Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1660
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, April 10 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1660

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 15:41:05 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Two Questions for the Deletes Task Force

John -

Thank you very much for your response. This was just an area I hadn't been
following closely, so I was seeking some clarification.

Of course, the broader issue of Agreements, their definition and
implementation, is one which merits further attention.

For example, the ICANN/Registry Agreements for the New TLDs were seriously
flawed, as were the Registry/Registrar agreements. The resulting mayhem, in
the .info launch in particular, could have been avoided if the Agreements
had been more carefully and precisely drafted, and also fully implemented.

My experience of ICANN during those events was of an organisation that
wanted to promote "laissez-faire" and a market that just operated by itself
without intervention. Even where ICANN was made aware - at the highest
level - of abuse of the very processes it had set in place, it chose not to
intervene... to the disadvantage of hapless consumers in the middle of it
all.

I take the view that ICANN Agreements need "teeth" in the form of sanctions
against Registries, Registrars or other parties who flout the original
terms.

In the context of Registries and Registrars, the punitive action could
include removal of accreditation, removal from the "loop", and in the case
of Registries, removal of their right to do business. Surely that could all
be written into contract in advance, and made a condition of the contract to
operate a registry?

One of the roles of ICANN should be to pre-empt problems, but it will not
achieve this if people feel they can just ignore elements of agreements, and
do their own thing.

I also find ICANN's failure to engage in detailed dialogue extremely
disappointing. There is, in my view, a culture of evasion : awkward
questions go unanswered. Genuine concerns get ignored. I am an active
participant in the ICANN community, but I have now been waiting 355 days for
a response (or even acknowledgement) to a much-publicised letter of
concerns, sent to Dan Halloran. The letter has been posted to him several
times, re-posted on the GA list, and at ICANNWatch, and on the ICANN public
forums. The issues were specific to ICANN's relationship with registrars,
and made never-denied claims of fraud and abuse of process. The concerns
were directly relevant to Dan Halloran in his ICANN-registrar liaison role.
He has consciously ignored the letter and thereby evaded the awkward
questions and issues raised.

That is indicative of a regime and culture that purports to promote openness
and accountability, but which in practice needs a mandatory policy of
responsiveness, and an external ombudman to monitor these and other aspects
of ICANN's operations. An internal ombudsman is insufficient.

ICANN administers a world resource. Its hapless Agreements and perceived
complicity with signatories to those Agreements results in a loss of
confidence - indeed, in many circles, ICANN is discredited.

Kind regards, and thank you once again for your remarks,

Richard Henderson
- ----- Original Message -----
From: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. <[email-masked]>
To: Richard Henderson <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Two Questions for the Deletes Task Force

>
> Dear Mr. Henderson,
>
> The purpose of ICANN task forces is to make suggestions for incorporation
> into the relevant portions of, for example, the registrar accreditation
> agreement dealing with consensus policies for deletion.  It is up to ICANN
to
> adopt such suggestions.  The operative contracts governing registrar
behavior
> are between the registrars and ICANN (for accreditation), and between the
> registrars and Verisign (for access to the shared registration system for
> .com domain names).  You are not a party to these contracts, and thus you
> cannot cause any part of them to actually be enforced.
>
> If you believe a registrar is not complying with its obligations, then you
> may encourage ICANN to enforce the relevant obligation.  However,
enforcement
> decisions are within the sole discretion of ICANN, based on the consensus
of
> its constituents - i.e. the registrars, the registries, the business
> constituency, governments, intellectual property attorneys, etc.
Individual
> domain name registrants per se, or prospective domain name registrants,
are
> not part of the policy making or enforcement apparatus of ICANN.
>
> For further comments along these lines, I refer you to:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-deletes/Arc00/msg00141.html
> Failing to define action that will occur in the event of breach
> results in contract terms that can be ignored, to the extent that the
> only approach to the contract is an all-or-nothing proposition.
> Expecting that merely writing terms into a contract means that the
> terms will be followed is just wishful thinking.  For that matter, one
> need not incorporate them into the contract at all.
>
> John
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 6:18 AM
> Subject: Two Questions for the Deletes Task Force
>
>
> HelpDear John -
>
> I am writing to you as a member of the Deletes Task Force, to ask you if
you
> could give me an update on the state of play with regard to Deletes
policy,
> and implementation dates.
>
> Specifically, when does WLS come into play? Is there a date or rough date
set
> for its introduction?
>
> And secondly, I've been following the process of .com names releases after
> expiry in the past months, and there seems no consistency. Some names
appear
> to go on hold for the minimum period provided, and then become available
to
> the public (to date, many of those names put "on hold" between January and
> about 3rd March have so far become available).
>
> On the other hand, a large number (thousands) of Net Sol names, including
> names put on hold in January and the whole of February, remain "on hold"
and
> are still not available.
>
> I thought the intention was for one, consistent policy for the industry.
Why
> are the NetSol names being held back?
>
> I'd be grateful for your insights, both on WLS dates, and on the second
> issue, and thank you for your assistance.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Richard Henderson
> (IcannatLarge.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: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 10:16:41 -0500
From: "Tim Ruiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Two Questions for the Deletes Task Force

