Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #367
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 10 2001           Volume 01 : Number 367

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:31:00 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Dave Crocker wrote:-
The intellectual property constituency has shown entirely too much tendency
to be biased towards protecting intellectual property holders, so we had
better require them to admit the anti-IP groups...

That's right! Glad to see you're getting with the plan.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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, 9 Apr 2001 21:35:43 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 10:20:49PM -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> At 05:21 PM 4/9/2001 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 06:47:44PM -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> > > incumbent); and [3] anyway, it could be worse -- after all, if the gTLD
> > > constituency had more votes, the resulting structure would be even *more*
> > > anticompetitive.
> >
> >Jeez.  What an absolutely silly and ridiculous distortion.  The gTLD
> >constituency is __14%__ of the NC, for petes sake.  By any measure that
> >is a small minority, and it is just silly to claim that the behavior of
> >such a small minority is going to make the "resulting structure"
> >anticompetitive.
> >[snip]
> >I have my complaints about NSI as well, but it really looks to me like
> >people have let their emotions completely destroy their reason.
> 
> 
>          I'm surprised at your vituperative response, Kent.

I do get annoyed when people deliberately misrepresent my position, yes. 
Sorry about that. 

>  Back when the 
> DNSO constituencies were formed, as you remember, ICANN paid great 
> attention to the makeup and structure of each constituency.  The Board 
> directed that it would recognize the various constituencies only 
> provisionally, while staff worked with the organizers of each to ensure 
> that their makeup and structure were open, fair, inclusive and 
> procompetitive.

Sorry, you are confused.  There was no requirement that each
constituency represent every possible perspective, and indeed the idea
is contrary to the whole notion of constituencies.  Constituencies are
*expected* to represent a particular point of view.  That a constituency
would have a particular interest is an expected result.  In particular,
the gTLD constituency is *intended* to support the interests of real
gTLD registries, the ones that ICANN really does have contractual
relationships with, precisely because these registries are in a special
relationship with ICANN.  There might possibly be a case for a separate
constituency for "prospective registries" (though I doubt it), but
current registries (both ccTLD and gTLD, in fact) are absolutely
critical special cases. 

> Nobody suggested then that ICANN should ignore such issues 
> with respect to a given constituency on the ground that that constituency's 
> representatives were only "14% of the NC, for petes sake."

Indeed.  But your view of the constituency formation process is very far
from what actually transpired, and your above comment is disjoint from
that reality.  

- -- 
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: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:48:55 -0700 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has advantage

Meanwhile, what does ICANN do about name-hoarders?  Nothing.

This is exactly where ICANN should be taking action in the interest of the public, but so far there hasn't been a peep about 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: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:41:10 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 06:31:44PM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> As a result of ICANN's insistence that all who submitted TLD applications
> have not been turned down, but are, instead, "pending," I see no reason
> why the gTLD constituency membership should not include all "pending"
> registries as well.

Let's think about that just a second.  Of course then, when the
application was finally turned down, you should be kicked out of the
constituency.  Is that what you have in mind? Or maybe you think that
your $50,000 should be viewed as a yearly lobbying fee, perhaps?  Or 
does it entitle you to membership forever?

- -- 
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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:54:39 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

Andrew and Joanna,

As I recall the numbers, there were over 170, 000 or so applications for
membership, of which some 70,000 or so were actually issued PINs for voting.
I'd say only 10,000 or so returned envelopes is a resounding success!  Wouldn't
both of you?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Andrew McLaughlin wrote Monday, April 09, 2001 10:54 PM
> You're right -- we have been discussing this since the At Large process last
> year.  As the posted statistics make clear
> <http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/summary1.shtml>, ICANN received 10,334
> returned letters.   As you note, we have also discussed this problem on the
> icann-eu list.
>
> Hello Andrew,
> Thank you for the clarification about boxes and boxes of @Large membership
> verification returned to ICANN. I am not subscribed to icann-eu myself and
> therefore did not know about discussions to which you refer. Is there a
> public archive that I may review?.  As an EU citizen residing in the USA, I
> am most interested in both perspectives.
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:07:18 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Dave Said...
> Well, let's see.  Your underlying philosophy appears to be that each and 
> every constituency needs to have balancing forces.  

Nope. That's not it at all. Simply that this constituency needs to be comprised
of all gTLD registries, both applicant, accepted, and operational (or any
combination of the three). You twisted my words.

