Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1557
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, January 17 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1557

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:21:25 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Delete Microsoft.COM in 15 days from NOW!

At 4:06 AM +0100 1/17/03, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, at 09:35 [=GMT-0500], L. Gallegos wrote:
>
>> 1 Microsoft way is the actuall address of the corporation.  The state is
>> missing, but that is easily corrected.  In any case, is there anyone who
>> doesn't know that M$ is located in Redmond, Washington? :)  It's on
>> millions of documents.
>
>I am sure. But where does this end? Am I also famous enough to get away
>with incorrect or missing data, because they are easy to find elsewhere?
>

The funny thing is that it's Verisign Registrar's fault (sorry, they're
Network Slowlutions again now, aren't they?).

They recently did a "clean up" of their WHOIS database, combined some
fields, dropped some data and put "null" in empty address fields.

There's a bunch of domains out there with this problem.

It's "The power of Trust" I suppose.

- -- 
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, 16 Jan 2003 23:59:04 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Delete Microsoft.COM in 15 days from NOW!

On 17 Jan 2003 at 4:06, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, at 09:35 [=GMT-0500], L. Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > 1 Microsoft way is the actuall address of the corporation.  The state is
> > missing, but that is easily corrected.  In any case, is there anyone who
> > doesn't know that M$ is located in Redmond, Washington? :)  It's on
> > millions of documents.
> 
> I am sure. But where does this end? Am I also famous enough to get away
> with incorrect or missing data, because they are easy to find elsewhere?
> 
> > In any case, why does one need to have the street address in the whois?
> > The only thing the database needs to publish is the tech contact email or
> > phone.
> 
> That would be nice, but it won't happen. So it is important that we now see
> to what the ideas of enforcement of whois accuracy may lead.
> 

I guess that in my exhausted state, I didn't make myself clear.  My point 
was that the whois should default to not publish except for perhaps the 
email and phone number of the tech contact - if even that.  Requestors of 
information on the admin or registrant should have to jump through a few 
hoops to verify the need for the info before being granted that info.  

Let's not forget that it is the IP lobby that insists this all be 
published worldwide to save them the expense of doing research and perhaps 
paying for it.

Leah

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 23:59:04 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Delete Microsoft.COM in 15 days from NOW!

On 17 Jan 2003 at 4:06, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, at 09:35 [=GMT-0500], L. Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > 1 Microsoft way is the actuall address of the corporation.  The state is
> > missing, but that is easily corrected.  In any case, is there anyone who
> > doesn't know that M$ is located in Redmond, Washington? :)  It's on
> > millions of documents.
> 
> I am sure. But where does this end? Am I also famous enough to get away
> with incorrect or missing data, because they are easy to find elsewhere?
> 
> > In any case, why does one need to have the street address in the whois?
> > The only thing the database needs to publish is the tech contact email or
> > phone.
> 
> That would be nice, but it won't happen. So it is important that we now see
> to what the ideas of enforcement of whois accuracy may lead.
> 

I guess that in my exhausted state, I didn't make myself clear.  My point 
was that the whois should default to not publish except for perhaps the 
email and phone number of the tech contact - if even that.  Requestors of 
information on the admin or registrant should have to jump through a few 
hoops to verify the need for the info before being granted that info.  

Let's not forget that it is the IP lobby that insists this all be 
published worldwide to save them the expense of doing research and perhaps 
paying for it.

Leah

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 23:12:50 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Feedback on iesg-charter-01 comments and iesg-procedures-00

Michael and all,

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> This is a very Good Thing.  Wish I'd had it to read when I was trying to
> sort out institutional relationships.  This will be especially useful to
> those like me whose participation is entirely online and thus can't pick
> this stuff up by osmosis at meetings.
>
> 2 small things:
>
> RE: "This memo gives a charter for the Internet Engineering Steering Group
>    (IESG), a management function of the Internet Engineering Task Force
>    (IETF)."