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C2FE81.1E070CD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello Richard,

I have not heard anything further on the WLS. I believe July is the
soonest that it could be introduced based on ICANN requirements. You may
want to keep an eye on http://www.verisign-grs.com
<http://www.verisign-grs.com/>  for further information as it becomes
available.

I see that John has replied to your second question.

Best regards,

Tim Ruiz

- -----Original Message-----
From: Richard Henderson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 4:16 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Two Questions for the Deletes Task Force

I am writing to you as a member of the Deletes Task Force, to ask you if
you could give me an update on the state of play with regard to Deletes
policy, and implementation dates.

Specifically, when does WLS come into play? Is there a date or rough
date set for its introduction?

And secondly, I've been following the process of .com names releases
after expiry in the past months, and there seems no consistency. Some
names appear to go on hold for the minimum period provided, and then
become available to the public (to date, many of those names put "on
hold" between January and about 3rd March have so far become available).

On the other hand, a large number (thousands) of Net Sol names,
including names put on hold in January and the whole of February, remain
"on hold" and are still no available.

I thought the intention was for one, consistent policy for the industry.
Why are the NetSol names being held back?

I'd be grateful for your insights, both on WLS dates, and on the second
issue, and thank you for your assistance.

Kind regards,

Richard Henderson

(IcannatLarge.org)

- ------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C2FE81.1E070CD0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">

<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<base href=3D"file:///C:\WINDOWS\">
<title>Help</title>

<style>
<!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{font-family:Arial;
	color:navy;}
@page Section1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
- -->
</style>

</head>

<body bgcolor=3Dwhite lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Hello Richard,</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I have not heard anything further =
on the
WLS. I believe July is the soonest that it could be introduced based on =
ICANN
requirements. You may want to keep an eye on <a
href=3D"http://www.verisign-grs.com/">http://www.verisign-grs.com</a> =
for further
information as it becomes available.</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I see that John has replied to your =
second
question.</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Best regards,</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Tim Ruiz</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D2 =
face=3DTahoma><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original =
Message-----<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> Richard Henderson
[mailto:[email-masked]] <br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, April =
09, 2003
4:16 AM<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> [email-masked]<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> [email-masked]<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Two Questions =
for the
Deletes Task Force</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>I am writing to you as a member of the =
Deletes Task
Force, to ask you if you could give me an update on the state of play =
with
regard to Deletes policy, and implementation dates.</span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Specifically, when does WLS come into play? =
Is there a
date or rough date set for its introduction?</span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>And secondly, I've been following the process =
of .com
names releases after expiry in the past months, and there seems no =
consistency.
Some names appear to go on hold for the minimum period provided, and =
then
become available to the public (to date, many of those names put =
&quot;on
hold&quot; between January and about 3rd March have so far become =
available).</span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>On the other hand, a large number (thousands) =
of Net
Sol names, including names put on hold in January and the whole of =
February,
remain &quot;on hold&quot; and are still no available.</span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>I thought the intention was for one, =
consistent policy
for the industry. Why are the NetSol names being held =
back?</span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>I'd be grateful for your insights, both on =
WLS dates,
and on the second issue, and thank you for your =
assistance.</span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Kind regards,</span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Richard Henderson</span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>(IcannatLarge.org)</span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

</div>

</div>

</body>

</html>

- ------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C2FE81.1E070CD0--

- --
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, 9 Apr 2003 14:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] a call for a GNSo meeting (out side of the icann meetings)

Lets take the lead from ARIN/NANOG and host a GNSO meeting with all the
GNSO at the front of the room for the day and let the community have a
say.

    ARIN is the American Registry for Internet Numbers,
    www.arin.net. If you've never attended an ARIN meeting, take this
    opportunity to influence address assignment policy for N. America,
    a portion of the Caribbean, and sub-equatorial Africa. The
    striking thing about ARIN meetings is who's in front of the room
    -- for the most part it's users on the Advisory Council or Board
    of Trustees, not the ARIN staff.  The community has the main voice
    in ARIN decision-making -- your input plays a huge role in
    policies for v4 and v6 address requests, allocations, assignments,
    abuse, and privacy.

