Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1534
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, December 20 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1534

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

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:15:00 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

ummmmmmm perhaps your principles of international law and public 
interest are different from the ones I am familiar.
Can you point me to some sources or citations for these assertions?

Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:

>Notwithstanding this decision, I still sustain that the naming of Sovereign
>States is a matter of public international law and public interest, and that
>no one but a State should be allowed to use neither its official
>denomination nor its common name, absent other characters capable of making
>it sufficiently distinctive.
>
>Atentamente, Regards
>Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
>
>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Marc
>Schneiders
>Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 03:35 PM
>Para: Steven Heath
>CC: [email-masked]
>Asunto: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision
>
>
>On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, at 09:27 [=GMT+1300], Steven Heath wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Even more interesting to read the BNA Law summary of the decision:
>>
>>Further, the panel termed the action "baseless" and "misconceived"
>>as it unanimously found that the government engaged in reverse domain name
>>hijacking in bringing the action."
>>    
>>
>
>Congratulations to the NZ government. I don't think any other government
>has been declared to be a domain name hijacker. (The decision occurs very
>rarely and governments/city councils tend to win.) A Book of Records entry
>for the country named after a province in mine!
>
>The fact that the NZ government did file the complaint, shows that even
>among those elected by the people, attempting theft is not a big deal. Or
>is it that the UDRP, as applied, is succeeding in misleading good
>politicians into believing Everything Trademark Lawyers Dream of When They
>Do Not Have a Nightmare?
>
>Is there any progress to report about the pending review of the UDRP by
>ICANN, due for end 2000?
>
>Will the evaluation of new gTLDs also take so long to get going? I hope
>not.
>
>There are some facts we best ignore, right?
>
>--
>[01] All ideas are vintage not new or perfect.
>http://logoff.org/
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>--
>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
>
>
>  
>

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 21:22:23 -0600
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

It's a theory I'm working on. The GA will be the first to know when my
research is done.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

Asuntos Juridicos Internacionales y Especiales
Legal International and Special Affairs
BANCODEMEXICO
(55)5237-2328

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: Dan Steinberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 09:15 PM
Para: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Asunto: Re: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

ummmmmmm perhaps your principles of international law and public
interest are different from the ones I am familiar.
Can you point me to some sources or citations for these assertions?

Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:

>Notwithstanding this decision, I still sustain that the naming of Sovereign
>States is a matter of public international law and public interest, and
that
>no one but a State should be allowed to use neither its official
>denomination nor its common name, absent other characters capable of making
>it sufficiently distinctive.
>
>Atentamente, Regards
>Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
>
>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Marc
>Schneiders
>Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 03:35 PM
>Para: Steven Heath
>CC: [email-masked]
>Asunto: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision
>
>
>On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, at 09:27 [=GMT+1300], Steven Heath wrote:
>
>
>
>>Even more interesting to read the BNA Law summary of the decision:
>>
>>Further, the panel termed the action "baseless" and "misconceived"
>>as it unanimously found that the government engaged in reverse domain name
>>hijacking in bringing the action."
>>
>>
>
>Congratulations to the NZ government. I don't think any other government
>has been declared to be a domain name hijacker. (The decision occurs very
>rarely and governments/city councils tend to win.) A Book of Records entry
>for the country named after a province in mine!
>
>The fact that the NZ government did file the complaint, shows that even
>among those elected by the people, attempting theft is not a big deal. Or
>is it that the UDRP, as applied, is succeeding in misleading good
>politicians into believing Everything Trademark Lawyers Dream of When They
>Do Not Have a Nightmare?
>
>Is there any progress to report about the pending review of the UDRP by
>ICANN, due for end 2000?
>
>Will the evaluation of new gTLDs also take so long to get going? I hope
>not.
>
>There are some facts we best ignore, right?
>
>--
>[01] All ideas are vintage not new or perfect.
>http://logoff.org/
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:37:55 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

Aw, c'mon gang, the entire country of New Zealand was appropriating the
rights of old Zealand when they named the country in the first place.

Hey.... where in blazes is Zealand anyway?

Me?  I prefer Classic Zealand, although I do try Diet Zealand from time to
time.

