Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #484
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Thursday, May 24 2001            Volume 01 : Number 484

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:05:25 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: Invitation

- -----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 4:58 AM
To: babybows.com
Subject: Re: Invitation

Danny,

We seem to be running into areas of duplication here.

A presentation of the NC bus plan takes place in the public forum during the
NC meeting  - this is its proper place. The audience for the GA and NC are
likely to be a similar group. I shall also be reporting on this at the ICANN
Board public session.

I will of course be happy to attend the GA as usual but it should be a forum
for discussion not reports.

Whether NC members attend the GA or not is up to them but they are expected
to attend the NC - so it would still be good to have you come and talk to
us. Please confirm.
Philip

- --
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, 23 May 2001 09:49:26 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN is well aware that "multiple roots are possible and coming."

From:   http://www.lextext.com/icann/index.html

ccTLD Minutes From Melbourne. The ccTLD constituency posted its minutes from
two recent meetings yesterday, continuing its excellent practice of
providing detailed minutes that ascribe statements to specific persons. The
notes are too detailed to summarize here, but a couple of points were
especially interesting.

The minutes from the ccTLDs meetings in Melbourne show that a consensus
funding model for ICANN is still difficult to find. For example, the
representative from .uk, one of the largest ccTLDs, stated that his registry
would never sign a contract with ICANN that tied funding to numbers of
domain name registrations. As to what the ccTLDs are receiving in return for
their payments, many stated that the contract should be a fee for
services -- specifically root service.

On the subject of root service, one interesting exchange revealed that ICANN
is well aware that "multiple roots are possible and coming." Part of the
value proposition pitched to the ccTLDs for signing contracts with ICANN was
that they would help make ICANN's "a legitimate root," which the internet
community could rely on "as a domain name system starting point."

The ccTLDs also posted the minutes from their May 3rd AdCom meeting,
including the agenda for their upcoming meetings in Stockholm May 31st and
June 1st.
- -- May 23, 2001 --

/Bruce

- --
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, 23 May 2001 09:25:58 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: Stability of the Internet?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 9:22 AM
> To: [email-masked]'; Roeland Meyer
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Stability of the Internet?
> 
> 
> > From: [email-masked]
> > [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 4:02 PM
> > 
> > > Since INT is for intenational treaty organization, the use 
> > of INT internally
> > > would create a collision. Thereby, masking the entire INT 
> > TLD from the
> > > clueless org that did that. In past /ICANN/DNSO discussions 
> > it has been
> > > suggested, that we reserve a LOCAL or PRIVATE TLD for 
> > internal use only. Let
> > > me know what y'all think and which one y'all prefer. My 
> > personal preference
> > > is for both (three tiered <Internet>/Local/Private). The 
> > next question is;
> > > should this be an RFC?
> > 
> > 
> > 	INT was originally earmarked for multinational 
> > organizations. It 
> > 	was then inclusive of INTernet infrastructure and only 
> > later was 
> > 	the multinational charter clarified to restrict these groups to 
> > 	international treaty organizations.
> > 	
> > 	There is work being done in the IETF to create such a private
> > 	use TLD.
> 
> Where? Also, this may bring on a jurisdiction issue with 
> ICANN/DNSO. It is the ICANN that is recommending new TLDs to 
> the DOC, not the IETF. In order tfor that effort to comply 
> with WIP process, it should make attempts to surface within 
> relevent ICANN activity as well. Otherwise, ICANN doesn't 
> know about it and can't make appropriate recommendations. I'm 
> very much involved in that area and they are invisible to 
> every one, in the DNSO. This effects the open/transparent 
> process and if they don't want to catch a LOT of political 
> flak (consider this fair-warning), they need to widen the 
> visibility of their effort. This effects ICANN policy 
> directly and IETF isn't a policy org. They are a PSO, not a DNSO.
> 
> -- 
> ROELAND M.J. MEYER
> /USG/DOC/NTIA/ICANN/DNSO member
> 
- --
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, 23 May 2001 13:04:35 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Stockholm Meetings - June 1-4, 2001 - Substantive and Logistical Information

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 1:04 PM
To: ICANN-Stockholm Preregistrants
Subject: UPDATE: ICANN-Stockholm Meetings - June 1-4, 2001 - Substantive and
Logistical Information

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because you registered to attend ICANN's June
public meetings in Stockholm, Sweden.

