Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #820
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, October 27 2001          Volume 01 : Number 820

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

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, John Berryhill wrote:

> I'd prefer to see such a bond go to a prevailing domain name registrant,
> RDNH ruling or not, since it would enable more respondents with meritorious
> positions to obtain counsel.

Given the completely bizarre and inconsistent outcome of many of the cases
do you think people would actually be encouraged to do so?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                 "There should be warning labels for politicians."
                            --  Derek Smalls
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 01:32:24 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

Dr. Berryhill,

The U.S. legal system is not quite the ivory tower monolith you seem to think.
It is more likely than not that those that can afford good Attorneys will
prevail over those that cannot.  I have not seen a single case of a registrant
obtaining a contingency lawyer on a domain name matter.  If you think mom and
pop down at wheel- haul.com can beat out U-hauls lawyers by hiring an IP lawyer
on the fly you live in a fairy tale.

I could be wrong and would be happy to find out that I was.  Please list a few
IP firms or divisions of firms that would take these matters on based upon a
recovery of fees concept.  Shucks, list a lawyer.

John Berryhill wrote:

> >
> > Actually, I'm with Dassa on this one. Besides, the perp would simply laugh
> > at any ICANN monetary demands.
>
> In the real world, this is why a plaintiff seeking certain kinds of
> preliminary relief, such as replevin of property, must first post a bond.
> It provides an automatic remedy to the defendant in the event the plaintiff
> is not acting in good faith.
>
> I'd prefer to see such a bond go to a prevailing domain name registrant,
> RDNH ruling or not, since it would enable more respondents with meritorious
> positions to obtain counsel.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 02:18:25 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] According to Mike Roberts....

Mike Roberts betrays his ignorance. A PC in a closet is exactly what it is.
Well, maybe a few PC's. It's called clustering or RAIC (redundant array of
inexpensive computers), the same idea as RAID, capacity AND
redundancy/reliability. The closet may indeed be appropriate as well, as
long as it has a couple of DS1s. Of course, each node in the cluster is the
capacity of greater than 150 VAX 11/780s (For those not familiar with hist.
of comp., 1 VAX = 1 MIPS = 1 VUP). 

Except for redundancy issues, one PC has more than enough umph to run root
service for twice the entire Internet that we have today, with capacity to
spare. I've done 10 million unique page hits per day with just one such box
and g.root-servers.net ran on a single T1 for years. These are very
conservative numbers. We've had this discussion over four years ago.
zs01.root-service.net never exceeds 15% CPU utilization and it maintains a
steady 1.5Mbps throughput. It's a pair of 500Mhz Celeron powered BookPCs
(PCchips), using Linux clustering, for reliability.

You don't need big iron to do this stuff. The web-servers and database
servers place much higher demands on the systems. However, you do need
intelligent operational procedures and someone other than Forest Gump on the
switch.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Jim Fleming [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 12:52 AM
|> To: Jim Fleming; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
|> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
|> [email-masked];
|> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
|> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
|> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] According to Mike Roberts....
|> 
|> 
|> According to Mike Roberts....
|> http://atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg01113.shtml
|> "If you're the manager of a top level domain name registry, it's not
|> a pc in a closet time anymore."
|> "The Japanese government and the United States government are sending
|> cabinet level officers to speak at the November ICANN 
|> meeting about how
|> serious this really is."
|> -----
|> 
|> If ICANN is going to get serious, can someone tell Mike that his
|> e-mail address on the ICANN web-site is apparently wrong or
|> not working.
|>    ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
|> <[email-masked]>
|> 
|>    ----- Transcript of session follows -----
|> 550 <[email-masked]>... Host unknown (Name server: 
|> darwin.ptv.ca.us:
|> host not found)
|> 
|> 
|> By the way, I was not aware that ICANN was running TLDs on PCs
|> in closets, but that is good to know. That will certainly have to be
|> upgraded, as people move from the "toy" IPv4 Internet to 
|> serious systems.
|> 
|> 
|> Do you use a 2002:<IPv4>:0000 prefix ?
|> 
|> http://www.dot-arizona.com/IPv8/IPv4/
|> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
|> 
|> [email-masked]
|> http://www.unir.com
|> http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
|> http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
|> http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
|> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
|> http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
|> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
|> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> --
|> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
|> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
|> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
|> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 04:59:11 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

Eric and all assembly members,

  I will list one lawyer that ONLY does his work on contingency that
will.  Jerry Spence!  BTW, Jerry hasn't lost a case in a very long time!

