Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #357
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, April 7 2001           Volume 01 : Number 357

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

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 20:52:01 -0500
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Isn't this record broken?

> I can't believe that anybody would take [X] seriously.

I can't believe we are still having this conversation!

"Value" of posts is in the eye of the beholder.  Second, such comments violate the
list's rule against "personal" jibes.  Third, they consume more bandwidth than the
"offending" posts to which they respond.  And, fourth, they have the exact opposite
effect than intended.  If, as alleged, the "offender" is only seeking attention, why
accommodate her with an endless stream of complaints?  It is an established fact
that you won't convince her to stop posting.  We are only adding (note the
plural--that I include myself as a  result of this very missive) to the noise we
oppose.

Hence, Dave's 2nd rule:  If you think someone is consistently unworthy of reading,
shun her.  DON'T RESPOND!

- --
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: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 18:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:

> NSI had a long and painful history of very poor operations and very
> capricious decision-making.

Dave is correct.

> Trademark conflicts were ambiguous and expensive.  In fact, NSI gave
> trademark holders much more power than they have in law.  Now we have the
> UDRP and things are vastly more straight-forward and vastly cheaper.

Dave forgot to add "for the trademark interests."

The current system merely institutionalizes trademark favortism.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 19:53:28 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN benefits

At 06:14 PM 4/6/2001, Russ Smith wrote:
> >Second, Whois was broken before that, by the RIRs.  Nothing to do with NSI
> >or ICANN.
>
>Many users see the WHOIS management as something that should be a high
>priority for ICANN who is the manager of the shared registry system.

It IS a high priority for ICANN, yet they have caught huge flack for trying 
to attend to it.

More importantly, ICANN cannot fix technical limitations.  That is the work 
of the IETF, which unfortunately has stalled on this issue twice.

>  ICANN has taken a long time to look at the privacy and standardization 
> issues while going full steam ahead with issues that are seen to be well 
> beyond their mandate.

ICANN has attended only to its mandate, contrary to the many efforts to get 
it to do otherwise, or characterize its goals as otherwise.

Now, we could get into a yes-they-did/no-they-didn't exchange.  THat would 
not be very productive, would it.  Consequently it would be better not to 
put forward such bald generalizations, thereby inviting equally bald responses.

>Good or bad, ICANN has been in place long enough where they have full
>responsibility for the WHOIS system for .com, .net and .org.

Let's see.  You think that less that 2 years is enough time to "fix" 
substantial, global infrastructure problems, particularly when ICANN has no 
control over the technical standards?  How unfortunate.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 19:56:31 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

Let us make sure your comment is correctly understood.  You are saying
that it
is a benefit that we give Trademark owners more rights, that they
deserve more
rights and that you are in favor of giving them more rights under the
UDRP.
    Please refrain from attacking me, as my questions could have been
posted by
anyone. But feel free to attack my comments.  And if you do not I will
accept
that as acquiescience of the truth of what I stated.

Sincerely,

Dave Crocker wrote:

> >At 03:34 PM 4/6/2001, Kristy McKee wrote:
> >...
> >>At 03:13 PM 4/6/2001 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >>>1.) Domain Names have been relegated or equated directly to Trademarks.
> >
> >THis pre-dates ICANN.  ICANN instituted the UDRP and that actually gives
> >trademark more power than they had under the horrible, earlier NSI policy.
>
> sigh.  sorry.  bad typing.
>
> LESS power than under the NSI policy.
>
> d/
>
> ----------
> Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 20:01:55 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

At 06:53 PM 4/6/2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Trademark conflicts were ambiguous and expensive.  In fact, NSI gave
> > trademark holders much more power than they have in law.  Now we have the
> > UDRP and things are vastly more straight-forward and vastly cheaper.
>
>Dave forgot to add "for the trademark interests."
>
>The current system merely institutionalizes trademark favortism.

The law in most countries "institutionalizes trademark favortism".  It has 
done that rather longer than ICANN has been around...

