Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #391
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, April 16 2001            Volume 01 : Number 391

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

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:10:20 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Atlantic Root's Disclaimer

On Monday, April 16, 2001 9:34 AM (AEST)
Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

> So in essence you are arguing that people are too stupid to read,
> shouldn't bear the burden of understanding what they are signing up for,
> and anyone offering these names even with a disclaimer in place is
> misleading consumers?

Thanks, Patrick.

I think Jeff Field has made some very good points that Leah Gallegos may want to
consider when marketing .biz.  He has kindly provided what some may think would
be an acceptable disclaimer.  Personally I agree that in a novel area like
non-ICANN domain names it is better to err on the side of caution in your
disclaimers.

However, what Leah disclaims is a matter for her own business judgement.  There
are processes in place where people aggrieved may complain.  Should these
processes be insufficient or unsatisfactory, that is a matter for a different
forum.

Whilst interesting in itself, the debate is a little diverting particularly when
the very existence of Atlantic Root's .biz is under threat.  The argument will
be moot if ARNI is rendered meaningless by its more powerful competitor, ICANN.

With thanks to the participants but I'd suggest that issue is exhausted and we
should now move the focus to the more relevant strategic question.

Best regards
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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:11:32 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 1:59 AM
|> To: [email-masked]'; Ga
|> Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML
|>
|>
|> Do you realize that you are arguing for the uncontrolled
|> fragmentation of the name space?
|>

The alternative name spaces introduced fragmentation when they set up
their name spaces outside of the legacy system.  We have had it some
time now.  It is a matter that will be resolved along competitive
marketing lines.  I do not see the alternative name spaces winning
out.  The approach has been too commercial in nature and not inclusive
enough of the larger user base.

However, if there is enough dissatisfaction with the legacy system the
alternative name spaces may be able to maintain a healthy market share
and remain viable.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 16 Apr 2001 10:21:04 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fracturing the Internet

Multilingual Top Level Domains
Available top level domains (TLD) in Arabic:
http://www.nativenames.net/english/whois/topleveldomains.asp

Here's an example of an approach that may fracture the internet.

Best regards
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:18:39 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [council] Collisions in Namespace

Erica:
Yes, I have a lot of thoughts on how we can provide guidance to a Working Group. My main concern at this point is simply to 

a) get the NC to recognize the need for pro-active policy formation on this matter

b) get the NC to realize the benefits to the community of approaching this potentially explosive and troublesome issue in an open and non-pre-emptive way.  

No time for extensive elaboration at the moment. But I suggest that we provide a WG with a very broad, relatively simple statement, such as:

"In authorizing new Top-level domains, how should ICANN relate to TLD strings that are already occupied by other root server systems? 

"Three basic options can be considered (though the WG may identify others): 
1. Ignore them regardless of potential technical and legaql conflicts
2. Avoid making any assignments that conflict with them
3. Enter into procedural or technical methods of coordinating with them or incorporating them into the ICANN root.

Identify and carefully evaluate the costs, risks, and benefits of each option."

As I said before, I think this kind of issue is perfect for an open working group. Let all the steam blow out and all the yelling and screaming take place there, and see if some minimal consensus points can emerge from it. If nothing emerges, that in itself is a useful finding, and we can report it to the Board. If they bring forward something stupid we'll find out when we put it up for public comment. And of course, there is some chance that something useful will come out of it.

>>> "Erica Roberts" <[email-masked]> 04/13/01 20:46 PM >>>
Hi Milton,
Folowing th election of Patrick Corliss to the GA Alt Chair, the relevance
of this topic is clear.  However, while I tend to agree with your comment
that:
,given enough time and some clear guidance, such a group might achieve some
consensus points that could bring about a temporary ceasefire .....
the key issue is the guidance that should be provided to such a TF.
Do you have any thoughts on this?

erica

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [council] Collisions in Namespace