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Dr. Berryhill,
>
> The U.S. legal system is not quite the ivory tower monolith you seem to think.
> It is more likely than not that those that can afford good Attorneys will
> prevail over those that cannot.  I have not seen a single case of a registrant
> obtaining a contingency lawyer on a domain name matter.  If you think mom and
> pop down at wheel- haul.com can beat out U-hauls lawyers by hiring an IP lawyer
> on the fly you live in a fairy tale.
>
> I could be wrong and would be happy to find out that I was.  Please list a few
> IP firms or divisions of firms that would take these matters on based upon a
> recovery of fees concept.  Shucks, list a lawyer.
>
> John Berryhill wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Actually, I'm with Dassa on this one. Besides, the perp would simply laugh
> > > at any ICANN monetary demands.
> >
> > In the real world, this is why a plaintiff seeking certain kinds of
> > preliminary relief, such as replevin of property, must first post a bond.
> > It provides an automatic remedy to the defendant in the event the plaintiff
> > is not acting in good faith.
> >
> > I'd prefer to see such a bond go to a prevailing domain name registrant,
> > RDNH ruling or not, since it would enable more respondents with meritorious
> > positions to obtain counsel.
> >
> > --
> > 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: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 05:18:57 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] According to Mike Roberts....

Roeland and all assembly members,

  Well as you know, Mike luvs big iron.  Maybe there is a sales pitch
in this part of his comments to which you are responding to, Roeland.
Than again maybe Mike is just getting along in years too!

  But none the less you are quite right in your assessment.  Well done!
And yes we have gone over this stuff a number of times.  In fact so many
times it is tiresome.  But I suppose if it needs to be done again I will
just pull up my old posts on this stuff again, and with a tiny amount of
editing, post them again where appropriate....

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Mike Roberts betrays his ignorance. A PC in a closet is exactly what it is.
> Well, maybe a few PC's. It's called clustering or RAIC (redundant array of
> inexpensive computers), the same idea as RAID, capacity AND
> redundancy/reliability. The closet may indeed be appropriate as well, as
> long as it has a couple of DS1s. Of course, each node in the cluster is the
> capacity of greater than 150 VAX 11/780s (For those not familiar with hist.
> of comp., 1 VAX = 1 MIPS = 1 VUP).
>
> Except for redundancy issues, one PC has more than enough umph to run root
> service for twice the entire Internet that we have today, with capacity to
> spare. I've done 10 million unique page hits per day with just one such box
> and g.root-servers.net ran on a single T1 for years. These are very
> conservative numbers. We've had this discussion over four years ago.
> zs01.root-service.net never exceeds 15% CPU utilization and it maintains a
> steady 1.5Mbps throughput. It's a pair of 500Mhz Celeron powered BookPCs
> (PCchips), using Linux clustering, for reliability.
>
> You don't need big iron to do this stuff. The web-servers and database
> servers place much higher demands on the systems. However, you do need
> intelligent operational procedures and someone other than Forest Gump on the
> switch.
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Jim Fleming [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 12:52 AM
> |> To: Jim Fleming; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> |> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> |> [email-masked];
> |> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> |> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> |> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> |> Cc: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: [ga] According to Mike Roberts....
> |>
> |>
> |> According to Mike Roberts....
> |> http://atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg01113.shtml
> |> "If you're the manager of a top level domain name registry, it's not
> |> a pc in a closet time anymore."
> |> "The Japanese government and the United States government are sending
> |> cabinet level officers to speak at the November ICANN
> |> meeting about how
> |> serious this really is."
> |> -----
> |>
> |> If ICANN is going to get serious, can someone tell Mike that his
> |> e-mail address on the ICANN web-site is apparently wrong or
> |> not working.
> |>    ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
> |> <[email-masked]>
> |>
> |>    ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> |> 550 <[email-masked]>... Host unknown (Name server:
> |> darwin.ptv.ca.us:
> |> host not found)
> |>
> |>
> |> By the way, I was not aware that ICANN was running TLDs on PCs
> |> in closets, but that is good to know. That will certainly have to be
> |> upgraded, as people move from the "toy" IPv4 Internet to
> |> serious systems.
> |>
> |>
> |> Do you use a 2002:<IPv4>:0000 prefix ?
> |>
> |> http://www.dot-arizona.com/IPv8/IPv4/
> |> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
> |>
> |> [email-masked]
> |> http://www.unir.com
> |> http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
> |> http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
> |> http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
> |> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> |> http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
> |> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
> |> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |> --
> |> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> |> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> |> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> |> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> |>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 11:24:50 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

If the arbitration centers were to take a slice of the penalty then it might
work - but if not then it only acts as a disincentive for complainants to
file a UDRP claim - and that means less revenue for the arbitration centers
and their panellists (especially those "career" panellists that are little
more than "domain transfer" rubber stamps).

