Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1606
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, February 22 2003         Volume 01 : Number 1606

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

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:44:40 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: (INTA-list) Website Information Re:  Sale of Brands

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, at 23:28 [=GMT-0500], John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> > For instance, an owner was no longer interested in a
> > brand or was no longer using a brand, and wanted to
> > determine if a third party had any interest in acquiring it
> > for certain consideration.
>
> I've heard a rumor that WIPO is considering implementing a policy under which
> a party selling a trademark could be subject to a complaint brought by an
> internet domain name registrant, which would require the trademark owner to
> transfer the trademark to the domain name registrant.
>
> It's just a rumor at this point, though.

And it will come back as such every seven years from now?

- -- 
[19] E@.
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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:20:11 +0100
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO Council Teleconference minutes 16 Jan. 2003

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]]

ICANN/DNSO

          GNSO Council Teleconference on 16 January 2003 - minutes

19 January 2003.

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

List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C.
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C.
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent - apologies, proxy to Antonio Harris
Philipp Grabensee - Registrars - absent
Ken Stubbs - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Roger Cochetti - gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD
Cary Karp - gTLD
Ellen Shankman - IPIC
Laurence Djolakian - IPIC
J. Scott Evans - IPIC absent - apologies, proxy to Ellen Shankman
Harold Feld - Non Commercial users C. - absent apologies, proxy to Chun Eung
Hwi
Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C.
Erick Iriate -Non Commercial users C. - absent apologies, proxy to Chun Eung
Hwi

13 Council Members
Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel
Glen de Saint Géry Secretary/MP3 Recording

MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20030116.GNSOteleconf.mp3

Quorum present at 15:10 (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/20030116.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html
     Ken Stubbs suggested moving item 5 to the end of the agenda as J. Scott
     Evans may have joined the call by then.

     Agenda approved

   * Item 2. Summary of last meetings
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021214.NCamsterdam-minutes.htm
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021219.DNSOteleconf-minutes.html
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021219GNSOteleconf-minutes.htm

     Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Philip
     Sheppard.
     The motion was carried unanimously.

     Decision 1: Motion adopted.

   * Item 3. Update on progress Transfers and WHOIS implementation
     committees - Bruce Tonkin

     Bruce Tonkin reported that both committees were working actively.
     There had been two teleconferences on the transfer implementation
     committee. The general feeling is that the recommendations are
     implementable, with a few small improvements suggested by the
     Registrars and Registries, which will be incorporated into the final
     report of the Transfers Implementation Committee. The WHOIS
     implementation committee had one teleconference the second being
     scheduled for later in the day. The registrars and registries were
     being asked to comment on the implementability of the recommendations.
     The main problem was that most people had not read the detailed task
     Force reports.
     When this has been done there will be clarification on the
     recommendations and improved wording suggested.
     The implementation committees would submit their reports at the end of
     January.

     Chun Eung Hwi commented that the Non Commercial Users constituency was
     not represented on the WHOIS implementation committee.
     Bruce Tonkin explained that the structure of the implementation
     committee was made up of Registrars, Registries and liaison from the
     WHOIS task force and that he had no objection to Ruchika Agrawal being
     added to the WHOIS implementation committee.

     Louis Touton referred to the DNSO Names Council meeting in Amsterdam on
     December 14, 2002
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021214.NCteleconf-minutes.html
     where the Names Council delayed acceptance of the WHOIS policy
     recommendation for additional consideration by the constituencies until
     the present meeting. The consideration of the additional comments would
     be outside the scope of the implementation assessment group. He asked
     how the additional comments would be addressed so that the
     recommendations in the November 30 report could be accepted by the
     Council.
     Marilyn Cade reported that the resolution to leave the report open for
     further comments was a request from the Registry constituency and the
     report was open for comments to January 9, 2003.
     Bruce Tonkin commented that approving the recommendations, as was
     minuted, was based on receiving feedback between the December 14, 2002
     and January 16, 2003 meeting. Based on the work of the WHOIS
     implementation committee so far, changes were foreseen in the wording
     to make it implementable. The implementation committee will thus
     suggest changes to be considered by the WHOIS task force which,
     together with the public input received, will be completed by the end
     of January. At the next GNSO Council meeting, February 20, the
     recommendations themselves would be voted on and if appropriate the
     Final Report will be forwarded to the ICANN Board.
     The WHOIS Task Force recommendations mostly focussed on what ICANN
     staff needs to do.
     Louis Touton envisaged the staff views on the recommendations for
     policy enforcement soon.
     Marilyn Cade clarified that the resolution to leave the report open for
     constituency comments was in response to the Registry constituency.
     There were two separate issues:
     - public comments on the Final WHOIS Task Force report which was the
     purpose of the comments remaining open until January 9, 2003
     - the process of incorporating the WHOIS implementation report into the
     final WHOIS report with a relatively narrow set of recommendations for
     the ICANN Board.

