Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1639
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, March 20 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1639

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:15:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Doug Mehus wrote:

> Well said, Steve. I'm not a fan of ICANN either, but I strongly oppose alternate roots even more. They have no legitimate right to operate a domain name Registry, only ICANN does -- like it or not. Dr. Mueller's white paper gets my full support.

Can you provide us with supporting documentation of this right you think
ICANN has?

You'll find has has no rights - just claims and not much more.  And lets
not forget ICANN does not control the dns - that control resides with the
end users.  ICANN's current monopoly is not founded on law - it is founded
on user ignorance.

Of course user ignorance is changing - as users become more informed ICANN
loses market share - it evident to those who understand the situation.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29185.html

regards
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

     .scifi domain registration http://www.register.scifi

>
> Best,
> Doug
>
> --
> Doug Mehus
> [email-masked]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Heath" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:55 PM
> Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released
>
> If a person or company decides to enter a heavily controlled market and
> spend money so be it.
>
> It is called 'Business Risk'. No one said in business if you spend X you get
> X +15%.
>
> What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's and/or
> alternative root(s)?
>
> None.
>
> They decided to do it. Now, one would hope they went in with their eyes wide
> open knowing
> that if they did not get 'access' to the 'master root' then they were sh*t
> out of luck.
>
> The thing I could never understand that if I did .money (or .web, or .store
> or .smallfurryanimal) what stopped others from also doing it? What if my
> .money was in New Zealand and the 'upstart' .money was in Spain?
>
> A gentlemen's agreement or would you use the courts to stop them?
>
> As far as I can see a number of companies rolled the dice and appeared to
> have lost...
>
> This has nothing to do with ICANN. It has all to do with companies rushing
> and doing things to try and gain a competitive advantage for their own gain.
>
> I am not a big fan of ICANN but whinging about them and saying 'but it's not
> fair' is worthless. Your right, it's not fair, but no one TOLD you to do
> this.
>
>
> Steven Heath
> .nz news & views
> www.nznews.org.nz
> --
> 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: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:24:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting Suspension(s)

as if it matters .....

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

     Just for Radio! http://just4radio.nomad/
     ....  an inclusive namespace domain  ....

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> Regarding http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc12/msg00770.html
> Per the published list moderation guidelines Joe Baptista's
> [[email-masked]] posting rights will be suspended from March 20,
> 2003 until April 3, 2003.
>
> Regarding http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc12/msg00795.html
> Per the published list moderation guidelines Joe Baptista's
> [[email-masked]] posting rights will be suspended an additional 30
> days from April 3, 2003 until May 3, 2003.
>
> Rules of Order;
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
>
> General GNSO Mailing List Information;
> http://www.dnso.org/mailinglists.html
>
> Regards,
>
>
>            -rwr
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:50:35 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

I seriously doubt that US law would find a copyright interest in a TLD
database, as it doesn't find it in the phone book.

I am unaware of any published decisions relating to TLD databases
elsewhere, and would welcome references to them.  Other countries are more
friendly to a claim of 'compilation copyright' so it's certainly possible
that such decisions exist.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Joe Baptista wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Steven Heath wrote:
> 
> > What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's and/or
> > alternative root(s)?
> >
> > None.
> 
> TLD databases are covered by copyright law ... we've defended in the past
> successfully - and we will defend again if necessary.
> 
> regards
> joe baptista
> 
> Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
> 
>  Old Time Radio http://OTR.ind |
>                                | on the inclusive namespace
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please 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 warm here.<--

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 10:57:54 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] IANA renewal

The new IANA contract is posted at:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/iana/2003/ianaorder_03142003.htm

The "Organization, Staffing and Management" section should be of interest to 
Karl.  

Also, this particular clause speaks volumes:

C.4.3       Contractor’s obligation to perform the IANA functions shall not 
be conditioned on the existence of any agreement between the Contractor and 
any third party.

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 10:26:29 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

>
> Karl, try to answer this for me.  Is it in the best interests of the
> economy to undermine entrepreneurial efforts by simply taking the unique
> product of small businesses and organizations by fiat?

