Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1715
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, June 4 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1715

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:20:26 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Barcelona.com Deci  sion

On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 08:20  AM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami 
School of Law wrote:

> In the US, at least, we're approaching this question pretty much the 
> way
> we do a standard jurisdictional analysis: as we move away from the
> superficial active/passive distinction and go to a fuller, more
> traditional, apporach, we try to figure out the intent of the party 
> from
> the circumstantial evidence (are they seeking to 'avail themselves' of 
> the
> target jurisdiction market or laws). In most cases it's not hard; in
> marginal cases it is very hard, but nothing's perfect.
>
> If there is local presence, it's very easy.
>
> If they are sending goods or services into the jurisdiction for
> compensation knowingly, it's easy.
>
> If they are targeting ads to the jurisdiction, it's pretty easy.
>
> If they are selling intangibles (e.g. downloaded software) without 
> worrying
> about where it's going, and substantial quantities of it are going into
> the jurisdiction, we say it's easy on the 'really should have known'
> theory if nothing else.
>
> If the sales are negligible it might be hard, but it's clear from
> non-Internet cases that a very small number of sales won't create 
> general
> jurisdiction.
>
> If there are no sales, just exchanges of information, there probably 
> isn't
> jurisdiction other than for libel.  The issue of trademark doesn't 
> arise
> here since it's rare to have "in commerce" activities without sales,
> though it might be logically possible.  (I say this with less 
> confidence
> than all the above, as I've not looked recently at the case law, and 
> some
> of the cases I know of are confused on this issue.)

What would happen if the TM holder was in the USA, and the domain owner 
had a page (say) simply listing eBay auctions pertinent to the mark in 
question?

Infringement if the domain owner is in the USA?

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:06:31 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Barcelona.com Deci  sion

- --part1_1c3.a7fa843.2c0e3da7_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 3/6/03 06:29:27 GMT Daylight Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

> Infringement if the domain owner is in the USA?
> 
You are not suggesting that US courts would apply their laws 
extra-territorially in such a case? Consider the reactions to Gutnick?
Joseph Savirimuthu

- --part1_1c3.a7fa843.2c0e3da7_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 3/6/03 06:29:27 GMT Daylight Time,=20=
[email-masked] writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Infringement if the domain owne=
r is in the USA?<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
You are not suggesting that US courts would apply their laws extra-territori=
ally in such a case? Consider the reactions to Gutnick?<BR>
Joseph Savirimuthu<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_1c3.a7fa843.2c0e3da7_boundary--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:58:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Barcelona.com Deci  sion

Alas,  Intl Bancorp v. Societe Des Bains
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021364.P.pdf
might suggest otherwise....

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 [email-masked] wrote:

> In a message dated 3/6/03 06:29:27 GMT Daylight Time, [email-masked] 
> writes:
> 
> 
> > Infringement if the domain owner is in the USA?
> > 
> You are not suggesting that US courts would apply their laws 
> extra-territorially in such a case? Consider the reactions to Gutnick?
> Joseph Savirimuthu
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
		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 hot 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: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN's Monday meeting minutes: WLS reconsideration requests

Hello,

See their unsurprising vote here:

http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-02jun03.htm

I'm sure this will be appealed once more. Indeed, ICANN has also failed
for the past *9 months* to submit to the Independent Review Policy,
which was properly made here:

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/brannon-letter-to-lynn-09sep02.htm

I'm curious to know how ICANN is going to spin the fact that WLS will
require:

"d) With regard to transparency of information regarding WLS
subscriptions, there shall be an effective mechanism for actively
notifying the current domain-name holder upon the placing of a WLS
subscription on the name, without revealing the identity of the party
holding the WLS subscription;"

It appears to me that this imposes an OBLIGATION upon registrars to be
cooperative in sharing their customer data with VGRS, for the purpose
of this notification. In light of the concerns over data-mining the
WHOIS, I wonder what other "services" registrars will be forced to
market, to be in compliance with these registry-monopoly services?
Indeed, a registrar who does not want anything to do with WLS will
still have their customers targeted by these notification.

