Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #583
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, July 3 2001            Volume 01 : Number 583

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 09:27:57 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP TF member

If you don't know lawyer's tricks you will, to put it none too politely,
get your butt sewed up in a sling by people who do. The people on
this committee will be evaluating legal standards of procedure, legal
rulings, and negotiating primarily with other lawyers.

>>> Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> 06/30/01 01:14PM >>>
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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 12:23:12 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: UDRP Task Force Member

Danny:

The number of "slots" on the UDRP review "task force" is limited.
As you may have noticed, it is not possible these days to get
the people who control the Names Council to authorize the
creation of open Working groups any more. I think they have
set aside 1 slot from the GA. However, we also authorized
two slots for independent experts, people who need not be
affiliated with GA or any other constituency. If the GA wants 
to recommend names for those positions it can do so.

The Syracuse University study is available at:
http://dcc.syr.edu/roughjustice.pdf

This study will be updated in a few months.

I know nothing about the Max Planck institute study, you need
to ask the IP constituency about that.

- --MM

>>> <[email-masked]> 06/30/01 02:33AM >>>
Dear Milton,

Thank you for your earlier suggestion to look for a candidate with a law 
background as well as Internet knowledge.  We will do our best to field a 
candidate that best represents the GA, and I will soon ask our Secretariat to 
send out an announcement indicating that we are seeking a representative.  I 
am collecting input from our Assembly members so that we can make the best 
possible choice.  

As it is already becoming quickly apparent, we have a high degree of interest 
in this issue, and probably a large number of experts that can contribute to 
this topic.  I am aware that the Council has recently been debating the 
inclusion of non-constituency "experts" in Names Council Task Forces... if 
the GA can offer a number of suitable qualified candidates, will your Task 
Force be willing to accept more than one individual?

Please let us know as soon as possible, as this will affect our selection 
process.  

In the meantime, will you be able to provide URLS for the Syracuse University 
study, the Max Plank Institute study and the Rose Communication study?  

Best regards,
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

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 13:17:54 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP TF member

Milton, Sotris and all assembly members,

  Milton is quite likely correct here.  Thankfully I have some experience
and background in law and have yet to have my "butt sewed up in a sling"
by would be crafty lawyers.  In addition I have an excellent legal
advisory staff to consult with as well...

Milton Mueller wrote:

> If you don't know lawyer's tricks you will, to put it none too politely,
> get your butt sewed up in a sling by people who do. The people on
> this committee will be evaluating legal standards of procedure, legal
> rulings, and negotiating primarily with other lawyers.
>
> >>> Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> 06/30/01 01:14PM >>>
> 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

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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 14:24:46 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP TF member

I have studied rhetoric and formal logic extensively, there is not many
tricks a
lawyer can swing by me... In any case, there are others on this list who
have some formal training in argumentation, albeit not many. 
Personally, I thrive on rigourous arguments (of which I've seen little
evidence in the GA generally -from lawyers and non).  As for legal
rulings... everybody has to do their homework, lawyers included-
research skills are not limited to lawyers.  With respect to
negotiating... is this supposed to be a task force or a marketplace?

Best Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Milton Mueller wrote:

> If you don't know lawyer's tricks you will, to put it none too politely,
> get your butt sewed up in a sling by people who do. The people on
> this committee will be evaluating legal standards of procedure, legal
> rulings, and negotiating primarily with other lawyers.
>
> >>> Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> 06/30/01 01:14PM >>>
> 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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 14:30:48 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] response to UDRP TF member message

Of course, none of my studies excuse my use of the singular "is" when
the point of reference was a plurality (tricks).  LOL

RE my response below:

I have studied rhetoric and formal logic extensively, there is not many
tricks a
lawyer can swing by me... In any case, there are others on this list who
have some formal training in argumentation, albeit not many. 
Personally, I thrive on rigourous arguments (of which I've seen little
evidence in the GA generally -from lawyers and non).  As for legal
rulings... everybody has to do their homework, lawyers included-
research skills are not limited to lawyers.  With respect to
negotiating... is this supposed to be a task force or a marketplace?

Best Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Milton Mueller wrote:

> If you don't know lawyer's tricks you will, to put it none too politely,
> get your butt sewed up in a sling by people who do. The people on
> this committee will be evaluating legal standards of procedure, legal
> rulings, and negotiating primarily with other lawyers.
>
> >>> Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> 06/30/01 01:14PM >>>
> 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: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:48:16 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP TF member

One of the largest problems with the UDRP is that it supersedes 
national and local law.  Another is that it is obvious that arbitrators 
have little understanding of it and ignore it in many cases.  

