Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #204
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, December 5 2000          Volume 01 : Number 204

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

Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 09:48:20 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

William,

[Joop]
> > I was present when these resolutions were made, both in Santiago and 
>again
> > in Yokohama
> > for the text see
> > http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/resolution1.htm
>
> > Perhaps an NCDNHC member representative can point to the "authorised 
>version".

[William]
>
>I hope so.  History shows that the IDNO website tends to be subject to
>a lot of creative license on issues like this.
>

Could I respectfully ask you to please stop this useless discussion about 
IDNO list and Website? I assume that everybody on this list has got your 
point.

While I could understand that you may want to reply to direct assertions of 
Joop, this was not the case this time.

To both of you, Joop and William, discussion about the IDNO list and Website 
is *out of order* in this list, and may I let the List Administrator be 
aware that as such will be treated by myself in analysing the appeals for 
sanctions by the List Administrator.

Regards
Roberto

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.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: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:38:47 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reminder: Deadline for WIPO-RFC2 (2000-12-29)

Dear all,

just a quick reminder that the WIPO is collecting
comments on what might become an extension of the
UDRP on domains regarding

- - personal names,
  (www.gwbush.com? www.algore-2000.org?)
- - International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for
  pharmaceutical substances,
- - names of international intergovernmental organizations,
- - geographical indications, indications of source, or
  geographical terms and
- - tradenames

You can find WIPO's Request for Comments 2 at
http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/rfc/rfc2/index.html

There was a WIPO-RFC1 -- many commentators already
commented on substance, even though WIPO had
only called for comments on scope.

Until now, only four people have commented on RFC2.
http://listbox.wipo.int/wilma/process2-comments/2000/

The deadline is December 29.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

_______________________________________________________
  ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de
- --
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: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 10:47:00 +0100
From: Robin Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NCteleconferences

Greg Burton wrote:
> 
> At 07:12 PM 11/28/00, Dennis Schaefer wrote:
> >Months ago, at the Yokohama meeting, the GA approved a resolution asking
> >for the DNSO to explore an individuals constituency.
> 
> Consider this a formal request to establish a GA working group to propose a
> constituency for individual domain name holders. At Marina Del Rey, many of
> us discussed this and we concluded that a working group list under the
> umbrella of the GA would be the way to go.

I support this as well. :) Let's go. 

all the best, Robin
- --
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: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:03:13 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NCteleconferences

A "GA only" workgroup on this subject would be an exercise in
futility.  Would it really serve a productive purpose to setup what
would be, in essence, a "renegade" type workgroup that has no basis in
the charters for existing?  And to do so under the "auspices" of the
DNSO GA?

Without a Names Council or ICANN Board sanction, this would just
provide further grounds to those who want the GA dismissed as
irrelevant altogether.  I would suggest some real caution be taken
before trying to pursue this course.

Instead, why not just setup an independent group whose purpose is to
provide a basis and structure for such a constituency, gather broad
support within and for that group, hopefully with recognizable and
respected members of the community whose names and endorsements will
carry some weight, and present it in this fashion?

This avoids the possible negative effect of the Names Council and the
special interests who control it being able to spin the issue as a
"fringe" effort by a "renegade" GA.

Greg, is there any reason why this requires some sanction as a "GA"
effort?  I'm not necessarily opposing that, just pointing out that
trying to force it into that may have some negative consequences that
could effect the success of the effort or the achievement of the goal.

Monday, December 04, 2000, 1:47:00 AM, you wrote:
> Greg Burton wrote:
>> 
>> At 07:12 PM 11/28/00, Dennis Schaefer wrote:
>> >Months ago, at the Yokohama meeting, the GA approved a resolution asking
>> >for the DNSO to explore an individuals constituency.
>> 
>> Consider this a formal request to establish a GA working group to propose a
>> constituency for individual domain name holders. At Marina Del Rey, many of
>> us discussed this and we concluded that a working group list under the
>> umbrella of the GA would be the way to go.

> I support this as well. :) Let's go. 

> all the best, Robin

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 17:52:50 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

Joop Teernstra wrote on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:48:56
>
>At 07:43 29/11/00 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
> > I do not find in the current by-laws any authority or direction for the
> > names council to be involved in the formation process of any 
>constituancy
> > but rather a directive that the process be one of self-organization by 
>any
> > prospective group. it would appear by my reading that this process if
> > handled directly thru the ICANN board and that recognition is 
>facilitated
> >by
> > interaction between the board & the proposing constituancy group.
> >
>
>Formally, I can only agree with Ken here.

May I respectfully disagree with both.
One of the major criticism I (personally) move to the DNSO, and to the NC as 
"governing structure", is the lack of responsibility it takes in fulfilling 
its mission of advising the ICANN Board on Domain Name matters.
While it is formally true that the NC cannot, according to the bylaws, 
create/destroy Constituencies, it is true that it could and should put 
forward recommendations on this subject.
Every time I hear that the DNSO/NC is not responsible/authorized/qualified 
to act/advise/recommend on matters related to Domain Names, the question 
comes instinctively: "Then, what is it for?".

As a matter of fact, though, the NC *is in the process of creating a WG*, 
which is a good approach: the WG will come up with recommendations, that 
will be brought to the Board (via the NC).

