Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #576
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, June 30 2001           Volume 01 : Number 576

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 10:41:48 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Task Force Member

> Bruce James wrote:
> 
> I urge the group to nominate Bill Lovell for this position.
> 
>                                     About Mr. Lovell:

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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:44:53 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-icann] You gotta wonder

- --=====================_3837247==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

you got to ask yourself what US lawyers know about layers. All the iCANN 
problem is that they want to be a layer too high: their job is network 
infrastructure and they want to make it governance structure. It is true 
that network infrastructure does not calls for lawyers...
Jefsey

On 04:52 30/06/01, NameCritic said:
>It just gets more interesting. I guess ICANN is gonna have to understand 
>they are a technical coordination body and not going to be deciding 
>whatever they want to after all. What the users want the users will get. 
>Hate to be so repetitive, but ICANN had better start listening to what the 
>users want and forget about Pinky and the Brain.
>
><http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/167478.html>http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/167478.html
>
>Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

- --=====================_3837247==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
you got to ask yourself what US lawyers know about layers. All the iCANN
problem is that they want to be a layer too high: their job is network
infrastructure and they want to make it governance structure. It is true
that network infrastructure does not calls for lawyers...<br>
Jefsey<br>
<br>
<br>
On 04:52 30/06/01, NameCritic said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2>It just
gets more interesting. I guess ICANN is gonna have to understand they are
a technical coordination body and not going to be deciding whatever they
want to after all. What the users want the users will get. Hate to be so
repetitive, but ICANN had better start listening to what the users want
and forget about Pinky and the Brain.</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2><a href="http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/167478.html">http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/167478.html</a></font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>Chris McElroy aka
NameCritic</font></blockquote></html>

- --=====================_3837247==_.ALT--

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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:48:25 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Task Force Member

Eric,
the constituencies are part of the GA, but their Members may not read all 
the sub-lists and get bored by the noise on the GA. So better to reach them 
where they are... Would you call that "inreach"?
Jefsey

On 05:21 30/06/01, Eric Dierker said:
>Dear Peter,
>
>Am I missing something?  why possibly would the GA write to Constituencies
>to garner support or denial.  You are reccomending top down consensus.  The
>GA is supposed to tell the NC what to do not the other way around.  Let us
>try this real easy;  *bottoms up open and transparent stakeholder
>represenativiness*  Does any of that fit into what you just suggested? Now
>you may have been mistaken and not meant to have signed this as chair of the
>ccTLD but that is not our problem.
>
>I will take the rest in order as it represents our upward problem;
>
>Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > Danny-
> >
> > While I appreciate your agressiveness in mobilizing the GA, this latest
> > manoeuver is going too far.
> >
>
>In what capacity do you make such a claim?  It would appear you do anything
>but appreciate an aggressive GA.
>
> >
> > The job of the chair is to facilitate consensus building, and do
> > administrative tasks, and, yes, perhaps even to inspire and mobilize.
> >
>
>And where did you find those criterion?  The Job of our chair is to remain
>true to his own character in representing our fine Assembly, until we decide
>otherwise.
>
> >
> > The job IS NOT that of an executive, empowered by the GA to make
> > unilateral decisions.
> >
>
>Wrong in a big way!!  We elected him and he is ours and he may not go the
>way some of us want but until *we* decide otherwise he is doing a great job.
>
> >
> > I've supported your efforts so far, Danny, but not this.
> >
> > Facilitate consensus- and that means a MUCH broader sample of the GA
> > membership.
> >
>
>You have clearly not read much on consensus and perhaps I am too hard and I
>apologize and would like to help you learn what it means.  This reminds me
>of the ccTLD attack of you in Melbourne because it was perceived you acted
>against their interests in budget.
>
> >
> > For starters, write to a NC member of each constituency and get this
> > matter posted on the constituency lists.
> >
>
>For starters check in with the top in order to form our thoughts????  This
>must have been a private post accidentally posted publicly.
>
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> > Chair, ccTLD
>
>Have you moved the channels you just suggested in making this statement as a
>chair or are you doing all the things perceived wrong by you?
>Major problem signing this as the ccTLD chair, Danny would never do such a
>thing!  Mr. Thrush would never have acted in such impulsive behavior.
>
>I am sorry if I have offended but dictating policy from one constituency to
>the GA is detrimental to progress.
>
>Sincerely,
>Eric
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 08:00:47 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Yes,

