Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #822
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, October 28 2001           Volume 01 : Number 822

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

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 14:37:26 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision

At 04:34 27/10/01 -0700, PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:

>Gee Willickers Joop,
>
>You really have been reduced to nothing more than a mere scared and
>desperate little man, haven't you?

Let me just note that you did not answer the question about your "deal" 
with ICANN staff. ("members of ICANN", in your words.)

- --Joop

- --
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, 28 Oct 2001 00:43:10 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No room on the bus

Dan and all assembly members,

  You know I thought that Mike Roberts suggested a few days after
the Sept 11th terrorist attack that any funds for ICANN should be
sent to the Red Cross?  Mike, care to comment on the below
fees?  Or was that just another knee jerk reaction of yours?
Please advise.

Dan Steinberg wrote:

> Danny,
>
> I read the instructions posted about 'Starting with...'
> Starting with the Marina Del Rey 2001 meeting, there will be a new format for
> sponsorship opportunities for this ICANN
>          meeting. This is in response to feedback that we have received from the
> constituencies and the community. It is our hope
>          that this will offer proper visibility for those who chose to support
> our meeting, while preserving its neutrality for all
>          participants.
>
>          All sponsors will have their logos appear on the ICANN website and
> during breaks on the meeting screens. A table will be
>          provided for distribution of literature for sponsors only. Additional
> recognition of sponsorship is listed below in the
>          description of each level. An organization that is not a sponsor will
> not be permitted to distribute materials in the meeting
>          area.
>
>          Three levels of sponsorship are available:
>
>               Top-Level: US$15,000 – Booth/table in meeting area for entire
> meeting *
>
>               Second-Level: US$10,000 – Booth/table in meeting area for one day *
>
>               Third-Level: US$5,000 – Signage on coffee break tables
>
>          * For this meeting, top-level sponsors will also be designated as
> sponsors of a special event to be announced later; and
>          second-level sponsors will also be designated as a co-sponsors of an
> ICANN meeting reception.
>
>          If you are interested in becoming a sponsor or would like more
> information, please contact Mary Hewitt at 310-301-5801 or
>          at [email-masked].
>
> Where above did you see the need to contact ms. hewitt?  I agree the ICANN
> decision sucks, but did it even have to come up?
> They were sponsoring a specific session with a non-monetary contribution. Doesnt
> appear to fit into any of the above categories. what am I missing?
>
> [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
>
> --
> 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

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: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:52:01 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No room on the bus

David and all assembly members,

  Seems like Atuart Lynn speak out of both sides of his mouth at the
same time.  We Texas, call that Weaseling!  In the Wahsington DC
circles it called "Spin"....

David Hernand wrote:

> Danny:
>
> Thanks much for your posting.  The facts you describe are truly remarkable.
> Moreover, such facts are particularly ironic in light of ICANN's willingness
> to accept our sponsorship of the ICANN meeting in Montevideo and the
> following personal note of thanks that we received from Stuart Lynne earlier
> this month:
>
> ***********************
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. Stuart Lynn [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 10:57 AM
> To: Brad.Copeland
> Subject: Thank you
>
> Dear Brad:
>
> I would like to thank you and your colleagues at New.Net for your
> sponsorship of ICANN's recent meetings in Montevideo.
>
> I am sure that all attendees were grateful for your generous
> contribution. We appreciate it.
>
> With regards
> Stuart
> --
>
> __________________
> Stuart Lynn
> President and CEO
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel: 310-823-9358
> Fax: 310-823-8649
> Email: [email-masked]
>
> **********************
>
> Apparently, the ICANN staff's views change with the wind, and Mr. Lynn's
> level of appreciation for our past support does not extend to future
> meetings or perhaps just meetings of the GA -- we can't be sure!  One must
> really wonder what public benefit is served by denying constructive
> participation by persons with different viewpoints.
>
> Best regards,
>
> David Hernand
> CEO
> New.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 12:48 PM
> To: [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
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 03:14:17 -0500
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

>
> That's exacty what we've done. Put the dispute issues where they belong -
> in the courtroom.

Which is to put those issues into a forum where "mom & pop" don't have a
reasonable chance of being able to make an argument.

There are plenty of things wrong about the UDRP, and about many of the
decisions under it.  However, the one thing that the UDRP provides is at
least an opportunity for someone to make their case in simple terms and have
it considered.