It is going to take legal eagles to do something about UDRP to 
protect individual rightsof legitimate domain name holders - within 
the law.  Without experience in the legal antics as opposed to just 
pure research and rhetoric, the chances of a representative from 
the GA to fully support our consensus for rights of individuals, we 
have little chance of success.

I have to agree with Milton, here.  We need a representative with 
legal background, preferably a JD, and one who is passionate 
enough to make a difference while representing us.

Leah

On 2 Jul 2001, at 14:24, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> I have studied rhetoric and formal logic extensively, there is not
> many tricks a lawyer can swing by me... In any case, there are others
> on this list who have some formal training in argumentation, albeit
> not many. Personally, I thrive on rigourous arguments (of which I've
> seen little evidence in the GA generally -from lawyers and non).  As
> for legal rulings... everybody has to do their homework, lawyers
> included- research skills are not limited to lawyers.  With respect to
> negotiating... is this supposed to be a task force or a marketplace?
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 
> Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> > If you don't know lawyer's tricks you will, to put it none too
> > politely, get your butt sewed up in a sling by people who do. The
> > people on this committee will be evaluating legal standards of
> > procedure, legal rulings, and negotiating primarily with other
> > lawyers.
> >
> > >>> Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> 06/30/01
> > >>> 01:14PM >>>
> > 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-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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 16:14:46 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: UDRP Task Force Member

Milton Mueller wrote:

> ... I think they have set aside 1 slot from the GA. However, we
> also authorized two slots for independent experts, people who need
> not be affiliated with GA or any other constituency. If the GA wants
> to recommend names for those positions it can do so.

Methinks Froomkin should go, and if he qualifies as an independent
expert (as he should, being a law professor and haveing published
a good deal of material on net.issues), then we can send some else
as a GA rep.
- --
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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 13:39:18 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] response to UDRP TF member message

I would like to revisit this issue in a different more global light.  Staff
puts out most of the position papers for ICANN.  I think it would be fair to
assume Mr. Cerf and Mr. Lynn's letters and papers go through Staff.  Staff
basically consists of lawyers. I think that is a fatal flaw, but nevertheless
true.

With that said I have a logical problem.  I think that we would do well not to
make the same kind of error on the other hand Mr. Mueller makes a good point.
I would rather our contribution be more of the "lay" variety but clearly you do
not send a grade school teacher to do battle with highly trained legal
combatant.

So by heavily waiting the top with legal experts they have defined the terms of
battle.  We ignore it and we will end up with martyrs, by engaging it we lose
one more link to dotcommoners.  I do not think a strick requirement should be
made, but we must determine our represenative to be an advocate and mouthpiece
for the GA.  Those type of skills must be present in our Rep. But I also do not
see anyone being considered who is not adequate in this regard.

Sincerely,
Eric

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Of course, none of my studies excuse my use of the singular "is" when
> the point of reference was a plurality (tricks).  LOL
>
> RE my response below:
>
> I have studied rhetoric and formal logic extensively, there is not many
> tricks a
> lawyer can swing by me... In any case, there are others on this list who
> have some formal training in argumentation, albeit not many.
> Personally, I thrive on rigourous arguments (of which I've seen little
> evidence in the GA generally -from lawyers and non).  As for legal
> rulings... everybody has to do their homework, lawyers included-
> research skills are not limited to lawyers.  With respect to
> negotiating... is this supposed to be a task force or a marketplace?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> > If you don't know lawyer's tricks you will, to put it none too politely,
> > get your butt sewed up in a sling by people who do. The people on
> > this committee will be evaluating legal standards of procedure, legal
> > rulings, and negotiating primarily with other lawyers.
> >
> > >>> Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> 06/30/01 01:14PM >>>
> > 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-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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 14:09:37 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] response to UDRP TF member message

Eric Dierker wrote:

>
> So by heavily waiting the top with legal experts they have defined the terms of
> battle.  We ignore it and we will end up with martyrs, by engaging it we lose
> one more link to dotcommoners.

Eric, I think your premise is mistaken.  Attorneys do represent "the little
people,"
which I assume you to mean by your term "dotcommoners."  That the attorney
may wear a 3-piece does not at all mean that there is no sympathy with, and
dedication to seeking to fulfill, the wishes of the client. That's what the job is,
in
an ordinary attorney-client relationship (which of course we do not have and
will not have here in this position being addressed).

For the record, let me say that I myself could not fill this role because of a
conflict
of interest.

Bill Lovell

- --
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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 17:30:21 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  UDRP Task Force Member

Sandy Harris writes:  "Methinks Froomkin should go, and if he qualifies as an independent expert (as he should, being a law professor and haveing published a good deal of material on net.issues), then we can send some else as a GA rep."

