Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #638
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, July 29 2001            Volume 01 : Number 638

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 12:32:46 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

Dear Roberto,
I thank you to have broadcast under your name a private mail: this 
permitted my literature to be posted while keeping my post number in 
reasonable figures.

On 18:10 27/07/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>saying that the basis was the pronouncement of the IAB.

I favor the Spanish version of this text: "pronunciamento".

This text has no technical intent, says it only presents an opinion and may 
be read in a totally different way: the way BIND actually woks in the real 
world, i.e. from the authoritative user point of view.

What amazes me most is that smart brains like Roberto, Harald, etc have 
only found this circumstantial and confused phrase to keep explaining us 
that the most brilliant - as robust, simple, powerful, free and (most 
important) worldwide 24/365 proven for years - solution for distributed 
information access is weak, dumb, bugged, confused, etc... just because 
they were not the first to understand it.

Roberto: IAB's comment is architectural and absurd. The DNS is not 
hierarchical, it is multi-layered. A kid of 6 understands it easily. Any 
lady or sales person will be able to explain you its concept: they use it 
all the day long calling on the phone. Ask your wife.

Let forget about who found it first: Jon Postel undershoot it first. Now 
let build over it together. You may disagree on the way to take advantage 
of it and to manage it: let discuss that because that is important.

The problem: the Internet is locked by the AmerICANN policy obliging to 
create other roots to unlock the Window PCs and Mac and to avoid wasting 
more time, giving more money to VeriSign and handling more control to some 
new US corps.

The solution are:
- - either the AmerICANN proposes a inclusive root policy (what Danny refused 
to discuss and could have lead to a solution for a long). The advantages we 
find in multiple roots should be preserved. This is not a  problem while we 
(roots/projects) are small: this is urgent. The ball is Vint and Stuart 
field for a while.
- - either the Root Industry continue its organization in including the 
AmerICANN and its USG root.
- - or the statu-quo, which is usually the poorest choice for the largest one.

Among the topics to be completed:
- - the Root and TLDs Best Practices per IANA policy, RFC 920, RFC 1591, 
ccTLD Best Practices,
- - the TLD announcement and the TLD recognition criteria
- - the separation between Root and TLD levels
- - the TLD subcontracted Management services
- - the compensation of the root costs
- - the TLD Management conflict resolution assistance
- - a true international UDRP system based upon user protection and a user 
jury decision.
- - various TLD Management and Root administration structures and experiences
- - extension of the DNS Management Services.
- - common services to Roots
- - root services mutual relations

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 11:11:45 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Who is a GA member?

Dear Elisabeth,

One of our members, Eric Dierker, has posed a question that should not remain 
unanswered;  Eric writes:  "Mr. Steinberg is not registered to vote in our 
registry.  Just how is he a member of the GA?  Or is he and if so why?"  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg00136.html

In our documents, we have a statement issued by the Secretariat that states:  
"The DNSO General Assembly is composed of those persons who want to be 
members of that assembly. At present, this includes "ex-officio" the 
subscribers to the GA-lists, the participants to the DNSO Constituencies and 
the participants to the Working Groups."  
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html

By this definition, Mr. Steinberg (in light of his acceptance statement) is 
legitimately a member of the Assembly (in that his desire to participate has 
been noted).  We must however ask  -- has this definition of membership ever 
been ratified by the Assembly?

Even if we accept the "At present" definition which cites subscribers to 
lists and participants in constituencies (there are no currently active 
Working Groups), we still don't have a readily determined answer to Eric's 
question, as there is no list posted anywhere that states precisely who is 
currently a GA member.  

Does the Secretariat have any objection to posting a full list of the current 
GA membership?
  
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 11:33:44 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NeuLevel Statement

Statement from Jeffrey J. Neuman
Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
NeuLevel, Inc. 
July 26, 2001

It has come to our attention that a lawsuit has been filed in the State of 
California regarding the launch process for .BIZ domain names. We believe 
that the .BIZ domain name selection process is the most fair and equitable 
way to distribute domain names during the launch of the first truly global 
business-centric space on the Internet. We believe the lawsuit is without 
merit. 