If you mean that the UDRP provides ADDITIONAL benefits to trademark 
holders, well, that becomes a finer point of debate.

As has been noted frequently, the UDRP needs enhancement.  But let's not 
attribute more precedent to it or ICANN than is valid.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 20:15:05 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] something about decorum

Mr. Corliss,

I refer to your self humiliating post regarding Mr. Jeff Williams, a man
who has suffered my abuse in the past, as many can attest to.

But your post went beyond the bounds of correctness for this list I
demand that you retract it immediately.  You showed your agenda for this
list and it cannot be condoned.  you showed that you do have an agenda
other than being a co-chair and frankly the reasons therefor are too
difficult to explain on the list. Although I will if begged (Come on
Bill beg me ) then I will.

freedom of speech may not be important to you but I have lost to many to
count protecting that right.  You should ask some Aussi Vets what they
think of it, in my visit I heard enough to be sure of the answer!

You work with groups, that is as soft as I can put it, that are directly
opposed to the mission of ICANN yet you run for this Chair, how dare
you.  I for one will oppose you on every agenda you take as any part of
the chair because I am sure you have an "alternate" agenda behind you.
(nice play on words if I say so myself)
    I have researched all I can and cannot find a single document that
indicates the Alternate root have any co-existance philosophy.  You have
an alternate root conflict society plain and clear, and I pity the poor
fool you voted for you and find out otherwise.
    You have misrepresnted your position as a candidate for chair.

    THIS IS A POLITICAL DEBATE AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME
CONCEPT AS NORMAL DISCUSSION.  any attack levied back upon me should be
subject to the same forgiveness.
Otherwise I would level a complaint against my brother Corliss.

Most Sincerely,

- --
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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 21:01:31 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 06:53 PM 4/6/2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > > Trademark conflicts were ambiguous and expensive.  In fact, NSI gave
> > > trademark holders much more power than they have in law.  Now we have the
> > > UDRP and things are vastly more straight-forward and vastly cheaper.
> >
> >Dave forgot to add "for the trademark interests."
> >
> >The current system merely institutionalizes trademark favortism.
>
> The law in most countries "institutionalizes trademark favortism".  It has
> done that rather longer than ICANN has been around...
>

Yes as a domain name holder that makes us all feel better?

>
> If you mean that the UDRP provides ADDITIONAL benefits to trademark
> holders, well, that becomes a finer point of debate.
>

No it does not it becomes a closed debate Ip boys only.

>
> As has been noted frequently, the UDRP needs enhancement.  But let's not
> attribute more precedent to it or ICANN than is valid.
>

Anyone had better take that position seeing how we are looking at about %80
overturn ratio in federal courts upon WIPO type decisions.  The U.S. Courts kick
abosolute butt when it comes to the balancing tests of IP interstests over IP
rights, they always have and until someone esle steps up they always will.  Holy
cow we adopted Engish law as precedent, so we are talking the most ancient IP law
in foreever.

fianally the Napster case laid this to rest NO NEW LAW! WECANN already handle the
concepts thank you.

This is an important issue and requires men far more tolerable than I. But please
do not get sucked into the argument that the UDRP is cool cause it is not.

Most sincerely,

>
> d/
>
> ----------
> Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 00:07:29 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

Dave Crocker wrote:

> The law in most countries "institutionalizes trademark favortism".  It has
> done that rather longer than ICANN has been around...

However, it also protects multiple uses of a trademark. Sun Microsystems,
Sun Oil, the Sun and Surf Resort, ... and provides procedural safeguards
for the rights of the alleged violator.
 
> If you mean that the UDRP provides ADDITIONAL benefits to trademark
> holders, well, that becomes a finer point of debate.

It isn't entirely clear to me what the URDP was designed to accomplish, but
it seems cleat that in practice at least some decisions (bodacioustatas leaps
to mind) gave benefits to trademark owners that go way beyong anything they'd
be legally entitled to in any juritiction I know of.
 
