separate task from the DNS=20
<BR>resolution into an IP address. Of real different essence. Such brainware=
=20
<BR>resolution uses a mnemonic which is protected by TM rules. Confusing the=
=20
<BR>layers make the DN affected by the TM laws what is absurd (the same as i=
f=20
<BR>the printer was sued to have printed a TM label for a customer).and tota=
lly=20
<BR>inapplicable as in violation of many TM rules (I note that Michael is on=
ly=20
<BR>considering the US registrations, what about the Iraqi registrations, or=
=20
<BR>the French or the Andorran?).
<BR>
<BR>Putting the problem back into its proper perspective permits to understa=
nd=20
<BR>what applies to what. One does not sue a newspaper because it reported o=
n a=20
<BR>famous or non famous TM. Internet is like a news paper : it is a way to=20
<BR>access information. Only a medium. The confusion beween information=20
<BR>(software) and content (brainware) inh=E9rited from the confusion and la=
ck of=20
<BR>proper English wording above make believe that the Internet is a media a=
nd=20
<BR>is responsible. It is not. Your brain is resposible, not your voice.
<BR>
<BR>When DNs are "misused", it only is because the mnemonic is misused.
<BR>jfc
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Ar=
ial" LANG=3D"0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#0080ff" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SERIF" FACE=3D"Bookma=
n Old Style" LANG=3D"0"><B>
<BR>This was an offline email sent by jfc:
<BR>In a message dated 9/12/02 11:23:49 GMT Standard Time,=20
<BR>&gt;[email-masked] writes:
<BR>&gt;&gt; &gt;The problems arise from the spontaneous adaptation of a tec=
hnical
<BR>&gt;&gt; &gt;addressing systemto functions and purposes beyond those for=
 which it was
<BR>&gt;&gt; &gt;originallydesigned.
<BR>&gt;&gt;
<BR>&gt;&gt;I am sorry to object. The problems arise from the lack of analys=
is by IAB
<BR>&gt;&gt;and USG of what a network system is. That lack of analysis is ge=
neral and
<BR>&gt;&gt;creates as much problems at TM level as at technology level.
<BR>&gt;
<BR>&gt;I presume you are objecting to the inferences we are encouraged to d=
raw=20
<BR>&gt;from the extract from WIPO which I quoted in the post.
<BR>
<BR>I object to the quoted sentence of yours.
<BR>
<BR>&gt;That extract was cited to underscore Karl's(?) observation that prob=
lems=20
<BR>&gt;emerging from the trade mark - domain name interface are not necessa=
rily=20
<BR>&gt;unique nor new.
<BR>
<BR>I documented what and why I objected. Got problems reading it?
<BR>Karls observations are exact but everything boils down to the erroneous=20
<BR>analysis and just repeats that ad nauseam. When something is wrng, it is=
=20
<BR>wrong and every aspect of will repeat it is wrong.
<BR>jfc
<BR>
<BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
<BR>Joseph
<BR></B></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_8.310b8073.2b276b0f_boundary--
- --
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, 11 Dec 2002 01:02:55 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: FC: Update on Texas mall critic's fight to keep Taubmansucks.com

Declan, Hank, John and all other interested parties,

  This is something that is being discussed also on ICANN's DNSO GA
forum again of late.  Your comments and observations here John
are a good note by which to take notice.

  Indeed I found your comment below regarding the difference between
a Domain Name and a Trade Name or TM to be of particular consideration
that seem to be unfortunately not shared with organizations such as WIPO
and ICANN's BoD and Staff, as well as a ICANN generated Task Force
considering this amongst other DN related issues as they relate to
Trade Marks and Trade Names..  This particular comment of yours
John has been one that INEGroup, for which I have been the spokesman
for for sometime now, also shares and has argued for a number of years
now on various forums discussing and debating this amongst other
DN related issues.
For DNSO GA archives see: http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
For DNS Whois archives see:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/

  It is also interesting that the ACLU had filed an amicus brief
back in May of this year (2002) that was quite helpful to Hank's
unfortunate plight.  See: http://www.aclu.org/court/taubman_amicus.pdf

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Forwarded from another list... Politech archive on this case:
> http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=mishkoff
>
> ---
>
> From: "Gregory, John D. (JUS)" <[email-masked]>
> Date:         Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:16:07 -0500
>
> A few days ago on this list there was a discussion of the plight of Howard
> Mishkoff, who put up a fan site for a shopping center and is being legally
> pursued by the owners of the center.
>
> His expert witness did a lovely job of explaining what a web site was - and
> how it is NOT a trade name, but only an indication of what is going on at
> the site, in many different ways.  Quoting from the earlier posting:
>
> He has posted the report of his expert witness, Milton Mueller, at
> http://www.taubmansucks.com/Act108.html.
>
> For a trademark action, there has to be confusion among possible customers,
> or (in the US only) "dilution" of a famous name.  One imagines IntelCenter
> would have a good defence, though whether they have the money or inclination
> to run it against a very rich abusive complainant is a different question.
>
> For an action about web names, Professor Mueller's arguments are pretty
> strong.
>
> John G
>
> John D. Gregory
> General Counsel, Policy Branch                 OPINIONS ARE
> Ministry of the Attorney General (Ontario)    PERSONAL
> 720 Bay Street
> NOT
> Toronto ON Canada M5G 2K1                                      OFFICIAL
> (416) 326-2503   fax (416) 326-2699
> [email-masked]
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
> Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 11 Dec 2002 11:17:36 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Bizconst on new gTLDs.

http://forum.icann.org/gtld-plan-comments/general/pdf00000.pdf

The business constituency has posted, in response to the Lynn plan,
a position paper on the introduction of new gTLDs.  In that position
paper, the BC advocates a "logical names space" which should be
established according to a set of principles.  All new gTLDs would,
according to the paper, be sponsored/restricted.

The principles proposed are very high-level, and somewhat nebulous.
Particularly irritating is the combination of principle 1
(Differentiation, "A gTLD must be clearly differentiated from other
gTLDs.") and 4 (Competition, "A gTLD must create value-added
competition"), in combination with this note later in the text: "The
structure does not imply a rapid expansion. The choice of one name
will preclude future non-differentiated choices."

I may quite well be mis-reading this -- but wouldn't this proposal
boil down to establishing a structure in which overlap between the
"relevant publics" for different gTLDs would be minimized?  I.e.,
wouldn't this proposal effectively reduce competition between gTLDs
to the minimum achievable [given the constraint that some new gTLDs
must be added]?

On a side note, I find the proposal's focus on sponsored/restricted
gTLDs rather courageous, given that there is not a single
sponsored/restricted gTLD which has proven to be reasonably
successful.  On the other hand, the sheer number of registrations in
.info seems to indicate that the market indeed has demand for
unrestricted/unsponsored gTLDs...

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/
- --
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 #1525
*************************