NeuLevel stands completely behind the launch process of .BIZ, which provides 
protections for all trademark owners and discourages cybersquatting and 
speculation. NeuLevel is committed to preserving the integrity and stability 
of the Internet and the .BIZ launch process, which complies with all 
applicable law. The .BIZ launch process has been approved by the Internet 
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit organization 
whose mandate is to act through a bottom-up consensus-based process in the 
best interests of the global Internet community. 

http://www.nic.biz/aboutnl/07262001.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 09:00:17 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NeuLevel Statement

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 8:34 AM
> 
> Statement from Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
> NeuLevel, Inc. 
> July 26, 2001
> 
> It has come to our attention that a lawsuit has been filed in 
> the State of 
> California regarding the launch process for .BIZ domain 
> names. We believe 

> http://www.nic.biz/aboutnl/07262001.html

This link doesn't resolve.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 12:18:16 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Broken link

Dear Roeland,

Re: http://www.nic.biz/aboutnl/07262001.html  

You wrote:  "This link doesn't resolve." 

Having anticipated this comment, I published the entirety of Jeff Neuman's 
brief statement.  

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

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 13:01:17 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] UDRP Task Force

Dear Assembly members:

We still have the opportunity to propose the names of additional individuals 
to serve on the UDRP Task Force.  I am submitting the following names to the 
UDRP Task Force Chair for consideration:

Complainant (or representative)  -- Chris McElroy
Independent ADR expert  -- Rod Dixon
Independent academic expert -- William S. Lovell, PhD

If there are additional names that should be advanced, please feel free to 
let me know, and I will be glad to forward those names as well.

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

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 19:00:16 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who is a GA member?

Dear Danny,

Thank you for asking this interesting and important questions.

The fundamentals about the DNSO Membership are in ICANN Bylaws,
- - the DNSO Membership is open to anybody willing to participate.
Accordingly, nobody can restrain the DNSO Membership, including
DNSO itself.

The DNSO GA Members clarification does not come from the Secretariat
but originate from the NC work in October-November 1999, after 
the first election to ICANN Board and before the first election 
of the GA Chair and Alternate.
See at:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991126.DNSO-GAchair-procedures.html
       A member of the GA shall be any natural person who 
       at the time of the nomination (or endorsement
       as set forth below) is:
        *  subscribed to the GA-ga or GA-announce lists; 
        *  subscribed to a working group list; or 
        *  a Names Council member; or 
        *  a member of a DNSO Constituency. 
       Note: A person with multiple email addresses is only counted once.

Because of difficulties to determine DNSO Constituencies membership,
a practical problem arises for the GA votes. When the term "vote"
is used, one needs to determine an electorate list, therefore a concept
of DNSO GA Voters.
In June 2000, after several months of discussions on membership
function, the Voting Registry was set up, see at:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html

This document determines that the DNSO GA Voters are those
DNSO GA Members who subscribe to the Voting Registry.

The first DNSO GA vote which started on 26th June 2000,
was about "Voting startup for the General Assembly of the DNSO".
See "b01" in "Administration Documents of the General Assembly of the DNSO"
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html (access from the main page).
This was the first vote of DNSO GA Voters, implicitely ratifying
the Voting Registry concept and usage.

Concerning Mr. Steinberg, he is registered on the [email-masked] list,
therefore he qualify for nomination and election.

And eventually your last question:
> Does the Secretariat have any objection to posting a full list of the current 
> GA membership?

Yes. There are several reasons.

It is against the DNSO GA rules as adopted, see:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html
     For purposes of its internal operation, the General Assembly 
     maintains mailing lists.
     These are as follows:
           - [email-masked] for announcements from the DNSO
           - [email-masked] for discussion among GA members on GA business
     Both lists are open for subscription by any E-mail address.
     Both lists are archived.
     The membership of the lists is not made public.

