Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #584
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, July 3 2001            Volume 01 : Number 584

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

Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 07:38:18 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Admin note: I have resigned as list monitor

Roberto:

    Thank you for your clarifying your statement about Harald. I must admit
I was taken by surprise by your words.

    Now I understand and agree, "Maybe a criticism of the GA (us all)".

    For those of you who don't know, I also resigned as a List Monitor on
Monday, June 18, 2001. For reasons that I wish to keep private.

/Bruce James- X-LM

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 06:31
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

- --
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 08:43:53 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Roberto et al.,

So if MADONNA.COM is "a mnemonic way to reach a "thing" that has an Internet
address" why does the popstar have some kind of claim to ownership of the
domain?  Or how about the BARCELONA.COM domain?  I'm sorry Roberto, but your
response is a little too simplistic, almost naive.  If I were to ask you what
"gold" was would you tell me it was just a yellow metal?

Labels in assembler programs mean specifically whatever the programmer assigns
to them... in the case of domain names, where is the programmer who defines
their signification?  Isn't the original registrant the arbiter of meaning as a
domain name's creator?

Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 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

- --
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 12:48:45 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Watchdog - Was: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] GA election ...

Bill,

Re: your post below:

>The question of where that list of appointees came from had surfaced
>with me, too.
>

and:

>The
>Secretariat kindly resolved one issue for us, so perhaps it would be kind 
>enough to explain
>how all that came about.
>

It all happened because in a bootstrap situation you have to start from 
somewhere, so the watchdog committee was a team of volounteers, accepted by 
consensus for the first election of the GA Chair.
When everything was ready for the second election, DNSO Secretariat reminded 
me that as Chair I had the formal responsibility to appoint the watchdog 
committee, and that the members of the initial team had partly dropped out 
from the GA in the meantime. Having no direct interest at stake, as I was 
not seeking re-election, I quickly assembled a team that I thought the GA 
could trust rather than postponing the GA Chair election again and debating 
how to appoint the watchdogs in a different way.
Incidentally, I think that the watchdogs have done a good job, and I believe 
that we need to find a better formal procedure, but that there are no 
complaints about the performance of the current team.

In fact, now that we are in a reasonably stable state, we can change our 
rules to have all offices held by elected people.
For instance, we can have elections for the watchdogs well before the end of 
the current Chair terms, which will ensure that we have them in place when 
needed. Ideally, they should serve on a 1-year term, with elections 6 months 
apart from the elections of the GA Chair.

This post should rather go to GA-rules: can somebody who is a subscriber 
copy it there? Thanks.

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 05:56:46 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Admin note: I have resigned as list monitor

Thank you both for revisiting these comments,
While there is no love lost between Harald I, my comment was similarly
misconstrued as a slam on Harald which it was not meant to be.  I was referring
to the changing of the GA.  I was not referring to his technical perspective I
was referring to a time when we now need guides and advocates not rulers and
commanders.

Whether you cared for his style or not one must notice that all the other
potential or existing ICANN groups which reflect in any way the bottom-up are
still not or no longer in existence.

Thank you Harald for preserving the GA.

Bruce James wrote:

> Roberto:
>
>     Thank you for your clarifying your statement about Harald. I must admit
> I was taken by surprise by your words.
>
>     Now I understand and agree, "Maybe a criticism of the GA (us all)".
>
>     For those of you who don't know, I also resigned as a List Monitor on
> Monday, June 18, 2001. For reasons that I wish to keep private.
>
> /Bruce James- X-LM
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 06:31
> 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
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:01:34 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The new UDRP task force

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C103D1.0D410E20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Discussion on the GA has raised some questions about outreach with =
respect to the implementation of the UDRP section of the NC business =
plan. I have been in discussion with the chair of the UDRP interim =
committee and would like to make the following clarifications.

A public comment period as required by the bylaws is met by the current =
UDRP Review Terms of Reference.  The questionnaire is the vehicle for =
public comment.  The Task Force will simply compile the information it =
receives from the results of the questionnaire into its
report.  To the extent that any areas of reform are identified, the =
actual mechanism for implementation will be subject to a second phase of =
the UDRP Review during which time there will be an opportunity for =
public comment (likely in the form of a working group). =20

The questionnaire approach is being used as a fact finding mission. =
Based on past experience it is unlikely that a working group is the =
right venue for such a mission. =20

Many issues for discussion on the UDRP are technical and must include =
representatives and experts in the UDRP field.  The proposed UDRP task =
force has identified those individuals and experts that the interim =
committee believe either directly or indirectly have a role in the UDRP. =
 If you feel that any party is omitted please let us know. =20

It is difficult to see what the purpose of a second public comment =
period would be except to say that the Task Force got it wrong. There =
are checks and balances to ensure this does not happen (i.e. if the Task =
Force goes in contradiction to public comment, (1) it will be of public =
record, (2) the NC should not approve the report, and (3)ICANN should =
not approve the
report.)

