Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1731
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, June 25 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1731

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:12:17 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "ICANN has no authority or ability to require acceptance of new TLD namestrings..."

http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm
"ICANN has no authority or ability to require acceptance of new TLD namestrings although ICANN does prominently publicize
ICANN-authorized TLD strings on its website. As such, successful applicants may find themselves expending considerable efforts
post-implementation in persuading providers of the need to accept their new TLD namestring."
====

- --
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, 25 Jun 2003 01:26:10 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Advice sought

I'd appreciate advice and viewpoints on the correspondence appended below,
between myself and the IT Director of the Right-Wing British National Party.

For some time now, I have been running an information site about the British
National Party at www.BritishNationalParty.com
with the purpose of exploring the policies of this UK political party.

The site is run in good faith, makes clear that it has no association with
the BNP, and makes no attempt to make money or feed traffic anywhere. I
receive a fair flow of mail specifically related to the purposes of the
website.

The advice I seek is this: if I'm running this website with good intent
(which I can demonstrate) then should I maintain my right as a legitimate
domain name registrant to carry on operating *my* website ?

My website is specifically about the British National Party, hence the name
is relevant, and the BNP have a site of their own at www.bnp.org.uk

If anyone feels like offering advice, the correspondence is set out below.

Regards,

Richard Henderson

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dear xxxxx,

I don't have inflexible views about this matter. My purpose is legitimate
and that is to explore the policies of BNP and try to develop an intelligent
dialogue about them. Clearly anyone can do that, and you would accept that.

The question is: does the law on domain names prevent me from using the
words British National Party, if the subject of my website is... the British
National Party.

As an active participant in Internet administration (twice elected to the
executive of ICANN At Large) I have to say that I don't believe that anyone
is prohibited from using a whole range of names, providing their website is
acting "in good faith" - in other words, not claiming to be anything other
than it is. And my website makes absolutely clear that it is not associated
with BNP at all.

Furthermore, in that BNP already operates from its own website at
www.bnp.org.uk , it is clear that it already has a previous and alternative
web identity (which uses the .org.uk ending which is appropriate to
organisations).

In addition, my website attempts to make no money and does not attempt to
feed traffic to other sites such as porn sites etc.

In short, I exercised the same freedom you had (to register the domain) and
registered the domain in good faith. It attracts intelligent correspondence
on the subject of the BNP. It seeks to explore and understand the policies
of the BNP. I am simply a British Citizen acting in good faith. I suggest to
you that a UDRP process would establish in  my favour, though of course, I
could be mistaken.

It would be cowardly of me simply to desist because "you told me to", but
I'm not unsympathetic to you, and indeed I'm interested in ongoing
exploration of this issue, as well as an ongoing dialogue with BNP on a
range of other issues.

With reference to your e-mail, it would assist me if you could cite and
define which "Electoral Commission rules" you believe I am in breach of, so
that I can form an intelligent judgement about your view, or take further
advice myself.

With reference to my website constituting an act of "passing off", could I
ask you what you suggest I am passing my website off as, since if I am
clearly stating that I am not associated with your party, it's pretty
obvious that I'm not passing off as your party (nor do I wish to - I want to
create a detached and reasonable platform for discussion about BNP involving
people of all parties and none).

I would like to reassure you that my purpose is not at all malicious, and
that I am sympathetic to nationalist ideals and aspirations.

You say, correctly, that I "have no right to appoint yourself as an official
or spokesman for a registered political party of which you are not even a
paid up member". But xxxxxx, I have *not* appointed myself either as an
official or a spokesman for your party or any other party. And I am not a
paid up member of *any* party, but I'm entitled to speak about any and all
parties. I'm also, in my view, entitled to register this domain name
providing I do not do so in bad faith.

As someone involved with ICANN for some time, and having been deeply
involved over certain issues pertaining to WIPO and the relationship of
domain names to Intellectual Property, I would find this quite an
interesting case, but I put it to you that you should first explain the
precise and explicit grounds on which you feel I should "cease using" *my*
domain name. This would be a reasonable first course of action (for which I
will not be held accountable for any costs incurred) so that I can clearly
understand on what grounds (other than your preference) I should relinquish
my legally obtained domain name, or my carefully written site.

