Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #577
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Sunday, July 1 2001             Volume 01 : Number 577

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:45:45 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp] UDRP Questionna ire

Bill, you do feel strongly about that subject!  :-)

I know there are a lot of opinions on this topic, and I don't want to start
a range war. I'm not commenting on whether a questionnaire is a good idea or
not, but I agree that real verifiable facts are GOOD!  I'm a little
concerned that all questionnaires that might be distributed (I said this
about the WHOIS questionnaire as well) should be considered probably
qualitative input.  But that doesn't mean it isn't useful as background,
etc. 

I'll try to add a question or perhaps some other ideas/clarifications to
Milton's list.  They are in caps inserted into a copy of Milton's initial
list with a comment in [] if needed.  I understand that Milton may not
accept my friendly amendments :-) and could offer them as stand alone
questions, should you prefer, Milton.  

A well qualified statistically valid study will take time and money, and
expertise which should be neutral and verifiable. BUT, getting some ideas
out via initial methods like this can be a great start to improving what is
known, what is believed, what is understood, and what still mystical.

Marilyn

> >001.    To what extent are panel decisions consistent with applicable
lawS? [I thought it better to note that there are multiple laws, and of
course, jurisdictional issues; I am not a lawyer, so Milton in particular
should comment on whether the "s" is needed.]
> >002.    Are decisions REGARDING CASES WITH SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS/FACTS
consistent across panelists and dispute resolution
> >service providers, and if not, what can be done about it? IS INFORMATION
AVAILABLE IN AGGREGATE FORM FROM EACH OF THE PROVIDERS WHICH WOULD ALLOW
SUCH AN ANALYSIS?
> >003.    Is the potential for abuse of claimed common law rights so great
that
> >the policy should be limited to registered marks? [THIS IS A COMMENT:
BOTH THE U.S. AND THE UK, TO MY KNOWLEDGE ACCEPT COMMON LAW RIGHTS.] 
> >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? AND IF SO, IS THE CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAWS?
> >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? IS INFORMATION
AVAILABLE, IN ADDITION, ABOUT HOW MANY INCIDENTS OF INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE
REGISTRATION INFORMATION HAVE HINDERED NOTIFICATION?  
> >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?  IF SO, WHAT IS THE PROCESS TO DETERMINE
"CLEARLY ERRONEOUS DECISIONS" ACROSS EACH OF THE PROVIDERS?
> >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? IF SO, SINCE LIABILITY WILL ACCOMPANY SUCH A ROLE, WHAT KIND OF
LIABILITY SHOULD THE REGISTRARS ASSUME?  DAMAGES, COSTS, ETC.?
> >011.    Do policies for accrediting or de-accrediting dispute resolution
> >service providers need to be specified in greater detail? WOULD IT BE
USEFUL TO CONSIDER A STANDARD SET OF CRITERIA FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR
PANELISTS WHICH ALL PROVIDERS MUST MEET TO BE ICANN CERTIFIED? 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?

- -----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 2:24 PM
To: Jefsey Morfin
Cc: [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
- --
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 16:46:31 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP Task Force Member

This sounds like a good way to reach into the constituencies, doesn't it?

- -----Original Message-----
From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 2:39 PM
To: 'Jeff Williams'
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 'Bret A. Fausett';
[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
- --
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 14:07:58 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp] UDRP Questionna ire

Hello Marilyn,

Saturday, June 30, 2001, 1:45:45 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

>> >the policy should be limited to registered marks? [THIS IS A COMMENT:
> BOTH THE U.S. AND THE UK, TO MY KNOWLEDGE ACCEPT COMMON LAW RIGHTS.]

Yes, but common law rights are so unclear in many cases, that it is
probably a good idea to have them excluded from mandatory arbitration,
and leave them to the courts.

>  
>> >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? AND IF SO, IS THE CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAWS?

Doesn't matter.  If we exclude them from the UDRP, the trademark
holders still have the right to go to court.  The UDRP doesn't have to
provide mandatory arbitration for every type of IP claim out there.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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 15:26:39 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp] UDRP  Questionnaire

[Why isn't this in ga-udrp? Because WXW doesn't want to go there?
Does he make these rules?]

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> Bill, you do feel strongly about that subject!  :-)

Hi, Marilyn!

It's not so much that I "feel strongly" (although that, too!), but that it's
a legal opinion that I reached, and argued, in a Federal Court case.

> I know there are a lot of opinions on this topic, and I don't want to start
> a range war. I'm not commenting on whether a questionnaire is a good idea or
> not, but I agree that real verifiable facts are GOOD!

I've no objection myself to any questionnaire that people want to try out.
If it serves me no purpose, I'll ignore it; should it come up with information
I can use in what I'm doing (with or without comment on the structure of
the questionnaire -- I concur with some of those (Leah, I believe was one)
who had found major holes in the objectivity of the WHOIS one), I'll use it.