We must force the Registry and the Registrars to use their *illegal* databases
to do good.  Bush's Faith Based deal is moving along lets use that same momentum
to make the big players deciminate good stuff.  Isn't there a public service
announcement requirement for U.S. broadcasters?

Assume the Whois to be a big weapon being used by the Giants.  Now assume we can
make them use that weapon to defend us. Now that is progress.

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

>
>   What might also be useful in this endeavor would be to request the
> Registrars to post a request for their registrants to send in potential
> question for this questionnaire as well as the non ICANN registries..
>
> [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Philip,
> >
> > As one of the first goals of the NC's UDRP Task Force is to complete an
> > appropriate questionnaire, and as the General Assembly has previously
> > expressed concerns that past questionnaires perhaps have not been properly
> > designed, would you be amenable to adding a qualified "expert" on
> > questionnaires/polling to this Task Force?

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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 17:08:49 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Dear Philip,
as you may recall the UDRP is supposed to be about domain names. As you may 
also have noted the UDRP document does not define what is a domain name, 
while it defines all the other DNS oriented specific words it uses. This 
make the UDRP an interesting document to address many other disputes of 
general nature, but not any of specific nature involving domain names.

I therefore suggest that the NC adds a topic about the definition of the 
Domain Name.
Jefsey

PS. Joop has recently made a site about possible DN definitions. This might 
help.

I note that the only iCANN oriented document which alludes the need of such 
a definition is the contract proposed by ccTLDs to the iCANN. It quotes the 
DN as something to be defined in its recital but it does not propose a 
definition. It would be fun if the DN was defined by the CCSO rather than 
by the DNSO...

At 09:39 30/06/01, [email-masked] wrote:
>Philip,
>
>As one of the first goals of the NC's UDRP Task Force is to complete an
>appropriate questionnaire, and as the General Assembly has previously
>expressed concerns that past questionnaires perhaps have not been properly
>designed, would you be amenable to adding a qualified "expert" on
>questionnaires/polling to this Task Force?
>
>Danny
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 17:14:13 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

Should non legacy TLD use the UDRP?

If you say not, it means that the money advantage obtained by NSI from this 
system is more important than TM Holders rights.

If you say yes, it means they should participate to the debate as such...

Jefsey

On 10:04 30/06/01, [email-masked] said:
>The questions cited below have been put forth by Milton Mueller, and seem to
>be a good starting point.
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/tor-udrp/Arc00/bin00000.bin
>
>001.    To what extent are panel decisions consistent with applicable law?
>002.    Are decisions consistent across panelists and dispute resolution
>service providers, and if not, what can be done about it?
>003.    Is the potential for abuse of claimed common law rights so great that
>the policy should be limited to registered marks?
>004.    Should generic names, geographical names, initials and numbers be
>protected from claims by any trademark or name rights' owner, regardless of
>the owner's fame?
>005.    Is the high respondent default rate due to a lack of real and timely
>notice of complaints and/or a lack of time to respond?
>006.    Do complainants and respondents have parity in post-UDRP access to
>the courts?
>007.    Should the ability to challenge a name under the UDRP expire after a
>single registrant has held the name for a specified period of time?
>008.     Should there be an internal review mechanism (such as an appeal
>panel drawn from all the Providers) to overturn clearly erroneous decisions
>without resorting to courts?
>009.    Does Complainant selection of the resolution service provider lead to
>"forum shopping" that tends to bias decisions against Respondents?
>010.    Should registrars, rather than complainants, pre-select the
>Provider(s) to whom all disputes over names registered with them will be
>referred?
>011.    Do policies for accrediting or de-accrediting dispute resolution
>service providers need to be specified in greater detail? Are any providers'
>supplemental rules inconsistent with either due process and/or the ICANN
>rules?
>012.    Should the UDRP be amended to enable respondents to initiate a
>"declaratory judgment" regarding their "rights and legitimate interests" in a
>name?
>
>What other questions should be added to this list?
>--
>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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 18:34:45 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re[2]: [ga-roots] Microsoft case shows how ICANN breaches USA antitrust  laws