If, instead, the domain name registrant were faced with a lawsuit in some
remote jurisdiction, then the registrant is, most likely, not going to have
the time or the means to make repeated appearances in that court, or to know
how to deal with flurries of preliminary motions, or, really, to know how on
earth one responds to a civil complaint in the first place.

A UDRP complaint, at least, arrives with a cover sheet containing
step-by-step instructions for responding, and most of the arbitration
providers have pages where the respondent can fill in an online form.  Now,
that may or may not be the best approach for any individual respondent, but
at the very least it is (a) free and/or cheap, (b) relatively simple, and (c)
a chance.

I've seen several pro se UDRP respondents do quite well... sometimes with a
little coaching ;-), but I haven't seen a single pro se defendant in a civil
case get anywhere.

So, to say "put it back in court" is to say "put it somewhere where money and
legal expertise count for a lot more", which means whoever has the most money
or better lawyers wins.

- --
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, 28 Oct 2001 03:04:21 -0500
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>

> Dr. Berryhill,
>
> The U.S. legal system is not quite the ivory tower monolith you seem to
think.

I don't know much about ivory towers.  I'm a practicing IP attorney, not an
academic.

> 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.

The fairy tale I live in is one where mom and pop regularly beat high-priced
lawyers in UDRP disputes.  Have a look at, for example,
http://www.motorcyclist.com/JohnBerryhill.htm , which describes how a lone
Hawaiian motorcycle mechanic beat a large publisher with a team of expensive
LA lawyers, by using a "reasonably priced" lawyer.

Or have a look at http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/95559.htm to see
how a small businessman in California beat one of the largest US publishers
and its team of lawyers from one of the largest law firms on the planet.

Take a look at
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0233.html and read
how an individual in Switzerland beat the Rand Refinery, which quite
literally has more gold than anyone on earth to spend.

Take a look at http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/97076.htm where a
citizen beat the city government of Salinas.  Because that case involved a
public agency, we were able to find out that the City of Salinas government
spent $23,000 paying its lawyer in that case.  The Respondent, on the other
hand, had expenses of somewhere less than 1/10 that amount.

The prevailing respondents in the skipkendall.com dispute spent a grand total
of $400 on attorney's fees in preparing their response.

You have absolutely no experience in this area, and no idea what you are
talking about.

> 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.

To defend a respondent in a UDRP there is no "recovery of fees" because there
IS no monetary reward to a prevailing domain name registrant.  Of what do you
want the "contingency" to subsist?

I don't know a single attorney who regularly defends these things that has
not provided many, many hours of free advice and assistance to respondents in
UDRP disputes, or to domain registrants who have received cease and desist
letters.  Again, I have to ask, what is your experience?  How many lawyers
did you contact with your domain name dispute, and what were you told?

Or do you mean that someone who intends to sell a generic domain name for
thousands of dollars is somehow entitled to volunteer help in protecting it
before she can make that sale?  Uh, yah, I'm sympathetic but I'm not a chump.

- --
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, 28 Oct 2001 01:50:16 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

Sunday, Sunday, October 28, 2001, 1:14:17 AM, John Berryhill wrote:

> If, instead, the domain name registrant were faced with a lawsuit in some
> remote jurisdiction, then the registrant is, most likely, not going to have
> the time or the means to make repeated appearances in that court, or to know
> how to deal with flurries of preliminary motions, or, really, to know how on
> earth one responds to a civil complaint in the first place.

The issue is that they MUST submit to the UDRP.  At the very minimum
the domain registrant should be able to reject the UDRP process, and
thus select to have the matter tried in court should the complainant
think they have a case that meets the higher standard the law places.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 28 Oct 2001 01:52:13 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

Sunday, Sunday, October 28, 2001, 1:04:21 AM, John Berryhill wrote:

> You have absolutely no experience in this area, and no idea what you are
> talking about.

But that's true for everything he talks about here, so it's nothing
new.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 28 Oct 2001 21:33:22 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

At 17:38 26/10/01 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:

>I think it's a potentially interesting idea, but I find it unlikely that
>you'll ever get "consensus"(aka the ICANN staff and BOD) to buy into it.
>There's also a pretty significant enforcement issue. How would you propose
>to enforce judgements?

Forfeiture of a Bond in favour of the successful defendant?
We can at least *try*.

