Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #219
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, February 2 2001           Volume 01 : Number 219

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:19:29 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP review

1/31/01 10:14:35 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

>Am I mistaken remembering that a review of the UDRP was due somewhat
>_now_?

Well, I think now would be a great time!  BTW, I will shortly be posting my findings on 
the UDRP "procedure" from the poll etitled: "Domain Name Definition Poll" I conducted 
on the WG-Review.  I'm sure many will find the results interesting.

Amiably,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc. 

- --
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, 31 Jan 2001 15:48:17 -0800
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Agenda for 2001

> Am I mistaken remembering that a review of the UDRP was due somewhat
> _now_?

No review of the UDRP has been undertaken, but it is on the DNSO agenda for
2001.

I don't know whether this was sent to the General Assembly or not, but a
draft business plan for 2001 (including issues to follow and address in the
coming year) has been prepared by a task force of the Names Council.

The last day for comment is February 4th. NC members were asked to circulate
this to their constituencies. I'm sure comments from the GA are welcome as
well.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/msg00010.html

Comments should be sent to ([email-masked]). FYI.

         -- 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

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:41:00 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [DNDEF] Analysis of "Domain Definition Poll" - Part I.

Domain Name Definition Poll

I have taken the time to form an analysis of the results
from the "Domain Name Definition Poll" I conducted from 
the period of Survey Start on 1/13/01 10:01:17 AM
through to survey End on 1/15/01 5:44 PM.  This `report'
should not be considered hermeneutically exhaustive, and is 
open to suggestions.  

Total participation number in the poll was 25 respondents, this represents 
roughly 18% of the listed participants on the WG-Review.  This of course, assuming 
that nobody voted twice, as it was an `insecure' poll, and that all of the
respondents were in fact members of the WG.  However, I
am inclined to state that I consider the poll results as a fairly
accurate (caveat) representation of many of the ideas and positions 
expressed in WG-Review deliberations.  

My analysis of the "Domain Name Definition Poll" will be presented
in three parts, each corresponding to three sets of the total of 9 questions 
which
appeared on the above referenced poll.  

This segment constitutes Part I:

In answer to the question: 1.  Are Domain Names property or a service?

52.00% (13 respondents) considered them to be property.  Of course, 
this leaves the issue of *whose* property, completely unanswered.

8.00% (2 respondents) considered them to be a service.  The nature of the
service itself was not indicated in the question, nor its ultimate provider 
established.  The relative unpopularity of this response may have something 
to do with the relative popularity of the very next result.  (Perhaps the 
exclusivity of the question played a role.)

32.00% (8 respondents) indicated that it was both; a service and property. 
This response serves to undeniably establish and underscore the magnitude 
of the domain name definition confusion issue.   

8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Don't Know" option as their answer.  As 
any codified definition of the ontological status of domain names is 
completely lacking, I find myself sympathizing with this answer in particular.  

Conclusion, although there were respondents who "did not know"
if domain names were property or a service, a traditional majority (i.e.50+1) 
was established in the position advocating apparently unqualified property 
status.  However, there was a significant proportion of respondents who 
indicated that domain names were of a hybrid nature; partaking of both 
property and service status. The implications of this latter response are 
unclear as the question was much too generally phrased and further data is 
not currently available.

In answer to the question: 2. Should the issue of trademarks and geographic 
indications be conflated with Domain names?

16.00% (4 respondents) considered that domain names should be conflated
with trademark issues.  Of course, what is unclear (due to the general nature
of the question) is the degree of any such conflation, and its conditions. The 
currently available data is not sufficient to base any conjectures in this 
regard.

52.00% (13 respondents) indicated that domain names should not be 
conflated with trademarks and/or geographic indications.  The similarity in 
number of respondents between the result for this question, and the 
equivalent result in question 1 (above) [i.e. in support of considering them to 
be property] suggests two things:
First, that although domains were considered to be property, they were not 
(presumablybut not necessarily by the same people) considered to be 
trademark-type property by a traditional majority result. (i.e. 50+1 votes) 
Second, it leaves open the questions of what type of property (if that's what 
they are) domain names should be considered to be, as well as the issue of 
`ownership'.

16.00% (4 respondents) indicated that domain names should sometimes be 
conflated with trademarks/geography.  This indicates that applying 
trademark law in some, but not other instances, was a relatively unpopular 
option in this poll.  