Hello Sandy,
That mail was so much contemptuous that better to laught about...

>??? is a well known character in the governance MLs, who has
>a reputation everywhere for filing frivolous mails, and widely
>threatening anyone who challenges him on reason with agressive
>mailing themselves.
>
>In the sub-lists he can get away with it, here in the GA he'd be hit with
>sanctions so fast his head would spin.
>
>His perpetual feuds agains Joop or other during the past years was
>tossed out,and he was effectively laughed out of any reputation by
>every one, who now refuses to even read his mails.
>
>If it wasn't IDNO, GA, etc ... it would be some other ML which he
>could attach himself to and play the same games.

Guess who ??? is.
Jefsey

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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 12:56:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP TF member

I am willing to serve as the GA's representative.  I understand, however,
that I may not be acceptable to the Names Council.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Milton Mueller wrote:

> Please appoint someone from the GA who has
> a law background as well as Internet knowledge.
> 
> --Milton Mueller
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's hot here.<--

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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 13:14:54 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP TF member

With all due respect Milton, I cannot agree that a law degree/background
should be any kind of prerequisite in this instance.  Seems to me that
the surfeit of lawyers making up the various task forces, committees,
WIPO etc. to date are the reason the UDRP is where it is...

Milton Mueller wrote:

> Please appoint someone from the GA who has
> a law background as well as Internet knowledge.
>
> --Milton Mueller
> --
> 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: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 13:28:42 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Philip,
> as you may recall the UDRP is supposed to be about domain names. As you may
> also have noted the UDRP document does not define what is a domain name,
> while it defines all the other DNS oriented specific words it uses.<snip>

> I therefore suggest that the NC adds a topic about the definition of the
> Domain Name.<snip>

As you are all probably aware, I agree completely with Jefsey on this matter.
The question of what a Domain Name is has been at the top of my list from the
beginning of my involvement in ICANN.  Until a standard defnition is applied,
there can be no talk of Law with respect to Domain Names.  This is my sincerest
belief with respect to this issue.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 14:00:07 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Is there a definition of domain name in a relevant RFC? I don't know the
answer, but that might be a good question to ask someone on the IAB/IETF. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 1:29 PM
To: Jefsey Morfin
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Philip,
> as you may recall the UDRP is supposed to be about domain names. As you
may
> also have noted the UDRP document does not define what is a domain name,
> while it defines all the other DNS oriented specific words it uses.<snip>

> I therefore suggest that the NC adds a topic about the definition of the
> Domain Name.<snip>

As you are all probably aware, I agree completely with Jefsey on this
matter.
The question of what a Domain Name is has been at the top of my list from
the
beginning of my involvement in ICANN.  Until a standard defnition is
applied,
there can be no talk of Law with respect to Domain Names.  This is my
sincerest
belief with respect to this issue.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 11:24:08 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

No one should use the UDRP  -- it's a sham and a fraud.