> That's the problems with attacking people's motives, Chris.  The attack is 
> usually pure slander:  false and malicious.
> 
> And it has nothing at all to do with the real merits of the arguments being 
> put forward.

Sometimes, perhaps. Not in this case. You're trying to divert the issue.
After 6 years of watching you do it, it's not so easy anymore. Your
viewpoint over the past few years is irrelevant to me. Your current
employer, NeuStar, biases you. My current employer, Image Online
Design, biases me. You try to deny it, or call it into question. I embrace
it for what it is.

So stop trying to divert the issue, and make a substantive retort, rather
than analogies that don't quite track, or complaints about the realities
of the situation.

> Let's check for consistency in your view:
> 
> Do you believe that anyone who has applied for US citizenship should be 
> entitled to vote in US elections?

Again, you're diverting the issue. This analogy has nothing to do with the
case at hand. Let's have a good reason why applicants who have paid
the fee, passed the criteria, and are, as ICANN readily proclaims,
pending acceptance can't be part of this constituency and have a voice
on the names council. 

Arguing with you is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It's pointless, and
annoys the pig. I've made my point, you've brought up no substantive
arguments against it, so I shall move on. Say good night, Dave.

Christopher

- --
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, 9 Apr 2001 22:26:20 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has advantage

Hello gavin,

Monday, April 09, 2001, 9:48:55 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Meanwhile, what does ICANN do about name-hoarders?  Nothing.

> This is exactly where ICANN should be taking action in the interest of the public, but so far there hasn't been a peep about it.

What should ICANN do about it?

Your statement implies a consensus that name hoarding is an activity
that should not be permitted.

I am not aware of any such consensus, and the term itself is so
subjective it can be widely abused.

ICANN shouldn't, and indeed can't, do anything about that.  There is
nothing for them to do, and no basis for them to do it anyway.

- -- 
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, 9 Apr 2001 22:47:28 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Kent Said...
> Let's think about that just a second.  Of course then, when the
> application was finally turned down, you should be kicked out of the
> constituency.  Is that what you have in mind? Or maybe you think that
> your $50,000 should be viewed as a yearly lobbying fee, perhaps?  Or 
> does it entitle you to membership forever?

Good question. You say "finally turned down." Not only has nobody
been turned down, but ICANN has gone out of their way to insist
that nobody has been turned down. So being kicked out as a result
is a non-issue.

But let's presume that one *is* turned down. Then yes, I believe
you should no longer be in the constituency. If a law firm who is
a member of the IPC goes out of business, do they still belong?
If a registrar goes out of business, do they belong? And, for that
matter, all of the members of the registrar's constituency have paid
their fee to ICANN as well. If they're turned down, do they get
the fee back? I don't believe so. So, you pay your fee, you don't
get turned down, you belong to the constituency. 

So that's an excellent suggestion, and I accept it.

I'm so glad that we're making progress.

Christopher

- --
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, 09 Apr 2001 22:56:56 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

You make the assumption that the BoD and staff wanted to have elections.  Look at
it the otherway and it is a dismal failure.

Sincerely,

Sotiris wrote:

> Andrew and Joanna,
>
> As I recall the numbers, there were over 170, 000 or so applications for
> membership, of which some 70,000 or so were actually issued PINs for voting.
> I'd say only 10,000 or so returned envelopes is a resounding success!  Wouldn't
> both of you?
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Individual
>
> Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > Andrew McLaughlin wrote Monday, April 09, 2001 10:54 PM
> > You're right -- we have been discussing this since the At Large process last
> > year.  As the posted statistics make clear
> > <http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/summary1.shtml>, ICANN received 10,334
> > returned letters.   As you note, we have also discussed this problem on the
> > icann-eu list.
> >
> > Hello Andrew,
> > Thank you for the clarification about boxes and boxes of @Large membership
> > verification returned to ICANN. I am not subscribed to icann-eu myself and
> > therefore did not know about discussions to which you refer. Is there a
> > public archive that I may review?.  As an EU citizen residing in the USA, I
> > am most interested in both perspectives.
> > Regards,
> > Joanna
> >
> >

- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 08:10:55 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] No Members?