  Interesting.  Just not but a month ago I believe it was Harald that
stated there was not connection between the IESG and the IETF...
Of course Harald was being deceitful in that post, which I have
archives somewhere...  So I got a bit of a laugh out of this
comment here Michael...  >;)

>
>
> Possible substitutes for "management function"
>
> agent
> agency
> dependency
> parasite  :>
>
> or, perhaps  better yet,
>
> ....the IESG, a committee of experienced IETF members whom the ITEF at
> large relies on to manage the standards process.

  This is a little bothersome of concerning.  Seems to be that Working
groups in particular areas of standards tracking is managed by the
WG members and/or chair...

>
>
> On another issue, I too am confused about the reference to IANA.  Who'se
> doing what to whom?  There isn't an IANA rep listed at
> http://www.iesg.org/iesg.html#members or at
> http://www.iesg.org/ietf/1ietf-liaisons.txt.

  Well a direct connection is seemingly now wanted to be documented.
This is fairly common for both the IANA and the IETF in particular...
It's a sort of  "Club" thing... >;)   But indeed interesting that you took
particular notice, Michael...  >;)

>  As IANA is now ICANN's black
> box, its least transparent aspect, my antennae are quivering.  Perhaps a
> URL for the new version will sort me out...

  ROLFMAO!  Yeah perhaps!  >;)

>
>
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > >
> > > IESG as a function is correct, although the term
> > > management entity is more intuitive to me.  I guess one
> > > could say that the IESG really is a function, however:
> > > RFC_t r = IESG_Evaluate(ID_t i);
> >
> > it's got more functions than that :-)
> > "entity" is one of those words I really detest, because it's one of the
> > words that people seem to be able to twist into any meaning they want. I
> > chose "function" to emphasize that the IESG only exists because of the
> > IETF; it has no independent existence. Are there other opinions/guidelines
> > on what word to use?
> >
> > >
>
> --
>                 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 cool here.<--

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 16 Jan 2003 23:56:38 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Mansfield Spam on a usenet newsgroup? - Parish the thought..??

John and all former DNSO GA members,

  In your recent post to the UDRP Task force list John,
See: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/msg00540.html
I took note of Mr Mansfield's rather less than accurate yet
provocative as well as somewhat misinforming "Advertisement"
for his legal services for Domain Name holders at a "Flat Fee"...
I acknowledge and support your chiding of Andrew in his
rather less than honest advertisement on that Newsgroup.
Seems Andrew needs to brush up a bit regarding arbitration
considerations to properly represent his potential clients...

  I realize that the legal profession is under increasing pressure
these days but seems that Andrew is reaching a bit here.
I wonder if the ABA would be interested in this errant
advertisement? Or the California Bar Association?
 I am quite sure that the senate judiciary committee
would be interested...

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 16 Jan 2003 23:53:00 -0800 (PST)
From: "Andrew S. Mansfield" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Mansfield Spam on a usenet newsgroup? - Parish the thought..??

John and all former DNSO GA members:

Dr. Berryhill's analysis of trademark rights in the
words WIPO, UDRP, etc. is ludicrous and demonstrates a
lack of understanding concerning basic trademark
principles.  One of the main principles of trademark
law is fair use and descriptive use.  Hopefully, Dr.
Berryhill is aware of the Estee Lauder line of
caselaw.

The truth is:

1. I am an accredited and practicing WIPO UDRP
panelist; and
2. Prior to the collapse of eResolution, I was an
eResolution panelist; and
3. I currently represent private clients in UDRP
proceedings whether they are before NAF or WIPO.

I have an absolute right to describe extrinsic facts. 
Those are the facts.  Trademark law is inapplicable. 
In fact, the thread is a rather interesting "red
herring" and misapplication of law.