Bill Lovell

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Should non legacy TLD use the UDRP?
>
> If you say not, it means that the money advantage obtained by NSI from this
> system is more important than TM Holders rights.
>
> If you say yes, it means they should participate to the debate as such...
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 10:04 30/06/01, [email-masked] said:
> >The questions cited below have been put forth by Milton Mueller, and seem to
> >be a good starting point.
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/tor-udrp/Arc00/bin00000.bin
> >
> >001.    To what extent are panel decisions consistent with applicable law?
> >002.    Are decisions consistent across panelists and dispute resolution
> >service providers, and if not, what can be done about it?
> >003.    Is the potential for abuse of claimed common law rights so great that
> >the policy should be limited to registered marks?
> >004.    Should generic names, geographical names, initials and numbers be
> >protected from claims by any trademark or name rights' owner, regardless of
> >the owner's fame?
> >005.    Is the high respondent default rate due to a lack of real and timely
> >notice of complaints and/or a lack of time to respond?
> >006.    Do complainants and respondents have parity in post-UDRP access to
> >the courts?
> >007.    Should the ability to challenge a name under the UDRP expire after a
> >single registrant has held the name for a specified period of time?
> >008.     Should there be an internal review mechanism (such as an appeal
> >panel drawn from all the Providers) to overturn clearly erroneous decisions
> >without resorting to courts?
> >009.    Does Complainant selection of the resolution service provider lead to
> >"forum shopping" that tends to bias decisions against Respondents?
> >010.    Should registrars, rather than complainants, pre-select the
> >Provider(s) to whom all disputes over names registered with them will be
> >referred?
> >011.    Do policies for accrediting or de-accrediting dispute resolution
> >service providers need to be specified in greater detail? Are any providers'
> >supplemental rules inconsistent with either due process and/or the ICANN
> >rules?
> >012.    Should the UDRP be amended to enable respondents to initiate a
> >"declaratory judgment" regarding their "rights and legitimate interests" in a
> >name?
> >
> >What other questions should be added to this list?
> >--
> >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

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm

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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 13:21:05 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: Announcement of the 2nd Meeting of the CSTB Study Committee  on Internet Navigation and the Domain Name System

Subject: Announcement of the 2nd Meeting of the CSTB Study Committee on
Internet Navigation and the Domain Name System

The Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB)
of the National Academies announces the second meeting of
its study committee on

INTERNET NAVIGATION AND THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM:
Technical Alternatives and Policy Implications

This project will examine the impact of technological developments
and policy changes on the domain name system and other mechanisms
that individuals rely upon to navigate the Internet.  The final report
(to be issued in 2002) is expected to characterize the research,
development, institutions, policies, and procedures needed
to ensure that navigation on the Internet remains feasible and can improve
in capability throughout the coming decade.  The report will include a
discussion of the important and unresolved issues concerning trademarks.
(See below for the full project scope)  This study is sponsored by the
U. S. Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation
and is mandated by the U. S. Congress through Public Law 105-305.

* Second Meeting of the Project
The next committee meeting of this study will take place on July 11-13
at the School of Information Management and Systems at the
University of California at Berkeley.  The sessions open to
observers include:

** Wednesday July 11

*** Multilingual Names
John Klensin, AT&T and Committee Member (Chair)
Paul Hoffman, Internet Mail Consortium
Tan Tin Wee, National University of Singapore
David Lawrence, Nominum

*** Uses of the Domain Name System
KC Claffy, Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis,
San Diego Supercomputer Center, Univ. of Calif. at San Diego
Karl Auerbach

** Thursday July 12

*** Naming and Searching
Clifford Lynch, Coalition for Networked Information
Marti Hearst, University of California at Berkeley
Leslie Daigle, Verisign (by telephone)

*** Internet Keywords
Keith Teare, RealNames
Yves Arrouye, RealNames

*** Search Engines, Directory Systems and Information Services
Eric Brewer, University of California at Berkeley and Inktomi

*** New Directions
Carl Malamud, NetTopBox
Joe Hellerstein, University of California at Berkeley
Mark Handley (invited), A&T Center for Internet Research

** Advance Registration for Observers
Since space is limited for observers, advance registration is
strongly recommended; please contact Margaret Huynh at
<[email-masked]> or 202-334-2605 by 3 p.m. (eastern time)
on July 9th to register.  Ms. Huynh can also provide details
concerning the times for each session, directions, and on-site
parking.  Additional details concerning this meeting
or the study may be found at the Web site of the National
Academies <www.nationalacademies.org>.  Click on
"current projects" (at the top of the screen) and search
for the name of this study.