Regards

Paul Cotton

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Exactly. There should be a monetary penalty for reverse hijacking
decisions, in compensation to the domain owner.  A punitive like
penalty, that they must agree to pay if they are found to be engaging
in a reverse hijacking attempt as a condition of being permitted to
initiate a UDRP action.

What do the rest of you think of this concept?
- -----

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 05:44:31 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: darwin.ptv.ca.us: host not found)]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------F19DDC6CA5BF9FA824A9CCD0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

All stakeholders, interested parties and assembly members,

  Looks like just after Mike Roberts sent out his outrageous post,
his name server went dark.  Hummm?  Wonder why he doesn't have
a backup and automate cut over procedure?  And he was chattering
about people knowing what they were talking about!!???  Go figure...

  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

- --------------F19DDC6CA5BF9FA824A9CCD0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 06:15:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: darwin.ptv.ca.us: host not found)
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)

This is a MIME-encapsulated message

- --GAA06434.1004177717/mclean.mail.mindspring.net

The original message was received at Sat, 27 Oct 2001 06:13:47 -0400 (EDT)
from dai-tx6a-191.rasserver.net [198.211.199.191]

   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<[email-masked]>

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 <[email-masked]>... Host unknown (Name server: darwin.ptv.ca.us: host not found)

- --GAA06434.1004177717/mclean.mail.mindspring.net
Content-Type: message/delivery-status

Reporting-MTA: dns; mclean.mail.mindspring.net
Received-From-MTA: DNS; dai-tx6a-191.rasserver.net
Arrival-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 06:13:47 -0400 (EDT)

Final-Recipient: RFC822; [email-masked]
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.2
Remote-MTA: DNS; darwin.ptv.ca.us
Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 06:14:32 -0400 (EDT)

- --GAA06434.1004177717/mclean.mail.mindspring.net
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 05:18:57 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
To: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
CC: "'Jim Fleming'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] According to Mike Roberts....

Roeland and all assembly members,

  Well as you know, Mike luvs big iron.  Maybe there is a sales pitch
in this part of his comments to which you are responding to, Roeland.
Than again maybe Mike is just getting along in years too!

  But none the less you are quite right in your assessment.  Well done!
And yes we have gone over this stuff a number of times.  In fact so many
times it is tiresome.  But I suppose if it needs to be done again I will
just pull up my old posts on this stuff again, and with a tiny amount of
editing, post them again where appropriate....