     Four issue reports would be created independent of the Final Report
     1. Documentation of a set of questions
     2. Searchability
     3. Consistency and Uniformity of data elements
     4. Work identified that should be undertaken, for example the 15 day
     period that the registrant is given when inaccurate data is given

     Bruce Tonkin said that the issue reports for further work could be
     delayed until the March meeting in Rio de Janeiro.

     Louis Touton confirmed that the goal is, in the February meeting, to
     conclude the Final Reports on Transfers and WHOIS in February. A public
     comment period is needed, the reports must be ready 28 days before the
     Rio de Janeiro meeting which is 23 through 27 March.

     Roger Cochetti excused himself for half an hour 16:10 CET. Proxy given
     to Jordyn Buchanan

   * Item 4: Update on Deletes task force - Jordyn Buchanan

     Bruce Tonkin asked Jordyn Buchanan to comment on the task force
     progress and referred to the Deletes Task Force draft recommendations
     that were available in the archives:
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-deletes/Arc00/

     Jordyn Buchanan reported that the Deletes Task Force was chartered
     under the new GNSO progress development process.
     He enumerated some of the difficulties experienced:
     - no staff support, thus
     - impossibility to work within the time constraint
     - problem beyond the task force was to get representative's names from
     each constituency.
     A problem to be anticipated in the future as members have to be
     prepared to volunteer to devote time and effort to the process.
     The goal is to wrap the recommendations into a report, bringing in the
     rationale from the issues report as to what the task force is trying to
     solve.
     There are two outstanding issues:
     1. Whether registrars should be required not to delete names for some
     portion of the renewal grace period.
     The present recommendation indicates that a registrar must delete by
     the end of the grace period.
     Whether there should be a minimum time period through the grace period
     that names should be carried.
     2. Standardization process in reallocation, is desirable, but there is
     little direction on this so it will not be included in the report.
     The task force will create an issues report to examine reallocation.
     Bruce Tonkin endorsed the process saying that there was very little
     interdependency between reallocation and deletes.
     The timeframe suggested:
     - Draft report published in 10 days from this meeting
     - Period open for public comment
     - Include public comments in the Final report presented to the GNSO
     Council at the March meeting.

   * Item 7: New gtlds - process for developing a position statement
     - options - task force, committee of the Council, full Council

     At the Board meeting in Amsterdam, the Board approved the Action Plan
     (see

http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/new-gtld-action-plan-18oct02.htm
     ) regarding moving forward on new gTLDs.
     See http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-15dec02.htm.

     As part of that resolution the Board requested the GNSO " to provide a
     recommendation by such time as shall be mutually agreed by the
     President and the Chair of the GNSO Names Council on whether to
     structure the evolution of the generic top level namespace and, if so,
     how to do so." This was in response to part of the Action Plan
     (see

http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/new-gtld-action-plan-18oct02.htm#III
)
     that addressed this subject.

     Bruce Tonkin distinguished two issues:
     - Should there be a structure?
     - How should the generic top level domain space be structured?

     Suggested process:
     - Deal with the subject at the GNSO Council level
     - Schedule GNSO Council gTLD committee meetings
     - Each constituency provide a formal statement on the topic
     - Report back to ICANN the constituency statements.

     Bruce Tonkin suggested some one else be nominated as GNSO Council gTLD
     committee chair.
     Marilyn Cade, seconded by Antonio Harris, nominated Philip Sheppard,
     who accepted, as gTLD Committee Chair.

