Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #162
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, October 4 2000          Volume 01 : Number 162

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

Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:32:10 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] TLD feedback from a client

FYI, this is some feedback from a client on proposed new TLDs.

- ---------
> Incidently, I think ICANN has made a big error with the new extensions. It
> sets up a completely bad environment that is nothing short of extortion for
> the new domain providers.  Every company needing to protect its existing
> domains now needs to pay someone for another domain JUST to prevent a
> squatter.  It is the equivlent of permitting some agency to authorize a
> whole new set of trademarks in every color in the rainbow. So the black IBM
> is not good enough, you now need to buy the red and blue and green and
> yellow and chartreus....all from different companies. Frankly, they would
> have been a lot smarter if they had just abandoned the domain name system
> and reverted to the numerical IP system. It has worked fine for the
> telephone system for many years.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:09:47 +0200 (MEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Legal Expenses

On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Rick H Wesson wrote:

> 
> I just wanted to see how folks felt about this, from
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-30aug00.htm
> 
> Payment for Legal Services
> 
> Whereas, the Corporation has received an invoice from Jones, Day, Reavis &
> Pogue for $110,670.96 in connection with legal services provided to the
> Corporation during the month of June 2000;

Isn't that adequately covered by the $0.33 tax ICANN levies on all domain
registrations in com/net/org? Didn't Jones and the rest invent that tax? 

- -- 
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
 Marc Schneiders --- http://bodacious-tatas.org: no not what you think
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:11:04 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] another TLD comment from a client

> 2. It is a business issue that will result in tremendous confusion among
> the public worldwide; and, I am against more TLDs. They have already made
> some tremendous, irreparable errors with the domain registration system
> with .org .net. .com.  For a while you could only get one name for your
> organization and you may not have qualified for .org or .net.  Now anyone
> can take any TLD.  The fact is, they now have automated systems to
> recommend to you what you should reserve.  Go to Network solutions and try
> registering one domain. They give you 5 or six others.  Well anyone can
> take one of those five or six others just to squat or compete on some level
> with a confusing name..  It is a horror show.   More TLDs will only make it
> worse.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:24:59 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] TLD feedback from a client

Hello Attyross,

Tuesday, October 03, 2000, 1:32:10 PM, you wrote:

> FYI, this is some feedback from a client on proposed new TLDs.

> ---------
>> Incidently, I think ICANN has made a big error with the new extensions. It
>> sets up a completely bad environment that is nothing short of extortion for
>> the new domain providers.  Every company needing to protect its existing
>> domains now needs to pay someone for another domain JUST to prevent a
>> squatter.  It is the equivlent of permitting some agency to authorize a

Sounds like your client has a misunderstanding of trademarks and
domain names.  He believes that in order to protect his trademark, he
has to have every possible domain varient of it.

He is mistaken.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:59:41 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] TLD feedback from a client

For this client:

part of the reason for new TLD's is the fact that there is more than 
one application for a single name since the DNS requires unique 
addresses. I guess tm holders could race for domain names in all 
TLD's which would be foolish.   However, I can think of several 
applications for an acronym such as ibm.  How about Ford - motors, 
models, Joe Ford, etc. All of them should have the opportunity to 
use it.  One solution, of course, is to have TLDs dedicated to 
Trademarks only, such as tmk, reg,...

As for as many trademarks as colors in the rainbow, how about all 
the classes in which a trademark can be registered?  There should 
be at least that many TLD's. :)

Leah Gallegos

> FYI, this is some feedback from a client on proposed new TLDs.
> 
> ---------
> > Incidently, I think ICANN has made a big error with the new
> > extensions. It sets up a completely bad environment that is nothing
> > short of extortion for the new domain providers.  Every company
> > needing to protect its existing domains now needs to pay someone for
> > another domain JUST to prevent a squatter.  It is the equivlent of
> > permitting some agency to authorize a whole new set of trademarks in
> > every color in the rainbow. So the black IBM is not good enough, you
> > now need to buy the red and blue and green and yellow and
> > chartreus....all from different companies. Frankly, they would have
> > been a lot smarter if they had just abandoned the domain name system
> > and reverted to the numerical IP system. It has worked fine for the
> > telephone system for many years.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:29:27 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] another TLD comment from a client

Your customer starts discovering at last that DNs have nothing to do with
TradeMarks and that the "irreparable" errors are just facts of the life. If he
looks around he will see that when someone opens a restaurant he does
not necessarily subscribes a phone numer for it in every city in the world
but very often he buys some advertizing in the surounding yellow pages.

