Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #579
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Sunday, July 1 2001             Volume 01 : Number 579

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 12:48:27 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DO NOT WRITE TO OR COPY GA-ABUSE

Dear William

I have asked MANY times that people DO NOT copy ga-abuse.

Please don't do so.  Don't even write to it unless you are lodging a
complaint.

Could I ask Danny to PLEASE add this to the cross-posting prohibitions?
Or tell those people at the NC to do so.  Whatever it takes . . . .

SHEESH !!!!

And William, please stop abusing, insulting and harassing people.

Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
To: William S. Lovell <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Danny Younger <[email-masked]>; Patrick
Corliss <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 10:35 AM
Subject: Re[2]: Fwd: Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions...
[ga-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

> Hello William,
>
> Saturday, June 30, 2001, 4:59:32 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > This from William X. Walsh?  Who in a recent post answering a
> > "clueless newbie" (who predictably has not been seen again),
> > included the immortal lines (and I paraphrase) "you are just
> > showing your ignorance?"
>
> I never called Palmer a clueless newbie, though I did say he was
> showing his ignorance.
>
> And anyone who thinks Palmer is a newbie or new (or that he is no
> longer on this forum) doesn't know who they are speaking of.
>
> Might want to get your facts straight before you attack someone Bill.
>
> I hope your clients get better facts checking from you than this.
>
> --
> 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 19:45:06 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: DO NOT WRITE TO OR COPY GA-ABUSE

Hello Patrick,

Saturday, June 30, 2001, 7:48:27 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Dear William

> I have asked MANY times that people DO NOT copy ga-abuse.

Abuse was NOT copied.

The email was TO ga-abuse, with a CC TO THE PERSON I WAS COMPLAINING
ABOUT.

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT MR ALT CHAIR.

I did not send the complaint to the list.

> And William, please stop abusing, insulting and harassing people.

I haven't been Patrick, and an apology from you had better be
forthcoming.

As Alt-Chair you are not exempt from the rules, and I have lodged a
complaint against you for this message.

- -- 
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: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 12:59:17 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Abuse of [ga-abuse].  Yet again.

Dear Executive

There were FIVE ga moderators appointed by Danny.  Bruce James, Harald Tveit
Alvestrand, Kristy McKee, Alexander Svennson and myself.

Two have resigned.  I am not taking any cases.

Is it possible that you might consider a simple request to stop people
cross-posting to [ga-abuse]?  Otherwise we might as well just add it to all
of the other sublists.

Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
Cc: [ga] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 12:48 PM
Subject: DO NOT WRITE TO OR COPY GA-ABUSE

> Dear William
>
> I have asked MANY times that people DO NOT copy ga-abuse.
>
> Please don't do so.  Don't even write to it unless you are lodging a
> complaint.
>
> Could I ask Danny to PLEASE add this to the cross-posting prohibitions?
> Or tell those people at the NC to do so.  Whatever it takes . . . .
>
> SHEESH !!!!
>
> And William, please stop abusing, insulting and harassing people.
>
> Patrick Corliss
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> To: William S. Lovell <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Danny Younger <[email-masked]>;
Patrick
> Corliss <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 10:35 AM
> Subject: Re[2]: Fwd: Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions...
> [ga-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
>
>
> > Hello William,
> >
> > Saturday, June 30, 2001, 4:59:32 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
> >
> > > This from William X. Walsh?  Who in a recent post answering a
> > > "clueless newbie" (who predictably has not been seen again),
> > > included the immortal lines (and I paraphrase) "you are just
> > > showing your ignorance?"
> >
> > I never called Palmer a clueless newbie, though I did say he was
> > showing his ignorance.
> >
> > And anyone who thinks Palmer is a newbie or new (or that he is no
> > longer on this forum) doesn't know who they are speaking of.
> >
> > Might want to get your facts straight before you attack someone Bill.
> >
> > I hope your clients get better facts checking from you than this.
> >
> > --
> > 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 23:45:51 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp] UDRP   Questionnaire

I would agree that the original intent of the UDRP was that it focus on a
narrow set of problem/collisions.  It sounds as if you are saying, William,
that "morphing" is occurring, and more cases should be brought before
courts.  thanks for your clarification and response. Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 8:33 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; [email-masked]; ga-udrp; Jefsey Morfin;
[email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp]
UDRP Questionnaire

Hello Marilyn,

Saturday, June 30, 2001, 4:11:52 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

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

I think instead what we need to do is decide upon a set of limitations
where a trademark holder may take advantage of the UDRP rather than a
court room, and that those limits may not provide them the same
protections they would have in a court room.

