Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #654
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, August 8 2001          Volume 01 : Number 654

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

Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 07:37:56 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Reconsideration

Mr. Lynn,

Please forward a copy of the newest version the ICANN/American English 
Dictionary to the GA list.

Thanks,

~k

- --
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, 8 Aug 2001 02:36:40 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

Joop:

Yes, I did know about this. Of course, I was not a member of the NC at
the time.  And Joanna, thank you for the links.

My question is, as of today, is there a document that all interested
parties have formed (rough) consensus on, that constitutes the current
"submission to the NC" for endorsement/recommendation to the board?
This document, of course, would be the one submitted to the board for
recognition of the new constituency.

If so, what is the URL of that document, and where is a list of those
persons supporting it.

BTW- I'll be happy to add my name to that list !

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joop
Teernstra
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 8:42 PM
To: Peter de Blanc; [email-masked]
Cc: 'Philip Sheppard'
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

At 09:19 7/08/01 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:

>My question is, has such self-organization, and production of documents
>taken place?
>
Peter and Ken,

The answer to that is Yes.
  Long before the WG-review  convened, the members of the Cyberspace 
Association agreed on a constitution that contains a mission statement
and 
rules of self-organization.

See www.idno.org/organiz.htm

This has come about amidst much public debate, public enough to often
spill 
over to the GA list.

I am surprised that you did not know about this, of if you did, why you 
thought that this effort should be ignored.

- --Joop--
the Cyberspace Association.
(www.idno.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

- --
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, 08 Aug 2001 15:57:39 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Reconsideration

- --=====================_15327738==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear Stuart,
The main issue here is the crediblity of the reconsideration procedure. The 
complaint concerns complex cascading requests, denials, interviews, 
responses. The request of Danny is for an audit of the whole procedure, so 
the Members and possible plaintifs we are feel protected by the fairness of 
this procedure.

I do not want to enter the case which is not my cup of tea as Vint would 
say. I am far more concerned by the terse denial you made in 2 hours 29 
minutes and 30 seconds. The entire world knows the decorum and the delay 
your legal culture associates with an appeal on a simple thing as a ballot 
recount. I do not feel that 2 hours 29 minutes and 30 second permit a 
serious investigation of this case wich is convincingly described to us as 
complex and which occured before you joined the ICANN. Your response does 
not address any of the procedural points risen by Mr. Smith (might they be 
proper or unproper, this is not the issue).

A very simple yet solemnly risen question by our Chair on the most serious 
issue - with certainly a wide support on this GA and the whole attention of 
most - should not become a plain case of non-transparency that we would 
observe in real time.

What is at stake is our trust into the ICANN.
A concern you certainly share with us. So please take your time and help us 
clarify it.

Jefsey Morfin

On 04:16 08/08/01, M. Stuart Lynn said:
>Mr. Smith has indeed sought reconsideration on just one occasion, and his 
>complaint was carefully considered by the Reconsideration Committee and 
>the ICANN Board.  The committee's recommendation can be viewed at 
><<http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-1.htm>http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-1.htm>. 
>I think a review of that document.  A response to Mr. Smith's attempt to 
>reargue the matter appears at 
><<http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/committee-response-24apr00.htm>http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/committee-response-24apr00.htm>. 
>A fair review of those documents shows that Mr. Smith's allegation is not 
>supported by the facts.
>
>Stuart
>
>
>At 7:36 PM -0400 8/7/01, [email-masked] wrote:
>>Dear Mr. Lynn,
>>
>>A serious charge has been posted to the General Assembly list (reproduced
>>below) which should not go unanswered:
>>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00308.html
>>
>>Please investigate this complaint.  We need to be able to have faith in the
>>reconsideration system, or the credibility that ICANN seeks to achieve may
>>readily be lost.   We appreciate the attention that you will devote to this
>>matter.
>>
>>Thank you,
>>Danny Younger
>>Chair, GA
>>
>>
>> >May I remind you that you have 30 days to make a reconsideration request>
>>after you experimented the problem. You will find the necessary information>
>>at the following 
>>page:><http://www.icann.org/general/reconsideration.htm>http://www.icann.org/general/reconsideration.htm
>>
>>I have filed these in the past.  In some cases the answers were not
>>responsive to the complaints.  In other cases ICANN refused to answer or post
>>the submission.  I resubmitted some but they refuse to acknowledge or answer
>>the submission.  The reconsideration system is a complete sham.
>>
>>Russ Smith
>
>--
>
>__________________
>Stuart Lynn
>President and CEO
>ICANN
>4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
>Marina del Rey, CA 90292
>Tel: 310-823-9358
>Fax: 310-823-8649
>Email: [email-masked]

