Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #586
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, July 4 2001           Volume 01 : Number 586

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 07:59:27 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Wanton Refusal of Names Council

Dear Philip

I am utterly dismayed by the wanton refusal of Elisabeth Porteneuve on
numerous occasions, with any feeble justification she can think of, to
refuse outright and point blank, any reasonable request made by the
representatives of the General Assembly.

And, despite your personal promise to me to the contrary, you have supported
her at every turn.  Here is another example.  Not only that you are quite
wrong in your assessment.  It also proves my point, which Ken Stubbs,
denied, about lack of co-operation from the Names Council.

It is a very simple task to prohibit cross posting between lists.  Even
Elisabeth will tell you that herself.

> The DNSO secretariat has rightly declined to date to act upon this request
> because it is in effect a POLICY issue. We would be adding a filter to the
> GA abuse list.

In relation to a cross-posting between [ga-abuse] and another list, you can
set the filters so they reject the [ga-abuse] post, reject the *other* post
OR reject both posts.

To give both you and Elisabeth the benefit of failing to understand my
communication, please ask Elisabeth to set the filters so that it rejects
the OTHER post.  That would be wiuthin you so-called *policy* restrictions
as it would not reject the [ga-abuse] post.

Otherwise please unsubscribe me from the GA-ABUSE list.
Then we'll just write to each other privately.  Without archives.

I cannot understand why the DNSO Secretariate shouldn't treat us like the
CLIENT with some sort of service level agreement for mailing lists and
websites.

Sheesh !!!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Sheppard <[email-masked]>
To: Patrick GA Alt Chair <[email-masked]>; Danny Younger GA chair
<[email-masked]>
Cc: Elisabeth DNSO Sec <[email-masked]>; NC (list)
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 6:31 PM
Subject: GA abuse

> Danny and Patrick,
> Patrick has asked me to intervene in a request (originally made by
Patrick)
> to the DNSO secretariat to set up an automated stop to cross posting to
the
> GA abuse list. The reason for this is that you are obliged to act upon
input
> to this list and it is tedious to look at mail that should not be on the
GA
> abuse list. I entirely sympathise.
>
> The DNSO secretariat has rightly declined to date to act upon this request
> because it is in effect a POLICY issue. We would be adding a filter to the
> GA abuse list.
>
> The DNSO Secretariat can introduce a stop to cross posting but first you
> need to seek agreement within the GA and get a mandate to do so.
>
> Philip
> 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 18:11:07 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Reply to Philip

Philip,

During your tenure as Chair of the NC you have abruptly terminated the life 
of the Review Working Group, failed to convene a working group on policy 
issues relating to the alternate root community, and indefinately postponed a 
working group on the UDRP.  For the benefit of those of us who believe that 
the General Assembly is mandated to undertake the substantive work of the 
DNSO, please advise when your term of office is set to expire so that we may 
know precisely when we will have the opportunity to honor the intent of the 
Bylaws.
- --
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 18:20:49 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FTAA treaty to mandate use of ICANN UDRP]

A note on the ccTLD perspective:

We have, and will have in the future, a number of LDRP (Local Dispute
Resolution) workshops, including one hosted by WIPO in Geneva. At the
WIPO workshop, WIPO presented their idea of a 'model' LDRP, in hopes
that ccTLDs would use it, or some of it, as a guideline for their own
policy.

Many ccTLDs, due to local government laws and policies, would need a
policy suited to their own specific country.

Even WIPO understands this.

Finally, I do not see how an unbrella organization could mandate a
single policy that would apply to so many soverign governments.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James
Love
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 6:05 PM
To: General Assembly
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

- --
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 08:32:10 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO board elections

Hi Philip

> The DNSO secretariat will post details of the timetable in due course.

I have asked the purpose of GA-ANNOUNCE.  I do not seem to have received any
reply.

Can you advise please?