With respect to concerns about additional representation on the Task =
Force by the GA, things need to be practicable. The Task Force must be =
manageable so it can get things done.  There is nothing to ban each =
representative from getting the input of the views he or she represents, =
indeed that is their duty.

Philip Sheppard
NC Chair

- ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C103D1.0D410E20
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 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Discussion on the GA has&nbsp;raised some questions =
about=20
outreach with respect to the implementation of the UDRP section of the =
NC=20
business plan. I have been in discussion with the chair of the UDRP =
interim=20
committee and would like to make the following =
clarifications.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>A&nbsp;public comment period as required by the =
bylaws is met=20
by the current UDRP Review Terms of Reference.&nbsp; The questionnaire =
is the=20
vehicle for public comment.&nbsp; The Task Force will simply compile the =

information it receives from the results of the questionnaire into=20
its<BR>report.&nbsp; To the extent that any areas of reform are =
identified, the=20
actual mechanism for implementation will be subject to a second phase of =
the=20
UDRP Review during which time&nbsp;there will be an opportunity =
for&nbsp;public=20
comment (likely in the form of a working group).&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The questionnaire approach is being used as a fact =
finding=20
mission.&nbsp;Based on past experience it is unlikely that&nbsp;a =
working=20
group&nbsp;is the right venue for such a mission.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Many issues&nbsp;for&nbsp;discussion on the =
UDRP&nbsp;are=20
technical and must include representatives and experts in the UDRP =
field.&nbsp;=20
The proposed UDRP task force has&nbsp;identified those individuals and =
experts=20
that the interim committee&nbsp;believe either directly or indirectly =
have a=20
role in the UDRP.&nbsp; If you feel that&nbsp;any party=20
is&nbsp;omitted&nbsp;please let us know.&nbsp; <BR><BR>It is difficult =
to see=20
what the purpose of a second public comment period would be except to =
say that=20
the Task Force got it wrong. There are checks and balances to ensure =
this does=20
not happen (i.e. if the Task Force goes in contradiction to public =
comment, (1)=20
it will be of public record, (2) the NC&nbsp;should not approve the =
report, and=20
(3)ICANN should not approve the<BR>report.)<BR><BR>With respect to =
concerns=20
about additional representation on the Task Force by the GA, things need =
to be=20
practicable. The Task Force must be manageable so&nbsp;it can get things =

done.&nbsp; There is nothing to ban each representative from getting the =
input=20
of the views he or she represents, indeed that is their=20
duty.<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip Sheppard<BR>NC =
Chair</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C103D1.0D410E20--

- --
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 10:29:23 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [council] The new UDRP task force

I think Philip has got it right here. 

There has to be a bootstrap process. The ToR committee served
that purpose. The only mistake we made, IMHO, was not to
invite a GA member to serve on that committee. Next time we will.

The questionnaire is indeed designed to be the vehicle for widespread
public input; it was the compromise I accepted in place of a working group. 
Let's see how well it works.

As I commented during the last NC meeting, I support the proposed
TF as the mechanism for moving forward, but recognize that 
a lot of the problems we are having are caused by the fact that we are 
making up our procedures anew every time we do something. This makes 
it difficult for participants' expectations to converge and for trust and
productive working relationships to develop. 

It is my hope that that problem will also be fixed over time. 

>>> "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]> 07/03/01 09:01AM >>>
Discussion on the GA has raised some questions about outreach with respect to the implementation of the UDRP section of the NC business plan. I have been in discussion with the chair of the UDRP interim committee and would like to make the following clarifications.

A public comment period as required by the bylaws is met by the current UDRP Review Terms of Reference.  The questionnaire is the vehicle for public comment.  The Task Force will simply compile the information it receives from the results of the questionnaire into its
report.  To the extent that any areas of reform are identified, the actual mechanism for implementation will be subject to a second phase of the UDRP Review during which time there will be an opportunity for public comment (likely in the form of a working group).  

The questionnaire approach is being used as a fact finding mission. Based on past experience it is unlikely that a working group is the right venue for such a mission.  

Many issues for discussion on the UDRP are technical and must include representatives and experts in the UDRP field.  The proposed UDRP task force has identified those individuals and experts that the interim committee believe either directly or indirectly have a role in the UDRP.  If you feel that any party is omitted please let us know.  