> The problem of alternate or competing roots is a highly complex one. I
would support the idea of a new, open Working Group being convened on this
topic. I say this fully understanding that the debate on this topic often
takes the form of a religious war and that it is unlikely that any coherent
policy would come out of such a working group soon.
>
> However, there is some possibility that, given enough time and some clear
guidance, such a group might achieve some consensus points that could bring
about a temporary ceasefire, if not an end, to the war. And I see little
downside. At worst, the group will waste bandwidth and time and accomplish
nothing. At best, it might come up with some useful ideas. Why not give it a
try? The incremental cost of a new mailing list is pretty low.
>
>
>
> >>> "babybows.com" <[email-masked]> 04/12/01 17:26 PM >>>
> "Constituencies or GA participants may propose that
> the NC consider domain name policies or
> recommendations."
>
> As two principles addressed by the White Paper, stability and competition,
> have been raised in the course of this debate, and whereas the Department
of
> Commerce has previously expressed concern regarding any actions which may
> lead to the possibility of consumer "confusion", I now ask that the NC
> consider the ICANN domain name policy with repect to collision with names
> in the alternate root community.
>
>
>

- --
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 17:23:31 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

Hello Christopher,

Sunday, April 15, 2001, 4:30:02 PM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

>> > I run my own burger joint, until yesterday I have been screaming and yelling
>> > against McDonalds, but now I support them, I really think that they should
>> > let me operate in franchise, under their umbrella-organization, otherwise I
>> > will consider this an aggression!

> Not really.

> You've been running your own burger joint, marketing a burger called a
> "Roberto Special," and now McDonalds comes along and says, "starting
> next quarter, we're introducing the 'Roberto Special!'" You tell them that
> you're already doing that, and they say, "Who cares? We're bigger, you
> don't have a trademark, and we didn't know about you." You show them
> documentation in their own online forum for public comments where they
> were notified of you, and they just shut up.

> Can they do it? Yeah, guess so. Can you fight back? Yeah, you can.
> Will you win? Good question, hard to tell. But it'll be a bloody fight,
> that's for sure.

You are describing a second level domain situation, not a top level
domain situation.

- -- 
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 17:26:04 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

Hello Patrick,

Sunday, April 15, 2001, 4:34:13 PM, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> So in essence you are arguing that people are too stupid to read,
> shouldn't bear the burden of understanding what they are signing up for,
> and anyone offering these names even with a disclaimer in place is
> misleading consumers?

In all fairness, the FTC has decided in the past that the disclaimer
is not necessarily enough to protect from charges of misleading and/or
fraud.

Generally speaking, without commenting on any groups' specific
efforts and language, I'm all for more clearly worded descriptions.

- -- 
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 17:30:04 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WG direction.

> Maybe a WG on criteria and process for future expansion would make sense!
> But what you are proposing is a WG to throw away what has been done so far, 
> and restart again (in the best traditions of Internet Governance: when one 
> way or the other new TLDs are about to be added, opla', let's start all 
> over).

No, not "start over." More like "keep going."

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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 17:31:33 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

> You are describing a second level domain situation, not a top level
> domain situation.

Er, no. I'm not. I'm sorry that you didn't understand my analogy. 
That's the trouble with them, no? I must not have made myself
clear, it's certainly my fault.

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, 16 Apr 2001 10:49:39 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Demanding Inclusion

Hi David

> They are not, however, free to come back later and demand inclusion in the
> previous namespace.  That constitutes an attempt to claim retroactive
> authority over the previous namespace administrator.

Some people may have suggested that alternative TLDS should be recognised by
ICANN.  It is true that this is seen as one possible solution to the problem.
However you are overstating your case by saying that alternative TLDs have
"demanded inclusion".

Unless that demand has been made through the proper processes and by paying the
US $50,000 to do so ??

Please nominate which alternative TLDs have "demanded inclusion" by ICANN.  You
may wish to substantiate your claim with some supporting times, dates, places,
etc.