For years we toyed with the "electronic village" concept. Here we are, but
there are and will be more and more TLD/villages.
Jefsey

At 23:11 03/10/00, you wrote:
> > 2. It is a business issue that will result in tremendous confusion among
> > the public worldwide; and, I am against more TLDs. They have already made
> > some tremendous, irreparable errors with the domain registration system
> > with .org .net. .com.  For a while you could only get one name for your
> > organization and you may not have qualified for .org or .net.  Now anyone
> > can take any TLD.  The fact is, they now have automated systems to
> > recommend to you what you should reserve.  Go to Network solutions and try
> > registering one domain. They give you 5 or six others.  Well anyone can
> > take one of those five or six others just to squat or compete on some level
> > with a confusing name..  It is a horror show.   More TLDs will only make it
> > worse.
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:50:56 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] TLD feedback from a client

> I can think of several applications for an acronym such as ibm.

Uh, you might want to ask them about that.

>  How about Ford - motors, 
>  models, Joe Ford, etc. All of them should have the opportunity to 
>  use it.

you might want to ask them about that.

> One solution, of course, is to have TLDs dedicated to 
> Trademarks only, such as tmk, reg,...

Well, this is interesting.  I would like to hear more about this.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:04:06 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] TLD feedback from a client

Hello JandL,

Tuesday, October 03, 2000, 3:59:41 PM, you wrote:

> For this client:

> part of the reason for new TLD's is the fact that there is more than 
> one application for a single name since the DNS requires unique 
> addresses. I guess tm holders could race for domain names in all 
> TLD's which would be foolish.   However, I can think of several 
> applications for an acronym such as ibm.  How about Ford - motors, 
> models, Joe Ford, etc. All of them should have the opportunity to 
> use it.  One solution, of course, is to have TLDs dedicated to 
> Trademarks only, such as tmk, reg,...

> As for as many trademarks as colors in the rainbow, how about all 
> the classes in which a trademark can be registered?  There should 
> be at least that many TLD's. :)

> Leah Gallegos

Well said Leah.  Ford Roofing and Ford Financial Group (both
businesses here in Fresno, CA) would agree with you I am sure.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:05:18 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] TLD feedback from a client

First, why would I want to ask them about that?  TM law does not 
preclude the use of a mark for other classes or reasons such as 
parody, criticism,news, etc.

Domain names can be and are used for things other than websites - 
nameservers, e-mail, other technical operations.  TM holders and 
other commercial interests tend to forget that.

Trademarks do not fit into the DNS model do to unique addresses.

Trademarks were instituted to help consumers, not the TM holder.

As for chartered TLDs for Tm holders, IMO, it is one of the few 
answers to the need for IP interests to be able to assure consumers 
that they are, in fact, reaching the tm'd company or entity they are 
looking for.  Ford.reg could be Ford Motors, Inc. while Ford.com 
could be Ford Incubators or Ford Insulation Company or Joe Ford.  
Of course you then have the question:  Who gets ford.reg?  the 
motor co or the model co?  Hmmmm...  Guess it's first come, first 
served or perhaps we need .tmk.  Gee, let's have more - 43 maybe?

People became used to using first an operator (physical) to place a 
call to another phone; then 3 numbers, then 5, then 7, then 10, 
now sometimes 20.  They got used to diffrerent area codes, 
dialarounds...  They will become accustomed to numerous tld's and 
realize they need a searchable index for company names more and 
more.  Now there's another industry which will make a fortune for 
more innovation, just as the physical "yellow" pages does.  
Advertise and be found easier.  If you want to be found, make sure 
you enter your company name and domain name; supply category 
and keywords.  White pages by name/domain with reverse lookup.  
Simple.  It works for phone numbers.  IT will work for company 
domain names.  It's just a matter of education, like any other new 
industry.

Other than that, domain names are nothing more than mnemonic 
locators for numerical addresses, period.

> > I can think of several applications for an acronym such as ibm.
> 
> Uh, you might want to ask them about that.

Why?  
> 
> >  How about Ford - motors, 
> >  models, Joe Ford, etc. All of them should have the opportunity to
> >  use it.
> 
> you might want to ask them about that.
> 

why?   they all have rights.

> > One solution, of course, is to have TLDs dedicated to 
> > Trademarks only, such as tmk, reg,...
> 
> Well, this is interesting.  I would like to hear more about this.

see above.

