Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #686
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, August 20 2001           Volume 01 : Number 686

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

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 07:40:01 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expenses

William, this exchange compels me to ask this question:

Since any candidate for ICANN board appearing in Montevideo would be
"furthering their own agenda"...

Which, if any candidate(s) for ICANN board would you agree could accept
travel funding from any source (outside of ICANN) to attend Montevideo?

Peter de Blanc

- -------------------------------------------
>> Peter de Blanc wrote...

William,

>
> > What objection to you have against Joop receiving travel subsidy?
>

William answers...

>That he is using the IDNO name to get it, and he has no authority to do

>that, to use our names to get his expenses paid so he can further his 
>own agenda.

- --
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: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:44:02 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

Peter,

>
>As a Senior Member of the IEEE, I must answer the portion of the comment
>that relates to IEEE.
>
>While this may not relate directly "policy-wise" to Internet, it
>certainly relates technically.
>
>The IEEE manages the 802.xxx standards, the ethernet system that is
>actually wsed in modt cases to transmit IP packets over LANs, and, in
>some cases WANs.

The 802.x series are not specifically related to Internet, as they define 
the transport layers in LAN/MANs (incidentally, 802.x is not limited at all 
to Ethernet, i.e. the Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision 
Detection, 802.3, but cover also other transport methods like Token Ring, 
wireless, ...). Whether they transport IP packets or other payload, is 
irrelevant to the standard (otherwise also the RGnn cables, the electric 
plugs, and all other kind of things should be considered "relevant for the 
Internet").
As a curiosity, the IEEE work receives formal recognition as "standard" via 
ISO - in fact the "official" international standards are not the IEEE 802.x, 
but ISO 8802.x. But it is indeed IEEE who did the work, ISO only stamps for 
approval.

Regards
Roberto
(yes, I promise, this is the last post on this subject)

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

- --
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: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 09:37:44 -0400
From: "Ladi" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] UDRP study

Published today by Michael Geist in BNA Internet Law News:

UDRP STUDY RAISES BIAS CONCERNS
A study of 3094 ICANN UDRP cases that I am releasing today finds that
when providers control who decides a case (which they do for all single
panel cases), complainants win just over 83 percent of the time.  When
provider influence over panelists diminishes, which occurs in
three-member panel cases, the complainant winning percentage drops to 60
percent.  In addition to the dramatic difference in outcome between
single and three-member panels, the study finds that case allocation
appears to be heavily biased toward ensuring that a majority of cases
are steered toward complainant-friendly panelists. As of July 7, 2001,
an astonishing 53% of all NAF single panel cases (512 of 966) were
decided by only six people.  The complainant winning percentage in those
cases was an astounding 94%. WIPO, meanwhile, has failed to assign even
one of its 1629 single panel cases to at least two panelists perceived
to be pro-respondent.  Of the 104 WIPO panelists to have decided five or
more cases, all but one have complainants winning at least 50% of the
time. Study at http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistudrp.pdf
Media coverage at
http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB998251965684550590.htm
<http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?tf=tgam/c
ommon/Fu

llStory.html&cf=tgam/common/FullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&vg=B
igAdVari

ableGenerator&date=20010820&dateOffset
=&hub=headdex&title=Headlines&cache_key=he
addexBusiness&current_row=15&start_row=15&num_rows=1>

AND NOW YOU CAN SEARCH THE DATA YOURSELF
In conjunction with the release of the Fair.com? An
Examination of the Allegations of Systemic Unfairness in the ICANN UDRP,
I have ported much of the data behind the study to the Web.
Udrpinfo.com features a searchable database of panelist UDRP records
along with other UDRP resources.  Beta site at http://www.udrpinfo.com

Apologies for the somewhat mutilated URLs, but I think this says quite a
bit about the way UDRB is (not) working.

~Ladi

- --
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: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 16:37:01 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expenses 

On 05:38 20/08/01, Peter de Blanc said:
>Thank you, Joop for that confirmation of, well, not only availability,
>but actual funding.
>Peter de Blanc

Actually not, Peter.
It only says that you cannot use them for practical reasons. Unless you 
want the BoD Members to be professional politicians. The candidates are 
people nominated by others. Then they have to accept. Then they have to be 
endorsed.