     Resolved that the committee of the whole GNSO Council will address the
     issue and that the committee will be chaired by Philip Sheppard.

     Time frame:
     Grant Forsyth suggested that there be a decision during the meeting as
     to when the constituency would lodge views on the matter for the whole
     Council meeting.
     Louis Touton mentioned that the structure of the name space is not in
     the critical path of the Board moving forward on the limited number of
     gTLDs. It is in the critical path of the long term for possible new
     gTLDs and considered by many of the Board members as one of the most
     important questions for ICANN. The Board would like to receive careful
     and thoughtful advice from the GNSO Council.

     · Philip Sheppard recommended that a period of 6 weeks be available for
     constituencies to lodge their position statements for consideration by
     the council committee.
     Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ellen Shankman, proposed the following
     motion:
     A committee of the GNSO Council will be formed to address the question
     that Stuart Lynn has asked on the generic top level name space. This
     committee will be chaired by Philip Sheppard who will prepare a
     timeline to respond to the question, put forward by Stuart Lynn, to the
     Board.

     Motion carried unanimously

     Decision 2. Motion adopted

     Louis Touton addressing the question of representation, stated that
     there will be an Interim At Large Advisory Committee in place by
     February 1, and one of their first actions will be to appoint a GNSO
     liaison under the bylaws. As an interim measure, Denise Michel should
     be on the mailing list. The liaison point is to the GNSO Council. Since
     a committee is formed of the whole Council, the liaison will be to the
     Council.

   * Item 8. Appointment of two seats on the new ICANN Board

     The DNSO previously appointed 3 representatives to the old ICANN Board:

     Alejandro Pisanty (re-elected in September 2002)
     Amadeu Abril I Abril
     Jonathan Cohen

     As part of the new Transition article of the new by-laws
     (http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-appb-15dec02.htm)
     Section 5(7) states:
     "Promptly after the adoption of this Transition Article, the Generic
     Names Supporting Organization shall, through the GNSO Council, make
     selections of Directors to fill Seats 13 and 14 on the New Board, with
     terms to conclude upon the commencement of the first regular terms
     specified for each of those Seats in Article VI, Section 8(1)(d) and
     (e) of the New Bylaws, and shall give the ICANN Secretary written
     notice of its selections."

     The new Board is likely to be in place for the March 2003 ICANN Board
     meeting, and we should select the two representatives well in advance
     of this date.

     Bruce Tonkin introduced the appointment of two seats, designated 13 and
     14 on the new ICANN Board, saying that in consultation with Louis
     Touton it was the desire to have the new ICANN Board in place by the
     Rio de Janeiro meeting so the time line for the GNSO Council should be
     March.

     Louis Touton clarified the current situation:
     The bylaws provide that the new Board will take its seats at the first
     regular meeting, meaning a quarterly meeting that occurs more than 7
     days after at least 10 directors have been selected under the new
     process.
     That will require 8 directors nominated by the Nominating Committee,
     plus 2 of the directors selected by either the ASO or GNSO.
     Currently the Nominating Committee share is a topic for discussion at
     the Board meeting next Monday. The Nominating Committee will be
     populated, but not ready to operate before early February. The chances
     that it would complete its work by March 20, are infinitesimal.
     A realistic timeline would be the Montreal meeting in late June when
     the directors should be seated 7 days before the meeting. The GNSO
     should think about a timely date before.
     Philip Sheppard asked whether the terms of office for the first two
     appointments from the GNSO would have a fixed time?
     Louis Touton replied that there is a definite termination date.
     The GNSO has seats 13 and 14. Seats 13 and 14 are the initial
     transitional appointments that last until the process begins regularly.
     Seat 13, in its first regular term, begins in the second quarter of
     2004
     Seat 14, in its first regular term, begins in the second quarter of
     2005.
     Louis Touton will prepare an explanatory chart and post to the Council.