Perhaps those consensus policies paragraphs need to be re-read by
people, when the appeals begin.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 01:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Barcelona.com Deci sion

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:

> "When can it be deemed that an Internet site is marketing to the
> citizens of country X?"  That is, what sorts (if any) of
> country-specific actions are required?"
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, practice shows that an Internet site may be
> deemed to market to the citizens of a given country if (i) the
> corresponding website may be accessed from said country

You've made a jump between domain names and web sites - DNS is used for
things beyond the world wide web.  We need to always remember that the web
is but a piece of the net.

I think that mere accessibility is a rather weak foundation on which to
attempt to assert local law over a remote defendant.

The internet brings nothing new to accessibiltiy - entities offering goods
and services have been internationally been accessible at nearly the speed
of light for more than a century via telegraph and telephone.

My sense is that Michael Froomkin's analogy to the pragmatic elements used
to justify jurisdiction are apt elements for judging whether internet
based materials and services are being used in ways that make it
appropriate for a country to exert its power over that use.

> ...(iii) if the website has a version in the official language of said
> country.

I live in California.  Here there are nearly as many speakers of Spanish,
Tagalog, Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, Russian... as
there are of English.  I live in Santa Cruz - a name, like many in
California, that is not based on English.

It would be very troublesome if a person here in California were to find
himself/herself subject to Phillipine jurisdiction simply because they put
up a website in Tagalog, or subject to Mexican (or Spanish) jurisdiction 
because they used Spanish.

		--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: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:03:35 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

On 12:50 30/05/03, Vittorio Bertola said:
>if you have a look at some of the things we said in the last weeks.

Dear Vittorio,
I am afraid this says all : "we said".
It would be better if you could say "the things the @large said in the last 
weeks".

It happens that we started doing it (in spite of your personnal 
efforts....) so ... If you have a look at some of the things the @large 
said in the last weeks  http://icannatlareg.org/results.htm .
jfc

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:58:43 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Developing an alternative to ICANN 2.0

Interesting comments. As usual moderately open minded in status quo.
Interesting because my vision is not far from yours but leads to a totally 
different perspective.

At 10:24 30/05/03, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Richard Henderson wrote:
>>I think ICANN 2.0 perceives itself as well on the way to consolidating its
>>positions. Its strategy with regard to the inclusive namespace is probably
>>to overwhelm it and to duplicate some of its key operating tlds.
>
>Few days ago I started commenting on this post, but then I realized I was 
>reproposing the old debate "single root - multiple root", about which I 
>believe everything has been said already in the years.

You may want to say that everything you wanted to hear has not been listen to.
I think to the countrary that we are on the verge of a drastic evolution. 
Figures, DoS, experimentation, concepts, national position, security 
issues, White House plans, etc. Everything seem to tell that we will soon 
enter into the too long delayed DNS.2 phase.

>However, the opening sentence of Richard made me think about where we are 
>in the process of ICANN 2.0, and do we really have an ICANN 2.0.

Yes. I would say we have entered the post-Joe-Sims area. The first 
decisions of Paul Towmey seem to make sense in term of Network cooperative 
managerment instead of World ruling.

>We are on the eve of a major election/nomination of the ICANN BoD. This is 
>supposed to be an event that will deeply influence the Internet policy in 
>the years to come, as a large number of Directors is involved.
>However, I don't feel the tension that I have experienced at the times of 
>the selection of the initial BoD. The hectic horse-trading, the 
>circulation of names of candidates, the intense phone calling, the gossip 
>on the lists, the cross-vetos, and so on, is not there.
>Maybe I'm just now less attentive, or simply not so much in contact with 
>the decision-makers. Of course the nominating committee is probably being 
>flodded right now by email, phone calls, letters and what else by more or 
>less influent people recommending candidates. But the general feeling is, 
>looking on the low traffic about the subject on the public lists, that the 
>interest is generally lower than at the time of the first BoD.