- --=====================_15327738==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Dear Stuart,<br>
The main issue here is the crediblity of the reconsideration procedure.
The complaint concerns complex cascading requests, denials, interviews,
responses. The request of Danny is for an audit of the whole procedure,
so the Members and possible plaintifs we are feel protected by the
fairness of this procedure.<br>
<br>
I do not want to enter the case which is not my cup of tea as Vint would
say. I am far more concerned by the terse denial you made in 2 hours 29
minutes and 30 seconds. The entire world knows the decorum and the delay
your legal culture associates with an appeal on a simple thing as a
ballot recount. I do not feel that 2 hours 29 minutes and 30 second
permit a serious investigation of this case wich is convincingly
described to us as complex and which occured before you joined the ICANN.
Your response does not address any of the procedural points risen by Mr.
Smith (might they be proper or unproper, this is not the issue). <br>
<br>
A very simple yet solemnly risen question by our Chair on the most
serious issue - with certainly a wide support on this GA and the whole
attention of most - should not become a plain case of non-transparency
that we would observe in real time. <br>
<br>
What is at stake is our trust into the ICANN. <br>
A concern you certainly share with us. So please take your time and help
us clarify it. <br>
<br>
Jefsey Morfin<br>
<br>
On 04:16 08/08/01, M. Stuart Lynn said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Mr. Smith has indeed sought
reconsideration on just one occasion, and his complaint was carefully
considered by the Reconsideration Committee and the ICANN Board.&nbsp;
The committee's recommendation can be viewed at
&lt;<a href="http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-1.htm">http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-1.htm</a>&gt;.&nbsp;
I think a review of that document.&nbsp; A response to Mr. Smith's
attempt to reargue the matter appears at
&lt;<a href="http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/committee-response-24apr00.htm">http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/committee-response-24apr00.htm</a>&gt;.&nbsp;
A fair review of those documents shows that Mr. Smith's allegation is not
supported by the facts.<br>
<br>
Stuart<br>
<br>
<br>
At 7:36 PM -0400 8/7/01, [email-masked] wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Dear Mr. Lynn,<br>
<br>
A serious charge has been posted to the General Assembly list
(reproduced<br>
below) which should not go unanswered:<br>
<a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00308.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00308.html</a><br>
<br>
Please investigate this complaint.&nbsp; We need to be able to have faith
in the<br>
reconsideration system, or the credibility that ICANN seeks to achieve
may<br>
readily be lost.&nbsp;&nbsp; We appreciate the attention that you will
devote to this<br>
matter.<br>
<br>
Thank you,<br>
Danny Younger<br>
Chair, GA<br>
<br>
<br>
&gt;May I remind you that you have 30 days to make a reconsideration
request&gt;<br>
after you experimented the problem. You will find the necessary
information&gt;<br>
at the following
page:&gt;<a href="http://www.icann.org/general/reconsideration.htm">http://www.icann.org/general/reconsideration.htm</a><br>
<br>
I have filed these in the past.&nbsp; In some cases the answers were
not<br>
responsive to the complaints.&nbsp; In other cases ICANN refused to
answer or post<br>
the submission.&nbsp; I resubmitted some but they refuse to acknowledge
or answer<br>
the submission.&nbsp; The reconsideration system is a complete
sham.&nbsp; <br>
<br>
Russ Smith</blockquote><br>
- -- <br>
<br>
__________________<br>
Stuart Lynn<br>
President and CEO<br>
ICANN<br>
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330<br>
Marina del Rey, CA 90292<br>
Tel: 310-823-9358<br>
Fax: 310-823-8649<br>
Email: [email-masked]</blockquote></html>

- --=====================_15327738==_.ALT--

- --
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, 08 Aug 2001 13:41:43 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [IUC] Working Organization

Dear Eric,
thank you for your response. Here is what I propose to you and to any one 
who wants to join the IUC project.