Interested in assisting in the planning contact rick at ar dot com

best,

- -rick

- --
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, 9 Apr 2003 17:04:29 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: October 19 - 24, 2003...Re: [ga] a call for a GNSo meeting (out side of the icann meetings)

http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg09004.html

                       The 2003 Joint NANOG/ARIN Meetings
                           -----------------------------------
                                 October 19 - 24, 2003
                                   Chicago, Illinois
                           -----------------------------------
=====

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rick Wesson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 4:23 PM
Subject: [ga] a call for a GNSo meeting (out side of the icann meetings)

> 
> 
> Lets take the lead from ARIN/NANOG and host a GNSO meeting with all the
> GNSO at the front of the room for the day and let the community have a
> say.
> 
>     ARIN is the American Registry for Internet Numbers,
>     www.arin.net. If you've never attended an ARIN meeting, take this
>     opportunity to influence address assignment policy for N. America,
>     a portion of the Caribbean, and sub-equatorial Africa. The
>     striking thing about ARIN meetings is who's in front of the room
>     -- for the most part it's users on the Advisory Council or Board
>     of Trustees, not the ARIN staff.  The community has the main voice
>     in ARIN decision-making -- your input plays a huge role in
>     policies for v4 and v6 address requests, allocations, assignments,
>     abuse, and privacy.
> 
> Interested in assisting in the planning contact rick at ar dot com
> 
> 
> best,
> 
> -rick
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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, 09 Apr 2003 21:06:44 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [Anuncios] 60/8 allocated to APNIC by IANA

Eric and all former DNSO GA members,

  Not to difficult to figure out really.  Use your brain, follow up on previous
APNIC announcements than extrapolate...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Very strange indeed.
>
> Why did they do what they did?
>
> e
>
> Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> > How much does each /8 generate in lease revenue each year ?
> >
> > Do all of the /8 leasees pay the same amount ?
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> >
> > Jim Fleming
> > http://www.IPv8.info
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John L Crain" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 3:39 PM
> > Subject: [Anuncios] 60/8 allocated to APNIC by IANA
> >
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > > This is a heads up to let you know that the IANA has allocated the following range of IPv4 addresses to APNIC.
> > >
> > > 60.0.0.0/8
> > >
> > > A notation of the allocation has been made at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space>.
> > >
> > > The range 223/8 was at the same time returned to the IANA and it's status marked as IANA Reserved.
> > >
> > >
> > > You may wish to adjust your filters accordingly.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >  John Crain                      mailto:[email-masked]
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Anuncios mailing list
> > > [email-masked]
> > > http://www.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/anuncios
> >
> > --
> > 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: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 21:32:54 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 3:207     FR   (FRANCE)...IN-ADDR.FR...NXDOMAIN

Jim and all former DNSO GA members,

  Are you surprised Jim?  I am not.  France as a country is not
longer a "Premium" country as recent events in the UN have
clearly shown...

Jim Fleming wrote:

> The DNS clearly shows that .FR is not a Premium TLD.
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> 3:207     FR   (FRANCE)
> =========================
> ; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> in-addr.fr any
> ;; global options:  printcmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 63149
> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
>
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;in-addr.fr. IN ANY
>
> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> fr. 10800 IN SOA ns1.nic.fr. nic.nic.fr. 2003040800 21600 3600 3600000 86400
>
> ;; Query time: 2166 msec
> ;; SERVER: 192.168.0.1#53(192.168.0.1)
> ;; WHEN: Wed Apr  9 07:24:57 2003
> ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 76
> ===================================================
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 21:45:30 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Purdy: what is he really up to?

Paul and all,

Paul Levy wrote:

> I am not so sure folks should be lionizing Purdy as Jeff Williams seems
> to do.
>
> Purdy is entitled to spread his message about abortion, and he is
> entitled to criticize powerful institutions that disagree with him about
> abortion (or that  fund family planning programs with which he
> disagrees, and I take it that this is his beef with some companies).
> And, given the developments in the domain name system, it seems clear to
> me that he is entitled to use those institutions names or trademarks as
> the domain names for web sites about those institutions.  But isn't it
> unfair for him to use their names simply to communicate messages about
> abortion, if the messages are not about the criticized institution?

  No if the shoe fits, ware it.  But is it wise to do so, also I would say
no.  Yet he has a right to express himself in this manner if he so chooses
in a free society.  Yet some would, as you are suggesting Paul, to
force or intimidate Bill via filing of law suits.  That hasn't been
successful
with Bill now has it?  So why try tat approach yet again?  Seems a bad
strategy.

>
>
> Purdy sent me word of this new UDRP complaint, and when I visited the
> sites to which the domain names led me, they were nothing about the Star
> Tribune and only about abortion.

  Yes.  So?