> As has been noted frequently, the UDRP needs enhancement.  But let's not
> attribute more precedent to it or ICANN than is valid.

Specifically, it needs better protection for the domain holders who are
attacked using it.
- --
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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 00:57:45 -0400
From: "Russ Smith" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN benefits

>Let's see.  You think that less that 2 years is enough time to "fix"
>substantial, global infrastructure problems, particularly when ICANN has no
>control over the technical standards?  How unfortunate.

The issue involves services offered by the Registry and the Registrars.
ICANN is the manager of the shared registry system and has agreements with
the Registry and the Registrars.  ICANN has the authority under these
agreements to set standards and requirements for the Registry and Registrar
to follow as it relates to WHOIS.

The main issues are:

- -A standard format for the output.  Currently this involves a text file
output.  ICANN could have instituted a standard format for this out.  If
this had been done at the start of the planning for the shared registry
system then there would have been little or no impact on the registrars
since they would have taken this into account when they developed their
systems.  Now, if a standard format is required, most registrars will have
to go in and adapt their system.  This is poor planning and will result in
wasted resources.  Further, standardization would provide a cost savings for
the registrars and other companies (such as hosting companies) because other
tasks could be automated in an easier fashion such as the authorization for
registrar transfers.

- -"Advanced" features such XML or non-port 43 standards.  These would take
longer to implement.  I am not aware of any requirement placed upon ICANN to
wait for IETF standards but it is probably advisable that they do.  I don't
see implementing these features as a major failure of ICANN.

- -What information should be in the WHOIS database.  This is more of a policy
issue and would take longer but ICANN was very late in starting.  In a
previous ICANN meeting Roberts stated essentially that the WHOIS has been in
place for a long time and ICANN hadn't taken steps to look at the issues.
It was, therefore, a lower priority than other this that ICANN has taken
action on.

I guess you can call it global since there are registrars all over the world
and I guess you could call in infrastructure since it is WHOIS.  If you are
trying to imply that it is some kind of major technical obstacle then I,
unfortunately, do not understand.

NSI and Register.com have several million domains.  Tucows has 2-3 million
and Bulk Register between 1-2 million.  Most other registrars have
substantially less.  I never ran a WHOIS server but sites I operate make a
large number of queries (privacy.net and network-tools.com).  At one point
ARIN wanted me to run my own WHOIS because my sites  made so many queries.
They were prepared to GIVE me the whois software and let me access the
database.  Many of the very small registrars would be able to get by with
this.  There are significant scaling problems as the registrar grows but, in
order to get that many names, they have to have many paying customers.  I am
not aware of any technical limitations in providing a WHOIS database
service, only resource limitations.

The main point of contention with the general public is the requirement to
show all the information about all the contacts and the owner.  There is a
general argument that this information must be made available because of
technical issues and/or intellectual property issues.  I am a Tucows
reseller and deal with a number of people who register domains.  Many of
these customers would not know how to respond to technical questions.  If a
router goes wild or if you wanted to find out who was hosting an
"infringing" we site you would get the most reliable information by using
the IP address database to see which ISP owned the network.  These WHOIS
databases, unlike the domain name WHOIS databases, are verified to a certain
extent.  Once this is taken into account the issues surrounding what
information should be required in the domain WHOIS databases narrows
considerably.

What it comes down to is that if ICANN took the initiative to institute
things like the UDRP and the Verisign deal then they should have had time to
more on the WHOIS issue by now.  Since they take credit for the shared
registrar system they also get credit for the poor planning in instituting a
standard WHOIS format from the start.

Russ Smith
http://TheNic.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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 15:02:36 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] something about decorum

Dear Eric

I don't know what your agenda is but I don't intend to respond to personal
attacks and vague generalisations about my motivations.  I have provided
evidence in relation to Jeff Williams which members are able to evaluate.