As to Mr. Williams' unprovoked invective, it seems his
e-mail below published to a wide audience likely
constitutes business defamation.  To that end, I
challenge Mr. Williams, whatever his credentials, to
indicate what is "misinforming," what is "less than
accurate," and what is "less than honest" in my former
communication.  I also ask Mr. Williams, if he stands
behind his statements, to send me his physical address
for service of process in case he cannot justify his
statements.

What are the arbitration considerations I need to
"brush up on?"  Are you taking aim at the general fact
that WIPO arbitrators can serve both as panelists and
take private cases?  Or is there something you think I
personally am missing?

UDRP proceedings are arbitrations.  That is basic.  In
almost all cases, as was discussed at the most recent
gathering of WIPO arbitrators in Geneva and recorded
in the proceedings, UDRP results are enforced in
national courts.

Finally, both serving as a panelist and representing
clients in UDRP proceedings is NOT the practice of
law.  One need not be licensed in any jurisdiction. 
It is not practicing within the jurisdiction of the
State Bar of California.  The advertising practices
for that service are not, therefore, covered by that
organization's rules.  Even if they were, my conduct
meets all requirements.

I believe having someone who has reviewed UDRP
submissions and drafted decisions IS a major benefit
to a UDRP party's case.  Would not many people
appreciate having a former judge in a Superior Court
in California argue a case in his former court?  It
happens every day and fairness issues are not raised. 
It simply means that he understands the practices and
procedures better than most of his fellow attorneys.

You might also like to know that the ABA is merely an
advisory and member-services organization.  It is not
a regulatory body.  Report away to the ABA.  And what
the U.S. Senate thinks about UDRP rules and
procedures, in my personal opinion, matters not at
all.

All of the opinions above are mine, of course, and not
representative of WIPO.

Andrew Mansfield
http://www.mendolaw.com

- --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> John and all former DNSO GA members,
> 
>   In your recent post to the UDRP Task force list
> John,
> See:
>
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/msg00540.html
> I took note of Mr Mansfield's rather less than
> accurate yet
> provocative as well as somewhat misinforming
> "Advertisement"
> for his legal services for Domain Name holders at a
> "Flat Fee"...
> I acknowledge and support your chiding of Andrew in
> his
> rather less than honest advertisement on that
> Newsgroup.
> Seems Andrew needs to brush up a bit regarding
> arbitration
> considerations to properly represent his potential
> clients...
> 
>   I realize that the legal profession is under
> increasing pressure
> these days but seems that Andrew is reaching a bit
> here.
> I wonder if the ABA would be interested in this
> errant
> advertisement? Or the California Bar Association?
>  I am quite sure that the senate judiciary committee
> would be interested...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k
> members/stakeholders strong!)
>
================================================================
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data
> security
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
> 
> 
> 

=====
Andrew S. Mansfield
[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, 17 Jan 2003 10:30:40 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Delete Microsoft.COM in 15 days from NOW!

On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 08:10:19AM +0100,
 Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 43 lines which said:

> They say (no I am not making this up, they do):

Well, in that case, they fixed it really fast:

Registrant:
Microsoft Corporation (MICROSOFT-DOM)
   1 microsoft way
   redmond, WA 98052
   US

> And I think, given that they hide the place and state where they are, that
> the street name is made up. "1 microsoft way" for a company called
> "microsoft"? Can't they come up with something less obvious?

Check your facts: the street is *really* named "Microsoft Way". AFNIC
has not been able to obtain a renaming of the "rue Stephenson" in
Saint-Quentin (France) to "rue AFNIC" but we still have hope.

> So: Herewith notified. Correct within 15 days. 

Done in less than 15 days :-)
 
- --
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, 17 Jan 2003 10:30:40 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Delete Microsoft.COM in 15 days from NOW!

On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 08:10:19AM +0100,
 Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 43 lines which said:

> They say (no I am not making this up, they do):

Well, in that case, they fixed it really fast:

Registrant:
Microsoft Corporation (MICROSOFT-DOM)
   1 microsoft way
   redmond, WA 98052
   US

> And I think, given that they hide the place and state where they are, that
> the street name is made up. "1 microsoft way" for a company called
> "microsoft"? Can't they come up with something less obvious?

