Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1673
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, April 23 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1673

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:19:40 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On the ALAC's Request for Comments

On 2003-04-21 21:12:01 -0400, elliot noss wrote:

> .....and all that just to keep the INEG Group from qualifying.

And we haven't even succeeded at that.  See
<http://does-not-exist.net/jeff.jpg>; taken in Amsterdam last
December.

SCNR,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/
- --
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, 23 Apr 2003 03:16:45 +0800
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On the ALAC's Request for Comments

Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:24:03 EDT, you wrote:
> 
> >This moronic plan surely must have been conceived by the feeble-minded idiots
> >and stooges that participated as members of the At-Large Assistance Group --
> 
> Danny,
> 
> thank you for pointing out all the difficulties in the tasks that have
> been given to us,

Methinks he's doing something quite different, pointing out that the
tasks
you have been given are inherently wrong-headed. The issue isn't that
they
are difficult; it is that they do nothing worthwhile, no matter how well
you may carry them out.

> and the things we still have to do (such as getting
> the archival of comments up and running).

A mere detail; its only importance is that it seems to indicate a
lack of will toward transparency.

> However, I have to stress
> that at this stage proposals focused on the subject of the draft - the
> criteria for accreditation of At Large Structures and Regional At
> Large Organizations - would be more productive.

We need to discuss detailed plans for re-arranging these deck chairs.
 
> Personally, I appreciate your input and your ability to discover and
> remark valuable facts.

Thank you for mentioning these difficulties.

> I think you could bring an outstanding
> contribution to the ALAC/RALO mechanism,

I think you could be really useful to Titanic staff.

> if you decided to participate
> to this process constructively. So I hope that you will change your
> mind on it.

So about those deck chairs ...
- --
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, 22 Apr 2003 14:35:36 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] On the ALAC's Request for Comments

Vittorio,

I well understand that you were the primary author of the recommendations 
regarding the ALAC that eventually came to be adopted in ICANN's bylaws.  I 
can also understand the pride of authorship and the demands of Chairmanship 
that makes it difficult for you to accept the fact that the At-Large 
community has no particular love for the tortuous and labryrinthine set of 
rules/procedures that you have proposed... but it's time to accept the fact 
that there is absolutely no support in the At-Large for this morass of 
pointless byzantine complexity.   

Does any other established constituency within ICANN need to divide itself 
into five separate and distinct regional organizations just so that the 
thoughts of the members therein might be conveyed?  Why should such 
requirements be imposed upon the At-Large when they are not mandatory for 
other participants in the ICANN process?

You are singling out the At-Large for disparate treatment in violation of 
Article II, Section III of the Bylaws.  Your proposed policies and procedures 
are inequitable, and they further serve to compromise the integrity of the 
Non-Commercial Constituency (as you are expecting these very same non-profits 
- -- with limited funds at their disposal -- to forgo supporting the NCUC in 
favor of bankrolling the formation of your RALOs -- you well know that they 
certainly can't afford to subsidize both such efforts as they currently can 
hardly afford to continue participating in the NCUC).  

It's time to admit that your vision lacks community support and that the only 
proper course of action is to petition the ICANN Board for a necessary change 
in the Bylaws.  If you and the Committee are willing to consider such 
revisions, I and others will cooperate in the drafting of a new set of 
proposals for adoption by the ICANN Board.

Awaiting your response,
Danny
- --
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, 22 Apr 2003 15:30:27 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:212     .BIZ schemes ?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0F76_01C308E4.1A4C4E80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc02/msg01025.html
From: "Joyce Lin" <[email-masked]> 
"Has anybody received schemes like this one ?"
===================================

You may not be familiar with the .BIZ Top Level Domain. It has been around since 1995.
It is currently in the Proof-of-Concept phase on the aging, legacy, 32-bit DNS Internet.
There have been many, so-called "schemes", lotteries, etc. It is hard to determine how many
serious .BIZ owners there are, because, as you may note, you rarely see a .BIZ name used.
IN-ADDR.BIZ appears to exist, although there may be a dispute about who owns that name.
There are many other disputes pending regarding .BIZ names.