May be it is that there is low interest too among the world about is to 
replace Nancy Vitcory or any Sub-Assistant at the State Deparment. ICANN 
has now clearly set-up its course as an US Agency managing the US Internet 
and lending an hand to the IANA. They had the choice: the IANA or the 
mission creep (US or international). They retained the US mission creep as 
their main focus.

>The reason, IMHO, is that the stakes are lower.
>I'm not sure whether ICANN has established itself or not, but I am sure 
>that some of the critical decisions have been taken. And together with 
>this, the economic situation has dramatically changed from years ago. 
>Consider the following examples (please be aware that I am not passing 
>judgement on things or on somebody else's position, I only try to explain 
>what I observe from the fence where I am sitting now).
>* The NSi monopoly issue has been put at rest, with the trading of .org in 
>exchange of the burial of the principle of the Registrar/Registry 
>separation. This decision cannot reasonably be changed in the future, 
>whatever the composition and attitude of the Directors.
>* New gTLDs have been introduced, but no dramatic change of the global 
>picture is to be seen. I don't see any new actor making easy billions as 
>seemed to be the forecast years ago. The new Board will probably only 
>continue a careful introduction of new TLDs, following the recent 
>recommendation of the GNSO.
>* dotcoms have collapsed in thousands, and Telcos have other bigger 
>problems than risking huge monies in DNS, with ROI seriously doubtful at 
>this point in time. I remember discussions I had in Montevideo with my 
>former Telcos colleagues on the situation, and that was on the eve of 
>9/11. When we all came back home, most of us travelling the very 9/11, we 
>found a different world, and the little optimism that some might have had 
>on a quick recovery had disappeared.
>* UDRP is an established fact (although the regular courts obviously have 
>the last word on the issues). This process is also unlikely to be changed, 
>and with it the other landmark for introduction of TLDs, namely the 
>diversification of business models, policies, attitude towards trademark. 
>This is gone forever, whatever the composition of the future Board.

All that is true for the Legacy. The Legacy will probably soon will have to 
leard how to live in peace with the CENT and other ccTLD Alliances, with 
emerging scSLDs and ITU-I to come.

>* The worry of the IAB, and of large part of the commoners in IETF, that 
>some Internet-illitterate people could take over and destroy the Internet, 
>has not materialized.

Let put this another way. The worry that some network-litterate could 
expose too fast the Internet inadequacies has dropped when IAB understood 
that network-litterates known about networks and the way not to destroy 
them and that IAB will not come with the necessary solutions as the still 
missing architectire modelization, IDNs show it or White House Internet 
rebuilding plan (even if DC obviously accepted that internuts were not all 
stupids).

>The PSO has been able to dissolve itself easily, without danger of leaving 
>ICANN without a strong supporter of the technical lobby. Besides, at least 
>two of the signatories of the PSO-MoU were seen anyhow by the purists as 
>an element of dilution of the technical backbone, more prone to industrial 
>or governmental interests rather than to pure technology.

This is one of the concerns I have. What you call dillution is what I name 
real life. PSO was a place were they could possibly build together instead 
of building aside. The impact of IPv6 may far more important on the network 
cohesion due to that?

>So, what is the real open issue? What is the real interest at stake in the 
>next years? What are the foreseeable developments, dangers, mission, that 
>the oncoming board has to deal with?
>To answer this, I would suggest to go back in time to the ICANN meeting 
>(Yokohama, but I might be wrong) where two major players, Paul Twomey and 
>Christopher Wilkinson, stood up to state that ICANN could not be ruled 
>only by business interests: if that was happening (continuing?), 
>governments would have to step in. Interestingly enough, Paul is now 
>ICANN's CEO, while Christopher is non-voting member of the NomCom.
>So, what does this mean?

That Paul is infiltrating international administration for his career and 
that Christopher watches the best interests of the users. What seems in 
line with their jobs. And a good thing since everyone says that Paul is 
oriented in life towards a common good role than towards a business 
leadership. I do not really care if itis true, but he will have to go by 
this image or waste his investment in that image.

