Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #691
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, August 22 2001          Volume 01 : Number 691

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:46:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Net-block issues

1. I guess I don't agree that ICANN is not a "legal authority" in the
sense you mean it; I wrote a long article arguing it's best understood as
an arm of the US government.  But I understand what you mean in practical
terms, which takes us to your second point.

2. Alas, I fear the stakeholders will find it hard to change the UDRP
since that requires a consensus.  The (bad) UDRP is grandfathered in as a
'consensus' policy even though there was no consensus for it.  This
becomes the status quo.

I'll shortly be releasing an article discussing serious flaws in the UDRP
procecdures, for all the good it will do...

On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> I was attempting to make 2 points.
> 
> 1. I agree that ICANN is not a "legal authority". The authority that
> exists does so because of contracts, not legislation.
> 
> 2. The stakeholders, all the constituencies, _could_ change the wording
> of the UDRP clause that is currently being used. If a groundswell of
> common support comes up to make revisions, then it will happen. Also, if
> the administration and enforcement of UDRP is flawed, public opinion
> will drive it to be changed.
> 
> Peter de Blanc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Michael
> Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 9:55 AM
> To: Peter de Blanc
> Cc: 'Sandy Harris'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Net-block issues
> 
> 
> Since ICANN dictated the contract, I question whether the ordinary
> contract theories really apply.  It's not the ordinary "bargain" between
> buyer and seller when NEITHER party has the authority to vary the terms
> of service even if BOTH want to!
> 
> So, yes, the terms do matter, and they are not the same, and we
> shouldn't forget it.
> 
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> 
> > Whether you call it "ICANN meddling" or not, the ultimate authority 
> > here (in UDRP) comes by contract. Registries have "terms and 
> > conditions" of service. The registrars pass those terms and conditions
> 
> > along to the users of the service. The users (domain name holders) 
> > contractually agree to be bound by those terms, in order to get a 
> > domain name. terms may be financial (they pay $ 25.00) or 
> > non-financial (they agree to UDRP).
> > 
> > All of this comes by contract. Anyone is free to enter into, or not 
> > enter into a contract, or, for that matter, to attempt to negotiate 
> > the terms.
> > 
> > All terms, including UDRP, could be re-negotiated in the future, 
> > provided enough of the stakeholders wish to.
> > 
> > Peter de Blanc
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sandy 
> > Harris
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 12:53 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]'
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Net-block issues
> > 
> > 
> > "William S. Lovell" wrote:
> > 
> > > > On the other hand, an ISP or a registry should not be acting 
> > > > against
> > 
> > > > its customers for anything other than direct abuse OF the network.
> > > > There are laws against libel, trademark misuse, stalking, 
> > > > harassment, some types of pornography, 'hate literature', slander,
> 
> > > > software 'piracy', ...
> > > >
> > > > All these forms of abuse ON the net are better dealt with by 
> > > > police
> > > > and courts than by system admins. Courts have legal authority to
> act
> > 
> > > > on these issues, experience and expertise, protections for the
> > > > accused, standards of evidence, ... Neither ISPs nor registries
> have
> > 
> > > > any of those.
> > > >
> > > > There may be some exceptions for extremely blatant violators, 
> > > > where
> > > > an ISP or registry might reasonably help stop abuse, but when
> there 
> > > > is any doubt at all, they should give their customers the benefit
> of
> > 
> > > > that doubt.
> > > >
> > > > So, while I feel that having registries disconnect spammers is not
> 
> > > > a
> > 
> > > > good idea (mainly because I don't trust ICANN to come up with good
> > > > guidelines and NSI are themselves spammers), I do think you can
> make
> > 
> > > > a far better case for that than for having them try to enforce
> > > > trademark restrictions.
> > > 
> > > All of the above hangs together perfectly.  It also leads to the key
> > > question, though.  Copying the phrase "Courts have legal authority
> to 
> > > act on these issues, experience and expertise, protections for the 
> > > accused, standards of evidence, ... Neither ISPs nor registries have
> 
> > > any of those," a complete statement would be made if one added ICANN
> 
> > > along with ISPs and registries, and with specific emphasis on 
> > > trademarks.  ICANN, with its UDRP and other policy meddling, suffers
> 
> > > from the same lack of legal authority, experience and expertise, 
> > > protections for the 'accused,' standards of evidence, and soforth.
> > > 
> > > Bill Lovell
> > 
> > I agree completely.
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > 
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send 
> > mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga-full" in 
> > the body of the message). Archives at 
> > http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                 -->It's very hot and humid here.<--