Additionaly, two recollections from history:

1. It is against rules for [email-masked] list.
   Since its origin the members of this list are granted that their names 
   and e-mail addresses will not be disclosed. They are silent participants,
   and their anonymity is respected.
2. Originally the "who" access was permitted to [email-masked] list,
   and any member of that list could know who is on the list. 
   Because of abuses, this facility was closed, and since then 
   the Secretariat publishes weekly statistics on number of participants 
   to the DNSO lists. 
   See "Number of participants in the DNSO mailing lists over time" 
   http://www.dnso.org/statistics/dnsostatistics.html (access from 
   the main page).

Elisabeth Porteneuve
DNSO Secretariat
- --

> From [email-masked] Sat Jul 28 17:15 MET 2001
> From: [email-masked]
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 11:11:45 EDT
> Subject: [ga] Who is a GA member?
> To: [email-masked]
> CC: [email-masked]
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> Dear Elisabeth,
> 
> One of our members, Eric Dierker, has posed a question that should not remain 
> unanswered;  Eric writes:  "Mr. Steinberg is not registered to vote in our 
> registry.  Just how is he a member of the GA?  Or is he and if so why?"  
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg00136.html
> 
> In our documents, we have a statement issued by the Secretariat that states:  
> "The DNSO General Assembly is composed of those persons who want to be 
> members of that assembly. At present, this includes "ex-officio" the 
> subscribers to the GA-lists, the participants to the DNSO Constituencies and 
> the participants to the Working Groups."  
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html
> 
> By this definition, Mr. Steinberg (in light of his acceptance statement) is 
> legitimately a member of the Assembly (in that his desire to participate has 
> been noted).  We must however ask  -- has this definition of membership ever 
> been ratified by the Assembly?
> 
> Even if we accept the "At present" definition which cites subscribers to 
> lists and participants in constituencies (there are no currently active 
> Working Groups), we still don't have a readily determined answer to Eric's 
> question, as there is no list posted anywhere that states precisely who is 
> currently a GA member.  
> 
> Does the Secretariat have any objection to posting a full list of the current 
> GA membership?
>   
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

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

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:10:18 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Broken link

On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 12:18:16PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> Dear Roeland,
> 
> Re: http://www.nic.biz/aboutnl/07262001.html  
> 
> You wrote:  "This link doesn't resolve." 
> 
> Having anticipated this comment, I published the entirety of Jeff Neuman's 
> brief statement.  

But of course, it does resolve, for those who chose to configure their
resolvers in the standard manner.  And, of course, there is nothing we
can do for those who chose to not configure their resolvers in the
standard manner. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:55:50 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Broken link

The point was that the link is under contention. Jeff Neuman, intentionally
or not, placed that page in a contended space. This is irrelevent to the
fact that his company, in collusion with the ICANN, created that contention
in the first place. At least two ICANN board members were aware of the
existing BIZ and deliberatly chose the pretender. In the strict context of
the ICANN, it may be a proper link (which is yet another bone of
contention). In the context of the Internet, it is in-conflict with another
TLD. I think that we have ample empirical proof that ICANN does not include
the whole of the Internet, regardless of whatever mandate that some of its
proponents may claim.

This places MHSC in the circumstance of having Neulevel impertinently impose
itself in an existing MHSC business relationship, with those we (MHSC) know
as the BIZ registry, and forcing us to chose between friends and strangers.
I'm sorry, but MHSC would rather keep the friends we know, rather than hop
into the sack with some stranger just because they have the same name. ICANN
does not control MHSC business relationships, which is what all of this
pretty much boils down to.

Actually, MHSC respects Neulevel very much, it is just that we wish that
they'd chosen a different path. It was entirely their choice, along with the
ICANN, to deliberatly collide with existing friends. We think that it is
unfortunate that they have chosen to do what they have done. We think that
it is even more unfortunate that they have NOT chosen to try and reach some
accomodation, thereby exacerbating the situation. This indicates, to MHSC,
that Neulevel and ICANN are the ones deliberatly picking the fight.