     Bruce Tonkin proposed two options in the process:
     1. An open process where anyone can be nominated
     - select the person with the most votes for seat 14,
     - with the second highest amount of votes for seat 13
     2. Separate the roles of seats 13 and 14
     One of those seats, 13, could be biased towards a selection amongst the
     existing DNSO Board members.
     (two of the three existing board members have been contacted and
     expressed their willingness to be reelected)
     Open process for seat 14

     Marilyn Cade asked whether past Board members, who may have been on the
     previous Board, could be nominated by the Nominating Committee.
     Louis Touton confirmed that this was possible.

     Discussion on voting timelines in relation to the Nominating committee
     drew support for a timeline independent of the Nominating Committee or
     other processes.
     Geographic diversity is stipulated in article 6 paragraph 3
     http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm#VI-2.1
     At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting
     Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries
     located in the same Geographic Region.

     Bruce Tonkin suggested drafting a voting procedure, for the Council to
     vote on in the February meeting.
     Suggested procedure:
     - Nominate candidates (nomination by GNSO Council members)
     - Proceed to vote on seat 14
     - after conclusion of the vote for seat 14, vote on seat 13 taking into
     account the need for geographic diversity.

     Roger Cochetti rejoined the GNSO Council teleconference

   * Item 6. Update on GNSO Budget for 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004
     - Roger Cochetti
     - response to request for input from Stuart Lynn on 24 Dec 02
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00222.html

     Bruce Tonkin stated that Stuart Lynn asked for an estimate of what the
     GNSO would need in support after June 2003, when the GNSO funding
     became ICANN's responsibility.

     Roger Cochetti addressed 3 items:
     Item 1.
     The Budget Committee intends to meet to discuss requirements from July
     1 when ICANN assumes responsibility for what the GNSO Council and (old
     DNSO Council) has been responsible for through June 30.
     Issues to provide comments on:
     The extent of service and support that ICANN should supply for the GNSO
     - staff support - full time professional as envisaged in ICANN
     documents and other staff
     - expenses - teleconferences, meeting rooms etc.
     The objective is to provide a scoping document as to what Council
     should propose to ICANN Budget Committee by the February 20 GNSO
     Council meeting.
     Item 2
     The Budget committee recommends that Council modify a decision made by
     the DNSO Names Council. Whereby the DNSO Names Council in 2001 agreed
     to make a payment of $60 000 to AFNIC covering AFNIC's services to the
     DNSO, without any contractual agreement. AFNIC's services included
     operating the DNSO website and managing the DNSO Names Council voting
     activities.
     AFNIC accepted $60 000 as settlement of all claims.
     The DNSO Names Council attached several conditions to the payment:
     - AFNIC should estimate allocation costs to General Assembly and the
     Names Council
     - The Names Council required that AFNIC assign intellectual property
     rights to any software developed by AFNIC under its implied contract to
     the DNSO for services.
     The Budget committee recommends that the GNSO Council remove and repeal
     any requirements that the DNSO Names Council made for the transfer of
     intellectual property rights that occurred in 2000.
     With this decision, payment of $60 000 for the services provided could
     be made and the subject closed.

     Bruce Tonkin proposed that a motion be drafted, posted to the Council
     list and voting be deferred to the February 20 GNSO Council meeting.
     Item 3
     Status report for first six months 2003
     Highlights in the report to be reviewed at the Budget Committee
     meeting.
     In the December 2002 Names Council meeting:
     - dues structure to 6 consistencies $4950 for each constituency
     - cash carry over $37 000

     Cash carry over, $37 000
     combined with constituency dues $29 700,
     TOTAL BUDGET $66 700
     This allows for a modest level of flexibility.
     The budget committee will submit a full report to the GNSO Council.
     This does not take into account receivables that have not been paid
     over the years, $100 000 outstanding in Constituency fees.

   * Item 5. Update on UDRP task force deferred to next meeting in the
     absence of J. Scott Evans on the call

   * AOB
     Philip Sheppard raised the point that it would be appropriate to renew
     endorsement for support of the ccSupporting Organization and for ICANN
     matters to be discussed at in the ITU meeting in March.

     Marilyn Cade undertook drafting a document for the Council to vote on
     by email, which vote would be formally ratified in a Council meeting,
     to present at the ITU March 3/4 meeting.

     Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed, thanked particularly Louis
     Touton, and all the participants too, for being on the call.