* Public Comment and Project Updates
Public comments to the study committee are welcome and may
be made at any time by sending email to <[email-masked]>.
CSTB will also be providing periodic updates on the project
and notices of upcoming sessions open to the public via an
e-mail list.  If you wish to receive these updates, please send
your request to <[email-masked]> as well.

* Detailed Project Scope
This project will examine the future of Internet navigation and the
domain name system (DNS) in light of the evolution and interaction
of Internet usage, information technology, the economy, and society.
The original purpose of the DNS was to provide identifiers for network
objects that are more easily remembered and enduring than the
numerical addresses and port numbers used by the network infrastructure.
However, domain names are now often used for purposes for which
they were not originally intended, such as searching, corporate
identification and marketing.  And certain domain names, especially
those in the .com top-level domain, have acquired substantial
economic value, leading to conflict and competition over their ownership
and a perceived scarcity of desirable names.

The continuing increase in the number of Internet users and sites,
the deepening integration of the Internet into the economy and social
processes; the growth in embedded computing devices, and the
possible introduction of permanent personal and object identifiers -
among other factors - pose challenges to the continued viability and
usefulness of the DNS, as currently constituted. This project will
describe and evaluate emerging technologies and identify how they
might affect the ability of users to find what they are seeking on the
Internet and the role of the DNS.  Some of the topics to be considered
include: extension of the DNS through the addition of generic top level
domains and multilingual domain names; introduction of new name
assignment and indexing schemes (including alternate root servers);
adoption of new directory structures or services for locating information
resources, services, or sites of interest; and deployment of improved
user interfaces.

The technologies that support finding information on the Internet are
deployed within a complex and contentious national and international
policy context.  As is true in other contexts relating to trademarks and
comparable identifiers, the "right" to use a particular domain name
can often be disputed.  These disputes include conflicts among
commercial claimants as well as conflicts between non-commercial
and commercial claimants.  Effective solutions must consider the
potentially competing interests of domain name owners and trademark
holders; the different interests of stakeholders including businesses,
from small firms to multinational corporations; educational, arts, and
research institutions; not-for-profit charitable and service organizations;
government entities at all levels from town to nation; nation-states
and international organizations; and individuals (i.e., the general
public); as well as public interests such as freedom of speech
and personal privacy.

The project's report will examine the degree to which the options
offered by new technology or new uses of existing technology
can mitigate concerns regarding commercial and public interests
(which will include a discussion of trademark-related issues),
facilitate or impede further evolution of the Internet, and affect
steps being taken to enhance competition among domain name
registrars, the portability of Internet names, and the stability of the
Internet.  For each of the prospective technologies, the final report
is expected to characterize the institutions, governance structures,
policies, and procedures that should be put in place to complement
it and will specify the research (if any) required to design, develop,
and implement the technology successfully.  Also identified will be
the options foregone or created by particular technologies and
the difficulties associated with each technological alternative.

This project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Commerce and
the National Science Foundation and is mandated by the U.S.
Congress through Public Law 105-305.  For additional information,
contact the study director, Alan Inouye, at <[email-masked]>
or (202) 334-2849.

Additional information describing the National Academies
study process may be found at
<http://www.nationalacademies.org/about/ensuring.html>.
Additional information concerning CSTB may be found
at <www.cstb.org>.