I rather like the idea of flat out prohibiting UDRP claims on domains
over 3 years old.  That forces the mark holder to use a court room to
make claims against domains that have been in use for a while, setting
a higher standard.

I would say that claims based on locality names also be excluded as
previously mentioned.

Claims based on a domain in which the domain or a substantive portion
of the domain is made up of all or some of the registrant's actual
name be excluded, including business names.

If a domain name that is the same as the business name is infringing,
then the business' name itself must also be infringing, so there is a
larger problem here that should be addressed in court, not in a UDRP
hearing.

I think that the UDRP should be restricted to a very narrow class of
marks, and that certain domains should qualify for exemptions from
particular claims.

This does not deprive the mark holder of any rights, since they have
the same legal resource as before.  It is only denying them the
privilege of using the UDRP process.

- -- 
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
- --
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 21:02:51 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp]   UDRP  Questionnaire

Friends,
I am sure most of you have been around long enough to remember when I
took Walsh on in order to prevent problems for Mr. Burton getting the
WG-Review papers through.  I will do it again if the occassion requires
it for Mr. Lovell getting his rules up and running. It is a small price
to pay for such a small cog in a slowly grinding machine. But as I have
been asked by dear friends and as I have asked Mr. Lovell and Mr.
Namecritic just simply ignore the attacks.  On this occassion I will not
be banned but I will be attacked in an ugly way with publishing of
private posts and taking matters out of context. But I will stand tall
and thank the examples and teaching of such wonderful people as Joanna,
Jefsey, Joop, Jeff, Sotiris, Jim, Patrick, Danny Roeland and so many
others.

Mr. Walsh please stop being abusive of the fine people that contribute to
this list.  You may not be legally sophisticated enough to understand but
you have defamed the reputation of a fine Attorney.  His work here is
voluntary and very helpful to possibly millions I would hate to see him
driven away by the liability you create for him.  I do not expect you to
understand but he may not commit passive admissions.  You see on this
list we have a set of decorum concepts which work well, but in law
failure to attack you back and make a stand may be viewed by some as an
admission to the truth of your accusations. (I hereby deny all your
accusations on his behalf)

You may play games on this list but when you mess with others right to
their good name in their profession you cross the line.  This line I will
not cross but I will defend. One more attack on another's professionalism
and I will want you to post every private post I have ever made so that
we can have at it in public and both get banned.

Other than that, have a great day, I did!!
Sincerely,
Eric

ps I am referring to all of your posts attacking him, not just this one.
"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello William,
>
> Saturday, June 30, 2001, 4:59:32 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > This from William X. Walsh?  Who in a recent post answering a
> > "clueless newbie" (who predictably has not been seen again),
> > included the immortal lines (and I paraphrase) "you are just
> > showing your ignorance?"
>
> I never called Palmer a clueless newbie, though I did say he was
> showing his ignorance.
>
> And anyone who thinks Palmer is a newbie or new (or that he is no
> longer on this forum) doesn't know who they are speaking of.
>
> Might want to get your facts straight before you attack someone Bill.
>
> I hope your clients get better facts checking from you than this.
>
> --
> 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-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 21:55:14 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp]   UDRP  Questionnaire

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Friends,
> I am sure most of you have been around long enough to remember when I
> took Walsh on in order to prevent problems for Mr. Burton getting the
> WG-Review papers through.  I will do it again if the occassion requires
> it for Mr. Lovell getting his rules up and running. It is a small price
> to pay for such a small cog in a slowly grinding machine. But as I have
> been asked by dear friends and as I have asked Mr. Lovell and Mr.
> Namecritic just simply ignore the attacks.  On this occassion I will not
> be banned but I will be attacked in an ugly way with publishing of
> private posts and taking matters out of context. But I will stand tall
> and thank the examples and teaching of such wonderful people as Joanna,
> Jefsey, Joop, Jeff, Sotiris, Jim, Patrick, Danny Roeland and so many
> others.
>
> Mr. Walsh please stop being abusive of the fine people that contribute to
> this list.  You may not be legally sophisticated enough to understand but
> you have defamed the reputation of a fine Attorney.  His work here is
> voluntary and very helpful to possibly millions I would hate to see him
> driven away by the liability you create for him.

To whom it may concern:

Thank you, Eric. But I've never been driven away from anything in my
life, and I'm not likely to start now.  I may change my milieu if that
seems necessary (no need to here), but as with yourself, the work
goes on in the face of all flea bites.  :-)

(Incidentally, I like your list above, mostly. I'd add some names,
as you indicate you could, too, but they know who they are!)