Check your facts: the street is *really* named "Microsoft Way". AFNIC
has not been able to obtain a renaming of the "rue Stephenson" in
Saint-Quentin (France) to "rue AFNIC" but we still have hope.

> So: Herewith notified. Correct within 15 days. 

Done in less than 15 days :-)
 
- --
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, 17 Jan 2003 03:59:57 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Mansfield Spam on a usenet newsgroup? - Parish the thought..??

Andrew and all Former DNSO GA members,

  More than Happy to comply with your requests and answer your questions

below..

Andrew S. Mansfield wrote:

> John and all former DNSO GA members:
>
> Dr. Berryhill's analysis of trademark rights in the
> words WIPO, UDRP, etc. is ludicrous and demonstrates a
> lack of understanding concerning basic trademark
> principles.  One of the main principles of trademark
> law is fair use and descriptive use.  Hopefully, Dr.
> Berryhill is aware of the Estee Lauder line of
> caselaw.

  I am not familiar with the Estee Lauder line of
caselaw that you suggest is relevant here.
Perhaps you have a reference?  However you
are quite right the deceptive and "Fair" use
are two principals Trademark Law i.e.the
Lanham act in the US anyway.  However
as you know or should know jurisdiction
of US Trademark law has boundaries and definite
limitations...

>
>
> The truth is:
>
> 1. I am an accredited and practicing WIPO UDRP
> panelist; and
> 2. Prior to the collapse of eResolution, I was an
> eResolution panelist; and
> 3. I currently represent private clients in UDRP
> proceedings whether they are before NAF or WIPO.

  That's fine and dandy.  No problem with that...

>
>
> I have an absolute right to describe extrinsic facts.
> Those are the facts.  Trademark law is inapplicable.
> In fact, the thread is a rather interesting "red
> herring" and misapplication of law.

  I personally agree with you here.  However it doesn't
seem to be that you advertisement suggested that in
a direct way, hence why I said "I took" your advertisement as
misleading.  I still think it does appear so, BTW...

>
>
> As to Mr. Williams' unprovoked invective, it seems his
> e-mail below published to a wide audience likely
> constitutes business defamation.

  No invective stated, nor intended in anything I said in
my previous post...  If you read the Subject line of this thread
as a any good lawyer would do, you would see the two
"?"'s ...

>  To that end, I
> challenge Mr. Williams, whatever his credentials, to
> indicate what is "misinforming," what is "less than
> accurate," and what is "less than honest" in my former
> communication.

  It is misleading as I indicated below in agreement with John
Berryhill's post to the UDRP Task force post which I
provided...

> I also ask Mr. Williams, if he stands
> behind his statements, to send me his physical address
> for service of process in case he cannot justify his
> statements.

  I don't post personal addresses on a public Mailing list
Sir.  As my own legal council has frequently and strongly
suggested.  However you have my Phone #'s below,
Give me a call...  If you still decide you wish to serve
me than I shall direct you to my personal legal council.
I am at this moment considering servicing you as well
for you remarks here, as well as forwarding the
information that John referenced to the proper state
atty.'s generals office as well as the ABA and/or
the California Bar Associations ethics committee...
I shall include this response as well...

  As to your concerns.  I said "I took note of Mr. Mansfield's rather
less than
accurate yet  provocative as well as somewhat misinforming
 "Advertisement"  for his legal services for Domain Name holders at a
 "Flat Fee"..."  Which means that I got the impression, as it seems
John did as well, that your advertisement was a bit unusual or
less than accurate as to arbitration considerations...  Therefore
I get the immediate impression that part of your advertisement was
seemingly "Less than Honest"...