1) the project would be named "Internet User Constituency" Project.
    With abreviated name IntUser.
    Site http://intuser.org .

2) the dedicated interest committe to investigate and possibly propose that 
project would be named the "Internet User Committee" to keep the same 
initial and would use the same abbreviated name.

3) Until the Chairs have assigned a sub-list to that project we could use 
the GA list with the leading mention "[IUC]" in the subject so mails might 
be easily filtered into a special folder by Committee Members or filtered 
out by non interested persons.

4) I propose the following definition for an Internet User: "any person who 
is using the Internet either directly through any access station or 
indirectly through any electronic device". This includes WebTV watchers, 
Electronic Games Kids, E-Mail users, Building Tele Alarms owners, WebPone 
users, MP3 afficionados, etc...

5) we are all of us most welcome indeed to follow your example and to 
propose Internet Users to join this GA, registering as voters and 
participating to our efforts.

6) An initial very limited funding will be provided by the world@wide 
foundation. Secretariat and Banking account could be provided by the 
International Secretariat for Telematic Applications (SIAT) which addresses 
that kind of need since 1978.

7) the CAC (Consumer Advisory Committee) could start as an advisory 
committee to the IUC project.

8) I suggest that in our outreach campaign we think about the creation of 
local chapters and about persons able to create and animate them.

9) we could set-up a think tank at [email-masked] for everyone to 
share with ideas and concepts. Once organized by themes they would be 
published on the IntUser site for public comments.

10) I suppose that our initial needs includes among others:

- -  graphic design for the site
- -  site hosting / server housing with Mail, Threads and ML service
- -  multi-langaguage being of the essence: translation facilties in 
different languages
- -  legal advising - US about ByLaws - international about contract with ICANN
- -  presentation of a budget
- -  edition and publication of a good presentation document
- -  consumer organization relations
- -  organization of international face to face meetings in Europe, Asia and USA
- -  compilation of a worldwide user services directory
- -  compilation of an interlanguage internet words glossary
- -  development of a me/we management system able to cope with millions of 
occasional participants

Any volunteer or project to help in these areas would be most welcome.

Cheers.
Jefsey

On 04:40 08/08/01, Eric Dierker said:
>Jefsey,
>
>As you know I am a cowboy, but I also have a doctorate, and I also familiarly
>represent  the individual interests of my many friends in South East Asia.  I
>was also fortunately given the privilege of spending a year under Pierre 
>in the
>American College in Paris.  When I recently joined our children in the
>outskirts of Mexico DF I realized I had no right to do anything but fight for
>their freedom through information.  I have been non refuted in claims to dot
>commoner representation.  I have with great humility lost many elections 
>within
>and without this body.  In the Internet and especially in ICaNN I have no 
>home,
>we desperately need an IUC.  I have been graciously extended the opportunity
>from my bosses to join in your crusade for individual users to have a voice in
>the Internet.  I am compiling a list of just plain old users to join in your
>cause.  Please lead us into a representative body.  My people are of the
>opinion that as an ICANN member of the BoD you would be our best friend.  But
>please lead us in this concept first.
>
>My dot commoners and myself lend ourselves to your cause which from this day
>forward we call our own.
>
>Sincerely and with gratitude,
>
>Eric,
>
>Jeffrey Morphine wrote:
>
> > I think Peter de Blanc is right.
> >
> > There is a procedure for the creation of a "constituency". This procedure
> > consists in organizing the constituency : its bylaws, its proposed contract
> > with the ICANN, its budget and financing, its Members, its initial
> > bootstrap, its website, etc. and a petition to the BoD to consider its
> > proposition.
> >
> > IMHO there are three constituencies to be prepared:
> >
> > - Internet Users targeting to represent 400.000.000 users (IUC)
> > - Registrants (RC)
> > - DNS Development to foster analysis about DNS system évolution. DNSDC
> >
> > I am intersted organizing an IUC dedicated interest group to evaluate and
> > work on the feasiblity of an Itenet User Constituency. I underline that IUC
> > means Internet Users having no DN or not concerned by their DN.  This has
> > nothing to do with Joop's project. I only hope it may help startung it.
> >
> > 1. if you are interested thank you to let us know
> > 2. Patrick, I am lost with your sub-lists. May be one could be used? Please
> > advise the best one. (so the discussion stay in the GA but do not bore non
> > interested people).
> > 3. My determination is real. I would like to have the project really of the
> > ground with a Consumer Advisory Council project tobe submitted in Marina
> > del Rey.
> >
> > Jefsey
> >
> > --
> > 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: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 11:33:41 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: [ga] Joker.com filing "common law" .info claims