One of the goals of the Proof-of-Concept phase, is to attract enough owners, via the market trials,
to warrant the serious investments needed to move to the next phase of funding for 128-bit DNS support.
At the moment, there are too many other Premium TLDs (like .CASINO), attracting the investors.
Note also these other Premium TLDs widely available as part of more Proof-of-Concept market-driven development.
http://www.new.net
        .shop    .xxx    .club    .ltd 
        .inc   .travel   .tech   .sport 
        .family   .law   .med   .mp3 

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
0:212     BIZ

- ------=_NextPart_000_0F76_01C308E4.1A4C4E80
Content-Type: image/gif;
	name="spacer.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://a117.g.akamai.net/7/117/3136/200304211727/www.new.net/images/spacer.gif

R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAP///////yH5BAUUAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==

- ------=_NextPart_000_0F76_01C308E4.1A4C4E80--

- --
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, 22 Apr 2003 23:31:30 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On the ALAC's Request for Comments

On 2003-04-23 03:16:45 +0800, Sandy Harris wrote:

>> and the things we still have to do (such as getting the
>> archival of comments up and running).

> A mere detail; its only importance is that it seems to indicate a
> lack of will toward transparency.

It may seem so, but that impression is wrong.  ICANN staff seems to
be in the process of fixing the archive setup, so, in the future, I
very much hope that we can at least compete with the GNSO when it
comes to the availability of archived public comment fora.  It's,
quite frankly, embarrassing that we can't at this point of time.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/
- --
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, 22 Apr 2003 23:32:53 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] [alac] New gTLDs analysis -- Draft (from: [email-masked])

FYI.  This will show up in the list archives later tonight.

Substantial comments are welcome -- feel free to send them to
[email-masked] (which is the publicly archived comments
address, I'm told), just the GA list, or your favorite ALAC members.

Regards,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/

- ----- Forwarded message from Wendy Seltzer <[email-masked]> -----

From: Wendy Seltzer <[email-masked]>
To: Interim ALAC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:24:09 -0700
Subject: [alac] New gTLDs analysis -- Draft
Envelope-to: [email-masked]
Delivery-date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:25:42 +0200
X-No-Spam: whitelist

Here's some basic information and (suggested) position statements on 
the new gTLD issues before ICANN.  The GNSO's gTLDs Committee will be 
more likely to consider and incorporate our comments the sooner we 
send them, at latest by the end of April.  (Section II responds to 
the GNSO process.)

Comments welcome.  Thanks!
- --Wendy

There are two distinct issues on the table regarding new gTLDs:
1. Criteria for introduction of a limited number of sponsored gTLDs 
as part of the Board's "proof of concept" initial round of TLD 
additions
2. Whether to structure the evolution of the generic top level 
namespace in if so, how to do so.

The At-Large Advisory Committee has been invited to offer comments to 
the GNSO for use in formulating the GNSO's advice to the Board on 
question 2.

Introduction:

At-large Internet users are both domain name registrants and users of 
the domain name system.  As users, they are well served by TLDs that 
are not confusingly similar, enabling them to differentiate the names 
they encounter and minimize typographic or semantic mistakes;  they 
are also served by an inclusive namespace that provides access to a 
wide variety of speakers and information sources. As registrants, the 
"at large" are perhaps the most likely to be underserved by 
community-defined, chartered gTLDs.  Not all individuals are 
necessarily a part of any of these communities, yet they will want 
places to publicize their small businesses, engage in political 
debate, discuss their interests, and host weblogs, to name a few. 
Categorization and eligibility requirements will often act as 
barriers to entry to such registrants.  As a whole, at-large 
registrants are most likely to be served by a range of TLD options 
available to all potential registrants, including a variety of true 
generics for those that do not fit in neat categories.

These interests are compatible; confusion can be minimized without 
narrowly structuring registrations.  They are also compatible with 
ICANN's limited mandate.  ICANN should not be setting itself up as 
judge of the utility or fitness of business plans, but only as a 
technical judge of what is likely to create confusion or interfere 
with the functioning of the domain name system.