/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: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 13:24:49 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

At 11:24 AM -0700 30/6/01, William S. Lovell wrote:
>No one should use the UDRP  -- it's a sham and a fraud.
>
>Bill Lovell

I hereby second the nomination of Bill Lovell to the UDRP Task Force

- -- 
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.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: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 14:39:11 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP Task Force Member

Jeff- 

The suggestion was to get a member of each constituency to post to their
'closed' list- just to increase awareness of the nomination.

peter

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
Williams
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 7:33 AM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 'Bret A. Fausett';
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Task Force Member

Peter and all assembly members,

  The problem with your suggestion Peter is that most of the
constituency lists are "Closed" lists, and therefore very few people on
the GA list can post to them.  Catch 22...

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Eric:
>
> I'm only goin to respond to one point here.
>
> (Eiic) "why possibly would the GA write to Constituencies"
>
> The reason is not to garner support. The reason is that a lot of 
> people are not monitoring the GA list, and the reason is that a 
> selection of nominee from one of 12 active persons on the GA list is 
> hardly a representative sample of the GA. There certainly were more 
> than 12 at the last 4 face to face meetings.
>
> Posting the announcement on the various constituency lists would 
> perhaps, encourage others back onto the GA list, and encourage broader

> participation levels.
>
> Also, we might consider e-mailing the announcement to the GA voting 
> list.
>
> Finally, I am a member of the GA, and have as much right to speak 
> (post) here as anyone.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eric 
> Dierker
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 11:22 PM
> To: Peter de Blanc
> Cc: [email-masked]; 'Bret A. Fausett'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Task Force Member
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Am I missing something?  why possibly would the GA write to 
> Constituencies to garner support or denial.  You are reccomending top 
> down consensus.  The GA is supposed to tell the NC what to do not the 
> other way around.  Let us try this real easy;  *bottoms up open and 
> transparent stakeholder
> represenativiness*
>
> (snip)
>
> >
> > For starters, write to a NC member of each constituency and get this

> > matter posted on the constituency lists.
> >
>
> For starters check in with the top in order to form our thoughts???? 
> This must have been a private post accidentally posted publicly.
>
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> > Chair, ccTLD
>
> Have you moved the channels you just suggested in making this 
> statement as a chair or are you doing all the things perceived wrong 
> by you? Major problem signing this as the ccTLD chair, Danny would 
> never do such a thing!  Mr. Thrush would never have acted in such 
> impulsive behavior.
>
> I am sorry if I have offended but dictating policy from one 
> constituency to the GA is detrimental to progress.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> --
> 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

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:44:14 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
 
> Is there a definition of domain name in a relevant RFC? I don't know the
> answer, but that might be a good question to ask someone on the IAB/IETF.

As an RFC, or the same document as an Internet Standard:

ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1034.txt
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/std/std13.txt

DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES
November 1987, obsoleting some earlier RFCs.

| .. a hierarchical name space, with the hierarchy roughly corresponding
| to organizational structure, and names using "."  as the character to
| mark the boundary between hierarchy levels. ...
|
| 2.2. DNS design goals
|
| The design goals of the DNS influence its structure.  They are:
|
|   - The primary goal is a consistent name space which will be used
|     for referring to resources.

Hence the need for ICANN, or some other method of managing a single
consistent name space.

|    In order to avoid the problems caused by ad hoc encodings, names
|    should not be required to contain network identifiers, addresses,
|    routes, or similar information as part of the name.

A section the proponent(s?) of "IPv8" should take to heart. Violating
this is one of the more obvious flaws in that suggestion.

The closest thing to a definition, in rather formal terms:

| 3.1. Name space specifications and terminology
|
| The domain name space is a tree structure.  Each node and leaf on the
| tree ...
|
| Each node has a label, ... One label is reserved, and that is
| the null (i.e., zero length) label used for the root.
|
| The domain name of a node is the list of the labels on the path from
| the node to the root of the tree.  By convention, the labels that
| compose a domain name are printed or read left to right, from the
| most specific (lowest, farthest from the root) to the least specific
| (highest, closest to the root).
- --
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 #576
************************