Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #430
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Wednesday, May 2 2001            Volume 01 : Number 430

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

Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 12:11:31 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Clarification] Rules for seats at the Names Council

Re: [ga] History [was: Complications]

The ICANN Bylaws set rules for the DNSO with regard to companies
representation and geographic diversity on the Names Council.
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm

|   Article VI-B, Section 2: THE NAMES COUNCIL
|   
|     (g) No more than one officer, director or employee of a corporation
|         or other organization (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) 
|         shall serve on the NC at any given time.
|   
|   Article VI-B, Section 3: THE CONSTITUENCIES
|   
|     (c) Each Constituency shall select up to three individuals to 
|         represent that Constituency on the NC, no two of whom may 
|         be citizens of the same Geographic Region, as defined in 
|         Article V, Section 6, except that, with the consent of the Board, 
|         this latter requirement may be suspended for the term of 
|         a particular individual upon a showing that it is impracticable 
|         for the Constituency to obtain such geographic diversity. 
|         Any such waiver shall be granted only upon a commitment by 
|         the constituency to a substantive plan to diversify its 
|         membership, thereby minimizing the likelihood of the need 
|         for future waivers from the Board. Notwithstanding the 
|         foregoing, no Constituency may have more representatives on 
|         the NC than there are members of the Constituency.

Since the orgin of the DNSO these rules has been enforced
three times:

(1)
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the IPC and Business Constituencies, applying (VI-B-2-g):
cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/announce/Arc00/msg00015.html
cf. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc00/msg00054.html

11 Jul 1999:
<...>
In Berlin, May 25th 1999, two MCI WorldCom employees had been
elected:
      Susan Anthony     (Trademark, intellectual property, 
                         anti-counterfeiting interests)
      Theresa Swinehart (Commercial and business entities)

ICANN's formal request advised MCI WorldCom that the ICANN Board 
had determined that no more than one employee, officer or director 
of a company may serve on the Names Council at any one time, 
regardless of the constituency the board member might represent.

Pursuant to a formal request by the ICANN CEO, Michael Roberts, on
behalf of the ICANN Board, MCI WorldCom has decided to withdraw
Susan Anthony from serving on the provisional Names Council (pNC) 
representing the International Trademark Association (INTA). 
The new INTA representative is Caroline Chicoine, an attorney
with the law firm of Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin in St. Louis,
Missouri, USA.

On the 9th of July 1999 Susan Anthony sent the notification of this 
change to the Names Council. Effective immediately.
The corresponding changes were done on the dnso.org site.

(2)
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the gTLD Constituency, applying (VI-B-2-g):
cf. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc00/msg00204.html

29 Aug 1999:
Update of members in the [email-masked] list according
to ICANN Board decisions:
<...>
 2. deleted 2 former members of the gTLDC (ICANN meeting, August 12)
    "David R. Johnson" <[email-masked]>
    "Phil Sbarbaro" <[email-masked]>

(3)
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the ccTLD Constituency, applying (VI-B-3-c):
cf. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc02/msg00198.html

<...>
RESOLVED [99-__] that in recognizing the ccTLD Registries Constituency the
Board  shortens the term on the Names Council of Nigel Roberts to expire
January 15, 2000, and consents to suspend the geographic diversity
requirement of Article VI-B, Section 3(c)of the ICANN Bylaws as applied to
the ccTLD Registries Constituency, for the period of Nigel Roberts' term,
subject to the Board promptly receiving a written commitment from the ccTLD
Registries Constituency to comply with the geographic diversity requirement
as set forth in Art. VI-B, Sec. 3(c) of the ICANN Bylaws from and after that
date.
<...>

>>> The ccTLD Constituency had only 2 seats on the NC until 4 June 2000,
    when Nii Quaynor' election get notified to the Names Council.
    cf. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00684.html

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

DNSO Secretariat

- --
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, 01 May 2001 20:15:58 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

At 11:07 30/04/01 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 06:13 AM 4/30/2001, babybows.com wrote:
>>   How can we solve this problem of inadequate representation
>
>The primary test of a serious constituency is its ability to self-organize.
>

"Serious" constituencies are then primarily those with a "serious"
financial interest in the DN registration business. 
Those who do not have that, such as the Non-commercial or the Individuals
constituencies have a big hurdle to overcome.
Not even being "recognized in principle" by the Board makes the hurdle even
greater.