What I don't understand is why people deliberately chose to ignore these
sorts of fundimentals. It must be sheer pig-headedness. The only alternative
conclusion that we see is "bone-headed spite", a less kindly conclusion. In
either case, the arrogance is astounding.

- --
R O E L A N D   M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
t:01 925 373 3954
c:01 925 352 3615
f:01 925 373 9781 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 9:18 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Broken link
> 
> 
> Dear Roeland,
> 
> Re: http://www.nic.biz/aboutnl/07262001.html  
> 
> You wrote:  "This link doesn't resolve." 
> 
> Having anticipated this comment, I published the entirety of 
> Jeff Neuman's 
> brief statement.  
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 15:40:55 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to Cochetti  Transfer Letter)

Leah,

This doesn't fit with my understanding. The trademark is not for "Amazon",
it is for "Amazon.com", the ".com" being very much a part of the name being
trademarked (under numerous categories, not just the one cited by Sotiris),
but the ".com" is explicitly excluded as a trademark in isolation of the
"Amazon" (that being clearly stipulated in all DN trademark applications I
have seen). Also, it is not necessary to have a bricks and mortar operation
for a trademark, it can be purely e-commerce. IANAL, but I did talk to the
US Trademark Office in general terms about this a while ago.

Regards,
Joanna  

on 7/28/01 3:14 AM, L Gallegos at [email-masked] wrote:

> 
> Precisely, Sotiris.  Amazon.com is the name of the company and
> the source of goods and services.  It is not simply an address for a
> website.  One cannot trademark a domain name just as a domain
> name.  It is the mark before the "." that is the tm.  For instance, I
> cannot trademark biztld.net.  It is not the name of the company
> and is just one of several addresses used for the .biz registry.
> 
> Leah
> 
> 
> On 28 Jul 2001, at 2:51, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> 
>> L Gallegos wrote:
>> 
>>> As for trademarking a domain name, in the US, it can't be unless it
>>> is more than just the address for a website.  The domain name
>>> itself, as a domain name, is not trademarkable - at least according
>>> to the USPTO guidelines.
>> 
>>> From the USPTO:
>> 
>> Word Mark: AMAZON.COM
>> 
>> Goods & Services: IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: computerized on line
>> search and ordering service featuring the wholesale and retail
>> distribution of books, music, motion pictures, multimedia products and
>> computer software in the form of printed books, audiocassettes,
>> videocassettes, compact disks, floppy disks, CD ROMs, and direct
>> digital transmission. FIRST USE: 19950415. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE:
>> 19950415
>> 
>> Mark Drawing Code  (1) TYPED DRAWING
>> 
>> Serial Number: 75277670
>> 
>> Filing Date: April 18, 1997
>> 
>> Published for Opposition: March 31, 1998
>> 
>> Registration Date: June 23, 1998
>> 
>> This looks like a TM to me. (Also, not only is it a WORD MARK Tm, but
>> it is of the most coomon TM variety: (1) TYPED DRAWING (1,729,236
>> occurences of this type of TM in the USPTO)
>> 
>> IANAL,
>> 
>> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 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: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 21:19:15 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NeuLevel Statement

On 2001-07-28 09:00:17 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:

>> http://www.nic.biz/aboutnl/07262001.html

>This link doesn't resolve.

I suppose your nameserver is broken.  How about fixing it?

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:22:45 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] EI and CPTech Letter to DOC re .us

                                        Manon Anne Ress
                                        Essential Information
                                        P.O. Box 19405 
                                        Washington, DC 20036

                                        James Love
                                        Consumer Project on Technology
                                        P.O. Box 19367
                                        Washington, DC 20036

July 27, 2001

The Honorable Donald L. Evans 
Secretary of Commerce 
U.S. Department of Commerce 
1401 Constitution Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC  20230 				

Dear Secretary Evans: 

Essential Information and the Consumer Project on Technology are
Washington, DC-based non-profit organizations founded by Ralph Nader. 
Our organizations are involved in a number of projects concerning the
Internet and E-commerce, much of which is documented on the CPTech web
page at http://www.cptech.org.  