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: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:58:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] TLD feedback from a client

   For those who are trademark experts, would an Amazon.biz violate
anyone's legitmate trademark rights?   How about drugstore.biz?  Or
Amazon.travel?  

On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, JandL wrote:

> For this client:
> 
> part of the reason for new TLD's is the fact that there is more than 
> one application for a single name since the DNS requires unique 
> addresses. I guess tm holders could race for domain names in all 
> TLD's which would be foolish.   However, I can think of several 
> applications for an acronym such as ibm.  How about Ford - motors, 
> models, Joe Ford, etc. All of them should have the opportunity to 
> use it.  One solution, of course, is to have TLDs dedicated to 
> Trademarks only, such as tmk, reg,...
> 
> As for as many trademarks as colors in the rainbow, how about all 
> the classes in which a trademark can be registered?  There should 
> be at least that many TLD's. :)
> 
> Leah Gallegos
> 
> > FYI, this is some feedback from a client on proposed new TLDs.
> > 
> > ---------
> > > Incidently, I think ICANN has made a big error with the new
> > > extensions. It sets up a completely bad environment that is nothing
> > > short of extortion for the new domain providers.  Every company
> > > needing to protect its existing domains now needs to pay someone for
> > > another domain JUST to prevent a squatter.  It is the equivlent of
> > > permitting some agency to authorize a whole new set of trademarks in
> > > every color in the rainbow. So the black IBM is not good enough, you
> > > now need to buy the red and blue and green and yellow and
> > > chartreus....all from different companies. Frankly, they would have
> > > been a lot smarter if they had just abandoned the domain name system
> > > and reverted to the numerical IP system. It has worked fine for the
> > > telephone system for many years.
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:21:21 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] TLD feedback from a client

In a message dated 10/03/2000 7:58:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> would an Amazon.biz violate anyone's legitmate trademark rights? 

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:25:03 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] TLD feedback from a client

Hello Attyross,

Tuesday, October 03, 2000, 5:21:21 PM, you wrote:

> In a message dated 10/03/2000 7:58:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> [email-masked] writes:

>> would an Amazon.biz violate anyone's legitmate trademark rights? 

> You better believe it.

Wouldn't that depend on the manner in which it was being used?

The mere registration and existence is not violating anyone's
legitimate rights, correct Ross?

Someone could most definitely use Amazon.biz for Amazon Health
Products, or some other such company that legitimately uses the common
word Amazon in its name.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 02:10:18 -0300
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Review

- -----Original Message-----
From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 7:49 AM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Review

The DNSO review certainly warrants the highest level of attention and
formality that it could get. The NC's decision to NOT create a WG is sending
a signal to the constituencies that this review is not a project of major
significance.

I believe that it IS a project of major significance. There are developing
factions within the constituencies that advocate working outside of the
ICANN model, and establishing 'arm's-length, peer-to-peer' relationships
with ICANN. If this happens, it will be clear to the world that ICANN is not
a "global NGO"; in fact it will make ICANN look more like a US-centric shell
company attempting to run and control the world wide Internet.

This would not bode well for the desired (by ICANN) turn-over of control of
the root servers from the US Department of Commerce to ICANN.

One way to bring some of these factions back to the table is the
formalization of the review process, with the very real possibility that
there can and will be some changes.

WG's presumably are composed of individuals, drawn from all the
constituencies, who are interested in achieving a consensus based solution.
While in the WG these individuals presumable subordinate their constituency
politics anough to be logical, rational, and fair to all concerned. (in a
perfect world ;-) )

I would like to see WG level activity for the review.

I would like to see the ICANN original concept succeed.

Peter de Blanc
.VI

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roberto
Gaetano
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 3:24 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] DNSO Review

Good morning.

The current status of the DNSO review process is that the Task Force has
 agreed on a set of questions to be asked to all participants
(Constituencies + GA).
The answers arriving before 2000-10-09 will be incorporated by the NC in
 its report to ICANN, due 2000-10-13, but the discussion will continue
for a final report, due one week before the ICANN meeting.

For the record, the NC has excluded, for the time being, to create a
formal WG on the subject. I am personally not happy about this, but
anyway there's nothing that prevents us to make the GA list the forum,
and even to vote on a final GA document if GA members feel so.

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 02:09:44 -0300
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN Legal Expenses

I'd really like to see the details on that bill for legal services.