>I would expect an ICANN BoD that will have some representation of the 
>"public" interest, the users, the registrants, the individuals. Not to the 
>extent of constituting a block that can be tempted to fight against other 
>lobbies, but still a non-negligeable presence that will "legitimize" ICANN 
>in the eyes of the laymen. Of course, the next consequence is that the 
>voice of the AtLarge will be seeked and organized.

Seems contadictory? Seeked: OK. Organized or their organizations supported 
through an better organized interface?

>Whether the masses are ready and willing to invest time and resources in 
>participating to the ICANN process, that's another question, of which the 
>answer is unknown to people without cristal ball. Ant that is the real bet 
>and challenge: to move from the abstract declaration of principle of the 
>need for individual stakeholder representation to the concrete work to 
>make this representation a reality. I think that ICANN will remove the 
>opposition it had (not in principle, but in the facts that rendered 
>individual participation difficult and marginal), and that the page can be 
>turned. Will we be able to grab the opportunity?

Frankly I think it is up to us. Our real role should not to express 
personal opinions in here but to try to liaise to help developping our 
private and common interest actions. We have to give our consummer 
organizations the internet virus. To make them understand the need of an 
internet consummer structure. Legally supported as such in each country.

>In other words, I'm moderately optimistic. Anyway, I guess in Montreal at 
>the latest we will know...

There you are really optimistic :-)

Take care.
jfc

l 

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:30:57 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Barcelona.com Decision

On 16:13 03/06/03, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. said:
>Judge Wilkinson then made a very sharp comment to the effect of "Simply 
>because you have a global
>computer network does not change US law."

Seems we are here in a double misreading of the case due to the case being 
in the USA and using US language.

1. Judge Wikinson does not know the US law. 47 USC 230 (f)(1) defines the 
Internet as global (US meaning): the US law is not to be changed, it is to 
be applied. While obviously ignoring it, he applied it, showing this way 
that the US law is consistent.

2. the response of the Barcelonna defendant should have been to say that 
this is because internet is a global network (non-US meaning) that the US 
law cannot be applied to the whole of it, but only to the US part of it. 
While obbsiously ignoring the very nature of the network and of the real 
world, he did not failed in defending the Internet users interests. The 
decision is on barcelona.com not on barcelona.sp.

This whole case is much noise for nothing because the case did not rise the 
true questions:

- - what is the jurisdiction extensin of the US law?
- - what is the legal nature of a domain name?
- - what are the legal obligations of a a registry?
- - what are the legal obligations of ICANN towards the public when granting 
a TLD Management?
- - what are the legal obligations (US law) of a Registry towards a TLD Manager?

These questions are extremely important to ICANN and they probably are 
going to be settled through the scSLD and the IDNs cases what leaves quite 
no control to ICANN.
Interesting
jfc

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:43:56 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Barcelona.com Deci sion

At 16:52 03/06/03, Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:
>(iii) if the website has a version in the official language of said country

This is a VERY interesting statement I would love you to document because 
it is a direct violation of the anti-racist law (in France may lead you to 
jail). This is of real importance in the IDN area because a site selling to 
local people is legitimately entitled a local IDN and each time this might 
be confirmed by a court decision it will mean that the local ccTLD will 
have either to support the RFC 3066 368 languages, or ICANN to open a 
second local ccTLD willing to support them, or a tremendous advertizing for 
scSLDs supporting them.

You see, there are three actors in this. Engineers (IETF), Operators 
(Registries, ISP), Users (@large, business, Govs). In trying to keep ICANN 
an engineer/operators getho they miss a lot of inputs that will only 
resolve either in courts, or more probably in real world technical 
circumvention through a user centered network usage archtecture by-passing 
the bluffed ICANN imposed limitations.
jfc

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:27:49 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Barcelona.com Decision

At 17:01 03/06/03, Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:
>Michael, I agree with you to some extent on the foregoing. In its 1998
>report on the Net, the Conciel d'Etat Fancise stated that the Net is an
>environment wherein all laws may apply, even in its present state.
>
>However, I have my doubts as to whether the solutions to which we may
>arrive by applying such laws, unamended in order to meet with the
>requirements of ITC are the proper solutions; that is to say, whether or
>not they are just and fair, considering that they may not always contain
>sufficient elements to comprise all interests at stake in a given case,
>as the underlying policy quite probably did not address them at the time
>such provisions were drafted.