Hello Joanna,

Joanna Lane wrote on 09.04.01, 23:55:21:
> Thank you for the clarification about boxes and boxes of @Large membership
> verification returned to ICANN. I am not subscribed to icann-eu myself and
> therefore did not know about discussions to which you refer. Is there a
> public archive that I may review?.  As an EU citizen residing in the USA, I
> am most interested in both perspectives.

yes, you can find it at
http://angua.rince.de/icann-europe/2000/11/msg00223.html
and following

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, 9 Apr 2001 23:19:48 -0700 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has advantage

If ICANN can establish domain-type rules for those seeking to register domains within existing or proposed TLDs, then it can propose and implement rules against domain hoarding.  Both are subjective and require human judgment.

How about this: If you register a domain and don't have a legitimate site running under it within, say, two years, you lose it.  What's a legitimate site?  Of course, that's the tough question.  Probably the best way to answer it is to allow people to challenge a hoarder's registration of a particular domain after two years, as they can currently challenge on the basis of trademark infringement.

This is a difficult issue, certainly.  But it's the type of issue that needs resolution, and some might argue that it's among the top issues we face.

As far as consensus is concerned, that's one of the favorite topics around here.  So let's build some: Who thinks domain hoarding harms the consumer?

And to head off the obvious first retort, let's not pretend that this is a free market and that the current situation simply allows the marketplace to set the appropriate price for a domain name.  The Verisign situation proves that this is not true.  It costs them nothing to maintain control over these names, which they are attempting to sell at a profit after being granted a public monopoly.  That is a blatant abuse of the privilege they were awarded, as custodians of a public resource.

Electrical utilities' prices are regulated for the same reason.  Thus should the price of domains be regulated.

Regards,
Gavin
- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 18:27:43 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 07:56:05 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:

>>The UDRP gives trademark holders much more power than they have in law and
>>actually contradicts a lot of legal provisions with regards to trademarks.  It
>>is more straight forward and vastly cheaper for trademark holders but
>>discriminates against domain registrants, making it more expensive and in some
>>cases, impossible to get redress.
>
>1. You <<snipp>>ed my statement acknowledging that the UDRP needs improvement.

In what ways would you improve it?  Perhaps a consensus could be
gathered upon the minimum changes needed.  

>2.  You are ignoring that the UDRP is a vast improvement over the NSI policies.

I agree.

>3.  You assertion that the UDRP gives trademark holders "much" more power 
>can be debated.  In any event, see #1, above.
>
>4.  You ignore that the UDRP makes the process vastly cheaper for the 
>domain holder, as well as the trademark claimant.

This is based on the assumption that without the UDRP trademark
claimants would pursue cases in court.  It is likely that at least
some would not.

>5.  You have no statistics to support your claims of unfairness as a 
>substantial pattern.

This is pretty hard to gather because who decides what is unfair?  I
would like to see more research done in this area though.  Perhaps
ICANN could charter a study of cases where near identical sets of
facts have led to different outcomes.

One could do a larger study, splitting cases up into categories such
as defendant has never used domain name, defendant tried to sell name,
defendant was trading in similar area to trademark holder, defendant
had a parody site etc etc and looking at what percentages went with
plaintiff and defendant.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 9 Apr 2001 23:34:39 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency

> So, again we see that your basis is flawed to the point of silliness.

This is from the person that presumes to speak from the moral high-ground of
wanting to eliminate ad hominem arguments? Yet, they are not above simple
name-calling? 

I think that there are a couple of clay feet wandering about.
- --
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, 9 Apr 2001 23:36:45 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has advantage

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 9:49 PM
> 
> Meanwhile, what does ICANN do about name-hoarders?  Nothing.
> 
> This is exactly where ICANN should be taking action in the 
> interest of the public, but so far there hasn't been a peep about it.

Maybe, because there is the matter of the boundary problem, in the
definition of the term "name hoarder"?
- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 01:39:02 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has advantage

At 9:48 pm -0700 4/9/01, [email-masked] wrote:
>Meanwhile, what does ICANN do about name-hoarders?  Nothing.

First, we need to know what your definition of a "name-hoarder" is.

Perhaps ICANN should knock on AutoDesk's door first and ask them what
they're up to?