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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:55:46 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Net-block issues

On 2001-08-21 11:54:48 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:

>2. The stakeholders, all the constituencies, _could_ change the 
>wording of the UDRP clause that is currently being used. If a 
>groundswell of common support comes up to make revisions, then it 
>will happen. Also, if the administration and enforcement of UDRP 
>is flawed, public opinion will drive it to be changed.

That is, from the point of view of the parties to the contracts on 
the lower end of the food chain, the UDRP behaves quite precisely 
like a law: The parties can't change it, but public opinion 
(legislative body) can.

Thus, arguments along the lines of "it's all contract, not law" and 
"you don't need to register a domain" may be correct in a very 
formal sense - but they don't catch the substance of what's 
happening.

- -- 
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: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:09:04 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Net-block issues

If you look at it from a process view-point, the MAPS technology can be used
to enforce registry policies. At this point, the issue of spam-control would
be subservient. The potential impact on the net is so large that it dwarfs
anything the inclusive root operators could do. The market-share is already
extant. The problem is now. Not doing anything may be an option, but it
isn't a very good one, IMHO.

Yes, I agree that what MAPS is doing may not be all that desirable (MAPS
market-share may belie that statement). However, it's a scalable technology
that could lend itself to other uses. More important, as MAPS becomes a
fee-based operation, the various blacklists will spawn children that may be
less than perfect. Synchronization issues will abound. This is MUCH worse
than DNS because there are no agreed common interfaces. We can make
multi-root work, but I am uncertain that we can make multi-MAPS work,
especially if the various blacklist operators don't choose to cooperate.

The danger remains, an innocent entity may wind up paying $256-$512/month
for a net-block (/24) that doesn't work and neither the registry, or the
ISP, will be able to do anything about it. Now if the registry were
operating that service then there would be some recourse. One would hope
that there would be improved coordination, at least.

The driver is that MAPS is going fee-based, which is guaranteed to reduce
uniformity of the blacklists.

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:33 AM
|> 
|> Registries should not be involved in MAPS like operations at all.
|> 
|> You can't seriously be suggesting that?
|> 
|> MAPS is not a functionality, it is a disfunctionality, and 
|> if it is to
|> exist at all, it should be managed privately.
|> 
|> Wednesday, Wednesday, August 15, 2001, 8:38:35 AM, Roeland 
|> Meyer wrote:
|> > The fundimental process disconnect here is that, IMHO, the various
|> > registries should be performing the MAPS function as part 
|> of their policy
|> > enforcement mechanism. This is not written into any of the
|> > registrar/registry agreements.
|> 
|> > If anything argues for a centralised systems approach, the MAPS
|> > functionality does. IMHO, this makes it an ICANN issue. 
|> Yes, this also
|> > politicizes it somewhat. No, some NANOG denizens won't 
|> like it and that is
|> > guaranteed.
- --
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, 19 Aug 2001 21:07:11 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expenses and Election timing.

Colleagues:

During the last NC tele-meeting the NC discussed and voted on the
schedule for the upcoming ICANN board member election.

I wish to explain my position and why I voted as I did, and I wish to
clarify some potential mis-understandings about my suggestions of
financial aid for candidates.

According to the ICANN bylaws, the NC needs to present the (elected)
candidate to the ICANN secretary by 16 September, 2001, for seating on
the board in October.

I took the position of wishing to see the election happen as late as
possible, and in such a way as to allow face to face consultancy with my
constituents at the Montivedeo meeting.

I have two reasons for wanting the face to face time.

1. Many of our constituents, who are not native english speakers, or who
may be reluctant to express themselves on mailing lists, often get a
better chance to participate and exchange information at the face to
face meetings. Even though the candidates have all expressed their
positions on lists, there may be members of our constituency who do not
fully understand those positions. Allowing the face to face time
provides maximum opportunity for consultation within our constituency.