To understand that you need to speak French and to think in French.
(or IMHO in Spanish, what should help you).

The Conseil d'Etat does not builds the missing IAB network architecture.
It only thinks logically, by layers. French wording and thinking and - I
suppose any Latin language thinking - can accommodate layers and
indifferently start from general to particular or from particular to general
depending if it is in search or resolution mode.

My experience is that English thinking does not proceed that way.
It also proceeds from particular to general also in resolution mode.
(I speak in most of the cases). With a major difference between
English and American: American scales every layer while English
may (and love to) easily jump several layers (this is the basis of
British humor: when the landing is not the one expected and why
the so much love abbreviated forms).

French experience about naming is 25 years old. Though the Intlnet
naming, created and managed by French among US Carriers and
European monopolies, but most of all though Minitel. There is a very
long experience by France Telecom (helped by being by then a
State Monopoly, so co-making the law) about ruling the naming,
hence about its true nature.

I must acknowledge that the French official thinking as not yet fully
resulted into legal wording along those lines, being confused by
AFNIC using the NSI technical and economical models. But we see
this clarifying through the emerging wording of "naming public
service" and our more and more accepted lobbying for digital
defense and sovereignty of States in naming and the e-human
rights which includes the right to network names, pseudonyms, etc.

As I explained many times the legal link is very easy. The confusion
comes from ACPA which does not define the DN except through
a loop saying it is what sells a Registry. Also from UDRP: the
UDRP recital defines all the words being used (it is a self defined
arbitration procedure) except the "Domain Name". A simple way
JDRP chooses to escape the difficulty.

As long as you make DNs subject to legal procedures you
confuse the issues and you will need laws you do not need.
ACPA or UDRP are the same as to say "TM belongs to the
TM holder but printed in blue TMs are specials and a special
law must apply". DNs are the internet shadow of mnemonics
pointing to IP addresses.

No one owns a shadow. One sees it. And no one can claim
he can use the shadow of someone else. Either he took his
shape (his mnemonic; his shape, etc.) or he did not.

So the cybesquatting issue is _not_ legal. It is technical.
Is a DN the network shadow of a mnemonic owned by the
registrant or the registrant may own, or is it not?

What is a mnemonic? Something everyone will remember
as associated to a product, a company, etc. So who can
decide about a mnemonic shadow? Only one: "everyone".

So we fall into the legal environment of the Minitel.

- - there is no legal registration but declaration
- - there is no legal cases but a user council deciding
   of the attribution of the "code" (this is the DN but
   it emphasizes that it is not a TM) as being clear
   enough. With the possible support of consumers
   organizations.
- - a respect of the user with a site life long name
   and an economical model which makes the DN
   free and a direct relation with the users satisfaction.

Now we have the TLD (Registry) problem. Either
TLDs have a meaning or they dont. RFC 920, 1591
say they have a meaning. ACPA and to some extent
UDRP say they dont, making them only commercial
alternatives (best interest of the Registry, not of the
Users at large). On Minitel this is also ruled by the
Users (Telematic Council).

There may be other economical models. But you
not change that the NSI naming binary (name, IP)
approach is flawed. Pragmatic vision and  thinking is:
brainware/software/hardware or mnemonic/network
name/network address. It does not call for special
law, except to say that the law applies when so
many have been confused.