MAPGUIDE.COM
AUTOSKETCH.COM
KTX.COM
3DSTUDIO.COM
ACTIVESHAPES.COM
SOFTDESK.COM
AUTODESK.COM
REDSPARK.COM
VOLO.COM
AUTOCAD2000.COM
GEONETCOM2003.COM
GEONETCOM.COM
GEONETCOM2004.COM
GEONETCOM2001.COM
GEONETCOM99.COM
GEONETCOM2000.COM
GEONETCOM2002.COM
3DCAREERS.COM
ONE2WHEREMARKETING.COM
ONETOWHERE.COM
ONE2WHERE.COM
ONETOWHEREMARKETING.COM
GISTEST.COM
ACTIVESHAPE.COM
MYAUTODESK.COM
MYAUTOCAD.COM
VIZABLE.COM
ACTRIXFACILITIES.COM
ACTRIXELECTRICAL.COM
ACTRIXDIAGRAMS.COM
ACTRIXTECHNICAL.COM
ACTRIXDIAGRAMMING.COM
ACTRIXFM.COM
ACTRIXBUSINESS.COM
VIZONLINE.COM
MANUFACTURINGXML.COM
CADDXML.COM
DESIGNML.COM
MFGXML.COM
PLANETAUTODESK.COM
EDESIGNTALK.COM
IDESIGNTALK.COM
AUTOCADMAPONLINE.COM
MAPPINGONLINE.COM
SPATIALXML.COM
MAPWINDOWXML.COM
AUTODESKMAPBOOK.COM
EMAPBOOK.COM
AUTODESKEMAPBOOK.COM
LANDXML.COM
PANSERVER.COM
LLTEST.COM
LSDEMO.COM
THEDESK.COM
AUTOCAD.COM
AUTOCADLT.COM
VISUALLISP.COM
OBJECTARX.COM
VISUALISP.COM
ALISP.COM
VLISP.COM
OARX.COM
GRIDNORTH.COM
CADOVERLAY.COM
AUTODESK-ECITY.COM
STUDIODESK.COM
KNOWLOCATE.COM
KNOWLOCATION.COM
LOCATIONNOW.COM
LOCATIONOW.COM
ACAD.NET
GEONETCOM.NET
LANDXML.NET
ONETOWHEREMARKETING.NET
ONETOWHERE.NET
ONE2WHEREMARKETING.NET
ONE2WHERE.NET
VIZABLE.NET
CADDXML.NET
CADXML.NET
MANUFACTURINGXML.NET
DESIGNML.NET
MFGXML.NET
DESIGNTALK.NET
EDESIGNTALK.NET
IDESIGNTALK.NET
SPATIALXML.NET
PANSERVER.NET
DESIGNXML.NET
GEONETCOM.ORG
LANDXML.ORG
ONETOWHEREMARKETING.ORG
ONE2WHERE.ORG
ONETOWHERE.ORG
ONE2WHEREMARKETING.ORG
VIZABLE.ORG
CADXML.ORG
MANUFACTURINGXML.ORG
DESIGNML.ORG
MFGXML.ORG
CADDXML.ORG
DESIGNTALK.ORG
EDESIGNTALK.ORG
IDESIGNTALK.ORG
SPATIALXML.ORG
AUTODESK.ORG
DESIGNXML.ORG
MANUFACTURINGCOMMERCE.ORG

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

- -- 
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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:08:54 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Mr. Ambler,

It is entirely innappropriate to criticize Mr. Crispin in this matter. 
In case you
had not noticed both he and Mr. Crocker have immunity from reflecting
any bias they
may have or answering for any improper posting they may make.

Every one should be happy to note that every positive suggestion for
change over
the last two days has been met by one of these two men -- again.  We had
such a
short reprieve. With ten posts a day between them they are doing very
well.  And with Mr.
Crispin refreshed after coming off his election watchdog committee post,
wherein he
only contributed to three substantive changes to rules during one voting
in an election while
Mr. Crocker was busy getting his suspension overturned. (buy the way has
anyone
ever seen that happen before?).

I AM NOT CRITICIZING THESE TWO MEN, I AM CRITICIZING THE SYSTEM WHICH
ALLOWS IT TO
OCCUR!

Would it be possible to require a tag on each post, for ease of
tracking, that
distinguished between a negative(against improvement) and positive(for
impovement).  Ah wait there already is and it is called a "last name".