2. Because ccSO formation is now in process, and because the ALSC (At
Large Study Committee) will present their (draft) report just before
Montevideo, and because that ALSC report suggests re-organization of the
ICANN structure, we need to have the maximum period of consultation,
including face to face with the candidates before electing one of them
to a Board that will be voting on what the new ICANN structure will be.

Now, the issue came up at the NC tele-meeting that candidates who could
not attend the montevideo meetings might be dis-advantaged with respect
to campaigning for votes.

I suggested that anyone who is running for ICANN board should do
everything in their power to attend, as an expression of interest and
commitment. 

When someone suggested that candidates might be interested and
committed, but lack the financial resources to attend, I suggested that
they (those candidates) could get some funding.

I did not and do not suggest that ICANN, or the DNSO provide such
funding. Such funding should not come from ICANN. It should come from
sources outside of ICANN.

This idea goes along with my proposal for a wwTLD foundation, an
organization that would accept grants and funding to do ccTLD outreach
projects, such as registry software, technical assistance, and political
education. For example, the wwTLD foundation could provide travel
expenses for a ccTLD manager to attend a workshop or meeting.

Now as to my ideas of where the funding would or could come from for the
current slate of ICANN board candidates, the answer is simple.

1. The supporters of that candidate could supply the funds directly to
the candidate, even as candidates running for public election in many
countries raise money for their campaigns, advertising, travel, and
events such as rallies.

2. The candidates could seek travel funds from existing foundations that
specialize in providing grants for this purpose. In fact some of these
foundations are already providing travel grants to other persons
involved in Internet process.

for example:
Center for Democracy and Technology:
http://www.cdt.org/mission/activities2000.shtml

Markle foundation: 
http://www.markle.org/gpi/_gpi_index.stm

The Benton Foundation:
http://www.benton.org/

And there are several others.

I fully expect any person seeking such assistance to organize their own
financial support, and I am confident that the necessary sources of
funds are out there. It is up to the candidate to identify the sources
and to ask for the money. Or at least to recruit someone or some
organization who supports that candidate's position and will do the
fund-raising for them.

Peter de Blanc
ccTLD NC representative

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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 22:13:34 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Net-block issues

Der Peter, Bill and Roeland,
Domain names exist outside of the DNS name space. They usually are used for 
users convenience - to help finding the domain - when registering a 
mnemonic for the domain's IP address.

Domains include properties such as web site, e-mail mailboxes,  ftp 
services, production database, webmaster offices and staff, printed 
advertising ion the domain, IP rights including TMs, etc...

The task of the Registry is only to enter in the TLD Register the name of 
the Domain. It is legitimate that he protects himself against a mistake or 
a fraud. This only concerns the use of the name of another domain when 
registering the name of a domain. As if I was registering in an hotel as 
Roeland Meyer. The only act of the Registry and its only responsibility is 
equivalent to Holiday INN signing me for one night under a false name. It 
provides as service - registering me - not a right it has not.

Now the only problem is that some people create on-purpose domain. i.e. 
gather properties only for the Internet and may lead to confusion with 
pre-existing domains. IMHO the issue is so complex and so subjective - as 
the "famous" trademark issue show it - that the simplest is to address in 
the proper way: is or not the name used confusing the user (you will 
remember that a TM is only here to remove confusion between two similar 
products). Only users can say that.

We use to poll users all the day long. We have sophisticated, powerful and 
cheap tools for that. The UDRP should only be a poll taken on a randomly 
chose appropriate panel (Jury) saying or not if they get confused and which 
site seems most appropriate for them to be associated to the domain name.
- - famous TM and sensitive geographical terms will certainly be considered 
easily
- - complex comparison between ASCII, Chinese, Japanese, Korean etc... being 
obvious to the panel
- - TLD influence instinctively addressed
- - fairness supported: each party will explain its story, plans etc.. 
on-line and the users will react as consumers, pleased or not with the 
ideas they are explained.

Also, such UDRP being a non-confusion test should be available to new 
Registrants. So they might take an UDRP test for their new DN? They would 
obviously show their good faith since anyone could challenge them - a 
permanent sunrise. If the response is positive, they could be UDRP free for 
ever and therefore insured that they can invest on the name.

