Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #585
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, July 3 2001            Volume 01 : Number 585

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

Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 12:43:42 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [council] The new UDRP task force

on 7/3/01 10:29 AM, Milton Mueller at [email-masked] wrote:

> I <snip> 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.

Thank you for making this point Milton.
> 
> It is my hope that that problem will also be fixed over time.

I anticipate Draft Documents will be posted in the next week or so for Best
Practices in the GA, which will address exactly this problem in relation to
GA procedures, processes and timelines. Hence, we look forward to NC support
for this initiative.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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 13:08:55 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP TF member

I believe that someone with a law background with Internet knowledge would be
helpful.  This does not mean that the appointee should be a lawyer.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

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

- --
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 13:28:19 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

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

See the RFC.
 
> > 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?

Certainly, though I think perhaps you understate it.

I'd say the UDRP as currently set up is a barefaced piece of cheating by the
'Intellectual Property' interests, grabbing 'rights' they do not have in
any nation's law.
 
> > 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.

What I meant in the second was that the burden of proof must be on the
complainant. 

e.g. Tata use their trademark for lots of industrial stuff, including most of
the trucks in India. If bodacioustatas.com started to sell trucks in India,
they'd have a clear case. If it sold something vaguely related (e.g. generators),
or if it were selling Indian imports in the US, then confusion might arise and
they'd have something worth talking about. However, they have no case against
a porn site -- not even one named tata.com -- any more than Sun Oil can sue
Sun Microsystems for trademark misuse.

On the same principle, ibm-sucks.com could not easily be confused with an IBM
site so IBM have no cause for UDRP action against such a site. Of course, they
can sue for libel, or prosecute for theft of trade secrets or ... if that seems
warranted, but that's not our problem. On the  other hand, having IBM own that
name could create confusion, so a UDRP action by a critic to grab the name from 
IBM should succeed.

I think there are two stages to this. First the compainant has to demonstrate
the existence of a conflict in something like trademark law. The question of
'bad faith' does not even arise unless there's a clear conflict.

I'd also like to see three possible outcomes from a UDRP ruling.

Complaint denied, and the complainant is going to have a hard time going to
court since he agreed that the UDRP procedure was binding.

Complaint accepted and (former) domain name holder is going to ...

No ruling. The complainant appears to have at least enough of a case to
argue about, but it is not clear enough for UDRP to summarily rule on.
Take it to court or drop it.
- --
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 10:58:55 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Full Text of HR2417 Contains a Surprise! I have a dream

- --Boundary_(ID_mo4ZooXnMMvwYFsA2f9dcQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

What kind of UDRP should this gTLD have?  I certainly hope we can find
it in our hearts to;
Let the little rugrats have a site where:
they can talk about Harry Potter,
learn about the first Madonna,
have unnofficial fan clubs,
learn about Barcelona,
get info on why Joe Camel Sucks, (sorry the word sucks is common even
gradeschool classrooms now)

I hope that we can develop registration models that do not include
expired names being manipulated in strange ways.  I surely hope that
children will not lose their name as the transfer from Register.com to
Verisign.  I hope that the name picked will not intentionally collide
with a pre-existing gtld. I hope that the governing committees will have
an at-large and an IDNH group.  I hope that technically superior
children will work with the little socialites so that they can
understand each other. I hope that we develop registrations that ensure
my childrens privacy.

Oh boy we have one heck of a responsibility to do a better job, to learn
from our mistakes and to be proper governors of our children's dream.

Sincerely,
Eric

Bruce James wrote:

> Full Text of HR2417 Contains a Surprise!
>  http://www.icannwatch.com/ /Bruce

- --Boundary_(ID_mo4ZooXnMMvwYFsA2f9dcQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
What kind of UDRP should this gTLD have?&nbsp; I certainly hope we can
find it in our hearts to;
<br>Let the little rugrats have a site where:
<br>they can talk about Harry Potter,
<br>learn about the first Madonna,
<br>have unnofficial fan clubs,
<br>learn about Barcelona,
<br>get info on why Joe Camel Sucks, (sorry the word sucks is common even
gradeschool classrooms now)
<p>I hope that we can develop registration models that do not include expired
names being manipulated in strange ways.&nbsp; I surely hope that children
will not lose their name as the transfer from Register.com to Verisign.&nbsp;
I hope that the name picked will not intentionally collide with a pre-existing
gtld. I hope that the governing committees will have an at-large and an
IDNH group.&nbsp; I hope that technically superior children will work with
the little socialites so that they can understand each other. I hope that
we develop registrations that ensure my childrens privacy.
<p>Oh boy we have one heck of a responsibility to do a better job, to learn
from our mistakes and to be proper governors of our children's dream.
<p>Sincerely,
<br>Eric
<p>Bruce James wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><style></style>
<b><font size=+0>Full Text of HR2417
Contains a Surprise!</font></b>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.icannwatch.com/">http://www.icannwatch.com/</a>&nbsp;<b><font size=-1>/Bruce</font></b>&nbsp;</blockquote>

</body>
</html>

- --Boundary_(ID_mo4ZooXnMMvwYFsA2f9dcQ)--
- --
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 13:34:44 -0500
From: "Hugh Blair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of Sandy Harris
<snip>
>
> What I meant in the second was that the burden of proof must be on the
> complainant.

Yes. +1

> I think there are two stages to this. First the compainant has to
demonstrate
> the existence of a conflict in something like trademark law. The question
of
> 'bad faith' does not even arise unless there's a clear conflict.
>
> I'd also like to see three possible outcomes from a UDRP ruling.
>
> Complaint denied, and the complainant is going to have a hard time going
to
> court since he agreed that the UDRP procedure was binding.
>
> Complaint accepted and (former) domain name holder is going to ...
>
> No ruling. The complainant appears to have at least enough of a case to
> argue about, but it is not clear enough for UDRP to summarily rule on.
> Take it to court or drop it.

As long as there is a time limit to option #s 1 & 3. Open ended waiting
would serve no one.  Maybe 30 days after both parties have submitted
their complaint/response?

- -Hugh

- --
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 15:04:40 -0700
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FTAA treaty to mandate use of ICANN UDRP]

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Ecommerce] FTAA proposals on domain names
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:57:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Weissman <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>

The intellectual property section of the Free Trade Area of the Americas
(FTAA) contains proposals that would obligate countries by law to rely on
ICANN for domain name dispute resolution. The just released text of the
FTAA is available at:

http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ftaadraft/eng/draft_e.doc

The relevant text follows below, from the trademark section. This is all
still subject to negotiation.

Article XX. [Domain names on the Internet

1. Parties shall participate in the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) of
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to promote
appropriate country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) administration and
delegation practices and appropriate contractual relationships for the
administration of the ccTLDs in the Hemisphere.

2. Parties shall have their domestic Network Information Centers (NICs)
participate in the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP) to
address the problem of cyber-piracy of trademarks.]

Article XX. [Cancellation and transfer of domain name

In the event that a well known distinctive sign has been inappropriately
registered in the country of the Party, as part of a domain name or
electronic mail address of an unauthorized third party, on request by the
owner or legitimate rightholder of that sign, the competent authority
shall consider the matter and, where appropriate, shall order cancellation
or amendment of the registration of such domain name or electronic mail
address, in accordance with the respective national law, provided that use
thereof would be liable to have one of the following effects:

1. Risk confusion or association with the owner or legitimate rightholder
of the sign, or with his or her establishments, activities, products or
services;

2. Cause unfair economic or commercial injury to the owner or lawful
rightholder of the sign, arising from a dilution of its distinctive force
or commercial or publicity value;

3. Make unfair use of the prestige of the sign, or of the good name of its
owner or lawful rightholder.

The action of cancellation or amendment shall prescribe, for a period of
five (5) years from the date on which the disputed domain name or
electronic mail address was registered, or from the date on which
electronic media, whichever period expires later, except where the
registration was made in bad faith, in which case the action shall not be
prescribed. This action shall not affect any other action that might be
available with respect to injuries and damages under common law.]