8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Don't Know" option, indicating further 
confusion regarding the ultimate or conditional status of domain names.

8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Other" option.  If anybody on or about the 
WG *volunteers* the fee for the "comments" results of this unofficial, 
insecure poll, I would be happy to comply in presenting any input not 
currently available.

Conclusion:  A traditional majority (50+1) of the respondents expressed the 
opinion that domain names should not be conflated with 
trademarks/geography.  Since the nature of the question is exclusive, this 
result would appear to represent a fixed opinion (with no apparent 
conditions for its application) decidedly against any conflation between 
domains/trademarks/geography. 

In response to the question: 3. If  Domain Names are considered eqivalent 
to trademarks or geographic indications, does this make them property?

64.00% (16 respondents) in other words, a strong majority (just under 2/3), 
indicated that if domain names were considered the eqivalents of 
trademarks, that they did in fact constitute "property" of some kind.

12.00% (3 respondents) indicated that domains did not constitute property 
despite the conflation with trademarks.

16.00% (4 respondents) indicated that domains were sometimes property, 
and sometimes not, when conflated with trademarks.  This response is 
interesting in that the qualifications and conditions for property status as a 
trademark eqivalent are not outlined, at least with respect 
to the simple numbers and without additional data.  Thus I can only comment 
on what is readily available.

8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Don't Know" option.  

Conclusion:  A large percentage of respondents believe that conflation of 
domain names with trademarks raises a property status issue. This is 
especially clear if we combine those who feel this unreservedly (64.00%), 
and those who indicated that it is conditional (16.00%),  for a total of 80.00%.  
I believe these findings indicate a real need for intensive discussion on the 
definition of domain names.

I would appreciate any comments, corrections, or points of dissension with 
respect to the above analysis of my findings.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc. 

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc. 

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc. 

- --
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, 31 Jan 2001 17:02:26 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [DNDEF] Analysis of "Domain Definition Poll" - Part I. #9

Please address this under the Number nine for those of us trying to keep track.
thank you for getting a head start on this issue so it doesn't get lost at the end.

Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Domain Name Definition Poll
>
> I have taken the time to form an analysis of the results
> from the "Domain Name Definition Poll" I conducted from
> the period of Survey Start on 1/13/01 10:01:17 AM
> through to survey End on 1/15/01 5:44 PM.  This `report'
> should not be considered hermeneutically exhaustive, and is
> open to suggestions.
>
> Total participation number in the poll was 25 respondents, this represents
> roughly 18% of the listed participants on the WG-Review.  This of course, assuming
> that nobody voted twice, as it was an `insecure' poll, and that all of the
> respondents were in fact members of the WG.  However, I
> am inclined to state that I consider the poll results as a fairly
> accurate (caveat) representation of many of the ideas and positions
> expressed in WG-Review deliberations.
>
> My analysis of the "Domain Name Definition Poll" will be presented
> in three parts, each corresponding to three sets of the total of 9 questions
> which
> appeared on the above referenced poll.
>
> This segment constitutes Part I:
>
> In answer to the question: 1.  Are Domain Names property or a service?
>
> 52.00% (13 respondents) considered them to be property.  Of course,
> this leaves the issue of *whose* property, completely unanswered.
>
> 8.00% (2 respondents) considered them to be a service.  The nature of the
> service itself was not indicated in the question, nor its ultimate provider
> established.  The relative unpopularity of this response may have something
> to do with the relative popularity of the very next result.  (Perhaps the
> exclusivity of the question played a role.)
>
> 32.00% (8 respondents) indicated that it was both; a service and property.
> This response serves to undeniably establish and underscore the magnitude
> of the domain name definition confusion issue.
>
> 8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Don't Know" option as their answer.  As
> any codified definition of the ontological status of domain names is
> completely lacking, I find myself sympathizing with this answer in particular.
>
> Conclusion, although there were respondents who "did not know"
> if domain names were property or a service, a traditional majority (i.e.50+1)
> was established in the position advocating apparently unqualified property
> status.  However, there was a significant proportion of respondents who
> indicated that domain names were of a hybrid nature; partaking of both
> property and service status. The implications of this latter response are
> unclear as the question was much too generally phrased and further data is
> not currently available.
>
> In answer to the question: 2. Should the issue of trademarks and geographic
> indications be conflated with Domain names?
>
> 16.00% (4 respondents) considered that domain names should be conflated
> with trademark issues.  Of course, what is unclear (due to the general nature
> of the question) is the degree of any such conflation, and its conditions. The
> currently available data is not sufficient to base any conjectures in this
> regard.
>
> 52.00% (13 respondents) indicated that domain names should not be
> conflated with trademarks and/or geographic indications.  The similarity in
> number of respondents between the result for this question, and the
> equivalent result in question 1 (above) [i.e. in support of considering them to
> be property] suggests two things:
> First, that although domains were considered to be property, they were not
> (presumablybut not necessarily by the same people) considered to be
> trademark-type property by a traditional majority result. (i.e. 50+1 votes)
> Second, it leaves open the questions of what type of property (if that's what
> they are) domain names should be considered to be, as well as the issue of
> `ownership'.
>
> 16.00% (4 respondents) indicated that domain names should sometimes be
> conflated with trademarks/geography.  This indicates that applying
> trademark law in some, but not other instances, was a relatively unpopular
> option in this poll.
>
> 8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Don't Know" option, indicating further
> confusion regarding the ultimate or conditional status of domain names.
>
> 8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Other" option.  If anybody on or about the
> WG *volunteers* the fee for the "comments" results of this unofficial,
> insecure poll, I would be happy to comply in presenting any input not
> currently available.
>
> Conclusion:  A traditional majority (50+1) of the respondents expressed the
> opinion that domain names should not be conflated with
> trademarks/geography.  Since the nature of the question is exclusive, this
> result would appear to represent a fixed opinion (with no apparent
> conditions for its application) decidedly against any conflation between
> domains/trademarks/geography.
>
> In response to the question: 3. If  Domain Names are considered eqivalent
> to trademarks or geographic indications, does this make them property?
>
> 64.00% (16 respondents) in other words, a strong majority (just under 2/3),
> indicated that if domain names were considered the eqivalents of
> trademarks, that they did in fact constitute "property" of some kind.
>
> 12.00% (3 respondents) indicated that domains did not constitute property
> despite the conflation with trademarks.
>
> 16.00% (4 respondents) indicated that domains were sometimes property,
> and sometimes not, when conflated with trademarks.  This response is
> interesting in that the qualifications and conditions for property status as a
> trademark eqivalent are not outlined, at least with respect
> to the simple numbers and without additional data.  Thus I can only comment
> on what is readily available.
>
> 8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Don't Know" option.
>
> Conclusion:  A large percentage of respondents believe that conflation of
> domain names with trademarks raises a property status issue. This is
> especially clear if we combine those who feel this unreservedly (64.00%),
> and those who indicated that it is conditional (16.00%),  for a total of 80.00%.
> I believe these findings indicate a real need for intensive discussion on the
> definition of domain names.
>
> I would appreciate any comments, corrections, or points of dissension with
> respect to the above analysis of my findings.
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:55:19 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP review

I was under the distinct impression that due to litigation it was decided that any self
critiqueing of the UDRP would create liability and therefore it was cancelled.
That was just an impression of a Hearsay article I can't even identify.

Sincerely,

Sotiropoulos wrote:

> 1/31/01 10:14:35 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >Am I mistaken remembering that a review of the UDRP was due somewhat
> >_now_?
>
> Well, I think now would be a great time!  BTW, I will shortly be posting my findings on
> the UDRP "procedure" from the poll etitled: "Domain Name Definition Poll" I conducted
> on the WG-Review.  I'm sure many will find the results interesting.
>
> Amiably,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 19:26:07 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP review

>I was under the distinct impression that due to litigation it was decided
>that any self
>critiqueing of the UDRP would create liability and therefore it was cancelled.
>That was just an impression of a Hearsay article I can't even identify.

So how on earth can we get it changed, then?

- -- 
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: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:40:18 -0700
From: Greg Burton <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Call for GA Chair Nominations

At 05:04 AM 1/30/01, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>I raised the problem already in fall 2000, and the issue is the election 
>>of the new chair. If we follow the current rules, the GA should nominate 
>>some candidates, with the NC electing the Chair among the candidates.

Given Roberto's desire to end his term as chair, I'd like to call for 
nominations. While the change he suggests is desirable imo, it seems 
important (at least to me) that the GA have a chair at this time.

Regards,
Greg

[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: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:26:17 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for GA Chair Nominations

On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, at 12:40 [=GMT-0700], Greg Burton wrote:

> Given Roberto's desire to end his term as chair, I'd like to call for 
> nominations. While the change he suggests is desirable imo, it seems 
> important (at least to me) that the GA have a chair at this time.