I have already stated my "final word" on my views and do not want to modify
those in any way.   Please do not expect me to respond to future provocations.

Yours faithfully
Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 22:07:04 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] ICANN benefits

Hello Dave,

Friday, April 06, 2001, 8:01:55 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 06:53 PM 4/6/2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>>On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> > Trademark conflicts were ambiguous and expensive.  In fact, NSI gave
>> > trademark holders much more power than they have in law.  Now we have the
>> > UDRP and things are vastly more straight-forward and vastly cheaper.
>>
>>Dave forgot to add "for the trademark interests."
>>
>>The current system merely institutionalizes trademark favortism.

> The law in most countries "institutionalizes trademark favortism".  It has 
> done that rather longer than ICANN has been around...

Bullocks.  The UDRP grants greater rights to trademark holders than
the laws of any nation grant them.  There is nothing, NOTHING, about
domain names that warrants any higher level of protection for
trademarks than exists in any other medium.

- -- 
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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:24:52 -0400
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
> Dave Crocker wrote:
> > As has been noted frequently, the UDRP needs enhancement.  But let's not
> > attribute more precedent to it or ICANN than is valid.
>
> Specifically, it needs better protection for the domain holders who are
> attacked using it.

This cannot be emphasized enough.  Good call Sandy.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual

- --
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: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 22:26:33 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 12:57:45AM -0400, Russ Smith wrote:
> >Let's see.  You think that less that 2 years is enough time to "fix"
> >substantial, global infrastructure problems, particularly when ICANN has no
> >control over the technical standards?  How unfortunate.
> 
> The issue involves services offered by the Registry and the Registrars.
> ICANN is the manager of the shared registry system and has agreements with
> the Registry and the Registrars.  ICANN has the authority under these
> agreements to set standards and requirements for the Registry and Registrar
> to follow as it relates to WHOIS.

No, this is not correct.  ICANN does not have that authority.  ICANN 
can only implement what are explicitly described in the NSI contract as 
"consensus policies", and there are a strict set of standards defining 
what "consensus policies" are.

> The main issues are:
> 
> -A standard format for the output.  Currently this involves a text file
> output.  ICANN could have instituted a standard format for this out.

Not without the consensus approval of the registrars and the registry, 
and others.

[...]

> -What information should be in the WHOIS database.  This is more of a policy
> issue and would take longer but ICANN was very late in starting.

ICANN started on the whois issue before the Nov 1999 agreement was signed.  
(I participated in some of the discussions.)  The major issue at that 
time was precisely what data should be returned; it was a matter of 
intense negotiation with NSI, because, recall, it was NSI's RRP that uses the 
"thick registrar" model, which forces all the registrars to provide 
whois data.

> In a
> previous ICANN meeting Roberts stated essentially that the WHOIS has been in
> place for a long time and ICANN hadn't taken steps to look at the issues.

Another out of context comment, impossible to evaluate.

> It was, therefore, a lower priority than other this that ICANN has taken
> action on.

That is true.  ICANN has had other highly contentious matters that have 
had much more pressure behind them.

> I guess you can call it global since there are registrars all over the world
> and I guess you could call in infrastructure since it is WHOIS.  If you are
> trying to imply that it is some kind of major technical obstacle then I,
> unfortunately, do not understand.

It is a learned skill.

[...]

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:59:45 -0400
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] ICANN benefits

From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>:
> Bullocks.  The UDRP grants greater rights to trademark holders than
> the laws of any nation grant them.  There is nothing, NOTHING, about
> domain names that warrants any higher level of protection for
> trademarks than exists in any other medium.

William,

I'm with you on this one.  The UDRP has effectively conflated trademarks
with domain names... something which was never part of ANY trademark
registration ANYWHERE prior to about 1998 or so...   Thereafter, everybody
and his mother's uncle is suddenly cropping up out of the woodworks claiming
some kind of "right" to a registered domain based on a trademark that
nowhere mentions anything about the Internet or domain names... but hey!
what a bargain! two for the price of one...  Sickening.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 23:03:54 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

Way cool Mr. Walsh, maintain the faith!