Regards
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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:57:18 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Fracturing the Internet

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked]
|> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> Patrick Corliss
|> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 10:21 AM
|> To: [GA]
|> Subject: [ga] Fracturing the Internet
|>
|>
|> Multilingual Top Level Domains
|> Available top level domains (TLD) in Arabic:
|> http://www.nativenames.net/english/whois/topleveldomains.asp
|>
|> Here's an example of an approach that may fracture the internet.

From
:http://www.nativenames.net/english/domains/policies/standards-warning
.asp
<QUOTE>
NativeNames is among the first pioneers to enter the arena of
multilingual domain names, and is among the first pioneers to support
languages of the Middle East, including Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu. As
with any pioneering efforts, there are dangers associated with being
first. The most important one which you, the domain name registrant,
need to be concerned about, is the evolution of standards regarding
domain names. Until the standards get hammered out and are ratified,
there is a chance of the same domain name being sold by different
companies. Should that happen with a domain that you purchase through
an affiliated registrar of NativeNames, NativeNames and that registrar
will make every good faith effort - God willing - to return any
prorated fees owed to you from the time of reporting to us of a
problem for the remaining part of your registration term.

Note that NativeNames, unlike many other registries, is virtually
unique in warning potential buyers. We are deeply concerned about
assuring you the best possible quality and service, and we appreciate
your business. Please also note that we are actively pursuing avenues
to minimize any potential problems. We are the first, and currently
the only, registry that is focusing on Mideastern languages. We also
hold a prominent role in the IETF's working group on Arabic domain
names (in fact, our COO is the chair of that group). We will do our
best to make sure that whoever you buy your domain name from, that
domain name is yours God willing.
<End QUOTE>

Wouldn't the above in the last paragraph indicate a conflict of
interest for being involved in this Registry and holding a chair in
the IETF working group?

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 16 Apr 2001 03:03:08 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, at 10:04 [=GMT+1000], Dassa wrote:

> There is not a single name space.  There are multiple name spaces that
> under the legacy system operate under a cooperative agreement. 

I would like to read that cooperative agreement.

> The
> alternative name spaces are not operating under that cooperative
> agreement and are in direct competition with it.  

Which cooperative agreement? Competing in what way? Don't they include
the so-called legacy name spaces?

> Pure and simple.

Is it? Tell me where I can read it.

- -- 
Marc Schneiders

"In re tam iusta nulla est deliberatio."
(Acta SS. Mart. Scillitanorum [AD 202]) 

- --
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:03:29 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [council] Collisions in Namespace

Some more items of guidance: we could also specify things the WG should NOT do.

Such as:
The WG is NOT intended to rule on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of any particular claim to TLD strings. 
(That's a rathole we don't need to go down.)

>>> "Erica Roberts" <[email-masked]> 04/13/01 20:46 PM >>>
Hi Milton,
Following th election of Patrick Corliss to the GA Alt Chair, the relevance
of this topic is clear.  However, while I tend to agree with your comment
that:
,given enough time and some clear guidance, such a group might achieve some
consensus points that could bring about a temporary ceasefire .....
the key issue is the guidance that should be provided to such a TF.
Do you have any thoughts on this?

- --
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, 16 Apr 2001 11:18:04 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

On Sunday, April 15, 2001 1:30 AM (AEST)
Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:30:14 +0200 (MET DST)
Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

Hi Roberrto

> It will all depend on where people will register.
> Are you assuming that the vast majority will register with the TLD in the
> "legacy" system? Interesting assumption!

I'd be the first to admit that the alt roots haven't gained public support for
many reasons.  I see the whole situation as similar to the Medical Associations
and alternative medicine like acupuncture, chiropracters, naturopathy and
iridology.  Some are charlatans and snakes but they still have a lot to offer in
helping improve people's health.

> If, OTOH, people will stay with the "alternate" system, I don't see why the
> alternate roots will be killed.

Of course.  As you say they won't.  Or, at least, they are not likely to.

> I don't understand this.
> How does the Neustar/ICANN .biz change the situation for users/ISPs who
> chose to "enhance" their settings and point to the alternate roots? Those
> people will continue seeing the AtlanticRoot .biz, and would not even know
> that USG has added .biz.