Jefsey

PS. I find interesting the dicussion about the legal authority of the 
ICANN. It confirms that it has authority through the contracts it signs, 
the only real contracts being with the DoC when buying the IANA fuctions 
for less than $ 10.000, the NSI contract and the gTLD countracts. 
Considering that the NSI and TLD contracts are - according to the IANA 
delegation - to be signed by the DoC, the ICANN has no legal authirity, 
while the AmerICANN has the support of the DoC. Until now no other Gov. has 
given any legal authority to the CanICANN, to the MexICANN to the AfrICANN 
or to the EurICANN ....

On 16:38 21/08/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>|> From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
>|> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 4:20 AM
>
>|> All of this comes by contract. Anyone is free to enter into, or not
>|> enter into a contract, or, for that matter, to attempt to
>|> negotiate the terms.
>|>
>|> All terms, including UDRP, could be re-negotiated in the future,
>|> provided enough of the stakeholders wish to.
>
>This is not true in the case of a monopoly, like Standard Oil, AT&T, and
>ICANN. The only alternative is to form another zone management org, with
>different contracts. In light of that, how would you like me to interpret
>your 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

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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:10:40 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NCDNHC solicitation of candidate views

Dear prospective Board members: 
On behalf of the 3 Names Council members from the
Non-commercial constituency who will vote in the ICANN DNSO Board
election in September, we solicit your answers to the following questions.

Please respond to [email-masked]

====

1. What do you think would be your most significant contribution to
the ICANN Board?

2. What is your most serious criticism of the performance of the
ICANN Board to date? 

3. As a Board member, which of the following issue-areas or problems 
would you see as the highest priority? (Please do NOT respond by saying 
"they are all important." We know that. We want to know your PRIORITIES. You may rank them in order of importance if you wish.)

   A. Structural-organizational issues (e.g., DNSO Review, SO formation,
       constituting the At-Large, dominance of ICANN policy-making by
       unelected management and staff)
   B. Supply industry regulation (registrar-registry relations, consumer
       protection from unauthorized account transfers, fair access to
       expired names, etc.
   C. Intellectual Property protection; e.g., UDRP, WIPO 2, WHOIS 
        access, making sure new TLDs are restricted, etc.
   D. Expansion of the name space. Rapid conclusion of
       existing contracts, rapid authorization of new TLDs.

4. Do you believe that the non-commercial constituency should be
deprived of a vote on the Names Council if it does not 
pay the DNSO $30,000 by the end of this year?

5. Do you believe the UDRP procedures are currently biased in 
favor of complainants and need to be reformed? Do you believe the 
substantive policy of the UDRP needs to be significantly changed? 
If so, how? 

6. Do you favor the addition of an individuals' constituency to the
DNSO? Do you favor any broad restructuring the DNSO constituency
structure or more limited reforms?

7. Do you favor the secession of the ccTLDS from the DNSO and
the creation of a separate country code SO? 

8.  Do you favor a public voice and representation on the board for the
community at large.  How would you define At Large?

9.  Do you think board members should be elected by direct vote or 
selected indirectly. Why?

10. Should board decisions continue to be made in private closed meetings
that are open to participation by certain privileged parties but not 
to the public for observation?

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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:23:37 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Inter-registrar Domain Name Transfer (IRDX) Proposal

Ross Rader of Tucows has published a proposition for a uniform set of
processes by which Registrars can
undertake to perform inter-registrar domain name transfers.

I am formulating my input on this proposition, and will be forwarding in due
course, as I hope others in the General Assembly will also be keen to do, in
particular those who can throw light on the Registrant's perspective. After
all, the Registrant community has been the most affected by failures in
present arrangements.

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.)