Sincerely,

Christopher Ambler wrote:

> Dave Said...
> > Well, let's see.  Your underlying philosophy appears to be that each and
> > every constituency needs to have balancing forces.
>
> Nope. That's not it at all. Simply that this constituency needs to be comprised
> of all gTLD registries, both applicant, accepted, and operational (or any
> combination of the three). You twisted my words.
>
> > That's the problems with attacking people's motives, Chris.  The attack is
> > usually pure slander:  false and malicious.
> >
> > And it has nothing at all to do with the real merits of the arguments being
> > put forward.
>
> Sometimes, perhaps. Not in this case. You're trying to divert the issue.
> After 6 years of watching you do it, it's not so easy anymore. Your
> viewpoint over the past few years is irrelevant to me. Your current
> employer, NeuStar, biases you. My current employer, Image Online
> Design, biases me. You try to deny it, or call it into question. I embrace
> it for what it is.
>
> So stop trying to divert the issue, and make a substantive retort, rather
> than analogies that don't quite track, or complaints about the realities
> of the situation.
>
> > Let's check for consistency in your view:
> >
> > Do you believe that anyone who has applied for US citizenship should be
> > entitled to vote in US elections?
>
> Again, you're diverting the issue. This analogy has nothing to do with the
> case at hand. Let's have a good reason why applicants who have paid
> the fee, passed the criteria, and are, as ICANN readily proclaims,
> pending acceptance can't be part of this constituency and have a voice
> on the names council.
>
> Arguing with you is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It's pointless, and
> annoys the pig. I've made my point, you've brought up no substantive
> arguments against it, so I shall move on. Say good night, Dave.
>
> Christopher
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:20:03 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has advantage

Hello gavin,

Monday, April 09, 2001, 11:19:48 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> If ICANN can establish domain-type rules for those seeking to
> register domains within existing or proposed TLDs, then it can
> propose and implement rules against domain hoarding.  Both are
> subjective and require human judgment.

Just because you claim it can (I see nothing that would permit it to,
but let's run with this) doesn't mean that it SHOULD.  Why do you
think this is a problem that justifies such a Draconian measure?

> How about this: If you register a domain and don't have a legitimate
> site running under it within, say, two years, you lose it.  What's a
> legitimate site?  Of course, that's the tough question.  Probably
> the best way to answer it is to allow people to challenge a
> hoarder's registration of a particular domain after two years, as
> they can currently challenge on the basis of trademark
> infringement.

There is your mistake, associating domain names with websites.  A
domain name is not a website address.

Let me repeat that.

A domain name is not a website address.

A domain name can be in use, even if there is no publicly accessible
website operating under it.

How do you define use?  And even if my plans call for use for the
domain 10 years down the road, should I not register it now, so that I
can protect my concept, even if that concept has a 10 year lead time?

Sorry, but this type of thing is entirely inappropriate, not to
mention outside the scope of ICANN.

P.S. can you set your email client's line wrap to a reasonable number?

- -- 
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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:51:35 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has advantage

Gavin said:
> How about this: If you register a domain and don't have a legitimate
> site running under it within, say, two years, you lose it.  What's a
> legitimate site?  Of course, that's the tough question.  Probably the
> best way to answer it is to allow people to challenge a hoarder's
> registration of a particular domain after two years, as they can
> currently challenge on the basis of trademark infringement.
> 

What do you suggest for domains that are used strictly for email, 
server hostnames and the myriad of uses other than the www?  The 
mistaken supposition that a domain is strictly for the web is part of 
the problem, IMO.

Gavin said:
 Electrical utilities' prices are regulated for the same reason.  Thus 
should the price of domains be regulated.  

Utilities are being de-regulated in the US.  However, there is no 
comparison between the domain name industry and utilities, IMO. 
Also, one does not need an SLD in order to exist on the web or to 
have access to it.  One does need electricity in order to live in 
modern society (at least in developed countries).  Domain names 
are a retail service - a commodity.  There is no shortage of them, 
especially with 500 + TLDs.  If you regulate domain names, you 
should regulate all service industries, retail industries, reseller 
programs, distribution industries...  Where would you stop?

While I am not a fan of speculation, necessarily, I would certainly 
not wish to prevent that industry from operating any more than I 
would wish to prevent competition in the ISP industry.  

- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 10:00:15 +0200
From: "Siegfried Langenbach" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Removal of Directors

On 8 Apr 01, at 11:57, 'Kent Crispin' wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 12:07:27PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > Further, Kent's comments are irrelevant.  The only reason it was not a
> > a majority of all the elected positions was because the conference did
> > not have all of the elected members there.
> 
> Doesn't matter what the reason.  The bylaws say a vote of all members, 
> not a vote of members present.  Fact.
> 

 welllllll,
 from a legal point of view you are right
 from a "spirit" point of view 9 against 5 in favor is something I 
personally would not oversee.
 from a practical point of view it shows that we should not elect NC-
members which are not able to handle proxies :-)

siegfried
> -- 
> 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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:25:13 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has advantage

What have we here?!?