What is it that is proposed to be "taken" here?  If the DoC root does not
have an entry for .foo, then putting .foo in the DoC root does not "take"
anything from anyone.  Nobody is compelled to use the DoC root if they do not
want to use it, and nobody is prevented from operating another root system.
If you want to run your own root, then run your own root.  The day after a
collider is put into the ICANN root, you can still run your own root, and
users can decide which one they want to use.  What gives you the right to
force others to use yours?  Nobody is forcing anybody to use ICANN's.

> Please tell me
> what incentive there might be for small businesses to start up if
> somewhere down the road the government will elect to just destroy them at
> will, with no recourse.

What rule is there that says the government cannot open a refreshment stand
inside a national park, even if there are food vendors situated nearby
outside the park?  More accurately, if I sell hot dogs outside of the
entrance to Yellowstone, then what principle gives me first dibs on any hot
dog concession that the government might decide to run inside Yellowstone?
Why would the government owe me that?

Now, experience in selling hot dogs might be a good consideration in deciding
who gets to sell hot dogs in the park, but I can't see how having operated a
private business with private resources somehow confers a right to be
enshrined in a government-controlled environment.

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 10:25:57 -0600
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

Just a minor observation to that regard; for copyright purposes, the phone
book is not a database, it's a directory.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Michael
Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
Enviado el: Jueves, 20 de Marzo de 2003 09:51 AM
Para: [email-masked]'
CC: Joe Baptista; Steven Heath
Asunto: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

I seriously doubt that US law would find a copyright interest in a TLD
database, as it doesn't find it in the phone book.

I am unaware of any published decisions relating to TLD databases
elsewhere, and would welcome references to them.  Other countries are more
friendly to a claim of 'compilation copyright' so it's certainly possible
that such decisions exist.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Joe Baptista wrote:

>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Steven Heath wrote:
>
> > What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's and/or
> > alternative root(s)?
> >
> > None.
>
> TLD databases are covered by copyright law ... we've defended in the past
> successfully - and we will defend again if necessary.
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
> Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
>
>  Old Time Radio http://OTR.ind |
>                                | on the inclusive namespace
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
		Please 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 warm here.<--

- --
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: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:08:47 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Please show me only one case where your sole rights in a TLD was
acknowledged.

Simon

> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Steven Heath wrote:
>
> > What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's and/or
> > alternative root(s)?
> >
> > None.
>
> TLD databases are covered by copyright law ... we've defended in the past
> successfully - and we will defend again if necessary.
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
> Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
>
>  Old Time Radio http://OTR.ind |
>                                | on the inclusive namespace

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 12:49:07 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

On 20 Mar 2003 at 10:26, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> >
> > Karl, try to answer this for me.  Is it in the best interests of the
> > economy to undermine entrepreneurial efforts by simply taking the unique
> > product of small businesses and organizations by fiat?
> 
> What is it that is proposed to be "taken" here?  If the DoC root does not
> have an entry for .foo, then putting .foo in the DoC root does not "take"
> anything from anyone.  Nobody is compelled to use the DoC root if they do
> not want to use it, and nobody is prevented from operating another root
> system. If you want to run your own root, then run your own root.  The day
> after a collider is put into the ICANN root, you can still run your own
> root, and users can decide which one they want to use.  What gives you the
> right to force others to use yours?  Nobody is forcing anybody to use
> ICANN's.

No one is forced to use any root, but no root should deliberately include 
a duplicate TLD with different nameservers either.  You know full well 
what happens when they do.

> 
> > Please tell me
> > what incentive there might be for small businesses to start up if
> > somewhere down the road the government will elect to just destroy them at
> > will, with no recourse.
> 
> What rule is there that says the government cannot open a refreshment stand
> inside a national park, even if there are food vendors situated nearby
> outside the park?  More accurately, if I sell hot dogs outside of the
> entrance to Yellowstone, then what principle gives me first dibs on any hot
> dog concession that the government might decide to run inside Yellowstone?
> Why would the government owe me that?
> 
> Now, experience in selling hot dogs might be a good consideration in
> deciding who gets to sell hot dogs in the park, but I can't see how having
> operated a private business with private resources somehow confers a right
> to be enshrined in a government-controlled environment.
> 
> 