You searched for:
"medicine.info"

Domain Name:  MEDICINE.INFO  
Created On:  2001-JUL-31 17:22:24.0 UTC  
Expiration Date:  2006-JUL-31 17:22:24.0 UTC  
Trademark Name:  Trademark medicine  
Trademark Date:  2000-06-17  
Trademark Country:  DK  
Trademark Number:  Common law  
Sponsoring Registrar:  5037-CC  
Status:  NEW  
Status:  LOCKED  
Status:  OK  
Registrant ID:  C49450-LRMS  
Registrant Name:  Siegfried Langenbach  
Registrant Organization:  CSL GmbH dba Joker.com  
Registrant Street1:   
Registrant City:  Duesseldorf  
Registrant State/Province:  NRW  
Registrant Postal Code:  40213  
Registrant Country:  DE  
Registrant Phone:  +49.211867670  
Registrant Email:  [email-masked]  
Admin ID:  C49450-LRMS  
Admin Name:  Siegfried Langenbach  
Admin Organization:  CSL GmbH dba Joker.com  
Admin Street1:   
Admin City:  Duesseldorf  
Admin State/Province:  NRW  
Admin Postal Code:  40213  
Admin Country:  DE  
Admin Phone:  +49.211867670  
Admin Email:  [email-masked]  
Billing ID:  C49450-LRMS  
Billing Name:  Siegfried Langenbach  
Billing Organization:  CSL GmbH dba Joker.com  
Billing Street1:   
Billing City:  Duesseldorf  
Billing State/Province:  NRW  
Billing Postal Code:  40213  
Billing Country:  DE  
Billing Phone:  +49.211867670  
Billing Email:  [email-masked]  
Tech ID:  C49450-LRMS  
Tech Name:  Siegfried Langenbach  
Tech Organization:  CSL GmbH dba Joker.com  
Tech Street1:   
Tech City:  Duesseldorf  
Tech State/Province:  NRW  
Tech Postal Code:  40213  
Tech Country:  DE  
Tech Phone:  +49.211867670  
Tech Email:  [email-masked]  
Name Server:  ns.nrw.net  
Name Server:  ns.joker.com  

You searched for:
"doctor.info"