I. Criteria to Be Used in the Selection of New Sponsored Top-Level Domains

References:
ICANN Paper
http://www.icann.org/riodejaneiro/stld-rfp-topic.htm
Report on Compliance by Sponsored gTLDs with the Registration 
Requirements of Their Charters
http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/stld-compliance-report-25feb03.htm

Both the paper and report on existing sponsored TLDs err in focusing 
primarily on exclusion:   Do the sponsored gTLDs represent a limited 
community and adhere to their charters by permitting registrants only 
from within that community?  The question more important  to the 
public's communicative goals, however, is the flip side:  Are there 
people or organizations who are left without logical places to 
register domain names, or who are denied registration in a sponsored 
TLD whose charter they fit?  It is easy to make the error rate 
arbitrarily low by asking questions that examine only one kind of 
error -- gTLDs could block all cybersquatters simply by refusing any 
registrations, but that would hardly serve the point of adding new 
gTLDs.

Instead, the Board should look, in both the sponsored additions and 
in the general question of "structure," to ensuring that all who want 
to establish online presences can obtain domain names without 
interfering with names already assigned.

[add comments on Mueller/McKnight, Solum, Rader proposals]

II.  Whether the Generic Top-Level Namespace Should Be Structured

References:
Draft 3.1.2 of the ICANN GNSO Council gTLDS committee report ("Draft")
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/gTLDS-committee-conclusions-v3-1.2.htm>

At this stage, there appears to be general consensus on the GNSO 
gTLDs Committee to advise against "structure" in the first instance. 
As the Draft states, "It was agreed that a future expansion of the 
gTLD name space should take place in such a way that was 
demand-driven and bottom-up and in a way that increased competition 
while avoiding net user confusion and deception. To the extent that 
this report has a set of recommendations, it would seem there is 
support for the idea that the structure of the future gTLD namespace 
should be structured determined in a number of ways primarily by the 
choices of suppliers and end users in the market."    The ALAC 
supports this recommendation.  Market participants, including both 
businesses and non-commercial organizations, are better positioned to 
indicate where new TLDs are needed through demand and willingness to 
supply.  The ALAC supports the proposition that proposal of a name by 
a competent registry/delegant/sponsor provides the minimal 
"differentiation" necessary.  (Draft para. 14)

In order for market determination to be successful, however, ICANN 
must enable a genuine competitive market to develop.  At present, 
there appears to be some tension between market competition and 
desire to protect registrants from the consequences of registry 
failure (Draft paras. 10-12).  The intermediate road ICANN has taken, 
a heavily regulated market (rather than free market or openly 
acknowledged planning), tends to produce false assumptions and 
conclusions about what "the market" will support (and thus to justify 
further planning).    The ALAC supports the Draft's recommendations 
that zone file escrow and transfer arrangements be investigated as 
ways to mitigate registry failure.  The ALAC also recommends further 
examination of separation of the policy and technical roles of 
new-TLD-registries, such as Ross Rader's proposal for distinct 
Delegants (policy) and Operators (technical), see 
<http://r.tucows.com/archives/2003/03/13/new_gtlds_part_ii.html>.

Consistent with openness to a variety of names and business models, 
ALAC supports expansion that allows both sponsored and unsponsored 
names.  (Draft para 15)

[Comments on IDNS?]

- ----

Appendix (chronology and references):
In October 2002, the ICANN CEO's action plan on gTLDs made the 
recommendation below.
http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/new-gtld-action-plan-18oct02.htm

Part III Recommendation: As ICANN proceeds with its new TLD 
evaluation process  - and, if the Board concurs, with an additional 
round of new sponsored TLDs - this basic question of taxonomic 
rationalization should be addressed within the ICANN process. 
Accordingly, it is my recommendation to the ICANN Board that the DNSO 
and its Names Council be requested to develop and submit its advice 
and guidance on the issue.

In December 2002, the Board agreed with the recommendation and 
made the three resolutions below.
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-15dec02.htm#AnnualMeetingoftheTransitionBoard

Whereas, 
the Board accepted the report of the ICANN New TLD Evaluation Process 
Planning Task Force (NTEPPTF) at its meeting on 23 August 
2002;

Whereas, at that meeting the Board instructed the President to 
develop a plan for action for approval by the Board;

Whereas, the 
President presented An Action Plan Regarding New TLDs for discussion 
at the Public Forum in Shanghai on 30 October 2002, and posted that 
Action Plan for public comment on 8 November 2002;

Whereas, comments 
have been received, posted, and evaluated regarding that Action 
Plan;

Whereas, the Action Plan was again discussed at the Public 
Forum in Amsterdam on 14 December 2002; and