If it continues at that rate, it is US $ 1.5 million a year....  about what
the ccTLD contribution is supposed to bee...

peter de Blanc
.VI

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Marc
Schneiders
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 5:10 PM
To: Rick H Wesson
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Legal Expenses

On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Rick H Wesson wrote:

>
> I just wanted to see how folks felt about this, from
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-30aug00.htm
>
> Payment for Legal Services
>
> Whereas, the Corporation has received an invoice from Jones, Day, Reavis &
> Pogue for $110,670.96 in connection with legal services provided to the
> Corporation during the month of June 2000;

Isn't that adequately covered by the $0.33 tax ICANN levies on all domain
registrations in com/net/org? Didn't Jones and the rest invent that tax?

- --
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
 Marc Schneiders --- http://bodacious-tatas.org: no not what you think
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 10:02:54 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] TLD feedback from a client

To all.
This rises the problem of DN abuse which is missing in the UDRP
if I am right (please correct me if I am wrong).

Let suppose Amazon Inc. register amazon.com, net, org, shop,
biz, sex, gay, church, etc... They are perfectly right according to the
current rules. But in so doing they prevent other legitimate Amazon
name holders to register their name.
- -  could not the Amazon Christian Foudation ask for amazon.chuch
- -  could not the Amazon Deli ask for amazon.shop
- -  could not the Amazon Association ask for amazon.gay
which would be legitimate internet addresses for them?

IMHO a domain name must serve the internet community in
helping access:
- -  in converting a mnemonic into an IP address
- -  in qualifying that mnemonic so people can understand which
    address they are using.
This is UN international standard about addressing. There are
thousands of Fords around the world: you can mail them a letter
because their name (mnemonic) is accompanied by qualifiants
(address, city, country). And no one claims for the name: only
a few claim for the name being associated to a given business
withing the limits of law.

There is no way of enforcing it, but it could be included in the
UDRP process that the result could only be an exchange for a
better public understanding if you already own the DN in a TLD.

This boilds down to a change in the public's mind: today the
DN is considered as a DN with "com" as a "default" TLD, now
the Internet address will resume its role as a "road sign" and
the TLD will make a difference ("com" increasing its value as
the "top" TLD).

Again (I think I am the old Caton): this calls for a DN definition
in the UDRP document. You cannot rule about something you
do not know. TM lobby says the DN is a label, a label is what
is a TM, hence the DN is TM like and TM rules apply (which is
quite specious - this way you prove a women to be a man -
allthemore than they havd to create new rules for the TLD
specifics). I say the DN is a "road sign": it only tells where is a
site the users accept or want to call with that name: standard
rules apply to the site and to the users.
Jefsey

At 04:25 04/10/00, you wrote:
>Hello Attyross,
>
>Tuesday, October 03, 2000, 5:21:21 PM, you wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 10/03/2000 7:58:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > [email-masked] writes:
>
> >> would an Amazon.biz violate anyone's legitmate trademark rights?
>
> > You better believe it.
>
>Wouldn't that depend on the manner in which it was being used?
>
>The mere registration and existence is not violating anyone's
>legitimate rights, correct Ross?
>
>Someone could most definitely use Amazon.biz for Amazon Health
>Products, or some other such company that legitimately uses the common
>word Amazon in its name.
>
>--
>Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:[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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 10:14:42 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: USG's ultimate control, transition roadmap

Patrick,
Please US lawyers/Andy correct me if I am wrong: I understand that CA
laws are equivalent. ICANN is actually "owned" by its Members. But:
- -  the actual "listed" Members are unkown
- -  the CA law says that is a Member whoever participate to the BoD
    election, hence the trick about "selection"
So the future is an action by @large members who shared into the
actual election process (Jonathan Cohen was *not* elected by the DNSO)
to make legally accepted they are ICANN members, to call for a general
assembly meeting and to reniew the entire BoD.
Jefsey