It is obviously not enough, either for a party or an individual, to simply
make an arbitrary demand and expect a free citizen simply to comply "because
you say so". (I don't take your last mail as including a demand, but simply
a politely-phrased request.)

I do not, at present, have any clear comprehension of the basis for your
request, xxxxxx.

I hope you will find it helpful if I post this dialogue to some of the ICANN
and ICANN at Large fora, where we may be able to procure advice from people
who have considerable insights in this field.

Finally, a few words on my vision : the development of an intelligent
nationalism, based on open dialogue and the clear communication of precise
policies that accord with public sentiment.

Open dialogue is nothing to fear!

I look forward to hearing from you, if you can assist me further.

I wish you well. I am not trying to be awkward. But I believe I'm acting in
honest good faith.

With kind regards,

Richard Henderson
www.BritishNationalParty.com

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 10:03 AM
Subject: Website

> Re: http://www.britishnationalparty.com
>
> Dear Richard,
>
> Having spoke to our Steve Blake last week I have learnt that a website
carrying our
> name has been set up by yourself.
> Can I at first point out that the name "British National Party" is that of
a registered
> political party officially recognised by the Electoral Commission. Further
to this, at no
> time have you made any approach to ourselves to seek permission to use our
name.
> Consequently the continual use of our name is in breach of Electoral
Commission rules
> as well as constituting an act of "passing off".
> I understand from Steve that this is highly unlikely to be a malicious act
by yourself and
> indeed you may share sympathies for our aims. However, you have no right
to appoint
> yourself as an official or spokesman for a registered political party of
which you are not
> even a paid up member.
> As such can I please ask you to cease using our name immediately.
> Obviously we have no objections to a website that seeks to heighten
awareness of the
> BNP in a logical and sensible manner. However, we feel that this objective
can be
> achieved in a manner that does not involve the use of our name.
>
> I look forward to your reply within the next three days.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> xxxxxxx  xxxxxx
> BNP IT Director
>

- --
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, 25 Jun 2003 03:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Advice sought

Dear Friend,

There is a larger issue here and that is one of prior restraint.
One must never give up an Idea or Expression because it may get them in 
trouble.
UK and US hold certain truths inalienable and worth dying for - the main one 
is freedom of speech.  The right to petition and criticise are sacrosanct.

As a good man with good intentions and a man of words, it is not your right 
it is your duty to speak out.

May you remain close to the bossum of your deity and remain true to your 
cause.

Eric

- --
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, 25 Jun 2003 13:11:25 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internationalized Domain Names deployed

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, at 02:37 [=GMT+0800], James Seng wrote:

> It always amazed me that citizen of country X thinks they have rights to
> decide over how country Y operates.
>
> Do you understand the concept of "National Sovereignity"?

Oh, I do. Lawyers find it particularly difficult to apply it to the
internet. But if any sovereign state decides to use domains that only work
within their border, I won't deny them that right naturally. It just
doesn't seem very useful to me. And I will probably not be able to get to
these domains, or only with a lot of extra trouble for which I may be too
lazy. No problem as long as those trying to communicate using these
domains do not care to communicate with me.

- -- 
[04] We value you like our close relations.
http://logoff.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, 25 Jun 2003 13:14:10 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internationalized Domain Names deployed

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, at 17:05 [=GMT+0200], Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 11:34:00PM +0200,
>  Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote
>  a message of 28 lines which said:
>
> > Similarly French 'la' and the same with accent grave (`) have totally
> > different meanings ('the' and 'there').
>
> True, but to get into such issues is too difficult. We accept names
> that are not in any dictionary. So, we cannot use the grammar to
> decide on similarities. Following Paul Hoffman's Internet-Draft about
> IDN policices, we will use an automatic table, even if its output is
> not always legal French (so, "la", "là" and "lâ" - the latter being
> non-existant - will automatically be reserved to the registrant of
> "la").