Whereas, the Action Plan 
recommends that key recommendations of the NTEPPTF report be 
implemented; that certain questions regarding the future evolution of 
the generic top-level namespace be referred for advice to the GNSO 
described in Article X of the New Bylaws approved in Shanghai on 31 
October 2002 and as further refined at this meeting; and that steps 
be taken towards approval of a limited number of new sponsored 
gTLDs;

- -         Resolved [02.150] that the Board authorizes the 
President to take all steps necessary to implement those aspects of 
the NTEPPTF recommendations as specified in the Action Plan;

- - 
Resolved [02.151] that the Board requests the GNSO to provide a 
recommendation by such time as shall be mutually agreed by the 
President and the Chair of the GNSO Names Council on whether to 
structure the evolution of the generic top level namespace and, if 
so, how to do so;

- -         Resolved [02.152] that the Board directs 
the President to develop a draft Request for Proposals for the 
Board's consideration in as timely a manner as is consistent with 
ICANN staffing and workload for the purpose of soliciting proposals 
for a limited number of new sponsored gTLDs.

In February 2003, 
ICANN's general counsel  clarified that the Board asked for the GNSO 
Council to formulate and communicate its views on two separate 
questions. The questions are:

    a.  whether to structure the 
evolution of the generic top level namespace and,
    b.  if there 
should be structuring, how to do so.

In March 2003, at the ICANN Public Meeting in Rio, the President 
presented a paper:
Criteria to Be Used in the Selection of New Sponsored Top-Level Domains
http://www.icann.org/riodejaneiro/stld-rfp-topic.htm

The ALAC liaison to the GNSO for new gTLD issues intends to offer 
comments to the GNSO before the Council's May 22 final report 
(preferably enough time before for the comments to be discussed and 
incorporated).
- -- 
- --
Wendy Seltzer -- [email-masked] || [email-masked]
Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
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, 22 Apr 2003 23:35:58 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] [alac] WIPO2 comments and preliminary analysis -- DRAFT (from: [email-masked])

- --NklN7DEeGtkPCoo3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

And another ALAC draft which will show up in our archives later
tonight.

Once again, if you feel 
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/

- --NklN7DEeGtkPCoo3
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Delivery-date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:25:31 +0200
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:25:46 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [alac] WIPO2 comments and preliminary analysis -- DRAFT
Mail-Followup-To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

- --3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

Please find attached a draft for possible comments this committee
might wish to make on the WIPO 2 recommendations.  The draft was
prepared by your GNSO liaisons, i.e., Wendy and myself.

One thing we could try with this particular document is to put up
draft advice for public comments -- this would seem consistent with
our mission of reaching out further to the general community.

Comments or flames are, as usual, welcome.

Regards,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler			<[email-masked]>

- --3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="alac-on-wipo-final.html"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<html>
<head>
   	      
  <meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE"
 content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
  <title>Interim At-Large Advisory Committee Comments on WIPO2</title>
       
  <style type="text/css"> 
<!--
h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, p, li, td { font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; }
h3 { margin-left: 40px; }
h4 { margin-left: 60px; }
h5, h6 { margin-left: 80px; }
- -->
  </style>
</head>
  <body>
 
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" border="0"
 style="text-align: left; width: 100%;">
                                             <tbody>
                                             <tr>
                                             <td valign="top"><img
 src="http://www.icann.org/logos/icann-logo.gif" alt=""
 style="width: 188px; height: 145px;">
                                             <br>
                                             </td>
                                             <td valign="middle"
 style="text-align: center;">                                            

                                                                        
                                               
      <p><span style="font-weight: bold; font-size: x-large;">(Interim) At-Large 
  Advisory Committee</span></p>

                             
      <p><span style="font-weight: bold; font-size: xx-large;">Comments on
the "WIPO2 recommendations"<br>
                            </span></p>

                                                                        

      <p><span style="font-weight: bold;">NN April 2003</span>  </p>
                                             </td>
                                              </tr>

                               
  </tbody>                                              
</table>
                                             <br>
                                                                        