If they have not prepared their candidacy months in advance - meaning they 
planed a takeover by themselves of the ICANN - they are too late to get 
funded.

I was warned about my nomination by one person in advance. I first 
considered to go to Montevideo at my own expenses then to find a co-sponsor.

But I said and will keep my word that it would be unfair to Joana and Eric, 
if they did be there too. As you noted a trip to Montevideo is at least $ 
2500 from Paris, probably $ 2300 from NY. I went to shop for $ 7300. I 
found them. And then we considered that the money would be far better spent 
for computers and teachers in an African school we support.

 From Paris to LA, with taxi-cab, foods and 3 nights at a Motor-Inn my cost 
is around $800. So less than $ 2300 for 3 (Joana being in NY, Eric and I 
sharing cabs).

So $ 5000 would be just us paying to match the AmerICANN "circus" 
foolishness at traveling the world (at company and ICANN expense) what 
helps the ICANN not to be organized as it should.

I would be really interested if we added all the travel expenses by ICANN 
meeting attendees over one year and compared with what they would have been 
should all the meetings have been held in MdR.

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: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 15:42:20 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: UDRP study

Doesn't surprise me at all.

When you have a dispute service mainly presided over by people who are
making their living within the legal arena, then they are bound to be biased
towards trademark holders as that has been drummed into them as part of
their career path. It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the
more pro-complainant decisions that are made the better the likelihood of
future cases going to the same provider - meaning more money for the
provider and for the panellists.

The lack of any kind of review process means panellists can do pretty much
what they please with impunity.  It also shows a complete lack of regard for
the udrp itself and for the rights of domain holders in general.  Bad
decisions are not only not reviewed they are being used in future cases to
support yet further decisions that are not using the udrp rules for their
outcome.

Also, if anyone can tell me where in the udrp the panellists are empowered
to create new precedent unilaterally I would love to see it.  Makes the
whole review process prior to implementing the udrp pointless if panellists
can just make a change to its scope on a whim and then have this treated as
set in stone by future panels.

Some panellists act as though the udrp rules are of no concern to them and
they determine results based on their own perceptions.

Regards

Paul Cotton
Director
SafetyNet Systems Ltd
www.joinin.com

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ladi" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 2:37 PM
Subject: [ga] UDRP study

Published today by Michael Geist in BNA Internet Law News:

UDRP STUDY RAISES BIAS CONCERNS
A study of 3094 ICANN UDRP cases that I am releasing today finds that
when providers control who decides a case (which they do for all single
panel cases), complainants win just over 83 percent of the time.  When
provider influence over panelists diminishes, which occurs in
three-member panel cases, the complainant winning percentage drops to 60
percent.  In addition to the dramatic difference in outcome between
single and three-member panels, the study finds that case allocation
appears to be heavily biased toward ensuring that a majority of cases
are steered toward complainant-friendly panelists. As of July 7, 2001,
an astonishing 53% of all NAF single panel cases (512 of 966) were
decided by only six people.  The complainant winning percentage in those
cases was an astounding 94%. WIPO, meanwhile, has failed to assign even
one of its 1629 single panel cases to at least two panelists perceived
to be pro-respondent.  Of the 104 WIPO panelists to have decided five or
more cases, all but one have complainants winning at least 50% of the
time. Study at http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistudrp.pdf
Media coverage at
http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB998251965684550590.htm
<http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?tf=tgam/c
ommon/Fu

llStory.html&cf=tgam/common/FullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&vg=B
igAdVari

ableGenerator&date=20010820&dateOffset
=&hub=headdex&title=Headlines&cache_key=he
addexBusiness&current_row=15&start_row=15&num_rows=1>

AND NOW YOU CAN SEARCH THE DATA YOURSELF
In conjunction with the release of the Fair.com? An
Examination of the Allegations of Systemic Unfairness in the ICANN UDRP,
I have ported much of the data behind the study to the Web.
Udrpinfo.com features a searchable database of panelist UDRP records
along with other UDRP resources.  Beta site at http://www.udrpinfo.com

Apologies for the somewhat mutilated URLs, but I think this says quite a
bit about the way UDRB is (not) working.