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Registrars@Dnso. Org" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 12:57 PM
> Subject: Inter-registrar Domain Name Transfer (IRDX) Proposal
> 
> 
>> Registrars,
>> 
>> Movement on the issue of transfers has been difficult and slow. The
>> opponents of a default "ack" arrangement have continually pointed to the
>> lack of diligent process employed by gaining registrars. In order to
> address
>> this concern and provide the constituency with a starting point for
> process
>> dialogue, Tucows respectfully submits the following process proposal for
>> consideration, and hopefully adoption, by the constituency membership.
>> Accordingly, we request that the work required to move this proposal to
>> adopted status be formally placed on the agenda of the constituency for
>> attention as quickly as possible.
>> 
>> The proposal can be found in a number of formats at
>> http://www.byte.org/rc-transfers/ along with related documentation,
>> proposals and links. Please note that the processes described in the
>> proposal are purposely generic in nature. As the principles of the
> document
>> indicate, specific implementations must be left to the discretion of each
>> registrar. However, the checks and balances that the proposal contains
> does
>> (or will after constituency input) support the requirements of the ICANN
> RAA
>> and the Verisign RRA and provide each registrar with a balanced starting
>> point by which to undertake IRDX without excessive operational and
> financial
>> burdens or lack of care for registrant requirements.
>> 
>> It seems to make sense that dialogue around this proposal take place on
> this
>> mailing list, however, a separate list can easily be created if the group
>> feels that the discussion of this proposal might be distracting to the
> other
>> work of the constituency.
>> 
>> It is Tucows hope that we, all registrars, can iterate on this document,
>> make corrections, modifications and improvements where possible, and then
>> drive towards adoption and implementation as quickly as possible. It may
> or
>> may not be the case currently that this document is ready for a vote -
> this
>> is a question best left answered by the constituency as a whole.
>> 
>> Thank you for your consideration.
>> 
>> Ross Wm. Rader
>> Director, Innovation & Research
>> Tucows Inc.
>> t. 416.535.0123
>> f. 416.531.5584
>> 
> 

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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 21:14:36 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Net-block issues

OK, Jeff, so how do you propose that we might "bring it all into
compliance" ?

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 4:03 PM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Net-block issues

Peter and all assembly members,

  As you know or should know the current version of the UDRP
is not a "Consensus" based policy or practice.  It is contrived or
otherwise edicted upon the stakeholders without their consent or even
ability to vote upon it as a policy tool.  As such, it is not a valid
ICANN/WIPO policy tool.

  The registrar "Contracts" that potential registrants are not
"Consensus" based documents by the stakeholders as they were not allowed
to VOTE on them.  As such, they are not under the MoU and White Paper
valid documents or contracts by which registration of domain names are
managed.

  Given these FACTS, it is inconsistent in the extreme to even consider
the present atmosphere or the DNS and especially Registration of Domain
Names as well as "Selection" of TLD's to be in compliance with the White
Paper and the MoU.

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Whether you call it "ICANN meddling" or not, the ultimate authority 
> here (in UDRP) comes by contract. Registries have "terms and 
> conditions" of service. The registrars pass those terms and conditions

> along to the users of the service. The users (domain name holders) 
> contractually agree to be bound by those terms, in order to get a 
> domain name. terms may be financial (they pay $ 25.00) or 
> non-financial (they agree to UDRP).
>
> All of this comes by contract. Anyone is free to enter into, or not 
> enter into a contract, or, for that matter, to attempt to negotiate 
> the terms.
>
> All terms, including UDRP, could be re-negotiated in the future, 
> provided enough of the stakeholders wish to.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sandy 
> Harris
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 12:53 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]'
> Subject: Re: [ga] Net-block issues
>
> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
> > > On the other hand, an ISP or a registry should not be acting 
> > > against
>
> > > its customers for anything other than direct abuse OF the network.

> > > There are laws against libel, trademark misuse, stalking, 
> > > harassment, some types of pornography, 'hate literature', slander,

> > > software 'piracy', ...
> > >
> > > All these forms of abuse ON the net are better dealt with by 
> > > police and courts than by system admins. Courts have legal 
> > > authority to act
>
> > > on these issues, experience and expertise, protections for the 
> > > accused, standards of evidence, ... Neither ISPs nor registries 
> > > have
>
> > > any of those.
> > >
> > > There may be some exceptions for extremely blatant violators, 
> > > where an ISP or registry might reasonably help stop abuse, but 
> > > when there is any doubt at all, they should give their customers 
> > > the benefit of
>
> > > that doubt.
> > >
> > > So, while I feel that having registries disconnect spammers is not

> > > a
>
> > > good idea (mainly because I don't trust ICANN to come up with good

> > > guidelines and NSI are themselves spammers), I do think you can 
> > > make
>
> > > a far better case for that than for having them try to enforce 
> > > trademark restrictions.
> >
> > All of the above hangs together perfectly.  It also leads to the key