Domain Name:  DOCTOR.INFO  
Created On:  2001-AUG-01 13:52:45.0 UTC  
Expiration Date:  2006-AUG-01 13:52:45.0 UTC  
Trademark Name:  Trademark doctor  
Trademark Date:  1998-03-19  
Trademark Country:  DK  
Trademark Number:  common law  
Sponsoring Registrar:  5037-CC  
Status:  NEW  
Status:  LOCKED  
Status:  OK  
Registrant ID:  C49450-LRMS  
Registrant Name:  Siegfried Langenbach  
Registrant Organization:  CSL GmbH dba Joker.com  
Registrant Street1:   
Registrant City:  Duesseldorf  
Registrant State/Province:  NRW  
Registrant Postal Code:  40213  
Registrant Country:  DE  
Registrant Phone:  +49.211867670  
Registrant Email:  [email-masked]  
Admin ID:  C49450-LRMS  
Admin Name:  Siegfried Langenbach  
Admin Organization:  CSL GmbH dba Joker.com  
Admin Street1:   
Admin City:  Duesseldorf  
Admin State/Province:  NRW  
Admin Postal Code:  40213  
Admin Country:  DE  
Admin Phone:  +49.211867670  
Admin Email:  [email-masked]  
Billing ID:  C49450-LRMS  
Billing Name:  Siegfried Langenbach  
Billing Organization:  CSL GmbH dba Joker.com  
Billing Street1:   
Billing City:  Duesseldorf  
Billing State/Province:  NRW  
Billing Postal Code:  40213  
Billing Country:  DE  
Billing Phone:  +49.211867670  
Billing Email:  [email-masked]  
Tech ID:  C49450-LRMS  
Tech Name:  Siegfried Langenbach  
Tech Organization:  CSL GmbH dba Joker.com  
Tech Street1:   
Tech City:  Duesseldorf  
Tech State/Province:  NRW  
Tech Postal Code:  40213  
Tech Country:  DE  
Tech Phone:  +49.211867670  
Tech Email:  [email-masked]  
Name Server:  ns.nrw.net  
Name Server:  ns.joker.com  

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

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

Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 08:34:21 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Reconsideration

Stuart --

As near as I can tell, Mr. Smith's request of 20 May 2000 (as it was copied
below to the GA list) was sent to the correct address <[email-masked]>
and contains all the necessary elements for a Request for Reconsideration.

This is apparently a different request that the one addressed in your
previous response. Can you look into this and see why it wasn't processed by
the Reconsideration Committee? If it was received but ignored (as I think
Mr. Smith is suggesting), that would point to a failure of process, at the
least, that ought to be remedied.