  Also, I stated below, "I acknowledge and support your chiding of
Andrew in
 his rather less than honest advertisement on that Newsgroup.
 Seems Andrew needs to brush up a bit regarding
 arbitration considerations to properly represent his potential
 clients..."  Again I was referencing the E-Mail archived post
of John's in particular at the bottom of that post:
"I note for other enterprising panelists, that wipopanelist.com and
      nafpanelist.com are currently available for registration.

      John  Berryhill

      [1]   I am unaware of administrative proceedings under the UDRP
having been
      elevated to the legal status of arbitration's, and every court to
consider the
      issue has expressly rejected applying principles of review of
arbitration
      awards."

  Hence, Andrew, why I put in the subject line, "Parish the
thought...??"

>
>
> What are the arbitration considerations I need to
> "brush up on?"  Are you taking aim at the general fact
> that WIPO arbitrators can serve both as panelists and
> take private cases?  Or is there something you think I
> personally am missing?

  This was referenced directly in John's post.  (See above).
"[1]   I am unaware of administrative proceedings under the UDRP having
been
      elevated to the legal status of arbitration's, and every court to
consider the
      issue has expressly rejected applying principles of review of
arbitration
      awards."
Also see WIPO PCT documentation...

>
>
> UDRP proceedings are arbitrations.  That is basic.

  Indeed true to an extent.  But basic?  They are setting themselves
up as a "Court" of sorts in particular with the UDRP decisions.
Very little if any real arbitration in the traditional sense actually
takes place, as I would think you know...  As well as WIPO's
decisions are final unless either party wishes to file a legal action
after the fact, which you should also know, and I am sure you do.
Hence still perhaps leaving the original registrant in a position
of loosing their Domain Name unjustifiably such as the
Barcelona.com case as only one of a number examples.

>  In
> almost all cases, as was discussed at the most recent
> gathering of WIPO arbitrators in Geneva and recorded
> in the proceedings, UDRP results are enforced in
> national courts.

  Not always, no...  But sometimes, yes...

>
>
> Finally, both serving as a panelist and representing
> clients in UDRP proceedings is NOT the practice of
> law.

  How utterly true...

>  One need not be licensed in any jurisdiction.
> It is not practicing within the jurisdiction of the
> State Bar of California.  The advertising practices
> for that service are not, therefore, covered by that
> organization's rules.  Even if they were, my conduct
> meets all requirements.

  You may be correct here, I am not yet convinced of this.

>
>
> I believe having someone who has reviewed UDRP
> submissions and drafted decisions IS a major benefit
> to a UDRP party's case.  Would not many people
> appreciate having a former judge in a Superior Court
> in California argue a case in his former court?

  Depends on the background of that judge...  Perhaps
yes.  Perhaps no...  But it sure SOUNDS good...
I personally would do a case review going back at
least seven years before I could make such a decision...

>  It
> happens every day and fairness issues are not raised.
> It simply means that he understands the practices and
> procedures better than most of his fellow attorneys.

Perhaps yes here and perhaps no as well.  I know a number
of Atty.'s that would not take a judgeship.  Gerry Spence comes to
mind for instance...

>
>
> You might also like to know that the ABA is merely an
> advisory and member-services organization.  It is not
> a regulatory body.  Report away to the ABA.

True.  But it does have and Ethics department
See:http://www.abanet.org/legresource/ethics.html

> And what
> the U.S. Senate thinks about UDRP rules and
> procedures, in my personal opinion, matters not at
> all.

  I am sure that the senate judicial reform subcommittee will be
very interested in being advised of your considered opinion
here.  I don't share it however..
Also I seems that the ABA doesn't exactly share this
particular opinion of yours either.
See:http://capwiz.com/bar/home/