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 18:40:46 -0700
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FTAA treaty to mandate use of ICANN UDRP]

What is astonishing is that a treaty involving nearly all of North and
South America would mandate that nations defer to a private organization
to determine trademark rights.  Jamie

Peter de Blanc wrote:
> 
> A note on the ccTLD perspective:
> 
> We have, and will have in the future, a number of LDRP (Local Dispute
> Resolution) workshops, including one hosted by WIPO in Geneva. At the
> WIPO workshop, WIPO presented their idea of a 'model' LDRP, in hopes
> that ccTLDs would use it, or some of it, as a guideline for their own
> policy.
> 
> Many ccTLDs, due to local government laws and policies, would need a
> policy suited to their own specific country.
> 
> Even WIPO understands this.
> 
> Finally, I do not see how an unbrella organization could mandate a
> single policy that would apply to so many soverign governments.
> 
> Peter de Blanc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James
> Love
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 6:05 PM
> To: General Assembly
> 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

- -- 
James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
voice: 1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176 mobile 1.202.361.3040
- --
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 09:10:37 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] SABOT

On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 15:32:01 -0700, you wrote:

> Now you know I hate order and authority as much as the next guy. And I am
> adamant we still need to have all of the lists resolve to GA-Full which
would
> clear up your objection here.

I imagine that it would be possible for the DNSO Secretariat to set the
mailing lists so that all mails were forwarded to [ga-full].  This would be
a budensome task and I cannot see any support for it except from Jefsey
Morfin himself.

> As you can see we are having trouble getting our secretariat to cooperate,
so
> it will take me some time to get the list resolving to the GA-Full.  But
help
> me out in the meantime and leave the sublist threads where they belong
please?

However, I will ask the list if anyone else would like to see this done.  If
there is any support we can then attempt to see what can be arranged.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 09:20:56 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Dealing with bounced and returned mail

Dear DNSO Secretariat

I understand from Philip Sheppard that the DNSO Secretariat is responsible
for processing bounced and returned mails.  Until now, I have assumed that
task.

As there is a great deal of work reposting mails, writing to people etc., I
have tried to ask that these tasks be automated.  You tell me this is cannot
be done using Majordomo.

Since we seem not to be achieving a satisfactory resilution privately, I
will now ask that all mail between us be copied to the GA and Names Council
mailing lists.

Could you please advise what you see as the difficulty in automatically
returning mail such as that from Milton Mueller below, to the sender?

Perhaps the experts on these lists can propose a solution.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>
Cc: [ga-udrp] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 8:16 AM
Subject: Fw: Non-member submission from ["Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>]

> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 2:31 AM
> Subject: BOUNCE [email-masked]: Non-member submission from ["Milton
> Mueller" <[email-masked]>]
>
>
> > >From [email-masked]  Mon Jul  2 18:31:39 2001
> > Received: from gwia201.syr.edu (gwia201.syr.edu [128.230.248.25])
> > by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA15509
> > for <[email-masked]>; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 18:31:38 +0200 (MET DST)
> > Received: from MTA2-Message_Server by gwia201.syr.edu
> > with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 02 Jul 2001 12:31:35 -0400
> > Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> > X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1
> > Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 12:31:10 -0400
> > From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
> >         <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: RE: [process2] Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the
> > questions... [ga-udrp]  UDRP   Questionnaire
> > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> > Content-Disposition: inline
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dnso.dnso.org id
> SAA15510
> >
> > Marilyn et al:
> >
> > My research center at Syracuse University just received
> > funding support from the Markle Foundation to continue
> > quantitative tracking of UDRP decisions.
> >
> > The first report was published in November 2000 and
> > presented at the ICANN Marina del Rey meeting.
> > http://dcc.syr.edu/roughjustice.pdf
> >
> > We have since input much more extensive and richer data
> > and will produce a new report by October.
> >
> > The UDRP review Task Force questionnaire will not be a
> > rigorous or quantitative research/data collection document
> > but a means of soliciting public comment. Web-based surveys
> > do not and cannot provide representative samples.
> >
> > >>> "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]> 07/01/01 11:25AM >>>
> > I have for some time been a fan of actually analyzing the types of cases
> > which are brought and outcomes in order to support the evaluation
process.
> >
> >
>

- --
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 20:09:51 -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.
> 
> 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.

No. Jeff clearly does not knopw what he's talking about. Please do not compound
the errors.

There are historical reasons for the name 'RFC', and several types of RFC (standards
track, informational, experimental, ...). Standards track RFCs progress through
several stages (proposed standard, draft standard, ...). At the end of that, possibly
with some revisions along the way, some of them become Internet Standards.

RFC 1034 became STD 13. The two documents are identical, but STD 13 is an official
Internet Standard. 

> There is no delineation of the fundamental nature of the domain name as a commodity,

because domain names are not fundamentally commodities. Fundamentally, they are
what that RFC defines.
 