I am sure this satisfies civil servants and lawyers, since it is easy to
apply. Those who think words have a meaning are silly anyway, right?

>
>

- --
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, 25 Jun 2003 13:17:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Who'se done it? .org IDNs killed

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, at 17:11 [=GMT+0200], Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> > Stability?
>
> Stability between standards: if RFC 3490 is one day updated or
> replaced by another, we expect that the registrants of RFC3490 domains
> will be offered some form of free upgrade. We expect that they will
> not loose anything just because IETF evolved.
>
> But there is no reason to guarantee any stability between experiments
> and the real stuff.

I find this an arbitrary distinction with no basis in reality. 3490 is not
the first RFC about IDN, is it? Why make this particular text into some
sort of law and paradigm? Whether it leads to something in rela internet
life remains to be seen, as with all RFCs for new protocols or new
enhancements.

> That's what experiments are for. (ICP-3 gives
> details about that, although this document is not often quoted because
> the pro-domo speech of ICANN is annoying.)

ICP-3 has indeed even less value as a 'law'.

- -- 
[09] Seventh invitation to join us.
http://logoff.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, 25 Jun 2003 07:57:18 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] webcast

Is anyone else having a problem with the link to the webcast?

Leah

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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:01:40 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] webcast

Finallly got it.

Leah

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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:15:10 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: [atlarge-discuss] Broadcast Montreal ICANN]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------090903040607000800090804
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- --------------090903040607000800090804
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
 name="[atlarge-discuss] Broadcast Montreal ICANN"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="[atlarge-discuss] Broadcast Montreal ICANN"

Mailing-List: contact [email-masked]; run by ezmlm
Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
To: "'atlarge Discuss List'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:04:49 +0100
Organization: able towers
Importance: Normal
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Broadcast Montreal ICANN

Since currently no stream seems available from ICANN, the
icannatlarge.org is broadcasting the meeting live on
shoutcast.icannatlarge.org:1200

Kind regards

Abel

P.S. real player, XMMS, IE and Winamp will play the stream

=========================

Able Towers and Able Consultancy are tradenames of Moordata Ltd.

2 Brickett Close 
Ruislip
Middlesex
HA4 7YE 
UK
+44 1895 470516
+44 77 55255598

www.able-towers.com
www.url.org

best co-lo rates in the UK

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]

- --------------090903040607000800090804--

- --
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, 25 Jun 2003 10:00:08 -0400
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WHOIS workshop comment submission address

The address for submitting comments to the whois workshop is

		      <[email-masked]>.

(Seems I blogged a wrong address earlier on.)
- -- 
Thomas Roessler			      <[email-masked]>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:36:22 +0800
From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Who'se done it? .org IDNs killed

Actually, RFC3490 and other related RFCs are indeed the first set of 
RFCs on IDN from the IETF.

- -James Seng

Marc Schneiders wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, at 17:11 [=GMT+0200], Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Stability?
>>
>>Stability between standards: if RFC 3490 is one day updated or
>>replaced by another, we expect that the registrants of RFC3490 domains
>>will be offered some form of free upgrade. We expect that they will
>>not loose anything just because IETF evolved.
>>
>>But there is no reason to guarantee any stability between experiments
>>and the real stuff.
> 
> 
> I find this an arbitrary distinction with no basis in reality. 3490 is not
> the first RFC about IDN, is it? Why make this particular text into some
> sort of law and paradigm? Whether it leads to something in rela internet
> life remains to be seen, as with all RFCs for new protocols or new
> enhancements.
> 
> 
>>That's what experiments are for. (ICP-3 gives
>>details about that, although this document is not often quoted because
>>the pro-domo speech of ICANN is annoying.)
> 
> 
> ICP-3 has indeed even less value as a 'law'.
> 

- --
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, 25 Jun 2003 11:05:00 -0700
From: "Bret Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] sound issues

If anyone is in the room in Montreal, please inform the webcasters that the
gain on the microphones seems to be set too high, as we're getting a great
deal of static on all the voices on the webcast. Thanks!

      Bret

- --
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 #1731
*************************