> > question, though.  Copying the phrase "Courts have legal authority 
> > to act on these issues, experience and expertise, protections for 
> > the accused, standards of evidence, ... Neither ISPs nor registries 
> > have any of those," a complete statement would be made if one added 
> > ICANN along with ISPs and registries, and with specific emphasis on 
> > trademarks.  ICANN, with its UDRP and other policy meddling, suffers

> > from the same lack of legal authority, experience and expertise, 
> > protections for the 'accused,' standards of evidence, and soforth.
> >
> > Bill Lovell
>
> I agree completely.
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 13:02:33 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Withdrawal of acceptance

>
>    1a. Full name of the nominee for IDN TF: Joop Teernstra
>    1b. E-mail address of the nominee for IDN TF: [email-masked]
>
>    1e. Background information about the nominee:

As was clear from the background info that I gave to ga-nominations, my 
acceptance was based on a misreading of the acronym IDN TF.
Perhaps others in the GA have been similarly confused.

As I am convinced that there are other GA members such as Charles Sha'ban , 
now elected to the Board of MINC, better able to assist the TF 
on  International Domain Names and I am already spreading myself too thin, 
I am withdrawing my acceptance.

My apologies to my nominatrix.

- --
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, 22 Aug 2001 00:21:43 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Partial response to questions from Danny Younger regarding Busine ss Constituency: Charter and ByLaw Violations

Danny, 

I'm happy to respond to some of the questions posed in your recent posting
to the GA, and cc'd to Stuart Lynn, and Philip Sheppard, regarding your view
that there are Charter and By-Law violations by the BC. 

You will not be surprised that I do not agree with you. I will respond to
those questions where I can answer without consultation with my fellow NC
reps. This is because of time limitations, and the fact that Philip Sheppard
is on holiday.  Upon his return, we will need to follow up further. 

In this response, I am responding as an individual NC representative and am
not trying to speak for Philip and Grant or the Secretariat.  

Your first question seems to address what industry sector I personally
represent. I feel well qualified to answer that without consultation with
anyone else.  :-)

You were concerned about whether AT&T and Clear were the "same" business
sector, e.g. telecommunications. You provided information about CLEAR's
business focus.  Let me clarify what is pretty well known in the industry
but may not be visible to you and others:  I am the director of policy and
advocacy for Internet and E-commerce within AT&T.  You describe me as a
"well known lobbyist" for telecommunications. I think you made two mistakes,
but they are easy to make, from a distance.  While I do lobby [among other
things] for AT&T, it is on Internet and E-Commerce issues. 

My actual business responsibilities for AT&T are much broader  than lobbying
[no offence intended to those who do lobby].  My job is focused on policy
development and advocacy on the Internet and E-commerce.  It includes
lobbying, but is not limited to that.   Of course, we all recognize that
AT&T is also a communications company, as well as a web hosting, business
user, and Internet company. 

Sometimes people think of AT&T as it "used to be".  Many changes have
happened over the past few years.   AT&T until recently owned a major
wireless company (just spun off); owns a broadband cable and high speed
broadband Internet company (spinning off); operates  telecommunications,
Internet backbone and access, and Internet/e-commerce BUS who build web
sites, engage in hosting, etc. I represent the latter two. As such, we are
business users to ICANN.

We do not, for instance, belong to the ISPCP Constituency.  Our focus at
ICANN is as a business user. 

I hope that helps to clarify one of the issues  you raised.

Secondly, the BC will hold an election in September for the BC reps to the
NC.    I expect to campaign for the election, and will seek support and
input from the broad BC constituency. Given our calendar of events, it isn't
useful to take up the membership's time until we return from Montevideo, and
of course, others will seek to and should stand for election as well. The
election process allows for nomination and election in an open process.
Let's focus on that once we get the board election out of the way. 

I am unclear of what your concerns are about having temporary representation
UNTIL AN ELECTION IS HELD, but would like to better understand it.  The BC
needed meaningful and hard working representation, willing to do a lot of
work, and I accepted the challenge. It is a lot of work, as is the GA chair.
As noted, elections will take place in September, 2001. 

The BC is a constituency. To participate as a member of the BC, one must
work within it's processes.  We welcome your input and insights, as a BC
member.  I hope that you will provide your comments within the BC process,
so that your input, as a member of the BC is reflected.  