- --Joop

- --
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, 28 Oct 2001 01:25:09 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'  Rulings

Sunday, Sunday, October 28, 2001, 12:33:22 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 17:38 26/10/01 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:

>>I think it's a potentially interesting idea, but I find it unlikely that
>>you'll ever get "consensus"(aka the ICANN staff and BOD) to buy into it.
>>There's also a pretty significant enforcement issue. How would you propose
>>to enforce judgements?

> Forfeiture of a Bond in favour of the successful defendant?
> We can at least *try*.

Ok, so the first step would be for someone to draw up a document
detailing changes that would need to be made to the current UDRP to
make this happen.  Let's not lose this idea to non-action, especially
since we have a lot of agreement on it.

Any volunteers to do that step?

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 28 Oct 2001 03:31:22 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

John, Eric and all assembly members,

  I am afraid Eric, that John has you here, dead to rights.  No pun intended
John!  >;)   Oooooo!  Ouch!  Eh Eric?  Next time do your homework,
or "Discovery" in legal parlance terms, Eric.

John Berryhill wrote:

> From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
>
> > Dr. Berryhill,
> >
> > The U.S. legal system is not quite the ivory tower monolith you seem to
> think.
>
> I don't know much about ivory towers.  I'm a practicing IP attorney, not an
> academic.
>
> > 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.
>
> The fairy tale I live in is one where mom and pop regularly beat high-priced
> lawyers in UDRP disputes.  Have a look at, for example,
> http://www.motorcyclist.com/JohnBerryhill.htm , which describes how a lone
> Hawaiian motorcycle mechanic beat a large publisher with a team of expensive
> LA lawyers, by using a "reasonably priced" lawyer.
>
> Or have a look at http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/95559.htm to see
> how a small businessman in California beat one of the largest US publishers
> and its team of lawyers from one of the largest law firms on the planet.
>
> Take a look at
> http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0233.html and read
> how an individual in Switzerland beat the Rand Refinery, which quite
> literally has more gold than anyone on earth to spend.
>
> Take a look at http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/97076.htm where a
> citizen beat the city government of Salinas.  Because that case involved a
> public agency, we were able to find out that the City of Salinas government
> spent $23,000 paying its lawyer in that case.  The Respondent, on the other
> hand, had expenses of somewhere less than 1/10 that amount.
>
> The prevailing respondents in the skipkendall.com dispute spent a grand total
> of $400 on attorney's fees in preparing their response.
>
> You have absolutely no experience in this area, and no idea what you are
> talking about.
>
> > 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.
>
> To defend a respondent in a UDRP there is no "recovery of fees" because there
> IS no monetary reward to a prevailing domain name registrant.  Of what do you
> want the "contingency" to subsist?
>
> I don't know a single attorney who regularly defends these things that has
> not provided many, many hours of free advice and assistance to respondents in
> UDRP disputes, or to domain registrants who have received cease and desist
> letters.  Again, I have to ask, what is your experience?  How many lawyers
> did you contact with your domain name dispute, and what were you told?
>
> Or do you mean that someone who intends to sell a generic domain name for
> thousands of dollars is somehow entitled to volunteer help in protecting it
> before she can make that sale?  Uh, yah, I'm sympathetic but I'm not a chump.
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 01:35:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Sanjeev Goyal <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] <INFO> sunrise domains for Sale?

Dear friends,
I seek your advise on this:

During the last few days I am observing the whois records of the
Afilias registry and also closely watching all the sunrise challenged
domains whois but to my surprise i got the following results:

the domains like : Zoom.info, Movie.info, Joy.info, Scores.info and
many more like them is challenged in sunrise period and their STATUS is
NOT showing as LOCKED which is must.

So you can transfer /Sale these domains or can change the STATUS of the
domain. Moreover it looks like that you have taken this domain in
Landrush period so it is a UDRP challengeable domain.

I donot understand why this is happen?

Sanjeev Goyal.
=================8<=================================================

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.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: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 01:38:36 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] No room on the bus

Hello Karl,
Please find a note I have sent to Danny Younger and the DNSO/GA list. It
seems that ICANN staff do not want to allow the GA to have a sponsor to pick
up the tab for the MdR festivities. Does this mean that the ICANN staff are
picking up the tab? I see no place where exclusive support of the "unified
root" religion is written into the ICANN charter. I suggest that such
restrictions are improper and inappropriate. Further, that they violate
inclusiveness requirements of the DOC/ICANN MoU. One cannot be both
inclusive and exclusive.