            <br>
         
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" border="1"
 style="width: 80%; text-align: left; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; background-color: yellow;">
       <tbody>
         <tr>
           <td valign="middle" style="text-align: center;"><br>
           <big><span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">DRAFT</span></big><span
 style="font-weight: bold; color: red;"><br>
        </span><br>
           </td>
         </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top"><br>
      <div style="text-align: center;"><a
 href="mailto:[email-masked]"><span
 style="font-weight: bold; color: red;">Please click here to comment on this
draft.</span></a><br>
      <a href="http://forum.icann.org/alac-xyz/"><span
 style="font-weight: bold; color: red;">Please click here to read the comments
submitted.</span></a><br>
      </div>
      <div style="text-align: center;"><br>
Comments will be most useful when received before May 5, <br>
but can be submitted until May 10.<br>
      <br>
      </div>
      </td>
    </tr>
                   
  </tbody>     
</table>
     <br>
     <br>
         
<hr width="100%" size="2">          
<h3><a name="Introduction"></a>Introduction<br>
</h3>
<p style="margin-left: 80px;">The <a href="http://alac.icann.org/">Interim
At-Large Advisory  Committee</a> thanks the Board for the <a
 href="http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00179.html">opportunity
to comment</a> on the <a
 href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-21feb03.htm">recommendations</a>
 concerning the protection of the <a
 href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-21feb03.htm#ANNEX1">names
and acronyms of intergovernmental organizations</a> (IGOs) and of <a
 href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-21feb03.htm#ANNEX2">country
names</a> in the DNS, communicated to ICANN by the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) on  February 21, 2003.</p>
        
<p style="margin-left: 80px;">The present comments focus  on the ALAC's basic
concerns with the subject matter of these recommendations,  which appears
to be out of scope of ICANN's limited mission.  We therefore  provide only
a preliminary analysis of the recommendations proper, and would  submit a
more detailed analysis if and when WIPO's recommendations are subject  to
policy-development processes.</p>
              
<h3><a name="Subject_Matter_Concerns"></a>Subject Matter Concerns</h3>
        
<p style="margin-left: 80px;">ICANN's <a
 href="http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#I">mission and core values</a>
 have a clear focus on the organization's technical coordination function
- -- ICANN is clearly not intended to be an international law-making body.
 Rather,  ICANN acts within a framework of national and international laws.
 It serves  to provide architectural support for existing laws, not to make
new laws.</p>
        
<p style="margin-left: 80px;">Both ICANN and WIPO have followed  this principle
relatively successfully in the past, when establishing the  <a
 href="http://www.icann.org/udrp/">UDRP</a> as an inexpensive method to address
 the bad faith registration of others'  trademarks as domain names, while
deferring to the courts in situations in  which several parties may have
legitimate claims to a domain name. Underlying  the UDRP is a body of law
which is reasonably uniform, internationally.</p>
        
<p style="margin-left: 80px;">The Committee is concerned   to observe that
WIPO's recommendations on the protection of the names of IGOs and countries
seem to affect an area of law where no such uniformity can be found. Indeed,
paragraphs 168 and 284 - 289 of the Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain
Name Process (<a
 href="http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/report/html/report.html">The Recognition
of Rights and the Use of Names in the Internet Domain Name System</a>, September
3, 2001, "WIPO Report") suggest that the extension of special rights to these
identifiers in the domain name system might effectively amount to the creation
of new  international law.</p>
        
<p style="margin-left: 80px;">We believe that it would be  inappropriate
for ICANN to assume the role of an international legislator,  and to try
to establish such new law through its contracts and policy processes. For
 this reason, any policy-making processes which are based upon WIPO's recommendations 
 in the areas of the protection of IGOs' and countries' names must pay close
 attention to staying within the confines of supporting existing, internationally
 uniform law.</p>
        
<p style="margin-left: 80px;">In view of these new difficulties  -- which
are less evident in the trademark-centric review of the UDRP currently  underway
- -- the Committee supports the GNSO Council's recommendation to separate  the
UDRP's review from  discussions about implementation of WIPO's recommendations,
 and to address the additional WIPO requests in a separate policy-making
process.</p>
                          
<h3><a name="Annex:_Preliminary_Analysis_of_the"></a>Annex: Preliminary Analysis
of the Recommendations</h3>
        
<p style="margin-left: 80px;">We note that a more precise  analysis will
be necessary for a final assessment of the extent to which an implementation
of WIPO's recommendations would indeed amount to the creation  of new international
law. We do not provide that analysis in this document,  but will focus on
a number of remarks on the merits of the individual recommendations.</p>
        