When Rodrigo gets out of law school, I can't wait to see him sue New Mexico.

Heh.

- --
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, 19 Dec 2002 21:46:56 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

At 8:24 PM -0600 12/19/02, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
>
>Comparison not valid: .NZ is a ccTLD; NEWZELAND.COM is a domain name, not a
>domain altogether.

They are both domains, just at different levels of the tree.

>But thanks for sharing.

But thanks for not really knowing what you're talking about. The comparison
IS valid.

- -- 
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, 19 Dec 2002 23:07:42 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

ummmmm if its just a theory you are working on....dont you think it 
might be confusing to non-specialists on the list if you make a 
statement such as you did that sounded like it was already cast in stone?

Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:

>It's a theory I'm working on. The GA will be the first to know when my
>research is done.
>
>Atentamente, Regards
>Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
>Asuntos Juridicos Internacionales y Especiales
>Legal International and Special Affairs
>BANCODEMEXICO
>(55)5237-2328
>
>
>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: Dan Steinberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 09:15 PM
>Para: [email-masked]
>CC: [email-masked]
>Asunto: Re: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision
>
>
>ummmmmmm perhaps your principles of international law and public
>interest are different from the ones I am familiar.
>Can you point me to some sources or citations for these assertions?
>
>Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Notwithstanding this decision, I still sustain that the naming of Sovereign
>>States is a matter of public international law and public interest, and
>>    
>>
>that
>  
>
>>no one but a State should be allowed to use neither its official
>>denomination nor its common name, absent other characters capable of making
>>it sufficiently distinctive.
>>
>>Atentamente, Regards
>>Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>>
>>
>>-----Mensaje original-----
>>De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Marc
>>Schneiders
>>Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 03:35 PM
>>Para: Steven Heath
>>CC: [email-masked]
>>Asunto: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision
>>
>>
>>On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, at 09:27 [=GMT+1300], Steven Heath wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Even more interesting to read the BNA Law summary of the decision:
>>>
>>>Further, the panel termed the action "baseless" and "misconceived"
>>>as it unanimously found that the government engaged in reverse domain name
>>>hijacking in bringing the action."
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Congratulations to the NZ government. I don't think any other government
>>has been declared to be a domain name hijacker. (The decision occurs very
>>rarely and governments/city councils tend to win.) A Book of Records entry
>>for the country named after a province in mine!
>>
>>The fact that the NZ government did file the complaint, shows that even
>>among those elected by the people, attempting theft is not a big deal. Or
>>is it that the UDRP, as applied, is succeeding in misleading good
>>politicians into believing Everything Trademark Lawyers Dream of When They
>>Do Not Have a Nightmare?
>>
>>Is there any progress to report about the pending review of the UDRP by
>>ICANN, due for end 2000?
>>
>>Will the evaluation of new gTLDs also take so long to get going? I hope
>>not.
>>
>>There are some facts we best ignore, right?
>>
>>--
>>[01] All ideas are vintage not new or perfect.
>>http://logoff.org/
>>
>>--
>>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>>
>>--
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>--
>Dan Steinberg
>
>SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
>35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
>Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
>J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>  
>

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:25:52 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

At 09:27 a.m. 20/12/2002, Steven Heath wrote:

>Even more interesting to read the BNA Law summary of the decision:
>
>"A three-member WIPO ICANN UDRP panel has ruled against the Government of
>New Zealand in its bid to obtain the transfer of the newzealand.com domain.
>The panel found that the country does not have a trademark in the name New
>Zealand. Further, the panel termed the action "baseless" and "misconceived"
>as it unanimously found that the government engaged in reverse domain name
>hijacking in bringing the action."

And Stuart Lynn wants more "government" input into the ICANN process, to 
speak on the users behalf. :-(

The NZ "government" hijack attempt of newzealand.com was  the action of one 
Department acting on its own. A bureaucratic left hand acting in ignorance 
of  the right hand (its GAC rep).

- -joop-

- --
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, 19 Dec 2002 22:26:26 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

John and all former GA members,

  Great satire here John!  Well done!  >;)

  The real problem here is where is ICANN at on this mess that they
hoist upon the Internet Community?  In fact, where is DOC/NTIA
on this sort of repetative mess???