~Ladi

- --
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: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 15:24:51 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expenses

Jefsey,
>
>I would be really interested if we added all the travel expenses by ICANN
>meeting attendees over one year and compared with what they would have been
>should all the meetings have been held in MdR.

I understand that for you MdR could be more convenient, but probably most 
Uruguayans would find Montevideo less expensive....
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

- --
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: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 08:33:02 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Resolution for Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders  SupportingOrganization

Translation of the flow chart in terms of Part III - Time Line Guide will
be available this week (I hope). There will be a Part IV that picks up
where the introductory section Part I leaves off, thus to fill in details.
There will likely be an article as well on http://www.icannwatch.org.

Thanks much for your continued support!

Bill

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 02:11 20/08/01 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> >  As Joanna Lane and I were putting
> >together the Best Practices procedure, we tried to reflect as close as
> >possible how things will naturally occur, and this post precisely mirrors
> >a portion of the BP flow chart (for which a link is shown below in my
> >sig file). The word "proposal" is exactly the same, but the BP uses the
> >term "motion" rather than "resolution."  Samo, samo. :-)
>
> Bill,
>
> I have the flow-chard pinned up next to my monitor now. :-)
> Would it be possible for you to translate the flowchart in articles that
> would describe the process in legal terms?
>
> You would have to assign names to bodies that are given responsibility in
> the process, but the result would be very usable by a new and democratic
> DNSO constituency, soon to be recognized :-)
>
> --Joop

- --

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.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: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:50:33 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expenses

I support the idea of regional diversity of ICANN meetings for exactly
that reason (financial). 

When we met in Africa, there were a lot of Africans there that never
made a meeting in other parts of the world.

When we met in Melbourne, a lot of asia-pacific cctLD managers came that
did not come to meeting in south america (chile).

So rotating the meetings provides opportunitities to all concerned.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 11:25 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expenses

Jefsey,
>
>I would be really interested if we added all the travel expenses by 
>ICANN meeting attendees over one year and compared with what they would

>have been should all the meetings have been held in MdR.

I understand that for you MdR could be more convenient, but probably
most 
Uruguayans would find Montevideo less expensive....
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

- --
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: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:56:24 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: RE: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

>(yes, I promise, this is the last post on this subject)

(;)  hee hee (;)

Hey Roberto,

Actually, we were upset my the attendance roster and the lecture topics... 
the very poor bootleg we have was embarrassing to listen to; but I have 
been rude enough about my discontent with the IETF, so I am going to let it 
go as it is really not a big deal and not something that will harm the 
Internet or Technology as the creators will always create regardless of who 
participates within the IETF and if things need to change it will happen 
naturally.

By the way, don't we have to mark an email private for it to be 
private?  This Vany person I think is not really someone who should be 
involved in DNSO operations as he/she doesn't seem to understand much of 
anything technology related at all...  It's disappointing; but not surprising.

Everyone have a great day - I'll not be around again until tomorrow.

~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: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 09:04:24 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: UDRP study

Paul Cotton wrote:

> Doesn't surprise me at all.
>
> When you have a dispute service mainly presided over by people who are
> making their living within the legal arena, then they are bound to be biased
> towards trademark holders as that has been drummed into them as part of
> their career path.

As a patent and trademark attorney, I must take strong exception to this
slander of the profession. It is easy to group all attorneys into one bunch
and then mouth platitudes thereon, but in so doing one forgets the basic
feature of the legal profession: every case has two sides. Of course, one
can reasonably maintain that the ICANN Intellectual Property Consituency
is loaded with attorneys that assert the trademark rights of large corporations,

that the UDRP is stacked in favor of trademark owners, that WIPO is a
rubber stamp for trademark owners, and so on -- I have myself strongly
argued that position, as have many others whose sympathies lie with the
individual, so it is not at all appreciated to find one's "career path" being
so described.

> It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the
> more pro-complainant decisions that are made the better the likelihood of
> future cases going to the same provider - meaning more money for the
> provider and for the panellists.

True.

> The lack of any kind of review process means panellists can do pretty much
> what they please with impunity.  It also shows a complete lack of regard for
> the udrp itself and for the rights of domain holders in general.  Bad
> decisions are not only not reviewed they are being used in future cases to
> support yet further decisions that are not using the udrp rules for their
> outcome.