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Mike Roberts betrays his ignorance. A PC in a closet is exactly what it is.
> Well, maybe a few PC's. It's called clustering or RAIC (redundant array of
> inexpensive computers), the same idea as RAID, capacity AND
> redundancy/reliability. The closet may indeed be appropriate as well, as
> long as it has a couple of DS1s. Of course, each node in the cluster is the
> capacity of greater than 150 VAX 11/780s (For those not familiar with hist.
> of comp., 1 VAX = 1 MIPS = 1 VUP).
>
> Except for redundancy issues, one PC has more than enough umph to run root
> service for twice the entire Internet that we have today, with capacity to
> spare. I've done 10 million unique page hits per day with just one such box
> and g.root-servers.net ran on a single T1 for years. These are very
> conservative numbers. We've had this discussion over four years ago.
> zs01.root-service.net never exceeds 15% CPU utilization and it maintains a
> steady 1.5Mbps throughput. It's a pair of 500Mhz Celeron powered BookPCs
> (PCchips), using Linux clustering, for reliability.
>
> You don't need big iron to do this stuff. The web-servers and database
> servers place much higher demands on the systems. However, you do need
> intelligent operational procedures and someone other than Forest Gump on the
> switch.
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Jim Fleming [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 12:52 AM
> |> To: Jim Fleming; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> |> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> |> [email-masked];
> |> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> |> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> |> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> |> Cc: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: [ga] According to Mike Roberts....
> |>
> |>
> |> According to Mike Roberts....
> |> http://atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg01113.shtml
> |> "If you're the manager of a top level domain name registry, it's not
> |> a pc in a closet time anymore."
> |> "The Japanese government and the United States government are sending
> |> cabinet level officers to speak at the November ICANN
> |> meeting about how
> |> serious this really is."
> |> -----
> |>
> |> If ICANN is going to get serious, can someone tell Mike that his
> |> e-mail address on the ICANN web-site is apparently wrong or
> |> not working.
> |>    ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
> |> <[email-masked]>
> |>
> |>    ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> |> 550 <[email-masked]>... Host unknown (Name server:
> |> darwin.ptv.ca.us:
> |> host not found)
> |>
> |>
> |> By the way, I was not aware that ICANN was running TLDs on PCs
> |> in closets, but that is good to know. That will certainly have to be
> |> upgraded, as people move from the "toy" IPv4 Internet to
> |> serious systems.
> |>
> |>
> |> Do you use a 2002:<IPv4>:0000 prefix ?
> |>
> |> http://www.dot-arizona.com/IPv8/IPv4/
> |> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
> |>
> |> [email-masked]
> |> http://www.unir.com
> |> http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
> |> http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
> |> http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
> |> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> |> http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
> |> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
> |> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |> --
> |> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> |> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> |> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> |> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> |>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

- --GAA06434.1004177717/mclean.mail.mindspring.net--

- --------------F19DDC6CA5BF9FA824A9CCD0--

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:38:51 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

This is all fine and well, but requires going to court. The URDP was brought in
originally so trademark holders did not have to go to court. It was even agreed
in testimony before the WIPO roadshow that existing courts offered remedy in
almost all the cases, but that the UDRP was needed so they wouldnt be faced with
the option of settling to pay 'cybersquatters' (their term not mine) rather than
going to court.

So, if the URDP is there so TM holders don't have to go to court for remedy,
should it not be the same for domain holders?

John Berryhill wrote:

> >
> > Wouldnt' the domain name holder be able to take civil action to recover
> > costs and any compensation they believe they were entitled to?
>
> In the US, yes:
>
> 15 USC 1114(2)(d)(iv) -
>
> If a registrar, registry, or other registration authority takes an action
> described under clause (ii) based on a knowing and material
> misrepresentation by any other person that a domain name is identical to,
> confusingly similar to, or dilutive of a mark, the person making the knowing
> and material misrepresentation shall be liable for any damages, including
> costs and attorney's fees, incurred by the domain name registrant as a
> result of such action. The court may also grant injunctive relief to the
> domain name registrant, including the reactivation of the domain name or the
> transfer of the domain name to the domain name registrant.
>
> --
> 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

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 17:18:04 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] election to the BC

Three leading NC Members and Bruce James are under election for the NC 
right now. They have answered the questions of the BC Members at : 
http://www.bizconst.org/bcmain.htm.
Jefsey

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 17:50:08 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] According to Mike Roberts....

Dear Roeland,
I fully support parts of Mike's memo.

But... as you point out the real failure of the Internet comes from ICANN 
ignoring the ... trivia you point out. Mike's positions on TLDs were from 
there the doom of the Internet and of its security. I do like what he says 
about SAIC, Clinton, NSI  ... (I am only sorry he forgot Joe Sims). But he 
is the one who did it all.

Also, Mike says:
"
Nobody cares that you don't like a particular recommendation, they want to 
know whether you have a better idea, an idea that is good enough to gather 
the support of a lot of other interested parties that may not share your 
individual political or social or economic background but are nevertheless 
interested in the future welfare of ICANN.
"
who really cares about the future welfare of ICANN? I care about my future 
welfare, friendly about yours, the future of the Internet for that reasons, 
but ... ICANN? I Might be interested if I was a Member.

Mike what you have to understand is there is not such a thing as having to 
agree upon the future of the Internet. This is a very pious dream of yours. 
This is exactly as if you wanted people to agree upon the future of the 
radio or of the high-ways. You are the only one wanting to baby-sit the car 
drivers: they are grown enough to drive alone. ICANN is only delivering car 
plates. If it wants to care only about US ones, good for me. If it makes a 
deal with the other countries and get cheap enough car plates, good for me 
too. But $ 50.000++ a plate was no good for anyone.