Unfortunately, from what I recall, the Names Council decided at their teleconference to specifically exclude members that had participated in the original UDRP drafting committee consisting of J. Scott Evans, A. Michael Froomkin, Kathryn A. Kleiman, Steven J. Metalitz, and Rita A. Rodin
(this committee is referenced by name at the following URL:
http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-24oct99.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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 17:54:39 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: UDRP Task Force Member

Sandy and all assembly members,

  I don't believe that Prof. Froomkin  has been nominated yet...
Are you formally nominating him?

Sandy Harris wrote:

> Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> > ... I think they have set aside 1 slot from the GA. However, we
> > also authorized two slots for independent experts, people who need
> > not be affiliated with GA or any other constituency. If the GA wants
> > to recommend names for those positions it can do so.
>
> Methinks Froomkin should go, and if he qualifies as an independent
> expert (as he should, being a law professor and haveing published
> a good deal of material on net.issues), then we can send some else
> as a GA rep.
> --
> 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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 18:50:53 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] response to UDRP TF member message

Eric Dierker wrote:

> So by heavily waiting the top with legal experts they have defined the terms of
> battle.  We ignore it and we will end up with martyrs, by engaging it we lose
> one more link to dotcommoners.

And this is the very issue... bottoms up serfdom.  Although I shudder to think that
it has come to such a state of affairs... I will say that, if it needs be a legal
eagle who represents the GA, and Michael Froomkin is excluded via NC directive,
then there is also Rod Dixon.  If Rod likes, he has my nomination.  Those
interested in Rod's ideas on current UDRP matters should read his Response to the
WIPO Interim Report at: http://www.cyberspaces.org/wipo2response.html

However, I am wondering why the GA of the DNSO gets only one rep...

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: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 16:31:51 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] response to UDRP TF member message

Hello Sotiris,

Monday, July 02, 2001, 3:50:53 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Eric Dierker wrote:

>> So by heavily waiting the top with legal experts they have defined the terms of
>> battle.  We ignore it and we will end up with martyrs, by engaging it we lose
>> one more link to dotcommoners.

> And this is the very issue... bottoms up serfdom.  Although I shudder to think that
> it has come to such a state of affairs... I will say that, if it needs be a legal
> eagle who represents the GA, and Michael Froomkin is excluded via NC directive,
> then there is also Rod Dixon.  If Rod likes, he has my nomination.  Those
> interested in Rod's ideas on current UDRP matters should read his Response to the
> WIPO Interim Report at: http://www.cyberspaces.org/wipo2response.html

You could do a whole lot worse than Dan Steinberg.

Formerly (currently?) a moderator of the ORSC list, former initial
member of the IDNO steering committee, member of the BWG, and someone
who has earned respect even from those on the opposite end of this
issue.

He's someone they will listen to.  And his ability to make his case in
both a compelling and professional manner is just one of many
qualifications he holds for this position.

- -- 
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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 19:33:31 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] response to UDRP TF member message

WXW and all assembly members,

  Dan is a fine person and in the past, was an active ICANN participant.
He indeed has some basic and fine experience as he has been a good
advocate for the ORSC as well as the old IFWP.

However he has not been seen on any of the ICANN related Mailing lists
for some time now and therefore is not current.  As such, his qualifications
for the representative of the GA possibly could be adversely effective.

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Sotiris,
>
> Monday, July 02, 2001, 3:50:53 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> >> So by heavily waiting the top with legal experts they have defined the terms of
> >> battle.  We ignore it and we will end up with martyrs, by engaging it we lose
> >> one more link to dotcommoners.
>
> > And this is the very issue... bottoms up serfdom.  Although I shudder to think that
> > it has come to such a state of affairs... I will say that, if it needs be a legal
> > eagle who represents the GA, and Michael Froomkin is excluded via NC directive,
> > then there is also Rod Dixon.  If Rod likes, he has my nomination.  Those
> > interested in Rod's ideas on current UDRP matters should read his Response to the
> > WIPO Interim Report at: http://www.cyberspaces.org/wipo2response.html
>
> You could do a whole lot worse than Dan Steinberg.
>
> Formerly (currently?) a moderator of the ORSC list, former initial
> member of the IDNO steering committee, member of the BWG, and someone
> who has earned respect even from those on the opposite end of this
> issue.
>
> He's someone they will listen to.  And his ability to make his case in
> both a compelling and professional manner is just one of many
> qualifications he holds for this position.
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 22:51:44 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] response to UDRP TF member message

These are some good qualities and some fair reasons for nominations.