Related to the At Large Study Committee Draft which I did the drafting on,
and sought comments from several BC members : it is 1) a draft 2) posted for
comments. So far, some of the comments are largely in agreement. There are
one or two which are in agreement in some areas, and not in agreement in
others.  I haven't seen any which are completely opposed to the draft, but
we have a few more days of input.  Let's see the process through and see
where there remain disagreements about the proposed position of the BC
related to the At Large Study Committee. 

And, Danny, let's give other BC members a chance to respond as well during
this period of consultation. 

I haven't addressed all of your questions, and I am the first to recognize
that.  

Regards, 

Marilyn

202-457-2106v
202-457-3051f
202-255-7348c
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:03:10 -0400
From: "Sapiro, Miriam" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Summary of Verisign meeting in Washington on WHOIS servi ces

Danny - 

I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but your note may have left some folks
with the wrong impression about what I said and the state of play:

- -  The first of three consultations that VeriSign plans to hold on
developing a universal Whois database took place on Aug 15, hosted by the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  It was focused on getting input from business and
IP folks, as well as the law enforcement community.  Efforts were made
several weeks ago to publicize the session, as everyone was most welcome.
The invitation was, for example, sent to the Registrar and Registry
Constituencies.  Our intention was not to exclude anyone, but to focus
different sessions on different audiences.      

- -  We are organizing two additional consultations, as well as setting up a
web-based forum for public comment.  The web forum will be particularly
important to ensure that everyone who has views can provide them easily.
The second consultation will focus on getting input from civil liberty
groups, ngos and additional parts of the ICANN community.  The third
consultation will be focused on getting international input.  We will
publicize details as soon as they are available.  Please note that we had
considered whether to schedule a consultation during the ICANN meeting in
Montevideo and concluded, just as some members of the Names Council did at
their meeting, that the schedule is already too packed. 

- -  I made clear we welcome input from everyone, whether they represent
technical, policy or other communities.  But we must not confuse this effort
- -- to conduct R&D on a universal Whois -- with the myriad of Whois policy
issues now appropriately under discussion by the Whois Committee, the GA and
others.  That debate is now taking place, and will continue, irrespective of
the R&D effort on a universal Whois to which we have committed.  We were not
tasked with setting policy with respect to Whois, but rather conducting R&D
on a possible technical solution for a universal Whois.  When consensus
decisions are made on those policy issues, they should be reflected in
whatever Whois database is in use/development.  

- - Let me emphasize again that we welcome input from everyone, by web or in
person.  It would be particularly helpful to our technical team if users
could provide input on their requirements and priorities.  And let me also
reinforce that VeriSign did not "side-step" the GA -- as noted above, other
key parts of the ICANN community will be the focus of future consultations.
And the web forum will be open and accessible to all whom would like to
express views.

Regards, Miriam

Miriam Sapiro
Director of International Policy
VeriSign, Inc.

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Summary of Verisign meeting in Washington on WHOIS
services

This first meeting by VeriSign (one of three scheduled) was designed to
allow 
panelists representing Law Enforcement and Intellectual Property interests
to 
address their concerns (subsequent sessions will allow for representatives
of 
Privacy groups and others to express their views).  A representative for the

FBI pointed out the need for accurate and timely world-wide information.
The 
head of the Intellectual Property Constituency, Steve Metalitz, required 
searchability across a broad spectrum of data fields.  

Information on this centralized WHOIS is to be found at:  
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appw-com-16apr01
.h

tm

Participants at this meeting noted that neither registrars nor other 
registries were specificly invited to attend, nor were representatives of
the 
DNSO nor the NC WHOIS committee.   The lack of participants from IETF and 
other such groups was also noted.  Miriam Sapiro who headed the Verisign 
panel replied that the meeting was sufficiently publicized.  

It was asked (my question), will VeriSign abide by a consensus decision if 
privacy concerns outweigh the interests of the Intellectual property 
constituency.  I did not find the response to be satisfactory.  

This centralized WHOIS database raises many policy issues, especially with 
regard to privacy.  I would hope that the NC chooses to add this topic to 
their agenda and that policy matters can be resolved and honored prior to 
being presented with a "fait accompli" by VeriSign. 

I continue to be troubled by VeriSign side-stepping the DNSO, and would hope

that they would choose to be more cooperative in the future.

- --
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 #691
************************