In preparation for these meetings, you may want to review the following
pages at ICANN's web site: <http://www.icann.org/stockholm/#agenda> and
<http://www.icann.org>.  These pages have detailed information about the
substantive items slated for discussion in Stockholm, and they will be
updated frequently in the coming weeks as final additional information
becomes available.

You may also want to visit <http://www.icann.org/stockholm> for updated
logistical information about the Stockholm meetings, including an updated
schedule of meeting sessions.  Note that ICANN currently anticipates
providing attendees with high-speed Internet access via both wireless
ethernet (802.11b) and standard wired ethernet.  To use these facilities,
you will need your own notebook computer plus associated network card and,
for wired connections, an ethernet patch cable.

Those unable to attend in person may wish to join certain meeting sessions
via live webcast with remote participation.  More information about remote
participation, including a listing of available sessions and a description
of technical requirements, is available from
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/>.  Note that full meeting
archives will also be posted at this site at the conclusion of each session.

Finally, if you're not already subscribed to ICANN's announcements list, you
may find it helpful to join in order to receive important future
announcements from ICANN.  See <http://www.icann.org/announcements> for
instructions.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu>

- --
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, 23 May 2001 10:44:02 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: Stability of the Internet?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:16 AM
> To: [email-masked]'; Roeland Meyer
> Cc: Roeland Meyer; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Stability of the Internet?
> 
> 
> > From: [email-masked]
> > [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:16 AM
> > 
> > > > 	There is work being done in the IETF to create 
> such a private
> > > > 	use TLD.
> > > 
> > > Where? Also, this may bring on a jurisdiction issue with 
> > ICANN/DNSO. It is
> > > the ICANN that is recommending new TLDs to the DOC, not the 
> > IETF. In order
> > > tfor that effort to comply with WIP process, it should make 
> > attempts to
> > > surface within relevent ICANN activity as well. Otherwise, 
> > ICANN doesn't
> > > know about it and can't make appropriate recommendations. 
> > I'm very much
> > > involved in that area and they are invisible to every one, 
> > in the DNSO. This
> > > effects the open/transparent process and if they don't want 
> > to catch a LOT
> > > of political flak (consider this fair-warning), they need 
> > to widen the
> > > visibility of their effort. This effects ICANN policy 
> > directly and IETF
> > > isn't a policy org. They are a PSO, not a DNSO.
> > 
> > 	The IETF work predates much of ICANN & DNSo work. 
> 
> Agreed, much of it does. I am proposing to get IETF out of 
> the policy business and in into the PSO business it is now 
> chartered for.
> 
> >     Clearly
> > 	there has been too narrow a focus if the DNSo & ICANN do
> > 	not believe that others have considered the impact of 
> >     entry points in the DNS 
> 
> That's not the issue presented. The issues are those of 
> involvement and communication. IETF is closed and tight-knit. 
> Yet, they do not and cannot recommend TLDs to the DOC. 
> Evenso, they come up with stuff that the folks that ARE 
> supposed to recommend these these things, aren't made aware 
> of. Countervailing recommendations are made, from those that 
> ARE supposed to make them, and we then have a cat-fight.
> 
> >     and that they have exclusive understanding of the 
> > 	ramifications of controlling this space.
> 
> That's a fairly deep mud-hole. Let's not go there ;)
> 
> > 	See RFC 2606
> 
> Thanks for the RFC. It will be taken into consideration.
> 
- --
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, 23 May 2001 12:07:29 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] MOTION FOR RULES ON MOTIONS (popular)

 The following has been sitting for public comment on the rules/int list
since the sixth of May. The full text may obviously be viewed there
along with the huge amount of public comment on it, which is too long to
list here, as there clearly is not enough band width to carry it all. I
believe the author and I both support the motion. I call for the vote to
be in one week as per 3 A

       > Suggestion for a rules line:

       > 1 A Popular Motion is a text to be balloted by the DNSO GA that
is supported
       >    by at least 5% of the GA Voters, or 15 people, whichever is
the smaller.