> which surely we must all agree it is...

Certainly, among other things, these names have become commodities. I consider that
quite unfortunate, and the cause of many problems. 

> 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?

The RFC is not just 'an attempt at description'. It is the standard that defines
the fundamental technical meaning of domain names. People following that standard
create those names.

Of course, those names have other uses and one could attempt a legal or economic
definition of the term 'domain name'. However, any such attempt would have to be
based on the definition in that RFC.
- --
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 17:53:02 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dealing with bounced and returned mail

Hello Patrick,

Filter them out and do nothing with them.

There is no need for you to explain every little problem to people.

Tuesday, July 03, 2001, 4:20:56 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Dear DNSO Secretariat

> I understand from Philip Sheppard that the DNSO Secretariat is responsible
> for processing bounced and returned mails.  Until now, I have assumed that
> task.

> As there is a great deal of work reposting mails, writing to people etc., I
> have tried to ask that these tasks be automated.  You tell me this is cannot
> be done using Majordomo.

> Since we seem not to be achieving a satisfactory resilution privately, I
> will now ask that all mail between us be copied to the GA and Names Council
> mailing lists.

> Could you please advise what you see as the difficulty in automatically
> returning mail such as that from Milton Mueller below, to the sender?

> Perhaps the experts on these lists can propose a solution.

> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
> To: Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [ga-udrp] <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 8:16 AM
> Subject: Fw: Non-member submission from ["Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>]

>> ----- Original Message -----
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 2:31 AM
>> Subject: BOUNCE [email-masked]: Non-member submission from ["Milton
>> Mueller" <[email-masked]>]
>>
>>
>> > >From [email-masked]  Mon Jul  2 18:31:39 2001
>> > Received: from gwia201.syr.edu (gwia201.syr.edu [128.230.248.25])
>> > by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA15509
>> > for <[email-masked]>; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 18:31:38 +0200 (MET DST)
>> > Received: from MTA2-Message_Server by gwia201.syr.edu
>> > with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 02 Jul 2001 12:31:35 -0400
>> > Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
>> > X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1
>> > Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 12:31:10 -0400
>> > From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
>> > To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
>> > Cc: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
>> >         <[email-masked]>
>> > Subject: RE: [process2] Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the
>> > questions... [ga-udrp]  UDRP   Questionnaire
>> > Mime-Version: 1.0
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>> > Content-Disposition: inline
>> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>> > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dnso.dnso.org id
>> SAA15510
>> >
>> > Marilyn et al:
>> >
>> > My research center at Syracuse University just received
>> > funding support from the Markle Foundation to continue
>> > quantitative tracking of UDRP decisions.
>> >
>> > The first report was published in November 2000 and
>> > presented at the ICANN Marina del Rey meeting.
>> > http://dcc.syr.edu/roughjustice.pdf
>> >
>> > We have since input much more extensive and richer data
>> > and will produce a new report by October.
>> >
>> > The UDRP review Task Force questionnaire will not be a
>> > rigorous or quantitative research/data collection document
>> > but a means of soliciting public comment. Web-based surveys
>> > do not and cannot provide representative samples.
>> >
>> > >>> "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]> 07/01/01 11:25AM >>>
>> > I have for some time been a fan of actually analyzing the types of cases
>> > which are brought and outcomes in order to support the evaluation
> process.
>> >
>> >
>>

> --
> 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

- -- 
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: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 19:01:14 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

1. Based upon the evidence submitted all documentation and arguments we find
that there is no merit to the complainants allegations and deny the petition.

2. In that there appears to the satisfaction of the arbitrators that there is a
prima facie case stated we find this matter should go forward and advise the
parties to submit further memorandum upon the issues presented which we find to
be; _______.  Both parties have a forthwith ten day (10 day) period in which to
respond.

3. We find that there is a prima facie case stated but that there are arguable
factors which mitigate against enforcement of any mark or copyright action such
that we refuse to issue an opinion and refer the matter to non-conclusion.
With this finding we specifically direct the registrar and registry take no
action on this matter until further ordered by a tribunal.

Just a shot in the dark, what say thee?

Hugh Blair wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > On Behalf Of Sandy Harris
> > 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
>

Sincerely,
Eric Hugh Dierker

- --
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 18:59:52 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Wanton Refusal of Names Council

Hello Patrick,

Grow up.  You are grossly overreacting to a minor situation.