Hot dogs are generic.  Hebrew national hot dogs are specific.  A TLD is a 
unique character string that cannot safely be duplicated in the DNS and is 
the unique product of a registry.  If the USG decided to open a Hebrew 
National Hot Dog factory it would be illegal.  If it opened a non-
sanctioned MacDonald's restaurant it would be illegal.  If it opened 
California Sellars winery it would be illegal.  If it copied another 
specific product for sale that is the sole product of another company, 
there would be grounds to stop it.  With a TLD, DoC just does it and gets 
away with it.  I almost wish they would to after .GOD because I know that 
Joe B. would defend it under Canadian copyright law.

Just because the USG has the power to do it, doesn't mean it is right to 
do it.  It's just one more thing to fuel the resentment of the rest of the 
world.  Gutting small businesses should not be what the DoC does in the 
best interests of the community.

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, 20 Mar 2003 10:00:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Steven Heath wrote:

> What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's and/or
> alternative root(s)?

They had and have exactly the same right as did the folks who run the 
dominant root.

By-the-way, we're not talking necessarily about the small competitive
roots that have been around for a while (and which I have been sucessfully 
using for over 5 years.)

Entire countries, Taiwan being a primary example, have established their
own root systems.  (Considering that they have their own root, it is kinda
ironic that ICANN just this week entered into a a ccTLD agreement with 
.tw.)

		--karl--

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 13:02:33 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Since Joe can't post, he can't answer your question.  However, I do recall 
seeing copies of documents from his defense against the individual who 
attempted to duplicate the .GOD registry in the UK.  Joe prevailed under 
Canadian law.  You might try emailng him privately to get more 
information.

Leah

On 20 Mar 2003 at 4:08, [email-masked] wrote:

> Please show me only one case where your sole rights in a TLD was
> acknowledged.
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Steven Heath wrote:
> >
> > > What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's and/or
> > > alternative root(s)?
> > >
> > > None.
> >
> > TLD databases are covered by copyright law ... we've defended in the past
> > successfully - and we will defend again if necessary.
> >
> > regards
> > joe baptista
> >
> > Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
> >
> >  Old Time Radio http://OTR.ind |
> >                                | on the inclusive namespace
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:14:20 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Leah - help me understand why you are so worried about what goes on in
the USG root.

The problem lies with real duplication - ie - putting two identical
strings with different nameservers into the same root. Putting identical
strings with different nameservers into different roots has absolute no
negative impact on the specific users of each root unless of course the
user has configured their machine to look for authoritative results from
a non-authoritative source.

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.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: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:43:10 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

btw. is there a phone book on CD for the US?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodrigo Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law'" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "'Joe Baptista'" <[email-masked]>; "'Steven Heath'"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:25 PM
Subject: RE: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

> Just a minor observation to that regard; for copyright purposes, the phone
> book is not a database, it's a directory.
>
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Michael
> Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> Enviado el: Jueves, 20 de Marzo de 2003 09:51 AM
> Para: [email-masked]'
> CC: Joe Baptista; Steven Heath
> Asunto: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]
>
>
> I seriously doubt that US law would find a copyright interest in a TLD
> database, as it doesn't find it in the phone book.
>
> I am unaware of any published decisions relating to TLD databases
> elsewhere, and would welcome references to them.  Other countries are more
> friendly to a claim of 'compilation copyright' so it's certainly possible
> that such decisions exist.
>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Steven Heath wrote:
> >
> > > What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's and/or
> > > alternative root(s)?
> > >
> > > None.
> >
> > TLD databases are covered by copyright law ... we've defended in the
past
> > successfully - and we will defend again if necessary.
> >
> > regards
> > joe baptista
> >
> > Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
> >
> >  Old Time Radio http://OTR.ind |
> >                                | on the inclusive namespace
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
> Please 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 warm here.<--
>
> --
> 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
>

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 05:44:11 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Joe,
I can forwar your answer to the list.