"William X. Walsh" wrote:
You could do a whole lot worse than Dan Steinberg.

>
> Formerly (currently?) a moderator of the ORSC list, former initial
> member of the IDNO steering committee, member of the BWG, and someone
> who has earned respect even from those on the opposite end of this
> issue.
>
> He's someone they will listen to.  And his ability to make his case in
> both a compelling and professional manner is just one of many
> qualifications he holds for this position.

I am a huge fan of archives and our own history.  It is not difficult to find Mr.
Steinberg and he has contributed.  However we should always look to current
contributors.  This thing we are working with is dynamic if nothing else and if you do
not currently contribute you are not necessarily growing with the rest of us.

Next point is passion which was clearly lacking (in favor of other factors) in the last
go around.  We need someone yelling and screaming about our position.  I support the
theory regarding competence in negotiation but find no candidate lacking therein so it is
a non-issue, heck they can refer back here for any advice they need.

I am no longer torn between two fine friends, Jeff and Chris.  My dot commoners endorse
them both and I am sure that they will consult with each other who ever is appointed.

Let us move forward with a choice that will fight with dignity but not worry about their
residuals more than our need for a proper UDRP.

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

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

Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 11:02:37 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Original purpose of the DNS

- --On 1. juli 2001 14:49 +0200 Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> BTW you might be interested in Mokapertis' RFC1034:
> <quote>
> The terms "domain" or "domain name" are used in many contexts beyond the
> DNS described here. Very often, the term domain name is used to refer to
> a name with structure indicated by dots, but no relation to the DNS. This
> is particularly true in mail addressing [Quarterman 86].  <unquote>
> Interesting. Jefsey

Those of us who remember [email-masked] and [email-masked] know what 
he was talking about.
Not to mention [email-masked].

But at least it was easier to deal with than host1!host2!host3!host4!user.

             Harald

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

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

Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 11:20:39 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] response to UDRP TF member message

I also support the nomination of Dan Steinberg.
I had the privilege of arguing with him very often in the past, as we had 
opposing views on just about everything, and appreciate his professionalism.
I sure regret that in the recent times he did not contribute to the GA, but 
I don't think this will be important, provided that he takes the engagement 
of participating again while in office: otherwise, this could be a serious 
drawback.

Best regards
Roberto

>From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
>To: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
>CC: [email-masked], Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>, ga <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re[2]: [ga] response to UDRP TF member message
>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 16:31:51 -0700
>
>Hello Sotiris,
>
>Monday, July 02, 2001, 3:50:53 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> >> So by heavily waiting the top with legal experts they have defined the 
>terms of
> >> battle.  We ignore it and we will end up with martyrs, by engaging it 
>we lose
> >> one more link to dotcommoners.
>
> > And this is the very issue... bottoms up serfdom.  Although I shudder to 
>think that
> > it has come to such a state of affairs... I will say that, if it needs 
>be a legal
> > eagle who represents the GA, and Michael Froomkin is excluded via NC 
>directive,
> > then there is also Rod Dixon.  If Rod likes, he has my nomination.  
>Those
> > interested in Rod's ideas on current UDRP matters should read his 
>Response to the
> > WIPO Interim Report at: http://www.cyberspaces.org/wipo2response.html
>
>You could do a whole lot worse than Dan Steinberg.
>
>Formerly (currently?) a moderator of the ORSC list, former initial
>member of the IDNO steering committee, member of the BWG, and someone
>who has earned respect even from those on the opposite end of this
>issue.
>
>He's someone they will listen to.  And his ability to make his case in
>both a compelling and professional manner is just one of many
>qualifications he holds for this position.
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 11:31:33 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Admin note: I have resigned as list monitor

Good afternoon.

I have been off list few days, and I have received several private messages 
re: my following statement.

>
>I concur that Harald, as a person that over the years has built something
>for the Internet (and that is still doing so as IETF Chair), is
>unfortunately out of place in the GA.
>

I should explain it better. What I meant is that:
Unfortunately for the GA, it is more and more difficult for people who want 
to get something done (like Harald) to get it done on the list.
So there is a (regrettable but understandable) tendency to shift the 
engagement to other fora.

Hence, no criticism of Harald. Maybe a criticism of the GA (us all).

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 11:43:25 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Sotiris,

I may miss the point, but to me a domain name is exactly what defined in the 
document referenced by Sandy, i.e. a mnemonic way to reach a "thing" that 
has an Internet address.

This is why they have been created, anyway.

This is the same reason why "labels" have been introduced in assembler 
programs: to avoid to be obliged to reference the relative address of a code 
statement.

Regards
Roberto

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #583
************************