If Mr Lynn is acting directly on instruction from the BoD then I would
appreciate knowing that. If he is not then I request his censure, followed
by an immediate redress.

Further comments to Danny are interspersed below.

- --
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
tel: +1 925 373 3954
cel: +1 925 352 3615
fax: +1 925 373 9781 
http://www.mhsc.com

|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 12:48 PM
|> 
|> 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."

I don't see where contact infor, for Ms Hewit, is provided on that page.

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

I don't see anywhere that support for "authoritative root" is required.
Neither do I see DOC sanction for authoritative root exclusiveness in the
ICANN charter.

|> 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."

IMHO, this is out of bounds for ICANN staff. Therefore I have fowarded this
to an ICANN BoD member for consideration (Karl Auerbach). 

BTW, the Rosa Parks analogy is an inappropriate distraction. Analogies
suffer because they are prone to attack and their defense takes away from
the true point of discussion. The real points would be references to points
and authorities stating that the ICANN's decision was in violation of law or
regulation, as you've done below.

|> 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 category of entities.  

This is indeed the salient point. But, as I stated in the MHSC demand
letter, it has been going on for some time. The problem is that most of
those whom have been injured are corporations and corps don't have a vote
that effects the US Congress. We also suffer from a relative visibility
issue since there *is* a real life shooting-war in progress. All of these
issues seem to be dropping out of the DC "issues triage" machine.

|> 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".  

Fairness isn't an issue. ICANN doesn't pretend to play fair. But, we all
knew this ... didn't we?
- --
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, 28 Oct 2001 05:40:01 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] 0:212 BIZ Update

<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param><bigger>The launch of the automated reg system is the launch of 
the automated reg system, not the launch of the registry.  
One of the earlier websites .biz went live on May 30, 2000 
and was hosted by @quasar Internet Solutions.  
Registrations began prior to that date.  Ben Edelman made 
an assumption and we all know what assume means.  It 
makes no difference what the launch date for the web 
based system was.

Leah

<smaller>On 26 Oct 2001, at 14:51, Jim Fleming wrote:

<color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> http://www.google.com/search?q=possr

> ....

> Welcome to The "Inclusive Name Space"

> ... Registrar please see our registry home page which is located at

> http://www.POSSR.com. The software is free and you can be up and

> providing registration ... www.possr.com/aboutpossr.shtml

> 

> The Dot BIZ/ONLINE/ETC TLD Registry

> ... to see that you have assumed that registrations began with the

> formal launch of the automated registration system (POSSR) developed

> by The PacificRoot. ... www.biztld.net/edelman.html

> 

> 

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "William X Walsh" <<[email-masked]>

> To: "Jim Fleming" <<[email-masked]>

> Cc: <<[email-masked]>

> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 1:22 PM

> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] 0:212 BIZ Update

> 

> 

> >

> > <<yawn>

> >

> >

> > Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 11:28:42 AM, Jim Fleming wrote:

> >

> > > ----- Original Message -----

> > > From: "William X Walsh" <<[email-masked]>

> > > To: <<[email-masked]>

> > > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 12:10 PM

> > > Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212 BIZ Update

> >

> >

> > >> Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 8:13:31 AM, Jim Fleming wrote:

> > >>

> > >> > There are 107 TLDs with dual or triplicate registries.

> > >> > .BIZ is one of them.

> > >> > http://root-dns.org/ZoneExchange/AIS.txt

> > >> > ; biz. = 2

> > >>

> > >> I rest my case.

> > >>

> >

> > > Mr. William X. Walsh:

> >

> > > It is widely reported that you develop the software for the .BIZ

> > > registry operating in the State of California.

> > > http://www.BIZTLD.net Is that true ?

> >

> > > If so, can you comment on the robustness of that software ?

> >

> > > Was it developed for Early Experimental work or the current

> Proof-of-Concept

> > > tests ?

> >

> >

> > > Jim Fleming

> > > Why Gamble on a .BIZ Lottery? Start a Real .BIZ Today !

> > > http://www.DOT-BIZ.com

> > > 0:212 - BIZ World

> >

> >

> > > --

> > > 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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --

> > Best regards,

> > William X Walsh <<[email-masked]>

> > Userfriendly.com Domains

> > The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

> > DNS Services from $1.65/mo

> >

> >

> 

> --

> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.

> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe

> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).

> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

> 

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #822
************************