Tuesday, July 03, 2001, 2:59:27 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Dear Philip

> I am utterly dismayed by the wanton refusal of Elisabeth Porteneuve on
> numerous occasions, with any feeble justification she can think of, to
> refuse outright and point blank, any reasonable request made by the
> representatives of the General Assembly.

> And, despite your personal promise to me to the contrary, you have supported
> her at every turn.  Here is another example.  Not only that you are quite
> wrong in your assessment.  It also proves my point, which Ken Stubbs,
> denied, about lack of co-operation from the Names Council.

> It is a very simple task to prohibit cross posting between lists.  Even
> Elisabeth will tell you that herself.

>> The DNSO secretariat has rightly declined to date to act upon this request
>> because it is in effect a POLICY issue. We would be adding a filter to the
>> GA abuse list.

> In relation to a cross-posting between [ga-abuse] and another list, you can
> set the filters so they reject the [ga-abuse] post, reject the *other* post
> OR reject both posts.

> To give both you and Elisabeth the benefit of failing to understand my
> communication, please ask Elisabeth to set the filters so that it rejects
> the OTHER post.  That would be wiuthin you so-called *policy* restrictions
> as it would not reject the [ga-abuse] post.

> Otherwise please unsubscribe me from the GA-ABUSE list.
> Then we'll just write to each other privately.  Without archives.

> I cannot understand why the DNSO Secretariate shouldn't treat us like the
> CLIENT with some sort of service level agreement for mailing lists and
> websites.

> Sheesh !!!

> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Philip Sheppard <[email-masked]>
> To: Patrick GA Alt Chair <[email-masked]>; Danny Younger GA chair
> <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Elisabeth DNSO Sec <[email-masked]>; NC (list)
> <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 6:31 PM
> Subject: GA abuse

>> Danny and Patrick,
>> Patrick has asked me to intervene in a request (originally made by
> Patrick)
>> to the DNSO secretariat to set up an automated stop to cross posting to
> the
>> GA abuse list. The reason for this is that you are obliged to act upon
> input
>> to this list and it is tedious to look at mail that should not be on the
> GA
>> abuse list. I entirely sympathise.
>>
>> The DNSO secretariat has rightly declined to date to act upon this request
>> because it is in effect a POLICY issue. We would be adding a filter to the
>> GA abuse list.
>>
>> The DNSO Secretariat can introduce a stop to cross posting but first you
>> need to seek agreement within the GA and get a mandate to do so.
>>
>> Philip
>> 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

- -- 
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: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:16:17 -0500
From: "Hugh Blair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Great shot.  I'll hold the strong words I *could* say about how it's
worked so far.  Not being a lawyer (but why should I be?), this
is exactly what I'd like it to be.

Thanks for being so lucid.

- -Hugh
____________________________

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire
>
>
> 1. Based upon the evidence submitted all documentation and arguments we
find
> that there is no merit to the complainants allegations and deny
> the petition.
>
> 2. In that there appears to the satisfaction of the arbitrators that there
is a
> prima facie case stated we find this matter should go forward and advise
the
> parties to submit further memorandum upon the issues presented which we
find to
> be; _______.  Both parties have a forthwith ten day (10 day) period in
which to
> respond.
>
> 3. We find that there is a prima facie case stated but that there are
arguable
> factors which mitigate against enforcement of any mark or copyright action
such
> that we refuse to issue an opinion and refer the matter to non-conclusion.
> With this finding we specifically direct the registrar and registry take
no
> action on this matter until further ordered by a tribunal.
>
> Just a shot in the dark, what say thee?
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric Hugh Dierker
>
>

- --
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 19:15:30 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reply to Philip

Hello DannyYounger,

How rich to see you chastising someone else for their behavior as a
Chair..

Tuesday, July 03, 2001, 3:11:07 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Philip,

> During your tenure as Chair of the NC you have abruptly terminated the life 
> of the Review Working Group, failed to convene a working group on policy 
> issues relating to the alternate root community, and indefinately postponed a 
> working group on the UDRP.  For the benefit of those of us who believe that 
> the General Assembly is mandated to undertake the substantive work of the 
> DNSO, please advise when your term of office is set to expire so that we may 
> know precisely when we will have the opportunity to honor the intent of the 
> Bylaws.
> --
> 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

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #586
************************