Hopefully he says:
"
Third, be prepared to compromise your goals in the interests of forging an 
At Large organization that contributes to an ICANN that is going to operate 
in a far different environment than its founders envisaged.
"
That is pure Mike "be prepated to compromise" with people who are 
wrong.  Are you OK with two people to maintain three registries on an Axel 
table (so one can take some vacations)?

If in the "founders" he includes Joe Sims I remove what I said before, but 
I do not understand Mike at all. (BTW Mike this post of yours is the 
wildest post I never read on the matter. I would not have dare writting it. 
Marines are invading the DNSO. Too bad you miss the technical 
background...You would chair the ORSC! )

Unfortunately he finishes in saying:
"
The study committee has worked hard. It doesn't deserve the abuse it has 
received on this list.
"
The ALSC did not received abuse. It was abused. We are the @large: the 
people interested enough to share into the DNSO/ASO/PSO GAs and 
constituencies. No need to have us getting a pin and to know how to vote 
(whose idea was it?). No need to assign 5 people the role of animating a 
continent. No fear that one single company or country may enroll thousands 
of us: we are open to newbies all the year long and yet look at the 
outreach results and press interest. Anyone who want to join can do it and 
show himself. This only shows that the last @large elections were media or 
{some] governements manipulated.

and kindly says:
"
The several points of the action plan are reasonable, centrist, and provide 
a basis for moving forward. They deserve your support.
"
I frankly see only a single points of action as he says: adjourning.

On 11:18 27/10/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>Mike Roberts betrays his ignorance. A PC in a closet is exactly what it is.
>Well, maybe a few PC's. It's called clustering or RAIC (redundant array of
>inexpensive computers), the same idea as RAID, capacity AND
>redundancy/reliability. The closet may indeed be appropriate as well, as
>long as it has a couple of DS1s. Of course, each node in the cluster is the
>capacity of greater than 150 VAX 11/780s (For those not familiar with hist.
>of comp., 1 VAX = 1 MIPS = 1 VUP).
>
>Except for redundancy issues, one PC has more than enough umph to run root
>service for twice the entire Internet that we have today, with capacity to
>spare. I've done 10 million unique page hits per day with just one such box
>and g.root-servers.net ran on a single T1 for years. These are very
>conservative numbers. We've had this discussion over four years ago.
>zs01.root-service.net never exceeds 15% CPU utilization and it maintains a
>steady 1.5Mbps throughput. It's a pair of 500Mhz Celeron powered BookPCs
>(PCchips), using Linux clustering, for reliability.
>
>You don't need big iron to do this stuff. The web-servers and database
>servers place much higher demands on the systems. However, you do need
>intelligent operational procedures and someone other than Forest Gump on the
>switch.

They talk about g.root-server.net getting up to 15.000 calls a second with 
60% being from mistyping. There are also resolvers calling 10 roots one 
shot to "speed-up" the process.

Some serious information on the Root Service would be much in need:

1. how many calls a second
2. distribution of the type of response
3. distribution of the calls per servers
4. average machine down for what reason
5. configuration of each machine
6. number of changes in the root per week (TTL is 2 days)
7. budget of each root server
etc... would someone have serious current elements on that.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:17:11 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

Dan Steinberg wrote:
> 
> This is all fine and well, but requires going to court. The URDP was brought in
> originally so trademark holders did not have to go to court. It was even agreed
> in testimony before the WIPO roadshow that existing courts offered remedy in
> almost all the cases, but that the UDRP was needed so they wouldnt be faced with
> the option of settling to pay 'cybersquatters' (their term not mine) rather than
> going to court.
> 
> So, if the URDP is there so TM holders don't have to go to court for remedy,
> should it not be the same for domain holders?

As I see it, the fundamental flaw in UDRP is asymmetry. It is binding on
the victim, but not on the attacker. The contract between registrant and
registry binds the registrant to submit to UDRP. Nothing like that binds
the complainant. If they lose in UDRP proceedings, they are free to go to
court instead.

Methinks anyone bringing a UDRP complaint should have to agree up front
to be bound by the decision. If they lose, we cannot stop them from then
going to court, but we can give the victim a copy of that contract and of
the UDRP panel's decision.