>Unfortunately the Board has seen fit to dodge the issue time and again.
>
>The GA of the DNSO has requested the NC to create a working group for DNSO
>review.
>I understand that this is now in the process of implementation.
>
>The danger here is, that the (probably endless) discussions in such a WG
>would just provide the excuse to the Board to further postpone any decision
>on the petition of the IDNO constituency that has been in sitting there
>for over a year.

IMHO (but I may be wrong), the Board has no intention, now or in the future, 
to take into account "the petition of the IDNO constituency", for reasons 
that we have discussed already at length.

The question is therefore how to proceed, if we want to make progress.
Again IMHO, I think that an official WG, created by the NC (as it is the 
case) will be more effective of a task force created by the GA.
I was in favour of the latter, when I did not think that the former could 
have been done in short time.
Of course, if the WG becomes active in few days, why should we not take the 
opportunity?

Regards
Roberto

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.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: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 11:38:40 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reminder: Deadline for WIPO-RFC2 (2000-12-29)

At 10:38 am +0100 12/4/00, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>just a quick reminder that the WIPO is collecting
>comments on what might become an extension of the
>UDRP on domains regarding
>
>- personal names,
>  (www.gwbush.com? www.algore-2000.org?)
>- International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for
>  pharmaceutical substances,
>- names of international intergovernmental organizations,
>- geographical indications, indications of source, or
>  geographical terms and
>- tradenames
>
>You can find WIPO's Request for Comments 2 at
>http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/rfc/rfc2/index.html
>
>There was a WIPO-RFC1 -- many commentators already
>commented on substance, even though WIPO had
>only called for comments on scope.
>
>Until now, only four people have commented on RFC2.
>http://listbox.wipo.int/wilma/process2-comments/2000/

And let's keep it that way.

If you're going to ambush your enemy at the pass, you don't send some
troops forward to meet them early and hand them a copy of the battle plan.

In wartime, you shoot people for passing information to the enemy.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 23:31:28 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

Roberto,
I fully agree with this "IF"
At 17:52 04/12/00, you wrote:
>Of course, if the WG becomes active in few days, why should we not take 
>the opportunity?

but a GA task force migght help keeping active the WG, *if* it was 
sometimes less active.
Would that be a problem in your opinion?
Jefsey

- --
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, 05 Dec 2000 09:31:48 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>Roberto,
>I fully agree with this "IF"
>At 17:52 04/12/00, you wrote:
>>Of course, if the WG becomes active in few days, why should we not take
>>the opportunity?
>
>but a GA task force migght help keeping active the WG, *if* it was
>sometimes less active.
>Would that be a problem in your opinion?

No problem at all. The problem would be *not* to be prepared to the 
possibility that the NC-WG will never get off the ground, or crippled, or 
inactive, or [insert your reason for failure here].

The GA-WG has to be kept in the background as alternate solution, and indeed 
a GA-TF should be in any case kept active to stimulate the activity of the 
WG, should it become dormant.

This is the text of a message I sent a short while ago to NC + DNSO Review 
TF. Obviously, if the WG is not started, we will go ahead with option number 
two.

Regards
Roberto

- --------------- message to NC + DNSO Review TF

Good morning.
Before taking action on this I would like to know whether it is correct or
not that a WG on DNSO has been established in MdR.
I see now exactly what I told Ken Stubbs and YJ in MdR, that I feared the
next step could be to claim that the decision was not clear, that it was not
what it was meant, and the usual things (plus the additional recent one that
WG-D has not come to a real procedure to start WGs, and so we can't start
one).
So, what I do need before taking further action, is:

1. Does
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111400-2.html
point V.H., reproduced below, mean that a WG will be started re: DNSO
Review?
   H.   Chicoine: Motion to make YJ the chair of a WG to address certain
DNSO specific issues that were raised by YJ. Approved by show of hands.

2. If "yes", what is the objection to start it (if any), and how are we
going to proceed? I understand that YJ has already a tentative timetable.
All we need is a mailing list to start.

3. If "no" what is the answer of the NC to the motion of the GA to start
such a WG? If not superseded by V.H. above, V.D.2. will obviously apply.

I believe that the credibility of the NC is at stake here.

Regards
Roberto

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.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: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 09:13:59 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

At 17:52 04/12/2000 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>As a matter of fact, though, the NC *is in the process of creating a WG*, 
>which is a good approach: the WG will come up with recommendations, that 
>will be brought to the Board (via the NC).

Roberto,
will the WG be open or closed?

If the former, no problem; all discussion of the IDNO can move to the WG list.
If the latter, there should be an open discussion list alongside the WG list.

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 09:11:29 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reminder: Deadline for WIPO-RFC2 (2000-12-29)

At 11:38 04/12/2000 -0600, Andy Gardner wrote:
>And let's keep it that way.
>
>If you're going to ambush your enemy at the pass, you don't send some
>troops forward to meet them early and hand them a copy of the battle plan.
>
>In wartime, you shoot people for passing information to the enemy.

some of us believe that the simile of war is inappropriate; among other 
things, we have to live together with the persons on the other side for a 
long time to come, since people rarely end up dead in this discussion.

however, this being an information age conflict, all that we HAVE to 
"shoot" is information, and the ultimate "kill" is to convince your 
opposition that he is misguided and should change his approach.

shooting someone for passing bullets into the enemy? not likely.

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 18:34:38 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

Harald,

>will the WG be open or closed?
>

I may be naive, but... what does it mean "closed WG"? do we have such animal 
in the DNSO? WGs are by definition open to everybody.

RG

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.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 #204
************************