It is difficult to see what the purpose of a second public comment period would be except to say that the Task Force got it wrong. There are checks and balances to ensure this does not happen (i.e. if the Task Force goes in contradiction to public comment, (1) it will be of public record, (2) the NC should not approve the report, and (3)ICANN should not approve the
report.)

With respect to concerns about additional representation on the Task Force by the GA, things need to be practicable. The Task Force must be manageable so it can get things done.  There is nothing to ban each representative from getting the input of the views he or she represents, indeed that is their duty.

Philip Sheppard
NC Chair

- --
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, 3 Jul 2001 09:26:45 -0500 
From: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [council] The new UDRP task force

Milton, thanks for your support.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:29 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [council] The new UDRP task force

I think Philip has got it right here. 

There has to be a bootstrap process. The ToR committee served
that purpose. The only mistake we made, IMHO, was not to
invite a GA member to serve on that committee. Next time we will.

The questionnaire is indeed designed to be the vehicle for widespread
public input; it was the compromise I accepted in place of a working group. 
Let's see how well it works.

As I commented during the last NC meeting, I support the proposed
TF as the mechanism for moving forward, but recognize that 
a lot of the problems we are having are caused by the fact that we are 
making up our procedures anew every time we do something. This makes 
it difficult for participants' expectations to converge and for trust and
productive working relationships to develop. 

It is my hope that that problem will also be fixed over time. 

>>> "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]> 07/03/01 09:01AM >>>
Discussion on the GA has raised some questions about outreach with respect
to the implementation of the UDRP section of the NC business plan. I have
been in discussion with the chair of the UDRP interim committee and would
like to make the following clarifications.

A public comment period as required by the bylaws is met by the current UDRP
Review Terms of Reference.  The questionnaire is the vehicle for public
comment.  The Task Force will simply compile the information it receives
from the results of the questionnaire into its
report.  To the extent that any areas of reform are identified, the actual
mechanism for implementation will be subject to a second phase of the UDRP
Review during which time there will be an opportunity for public comment
(likely in the form of a working group).  

The questionnaire approach is being used as a fact finding mission. Based on
past experience it is unlikely that a working group is the right venue for
such a mission.  

Many issues for discussion on the UDRP are technical and must include
representatives and experts in the UDRP field.  The proposed UDRP task force
has identified those individuals and experts that the interim committee
believe either directly or indirectly have a role in the UDRP.  If you feel
that any party is omitted please let us know.  

It is difficult to see what the purpose of a second public comment period
would be except to say that the Task Force got it wrong. There are checks
and balances to ensure this does not happen (i.e. if the Task Force goes in
contradiction to public comment, (1) it will be of public record, (2) the NC
should not approve the report, and (3)ICANN should not approve the
report.)

With respect to concerns about additional representation on the Task Force
by the GA, things need to be practicable. The Task Force must be manageable
so it can get things done.  There is nothing to ban each representative from
getting the input of the views he or she represents, indeed that is their
duty.

Philip Sheppard
NC Chair
- --
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 16:50:43 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-udrp] Background Documents

Dear Sotiris,
evidence is the most difficult for us to make accepted. Too simple.
TMs, names, DN, street numbers are here to prevent confusion. Now who can 
get confused? IP people say "lawyers", we say "users". They say let lawyers 
decide. We say let users decide.

Please scrap the UDRP and the like. And when there is a conflict, let 1000 
randomly chosen people decide between the plaintif and defendent sites: 
which one addresses what they expected.

Would the Mont Blanc mountain to be renamed because there would be an UDRP 
between the pen maker and Nestlé?

Questions:
1. Is there a possible conflict: has Madonna registered Madonna in the 
on-line class before the person registered madonna.com? (So she shown she 
was interested)
2. who is the world considering as the least confusing DN Holder for 
madonna.com?
3. who is to pay for that buth the one who prevents madonna.music to exist?