At 08:47 04/10/00, you wrote:
>Hi Alf,
>hi List,
>Alf Hansen wrote:
> > When I use the term "owner", I mean the entity that can close down the
> > ICANN organisation. That is what owners can do. It is essential for
> > ICANN to have owners who represent the Global Internet Community. I
> > mentioned ISOC, but that was just a question. Come on with better
> > proposals. Perhaps a formalisation of the Support Organisations (SOs):
> > "All formally registered Support Organisations are together the owners
> > of ICANN".
>In Germany, a non-profit-organisation (eingetragener Verein) would be
>owned by its members, be they profit organisations (corporations) or single
>individuals. There might be non-profit-organisations requiring members to be
>individuals.
>Such an organisation may be shut down by two reasons: member decision to
>shut it down or lack of member interest (then it would be shut down after a
>while by the competent state authorities).
>So, it stands for its own as long as there are enough interested and
>active members willing to support the organisation by work or financially.
>I wonder why ICANN did not have members pay a certain fee.
>Kind regards,
>Patrick Mayer
>Rechtsanwalt Dr. Patrick Mayer   [email-masked]
>Informationen zum Medienrecht: http://www.artikel5.de

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 10:36:03 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Review

Dear Peter,
At 07:10 04/10/00, you wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 7:49 AM
>To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
>Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Review
>The DNSO review certainly warrants the highest level of attention and
>formality that it could get. The NC's decision to NOT create a WG is sending
>a signal to the constituencies that this review is not a project of major
>significance.

Agreed. First question is therefore to decide about the appropriate form of
the reponse. Due to the importance of what follows, I would ask we consider
not to respond until the WG has been created. Our role is also to protect
ICANN and DNSO against such errors and from possible disbanding.

>I believe that it IS a project of major significance. There are developing
>factions within the constituencies that advocate working outside of the
>ICANN model, and establishing 'arm's-length, peer-to-peer' relationships
>with ICANN. If this happens, it will be clear to the world that ICANN is not
>a "global NGO"; in fact it will make ICANN look more like a US-centric shell
>company attempting to run and control the world wide Internet.

True. As an example ICANN acts now as a Registrar for the NTIA selling first
level DNs (what is spelled out as contrary to its charter in its by laws). In
several cases it plainly makes acceptance of the nature, interests and size
of the organizations it relates with, against its Charter.

IMHO the main danger is not that behaviour they may claim as self defence.
It is in the example they give and in the consequences as there are several
contingency root systems are ready/projected (I know already about two I
discovered in looking for a DNS system for ".sys").

>This would not bode well for the desired (by ICANN) turn-over of control of
>the root servers from the US Department of Commerce to ICANN.
>One way to bring some of these factions back to the table is the
>formalization of the review process, with the very real possibility that
>there can and will be some changes.
>
>WG's presumably are composed of individuals, drawn from all the
>constituencies, who are interested in achieving a consensus based solution.
>While in the WG these individuals presumable subordinate their constituency
>politics anough to be logical, rational, and fair to all concerned. (in a
>perfect world ;-) )
>I would like to see WG level activity for the review.
>I would like to see the ICANN original concept succeed.

We need an ICANN stickingto its consensus secretariat role.
However there is a real problem in having the lawyers who devised nice
to be circumvented by-laws to keep being paid to help circumventing them.
As we cannot hire a lawyer to fight the NC, I suppose the only sensible
response is to show that the system does not work in not responding the
NC and in writing the BoD why?
Jefsey

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

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

Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 11:19:24 +0100
From: Measday Mark <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ICANN received 44 applications for new TLDs

Chance observations from a series of disinterested observers on ICANN's 44
applications.

1. Frightening the paucity of diversity, multilingualism or imagination.

2. Seems like gtld-mou replicants only make the list?

3. None of these people even played junior scrabble.

4. IATA's .air and WHO's .health have taken four years to appear from conception,
an elephantine birth one hopes will be rewarded with real tuskers. ICANN's attempt
to garner internationalism has an even longer way to go down the birth canal.

5. I feel sorry for Esther Dyson whose efforts to build some international
consensus on the back of Dixon's IFWP ran into stony isolationism.

6. Still time for the substantial backers of ICANN to chart a path that not only
includes the IP of the US but the rest of the world, too. if they're interested in
more than the occasional senior pro-am.

7. Abril's nominalism (that the name of a thing constitutes the thing, most
infamously met in Anselm's proof of God) disproven.