We are writing to express our concerns regarding the Department of
Commerce's Request for Quotation (RFQ) [SB1335-01-Q-0740] for services
to establish centralized management and coordination of the .us
top-level domain (usTLD), to propose specific policies regarding the
management of .us, and to join others in requesting an extension of the
July 27, 2001 deadline for applications of the future management of the
.us TLD. 

Today the US national domain, .us, is used almost exclusively for state
and local governments, schools and libraries.  It is a resource
rightfully regarded by the Internet community as a national and public
space, rather than simply another profit opportunity for speculators. 
However, because it is also a potentially lucrative business, the
re-delegation of .us has attracted those more interested in profits than
the public good.  

We believe the current RFQ poses threats to free speech, as well as
privacy - issues that may not trouble some commercial concerns, but
which do concern the people who use the Internet. 

The ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is not appropriate
for .us TLD registrants.  Many UDRP panels are international and take
positions that are contrary to US public policy, particularly as it
relates to the US First Amendment, but also with respect to US
traditions in trade mark policy, as they relate, for example, to the use
of generic names.  We have outlined a number of such opinions at
http://www.cptech.org/ecom/icann/domaindisputes/
domaindisputes.html. For example, consider the opinion in
Kwasizabantu.org, where the UDRP panel said:

        	"The admitted nature of the use of the domain names ...
includes
alternative views and indeed critical views concerning ...
[KwaSizabantu] and its activities. The Panel holds such activity amounts
to tarnishing the activities associated with the trademark or service
mark "KwaSizabantu" ... Therefore, ... [Rost] does not establish any
rights or legitimate interests ..."

Certainly in the USA, offering critical views is still considered a
legitimate interest.     

Regarding privacy policies, we ask that the registry for .us develop the
least restrictive privacy methods for protecting copyright interests. 
This is quite important, as one expects the expanded .us domain space to
include a much greater scope for personal use, and there is already
significant pressure from the E-commerce sector to strip everyone of
every notion of privacy that one cannot just leave this up to the whims
of the registry. To the degree that the registry is required to provide
information on domain name owners, it should chose the method that does
the least violence to personal privacy.

Also, there are important policy issues concerning the economics of the
domain space - in particular, how domain name users will be protected
from exorbitant pricing. Another important issue is how to fairly manage
any surpluses that are likely to be available, once .us is rescued from
its incredibly poor current management scheme.

First of all, it is important to raise our concerns that the government
and ICANN have both deliberately created a false scarcity in domain name
space, to benefit a handful of Internet registries.  As you know, the
Internet Top Level Domain (TDL) space is extremely limited, given what
is technologically possible.  This is typically justified by a range of
insincere and easily refutable claims that this scarcity is somehow
needed to maintain Internet stability.  As everyone is well aware, the
current artificial scarcity has been designed to create rents for the
handful of businesses that control the existing Internet domain name
space.   Clearly the one firm that has benefited the most, to the tune
of billions in stock market valuation, is Verisign, which now controls
the registry for .com, .net and .org, while managing other registries.  
One major objective of the .us re-delegation would be to ensure that
someone other than Verisign runs, manages and operates .us, so that
there is more competition.

We would hope that the .us TLD, the official US country code, be managed
by a non-profit Registry that would not have the incentive to charge
high prices for domain names.  However, if a profit making firm is given
this resource, the government needs to regulate or limit the prices, or
explain why people are paying a commercial entity large fees to use the
.us domain.   These registration fees are real money, and we resent
having to pay high prices for something that the seller does not create
or add value to.  