> I'm a little
> concerned that all questionnaires that might be distributed (I said this
> about the WHOIS questionnaire as well) should be considered probably
> qualitative input.  But that doesn't mean it isn't useful as background,
> etc.

I would indeed call every questionnaire seen so far as being qualitative.

> I'll try to add a question or perhaps some other ideas/clarifications to
> Milton's list.  They are in caps inserted into a copy of Milton's initial
> list with a comment in [] if needed.  I understand that Milton may not
> accept my friendly amendments :-) and could offer them as stand alone
> questions, should you prefer, Milton.

Go for it.

>
> A well qualified statistically valid study will [INSERT: "would" (sic)] take

> time and money, and
> expertise which should be neutral and verifiable. BUT, getting some ideas
> out via initial methods like this can be a great start to improving what is
> known, what is believed, what is understood, and what still mystical.

Concur wholeheartedly.  (Mostly mystical, methinks!)

(Down below I'm answering some of the questions, rather than posing or
editing questions, just to show how the questions as written might be
interpreted.)

>
> Marilyn
>
> > >001.    To what extent are panel decisions consistent with applicable
> lawS? [I thought it better to note that there are multiple laws, and of
> course, jurisdictional issues; I am not a lawyer, so Milton in particular
> should comment on whether the "s" is needed.]

I say the "s" is needed as  law(s).

>
> > >002.    Are decisions REGARDING CASES WITH SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS/FACTS
> consistent across panelists and dispute resolution
> > >service providers,

Evidently not, with the amount of forum shopping going on.

> and if not, what can be done about it?

I'll hate myself for this, but the way that the courts enforce uniformity over,
say,
the regional circuit courts, is that there is an appeal to the U. S. Supreme
Court
which then defines standards for the lower appellate courts to follow.  Even
that
does not work too well -- some circuits (e.g., the 9th) make it a practice of
weaseling their way around U. S. Supreme Court decisions -- they read the ones
they want to read and ignore the rest.

> IS INFORMATION
> AVAILABLE IN AGGREGATE FORM FROM EACH OF THE PROVIDERS WHICH WOULD ALLOW
> SUCH AN ANALYSIS?

Is that a poll type question? Isn't it a request for information?

>
> > >003.    Is the potential for abuse of claimed common law rights so great
> that
> > >the policy should be limited to registered marks? [THIS IS A COMMENT:
> BOTH THE U.S. AND THE UK, TO MY KNOWLEDGE ACCEPT COMMON LAW RIGHTS.]

Here is why the "s" on "law(s)" is needed -- practice differs, such that in the
U.S. you gain trademark
rights by use, and (contrary to the very prevalent conception otherwise), these
"common law" rights
are fully as good and fully as enforceable as those that also have a
registration. The registration itself,
also contrary to notions long promulgated erroneously by Network Solutions and
its successors
(including ICANN), imparts no substantive rights whatever, but only procedural
advantages.  By
contrast, in Europe you can get a trademark registration, and have rights
therefrom, even though
the mark has never been used.  If there were to be any UDRP at all (which I
oppose), it should be
effective with respect to the law of the country in which the mark is claimed.
A case "tried" (quite
a laughable use of the term, really) in Europe with regard to a U.S. common law
right should
recognize that common law right.  (And here, of course, is one of the major
problems: I would
wager that most of those on these panels are techie Internet gurus who don't
know beans about
any trademark law anywhere.)

>
> > >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? AND IF SO, IS THE CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAWS?

Follow the law of the jurisdiction wherein claimed.

>
> > >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?

Good question

> IS INFORMATION
> AVAILABLE, IN ADDITION, ABOUT HOW MANY INCIDENTS OF INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE
> REGISTRATION INFORMATION HAVE HINDERED NOTIFICATION?

Isn't that again a request for information rather than an opinion?

> > >006.    Do complainants and respondents have parity in post-UDRP access
> to
> > >the courts?

How would most people be able to answer this?

> > >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?

Good question

> > >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?

Separate these two, of course.

> IF SO, WHAT IS THE PROCESS TO DETERMINE
> "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS DECISIONS" ACROSS EACH OF THE PROVIDERS?
> > >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? IF SO, SINCE LIABILITY WILL ACCOMPANY SUCH A ROLE,

No poll should express legal conclusions like this.