MM

____________________________________________________
Josmarian (UK) Ltd  http://www.josmarian.ch [email-masked]
UK tel: 07770947420/ fax: 0044.1273.474894
France tel/fax: 0033.450.20.94.92 Part of the Josmarian Group
____________________________________________________
If you have a technical problem with this e-mail, please
mailto:[email-masked] outlining the nature
of the problem.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail transmission is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information which
is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient or the employee responsible for delivering this
communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please forward it to mailto:[email-masked]
_____________________________________________________

James Love wrote:

> http://www.icann.org/tlds/tld-applications-lodged-02oct00.htm
>
> And, many applications involve more than one string.  Paul Garin's
> Name.Space asks for the most strings.  There are several non-commercial
> TLD applications, and several applications that compete for the same
> strings.  Popular TLD strings are .biz (5), .kids (4), .tel (4), .inc
> (3), and .nom (2).  There are only 2 applications for .web, one of which
> asked for three strings.
>
> There is one .union application, and one .museum application.  The
> co-op and .coop proposal is by the Cooperative League of the USA.
> Novell is seeking .dir.  Nokia is seeking eight TLD strings, including
> mobile. The Association Monegasque des Banques is seeking .fin.  The
> Société Internationale de Télécommunications Aéronautiques is seeking
> air.  The International Air transport Association wants .travel.   Core
> is seeking .nom, but has competition from a 7 member group that includes
> Lycos, .tv, Korean firms 7DC and SK Telecom, onlincenic from China and
> the dotNOM consortium.
>
> Jamie
> --
> James Love  mailto:[email-masked] http://www.cptech.org
> Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
> voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [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: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 10:01:35 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Names Council, new TLDs,  and interests in pending applications

This is a request that the Names Council address a basic issue
concerning ethics.  I would think that for starters, each member of the
Names Council should declare any interest they have in any pending TLD
applications (including interests as competitors), and they should adopt
procedures to address the issue of such interests.  The Names Council
should also indicate what role it should play in the selection process,
and how its rules regarding member interests in applications relate to
what the Names Council does.  

I am not asking that the Names Council members automatically recuse
themselves from any and all issues, and of course, some Names Council
members have zero interests in specific new applications, but have an
interest in stopping the new TLDs go forward, and so there are also
problems with limiting votes.   

A minimum standard would seem to be more disclosure, and more self
awareness of the issues that such interest present.  Even more is
probably appropriate.  The Names Council should really consider how it
can fairly address these issues, which are now front and center.  

  Jamie

- -- 
James Love  mailto:[email-masked] http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:50:05 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Names Council, new TLDs,  and interests in pending applications

hello Jamie..

although I am confident that  you are aware that the names council plays no
role in the selection process  (as I am familiar of your background and am
quite certain you have read the proposal outlines and related material), I
feel that your request for disclosure is most fair so here is mine:

 I am a member of the names council representing the registrar constituency

I am the current chairman of CORE and Core is involved in an application for
a restricted TLD (.I.e. ".nom) as the proposing organization and in other
applications as the back-end provider

I am also involved as a member of the board of managers of Afilias, llc
www.afilias.com   ( in which CORE is a participant) in its proposal for an
unrestricted TLD as well.

I am also an officer of iDomains, inc, which has proposed a restricted TLD
(I.e. ".BIZ)

I am also an officer in Domainbank, Inc which is both a member of CORE (as
you are aware, CORE is an association of companies)  as well as a separate
participant in the afilias, llc organization which I represent on the
Afilias, LLC  board of managers.

the selection process & related guidelines has been clearly outlined and can
be viewed through links located at the following urls:

http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr16aug00.htm

http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr03aug00.htm

my very best wishes to you

ken stubbs
p.s. i also would be most interested if you or any other regular ga
contributors have provided direction, advice or consultation services to or
whether you or your organization has any interest in any proposing entity as
well

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 10:01 AM
Subject: Names Council, new TLDs, and interests in pending applications

> This is a request that the Names Council address a basic issue
> concerning ethics.  I would think that for starters, each member of the
> Names Council should declare any interest they have in any pending TLD
> applications (including interests as competitors), and they should adopt
> procedures to address the issue of such interests.  The Names Council
> should also indicate what role it should play in the selection process,
> and how its rules regarding member interests in applications relate to
> what the Names Council does.
>
> I am not asking that the Names Council members automatically recuse
> themselves from any and all issues, and of course, some Names Council
> members have zero interests in specific new applications, but have an
> interest in stopping the new TLDs go forward, and so there are also
> problems with limiting votes.
>
> A minimum standard would seem to be more disclosure, and more self
> awareness of the issues that such interest present.  Even more is
> probably appropriate.  The Names Council should really consider how it
> can fairly address these issues, which are now front and center.
>
>   Jamie
>
>
> --
> James Love  mailto:[email-masked] http://www.cptech.org
> Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
> voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176
>

- --
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 #162
************************