<p style="margin-left: 80px;">We would ask in the first instance whether
there is any real problem of mis-registration of names of IGOs and Countries,
or whether perceived problems can be solved without new ICANN intervention,
for example through use of the existing restricted .int TLD and countries'
own ccTLDs.  Where such a minimally disruptive alternative  is available,
that should be examined thoroughly before more extensive regulation  is proposed.</p>
        
<h4><a name="Names_and_Acronyms_of_IGOs"
 href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-21feb03.htm#ANNEX1"></a>Names
and Acronyms of IGOs</h4>
        
<ul style="margin-left: 80px;">
   	<li>          
    <p>The committee 	notes that  the WIPO Report disparages the .int top-level
domain for 	its internal limitations  and lack of public awareness.  Rather
than 	reshaping the rest of the domain  name system to solve those 	deficiencies,
the Committee proposes that the  .int TLD should be 	re-examined as a dedicated
TLD for IGOs.  	</p>
   	</li>
    <li>          
    <p>The language 	proposed  by WIPO seems to apply to past and future
registrations. 	The committe notes  that, given that most IGOs' acronyms
are short, 	there is a high likelihood  that these might be used as good-faith
	acronyms for other entities, and may have been registered in good 	faith.
   The settled expectations of existing  domain name holders 	should not
be upset.  	</p>
   	</li>
    <li>          
    <p>Recommendation 1.A 	suggests  a complaint system based on "registration
or use" 	of a domain name which  need to be of a certain "nature" in 	order
to justify a complaint. This wording,  and the subjectivity of 	the determination
it entails, bears a considerable  risk of extending 	policy-based dispute
resolution mechanisms to areas touching  upon 	the regulation of net content.
We recommend that such disputes be 	left  to regular courts.</p>
   	 	</li>
    <li>          
    <p>Recommendation 	1.B's wording is rather comprehensive -- as presented,
this 	recommendation would not be limited to IGOs' names and acronyms as
	registered according to Paris Convention art. 6ter, but may 	cover any names
and acronyms covered by any  	international contract. The right to complain
would be given to any 	IGO. This recommendation may be misread as an attempt
to use ICANN 	policies as an instrument for the enforcement of arbitrary
	international contracts. The Committee suggests that ICANN should 	seek
clarification of this recommendation from WIPO.</p>
   </li>
   
</ul>
           
<h4><a name="Country_Names"
 href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-21feb03.htm#ANNEX2"></a>Country
Names</h4>
        
<ul style="margin-left: 80px;">
   	<li>          
    <p>The language on 	country  names once again relies upon criteria applied
to the 	"registration or use"  of domain names. The same concerns 	as above
apply.</p>
   	       	</li>
    <li>          
    <p>Once again, it 	seems more appropriate to give each country control
of its name (and 	any other character strings it chooses) in its unique ccTLD,
not to 	grant it monopoly rights in strings across all TLDs.</p>
   </li>
   
</ul>
    <br>
   <br>
</body>
</html>

- --3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm--

- --NklN7DEeGtkPCoo3--
- --
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, 22 Apr 2003 23:38:53 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [fwd] [alac] WIPO2 comments and preliminary analysis -- DRAFT (from: [email-masked])

On 2003-04-22 23:35:58 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> And another ALAC draft which will show up in our archives later
> tonight.
> 
> Once again, if you feel 

(Hope my e-mail software doesn't make a habit out of sending
half-typed letters.  *grrr*)

Once again, if you have something substantial to contribute on this
topic, feel free to send your comments to this list, to the ALAC
forum, or to your favorite ALAC members.

Thanks, and kind regards,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/
- --
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, 22 Apr 2003 18:21:16 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] On the ALAC's Request for Comments

Re:  << It's, quite frankly, embarrassing that we can't at this point of 
time. >>

I would think that it's even more embarrassing that you put yourself at the 
mercy of the whims of the ICANN staff... perhaps you recall what happened to 
members.icann.org -- the site still bears the caption:  "SITE CLOSED".

Past experience has well demonstrated that placing trust in the ICANN staff 
is tantamount to sheer lunacy  -- so why does your Committee allow them 
manage and control the content of the ALAC website?

- --
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, 22 Apr 2003 17:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On the ALAC's Request for Comments

Danny Boy,

There are to kinds of trust;
1. that one will be honest and do what the say.
2. That a scorpion will always behave like a scorpion.