Bill

>  I do not expect you to
> understand but he may not commit passive admissions.  You see on this
> list we have a set of decorum concepts which work well, but in law
> failure to attack you back and make a stand may be viewed by some as an
> admission to the truth of your accusations. (I hereby deny all your
> accusations on his behalf)
>
> You may play games on this list but when you mess with others right to
> their good name in their profession you cross the line.  This line I will
> not cross but I will defend. One more attack on another's professionalism
> and I will want you to post every private post I have ever made so that
> we can have at it in public and both get banned.
>
> Other than that, have a great day, I did!!
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> ps I am referring to all of your posts attacking him, not just this one.
> "William X. Walsh" wrote:
>
> > Hello William,
> >
> > Saturday, June 30, 2001, 4:59:32 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
> >
> > > This from William X. Walsh?  Who in a recent post answering a
> > > "clueless newbie" (who predictably has not been seen again),
> > > included the immortal lines (and I paraphrase) "you are just
> > > showing your ignorance?"
> >
> > I never called Palmer a clueless newbie, though I did say he was
> > showing his ignorance.
> >
> > And anyone who thinks Palmer is a newbie or new (or that he is no
> > longer on this forum) doesn't know who they are speaking of.
> >
> > Might want to get your facts straight before you attack someone Bill.
> >
> > I hope your clients get better facts checking from you than this.
> >
> > --
> > 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-full" 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 22:08:36 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp]  UDRP   Questionnaire

Hello Marilyn,

Saturday, June 30, 2001, 8:45:51 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I would agree that the original intent of the UDRP was that it focus on a
> narrow set of problem/collisions.  It sounds as if you are saying, William,
> that "morphing" is occurring, and more cases should be brought before
> courts.  thanks for your clarification and response. Marilyn

No, I'm saying that it wasn't clearly defined at first, letting any
claim go under the UDRP, and that one area that could do with reform
is to set a strict limit as to the types of claims that can and cannot
be brought, and criteria for cases.

- -- 
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 20:57:37 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Sandy and all assembly members,

Sandy Harris wrote:

> "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

Neither of these is a standard, but rather "Notes".  the latter of the two
references does contain a RFC-1035 with is an RFC (Request for Comment)
not a standard that is relevant to what Marilyn was requesting/suggesting.
None the less it is assumed that a Domain Name is easily recognizable...

>
>
> 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

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 21:08:27 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp] UDRP Questionna ire

WXW and all assembly members,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> 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.

  NO not in many cases, but only a very few...  None the less this is the
reason that the current UDRP is considered Extra-legal and becoming more
broadly thought as such.

>
>
> >
> >> >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.

  The TM holders have the right to go to court anyway in most countries.
So this is a non-issue...

>
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 21:01:54 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp] UDRP Questionna ire

Marilyn and all assembly members,

  You seem to have left our that there have already been several
additional questions added to Miltons list, by myself (7), Jefsey (1)
Chris ( 3 or 4)...  Those can be found in the [email-masked]
list archives.  You might want to compile a "Complete" list of the
thus far suggested questions so as to be more inclusive, accurate
and accountable....

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> 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

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 19:36:08 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: DO NOT WRITE TO OR COPY GA-ABUSE

On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 19:45:06 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:

> I did not send the complaint to the list.

Yes you did.  So it was cross-posted.  The URL is:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03217.html

You also provided extra copies to me and Danny.
So we both got THREE copies.  Mine, ga and ga-abuse.

The details are:

- ----- Original Message -----
From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
To: William S. Lovell <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Danny Younger <[email-masked]>; Patrick
Corliss <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 17:35:47 -0700 
Subject: Re[2]: Fwd: Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions...
[ga-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 19:46:08 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Speaking Out

On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 04:23:58 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Finally, I am a member of the GA, and have as much right to speak (post)
> here as anyone.

Hi Peter

Quite right.  Thank you.

I do not necessarily support or oppose Danny's onlist proposals and
my reticence should not be interpreted, or misinterpreted, as support,
opposition or otherwise.  It should, if anything, be taken as a sign that
Danny has not consulted with me prior to floating his ideas.

Neither am I saying that he should although it would be pragmatic.

In this case I agree with Peter's comments.  My view is that that the few
people who have posted to UDRP (including me) are not representative
of the GA as a whole -- the "Greater GA".

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #579
************************