- -- 
Robert Weissman	 <[email-masked]>
Essential Information P.O. Box 19405, Washington, DC 20036, USA
Tel: 1-202-387-8030
Fax: 1-202-234-5176
www.essential.org

_______________________________________________
Ecommerce mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce
_______________________________________________
Random-bits mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits
- --
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 14:24:22 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Sandy and all assembly members,

  In any event it is still not a "Standard" but a RFC with a "STD" consideration
Therefore a different type or RFC.  Ergo RFC= Request for Comments, and
is therefore NOT a standard....  Nice try Sandy, no cigar...

Sandy Harris wrote:

> 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

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: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:17:13 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FTAA treaty to mandate use of ICANN UDRP]

Well, if that doesn't scare domain name holders, I don't know what 
would.  I can't think of a better way to give the internet to the 
corporations and kill the purpose of the DNS altogether.  One more 
coummunications medium down the tubes for the public, a free 
market and free speech.  What's next?

On 3 Jul 2001, at 15:04, James Love wrote:

> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Ecommerce] FTAA proposals on domain names
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:57:26 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Robert Weissman <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> 
> The intellectual property section of the Free Trade Area of the
> Americas (FTAA) contains proposals that would obligate countries by
> law to rely on ICANN for domain name dispute resolution. The just
> released text of the FTAA is available at:
> 
> http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ftaadraft/eng/draft_e.doc
> 
> The relevant text follows below, from the trademark section. This is
> all still subject to negotiation.
> 
> Article XX. [Domain names on the Internet
> 
> 1. Parties shall participate in the Government Advisory Committee
> (GAC) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN) to promote appropriate country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD)
> administration and delegation practices and appropriate contractual
> relationships for the administration of the ccTLDs in the Hemisphere.
> 
> 2. Parties shall have their domestic Network Information Centers
> (NICs) participate in the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure
> (UDRP) to address the problem of cyber-piracy of trademarks.]
> 
> Article XX. [Cancellation and transfer of domain name
> 
> In the event that a well known distinctive sign has been
> inappropriately registered in the country of the Party, as part of a
> domain name or electronic mail address of an unauthorized third party,
> on request by the owner or legitimate rightholder of that sign, the
> competent authority shall consider the matter and, where appropriate,
> shall order cancellation or amendment of the registration of such
> domain name or electronic mail address, in accordance with the
> respective national law, provided that use thereof would be liable to
> have one of the following effects:
> 
> 1. Risk confusion or association with the owner or legitimate
> rightholder of the sign, or with his or her establishments,
> activities, products or services;
> 
> 2. Cause unfair economic or commercial injury to the owner or lawful
> rightholder of the sign, arising from a dilution of its distinctive
> force or commercial or publicity value;
> 
> 3. Make unfair use of the prestige of the sign, or of the good name of
> its owner or lawful rightholder.
> 
> The action of cancellation or amendment shall prescribe, for a period
> of five (5) years from the date on which the disputed domain name or
> electronic mail address was registered, or from the date on which
> electronic media, whichever period expires later, except where the
> registration was made in bad faith, in which case the action shall not
> be prescribed. This action shall not affect any other action that
> might be available with respect to injuries and damages under common
> law.]
> 
> 
> -- 
> Robert Weissman	 <[email-masked]>
> Essential Information P.O. Box 19405, Washington, DC 20036, USA
> Tel: 1-202-387-8030
> Fax: 1-202-234-5176
> www.essential.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ecommerce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce
> _______________________________________________
> Random-bits mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits
> --
> 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 16:35:58 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

On 3 Jul 2001, at 8:43, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> 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?

I would tell you it is a yellow, precious 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?

Yes, actually.  The registrant is the programmer in this description. 
 He assigns the label that points to an address.
> 
> 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-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, 03 Jul 2001 16:51:20 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Sandy Harris wrote:

> Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > > For this, the problem is not defining "domain name" as you seem to
> > > think. We have a perfectly adequate definition.
> >
> > Again, where is it?
>
> See the RFC.

I have read and re-read the Request For Comment.  It is merely a schematic, a
blueprint, a description, nothing more.  The reason it is a request for comment (as
Jeff pointed out), is because it's unfinished.  There is no delineation of the
fundamental nature of the domain name as a commodity, which surely we must all agree it
is...  Definiton:  A statement conveying fundamental character.  Description: The act,
process, or technique of describing.  In this RFC we have clearly an attempt at
description, but no statement as to the essential nature of the res in question: domain
names.  Surely, the value of some*thing* is usually a good indication of where claims
and rights may be an issue?