There may be alternative methods of making this whole system less of a
rip off.  For example, the plan could be to have an unlimited number of
second level domains auctioned off, with the proceeds going into a fund,
to be spent according to the wishes of the end user domain name
holders.  For example, everyone with a third level domain .us, in this
system, could vote on how the surplus could be spent, in an electronic
referendum, which would be populist, fair, and not subject to the
typical favoritism that so often is associated with ICANN.

Second, it would also make sense to provide the not-for-profit sector
with some of the second level domains, for particular public uses and
civil society sectors.  For example, union.us could go to the unions,
charity.us, lib.us, museum.us or others could be given to umbrella
groups that could manage the pricing and allocation of domains for
relevant constituencies.  This would be better than a centralized system
run by some socially clueless technology firm.   

Sincerely,

Manon Ress

James Love

CC:  Joseph L. Widdup, NIST

- -- 
Manon Anne Ress
[email-masked], voice: 1.202.387.8030
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 16:23:56 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response toCochetti   Transfer Letter)

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Leah,
>
> This doesn't fit with my understanding. The trademark is not for "Amazon",
> it is for "Amazon.com", the ".com" being very much a part of the name being
> trademarked (under numerous categories, not just the one cited by Sotiris),
> but the ".com" is explicitly excluded as a trademark in isolation of the
> "Amazon" (that being clearly stipulated in all DN trademark applications I
> have seen). Also, it is not necessary to have a bricks and mortar operation
> for a trademark, it can be purely e-commerce. IANAL, but I did talk to the
> US Trademark Office in general terms about this a while ago.

The USPTO says that extensions such as .com have "no trademark significance,"
meaning that such an extension cannot be used to distinguish one mark from
another.   Also, one might very well register both, e.g., both Amazon and
Amazon.com, but the extensions themselves are not independently registrable
(for a lot of reasons).

What was missed in the whole UDRP bit, commencing with the initial sellout
by NSI to the trademark interests, is that under U. S. law, trade names are
also protected.  That is where a company name is used not in connection with
specific goods or services, so as to qualify for a trademark or a service mark,

but simply as the company name.  One could use that company name in that
trade name role as a domain name, and that trade name would be protectible
under the Lanham Act, even though the trade name would not be eligible for
either
a trademark or a service mark.  There are, of course, many companies that
manufacture and sell products that rest on those products' own trademarks,
while the name of the actual company never appears anywhere -- many of the
conglomerates, in fact, work that way exclusively -- one may not know from
week to week who actually owns some particular brand, but whoever it is
will have a company name that is protectible under the Lanham Act, but
absolutely toast under these dispute resolution abominations.  None of  the
various dispute resolution (i.e., read "stealing") policies give even the
slightest
bow to that centuries old aspect of U. S. trademark law.

IAAL. This is not legal advice but rather a scholarly observation.  :-)

Bill Lovell

> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> on 7/28/01 3:14 AM, L Gallegos at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >
> > Precisely, Sotiris.  Amazon.com is the name of the company and
> > the source of goods and services.  It is not simply an address for a
> > website.  One cannot trademark a domain name just as a domain
> > name.  It is the mark before the "." that is the tm.  For instance, I
> > cannot trademark biztld.net.  It is not the name of the company
> > and is just one of several addresses used for the .biz registry.
> >
> > Leah
> >
> >
> > On 28 Jul 2001, at 2:51, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >
> >> L Gallegos wrote:
> >>
> >>> As for trademarking a domain name, in the US, it can't be unless it
> >>> is more than just the address for a website.  The domain name
> >>> itself, as a domain name, is not trademarkable - at least according
> >>> to the USPTO guidelines.
> >>
> >>> From the USPTO:
> >>
> >> Word Mark: AMAZON.COM
> >>
> >> Goods & Services: IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: computerized on line
> >> search and ordering service featuring the wholesale and retail
> >> distribution of books, music, motion pictures, multimedia products and
> >> computer software in the form of printed books, audiocassettes,
> >> videocassettes, compact disks, floppy disks, CD ROMs, and direct
> >> digital transmission. FIRST USE: 19950415. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE:
> >> 19950415
> >>
> >> Mark Drawing Code  (1) TYPED DRAWING
> >>
> >> Serial Number: 75277670
> >>
> >> Filing Date: April 18, 1997
> >>
> >> Published for Opposition: March 31, 1998
> >>
> >> Registration Date: June 23, 1998
> >>
> >> This looks like a TM to me. (Also, not only is it a WORD MARK Tm, but
> >> it is of the most coomon TM variety: (1) TYPED DRAWING (1,729,236
> >> occurences of this type of TM in the USPTO)
> >>
> >> IANAL,
> >>
> >> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >>

Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 19:59:15 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Review Task Force Update requested

- --part1_dc.9b6a0d2.2894abd3_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Roberto,

The minutes from the last NC teleconference report that Philip Sheppard 
informed the Council that the Review Task Force activity has started with 6 
constituencies' represented out of 7 (a ccTLD representative has not been 
nominated), and that the TF will do its work via a web-based forum known to 
Peter de Blanc in order to evaluate such a forum for wider use.

Can you advise if there is a publicly archived mailing list for this Task 
Force?   Perhaps you might know if this web-based forum has been created, or 
where we might find the Terms of Reference for this Task Force?  Can you let 
us know if you have been in contact with the other constituency 
representatives, and what progress has been made so far?

The last time that I checked the members of the Task Force were:

Philip Sheppard (Chair)
Axel Aus der Muhlen 
Erica Roberts
Tony Holmes
Milton Mueller

Has the gTLD constituency nominated a representative?  Has there been 
movement on the issue of the Individuals' Constituency in discussions so far? 
  How can we in the Assembly assist your efforts?

Looking forward to your preliminary report,

Best regards,
Danny Younger

    

- --part1_dc.9b6a0d2.2894abd3_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>Dear Roberto,
<BR>
<BR>The minutes from the last NC teleconference report that Philip Sheppard 
<BR>informed the Council that the Review Task Force activity has started with 6 
<BR>constituencies' represented out of 7 (a ccTLD representative has not been 
<BR>nominated), and that the TF will do its work via a web-based forum known to 
<BR>Peter de Blanc in order to evaluate such a forum for wider use.
<BR>
<BR>Can you advise if there is a publicly archived mailing list for this Task 
<BR>Force? &nbsp;&nbsp;Perhaps you might know if this web-based forum has been created, or 
<BR>where we might find the Terms of Reference for this Task Force? &nbsp;Can you let 
<BR>us know if you have been in contact with the other constituency 
<BR>representatives, and what progress has been made so far?
<BR>
<BR>The last time that I checked the members of the Task Force were:
<BR>
<BR>Philip Sheppard (Chair)
<BR>Axel Aus der Muhlen 
<BR>Erica Roberts
<BR>Tony Holmes
<BR>Milton Mueller
<BR>
<BR>Has the gTLD constituency nominated a representative? &nbsp;Has there been 
<BR>movement on the issue of the Individuals' Constituency in discussions so far? 
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;How can we in the Assembly assist your efforts?
<BR>
<BR>Looking forward to your preliminary report,
<BR>
<BR>Best regards,
<BR>Danny Younger
<BR>    
<BR> 
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>    </FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></B></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_dc.9b6a0d2.2894abd3_boundary--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 00:30:54 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to  Cochet	tiTransfer Letter)

At 22:37 27/07/2001 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
>   Registrants, IMO, should be able to feel
>secure in the use of a registered domain.

I am glad to hear you say that. :-)
As far as is legally proper, in the interest of the Domain Holders but also 
of the stability of the DNS, they should *be* secure.
Any argument that Domain Names are not the registrant's property, to 
dispose or transfer as the registrant sees fit, serves to destabilize the DNS.

- --
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 #638
************************