How easy to make them fail this test by simple financial exhaustion.

>To solve the problem of inadequate representation, a constituency needs to 
>organize itself well enough to be representative.
>
Let us think about this for a moment. 
The representativeness comes from how well the constituency is organized?  
What does this mean? A Charter that is democratic? A mission statement that
attracts individuals or organizations of similar interests? 

Absence of internal strife? 

It would be most helpful if you could elaborate.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org  

- --
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, 01 May 2001 20:25:16 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

At 16:38 30/04/01 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>Another possible form of representation would be to grant domain name 
>owners one vote per registered domain name in a totally-integrated "domian 
>name owners' constituency". 

This is the compromise solution I have argued for in the WG-review.
Leaving aside the "tax" issue, the Business, Non-Commercial and Individuals
Constituencies could group together as such.
The issue is then the number of seats such a Constituency should hold in
the NC.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
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, 1 May 2001 08:03:55 -0400 
From: "Cochetti, Roger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO funding and the NCDNHC

Milton-

Your comment about my goals or motives is so far off base as to be almost
humorous.

I happen to be a strong supporter of the continued active participation in
the Names Council and the DNSO of the non-commercial constituency and (in
previous incarnations when ICANN was being formed) was one of those who
strongly advocated (and still advocates) a constituency group for the
non-profit sector.

Moreover, I happen to be an active participant in and supporter of quite a
few non-commercial organizations; all of whom I think should be free to
participate in the work of the DNSO if they choose to do so.  In fact, I
think I've done as much as anyone to help the non-profit sector take
advantage of the Internet and participate in the work of ICANN.

Roger  

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Monday, April 30, 2001 5:51 PM
To:	Milton Mueller
Cc:	[email-masked]; Roger Cochetti; icann board address; vinton g. cerf -
ISOC; ICANN-EU
Subject:	Re: [ga] DNSO funding and the NCDNHC

Milton and all assembly members,

Milton Mueller wrote:

> I want to clarify certain aspects of this issue.
>
> As a general principle, I believe that the Non-commercial constituency
should contribute what it can to the support of the DNSO secretariat. It can
and will contribute significantly more than it has.

  I am sure that the ICANN BoD will find this to be a positive sign.  At
least
let's hope they will....  One never knows with the BoD.

>
>
> We've been addressing this issue in the NCC since January, e.g. by
preparing to impose specific membership fees and other fundraising
activities.
>
> We have two objections to the way this is being done.
>
> 1. We are not a pre-existing organization. We were thrown together late in
1999 by the creation of the DNSO. The NCDNHC is simply larger, and more
heterogeneous in composition, than any other constituency, with the ccTLDs
possibly excepted, and has the fewest resources. We need more time to get
the organizational and funding issues resolved. This obvious fact is not
being taken into account by certain members of the NC.

  As you know, the NC in general has been negatively influenced from the
usual
parties/individuals, Milton.  So it should be of little surprise that the
DNSO NC
has taken a predominantly negative view of the NCDNHC.

>
>
> 2. We don't make money off domain names. Unlike every other constituency,
including the ccTLDs. Indeed, there is no significant connection between the
legitimacy of a constituency and its ability to raise money.

  Agreed in your last sentence here Milton.  And a significant but often
overlooked fact.

> We all know that the so-called gTLD "constituency" is not a real or
legitimate constituency at all. It's just one company. It's ability to pay
its share of the $15k has nothing to do with the quality or legitimacy of
its input into DNSO policy processes - it simply reflects the fact that NSI
was given a very lucrative government monopoly some years ago.