Nuff said. :-)

Bill Lovell

> WHAT KIND OF
> LIABILITY SHOULD THE REGISTRARS ASSUME?  DAMAGES, COSTS, ETC.?
> > >011.    Do policies for accrediting or de-accrediting dispute resolution
> > >service providers need to be specified in greater detail? WOULD IT BE
> USEFUL TO CONSIDER A STANDARD SET OF CRITERIA FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR
> PANELISTS WHICH ALL PROVIDERS MUST MEET TO BE ICANN CERTIFIED? 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?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 2:24 PM
> To: Jefsey Morfin
> Cc: [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
> --
> 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 17:32:04 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Original purpose of the DNS

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C1018A.9441F630
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C1018A.9441F630
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><FONT size=3D3>The original purpose of the DNS was =
to provide=20
identifiers for network<BR>objects that are more easily remembered and =
enduring=20
than the<BR>numerical addresses and port numbers used by the network=20
infrastructure.<BR>However, domain names are now often used for purposes =
for=20
which<BR>they were *not* originally intended, such as searching,=20
corporate<BR>identification and marketing.&nbsp; And certain domain =
names,=20
especially<BR>those in the .com top-level domain, have acquired=20
substantial<BR>economic value, leading to conflict and competition over =
their=20
ownership<BR>and a perceived scarcity of desirable =
names.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><FONT size=3D3></FONT><BR><BR>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>/Bruce<BR></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT></STRONG></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C1018A.9441F630--

- --
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 18:43:58 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Sandy Harris wrote:

> 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).

Thanks for digging this up Sandy, but as you know, this is simply a description
of the DNS.

Is anyone else aware of anything approaching a definition of Domain Names?  I
must admit, I am rather surprised that we have not heard from anyone in the IP
field on this matter.  It seems to me that domain names must be *something* if
they can be subjected to a "sham" (a la Bill Lovell) process such as the UDRP
in the first place!  Surely somebody representing the IP community must have
something to offer us on this topic?

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 18:55:51 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp] UDRP  Questionnaire

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> <snip>I'll hate myself for this, but the way that the courts enforce uniformity
> over,
> say,
> the regional circuit courts, is that there is an appeal to the U. S. Supreme
> Court
> which then defines standards for the lower appellate courts to follow.  Even
> that
> does not work too well -- some circuits (e.g., the 9th) make it a practice of
> weaseling their way around U. S. Supreme Court decisions -- they read the ones
> they want to read and ignore the rest.<snip>

Is that the infamous "Rocket Docket"?  Yes, a rather slick operation that...  Did
someone say something about Law???

> <snip>(And here, of course, is one of the major
> problems: I would
> wager that most of those on these panels are techie Internet gurus who don't
> know beans about
> any trademark law anywhere.)<snip>

I'll take you up on that wager Bill.  How much would you like to lose?

> > >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?
>
> Good question

An excellent question Marilyn!  Milton Mueller has already proposed a 3 year
registration stipulation.  I fully support Milton's initiative.

Regards,

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 19:07:06 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp] UDRP Q uestionna ire

William, I certainly agree that the UDRP doesn't have to cover every
eventuality... some things are better left to courts. Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 5:08 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: [email-masked]'; Jefsey Morfin; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp] UDRP
Questionna ire

Hello Marilyn,

Saturday, June 30, 2001, 1:45:45 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

>> >the policy should be limited to registered marks? [THIS IS A COMMENT:
> BOTH THE U.S. AND THE UK, TO MY KNOWLEDGE ACCEPT COMMON LAW RIGHTS.]

Yes, but common law rights are so unclear in many cases, that it is
probably a good idea to have them excluded from mandatory arbitration,
and leave them to the courts.

>  
>> >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? AND IF SO, IS THE CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAWS?

Doesn't matter.  If we exclude them from the UDRP, the trademark
holders still have the right to go to court.  The UDRP doesn't have to
provide mandatory arbitration for every type of IP claim out there.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo
- --
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 19:11:52 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp] UDRP   Questionnaire

Folks, while we can get very excited about options and ideas, we do need to
reflect back to what the law is...

I know that courts aren't perfect either.  But then,neither is random
justice, doled out by fiat... so somewhere there is a balance and we do the
best we can.  I don't know if Milton's proposal of 3 years works in actual
experience, but I suspect that if someone has been using a domain name for
three years, most courts would take that into consideration.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 6:56 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: ga-udrp; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Jefsey Morfin; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp] UDRP
Questionnaire

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> <snip>I'll hate myself for this, but the way that the courts enforce
uniformity
> over,
> say,
> the regional circuit courts, is that there is an appeal to the U. S.
Supreme
> Court
> which then defines standards for the lower appellate courts to follow.
Even
> that
> does not work too well -- some circuits (e.g., the 9th) make it a practice
of
> weaseling their way around U. S. Supreme Court decisions -- they read the
ones
> they want to read and ignore the rest.<snip>

Is that the infamous "Rocket Docket"?  Yes, a rather slick operation that...
Did
someone say something about Law???

> <snip>(And here, of course, is one of the major
> problems: I would
> wager that most of those on these panels are techie Internet gurus who
don't
> know beans about
> any trademark law anywhere.)<snip>

I'll take you up on that wager Bill.  How much would you like to lose?

> > >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?
>
> Good question

An excellent question Marilyn!  Milton Mueller has already proposed a 3 year
registration stipulation.  I fully support Milton's initiative.

Regards,

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #577
************************