     Call ended: 17:00 CET, 16:00 UTC, Thursday 16, 3:00 Melbourne time,
     Friday 17

     Next GNSO Council teleconference: Thursday February 20, 14:00 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

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

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:25:13 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Privacy Working Group

At 11:38 p.m. 21/02/2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
>I am always open to constructive dialog :-)

But you also like your Board predictable. :-)

- -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: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:48:59 -0500
From: "Max Meier" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

I am still waiting.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Max Meier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:45:35 -0500
To: "Domain.Disputes" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

> WIPO and NeuLevel fail to answer serious questions.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Domain.Disputes" <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:52:16 +0100
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes
> 
> > Dear Mr. Meier,
> > 
> > we have contacted NeuLevel, the .BIZ registry, with regard to your question and will come back to you shortly.
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
> > 
> > >>> "Max Meier" <[email-masked]> 11/12/02 02:22PM >>>
> > Dear Sir or Madam,
> > 
> > In the RDRP policy there is no provision which requires the Complainant to hold an identical or a confusing similar trademark to request a transfer of a disputed domain name. 
> > How can you as a Dispute Resolution Providers make this a requirement? 
> > 
> > According to your site... "Single RDRP Complaints can be filed by any person or entity. However, if the Complainant requests transfer of the domain name, it will have to establish, as under the UDRP, that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights."
> > http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/gtld/biz/rdrp/index.html 
> > 
> > There is no such provision in the RDRP policy.
> > How can you legitimate this requirement?
> > 
> > 
> > I am waiting for your reply.
> > Thank you!
> > 
> > 
> > Yours sincerely,
> > Max Meier
> 
> -- 
> __________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> 
> --
> 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
> 

- -- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

- --
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, 21 Feb 2003 19:40:06 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DROA sending out "renewal" letters / WHOIS

Thomas and all former DNSO GA members,

  Well looks or sounds here like you are amongst the minions
that have been abused by continuing bad business practice
from WHois data misuse.  Such widely reported, documented,
and ongoing instances, ever increasing, only makes the case
that the Whois Task Force, and not the NC's decisions more
stupefying and continuing to add to further destabilizing of
the internet for stakeholders/Registrants/users by the very
ignorance and arrogance of such entrenched IPC/BC desires.

  Over 35 of our members have received similar such
"Notification" that are .INFO and .BIZ registrants.  When
reported independently, the Registries in question, simply
ignored such reports or suggested that they contact the
Registrars to which those Registrants had registered their
Domain Names with.  Those same registrars in turn,
suggested that they were not the proper entities by which
such reports should or could be addressed by, and thereby
refused to address these problem reports.  Catch-22 for
the registrant, and potential damage may ensue for some of them.
Hence as I replied to Mr. Neuman a couple of days ago,
that legal remedies are now being discussed and seriously
considered to address these abuses by the Registries regarding
their Privacy being violated, abusive and questionable solicitations
as you experienced here Thomas...  So I suppose it will perhaps
become necessary to sue these registries and Registrars that
practice this nonsense, amongst other abuses of registrants
and relieve some of their corporate officers of some of their
financial burden...

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> I just found first-hand evidence for what looks like WHOIS abuse in
> my physical mailbox: Domain Registry of America apparently turns
> reseller and/or registrar and solicits me to renew my domain name
> does-not-exist.org (and transfer it to them).  They also offer
> does-not-exist.net, does-not-exist.biz, and does-not-exist.info to
> me.  Bad enough, I'm not a business, and I'm already holding the
> other two.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        <[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

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, 21 Feb 2003 19:51:03 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Privacy Working Group

Vint and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  That's lovely that you are so open, Vint.  However more substantive
action is what in needed from you.  As a self proclaimed and styled
"Internet Leader" a la "Father of the Internet" <chuckel>, perhaps
even a slight bit of processional responsibility in displaying that
much vaunted leadership would be in order?

  Anyone can go around making speeches, and proclamations. It takes
real leadership to carry them out in the best and well known interests
of the stakehoolders...  I am sure many of us await with baited breath
to see you demonstrate such...  Here is yet another opportunity for
you to do so, alone with correcting the poor decision of the NC
regarding the Whois Task forces report and recommendations.