simon

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

> unfortunately simon my posting rights seem to be suspended - ask your
> question again in - what was it - 30 days or so.
>
> cheers
> joe baptista
>
> Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
>
> http://www.dot-god.com/tldadmin/
>
>    The Top Level Domain Registry for inclusive namespace serving
>    the internet technical community.  A co-opoerative project of
>
>         The dot.GOD Registry, Limited http://www.dot-god.com/
>                      The Pacific Root http://www.pacificroot.com/
>                               NewRoot http://www.newroot.com/
>                   members of the TLDA http://www.tlda.net/
>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Please show me only one case where your sole rights in a TLD was
> > acknowledged.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Steven Heath wrote:
> > >
> > > > What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's
and/or
> > > > alternative root(s)?
> > > >
> > > > None.
> > >
> > > TLD databases are covered by copyright law ... we've defended in the
past
> > > successfully - and we will defend again if necessary.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > joe baptista
> > >
> > > Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
> > >
> > >  Old Time Radio http://OTR.ind |
> > >                                | on the inclusive namespace
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 11:54:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[ga]_Posting_Suspension(s)?=

Perhaps someone can tell me who died and made RWR list monitor?
e

> Regarding http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc12/msg00770.html
> Per the published list moderation guidelines Joe Baptista's
> [[email-masked]] posting rights will be suspended from March 20,
> 2003 until April 3, 2003.
> 
> Regarding http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc12/msg00795.html
> Per the published list moderation guidelines Joe Baptista's
> [[email-masked]] posting rights will be suspended an additional
> 30 days from April 3, 2003 until May 3, 2003.
> 
> Rules of Order;	
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
> 
> General GNSO Mailing List Information;
> http://www.dnso.org/mailinglists.html
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
>            -rwr
> 
> --
> 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: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:56:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_[ga]_New_TLD_White_Paper_released?=

What is the USG Root?
e

> Leah - help me understand why you are so worried about what goes on in
> the USG root.
> 
> The problem lies with real duplication - ie - putting two identical
> strings with different nameservers into the same root. Putting
> identical strings with different nameservers into different roots has
> absolute no negative impact on the specific users of each root unless
> of course the user has configured their machine to look for
> authoritative results from a non-authoritative source.
> 
> 
>                        -rwr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
> 
> Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:12:24 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] IANA renewal

Karl:

Re:  << None of this material has been provided to ICANN's board >>

On the subject of Board receipt of material, I would ask:

1.  Have Board members yet seen the CRADA report detailing the root server 
system's status (due date of November 30, 2002) or the enhanced architecture 
proposal (due date of December 31, 2002), both required under the terms of 
Amendment 5 to the MOU?

2.  Have Board members seen the required annual report from VeriSign on the 
research, development and infrastructure improvements to the .com, .net, and 
.org Registries (the "Improvements") as stipulated in Appendix W of the .com 
registry agreement (that's the one that commits VeriSign to expend a minimum 
of US$200,000,000 by December 31, 2010)?

3.  Have Board members seen any Proof-of-Concept reports submitted by the 
registries?

4.  Have Board members seen any reports on the plans to move forward with 
implementing periodic escrow of gTLD registrar data (I refer to the report 
first posted at http://www.icann.org/escrow/registrar-escrow-08nov01.htm )?

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 14:41:47 -0500
From: "Gene Marsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

Yes, Michael, but if I publish a book of numbers in the US and call it "The
Yellow Pages" I would have a fight on my hands.  Consider the name of the
book as the TLD, with addresses within.

Gene...

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Michael
Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 10:51 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Cc: Joe Baptista; Steven Heath
Subject: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

I seriously doubt that US law would find a copyright interest in a TLD
database, as it doesn't find it in the phone book.

I am unaware of any published decisions relating to TLD databases
elsewhere, and would welcome references to them.  Other countries are more
friendly to a claim of 'compilation copyright' so it's certainly possible
that such decisions exist.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Joe Baptista wrote:

>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Steven Heath wrote:
>
> > What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's and/or
> > alternative root(s)?
> >
> > None.
>
> TLD databases are covered by copyright law ... we've defended in the past
> successfully - and we will defend again if necessary.
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
> Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
>
>  Old Time Radio http://OTR.ind |
>                                | on the inclusive namespace
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
		Please 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 warm here.<--

- --
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1639
*************************