      -- Bret

On 8/7/01 8:33 PM, "admin" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Below is the May 20, 2000 reconsideration request.  This involved one of the
> arbitrators who posted to the list of the International Trademark Association
> (INTA.org).  The arbitrator's posting made it clear that he was not aware of
> the issues contained in the ICANN second staff report for the UDRP and, as a
> result, faulty decisions were made.  Below is the reconsideration request
> along with the postings from the INTA list:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: Russ Smith [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 12:58 AM
> 
> To: [email-masked]
> 
> Cc: [email-masked]; Francis Gurry; [email-masked]; (
> 
> Arbiter.Mail ); Arif Ali; Deborah Enix; Erik Wilbers; Patricia Simao;
> 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Schaber, Michelle; Bowser, Walt
> 
> [[email-masked]]; [email-masked]
> 
> Subject: Reconsideration request-UDRP related
> 
> 
> 
> I am requesting reconsideration on the following ICANN activity:
> 
> The failure of ICANN to properly publicize the stipulation in the ICANN staff
> report #2 concerning the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
> The report states in part:
> 
> "In view of the comments, one detail of the policy's language should be
> emphasized. Several commentators indicated that the concept of "tarnishment"
> in paragraph 4(c)(iii) might be misunderstood by those not familiar with
> United States law or might otherwise be applied inappropriately to
> noncommercial uses of parody names and the like. Staff is not convinced this
> is the case, but in any event wishes to point out that "tarnishment" in
> paragraph 4(c)(iii) is limited to acts done with intent to commercially gain.
> Staff intends to take steps to publicize this point."
> 
> -Russ Smith, PO Box 44232, Washington, DC 20026-4232
> 
> -I am requesting ICANN take 2 actions: (1) immediately notify all persons
> acting as UDRP arbitrators of this issue and (2) reprocess all domain disputes
> where First Amendment and/or tarnishment issues were raised during the
> proceeding.
> 
> -I am affected by this matter because I operate domain names which could be
> subject to a similar dispute. Dispute decisions are being used as precedents
> for later disputes. therefore, such decisions may affect domains which I own.
> 
> -This situation should be corrected because non-uniform decisions in the UDRP
> contribute to a destabilization of the Internet.
> 
> The following documentation is being used to support my request:
> 
> (1) A posting by attorney Robert A Fashler on the public INTA mailing list.
> Mr. Fashler was an arbiter for case
> http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0071.html which involved
> a First Amendment issue. Mr. Fashler's posting clearly indicates he was not
> aware of the ICANN provision concerning tarnishment.
> 
> ===
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> 
> Behalf Of [email-masked]
> 
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 11:05 AM
> 
> Subject: (INTA)First Amendment and the UDRP
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Does anyone believe a case can be made that there's a
> 
> difference between a domain name in use for protected
> 
> (1st Amendment) speech, and a domain name reserved,
> 
> but not used, for that potential purpose?
> 
> This question raises the relationship between the contractual
> 
> regime embodied in the UDRP and the local law of any
> 
> jurisdiction. Some of us have exchanged views on this
> 
> before. As a non-US lawyers I wonder about the extent to
> 
> which the First Amendment has any significant application
> 
> to the UDRP. A very respected US professor and UDRP
> 
> panellist has suggested that it does indeed apply as it may
> 
> provide the basis for rights or legitimate interests in
> 
> respect of a domain name. However, when I read
> 
> Paragraph 4 (a) (ii) of the UDRP, it appears to be
> 
> directed to a proprietary right or interest in the domain
> 
> name, which, to my way of thinking is quite different
> 
> than a right to communicate. I suspect that many other
> 
> non-US lawyers would see it that way too. If that is
> 
> the correct interpretation of the wording, it would
> 
> appear that domain name owners have contracted out
> 
> of any right of free speech to the extent that it must be
> 
> expressed in a domain name that combines a trademark
> 
> with a word that tarnishes it. Does US law make it
> 
> impossible to contract out of First Amendment rights?
> 
> Is there a conflict between the UDRP and US law?
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Robert A Fashler
> 
> Davis & Company (Vancouver)
> 
> T +1.604.643.2975
> 
> F +1.604.687.1612
> 
> C +1.604.716.8204
> 
> E [email-masked]
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> 
> 
> ===
> 
> 
> 
> (2) NAF arbitration http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/94306.htm. In
> this decision the Arbiter James A. Carmody was clearly unaware of the
> tarnishement issues (as well as several other issues surrounding the UDRP).
> 
> "Both Complainant and Respondent have submitted lengthy and well-written
> briefs and many exhibits to support issues and theories which are more
> appropriately dealt with in contemporaneous litigation pending between the
> parties. First and Eleventh Amendment Constitutional issues are not within the
> scope of this arbitration."
> 
> ...
> 
> "Respondent’s web page at http://www.lobofootball.com/maverick/info.html,
> describes itself as "commercial enterprise formed to support UNM Lobo Football
> fans." Complainant has its own websites, public relations and athletic
> department spokespersons and is essentially a competitor of Respondent with
> regard to sports information and commentary. Respondent has used its domain
> names and related websites to disrupt the business of Complainant. Whether or
> not Respondent established and maintained the sites for personal commercial
> gain, I find that these sites have been maintained in bad faith to disrupt the
> legitimate commercial activity of the Complainant."
> 
> Russ Smith
> 
> End of May 20, 2000 reconsideration request

- --
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, 8 Aug 2001 11:56:13 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Joker.com filing "common law" .info claims

Russ,

What I don't understand about this is that the registrars' operating
agreement with ICANN is supposed to prohibit them from stockpiling domains
for their own benefit.

I realize that ICANN has its hands full, busily maintaining Internet
stability all day, but does anyone there monitor registrar compliance with
the accreditation agreement?  Or care?

There would not appear to be any incentive on ICANN's part to do anything
about, though.  ICANN is not an aggrieved party to registrar accreditation
violations, and it will be a cold day in a hot place if any registrar were
ever to get its ticket yanked.  Won't happen.  It is one of those jobs like
monitoring dispute resoluton service provider compliance - nice idea, but
where's the incentive to actually do it?

Cheers,

John

- --
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: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 07:42:34 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "to represent the unrepresented"

On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:52:40 +0800, "erica" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>While a lot of useful discussion has been held on the need for some sort of
>individuals constituency, in order for the NC to be able to go beyond some
>vague form of 'in principle support', it would be helpful for the GA to
>develop a concrete proposal which deals with the key issues which have
>recently been under discussion on this list:
>Constituency Name;
>Constituency Objective (mission)
>Membership (who is -and is not- eligible);
>Funding and organisation.
>
>I think we need to develop a document which sets out the skeleton for a new
>constituency and around which consensus can be built.