  Good point here as well, and one that seems often overlooked as well.  I
refer
to this a nepotism in its ugliest form.

>
>
> This fact, too, has not been taken account of by certain members of the
NC. They have consistently rejected requests by NCDNHC for a smaller
contribution.

  Yes.  And as such it seems fairly obvious that certain members of the DNSO
NC would wish to eliminate the NCDNHC's voice in the DNSO through pricing.

>
>
> The conclusion I come to is that certain members, particularly Cochetti,
wants very badly to eliminate certain members of the NC.

  Yes, this would seem more than obvious to us as well...

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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 08:26:10 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Contracts

The registrar community is actively reviewing the language in the new
contracts.   If the GA has concerns as well, now is the time to be bring
them forth.   I have previously raised a concern over the sanctions program,
and for a need for the DNSO to be involved in the revision of sanctions if
it becomes necessary to reign in an abusive registry.  Below is one post of
many that reflects the concerns of registrars, and alludes to abusive
Registry practices that may be just over the horizon:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00536.html

I dug out the original application for .biz that the ICANN board approved.
It can be found at http://www.icann.org/tlds/biz4/BIZ_TOC.html    The
section regarding registrars is posted below.

I would suggest that Neulevel may not be following their proposal.  I think
from the information below, it is clear that Neulevel wishes to be a
"neutral third-party provider" and that "Domain-name holders will deal with
the registry through registrars. The registry will avoid direct
relationships with domain name holders in order to ensure its continued
neutrality.".

I think it is fairly clear that this statement is NOT being practiced.
Neulevel has instituted 2 services (the trademark signup and the
registry-lock)  that do not go through a registrar, but in fact, users can
go directly to Neulevel for.

I think ICANN needs to take a hard look at the original proposal that was
submitted to them and approved by the board.  These proposed contracts seem
to be in contravention of that proposal.

I, for one, am against allowing a registry to deal directly with our clients
on any level.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

I.4 registrars (RFP Section E4)

JVTeam will operate the registry as a neutral third-party provider.
Consistent with neutrality requirements, however, JVTeam will follow
existing policy models for registry-registrar relations. This approach will
ensure that the Internet Community perceives JVTeam as a trusted, unbiased
provider of core Internet DNS functionality while providing the registry and
registrar industries with consistent, well-known, and stable business models
for operation and use of the new TLD.

Among the most important aspects of the JVTeam neutrality policy will be the
registry's relationship with registrars. As noted above, the registry
controls a vital input in the DNS industry - the names themselves. As a
result, any favoritism or unfair treatment, perceived or real, of one
registrar over another may harm significantly competition in the DNS
industry. Therefore, JVTeam has taken strong steps to ensure that registrars
are presented with a level playing field with respect to the provisioning of
registry services.

In order to ensure a level playing field, a truly neutral registry operator,
and the continued open, stable and technically consistent operation of the
Internet, JVTeam proposes largely to follow the existing guidelines for
registry/registrar relations established by ICANN for the .com, .net, and
.org registries. This approach will ensure that the industry model will be
well established and familiar to registries, registrars and consumers. Such
stability and consistency in the models used for the introduction of new
TLDs will prove highly beneficial to a successful "proof of concept" because
ICANN will have relevant reference points in existing TLDs.

Will domain name holders deal through registrars, directly with the registry
operator, or some combination of the two?

Domain-name holders will deal with the registry through registrars. The
registry will avoid direct relationships with domain name holders in order
to ensure its continued neutrality. A neutral third-party operator such as
JVTeam must not be perceived as competing with its customers (i.e., the
registrars in this case) and therefore JVTeam will not deal directly on a
customer-provider basis with the domain name holder. Moreover, this approach
preserves established DNS business models and will increase DNS competition
at the registrar level.

What are the respective roles, functions, and responsibilities for the
registry operator and registrars?

As the registry operator, JVTeam will be responsible for the provision of
high-quality, efficient and neutral TLD registry services including
registration and Whois services and database management services. The
registrars will be responsible for domain name holder registrations,
customer relations, and additional services.