Now there is another point to respond your mail.
You question about legislating for TIC. This is only
a new (confusion) from American language born
in the 1996 reform. For years they tried to figure
out how to address the TCP/IP model vs the OSI
model. Eventually they worked out the "informatique"
(informatica) concept (they still talked about EDP
and abandoned punch cards last year - I am
talking about legal concepts) and addressed
the internet as the computers (again 47 USC
230 (f)(1)) still very far from the service notions
of "telematique" (the users/telemate centralized
control). Basically you have to think in layers
again. Internet is the connection layer. OSI is
the communication upper layers, but the world
is leaving in services (extended services the
layers still above). So TIC are meaningless to
the market and to the legal problems. What you
want are TICS. Then you understand why you
dont want special laws:

1. let assume you buy a ticket to Hong-Kong.
2. let assume they fly you to Djakarta.

Will you make a difference in your complaint
if the ticket was printed through internet or
manually by a sales. You are just unhappy
and want your money back  Uses do not care
about TIC layers, they only are interested in
S layers. The only law we need is to protect
the users who might be abused by S sellers
taking the TIC part as an alibi for S legal
violations like in e-commerce.

jfc

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:09:57 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 1:10 .USA  (UNITED-STATES)...via 1:46 .US

As the InterNAT overlays the Internet...
The new 128-bit DNS software is able to "map" name spaces to allow for transitions.
With over 500,000 .US names[1], it appears that the .US TLD can be used as one staging place
for the Proof-of-Concept testing of the .USA TLD. In all cases with the DNS, the goal is to grow
the SLD.TLD population and to locate the TWO (or more) name servers that serve an SLD.TLD
zone. The nameservers for an SLD.USA zone can be located by checking to see if the there are
servers for SLD.US and asking those servers. Once nameservers for SLD.USA zones are found,
then the software asks **those servers** if they know where the .USA TLD servers (not the root)
are located. Once the .USA TLD servers are located, then those can be queried...before falling back
to the approach of going back to the .US servers. No root servers are needed, but can be used to
verify the results [3]. Note, it looks like .USA has several TLD clusters in operation. SLD.USA owners
have to make sure that all major paths lead to their servers. Once SLD.USA servers are located for
a specific SLD.USA zone, then, those servers are sent the queries, for names such as WWW.SLD.USA.

[1] http://www.dailychanges.com/
[2] http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-gtlds/Archives/msg00004.html
>>9264 ONLINE
>>7288 NET
>>6472 USA
>>4481 GROUP
>>4101 WEB
[3] http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=usa&submit=Submit

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
1:10 USA  (UNITED-STATES)
1:46 US   (UNITED-STATES)
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:37:50 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 1:227 .KY...KENTUCKY ?

As the InterNAT (North American Transport) overlays the Internet...

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
1:180     KENTUCKY
1:227     KY   (CAYMAN-ISLANDS)
===

http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-02jun03.htm
"...negotiators for the Information and Communications Technology Authority and ICANN have reached agreement..."
http://www.nic.ky/domain-policies.html
"By registering in the .ky domain, Registrants acknowledge that they must comply with the provisions of the Laws of the Cayman
Islands..."
====

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:51:28 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: 3:38 PARIS....Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>
====

Parlez vous Francais ?
http://www.parislanding.com/

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
3:38 PARIS

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:00:10 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 5:188     TN   (TUNISIA)...Does Kentucky Lake really belong to Tennessee ?

Does Kentucky Lake really belong to Tennessee (TN) ?

http://www.kentuckylaketourism.com/kentuckylake/
"Tennessee's Kentucky Lake" ?

Are the Cayman Islands really the "Land Between the Lakes" ?

Is Paris really in Tennessee ?...with a zip-code of 38242 ?
http://www.Paris.TN

Did Al Gore (from Tennessee...TN) really invent the Internet ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
5:188     TN   (TUNISIA)

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:11:32 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 4:69 TW...For TLDs that begin with...[TUVW]...

Is the InterNAT overlays the Internet...

The new 128-bit DNS software is able to locate TLD clusters by looking at key 2-letter TLDs...

For TLDs that begin with...[TUVW]...

http://www.iana.org/reports/tw-report-29may03.htm

AC...DF...GI...JL...MO...PS...TW...XZ

...the query load on the servers is reduced, by using key 2-letter TLDs to locate other TLD clusters...

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
AM...NZ
4:69 TW

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign spamming domain name registrants??