I nominate Alexander Svensson of icannchannel.de. I haven't consulted
him about this. Apologies for that.

For those who do not read German and cannot get an idea what the site
is about: icannchannel.de collects information, news and links. It is
specifically trying not to duplicate what others do already. This may
be a useful experience for managing this list.

- -- 
Marc Schneiders (rest in header)

- --
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: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 13:39:32 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for GA Chair Nominations

I second the call for nominations, and ask that Mr. Gaetano preside over the
voting and transition.  I also request objections and or clarifications on
procedures at this time.

Greg Burton wrote:

> At 05:04 AM 1/30/01, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >>I raised the problem already in fall 2000, and the issue is the election
> >>of the new chair. If we follow the current rules, the GA should nominate
> >>some candidates, with the NC electing the Chair among the candidates.
>
> Given Roberto's desire to end his term as chair, I'd like to call for
> nominations. While the change he suggests is desirable imo, it seems
> important (at least to me) that the GA have a chair at this time.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> [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

- --
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: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:52:26 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for GA Chair Nominations

I would like to nominate Greg Burton for Chair with high hopes that 
he would accept.

Leah Gallegos

> 
> > At 05:04 AM 1/30/01, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > >>I raised the problem already in fall 2000, and the issue is the
> > >>election of the new chair. If we follow the current rules, the GA
> > >>should nominate some candidates, with the NC electing the Chair
> > >>among the candidates.
> >
> > Given Roberto's desire to end his term as chair, I'd like to call
> > for nominations. While the change he suggests is desirable imo, it
> > seems important (at least to me) that the GA have a chair at this
> > time.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > [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: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 17:55:38 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for GA Chair Nominations

2/1/01 4:52:26 PM, "JandL" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>I would like to nominate Greg Burton for Chair with high hopes that 
>he would accept.
>
>Leah Gallegos

I second this nomination for Greg as a candidate for Chair of the GA.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc. 

- --
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: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:01:36 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Voting, 1

This is the best I can find for voting in a new chair.

It should also be noted that this is what is posted at DNSO:

General Assembly

    Roberto Gaetano (Chair)
    Harald T. Alvestrand (Alternate Chair)

23 June 2000

VOTING RULES FOR THE DNSO GA

Version 0.5

     Supersedes Version 0.4

These are the rules for voting in the General Assembly.

   1.A vote begins when the Chair approves a ballot.

          A ballot consists of one or more questions, each of which has
two
or more mutually exclusive answers.

          The ballot is sent to the registered GA voters by the
Secretariat.

   2.The typical amount of time given to reply to a vote is one week.
   3.Each voter can cast one vote for one alternative per question.
   4.The alternative selected by more than 50% of the cast votes wins.
   5.In the case where the question is a new rule or rule change for the

GA, the number of votes in favour of the winning alternative must be at
least 2/3
     of cast votes, with a minimum number of cast votes being the lower
of
20% of the registered voters or 100 votes.
   6.If no alternative gets the required number of votes, the Chair may
reissue the ballot with a smaller set of alternatives (a runoff), or
declare that there
     is no consensus in the GA on the question.
   7.The voters are those who are registered as voters when a vote is
first
sent out.

Note:

     This set of rules does not cover ballots with multiple winners,
such
as election of a set of representatives. Rules for these situations may
be
     introduced in a later amendment.

- --
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: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 17:58:49 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] status of the GA

Mikael and all remaining assembly members,

  The most outstanding problem with the DNSO is it's lack of
legitimacy.  This was brought to the attention of the GA Membership
by many of the members.  The List Chair and co-chair ignored these
members concerns.  As a result, and other illegitimate voting practices
factors the DNSO GA list and the DNSO GA has fallen into a serious
creditability problem that has yet to be corrected.

Mikael Pawlo wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> (---)
> > What would you conclude if not that there is not a great interest in the
> > matter?
>
> Don't underestimate the Jeff Williams-factor. I think a lot of interested
> parties - like yours truly - got tired of the konstant rants and raves and
> ramblings on the GA mailinglist. The most important assignment for a new
> GA chair should - in my humble opinion - be to set the GA straight again
> and make it free from so called "trolls".
>
> Regards
>
> Mikael
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
>   ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked]
>   cell phone stolen in subway                 http://www.pawlo.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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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 #219
************************