Also quite true. But why is that? It is because here we have "cases" that do
NOT have two sides.  From the outset, a child of 8 would have known that
to register a domain name requires at least both a registrar and a registrant.
From the outset, that second party has never had any representation in this
so-called "resolution" process, commencing with the Network Solutions
"policy" and ultimately leading to the UDRP and its stable of "right-thinking"
panelists.

What is the solution? Well, at least two small steps may be taken, which are:
a) an expedited formation of an "individuals" -- "registrants" -- IDNHC --
by whatever name -- Constituency within the DNSO; and
b) the election to the Board of Directors of Joanna Lane, whose commitment
to the rights of the individual are well known, and the election thereafter, in
every
subsequent election, from every geographic region, of Directors that are
likewise
committed to tilt the scales towards the interests of registrants who, after
all, are
the ones who pay the bills for everything.

Mere complaints (let alone mudslinging) do not advance that cause.

Bill Lovell

> Regards
>
> Paul Cotton
> Director
> SafetyNet Systems Ltd
> www.joinin.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ladi" <[email-masked]>
> To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 2:37 PM
> Subject: [ga] UDRP study
>
> Published today by Michael Geist in BNA Internet Law News:
>
> UDRP STUDY RAISES BIAS CONCERNS
> A study of 3094 ICANN UDRP cases that I am releasing today finds that
> when providers control who decides a case (which they do for all single
> panel cases), complainants win just over 83 percent of the time.  When
> provider influence over panelists diminishes, which occurs in
> three-member panel cases, the complainant winning percentage drops to 60
> percent.  In addition to the dramatic difference in outcome between
> single and three-member panels, the study finds that case allocation
> appears to be heavily biased toward ensuring that a majority of cases
> are steered toward complainant-friendly panelists. As of July 7, 2001,
> an astonishing 53% of all NAF single panel cases (512 of 966) were
> decided by only six people.  The complainant winning percentage in those
> cases was an astounding 94%. WIPO, meanwhile, has failed to assign even
> one of its 1629 single panel cases to at least two panelists perceived
> to be pro-respondent.  Of the 104 WIPO panelists to have decided five or
> more cases, all but one have complainants winning at least 50% of the
> time. Study at http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistudrp.pdf
> Media coverage at
> http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB998251965684550590.htm
> <http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?tf=tgam/c
> ommon/Fu
>
> llStory.html&cf=tgam/common/FullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&vg=B
> igAdVari
>
> ableGenerator&date=20010820&dateOffset
> =&hub=headdex&title=Headlines&cache_key=he
> addexBusiness&current_row=15&start_row=15&num_rows=1>
>
> AND NOW YOU CAN SEARCH THE DATA YOURSELF
> In conjunction with the release of the Fair.com? An
> Examination of the Allegations of Systemic Unfairness in the ICANN UDRP,
> I have ported much of the data behind the study to the Web.
> Udrpinfo.com features a searchable database of panelist UDRP records
> along with other UDRP resources.  Beta site at http://www.udrpinfo.com
>
> Apologies for the somewhat mutilated URLs, but I think this says quite a
> bit about the way UDRB is (not) working.
>
> ~Ladi
>
> --
> 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

- --

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.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: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 13:24:41 -0500
From: Raul Echeberria <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expenses 

At 04:37 PM 20/08/01 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

 > But I said and will keep my word that it would be unfair to Joana and 
Eric, if they did be there too.  As you noted a trip to Montevideo is at 
least $ 2500 from Paris, probably $ 2300 from NY. I went to  shop for $ 
7300. I found them. And then we considered that the money would be far 
better spent for  computers and teachers in an African school we support.

Jefsey:

I don't know if you travel in business class. If not, I'd be glad to help 
you to buy cheaper tickets to Uruguay.

You can get a ticket from Paris by Air France to Uruguay by U$S 1300. Of 
course, in economy class.
 From NY by United Airlines by U$S 1200. Also in economy class.

Also we have a broad offer of hotels with different rates and all of them 
with a good level of services.
Probably MdR (as you say) is cheaper for you, but we can help you to have a 
cheap travel to come here.