       > 2 A Popular Motion shall be presented in the form of a message
to the GA
       >    list carrying the complete text of the Motion, the names of
the supporting
       >    GA members, and a request for the Motion to be balloted.

       > 3 A Popular Motion shall be put to a vote within a week of its
       >    presentation to the General Assembly, unless conditions
below happen.

       > 4 Putting a Popular Motion to the vote may be delayed until a
week after
       >    the end of the vote on another Popular Motion.

       > 5 A Popular Motion may be removed before balloting in the case
of:
       >    A - The declaration of at least 2 of the listed Supporters
that they do not
       >    support the Popular Motion
       >    B - A Popular Motion with a greater number of supporters,
asking that the
       >    first Popular Motion be dismissed. Neither will then be put
to a vote.

       > Discussion:

       > - Rule 1 should be easy. The numbers are rather arbitrary.
       > - Rule 2 is intended to avoid someone claiming "popular motion"
based on a
       >    series of "me too" messages. He actually has to list the
names (and under
       >    rule 5 A, give those names the right to kill the notion).
       > - Rule 3 should allow the secretariat enough time to do the
preparations.
       > - Rule 4 is intended to avoid exhaustion by a group of 15
people proposing
       >    tens of motions at the same time.
       > - Rule 5 A is intended to allow supporters to kill a motion if
they decide
       >    it's better not to do it after all.
       > - Rule 5 B is intended to allow a deeply divided GA (if it
occurs) to avoid
       >    a situation where 2-3 groups spit motions at each other
continuously,
       >    none of which have a chance of passing.

I can not figure out if I need to get 15 people to propose this motion
which will require us to get 15 people in the future.

Sincerely,

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

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:38:47 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List name changes again?!?

At 11:18 21.05.2001 -0500, Bruce James wrote:
>Roeland:
>
>     I think your remark was a little out of line.
>
>I agree that changing some sub list names is a problem for *all* of us, but
>in the long run it will be a better arrangement for the debates.

I agree with Roeland's comments. On a list, it is more important to have 
clear content than to have a clear name.

That said, please don't make any MORE changes - moving back would not help 
anyone!

- --
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, 23 May 2001 16:41:50 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Collision?

I have two questions that I would like opinions on;

1. Is the following statement accurate?

With a duplicate TLD a message can be sent to a domain
name but there can be two addresses (IP)for the same name.
The message will go to either one.
If you point to an address (URL) you cannot control which one you go to
because
there are duplicates.

2. If the above is accurate can this be avoided if the ICANN dotBIZ is
released?

I am getting the distinct impression that the above is not accurate.  I
am getting the distinct impression also that ISPs and servers can handle
all these potential problems. It is a very good feeling to be learning
of these matters because it leads to a feeling of empowerment that the
users really can control their internet usage. My CTO just confirmed
that all of this can be managed but that I was too stupid to understand
it and just trust him, it is already being done.

Sincerely,

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

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:48:52 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Defining the General Assembly's Agenda

Dear General Assembly members:

The Chair of the NC, Philip Sheppard, has put forward an invitation to the
Chair of the General Assembly to address the Names Council regarding the
GA's work agenda.  As I consider this to be a formal request to define our
own agenda, I am asking the General Assembly to begin a discussion on this
topic.

I will be happy to initiate such dialogue by putting forth some of my own
personal views:

I have noted a reticence on the part of the Names Council to establish
committees and working groups drawn from the General Assembly membership.
The NC Business Plan currently calls for Interim Committees (Names Council
representatives only) and other groups to address a limited collection of
domain name policy issues.  Phil Sheppard, in commenting on these "other
groups", has stated that this terminology is "precisely intended not to say
working group; the whole point of this discussion is to figure out how to
get work done, which may or may not be a working group as we've known them.
So "other group" means some kind of outreach group." My concern is that the
NC is selecting only its own representatives to carry out such tasks,
thereby thwarting the clear intent of the by-laws and denigrating the
contributions of our General Assembly membership.