What have US lawyers to do with this?
Jefsey

On 05:42 03/07/01, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
>Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Can one of you fine people give me a good argument for the UDRP that is not
> > strictly for the benefit of the IP constituency.  I for one like 
> existing laws
> > and would like to see them enforced and if an UDRP did this I would be 
> all for
> > it, otherwise it looks like a mechanism for circumvention of Sovereign and
> > legitmate laws.
>
>Here's my attempt.
>
>Citation from S 1255 IS, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.:
>
>SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
>
>Congress finds that the unauthorized registration or use of trademarks as 
>Internet
>domain names or other identifiers of online locations (commonly known as
>`cybersquatting')--
>
>(1) results in consumer fraud and public confusion as to the true source or
>sponsorship of products and services;
>
>"the true source or sponsorship"... how would we apply this in the Madonna.com
>case?  There are hundreds of millions of people on the planet who know 
>Madonna as
>the mother of Jesus Christ.  For two millenia the name has been a popular 
>name.
>This relatively recent phenomenon `popstar' lays claim to this domain name 
>in a
>domain name dispute, and she wins practically out of hand.  I have not 
>seen any
>evidence presented to demonstrate that the original registrant made any 
>`bad faith'
>overtures to the Madonna popstar.
>
>Ultimately ( as my poor understanding of legalities is limited), I dimly 
>grasp that
>the essential claim in a trademark is that the assignee made the mark 
>famous through
>their energy, activity, and investment.  Here is a clear case in which 
>this is not
>so, in fact, the exact opposite holds.  Madonna (postar) made herself 
>famous largely
>by using and/or lampooning the catholic Madonna, and by employing that already
>famous name.  Essentially, the popstar provided us with her version of a 
>possibility
>for what the name could be used for... an interpretation.  Along came the 
>Internet
>Age...  and as the scientists tell us, when the Ice Age occurred many 
>millions of
>years ago, the dinosaurs were killed off as a result. The road was thus 
>paved for
>humanity.  Well, it's painful when society's means of Information distribution
>changes.  Does anyone here remember the advent of the printing press and 
>the changes
>it brought to human society?
>
>(2) impairs electronic commerce, which is important to the economy of the 
>United
>States; and
>
> >That's rich!  The billions of US Dollars that were made through domain 
> name hype
>and .com frenzy on the US STOCK MARKET actually boggle my imagination (and 
>I have a
>pretty rich imagination).
>
>(3) deprives owners of trademarks of substantial revenues and consumer 
>goodwill.
>
> >If a trademark is property, and a domain name is equated wth a 
> trademark, then a
>domain name is also property, right?  Perhaps there is basis here for a 
>definition.
>
> >Now, if there was hard evidence (that was not manufactured by a creative 
> [il]legal
>department in some large law firm) to prove the original registrant went 
>to the
>popstar to sell her the name, I would agree with a UDRP ruling in 
>Madonna's favour.
>On the other hand, if there was no such evidence, then I would support the 
>original
>registrant's right to use the name as they saw fit, and a properly 
>functioning UDRP
>would recognize the legitimacy of the original registrant's claim.  Nobody 
>stopped
>Madonna (or her handlers from educating themselves about the new 
>technologies known
>as the Internet DNS... someone else got there first a la social 
>Darwinism.  A fair
>UDRP could send a message.
>
> >I should add that I consider the WIPO intiative to include famous geographic
>indications and personal names under an expanded UDRP to be the most 
>ludicrous and
>grasping thing I've ever heard of, but with some and such people around, 
>I'm sure it
>won't be for long...
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga-udrp" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 11:35:59 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Jeff Williams 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".

Nonsense.

> 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.

It has an STD number; that labels it officially as an Internet Standard.
See RFC 2026 "The Internet Standards Process":

   Some RFCs document Internet Standards.  These RFCs form the 'STD'
   subseries of the RFC series [4].  When a specification has been
   adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label
   "STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC
   series. ...

Divergent opinions are fine, but please don't attempt to make factual
pronouncements unless you know what you're talking about.
- --
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 12:10:51 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 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

And Sotiris Sotiropoulos replied:

> So if MADONNA.COM is "a mnemonic way to reach a "thing" that has an Internet
> address" why does the popstar have some kind of claim to ownership of the
> domain?  Or how about the BARCELONA.COM domain?  I'm sorry Roberto, but your
> response is a little too simplistic, almost naive.  If I were to ask you what
> "gold" was would you tell me it was just a yellow metal?

As far as the software is concerned, domain names are just strings meeting
a set of rules defined in the RFC I cited. 

For the user, they are usually mnemonic. Nothing technically prevents using,
say, xwqztttmnuhofxy.net, but an individual or business might want a name
people can remember.

Where the complications come in is that the strings in domain names may
include names for which others claim rights. madonna.com uses a name which
a pop star and the Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches might claim rights
to.

You might object if I registered sotiris.sotiropolis.name. What if I
register gnossos.papadopolous.name? A fictional character presumably
cannot object, and the author is dead, but does the publisher or the
author's widow have something to say?

For this, the problem is not defining "domain name" as you seem to
think. We have a perfectly adequate definition. What we lack is a
fair and effective procedure for handling the conflicts that arise.
UDRP was supposed to be that, but it seems to be failing miserably.