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Dave,
>
> Friday, April 06, 2001, 8:01:55 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> > At 06:53 PM 4/6/2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >>On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >> > Trademark conflicts were ambiguous and expensive.  In fact, NSI gave
> >> > trademark holders much more power than they have in law.  Now we have the
> >> > UDRP and things are vastly more straight-forward and vastly cheaper.
> >>
> >>Dave forgot to add "for the trademark interests."
> >>
> >>The current system merely institutionalizes trademark favortism.
>
> > The law in most countries "institutionalizes trademark favortism".  It has
> > done that rather longer than ICANN has been around...
>
> Bullocks.  The UDRP grants greater rights to trademark holders than
> the laws of any nation grant them.  There is nothing, NOTHING, about
> domain names that warrants any higher level of protection for
> trademarks than exists in any other medium.

This is completely correct, Walsh that is, The courts have ruled and so has public
opinion, there is no special right of prior restraint that should be accorded IP
when it comes to Domains.And there is no right for the Registrars to use that one
ubiquitis section that allows them to yank names when they want too.

The examples we read today are examples of theft and if everyone is so passive as
to think that is OK, so as not to rock the boat, your silent majority just took a
nosedive in credibility.

sorry I am sad for the apathy!

sincerely,

- --
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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 02:23:10 -0400
From: "Russ Smith" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN benefits

>If you mean that the UDRP provides ADDITIONAL benefits to trademark
>holders, well, that becomes a finer point of debate.

Court cases - nothing has changed.  A TM holder can file the same cases now
as before the UDRP.

Domains involved -  used to be NSI's interpretation of "exact match."  Now
we have "confusingly similar."  Domains like
guinness-beer-really-really-sucks.com have been found to be "confusingly
similar."  Advantage to TM holder.

Action taken - Previously domains put on hold.  Owner or TM holder needs to
sue to take control.  Under the UDRP complainant gets transfer if they win
but owner gets to keep control if they win.  Usually advantage to TM holder
except cases where domain holder wins and keeps control.  (for cancellations
the advantage goes to me or John Berryhill.  See www.Fibershield.net and
http://www.nokiagirls.com)

> As has been noted frequently, the UDRP needs enhancement.  But let's not
> attribute more precedent to it or ICANN than is valid.

ICANN instituted and manages the UDRP and is fully responsible for it.  The
problem here is that ICANN instituted the UDRP and then essentially threw
the problem over the fence to the providers.  The providers have a
substantial financial interest in how the UDRP plays out and ICANN is seen
as not taking the responsibility for the management of the program and at
least attempting to fix the known problems which are outlined in the Rough
Justice report at http://dcc.syr.edu/roughjustice.htm.  Even Francis Gurry
of WIPO admitted some of the decisions are bad.  The early decisions
involving crew.com and esquire.com opened up a flood of claims.

The complaints involve:

- -No standards in choosing who will become an arbitrator
- -No training to ensure arbitrators understand the rules, the scope of the
UDRP (narrow class of abusive registrations
http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-second-staff-report-24oct99.htm), and TM law.
- -No standards in how arbitrators are chosen for a specific case
- -No policing by ICANN of the supplemental rules instituted by the providers
to ensure they mesh with the ICANN rules (for instance see
http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/95344.htm)
- -There have been a variety of complaints that TM holders are treated
differently than domain holder.  For an extreme example see
http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/94867.htm versus
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1619.html.
- -Registrars are not always following timelines and guidelines set forth in
the UDRP rules.

If you want to see a pattern of what is happening I suggest going to each
provider and reading the decisions in chronological order.  If eResolution
were hearing all the cases it would be pretty fair.  However, as one TM
lawyer recently commented on the INTA.org list, they probably can't support
a full time staff because they only get a few cases per month.