Hope to see you in Uruguay.

Regards,

Raul.

- --
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: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:32:04 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: UDRP study

Hi Bill,

*** start ***
As a patent and trademark attorney, I must take strong exception to this
slander of the profession. It is easy to group all attorneys into one bunch
and then mouth platitudes thereon, but in so doing one forgets the basic
feature of the legal profession: every case has two sides. Of course, one
can reasonably maintain that the ICANN Intellectual Property Consituency
is loaded with attorneys that assert the trademark rights of large
corporations,
*** end ***

My apologies that you took this personally, I was not intending to slander
the profession as a whole, merely the manner in which the udrp is
intentionally and consciously stacked in favor of tm holders and
corporations by having it policed by those who could gain from extending the
power of trademarks online (despite the udrp stating that its goal was the
contrary).

Another solution would be to require that the panellists actually adhered to
the rules as laid out and do not rely upon past cases as extending the udrp
scope.  This would remove the current tower of cards that has been built by
panellists overriding the udrp rules by using past erroneous and flawed
cases as their basis.

Unless and until there is some kind of review process in place, then I fail
to see how or why there would be any impetus to change the endemic bias.

Regards

Paul Cotton
Director
SafetyNet Systems Ltd
www.joinin.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: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 09:46:49 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: UDRP study

- --------------050F5ED26B80A4645747B2BC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Paul:

I should mention that one thing one learns in the law is never to take
anything personally -- which I did not. I do have the obligation,
however, to speak out for the integrity of the legal profession, and
that I do.

In principle, I agree with your notion of review, but I must tell you
that one is not likely to get it in any U.S. court, at least.  I myself
regard the UDRP as an abomination from day one, but so long
as it exists, we must deal with it, so on the face of it one might
suggest implementation of a review process therein.  However,
that would imply acceptance of, and a willingness to abide by,
the UDRP process itself, and such acknowledgment of the UDRP
authority I would not give. The technical bounds of "authority" of
ICANN (now don't anybody bust your sides laughing) should
never have entered the trademark arena in the first place.

Bill

Paul Cotton wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
> *** start ***
> As a patent and trademark attorney, I must take strong exception to this
> slander of the profession. It is easy to group all attorneys into one bunch
> and then mouth platitudes thereon, but in so doing one forgets the basic
> feature of the legal profession: every case has two sides. Of course, one
> can reasonably maintain that the ICANN Intellectual Property Consituency
> is loaded with attorneys that assert the trademark rights of large
> corporations,
> *** end ***
>
> My apologies that you took this personally, I was not intending to slander
> the profession as a whole, merely the manner in which the udrp is
> intentionally and consciously stacked in favor of tm holders and
> corporations by having it policed by those who could gain from extending the
> power of trademarks online (despite the udrp stating that its goal was the
> contrary).
>
> Another solution would be to require that the panellists actually adhered to
> the rules as laid out and do not rely upon past cases as extending the udrp
> scope.  This would remove the current tower of cards that has been built by
> panellists overriding the udrp rules by using past erroneous and flawed
> cases as their basis.
>
> Unless and until there is some kind of review process in place, then I fail
> to see how or why there would be any impetus to change the endemic bias.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul Cotton
> Director
> SafetyNet Systems Ltd
> www.joinin.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

- --

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)