  So I wonder personally along with many of our members if
and how well you will grasp this opportunity and actually
demonstrate real leadership....  The chair has been yet
again pulled out for you...

vinton g. cerf wrote:

> I am always open to constructive dialog :-)
>
> v
>
> At 12:32 PM 2/21/2003 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >At 06:35 a.m. 21/02/2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
> >>Hi Danny,
> >>
> >>to be honest I haven't made a lot of progress (mostly just a consequence of
> >>being overloaded and traveling 80% of my time),
> >
> >
> >Vint is currently here in Auckland, speaking at the Knowledge Wave Conference and simultaneously watching NZ being humiliated by .. New Zealanders in the Americas' Cup races.
> >
> >I just come away from a breakfast with him, where we had the beginning of a dialog of sorts about the At Large.
> >Is this ICANN lowering its draw-bridges?
> >
> >Will issues like  WHOIS privacy one day really get "voted on" by the whole interested community?
> >
> >What is important for me is what structural and procedural solidity is needed to make such a vote the final word.
> >
> >
> >-joop-
> >
>
> Vint Cerf
> SVP Architecture & Technology
> WorldCom
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
> 703 886 0047 fax
>
> --
> 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 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, 21 Feb 2003 23:02:53 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Council adopts Transfers and WHOIS

Marilyn and all Former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  This decision shows clearly the poor decision making abilities of
the NC given the predominant need for serious modifications
to the Whois privacy concerns posted to the comments requested
by the Whois Task force members.  It is clear that the Whois
Task Force and now the NC is more interested in their desire to
use personal and private registrant information for their own purposes
and thereby creating a definite and documented continuing
occurrences of placing those Registrants at high risk of personal
physical or undue financial harm.  A terrible Travesty indeed!

  It is clear to me, and to most of our members, the NCUC and
many others whom posted comments per request, as well as
viable and workable methods in contrast to the Whois Task
forces report, and now NC's adoption, that registrants personal
safety is far less important than the IPC's and BC's desire
using a registrants personal and private information for financial
gain...

Supporting documentation for my above comments/observations:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc12/msg00077.html
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc03/msg00016.html
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00005.html
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00012.html
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc03/msg00006.html
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg01563.html
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg01542.html
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00027.html
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00025.html
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00023.html
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg01533.html
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc03/msg00007.html
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc03/msg00009.html
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg01562.html
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc03/msg00011.html

  Therefore it is our hope that the DOC/NTIA will take under advisement
that the obvious misjudgment of the NC in taking this particular decision
regarding the Whois Task Forces Report and recommendations was
far aside from the input to which they received, has been discussed
and debated, and as such, reverse this decision by the NC.  Further,
we hope that the ICANN BoD, will in addition find that such a
poor and largely unsupported decision by the NC regarding
Whois Task Forces Report and recommendations especially with
respect to privacy will not be acknowledged or accepted
by the ICANN BoD.

Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP wrote:

> One point of clarification is needed to the summary below. The WHOIS Task Force
> is preparing an issues report on privacy. The intent is to have a Council on
> privacy at Rio as part of the agenda. The Council will then determine how
> to create a policy development process. There was broad support by the TF
> members, and by the Council to addressing privacy.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:14 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] FYI: Council adopts Transfers and WHOIS
>
> The GNSO Council adopted both the Transfers and WHOIS Task Force
> reports.  WHOIS was adopted with the votes of the gTLD registries,
> but against the votes of the non-commercial users' constituency,
> after it had been clarified which of the Task Force's
> recommendations are consensus policies and which are just general
> recommendations (and *not* binding).
>
> I also understand that the agenda for the Council's next meeting now
> includes the initiation of a policy-development process on WHOIS
> privacy, for which an issues paper will have to be prepared --
> either by the Task Force, or by some other body.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        <[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
>
> --
> 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 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: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 03:59:28 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] UDRP Decisions Not Arbitrations Under FAA

There was a thread last month regarding the argument over whether the UDRP 
consituted 'arbitration' as defined by the FAA.  The following is a timely 
decision that precisely addresses this issue.  Following that is part of 
the text of the relevant thread from January of this year.