>
>
> All of the opinions above are mine, of course, and not
> representative of WIPO.
>
> Andrew Mansfield
> http://www.mendolaw.com
>
> --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > John and all former DNSO GA members,
> >
> >   In your recent post to the UDRP Task force list
> > John,
> > See:
> >
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/msg00540.html
> > I took note of Mr Mansfield's rather less than
> > accurate yet
> > provocative as well as somewhat misinforming
> > "Advertisement"
> > for his legal services for Domain Name holders at a
> > "Flat Fee"...
> > I acknowledge and support your chiding of Andrew in
> > his
> > rather less than honest advertisement on that
> > Newsgroup.
> > Seems Andrew needs to brush up a bit regarding
> > arbitration
> > considerations to properly represent his potential
> > clients...
> >
> >   I realize that the legal profession is under
> > increasing pressure
> > these days but seems that Andrew is reaching a bit
> > here.
> > I wonder if the ABA would be interested in this
> > errant
> > advertisement? Or the California Bar Association?
> >  I am quite sure that the senate judiciary committee
> > would be interested...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k
> > members/stakeholders strong!)
> >
> ================================================================
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data
> > security
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail [email-masked]
> > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
> >
> >
> >
>
> =====
> Andrew S. Mansfield
> [email-masked]

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 17 Jan 2003 11:17:05 +0100
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO Council teleconf. MP3 recording Jan 16, 2003

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

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference held on
Thursday 16, 2003.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20030116.GNSOteleconf.mp3v

Happy listening!
GNSO 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, 17 Jan 2003 11:40:00 +0100
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO ouncil teleconf. minutes Dec. 19, 2002

ICANN/DNSO

         GNSO Council Teleconference on 19 December 2002 - minutes

20 December 2002.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021219.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business absent apologies, proxy to Philip Sheppard
Grant Forsyth          Business absent apologies, proxy to Philip Sheppard
Greg Ruth              ISPCP  absent
Antonio Harris         ISPCP
Tony Holmes            ISPCP
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars absent apologies, proxy to Ken Stubbs
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan        gTLD  absent
Cary Karp              gTLD
Ellen Shankman         IP
Laurence Djolakian     IP absent apologies, proxy to Ellen Shankman
J. Scott Evans         IP absent apologies, proxy to Ellen Shankman
Harold Feld            NCDNH absent apologies, proxy to Chun Eung Hwi
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH
Erick Iriate           NCDNH

10 Names Council Members

Louis Touton           General Counsel

Glen de Saint Géry     Secretary/MP3 Recording

MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20021219.Cteleconf.mp3

Quorum present at 22:30 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 1 during
winter time in the northern hemisphere).

Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.

   * Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021219.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html

   * Item 2. Change of constituency names from the old DNSO constituencies
     to new GNSO.

     No action needed as this is covered in the section 5 of the Transition
     Article of the New bylaws.

     From: http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-appb-15dec02.htm

     "The Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") shall commence
     operations upon the adoption of this Transition Article, and the
     following six DNSO constituencies shall automatically become
     constituencies of the GNSO, initially under their existing charter:

     a. The commercial and business entities constituency of the DNSO shall
     become the Commercial and Business Users constituency of the GNSO.

     b. The gTLD registries constituency of the DNSO shall become the gTLD
     Registries constituency of the GNSO.

     c. The ISP and connectivity providers constituency of the DNSO shall
     become the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency of
     the GNSO.

     d. The non-commercial domain name holders constituency of the DNSO
     shall become the Non-Commercial Users constituency of the GNSO.

     e. The registrars constituency of the DNSO shall become the Registrars
     constituency of the GNSO.

     f. The trademark, other intellectual property and anti-counterfeiting
     interests constituency of the DNSO shall become the Intellectual
     Property Interests constituency of the GNSO.

     Notwithstanding the adoption or effectiveness of the New Bylaws, each
     GNSO constituency described in paragraph 2 of this Section 5 shall
     continue operating as before and no constituency official, task force,
     or other activity shall be changed until further action of the
     constituency, provided that each GNSO constituency shall submit to the
     ICANN Secretary a new charter and statement of operating procedures,
     adopted according to the constituency's processes and consistent with
     the New Bylaws, no later than 15 July 2003."