JVTeam's strict adherence to the registry Code of Conduct discussed above
will ensure that no registrar is treated unfairly vis-à-vis JVTeam services
and that no registrar or group of registrars will be able to unduly
influence JVTeam's operations and services. Under this model, the registrars
will be responsible for all consumer/end-user relations and the registry
will be responsible for the fair, efficient, and high-quality technical
operation of the registry itself. Thus the registry maintains unquestioned
neutrality and can implement, so long as technically feasible, any registrar
policy adopted by ICANN for the benefit of the Internet community.

Unlike the existing registry, however, JVTeam proposes to operate a "fat"
registry. This "fat" registry will centralize the databases normally
associated with the registry but typically operated separately by each
registrar. The decentralized approach is inefficient, requiring significant
duplication of efforts and resources. JVTeam intends to eliminate such
duplications and, using the associated economies of scale, reduce the costs
of DNS services to the registrars.

- --
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, 1 May 2001 08:58:06 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 04:38:30PM +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> Another possible form of representation would be to grant domain name 
> owners one vote per registered domain name in a totally-integrated "domian 
> name owners' constituency".

That would grant 531400 votes to netzero, inc(*), and would radically bias 
the voting.

It would also heavily weigh things even more in favor of speculators. 
(Domain name issues are of direct economic importance to speculators, so
they devote considerable energy to domain name issues.)

(*) from an email on the domain-policy list by ellen rony:

top 5 domain name holders:

NetZero, Los Gatos, CA                  531,400 (as of Jul-00)
Coventry Investment, Ltd, Miami, FL     200,425 (Jul-00)
Name Demo, New York, NY                 220,000 (Jan-00)
Market Development Corp, MD             124,450 (Jan-00)
24HourNames                             106,150 (Jan-00)
                        TOTAL:        1,182,425

- -- 
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, 01 May 2001 10:49:45 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

What would the ratio be if they were only *Hosted* domains?

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 10:58
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Suspension of Voting Rights

On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 04:38:30PM +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> Another possible form of representation would be to grant domain name
> owners one vote per registered domain name in a totally-integrated "domian
> name owners' constituency".

That would grant 531400 votes to netzero, inc(*), and would radically bias
the voting.

It would also heavily weigh things even more in favor of speculators.
(Domain name issues are of direct economic importance to speculators, so
they devote considerable energy to domain name issues.)

(*) from an email on the domain-policy list by ellen rony:

top 5 domain name holders:

NetZero, Los Gatos, CA                  531,400 (as of Jul-00)
Coventry Investment, Ltd, Miami, FL     200,425 (Jul-00)
Name Demo, New York, NY                 220,000 (Jan-00)
Market Development Corp, MD             124,450 (Jan-00)
24HourNames                             106,150 (Jan-00)
                        TOTAL:        1,182,425

- --
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-full" 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, 01 May 2001 08:54:33 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

> It would also heavily weigh things even more in favor of speculators.
> (Domain name issues are of direct economic importance to speculators, so
> they devote considerable energy to domain name issues.)

So do registries and registrars, but they get their own constituency. If
these folks were at all interested in participating, I think they could make
a compelling case for their own representation on the Names Council. Those
numbers represent at least as significant an investment in infrastructure as
many registrars make. No matter how you define "stakeholder," those folks
matter. 

       -- Bret
 
> (*) from an email on the domain-policy list by ellen rony:
> 
> top 5 domain name holders:
> 
> NetZero, Los Gatos, CA                  531,400 (as of Jul-00)
> Coventry Investment, Ltd, Miami, FL     200,425 (Jul-00)
> Name Demo, New York, NY                 220,000 (Jan-00)
> Market Development Corp, MD             124,450 (Jan-00)
> 24HourNames                             106,150 (Jan-00)
>                       TOTAL:        1,182,425

- --
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, 1 May 2001 18:00:30 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Clarification] NO CROSS POSTING practices on the DNSO server

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

1 May 2001.

This is the summary of NO CROSS POSTING practices implemented
on the DNSO server.