That the Names Council has no great love for the working group has been
amply demonstrated on several recent occasions - the decision to limit the
life of the initial Review Working Group to a scant three weeks (23 Dec. to
15 Jan.), the ongoing battle to shut down participation in the Review
Working Group, and the final decision to terminate the Review Working Group
and its mailing list (in spite of the vocal objection of dozens of
contributing members that favored an ongoing DNSO Review).   The Names
Council appears to be threatened by the possibility that a Working Group
will reach consensus on how to restructure the DNSO (more specifically, they
are threatened by the majority opinion within the Review Working Group that
called for the dissolution of the Names Council constituency structure).  In
my view this explains why, in spite of a call from the ICANN Board to have
the Names Council and "other sources" put forward proposals regarding a
possible restructuring of the DNSO (Resolution 01.28), not one substantive
proposal has come forth from the NC regarding the restructuring of our
Supporting Organization - some of our constituency representatives doubtless
seek to remain entrenched in their positions of power, fearing the
consequences of a re-organization.

As an agenda item, I would see the General Assembly, one of the "other
sources" referred to by the Board, begin work on the restructuring proposals
that the Board has requested and that the Names Council has chosen to
ignore.

At the heart of this issue is proper representation.  At a time when the
Names Council has decided that those that cannot pay cannot vote, I stand in
favor of ousting such a callous administration.  Domain name policy issues
must be voted upon by a body that is fully representative of the Internet
community.  Any group that advances a proposal that threatens that precept
must be shown the door.

This leads me to my next concern, the future of our At-Large Directors.  The
very existence of ICANN was predicated on a membership model that called for
a great many more At-Large Directors than we now have.  The privatization of
the Internet moved forward because promises were made at the outset with
respect to full representation of the public in the ICANN structure.  As I
review the questions posed by the "clean-sheet" study of the ALSC, I
conclude that this committee has re-opened questions that were already
firmly decided in 1998.  Coupled with a Budget Proposal for 2001-2002 that
has set aside no funds for the At-Large electoral process, I see an agenda
at work that seeks to further disenfranchise the public.

As an agenda item for the GA, I would like to have the membership of this
Assembly engaged in the "research" permitted to us under the By-Laws, that
will allow us to submit our own "study" to the ALSC.

This General Assembly faces a choice - we can either work in harmony with
those that would deny rights and representation to others, or we can fight
for an ICANN in which representation is guaranteed to all.

My vision of the appropriate agenda for the GA may substantially differ from
yours.  It is important that we reach a consensus on the way forward so that
the Names Council may properly be advised.  I look forward to hearing your
comments.

Best regards,
Danny Younger

- --
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, 23 May 2001 19:31:45 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION FOR RULES ON MOTIONS (popular)

With all due humility and apologies and you all know I have none.

I withdraw my motion and fully support our chair in his mission to bring proper
focus to how we can best present ourselves to help internestakeholders at
Stockholm.  My timing was poor but remember timing is always poor until we need
the rules.

Sincerely,

"babybows.com" wrote:

> Eric,
>
> One week from now many of us (including yourself) will be in transit to
> Stockholm.  We can certainly consider this immediately after the Stockholm
> session.  I have no objection to the formulation of proper rules on motions;
> I support your initiative, just not the timing.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Eric Dierker
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 3:07 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] MOTION FOR RULES ON MOTIONS (popular)
>
>  The following has been sitting for public comment on the rules/int list
> since the sixth of May. The full text may obviously be viewed there
> along with the huge amount of public comment on it, which is too long to
> list here, as there clearly is not enough band width to carry it all. I
> believe the author and I both support the motion. I call for the vote to
> be in one week as per 3 A
>
>        > Suggestion for a rules line:
>
>        > 1 A Popular Motion is a text to be balloted by the DNSO GA that
> is supported
>        >    by at least 5% of the GA Voters, or 15 people, whichever is
> the smaller.
>
>        > 2 A Popular Motion shall be presented in the form of a message
> to the GA
>        >    list carrying the complete text of the Motion, the names of
> the supporting
>        >    GA members, and a request for the Motion to be balloted.
>
>        > 3 A Popular Motion shall be put to a vote within a week of its
>        >    presentation to the General Assembly, unless conditions
> below happen.
>
>        > 4 Putting a Popular Motion to the vote may be delayed until a
> week after
>        >    the end of the vote on another Popular Motion.
>
>        > 5 A Popular Motion may be removed before balloting in the case
> of:
>        >    A - The declaration of at least 2 of the listed Supporters
> that they do not
>        >    support the Popular Motion
>        >    B - A Popular Motion with a greater number of supporters,
> asking that the
>        >    first Popular Motion be dismissed. Neither will then be put
> to a vote.
>
>        > Discussion:
>
>        > - Rule 1 should be easy. The numbers are rather arbitrary.
>        > - Rule 2 is intended to avoid someone claiming "popular motion"
> based on a
>        >    series of "me too" messages. He actually has to list the
> names (and under
>        >    rule 5 A, give those names the right to kill the notion).
>        > - Rule 3 should allow the secretariat enough time to do the
> preparations.
>        > - Rule 4 is intended to avoid exhaustion by a group of 15
> people proposing
>        >    tens of motions at the same time.
>        > - Rule 5 A is intended to allow supporters to kill a motion if
> they decide
>        >    it's better not to do it after all.
>        > - Rule 5 B is intended to allow a deeply divided GA (if it
> occurs) to avoid
>        >    a situation where 2-3 groups spit motions at each other
> continuously,
>        >    none of which have a chance of passing.
>
> I can not figure out if I need to get 15 people to propose this motion
> which will require us to get 15 people in the future.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 16:55:13 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Defining the General Assembly's Agenda

At 20:48 23/05/01 -0400, babybows.com wrote:

>At the heart of this issue is proper representation.  At a time when the
>Names Council has decided that those that cannot pay cannot vote, I stand in
>favor of ousting such a callous administration.

Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for that. The "recognized" 
constituencies can elect new representatives, that's all.
Also, the NC, as was amply demonstrated with the Verisign contract, is far 
from an "Administration".

The Board is the only thing that could carry such a name.

- --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: Thu, 24 May 2001 07:02:44 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-udrp] Re: International TMs

Chris,

I think that we should shorten our posts;>} but here is another long one.

NameCritic wrote:

>
> Face it. The Intellectual Proprty Constituency has pulled the wool over
> everyone's eyes. They have used the media, ICANN, the UDRP, and WIPO to do
> so. They have changed TM Law for online purposes without ever having to get
> any legislation passed. Gotta hand it to them. They pulled it off and now
> they defend their actions as if it was all legitimate and was done to
> protect the consumers. Yeah, right.
>
> Is that why the Intellectual property Constituency is fighting against the
> addition of both an Individual's constituency and a Domain Name Holder's
> Constituency? Do they feel it is in the user's best interest NOT to be
> represented or have a voice within the DNSO? Are we to just trust you to
> take good care of us? Is it that you feel you know what is best for us
> sheep?
>

You switched over here. You wrote to me but I hope you are referring to the IP
group as "you" here.

>
> Or is it you feel threatened by those that disagree with you? Do opposing
> opinions scare you? They should. We are not going away. What you did worked
> in the short term. In the long term the users will win. That is why you
> prolong this and work against the creation of an IC and IDNHC IMHO.
>

exactly where you are correct and we can begin to make a difference - especially
with the internet.

>
> Bottom up Consensus. Where is it? Tansparency of Actions. Where are they?
> Fairness. Where is it? Stability. Where is that? Unity. Where is it?
> Uniformity. Where is that?
>
> Those are all words used to describe the processes of ICANN, the DNSO, the
> Names Council, the UDRP, and WIPO. Why is it then we don't see those as
> examples of how this has all been done?
>
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>

Right on!

I certainly hope that because I laid out what I see as some reality you do not
take that as my agreement with it at all.  Your argument regarding
classifications is right on point. If you have time visit the Tarr site you can
play for hours just figuring out classifications.  I think they just added a
couple. (for a guy with a degree in linguistic philosophy this is great fun)
The term Convis is used by every Convention and Visitors bureau in the USA, how
did SAn Diego get a trademark on it?  Check out the categories that Lego, as in
legoland are in - maybe they missed one, but they got all the rest.
MacDonalds is one of my favorites - how do you trademark a family/clan name that
has been around for over a thousand years? They gave marks on words with
- -----smart and I am sure we recognize petsmart but now they deny that as simply
two generic words.