I think there are two obvious things we could fix in UDRP.

First, it is binding on the domain name holder (because the registrars
will enforce the decisions and their contracts include the UDRP) but
not on the complainant. Make it binding on the complainant, adding
suitable legal language to the complaint form.

Second, make it utterly clear that non-conflicting use is fine. For
example, the bodacioustatas.com case should have been laughed out of
court, and the only attack on ibm-sucks.org that a UDRP panel should
even listen to would be one from a critic complaining that IBM had
registered it to squelch criticism. That, they should grant instantly.
- --
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 12:42:00 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Sandy Harris wrote:

> As far as the software is concerned, domain names are just strings meeting
> a set of rules defined in the RFC I cited.

We're not talking about the software.  We are talking of human valuation.  Alaska
was just another big chunk of geography on the earth, until it was sold to the US
by Russia... then it became a State of the Union.  The RFC you cited does not offer
a definition, it is merely a description.  There is a difference between saying
that Alaska is generally cold, and that Alaska is an American State that happens to
be near the Arctic Circle..

> For the user, they are usually mnemonic. Nothing technically prevents using,
> say, xwqztttmnuhofxy.net, but an individual or business might want a name
> people can remember.

Might?  I think it's rather a foregone conclusion, especially since a large
percentage of UDRP disputes where domains were redelegated involve words which were
already easy to remember (before *any* TM's were registered, eg. Madonna or
Corinthians.  Hmm... I wonder what the people of the city of Corinth might have to
say to the soccer team which won the CORINTHIANS.COM domain via UDRP?  Don't you?

> Where the complications come in is that the strings in domain names may
> include names for which others claim rights. madonna.com uses a name which
> a pop star and the Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches might claim rights
> to.

And so on ad infinitum... So who really has the final right to the name
madonna.com?  Which is why the "first come first served" registration model was the
fairest mode of registration that could have possibly been instituted.  But, thanks
to shallow circular arguments like the ones I'm reading in response to my posts, we
have a UDRP which clearly favours large corporate/vested interests.

> You might object if I registered sotiris.sotiropolis.name. What if I
> register gnossos.papadopolous.name? A fictional character presumably
> cannot object, and the author is dead, but does the publisher or the
> author's widow have something to say?

Here in Canada, a dead author's copyrights extend to 50 years after his death,
after that his works are public domain no matter what the widow or anyone else has
to say.  As far as the available literature is concerned, domain names are a public
resource and should be considered public domain unless evidence of a bad faith
registration is actually produced.  By evidence I mean a bona fide
letter/communication from the defendant to the plaintiff- quite simple really.  If
the plaintiff could prove such an approach was made then they have a legitimate
position, if they cannot, they have no a priori rights to a domain name
registration.

> For this, the problem is not defining "domain name" as you seem to
> think. We have a perfectly adequate definition.

Again, where is it?

> What we lack is a
> fair and effective procedure for handling the conflicts that arise.
> UDRP was supposed to be that, but it seems to be failing miserably.

Can you tell us how it's failing and why?  Please be a littlemore specific... Do
you mean to say that you agree with the observation that the UDRP favours the
claims of big business over smaller businesses and individuals?

> I think there are two obvious things we could fix in UDRP.
>
> First, it is binding on the domain name holder (because the registrars
> will enforce the decisions and their contracts include the UDRP) but
> not on the complainant. Make it binding on the complainant, adding
> suitable legal language to the complaint form.
>
> Second, make it utterly clear that non-conflicting use is fine. For
> example, the bodacioustatas.com case should have been laughed out of
> court, and the only attack on ibm-sucks.org that a UDRP panel should
> even listen to would be one from a critic complaining that IBM had
> registered it to squelch criticism. That, they should grant instantly.

Your two "fixes" are good suggestions, but they are rather vague.  In particular,
the second proposition seems rather weak, epecially when one considers the nature
and scope of conflict in a linguistic context.  This is why evidence of bad faith
must be something more substantial than simply a similarly spelled string.

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: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 11:48:51 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Full Text of HR2417 Contains a Surprise!

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C103B6.20F14AE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Full Text of HR2417 Contains a Surprise!

 http://www.icannwatch.com/

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C103B6.20F14AE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
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=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2><FONT size=3D3>Full Text of HR2417 Contains =
a=20
Surprise!</FONT><BR></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><BR>&nbsp;<A=20
href=3D"http://www.icannwatch.com/">http://www.icannwatch.com/</A></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C103B6.20F14AE0--

- --
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 #584
************************