> > > 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?
>
> Certainly, though I think perhaps you understate it.
>
> I'd say the UDRP as currently set up is a barefaced piece of cheating by the
> 'Intellectual Property' interests, grabbing 'rights' they do not have in
> any nation's law.

That is quite strong, but accurate methinks.

> > > 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.
>
> What I meant in the second was that the burden of proof must be on the
> complainant.
>
> e.g. Tata use their trademark for lots of industrial stuff, including most of
> the trucks in India. If bodacioustatas.com started to sell trucks in India,
> they'd have a clear case. If it sold something vaguely related (e.g. generators),
> or if it were selling Indian imports in the US, then confusion might arise and
> they'd have something worth talking about. However, they have no case against
> a porn site -- not even one named tata.com -- any more than Sun Oil can sue
> Sun Microsystems for trademark misuse.

Let me throw something in here.  Currently, there is the SouthAfrica.com debacle going
on.  The government of SA which has its very own ccTLD resource .za, wants to take the
SouthAfrica.com domain name from VirtualCountries.  But, let's be non-partisan about
this for a few moments.  UnitedStates.com is registered to an individual in Marina Del
Ray and there is a functioning website... has been for a while.  GreatBritain.com is
registered to a company called Linux Labs in Atlanta, Georgia, and there is a website.
Canada.com is owned by Southam Inc., there is a website  If I had to choose the most
appealling website of the four, I would say that Virtual Countries has developed a far
more flattering Web presence than any of the other three I mentioned in comparison (and
Southam Inc. is an empire unto itself!).  Instead of trying to wrestle the name away
from these guys, the SA gov't should be trying to work with them!  I honestly believe
the GA should issue a statement on this case.

> On the same principle, ibm-sucks.com could not easily be confused with an IBM
> site so IBM have no cause for UDRP action against such a site. Of course, they
> can sue for libel, or prosecute for theft of trade secrets or ... if that seems
> warranted, but that's not our problem. On the  other hand, having IBM own that
> name could create confusion, so a UDRP action by a critic to grab the name from
> IBM should succeed.

ibm-sucks.com is not registered but ibmsucks.com is registered.  I'm considering
writing the chap who's the registrant and asking him if ibm's giving him any trouble.

> I think there are two stages to this. First the compainant has to demonstrate
> the existence of a conflict in something like trademark law. The question of
> 'bad faith' does not even arise unless there's a clear conflict.

I understand and agree with your point completely.

> I'd also like to see three possible outcomes from a UDRP ruling.
>
> Complaint denied, and the complainant is going to have a hard time going to
> court since he agreed that the UDRP procedure was binding.
>
> Complaint accepted and (former) domain name holder is going to ...
>
> No ruling. The complainant appears to have at least enough of a case to
> argue about, but it is not clear enough for UDRP to summarily rule on.
> Take it to court or drop it.

Is there a Steward on this list who's responsible for picking up the various nuggets?
I think these recommendations have possibility.  Along with Milton Mueller' proposal
for a three year original domain registration immunity from UDRP.

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: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 07:25:40 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] SABOT

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 12:50 AM
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-udrp] Background Documents

> Dear Sotiris,

Dear Jefsey

It really is an an of vandalism to take a post carefully made by another
participant to another mailing list [ga-udrp] and then force a reply on the
main [ga] list just because you happen to think, all on your own, and
unelected to boot, the other lists are not a good idea.

Please respect other list participants.
And stop trying to sabotage the process.

The French invented the word.  It comes from SABOT.

If you want to change the system, just debate the issue.

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: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 16:34:30 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FTAA treaty to mandate use of ICANN UDRP]

Jamie and all assembly members,

  Thank you for passing this along.

  It seems from the text that there is now a movement by which regions
of the globe may indeed have their own UDRP process or policy.  This
is what I posted a brief message about yesterday on the [email-masked].
However the text and link you provided seems to indicate that these
regions should work with ICANN's version of the UDRP.  I am not
so sure that this works well within the GATT and NAFTA trade
agreements...