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> Aw, c'mon gang, the entire country of New Zealand was appropriating the
> rights of old Zealand when they named the country in the first place.
>
> Hey.... where in blazes is Zealand anyway?
>
> Me?  I prefer Classic Zealand, although I do try Diet Zealand from time to
> time.
>
> When Rodrigo gets out of law school, I can't wait to see him sue New Mexico.
>
> Heh.
>
> --
> 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

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: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:36:17 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO?  What is replacing the DNSO GA as a public forum?

All former DNSO GA members,

  What is replacing "Officially" the DNSO GA?  Will there be any such
forum in the questionably legitimate GNUS?  GNSO GA anyone?
Should we as now former DNSO GA members propose of insist
on the GNSO having a GA (General Assembly) for stakeholders
that are or cannot be due to censorship imposed by some
of the existing and now remapped "Constituencies" of ICANN's
former DNSO?

  John B., will you be turning over the GNSO.ORG Domain name to
ICANN or the yet to actually exist "GNSO" to ICANN?  If so, what
potential conditions would you actually consider to do so?  If not, than

what will the ICANN BOD and Staff do?  Could it be possible that
they shall file a UDRP against you for that Domain Name?  Or,
is it possible that the ICANN Legal beagles (Sims and Touton)
seek a anticybersquatting action against you in order to potentially
rest GNSO.ORG from you?  Or is is just possible that some
"Back Room" deal is in the works as I type this?  >;)

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: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:38:45 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO?  What is replacing the DNSO GA as a public forum?

All former DNSO GA members,

  What is replacing "Officially" the DNSO GA?  Will there be any such
forum in the questionably legitimate GNSO?  GNSO GA anyone?
Should we as now former DNSO GA members propose of insist
on the GNSO having a GA (General Assembly) for stakeholders
that are or cannot be due to censorship imposed by some
of the existing and now remapped "Constituencies" of ICANN's
former DNSO?

  John B., will you be turning over the GNSO.ORG Domain name to
ICANN or the yet to actually exist "GNSO" to ICANN?  If so, what
potential conditions would you actually consider to do so?  If not, than

what will the ICANN BOD and Staff do?  Could it be possible that
they shall file a UDRP against you for that Domain Name?  Or,
is it possible that the ICANN Legal beagles (Sims and Touton)
seek a anticybersquatting action against you in order to potentially
rest GNSO.ORG from you?  Or is is just possible that some
"Back Room" deal is in the works as I type this?  >;)

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: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 01:58:20 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Netaction: Our Stake in Cyberspace

All former GA members,

  The following may be of some interest as events and teh future of
ICANN
disenfranchized stakeholders...
See:  http://www.netaction.org/futures/scenarios.html

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: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:15:58 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] whois: issues with uniformity

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

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:07:07 +0100
Subject: [nc-whois] issues with uniformity

Just in case it's helpful, here's a brief list of my favorite issues
with WHOIS data format and element uniformity.

1. Format framework
- -------------------

- - Technical standardization: XML or e-mail header like formats (*)
  are obvious candidates.
  
  (*)	registrant-name: Thomas Roessler
  	registrant-email: [email-masked]
	...

  Anyway, what to choose is not our decision or discussion: Stick to
  specifying requirements, do not go into technical details.

  Key requirements: Easily parseable; data fields must be able to
  take non-ASCII content. Possibly desires for alternative values in
  different scripts (think about countries where two kinds of
  scripts are in use; think "western names" in China)?

  Consult, in particular, with ccTLD managers from countries using
  non-Latin scripts in order to understand this.

- - Doesn't this enable inappropriate mass data gathering through the
  query-based interface?

  This boils down to the "keep it crappy as long as privacy isn't
  solved" kind of argument.

2. Data elements
- ----------------

- - Clearly a policy question.  Use framework identified above to
  implement this.

- - Current environment: Thin registrar whois services have the "RAA
  data set", thick gTLD registry whois services have the slightly
  extended data set also identified in WIPO's ccTLD best practices.
  ccTLD whoises: zoo.