- --------------050F5ED26B80A4645747B2BC
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Paul:
<p>I should mention that one thing one learns in the law is never to take
<br><i>anything</i> personally -- which I did not. I do have the obligation,
<br>however, to speak out for the integrity of the legal profession, and
<br>that I do.
<p>In principle, I agree with your notion of review, but I must tell you
<br>that one is not likely to get it in any U.S. court, at least.&nbsp;
I myself
<br>regard the UDRP as an abomination from day one, but so long
<br>as it exists, we must deal with it, so on the face of it one might
<br>suggest implementation of a review process therein.&nbsp; However,
<br>that would imply acceptance of, and a willingness to abide by,
<br>the UDRP process itself, and such acknowledgment of the UDRP
<br>authority I would not give. The technical bounds of "authority" of
<br>ICANN (now don't anybody bust your sides laughing) should
<br>never have entered the trademark arena in the first place.
<p>Bill
<p>Paul Cotton wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Hi Bill,
<p>*** start ***
<br>As a patent and trademark attorney, I must take strong exception to
this
<br>slander of the profession. It is easy to group all attorneys into one
bunch
<br>and then mouth platitudes thereon, but in so doing one forgets the
basic
<br>feature of the legal profession: every case has two sides. Of course,
one
<br>can reasonably maintain that the ICANN Intellectual Property Consituency
<br>is loaded with attorneys that assert the trademark rights of large
<br>corporations,
<br>*** end ***
<p>My apologies that you took this personally, I was not intending to slander
<br>the profession as a whole, merely the manner in which the udrp is
<br>intentionally and consciously stacked in favor of tm holders and
<br>corporations by having it policed by those who could gain from extending
the
<br>power of trademarks online (despite the udrp stating that its goal
was the
<br>contrary).
<p>Another solution would be to require that the panellists actually adhered
to
<br>the rules as laid out and do not rely upon past cases as extending
the udrp
<br>scope.&nbsp; This would remove the current tower of cards that has
been built by
<br>panellists overriding the udrp rules by using past erroneous and flawed
<br>cases as their basis.
<p>Unless and until there is some kind of review process in place, then
I fail
<br>to see how or why there would be any impetus to change the endemic
bias.
<p>Regards
<p>Paul Cotton
<br>Director
<br>SafetyNet Systems Ltd
<br>www.joinin.com
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>

<p>--
<br>&nbsp;
<p>The URLs for Best Practices:
<br>DNSO Citation:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html</A>
<br>(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
<br>Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
<br>Part I:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html</A>
<br>Part II:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf</A>
<br>(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
<br>Reader, which is available for free down load at
<br><A HREF="http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html">http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html</A>.)
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------050F5ED26B80A4645747B2BC--

- --
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: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 19:04:52 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expenses 

On 20:24 20/08/01, Raul Echeberria said:
>At 04:37 PM 20/08/01 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > But I said and will keep my word that it would be unfair to Joana and 
> Eric, if they did be there too.  As you noted a trip to Montevideo is at 
> least $ 2500 from Paris, probably $ 2300 from NY. I went to  shop for $ 
> 7300. I found them. And then we considered that the money would be far 
> better spent for  computers and teachers in an African school we support.
>
>Jefsey:
>I don't know if you travel in business class. If not, I'd be glad to help 
>you to buy cheaper tickets to Uruguay. You can get a ticket from Paris by 
>Air France to Uruguay by U$S 1300. Of course, in economy class. From NY by 
>United Airlines by U$S 1200. Also in economy class.

My figures are taking such rates into account and are door to door taking 
into account cabs, meals, hotels, telephone costs. But not earnings losses. 
I am an airfarer... I know what it cost to business travel realisticly cheap.

I responded privately to other points.
Cheers.
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: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 13:26:23 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expenses

Peter,
We are in agreement, but it may be that over time, as outreach and online
participation improves, that the need to take the message physically to the
peoples of the world will not be so important. After all, there will always
be some parts of the world where political instability prevents us from
meeting in person, hence geographical diversity of physical meeting place
does help, but is no substitute for an outreach policy by other means.

Regards,

Joanna

The URLs for Best Practices: DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
Part I: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)

on 8/20/01 11:50 AM, Peter de Blanc at [email-masked] wrote:

> I support the idea of regional diversity of ICANN meetings for exactly
> that reason (financial).
> 
> When we met in Africa, there were a lot of Africans there that never
> made a meeting in other parts of the world.
> 
> When we met in Melbourne, a lot of asia-pacific cctLD managers came that
> did not come to meeting in south america (chile).
> 
> So rotating the meetings provides opportunitities to all concerned.
> 
> Peter de Blanc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 11:25 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expenses
> 
> 
> Jefsey,
>> 
>> I would be really interested if we added all the travel expenses by
>> ICANN meeting attendees over one year and compared with what they would
> 
>> have been should all the meetings have been held in MdR.
> 
> I understand that for you MdR could be more convenient, but probably
> most 
> Uruguayans would find Montevideo less expensive....
> Roberto
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> 
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #686
************************