ICANN has no (transparent) process for dealing with the complaints or
updating the rules/procedures for identified problems of the UDRP program
which they initiated and are now supposed to be managing.  To make things
worse they have not initiated ANY (transparent) program to take care of the
domains that are deleted accidentally/mistakenly.

Russ Smith
http://consumer.net

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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 23:26:18 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] something about decorum

Thank you I would not respond to you otherwise but you ask my agenda, and I must
be given latitude to respond.  Part of my agenda is to stop yours.

Mr. Corliss if you do not know my agenda then you have filtered me.  I do not
blame you for this but you should not speak of that which you intentionally do not
care to be informed about.  OUTREACH, EDUCATION AND MULTILINGUALISM.  There is no
opposition or conflict for ICANN in these matters, unlike your agenda which
includes being a Chevy when ICANN is a ford.

I am also against personal attacks like the one you went way over the line with,
your post to Ms. K. in my afternoon.  Some of us made major progress this
afternoon regardless of the chair election. We are raising awareness.

You come along and complain that posts are made to people who matter like senators
who control the purse strings of the DoC, which controls the ICANN contracts.
From my feedback from the DoC knowables you caused more damage to ICANN than 20
Verisign contracts put together today with your display of political abuse.

You convinced many that are in control that there is no control of ICANN.  If you
win the election, which you probably will, then that is OK.  ICANNTALK.  I will
answer their requests to testify and I will use you as an example of the problem.

Your agenda is clearly to hurt the bottom up process because there are deals to be
made for the "alternatives".  the bottom up is not the sidewise capture. You have
just given the tlda a black eye!!!

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Dear Eric
>
> I don't know what your agenda is but I don't intend to respond to personal
> attacks and vague generalisations about my motivations.  I have provided
> evidence in relation to Jeff Williams which members are able to evaluate.
>
> I have already stated my "final word" on my views and do not want to modify
> those in any way.   Please do not expect me to respond to future provocations.
>
> Yours faithfully
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 23:25:50 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN benefits

At 09:57 PM 4/6/2001, Russ Smith wrote:
>The issue involves services offered by the Registry and the Registrars.
>ICANN is the manager of the shared registry system and has agreements with
>the Registry and the Registrars.  ICANN has the authority under these
>agreements to set standards and requirements for the Registry and Registrar

One more time:  ICANN does not develop technical specifications.  It can 
cite a requirement to follow one specification or another, but it does not 
create them.

>-A standard format for the output.  Currently this involves a text file

Thanks for the technical pedagogy.

This has been the topic of IETF discussions.  I am hopeful that a 
specification will yet emerge.

>output.  ICANN could have instituted a standard format for this out.

You are confusing the difference between citing/choosing a specification, 
versus having the expertise to develop one.  ICANN is not designed for 
designing technical specifications.

>If this had been done at the start of the planning for the shared registry

things were/are a tad more complicated than you are suggesting.

>-"Advanced" features such XML or non-port 43 standards.

Etc. Etc.  A collection of technical issues that need to be considered, 
specified, etc., etc.  Yes, that is what a standards body does.

>-What information should be in the WHOIS database.  This is more of a policy
>issue and would take longer but ICANN was very late in starting.

Yeah.  It's a shame that ICANN has spent so much time doing other things.

After all, it has infinite resources and wonderfully constructive 
assistance from the community.

So a trivial item like determining whois information requirements that will 
be acceptable on a global scale should not have taken this long...

>Roberts stated essentially that the WHOIS has been in
>place for a long time

This is particularly true in terms of the information carried in whois 
records. And focusing on immediate crises is generally viewed as a superior 
management style than attending to matters that might be uncomfortable, but 
otherwise have a long and stable history.

So your point is what?

>I guess you can call it global since there are registrars all over the world
>and I guess you could call in infrastructure since it is WHOIS.  If you are
>trying to imply that it is some kind of major technical obstacle then I,
>unfortunately, do not understand.