You must have trust that ICANN staff will always act in ways antogonistic 
to the Internet user and in their own self interest.

e

> Past experience has well demonstrated that placing trust in the ICANN
> staff  is tantamount to sheer lunacy  -- so why does your Committee
> allow them  manage and control the content of the ALAC website?
> 

- --
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, 22 Apr 2003 18:12:55 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On the ALAC's Request for Comments

Thomas, Danny and all former DNSO GA members,

  Nope niether of those two fellow in that JPG picture are me.
Nice try though!

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2003-04-21 21:12:01 -0400, elliot noss wrote:
>
> > .....and all that just to keep the INEG Group from qualifying.
>
> And we haven't even succeeded at that.  See
> <http://does-not-exist.net/jeff.jpg>; taken in Amsterdam last
> December.
>
> SCNR,
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/
> --
> 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: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:31:15 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] names and acronyms of IGOs

Thomas, 

Having noted your comments on the ALAC discussion list with respect to names 
and acronyms of IGOs, I would draw your attention to an earlier submission on 
this same subject (June 15, 2001) tendered by the Non-Commercial Constituency 
cited at http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/rfc/rfc3/comments/msg00094.html  

Excerpt:

B. WIPO’s Proposals to Ban the Use of the Names and Acronyms of International 
Governmental Organizations is Contrary to Law and Public Policy. 

In the WIPO2 proposals, WIPO proposes banning the registration and use of 
International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) as names and acronyms in 
existing and future gTLDs: 

123. It is recommended that the names of IGOs protected under the Paris 
Convention and the TRIPS Agreement should be excluded from registration in 
all existing open gTLDs, as well as in all new gTLDs.

This extraordinary proposal means that an IGO such as the World Health 
Organization would have a superior right to the common three letter 
combination, WHO, over any other user. Such a scope of protection exceeds any 
found under existing law, and invades clearly protected areas of 
noncommercial use. 

In the world today, the World Health Organization cannot stop the dynamic use 
of "who" in common speech whether by a rock group (The WHO), by reporters 
(Who? What? Where? When? Why?), by science fiction fans (Dr. Who), or by 
children (Horton Hears a Who, by Dr. Suess). Further, these real world uses 
should extend seamlessly unto the Internet and allow current and future users 
to express these ideas in domain names and websites. Thus, we envision 
www.who.rock, www.who.writing, www.who.scifi, and www.who.suess in future 
gTLDs. These are legitimate users, not uses in bad faith. 

Similarly, the Internet Chamber of Commerce (www.icc.org), peacefully 
coexists with the International Computing Centre (also ICC). That’s a fact of 
language and its normal and natural redundancies, not any proof of bad faith. 

Action and Alternatives for IGOs 

Are there alternatives? Of course! At the WIPO Consultation in Washington DC 
on May 29, 2001, the U.S. Small Business Administration noted the use of 
"SBA" in many other instances. See for example, Southern Bakers Association 
at www.sba.org, and Smith, Bucklin & Associates at www.sba.com. Rather than 
seeing such use as bad faith, the SBA attorneys applauded it as part of the 
robust nature of language and the Internet. They assured WIPO that other uses 
of "sba" online did not keep the public from finding the official Small 
Business Administration website at WWW.SBA.GOV. 

As an alternative to the WIPO2 proposals, SBA attorneys urged WIPO and IGOs 
to use the trump card handed to them by the current domain name system -- the 
.INT international top level domain. This top level domain exists expressly 
for the United Nations and its supporting organizations, including IGOs. SBA 
attorneys stated that the lack of knowledge about the .INT domain name can be 
easily solved -- by using it! They said that the more UN organizations 
register their names and acronyms under .INT, the faster the public will know 
to find them there. 

The Noncommercial Community supports the US Small Business Administration 
proposal that IGOs use .INT and not force massive exclusions under gTLDs that 
will create scarcity and eliminate normal and good faith use. As part of its 
final report to ICANN, we urge WIPO to carefully review the domain name 
registrations allowed under .INT, and the broad scope of IGOs and other 
United Nations sub-groups. WIPO should propose to ICANN the expansion of 
the.INT definition, to include the full range of names and acronyms to 
accommodate the array of United Nations activity on the Internet today.

- --
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 #1673
*************************