     Louis Touton added that the intention of changing the names was to
     reflect the Blueprint.

     Item 5. Budget committee motion:

     In accordance with Section 5 (clause 1) of the Transition Article of
     the new bylaws (http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-appb-15dec02.htm):

     "The Domain Name Supporting Organization shall cease operations upon
     the adoption of this Transition Article, except that the Names Council
     of the Domain Name Supporting Organization may act for the limited
     purpose of authorizing the transfer of any funds it has collected to
     the benefit of the Generic Names Supporting Organization.",

     The assembly convened as the DNSO Names Council for the DNSO Names
     Council to approve the transfer of funds to the GNSO.

     Cary Karp proposed the motion seconded by Ken Stubbs:
     The GNSO budget committee is delegated the responsibility for
     authorizing payment for DNSO and GNSO expenses to the same extent as
     was the DNSO budget committee.
     As to DNSO funds held by ICANN, they are to be transferred and to be
     used for the benefit of the GNSO, provided that all DNSO obligations to
     the DNSO are paid.

     Roger Cochetti clarified that what was being transferred from the DNSO
     to GNSO was not only all the funds but that it included any credits,
     debts or other assets of value that the DNSO had.

     Cary Karp made a friendly amendment, seconded by Ken Stubbs.

   * The DNSO transfers to the GNSO every attribute of its financial
     identity.

     Motion carried unanimously.
     Decision 1: Transfer every attribute of the DNSO's financial identity
     to the GNSO.

     Names Council meeting formally concluded.
     This was the last meeting ever of DNSO Names Council.

     GNSO Policy Council meeting formally convened.

     Item 1: Reelection of Chair

     Philip Sheppard, seconded by Ken Stubbs moves the motion:
     That Bruce Tonkin chairs the present session.
     Unanimously accepted..

     Bruce Tonkin formally noted that he was elected as Chair of the DNSO
     Names Council for a 6 month term beginning on 1 September 2002, and he
     recommended that he be appointed as Chair of the GNSO Council for the
     same period.

     Philip Sheppard, seconded by Ellen Shankman proposed the motion:
     That Bruce Tonkin is made Chair of the GNSO Council until March 2003.

     Friendly amendment proposed by Ken Stubbs:
     Until the convening of the March GNSO meeting or until his successor is
     appointed, whichever is later.

     All voted in favour.

     Decision 2: Bruce Tonkin is Chair of the GNSO Council until the
     convening of the March GNSO meeting or until his successor is
     appointed, whichever is later.

     Item 3. Discussion of GNSO Operating procedures

     Bruce Tonkin moved, seconded by Ken Stubbs:
     That the GNSO will operate under the rules of Procedure as established
     for the Names Council and where there is conflict with the new ICANN
     bylaws, the Bylaws will have precedence.

     All voted in favour.

     · Decision 3:
     GNSO will operate under Rules of Procedure for old DNSO Names Council
     except in cases of conflict with the new ICANN bylaws where the ICANN
     new bylaws take precedence.

     It was noted that the GNSO Rules of Procedure should be updated prior
     to the ICANN meeting in March 2003 to take into account the new ICANN
     bylaws.

     Item 6. Continuation of agreement with AFNIC and FISAT Inc.

     Roger Cochetti moved, seconded by Ken Stubbs,
     That the current arrangements with AFNIC, FISAT Inc. and ICANN should
     continue until further action of the GNSO Council and that it is the
     intent that the GNSO would assume all of the obligations and
     responsibilities of the DNSO in those agreements.

     All voted in favour.

   * Decision 4: Continuation of agreement with AFNIC and FISAT Inc. and
     ICANN.

     Bruce Tonkin declared the first meeting of the GNSO closed at 8:50
     Melbourne time, December 20, and 22:50 (CET) December 19.

     Next GNSO Policy Council Meeting: Thursday January 16, at 14 UTC.
     See: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Information from: © GNSO Council

- --
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 #1557
*************************