- - Some registries may have good reasons to have different kind of
  data elements: .biz has provision for extensions, .name has
  different WHOIS model; future sponsored gTLDs may wish to have
  still other changes [additional data elements useful for their
  communities, for instance].  ccTLDs certainly have to respect
  national law. (See, for instance, the .de compromise which in
  particular concerns the selection of data elements.)

- - Interaction with the fundamental WHOIS privacy question: "Who gets
  access to *WHAT DATA ELEMENTS*?" vs.  "What data elements are
  needed in order to fulfill WHOIS' function?"

- - Not clear that a uniform balance can be found.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler	(mobile)	<[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: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 00:16:20 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:03:28 -0800 (PST), George Kirikos
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>The decision is here:
>
>http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html
>
>It's good to see that the panel made the right decision this time,
>unlike the case of NewZealand.biz which was previously discussed on
>this list and elsewhere.

Indeed a very good decision.  For those interested a copy of a press
release from InternetNZ on the issue is below.

DPF

December 12 2002

Silly Season Media release

QUEEN NOT AMUSED - INTERNETNZ DELIGHTED

The decision by the World Intellectual Property Organisation's
Arbitration and Mediation Center that the domain name "newzealand.com"
not be handed to complainant TradeNZ has been hailed by InternetNZ as
a decision which upholds the rights of domain name registrants.  In a
landmark decision, the  WIPO Uniform Dispute Resolution (UDRP) Panel
not only ruled that the original registrant of newzealand.com, Virtual
Countries, Inc. of the USA, had not made a "bad faith" registration,
but that TradeNZ was guilty of an attempted domain name hijacking in
making the complaint.

Her Majesty comes into the picture as New Zealand Government Agencies,
cannot take cases except in the name of the Queen via the relevant
Minister of the Crown. Her Majesty is unlikely to be amused, but
whether her reaction will be to the ruling or to the misjudgement in
the original complaint is unknown.

TradeNZ based its case on the claim that "NEW ZEALAND is a trade and 
service mark owned collectively by all NZ citizens and their
institutions represented by the Head of State that is to say the
Complainant. This trademark is used to identify those goods and
services produced by and for citizens, organisations and the State of
New Zealand from the goods and services produced by citizens,
organisations and/or States of other countries."

The UDRP Panel rejected this argument, noting: "… having read the
Response of the New Zealand Government to the WIPO Secretariat’s
questionnaire …, the Panel is unanimous in its view that when the
Complaint was launched, those responsible for the Complaint, the New
Zealand Government, were well aware that a claim to trademark and
service mark rights in respect of NEW ZEALAND was baseless. Moreover,
that document makes it clear that the New Zealand Government regards
the protection of country names (qua country names) as being outside
the scope of the Policy and does not approve of the Policy being
extended to cover those country names, which are not trademarks."

The Panel further ruled: "The Complaint is dismissed and the Panel
upholds the allegation of reverse domain name hijacking."

In October another WIPO UDRP Panel dealt with a complaint by TradeNZ
in respect of "newzealand.biz". This case was dealt with under the
"sunrise" provisions of the new generic top level domain ".biz" which
assessed competing claims for new names. In this case the original
registrant  iSMER in the UK was found to have registered in "bad
faith" and the ruling was "… that newzealand.biz should be transferred
to Complainant, Her Majesty the Queen, in right of her Government in
New Zealand…"

InternetNZ was concerned by the "newzealand.biz" ruling as it seemed
to conform to a series of rulings by UDRP Panels in which small
registrants were overwhelmed by the power of the complainants - in
this case, Her Majesty the Queen. Her Majesty may have been amused,
but no statements were issued.

References:
"newzealand.com" ruling - 
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html
"newzealand.biz" ruling - 
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/dbiz2002-00270.html

Ends

- --
E-mail: [email-masked]
ICQ:    29964527
MSN:    [email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 07:54:21 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

It's ok  John...I'm already waiting for Chelsea City Hall to call me on 
this one.....

Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

>Aw, c'mon gang, the entire country of New Zealand was appropriating the
>rights of old Zealand when they named the country in the first place.
>
>
>Hey.... where in blazes is Zealand anyway?
>
>Me?  I prefer Classic Zealand, although I do try Diet Zealand from time to
>time.
>
>When Rodrigo gets out of law school, I can't wait to see him sue New Mexico.
>
>Heh.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

- -- 

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 07:59:55 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Priorities please. let us look at the big picture

- --part1_118.1c7d897b.2b346e4b_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear all

I think the debates that have raged on many issues regarding Wipo, Icann, 
IETF, the names council, etc., are all fine. But I think that in the overall 
scope of things, they pale in comparison with what we are all witnessing.

 The momentum for war by the US hawks with Iraq against international law 
looks like it is now becoming a certainty. if it is allowed to happen it will 
change the rule of international law forever.  It will also give rise and way 
to a vulture like state of international affairs where countries and 
individuals will feel legitimised in pre-empting an attack on another 
sovereign nation without proof of imminent direct danger simply based on the 
philosophy of their perception that they are right and that they just can.  
Not to mention the further alienation of the world outside the western 
hemisphere, and the Berlin like wall / barrier that will be erected between 
the many regions of the world. While many in the US believe they are 
justified the reality and the perception outside of the US all over the world 
is that they are not. yet war still remains imminent. 

When that happens there will be no need to worry about wipo, standards, Icann 
etc. ... because anarchy will rule. I urge you all reflect on what I am 
saying and redirect your energies and voice your opinions not just to us on 
these mailing lists but those with influence elsewhere as well, on this grave 
matter of imminent catastrophe. Humanity and civilisation must not permit 
this war to take place in their names or take place at all. If we fail, this 
will render all our arguments utterly mute and redundant.  Because there 
won't be anything left for us to argue about as we embark on a newer world 
order or lack of. Perhaps this can be a rallying point for the majority of us 
to agree and act upon.

Khaled Fattal

- --part1_118.1c7d897b.2b346e4b_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Dear all<BR>
<BR>
I think the debates that have raged on many issues regarding Wipo, Icann, IETF, the names council, etc., are all fine. But I think that in the overall scope of things, they pale in comparison with what we are all witnessing.<BR>
<BR>
 The momentum for war by the US hawks with Iraq against international law looks like it is now becoming a certainty. </FONT><FONT  COLOR="#ff0000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B><I><U>if </FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B></I></U>it is allowed to happen it will change the rule of international law forever.&nbsp; It will also give rise and way to a vulture like state of international affairs where countries and individuals will feel legitimised in pre-empting an attack on another sovereign nation without proof of imminent direct danger simply based on the philosophy of their perception that they are right and that they just can.&nbsp; </FONT><FONT  COLOR="#004080" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B><U>Not to mention the further alienation of the world outside the western hemisphere, and the Berlin like wall / barrier that will be erected between the many regions of the world.</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B></U> While many in the US believe they are justified the reality and the perception outside of the US all over the world is that they are not. yet war still remains imminent. <BR>
<BR>
When that happens there will be no need to worry about wipo, standards, Icann etc. ... because anarchy will rule. I urge you all reflect on what I am saying and redirect your energies and voice your opinions not just to us on these mailing lists but those with influence elsewhere as well, on this grave matter of imminent catastrophe. </FONT><FONT  COLOR="#004080" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B><U>Humanity and civilisation must not permit this war to take place in their names or take place at all</B></U>.</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> If we fail, this will render all our arguments utterly mute and redundant.&nbsp; Because there won't be anything left for us to argue about as we embark on a newer world order or lack of. Perhaps this can be a rallying point for the majority of us to agree and act upon.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Khaled Fattal<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_118.1c7d897b.2b346e4b_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: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:35:17 +0100
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO Council teleconf.MP3 recording Dec 19, 2002

[To: [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference on December
19, 2002.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20021219.Cteleconf.mp3

Secretariat

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:05:54 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:37:55 -0500, you wrote:

>When Rodrigo gets out of law school, I can't wait to see him sue New Mexico.

Rumours are that the Prime Minister of Italy is going to sue himself
for having named his own party "Forza Italia"...
- -- 
vb.            [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1534
*************************