James Love wrote:

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Ecommerce] FTAA proposals on domain names
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:57:26 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Robert Weissman <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
>
> The intellectual property section of the Free Trade Area of the Americas
> (FTAA) contains proposals that would obligate countries by law to rely on
> ICANN for domain name dispute resolution. The just released text of the
> FTAA is available at:
>
> http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ftaadraft/eng/draft_e.doc
>
> The relevant text follows below, from the trademark section. This is all
> still subject to negotiation.
>
> Article XX. [Domain names on the Internet
>
> 1. Parties shall participate in the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) of
> the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to promote
> appropriate country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) administration and
> delegation practices and appropriate contractual relationships for the
> administration of the ccTLDs in the Hemisphere.
>
> 2. Parties shall have their domestic Network Information Centers (NICs)
> participate in the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP) to
> address the problem of cyber-piracy of trademarks.]
>
> Article XX. [Cancellation and transfer of domain name
>
> In the event that a well known distinctive sign has been inappropriately
> registered in the country of the Party, as part of a domain name or
> electronic mail address of an unauthorized third party, on request by the
> owner or legitimate rightholder of that sign, the competent authority
> shall consider the matter and, where appropriate, shall order cancellation
> or amendment of the registration of such domain name or electronic mail
> address, in accordance with the respective national law, provided that use
> thereof would be liable to have one of the following effects:
>
> 1. Risk confusion or association with the owner or legitimate rightholder
> of the sign, or with his or her establishments, activities, products or
> services;
>
> 2. Cause unfair economic or commercial injury to the owner or lawful
> rightholder of the sign, arising from a dilution of its distinctive force
> or commercial or publicity value;
>
> 3. Make unfair use of the prestige of the sign, or of the good name of its
> owner or lawful rightholder.
>
> The action of cancellation or amendment shall prescribe, for a period of
> five (5) years from the date on which the disputed domain name or
> electronic mail address was registered, or from the date on which
> electronic media, whichever period expires later, except where the
> registration was made in bad faith, in which case the action shall not be
> prescribed. This action shall not affect any other action that might be
> available with respect to injuries and damages under common law.]
>
> --
> Robert Weissman  <[email-masked]>
> Essential Information P.O. Box 19405, Washington, DC 20036, USA
> Tel: 1-202-387-8030
> Fax: 1-202-234-5176
> www.essential.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecommerce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce
> _______________________________________________
> Random-bits mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits
> --
> 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: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 14:39:21 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FTAA treaty to mandate use of ICANN UDRP]

Thank you Mr. Love,

First of all a suggestion on your post, I deleted all but the link because the
document you attached was not proper.  It is a well known rule of drafting
treaties that portions still under negotiation remain bracketed. There are
many contradictory requirements that remain bracketed in the same document.
Interesting to note here that ICANNs agreement with the DoC had exactly this
type of problem and matters that should of been negotiated further were
included and/or dropped out.

As for the substance this could work two ways;

1. If these countries buy into this then we will all be eventually better
off.  This is because they will have to get involved in ICANN.  Once they are
really involved within a short time we will have a real BoD. If this type of
forced upon UDRP is used like the current one Countries will not just ignore
the problem.  Then we will have much greater political pressure to correct
ICANN.  (what I would really like to see is this placed into treaties with
China and the EU ;-) This could be the best Outreach we ever had. Keep in mind
it would literally force all ICANN communications at any level be at least in
Spanish and English. They would have to conform the Whois to the privacy laws
of the member states. You cannot force NICs into contracts that violate there
own law.  Think of requiring in a contract an Argentinian government entity
must enter into a contract with a California Corporation. I can hardly wait on
the UDRP for Patagonia!

or
2. It will get dropped altogether from the treaty.

Sincerely,
Eric
James Love wrote:

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Ecommerce] FTAA proposals on domain names
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:57:26 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Robert Weissman <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
>
> The intellectual property section of the Free Trade Area of the Americas
> (FTAA) contains proposals that would obligate countries by law to rely on
> ICANN for domain name dispute resolution. The just released text of the
> FTAA is available at:
>
> http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ftaadraft/eng/draft_e.doc

- --
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 #585
************************