The ideal place to have done this would have been the wg-review list
but it got closed down with all due respects by the Names Council.

I have been assuming the the review taskforce would come up with
proposals in this area which the GA and others would give feedback on.

There is a real chicken and egg situation here in that the "rules"for
how to get a Registrants constituency keeps changing.  

Petition the Board - didn't work

Ask the Names Council - didn't work, says it is a Board decision only

Propose it as part of wg-review - consensus ignored

Motion at the Board - Board says Names Council should make a
recommendation

Work through Review Taskforce - now feedback is the GA should be
formulating a detailed proposal.

Is it any wonder nothing at all has happened.   IMO there must be two
stages to the process.  The first is that either the NC or the Board
should give approval in principle that there should be a Registrant's
Constituency in the DNSO.  This is not a complex matter and to date
no-one has managed to argue why individual registrants should not in
principle have the same rights as business registrants and
organisation registrants.

*If* such approval in principle is given with perhaps a deadline for a
detailed proposal then a detailed proposal you shall have.  Myself and
many others will spend dozens of hours on coming up with a superb
proposal.  However what motivation is there to do so when previous
attempts have all ended in nought.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 8 Aug 2001 13:16:28 -0700
From: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Reconsideration

- --============_-1214820705==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

Dear Danny:

Since sending the note below, there have been several postings 
suggesting that I need to look further into this matter. Mr. Smith -- 
in the direct style he normally uses when writing to ICANN staff -- 
helpfully provided a previously missing detail by forwarding a copy 
of the reconsideration request he submitted by email on May 20, 2000.

With this specific information, I have looked further into the 
matter, and indeed have unearthed a copy of Mr. Smith's email in 
someone's mailbox,, but not filed where reconsideration requests are 
normally filed. To follow up further, I need to speak with a staff 
member who is on vacation and out of e-range, and will not be back 
for another 10 days. Until then, there is nothing I can do. Without 
his input,  I cannot determine the ultimate disposition of this 
particular request and whether the  email was somehow lost in the 
process.

However, as mentioned in my earlier note, one of the two known (to 
us) reconsideration requests from Mr. Smith was certainly processed, 
as well as a request from Mr. Smith to reconsider that denied 
reconsideration request. This was also denied. A further 
reconsideration request to reconsider the denied reconsideration of 
the denied reconsideration was not pursued since the Reconsideration 
Committee had already expressed its recommendation and the Board made 
a decision.

I will get back to you and the list as soon a I can follow up with 
the vacationing staff member.

Stuart

Mr. Smith has indeed sought reconsideration on just one occasion, and 
his complaint was carefully considered by the Reconsideration 
Committee and the ICANN Board.  The committee's recommendation can be 
viewed at 
<<http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-1.htm>http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-1.htm>. 
I think a review of that document.  A response to Mr. Smith's attempt 
to reargue the matter appears at 
<<http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/committee-response-24apr00.htm>http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/committee-response-24apr00.htm>. 
A fair review of those documents shows that Mr. Smith's allegation is 
not supported by the facts.

Stuart

At 7:36 PM -0400 8/7/01, [email-masked] wrote:
>Dear Mr. Lynn,
>
>A serious charge has been posted to the General Assembly list (reproduced
>below) which should not go unanswered:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00308.html
>
>Please investigate this complaint.  We need to be able to have faith in the
>reconsideration system, or the credibility that ICANN seeks to achieve may
>readily be lost.   We appreciate the attention that you will devote to this
>matter.
>
>Thank you,
>Danny Younger
>Chair, GA
>
>
>>May I remind you that you have 30 days to make a reconsideration request>
>after you experimented the problem. You will find the necessary information>
>at the following 
>page:><http://www.icann.org/general/reconsideration.htm>http://www.icann.org/general/reconsideration.htm
>
>I have filed these in the past.  In some cases the answers were not
>responsive to the complaints.  In other cases ICANN refused to answer or post
>the submission.  I resubmitted some but they refuse to acknowledge or answer
>the submission.  The reconsideration system is a complete sham.  
>
>Russ Smith
- -- 