Just like the IRS, if you want to control by power and intimidation you create a
system so complicated that only you and your boys can understand it.  Look at
the history of the Christian church just before Luther and the Gutenburg bible,
only the priests could read and write and they even spoke in latin that no
dotcommoner could undersatand.  No sir the apple don't fall far from the tree.

I agree completely education and popular support is by far the best tool to
create a proper environment.
Shall we call it outreach?  This is why in the plan we are developing money is
to be brought in through the online public udrp and some siphoned away for
schools.

Sincerely,

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
> To: "NameCritic" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 5:32 PM
> Subject: [ga-udrp] Re: International TMs
>
> > You have to be careful when sending me an email wherein you claim to make
> > arguments which are no more ridiculous than ....
> >
> > I believe to really understand international treaties and trademarks you
> need to
> > get into bilateral trade agreements first and then go to the WTO charter
> and
> > members. Then you have to take everything you just read and throw it out
> the
> > window. Real enforcement of foreign trademarks comes from a desire to do
> further
> > trade with the country which is the origin of the trademark.  The U.S. is
> the
> > largest open economy consumer in the world. If you want our trade you
> enforce
> > our trademarks.
> > The emerging economy of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam and the U.S.
> have a
> > signed bilateral trade agreement that has yet to be ratified by both sides
> > congress/Assembly. Even before that goes into effect you can now get
> actual
> > effective enforcement of U.S. Trademarks there.
> >
> > Now you should know that the 62 page of text and the 62 pages of
> appendixes in
> > that trade agreemnent nowhere nohow mentions domain names. As a matter of
> fact I
> > do not remember a single mention of the word Internet.  But as someone who
> is
> > working on the internet policy for Vietnam I can gauran-damntee you that
> if you
> > try registering cocacola.vn when it becomes available to the outside world
> in
> > the next few weeks we will enforce any rights cocacola may assert to that
> name.
> > However I have a high level of confidence that if you register coke.vn you
> will
> > be able to keep it. They will enforce a true trademark but not bend over
> > backwards to pander to American mega-corps.
> >
> > My point is that you cannot apply logic, or even the rule of law to the IP
> > versus domain holder rights arena you need to apply economic power
> politics.
> > Here I believe a study showed that the vicious attacks and reverse
> hijacking of
> > fair names which may also be trademarked hurt the companies more in PR
> than the
> > name was ever worth. Public opinion does effect these big companies. I am
> > working with a group to design and market a UDRP which will be very public
> and
> > on an internet pro and con list type format.  The complaints and responses
> will
> > all be open to public comment, in fact public comment will be a factor in
> > determining the outcome. The judges and the "counsel" will be right off
> the
> > lists we all participate in. Shoot you may even be chosen as someones
> advocate
> > with Corliss, Williams and Walsh sitting as the judges and me as the
> opposing
> > advocate. Yes it will cost the loser a little money to help fund the site
> and
> > help developing countries provide IT schools.
> >
> > Sorry too long,
> >
> > NameCritic wrote:
> >
> > > Something I find interesting. I wrote to get an International Trademark.
> > > This is the response.
> > >
> > > "It is possible to seek an International Trade Mark Registration but as
> an
> > > American company/citizen, you would be unable to obtain such a
> registration
> > > because America is not yet a signatory to the specific international
> > > agreement. "
> > >
> > > Domain Names resolve addresses which are International in nature. If US
> > > Trademarks are not International Trademarks through the US'
> > > Non-participation in the Treaty, then how can Domain Names be infringing
> on
> > > said Trademarks. The Trademarks that do NOT have International
> Protection do
> > > not apply to Domain Names. Then it would go in order of importance.
> > > International Trademark, Domain Name, US Trademark.
> > >
> > > Some US Trademarks are infringing upon domain names and the trademarks
> that
> > > are too similar should be taken away and given to the domain name holder
> > > IMO.
> > >
> > > That argument I just made is no more ridiculous than the one US TM
> Holders
> > > make when saying they have a "RIGHT" to domain names that are similar to
> > > their US Trademark.
> > >
> > > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-udrp" 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-udrp" 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 #484
************************