>
>
> We have prepared a brief which explains how what Purdy started doing
> with the Washington Post, Coke, Pepsi and McDonald's was inexcusable but
> which contained, essentially, a road map showing Purdy how he could use
> these names legitmately if his purpose was to criticize the Post and
> Pepsi and so forth.

  Anyone of any organization in the public arena is open to criticism.
Some deserved in the minds of some folks and some not deserving
in the minds of some folks.

>  (that brief was rejected for technical reasons
> about timing, so Purdy is exposed to the Eighth Circuit with nothing but
> his own pro se brief and a brief by a local lawyer who means well;
> still, the analysis is out there and I have every reason to believe that
> he understands it and recognizes that he made mistakes in the web sites
> that he initially posted using those domain names).  And, we have been
> considering a brief about his contempt sanctions in the Post case.  And
> yet his initial move with the Star Tribune is no diffrerent from his
> initial materials for which he has been slammed in the Post case.
>
> So, I have to wonder if his real purpose is to criticize using
> trademarks legitimately or if his real purpose is to expand his
> martyrdom.

  Perhaps neither, or all.  Perhaps none.  Whatever his purpose
Paul, he should take a positions as he has within the law.  That it seems
to me he is doing and has done.  Therefore, unlike many other's under similar

situations, have bowed to pressure unjustifiably, unnecessarily, and
certainly unfairly.

  The UDRP is a sham...

>
>
> Paul Alan Levy
> Public Citizen Litigation Group
> 1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
> Washington, D.C. 20009
> (202) 588-1000
> http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html
>
> >>> Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> 04/09/03 06:15AM >>>
> Declan, Bill and all
>
>   Thanks for this interesting information.
>
>   Indeed it seems that yet again ICANN behind the scenes has
> been playing it's usual games.  The UDRP, as many now know
> is a disaster.  Some of us know this early on.
>
>   Bill, sorry again that you are being so imposed upon unnecessarily.
> It's simply disgusting.  Keep after them Bill!  You won before,
> you'll win again.  When will ICANN ever learn!
>
> Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> > It's late and I just skimmed the filing, which I've placed here:
> > http://www.politechbot.com/docs/purdy.star.tribune.040903.doc
> >
> > But it looks like the Minneapolis Star Tribune is going after Bill
> through
> > the UDRP process for allegedly registering startribunes.com,
> > startribunesays.com, and startribuneknows.com. It's unclear to me
> why
> > these domains have been registered, who registered them, or what the
> link
> > is between the domains and the Star Tribune's stance on abortion, if
> it
> > even has one.
> >
> > Background on Bill's earlier travails:
> > http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=purdy
> >
> > -Declan
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:54:27 -0600
> > From: William S. Purdy <[email-masked]>
> > To: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: Paul Levy <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: Fw: McClatchy Management Services, Inc. v. William S. Purdy
> Sr.,
> >      William Purdy and Mark Purdy II (a/k/a Please Don't Kill Your
> Baby )
> >
> > Dear Declan,
> >
> > Here we go again, only this time it's the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
> I
> > wonder if they are filing a complaint with ICAN against as you call
> him, The
> > Italian Domain Name BANDIT, as he has a bunch of Star Tribune names
> as well.
> > This ought to be interesting.
> >
> > Yours, Bill Purdy
> > -----------------------------------------
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Wessberg, Ann Dunn" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 3:34 PM
> > Subject: FW: McClatchy Management Services, Inc. v. William S. Purdy
> Sr.,
> > William Purdy and Mark Purdy II (a/k/a Please Don't Kill Your Baby )
> >
> > >
> > > As my earlier transmission was evidently too large to be
> successfully
> > > delivered, please see the attached Domain Name Dispute Complaint,
> pages
> > > 1-26, a hard copy of which is also being filed today with the
> National
> > > Arbitration Forum.  Pages 26 to the end of the document will be
> separately
> > > transmitted.
> > >
> > >
> > >  <<Document10.doc>>
> > > Sent on behalf of
> > > Ann Dunn Wessberg
> > > Faegre & Benson, LLP
> > > 90 South Seventh Street
> > > 2200 Wells Fargo Center
> > > Minneapolis, MN  55402
> > > Tel.: (612) 766-7105
> > > Fax: (612) 766-1600
> > >
> > > THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT
> IS
> > > ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,
> CONFIDENTIAL
> > AND
> > > EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW.  IF YOU ARE NOT THE
> INTENDED
> > > RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION,
> DISTRIBUTION,
> > OR
> > > COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  IF YOU HAVE
> > RECEIVED
> > > THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY
> TELEPHONE.
> > > THANK YOU.
> > >
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> > You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe to Politech:
> http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> > This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> > Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> > Like Politech? Make a donation here:
> http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1660
*************************