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: [email-masked]
- --============_-1214820705==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
 --></style><title>Re: Reconsideration</title></head><body>
<div>Dear Danny:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Since sending the note below, there have been several postings
suggesting that I need to look further into this matter. Mr. Smith --
in the direct style he normally uses when writing to ICANN staff --
helpfully provided a previously missing detail by forwarding a copy of
the reconsideration request he submitted by email on May 20,
2000.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>With this specific information, I have looked further into the
matter, and indeed have unearthed a copy of Mr. Smith's email in
someone's mailbox,, but not filed where reconsideration requests are
normally filed. To follow up further, I need to speak with a staff
member who is on vacation and out of e-range, and will not be back for
another 10 days. Until then, there is nothing I can do. Without his
input,&nbsp; I cannot determine the ultimate disposition of this
particular request and whether the&nbsp; email was somehow lost in the
process.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>However, as mentioned in my earlier note, one of the two known
(to us) reconsideration requests from Mr. Smith was certainly
processed, as well as a request from Mr. Smith to reconsider that
denied reconsideration request. This was also denied. A further
reconsideration request to reconsider the denied reconsideration of
the denied reconsideration was not pursued since the Reconsideration
Committee had already expressed its recommendation and the Board made
a decision.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I will get back to you and the list as soon a I can follow up
with the vacationing staff member.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Stuart</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Mr. Smith has indeed sought reconsideration on just one occasion,
and his complaint was carefully considered by the Reconsideration
Committee and the ICANN Board.&nbsp; The committee's recommendation
can be viewed at &lt;<a
href="http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-1.htm"
>http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-1.htm</a>&gt;.&nbsp;
I think a review of that document.&nbsp; A response to Mr. Smith's
attempt to reargue the matter appears at &lt;<a
href=
"http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/committee-response-24apr00.htm"><span
></span
>http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/committee-response-2<span
></span>4apr00.htm</a>&gt;.&nbsp; A fair review of those documents
shows that Mr. Smith's allegation is not supported by the facts.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Stuart</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 7:36 PM -0400 8/7/01, [email-masked] wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial">Dear Mr. Lynn,<br>
<br>
A serious charge has been posted to the General Assembly list
(reproduced<br>
below) which should not go unanswered:<br>
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00308.html<br>
<br>
Please investigate this complaint. &nbsp;We need to be able to have
faith in the<br>
reconsideration system, or the credibility that ICANN seeks to achieve
may<br>
readily be lost. &nbsp;&nbsp;We appreciate the attention that you will
devote to this<br>
matter.<br>
<br>
Thank you,<br>
Danny Younger<br>
Chair, GA<br>
<br>
<br>
&gt;May I remind you that you have 30 days to make a reconsideration
request&gt;<br>
after you experimented the problem. You will find the necessary
information&gt;<br>
at the following page:&gt;</font><a
href="http://www.icann.org/general/reconsideration.htm"><font
face="Arial">http://www.icann.org/general/reconsideration.htm</font></a
></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
face="Arial"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial">I have filed these in
the past. &nbsp;In some cases the answers were not</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial">responsive to the
complaints. &nbsp;In other cases ICANN refused to answer or
post</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial">the submission.
&nbsp;I resubmitted some but they refuse to acknowledge or
answer</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial">the submission.
&nbsp;The reconsideration system is a complete sham.
&nbsp;</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
face="Arial"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial">Russ
Smith</font></blockquote>

<div>-- <br>
<br>
__________________<br>
Stuart Lynn<br>
President and CEO<br>
ICANN<br>
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330<br>
Marina del Rey, CA 90292<br>
Tel: 310-823-9358<br>
Fax: 310-823-8649<br>
Email: [email-masked]</div>
</body>
</html>
- --============_-1214820705==_ma============--
- --
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 #654
************************