In fact, we could go further. If we're going to have a UDRP, then the
associated contracts should bind the registrar not to disconnect any
domain except for non-payment, UDRP decision or court order, and to
oppose (assisted by ICANN lawyers) any attempt to obtain such an order
without UDRP.

Arguably, we'd be better to just scrap UDRP entirely and let trademark
issues go back to the courts where they belong, but if we're going to
have a UDRP then it should be symmetrical and, as far as possible,
vigorously enforced.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 15:48:23 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] No room on the bus

Dear members,

It is my duty as your Chair to report on recent events.  As many of you know, 
the General Assembly will be meeting on the evening of November 12 from 8PM 
to 11PM.  The new.net organization kindly offered to sponsor our session by 
providing food and beverage during our meeting (which comes at the end of a 
very long day of back-to-back meetings).  

Protocol required that I contact Mary Hewitt as per the instructions posted 
at http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/  because "Starting with the Marina Del Rey 
2001 meeting, there will be a new format for sponsorship opportunities for 
this ICANN meeting."

Ms. Hewitt rejected the sponsorship application of new.net citing the fact 
that they did not support the authoritative root.

I sent a reconsideration request to Stuart Lynn.  Mr. Lynn responded that "we 
place bounds around whom we accept as sponsors. And new.net does not fit the 
package."

On the 1st of December 1955, Mrs. Rosa Parks, an African-American seamstress, 
was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama for failing to let a white bus rider take 
her seat.   Today, ICANN has proven that discrimination is still very much 
alive, and that there is no longer any room on the bus for those that don't 
share the same views as ICANN staff.  

Although our Memorandum of Understanding with the US Department of Commerce 
states:  "Neither Party, either in the DNS Project or in any act related to 
the DNS Project, shall act unjustifiably or arbitrarily to injure particular 
persons or entities or particular categories of persons or entities," recent 
ICANN actions, from the issuance of ICP-3 to this sponsorship denial, make it 
clear that ICANN is indeed acting to injure a particular cartegory of 
entities.  

I thank new.net for demonstrating its commitment to participation in the 
ICANN process and for its support of the General Assembly.  It is to our 
shame that such efforts at participation are routinely being denied by those 
charged with the coordination activities of the Internet.  This is a sad day 
in our history, and I mourn the death of the concept of "fairness".  

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:41:06 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No room on the bus

Yes, and they want airport security people not to be government
employees, but civilians subject to "government oversight."  I think
I'll hitchhike.

Bill Lovell

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear members,
>
> It is my duty as your Chair to report on recent events.  As many of you know,
> the General Assembly will be meeting on the evening of November 12 from 8PM
> to 11PM.  The new.net organization kindly offered to sponsor our session by
> providing food and beverage during our meeting (which comes at the end of a
> very long day of back-to-back meetings).
>
> Protocol required that I contact Mary Hewitt as per the instructions posted
> at http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/  because "Starting with the Marina Del Rey
> 2001 meeting, there will be a new format for sponsorship opportunities for
> this ICANN meeting."
>
> Ms. Hewitt rejected the sponsorship application of new.net citing the fact
> that they did not support the authoritative root.
>
> I sent a reconsideration request to Stuart Lynn.  Mr. Lynn responded that "we
> place bounds around whom we accept as sponsors. And new.net does not fit the
> package."
>
> On the 1st of December 1955, Mrs. Rosa Parks, an African-American seamstress,
> was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama for failing to let a white bus rider take
> her seat.   Today, ICANN has proven that discrimination is still very much
> alive, and that there is no longer any room on the bus for those that don't
> share the same views as ICANN staff.
>
> Although our Memorandum of Understanding with the US Department of Commerce
> states:  "Neither Party, either in the DNS Project or in any act related to
> the DNS Project, shall act unjustifiably or arbitrarily to injure particular
> persons or entities or particular categories of persons or entities," recent
> ICANN actions, from the issuance of ICP-3 to this sponsorship denial, make it
> clear that ICANN is indeed acting to injure a particular cartegory of
> entities.
>
> I thank new.net for demonstrating its commitment to participation in the
> ICANN process and for its support of the General Assembly.  It is to our
> shame that such efforts at participation are routinely being denied by those
> charged with the coordination activities of the Internet.  This is a sad day
> in our history, and I mourn the death of the concept of "fairness".
>
> --
> 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." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
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 the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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 #820
************************