A. NO CROSS POSTING Rules - implementation for the DNSO GA lists
    (Main List and Specific Purposes Lists):

   1. The no cross posting apply to ALL GA lists as well as
      several well known other lists.
   2. The end user (and maths) perspective prevails: if a person
      subscribe to List-One, but NOT to List-Two, he/she does not
      wish to get an e-mail from List-Two.
   3. It was suggested each list to appoint a "rapporteur"
      to provide periodic updates to the Main List.

B. NO CROSS POSTING Rules - implementation for NC WGs lists:

   1. The no cross posting apply to ALL WGs lists.
   2. The end user (and maths) perspective prevails: if a person
      subscribe to List-One, but NOT to List-Two, he/she does not
      wish to get an e-mail from List-Two.
   3. Each WGs has two Co-Chairs, one from the NC and one elected
      by the group. The NC Co-Chair acts as liaison with the NC.

C. POSTING Rules for the NC lists
    (Main List and Specific Purposes Lists):

   1. Only the NC members, DNSO Secretariat and Scribe, ICANN Board
      and Staff, and the GA Chair and Alternate Chair are allowed
      to post to the Names Council lists.
   2. The NC Working Groups shall communicate with the NC through
      "liaison co-Chair", who is the NC member.
   3. The GA shall communicate with the NC through Chair or Alternate
      Chair.
   4. The NC may decide to adapt these posting rules at any time.

D. POSTING Rules for the special purpose [email-masked] list:

   1. Only the DNSO Secretariat may write to [email-masked] list.

EASY TO REMEMBER:
   1. In summary: more CC and To, less chances it gets to any of list.
   2. If somebody is member to many lists and wishes to share some
      topic with any of them he/she shall write to all of them separately.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
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, 01 May 2001 15:02:35 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [process2] Re: [ga] WIPO's Best Practices for ccTLDs

I gave it a small effort and could not find authority for this comment.  Would
someone be so kind as to point me toward it?

At first I was going to end it there but then, I looked a little more and now I
add that I bet no one can because it is not true.

Sincerely,

"John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." wrote:

> No, you are mistaken.  WIPO also has responsibility for protection of public
> health and safety.  As noted in the report on the subject of INNs, there is
> NO intellectual property interest at stake.  The interim report specifically
> states that protection of INNs is within WIPO's mandate to protect public
> health and safety.
>
> John
>
> From: "Kornellius" <[email-masked]>
>
> IMHO, I understand that WIPO has a very particular role in this entire
> situation, which is safeguarding the interests and rights of the intellectual
> property community.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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, 01 May 2001 15:11:29 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Appendix U

Do either of you fine gentlemen have a reason, other than competition with other
TLDs, for this agreement you have reached?

Why should ICANN care about how well New.net does unless we have reached a bottoms
up consensus that we want to compete against it rather than cooperate with it and
fulfill our contract with the DoC?

This whole line of thought is tantamount to agreeing to breach our contract.

Sincerely,

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Kent,
>
> Monday, April 30, 2001, 10:25:55 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >> At a time when organizations like New.net are entering many new TLDs into
> >> the market and solidifying relationships with ISPs, we need to be concerned
> >> about actions on our part that would further delay the entry of future ICANN
> >> TLDs.
>
> > We need to be more concerned about the quick introduction of the
> > already approved ones.
>
> On this point, I must wholeheartedly agree with Kent.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh
> mailto:[email-masked]
> Owner, Userfriendly.com
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 00:12:11 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [process2] Re: [ga] WIPO's Best Practices for ccTLDs

[ cc: <[email-masked]> suppressed, I am not on that list ]

Greetings,

I have been assisting at WIPO2 presentation and debate in Brussels
on 23rd of April.

The Second WIPO process is to protect public names for public interest.

The Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process has
now been published for comment. It is available at
http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/rfc/rfc3/index.htm

Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --

> From [email-masked] Wed May  2 00:00 MET 2001
> Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 15:02:35 -0700
> From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [process2] Re: [ga] WIPO's Best Practices for ccTLDs
> To: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Kornellius <[email-masked]>, Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>,
>         "[GA]" <[email-masked]>, Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>,
>         wipop2 <[email-masked]>
> Message-id: <[email-masked]>
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> X-Accept-Language: en
> 
> I gave it a small effort and could not find authority for this comment.  Would
> someone be so kind as to point me toward it?
> 
> At first I was going to end it there but then, I looked a little more and now I
> add that I bet no one can because it is not true.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." wrote:
> 
> > No, you are mistaken.  WIPO also has responsibility for protection of public
> > health and safety.  As noted in the report on the subject of INNs, there is
> > NO intellectual property interest at stake.  The interim report specifically
> > states that protection of INNs is within WIPO's mandate to protect public
> > health and safety.
> >
> > John
> >
> > From: "Kornellius" <[email-masked]>
> >
> > IMHO, I understand that WIPO has a very particular role in this entire
> > situation, which is safeguarding the interests and rights of the intellectual
> > property community.
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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
> 
> 

- --
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, 1 May 2001 20:33:27 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Contracts

Unlike what the previous post implies, Neulevel is only offering the "lock" 
service through Registrars and their initial IP service is for "IP Owners," 
not "domain name holders."

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

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

Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 10:15:16 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

At 08:58 1/05/01 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>That would grant 531400 votes to netzero, inc(*), and would radically bias 
>the voting.
>

Nobody has ever said that votes should be proportionate to the number of
Domain Names held.
A strawman argument if I ever saw one.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
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, 1 May 2001 19:33:00 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:15:16AM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 08:58 1/05/01 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> >That would grant 531400 votes to netzero, inc(*), and would radically bias 
> >the voting.
> >
> 
> Nobody has ever said that votes should be proportionate to the number of
> Domain Names held.
> A strawman argument if I ever saw one.

Sorry, you should read more carefully.  Harald said, in the message I
was replying to, the following:

    Another possible form of representation would be to grant domain
    name owners one vote per registered domain name in a
    totally-integrated "domian name owners' constituency". 

Note carefully:  he said "one vote per registered domain name".

- -- 
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, 1 May 2001 22:26:06 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

On 1 May 2001, at 19:33, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:15:16AM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > At 08:58 1/05/01 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > 
> > >That would grant 531400 votes to netzero, inc(*), and would radically bias 
> > >the voting.
> > >
> > 
> > Nobody has ever said that votes should be proportionate to the number of
> > Domain Names held.
> > A strawman argument if I ever saw one.
> 
> Sorry, you should read more carefully.  Harald said, in the message I
> was replying to, the following:
> 
>     Another possible form of representation would be to grant domain
>     name owners one vote per registered domain name in a
>     totally-integrated "domian name owners' constituency". 
> 
> Note carefully:  he said "one vote per registered domain name".

And that means an entity that has 400,000 registered domains has 
400,000 votes.

> 
> -- 
> 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-full" 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, 01 May 2001 20:34:32 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

No Mr. Crispin you should read what you quote more carefully;
" in a totally-integrated "domian name owners' constituency"."

Your lust for oneupmanship led you astray that time and now you play the fool.

Loneliness is a drink best shared with company old sir lest you forget to run
your thoughts by your dog before making them public. (ed2001)

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:15:16AM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > At 08:58 1/05/01 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > >That would grant 531400 votes to netzero, inc(*), and would radically bias
> > >the voting.
> > >
> >
> > Nobody has ever said that votes should be proportionate to the number of
> > Domain Names held.
> > A strawman argument if I ever saw one.
>
> Sorry, you should read more carefully.  Harald said, in the message I
> was replying to, the following:
>
>     Another possible form of representation would be to grant domain
>     name owners one vote per registered domain name in a
>     totally-integrated "domian name owners' constituency".
>
> Note carefully:  he said "one vote per registered domain name".
>
> --
> 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 #430
************************