Defining, building and deploying new technical specifications on the 
Internet takes a long time.

>The main point of contention with the general public is the requirement to
>show all the information about all the contacts and the owner.

Yes, that is the "information policy" reference you made earlier.  As we 
have seen from various discussions on public lists, the matter is not 
subject to quick resolution.

>What it comes down to is that if ICANN took the initiative to institute
>things like the UDRP and the Verisign deal then they should have had time to
>more on the WHOIS issue by now.

You seem to missing some basic points.  One is that the UDRP came after 
several YEARS of public discussion.  Another is that negotiating with a 
single contractor (Verisign) is rather different than negotiating with a 
community.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 02:37:27 -0400
From: "Russ Smith" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN benefits

>Another is that negotiating with a
>single contractor (Verisign)

Can anybody point me to the minutes of the meetings between ICANN staff and
board members and Verisign for all the meeting leading up top the current
agreement?  Since it is done using transparent process I expect these are
readily available.

Russ Smith
http://consumer.net

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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 23:38:07 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

Hi Kent, You are a great guy but I am afraid you have been misled.
Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 12:57:45AM -0400, Russ Smith wrote:
> > >Let's see.  You think that less that 2 years is enough time to "fix"
> > >substantial, global infrastructure problems, particularly when ICANN has no
> > >control over the technical standards?  How unfortunate.
> >
> > The issue involves services offered by the Registry and the Registrars.
> > ICANN is the manager of the shared registry system and has agreements with
> > the Registry and the Registrars.  ICANN has the authority under these
> > agreements to set standards and requirements for the Registry and Registrar
> > to follow as it relates to WHOIS.
>
> No, this is not correct.  ICANN does not have that authority.  ICANN
> can only implement what are explicitly described in the NSI contract as
> "consensus policies", and there are a strict set of standards defining
> what "consensus policies" are.
>

When do they have the authority and when to they not.  You are way off the mark
the NSI contract with ICANN places NSI and I think you mean Versign, as a
Subcontractor.  The only and I mean ONLY contract that ICANN has to comply with is
their DoC contract that is the only right and power ICANN has and it is revocable
at the "convenience" of the USG. Maybe you mean the IANA replacment contract or
the contract with the DoC or USG.

>
> > The main issues are:
> >
> > -A standard format for the output.  Currently this involves a text file
> > output.  ICANN could have instituted a standard format for this out.
>
> Not without the consensus approval of the registrars and the registry,
> and others.
>

Wrong again according to the white papers, it is not without the consensus of the
internetstakeholders.  I have not ever heard of any concept of the consensus of
registrars and "the" registry of which there was only one at the tie of the white
papers.

>
> [...]
>
> > -What information should be in the WHOIS database.  This is more of a policy
> > issue and would take longer but ICANN was very late in starting.
>
> ICANN started on the whois issue before the Nov 1999 agreement was signed.
> (I participated in some of the discussions.)  The major issue at that
> time was precisely what data should be returned; it was a matter of
> intense negotiation with NSI, because, recall, it was NSI's RRP that uses the
> "thick registrar" model, which forces all the registrars to provide
> whois data.
>
> > In a
> > previous ICANN meeting Roberts stated essentially that the WHOIS has been in
> > place for a long time and ICANN hadn't taken steps to look at the issues.
>
> Another out of context comment, impossible to evaluate.
>
> > It was, therefore, a lower priority than other this that ICANN has taken
> > action on.
>
> That is true.  ICANN has had other highly contentious matters that have
> had much more pressure behind them.
>
> > I guess you can call it global since there are registrars all over the world
> > and I guess you could call in infrastructure since it is WHOIS.  If you are
> > trying to imply that it is some kind of major technical obstacle then I,
> > unfortunately, do not understand.
>
> It is a learned skill.
>
> [...]
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #357
************************