Hello,

According to the ICANN Board's WLS decision (which is subject to
ongoing appeals, however):

"(d) ...there shall be an effective mechanism for actively notifying
the current domain-name holder upon the placing of a WLS subscription
on the name..."

(from http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-02jun03.htm )

If that notification is provided by email, doesn't that constitute
Unsolicited Bulk Email? Certainly Verisign has no pre-existing business
relationship with a significant number of the folks who would receive
those notifications. Many want nothing to do with Verisign. It shall be
interesting to see how residents of Washington and other strong
anti-spam states will react, when they can take Verisign to court for
possibly spamming them, or whether the "real-time blocking systems"
will "BlackHole" Verisign's servers for spamming.

As resellers and registrars, we'll need to explain to *our* clients
exactly what these notifications mean, raising our support costs. Will
we be compensated in any way by Verisign? And, most of us value our
time at more than what Verisign pays its "world class" support
personnel in the Philippines....

Anyone who has had experience with the various companies who send out
phony renewals notices knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Furthermore, clients will assume that *we* provided their contact
details for these unsolicited messages, which in many ways constitute
crafty marketing. A client who owns more than one domain might feel
*compelled* to purchase "protective" WLS subscriptions due to the Fear,
Uncertainty and Doubt created by receiving a notification that someone
anonymous has purchased a WLS subscription on one of their names. If
you received an official-looking notification in the mail that someone
had bought a life insurance policy that paid them $1,000,000 if *your*
house burned down, wouldn't you be asking a lot of questions, and
possibly taking precautions to protect yourself and your loved ones?

Furthermore, Verisign does not even know what language(s) the domain
registrants prefer correspondence, as they have no business
relationship with the registrant. A client who does not understand
English will easily be confused by the meaning of a notification sent
by Verisign about their domain name if it is sent only in English. They
might even wonder if their Registrar has gone out of business,
wondering why they are receiving mail from Verisign instead. Some
clients might even be visually impaired, and need correspondence in
Braille. With no pre-existing business relationship, Verisign will not
know these things, paying attention to the important "localizations"
that registrars and resellers do day-in and day-out for *their*
clients.

It is even possible that Verisign will send these "notifications" by
regular postal mail, instead of e-mail. I think many registrars will
not appreciate having Verisign contacting their clients by mail, and
will be accused by numerous clients of having sold their contact
details for bulk mailings. Verisign has been in trouble in the past for
sending out deceptive mail, for instance 

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,101729,00.asp

How does Verisign get around the fact that in order to send
notifications, they will likely need to mine contact details from port
43 WHOIS? That WHOIS, even in bulk form at $10,000 per year (which I
doubt Verisign has purchased from all ICANN-registrars), has stringent
terms of use forbidding unsolicited bulk use, except for its own
customers. With Verisign and its partners projecting millions of WLS
subscriptions, I think that qualifies as "bulk", and a significant
chunk of those are *not* Verisign customers.

Any other party who mined WHOIS to send out informational notices, such
as political messages, warnings to boycott various companies (e.g. 10
million emails saying "Verisign sucks!" or "ICANN Rules" (as if...))
would be in hot water. How is it Verisign receives preferential
treatment, vis-a-vis others who wish to send out comparable
"information notices"?? 

Is it because there's a "consensus policy" ordering Registrars to abide
by WLS, and turn a blind eye to the above abuse of their customer data?
As ICANN's response to the Dotster Reconsideration Request admitted:

http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-5.htm

there *is* no consensus policy *for* WLS. Indeed, there was a consensus
vote *against* WLS. Somehow ICANN thought they can sneak this through,
violating consensus, but their admission of violating consensus will
come back to haunt them and Verisign soon enough...

I think ICANN and Verisign can expect to see challenges soon based on
the above, as part of broader attacks on WLS which will include
anti-trust and violation of registrar contracts, in order to protect
consumers and registrars from this violation of the Consensus Policy
against WLS that ICANN's Board ignored, at their own peril.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/
- --
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 #1715
*************************