Leah

3RD CIRCUIT RULES UDRP DECISIONS NOT ARBITRATIONS UNDER FAA
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that ICANN UDRP
decisions are not entitled to "extremely deferential" review
in the federal courts since UDRP cases do not fall under the
Federal Arbitration Act. 
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/013713p.pdf

(text from former thread)

> I stick by the simple, non-US law-based definitino of
> arbitration.

You can do that, of course, but in the UDRP rules it is still considered 
to be an "administrative procedure" and forced upon so-called 
participants.  Using an academinc definition doesn't change the fact or 
the rules.  Courts are under no obligation to refer to or use the 
decisions made by UDRP panelists.  Many do not consider them at all.

> 
> (from Cambridge International Dictionary of English)
> 
> arbitrate
> verb 
> to make a judgment in (an argument), usually because
> asked to do so by those involved 
> 
> arbitration
> noun [U] 
> to have the disagreement solved by an outside person
> who has been chosen by both sides
> 
> arbitrator
> noun [C] 
> An arbitrator is a person whose official role is to
> make a decision between two people or groups who do
> not agree. 
> 
> The real-world effects of a UDRP decision in the case
> of transfer are dramatic.  UDRP participants manifest
> consent when registering a domain name and by not
> choosing to go to national courts.

In a contract of adhesion, yes.  Hopefully that will change. One cannot, 
at this time, register a domain under the ICANN system without agreeing to 

UDRP, so this is forced or consent under duress.  It is certainly not 
voluntary if one wishes to have an internet presence in the USG root.

> 
> Andrew Mansfield
> 
> --- "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D."
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 5. The footnote below is just plain wrong.  Dr.
> > > Berryhill appears to confuse enforcement of an
> > > "arbitration" award in a US Court as a formal
> > > arbitration with the definition of "arbitration." 
> > Any
> > > binding decision making process in which both
> > sides
> > > make a presentation and a third party renders a
> > > decision based on principles of equity or law is
> > an
> > > arbitration.
> > 
> > Someone had better bring this to the attention of
> > the folks who wrote the
> > UDRP, as they seem to make a distinction between an
> > administrative proceeding
> > under the UDRP and an arbitration in UDRP Paragraph
> > 8. (and, of course, the
> > word "binding" is right out in accordance with Rule
> > 4)  No court has applied
> > a standard of review less than _de novo_ to a UDRP
> > decision, because a
> > "challenge" to a UDRP decision is not really a
> > challenge to the UDRP
> > decision, but an independent determination under the
> > Lanham Act (see, e.g.
> > the 1st Circuit's analysis of the corinthians.com
> > case, or the Ontario
> > Court's determination that the canadian.biz decision
> > was right screwy).  The
> > standard of review applied to a binding arbitration
> > is much different than
> > the manner that any court has treated a UDRP
> > decision, which by its own terms
> > is not binding on the parties.  In point of fact, a
> > UDRP decision is not
> > directed at the parties at all - it is directed to
> > the registrar, since the
> > registrar is the ONLY party who is ordered by a UDRP
> > panel to do, or refrain
> > from doing, anything at all.
> > 
> > But, if there is an explanation for the distinction
> > between condition (a) and
> > condition (b) in Paragraph 8, I'm all ears:
> > 
> > ---------
> > 8. Transfers During a Dispute.
> > 
> > a. Transfers of a Domain Name to a New Holder. You
> > may not transfer your
> > domain name registration to another holder (i)
> > during a pending
> > administrative proceeding brought pursuant to
> > Paragraph 4 or for a period of
> > fifteen (15) business days (as observed in the
> > location of our principal
> > place of business) after such proceeding is
> > concluded; or (ii) during a
> > pending court proceeding or arbitration commenced
> > regarding your domain name
> > unless the party to whom the domain name
> > registration is being transferred
> > agrees, in writing, to be bound by the decision of
> > the court or arbitrator.
> > ----------
> > 
> > Now, under Par. 8 of the UDRP, is a UDRP proceeding
> > itself an arbitration?
> > If it is, then it sure makes one hash of that
> > paragraph.  Why use two
> > different words for the same thing?
> > 

- --
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 #1606
*************************