I'd guess that most alt roots copy the ICANN zone file and add a few extra or
supplementary TLDs of their own.  Rather than calling it "inclusive" you could
just as easily call it "supplementary" as it supplements ICANN with more TLDs.

It just adds to the confusion to pick and choose TLDs from the ICANN list.
Personally I don't see it as much of a problem.  Roeland doesn't like the idea
much.

> The decision would not "destroy" the business: the business will collapse if
> registrants will massively register in ICANN's .biz and not in AR's .biz,
> while it will stay healthy if things happen the other way around.

True.

> It is true that USG should not destroy a business, but should also not be
> obliged to rescue a business that goes belly up due to competition.

Unfair competition is illegal in Australia, Roberto.

> If you want to argue that this is a bully attitude from ICANN, that may be
> true, but OTOH there has been no bid by AR for .biz (contrary to IOD's bet
> for .web), so I don't see what could ICANN have done. Reserve it for future
> use, maybe?

That's why I'm trying to do - work out how best to address the problem !!!

> >[IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
> >encouraged to seek legal advice. ]
>
> Maybe the disclaimer is a good idea. I would assume that the whole thing
> will end up in court, like just about everything in your part of the world
> ;>)

THAT is not the best solution to the problem, imo.

Regards
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:17:17 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Fracturing the Internet

At 10:57 am +1000 4/16/01, Dassa wrote:
>Wouldn't the above in the last paragraph indicate a conflict of
>interest for being involved in this Registry and holding a chair in
>the IETF working group?

This whole mess is one gigantic conflict of interest, isn't it Dave?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:35:51 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

Hi Roberto

> I will fight for their rights to run alternate roots, *not* their supposed
> right to get into the root co-ordinated by somebody else.

You don't really believe that ICANN could charge US $50,000 to recommend adding
a TLD string into a root server if it wasn't an abuse or misuse of their
monopoly power.

In other words, why else would ICANN have the power to make you pay.

> But this not because they are good or bad: because otherwise everybody will
> feel authorized to wake up one nice morning, and claim an ASCII string (and
> soon Unicode string) as proprietary and, in name of the sacred principles,
> be allowed in the root.

Your argument is simply stating the problem we are all (or, at least, most of
us) are familiar with.  But the way you are arguing is supporting the monopoly
power position.  For a humane, internet-savvy person, it is not a good argument.

Wouldn't you like to see a low-cost TLD for charities, NGOs, etc.?  Why should
everything be under the control of a single omnipotent, all-conquering  ICANN?

Personally I like to see a bit of diversity in my life.  And varieties other
than vanilla.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

I'm sure this is five by now.

- --
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 18:58:32 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Demanding Inclusion

> Some people may have suggested that alternative TLDS should be recognised by
> ICANN.  It is true that this is seen as one possible solution to the problem.
> However you are overstating your case by saying that alternative TLDs have
> "demanded inclusion".
> 
> Unless that demand has been made through the proper processes and by paying the
> US $50,000 to do so ??

Apparently, not even then.

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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:16:01 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

Hello Christopher,

Sunday, April 15, 2001, 5:31:33 PM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

>> You are describing a second level domain situation, not a top level
>> domain situation.

> Er, no. I'm not. I'm sorry that you didn't understand my analogy. 
> That's the trouble with them, no? I must not have made myself
> clear, it's certainly my fault.

You were clear.

But the premise is incorrect.

There are no trademarks at the TLD level.  The exact naming of the
burger is at the second level.

- -- 
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:29:13 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

Yes Roberto, I agree and I apologize to everyone.

Considering the past history (and this is my last post today, honest), this
topic generates voluminous amounts of email. I might submit the following
rule, for INCLUSION REGARDING such a WG;

Limit to three posts per member, per day.
	Position - Opinion on a point
	Rebuttal - Defense of same
	Summary  - Concluding opinion.

> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 3:17 PM
> 
> You realize that there are too many messages when people usually very 
> attentive like Roeland just read the first sentence of a message ;>)
> 
> Roeland Meyer wrote:
> >
> >John is sandbagging everyone here. He's been involved at 
> least 4 years,
> >maybe six. Check NSI DOMAIN-POLICY archives.
> >
> >John, quit playing around and get serious.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Charles Broomfield [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 8:31 PM
> > > To: [email-masked]
> > > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked];
> > > [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Bradley,
> > > 	Thanks for all those nice pointers in the right
> > > direction. I really
> > > needed them. I'll make a note of checking the O'reilly book.
> > > Just new around
> > > here. Also thanks for all of your lessons. If you'll 
> forward me your
> > > consulting rates for formation I'll have a look at them.
> > >
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > > Yours, John Broomfield.
> > >
> > > P.S. For those that are new on the scene, but most of the
> > > oldies knew it
> > > anyway, the first paragraph in my message is 100% JCB sarcasm.
> > >
> 
> 
> Welcome back, John Charles - how's life in the DOMs?
- --
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:52:59 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

> There are no trademarks at the TLD level.  The exact naming of the
> burger is at the second level.

Tell that to .AOL.

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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:04:35 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

Hello Christopher,

Sunday, April 15, 2001, 7:52:59 PM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

>> There are no trademarks at the TLD level.  The exact naming of the
>> burger is at the second level.

> Tell that to .AOL.

There is no .aol

- -- 
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:15:00 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Demanding Inclusion

Hello Christopher,

Sunday, April 15, 2001, 6:58:32 PM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

>> Some people may have suggested that alternative TLDS should be recognised by
>> ICANN.  It is true that this is seen as one possible solution to the problem.
>> However you are overstating your case by saying that alternative TLDs have
>> "demanded inclusion".
>> 
>> Unless that demand has been made through the proper processes and by paying the
>> US $50,000 to do so ??

> Apparently, not even then.

Since when as an "application" and "application fee" been defined as a
guarantee of approval?

- -- 
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:32:13 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

> There is no .aol

Do you deliberately choose to be obtuse?

Let me ask you differently, then. If there is no trademark
protection at the top-level, do you feel that it would be
appropriate for Earthlink to apply and run .AOL? 

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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:44:38 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[8]: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

Hello Christopher,

Sunday, April 15, 2001, 8:32:13 PM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

>> There is no .aol

> Do you deliberately choose to be obtuse?

> Let me ask you differently, then. If there is no trademark
> protection at the top-level, do you feel that it would be
> appropriate for Earthlink to apply and run .AOL? 

I don't think it would be appropriate the TLD to exist.  The term is
too closely associated with a truly famous mark.

By the same argument I used prior, the AOL portion needs to be moved
to the second level.  The top level is the space for the generic,
non-trademarkable namespace.

- -- 
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:09:28 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[8]: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

> I don't think it would be appropriate the TLD to exist.  The term is
> too closely associated with a truly famous mark.

Appropriate?! Sir, this is *technical coordination.* There's no
"appropriate" involved! You say that trademarks don't matter
at the top level, and then you say it's not appropriate because
of one.

Make up your mind! Do trademarks play a role in the top
level or don't they? You're going to say that famous marks
are *specifically prohibited* from the top-level? On what
grounds?

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, 16 Apr 2001 14:19:57 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Excessive Postings

Hi Everybody

I can see this particular issue taking quite a few more postings to resolve.
For the sake of list decorum,  perhaps we should all try to keep to our five
postings per day limit.

Meanwhile I'd ask the Chair Elect to call for volunteers to act as List Monitor.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss
Co-Chair Elect

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Ambler <[email-masked]>
To: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

> > There is no .aol
>
> Do you deliberately choose to be obtuse?
>
> Let me ask you differently, then. If there is no trademark
> protection at the top-level, do you feel that it would be
> appropriate for Earthlink to apply and run .AOL?
>
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #391
************************