Say, Gavin... are those .ORGS non-profit registrations?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual

Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 9:48 pm -0700 4/9/01, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Meanwhile, what does ICANN do about name-hoarders?  Nothing.
>
> First, we need to know what your definition of a "name-hoarder" is.
>
> Perhaps ICANN should knock on AutoDesk's door first and ask them what
> they're up to?
>
> MAPGUIDE.COM
> AUTOSKETCH.COM
> KTX.COM
> 3DSTUDIO.COM
> ACTIVESHAPES.COM
> SOFTDESK.COM
> AUTODESK.COM
> REDSPARK.COM
> VOLO.COM
> AUTOCAD2000.COM
> GEONETCOM2003.COM
> GEONETCOM.COM
> GEONETCOM2004.COM
> GEONETCOM2001.COM
> GEONETCOM99.COM
> GEONETCOM2000.COM
> GEONETCOM2002.COM
> 3DCAREERS.COM
> ONE2WHEREMARKETING.COM
> ONETOWHERE.COM
> ONE2WHERE.COM
> ONETOWHEREMARKETING.COM
> GISTEST.COM
> ACTIVESHAPE.COM
> MYAUTODESK.COM
> MYAUTOCAD.COM
> VIZABLE.COM
> ACTRIXFACILITIES.COM
> ACTRIXELECTRICAL.COM
> ACTRIXDIAGRAMS.COM
> ACTRIXTECHNICAL.COM
> ACTRIXDIAGRAMMING.COM
> ACTRIXFM.COM
> ACTRIXBUSINESS.COM
> VIZONLINE.COM
> MANUFACTURINGXML.COM
> CADDXML.COM
> DESIGNML.COM
> MFGXML.COM
> PLANETAUTODESK.COM
> EDESIGNTALK.COM
> IDESIGNTALK.COM
> AUTOCADMAPONLINE.COM
> MAPPINGONLINE.COM
> SPATIALXML.COM
> MAPWINDOWXML.COM
> AUTODESKMAPBOOK.COM
> EMAPBOOK.COM
> AUTODESKEMAPBOOK.COM
> LANDXML.COM
> PANSERVER.COM
> LLTEST.COM
> LSDEMO.COM
> THEDESK.COM
> AUTOCAD.COM
> AUTOCADLT.COM
> VISUALLISP.COM
> OBJECTARX.COM
> VISUALISP.COM
> ALISP.COM
> VLISP.COM
> OARX.COM
> GRIDNORTH.COM
> CADOVERLAY.COM
> AUTODESK-ECITY.COM
> STUDIODESK.COM
> KNOWLOCATE.COM
> KNOWLOCATION.COM
> LOCATIONNOW.COM
> LOCATIONOW.COM
> ACAD.NET
> GEONETCOM.NET
> LANDXML.NET
> ONETOWHEREMARKETING.NET
> ONETOWHERE.NET
> ONE2WHEREMARKETING.NET
> ONE2WHERE.NET
> VIZABLE.NET
> CADDXML.NET
> CADXML.NET
> MANUFACTURINGXML.NET
> DESIGNML.NET
> MFGXML.NET
> DESIGNTALK.NET
> EDESIGNTALK.NET
> IDESIGNTALK.NET
> SPATIALXML.NET
> PANSERVER.NET
> DESIGNXML.NET
> GEONETCOM.ORG
> LANDXML.ORG
> ONETOWHEREMARKETING.ORG
> ONE2WHERE.ORG
> ONETOWHERE.ORG
> ONE2WHEREMARKETING.ORG
> VIZABLE.ORG
> CADXML.ORG
> MANUFACTURINGXML.ORG
> DESIGNML.ORG
> MFGXML.ORG
> CADDXML.ORG
> DESIGNTALK.ORG
> EDESIGNTALK.ORG
> IDESIGNTALK.ORG
> SPATIALXML.ORG
> AUTODESK.ORG
> DESIGNXML.ORG
> MANUFACTURINGCOMMERCE.ORG
>
> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
>
> --
> 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

- --
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 #367
************************