Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #823
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, October 28 2001           Volume 01 : Number 823

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

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 12:29:43 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No room on the bus

Danny, the USA have shown enough positive examples in their history not to 
harp on the poor examples they also give, many comes to mind of everyone in 
such a absurd cases. After Jun Murai's and PSO positions and the GovNet 
project, I certainly understand that Stuart Lynn feels unatease and blesses 
those who suggested him to write his inept ICP-3.

The true question is if we can legally share into an organization who 
"committed" (cf. ICP-3) to a new creed and which is obviously conducted by 
integrist zealots practizing terrorism (there is no other word even if not 
yeat bloody) against opponents.  I do feel sorry for Stuart: all this 
because he has been entrapped into writting an inept draft and because his 
pride made him to pursue. Errare humanum est, diabolicum perseverare. He 
would have gained our respect in opening a serious and professional debate 
to the advantage of everyone. Today he has certainly lost our respect. As 
he had made Marilyn to lose it when she imposed her support of ICP-3 
against DNSO/BC rules.

Too bad. ICANN will probably die from this. I feel it absurd.

On 23:57 27/10/01, Joe Kelsey said:
>There is absolutely nothing wrong with ICANN enforcing the authoritative
>root.  There simply is no other root.

Yet another one who has not understood anything to the matter :-) !!!!

>All of these pretenders are
>simply trying to create a new Internet gold rush and have no claim to
>legitimacy and should be discouraged from perpetuating their con-game on
>naive internet users.

I suppose we should disclose how many VeriSign stock each of us owns :-)
I swear I have none.

- --
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 11:54:35 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] According to Mike Roberts....

On 20:41 27/10/01, Mike Roberts said:
>At 17:50 +0200 10/27/01, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>>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.
>
>Jefsey, that is specifically what I did NOT say.  The number ONE problem 
>of too many people on the GA and ALSC lists is trying to import their 
>agendas into ICANN's mission. Look at the string of NOTS in the middle of 
>my post.
>
>If the White Paper is ICANN's Consitution, then I am an ICANN 
>Constitutionalist...  All of this other stuff, as Carl says, is "rubbish."

I am not sure I understand all these NOTs which seem to contradict unless 
they are partly derisive.

I am lost at understanding you: what you say seems to be 200% of what I 
say. I will not call you extremist because I think you will agree that 
things are or are not. I will not call you mad because your "be prepared to 
compromise" is here and obviously you are ready to dialog. I will not call 
you warmonger however I do not see any Jon Postel's army except what I call 
the AmerICANN, a view of the ICANN I resent as an European but no to the 
point to fight it with tanks. I certainly will call you a patriot, but I do 
fail understanding your own idea the one you would like it the "people who 
count" to get from you.

I fully agree that the WhitePaper and the MoU are the ICANN temporary 
Constitution. Temporary because they want to conduct the transition from an 
USG IANA to its privatization. I am obviously more interested in the next 
ICANN constitution and I find that WhitePaper is a good prepative work. I 
also think that the initial ICANN bylaws are good enough and some changes 
well made. I also think that the BoD 9+9+1 direct/indirect/staff 
distribution is a constitutional key of the network stability.

However I think that ICANN is of interest only if it is a common IANA 
secretariat managed by 3 people [for one to take some vacations, one to be 
the boss] under the supervision of a competent Board plus whatever 
catalysis to the benefit of the Global Internet Community its unique 
position and the competence of its Board may permit (as long as this is 
governance sharing and no attempt to dominance). Why do I think that? 
Because the Internet is a distributed system supported by a governance, not 
a centrally managed network operation, nor a authoritatively governed 
hierarchy. Not even a meshed network, and certainly not a star network. 
Just a consensus of interconnects. So we have not to think in term of 
decisions, not even in term of coordination, but in term of suggestions 
with the hope to uncover a consensus (not to forge it, least to impose 
it!). I just observe that this is the way our world works; and that 
Internet is both a mirror and an agent of that world. I observe that any 
attempt to fight that reality is promised to failure: on the nets as well 
as in policy, in economy, in education, in research, in religion, etc... 
When I say that ICANN has to become real I mean it has to accept that 
situation of the society, of the technics, of the thinking, of the economy, 
of the efficiency... I am no integrist, dreamer, modernist or terrorist, 
just an innovation  and reality driven conservative.

What I do not understand is that you have built the ICANN the way it is. 
You have hired Louis Touton, you have decided the contract policy, you have 
prepared the letter to the Govs, you have invented the ALSC, you have paid 
Joe Sims for the no-member non-profit Californian corporation and so many 
unnecessary things, you have started the TLD strategy and created the 
alternative (sic) root problem, you have created the Registrars and killed 
them through Plan B, you have fought the stability, the safety and the 
security of the Internet. No me. If NSI is threatening the Network by its 
size, it your policy, not mine. If ICANN is rigid, outdated, inadequate and 
full of the personal agenda  you complain about this is your doing through 
the structures, bylaws, bypasses, lack of transparency, personal schemes, 
etc. that you at least cooperated to.

How can you reconcile what you write today and what you did? And if you 
tried to protect us against worst which could have happened, tell us!  With 
the money you spent over the wild plans of yours, we could have subsidized 
a lot of the small R&D we needed to make the net safe, stable and innovative.

I disagree with most of what you participated into and yet I discover now 
and often that on many points you go far beyond me. I am sorry for my low 
IQ but I do not understand it.

Now, if you are ORSC-007 I am sorry to have blown-up your cover.
Cheers.
Jefsey

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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 10:40:43 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] To Polling Committee: proposition about rallying Members

When I consider the number of voters I am favorably surprised by the number 
of participants when compared with other votes considering that this vote 
is committing and public. Without considering the positions of the people I 
think it encouraging.

I propose to Matthew and Sotiris that the Polling Committee suggests that 
all of those who have a Members list make a new call to the people they 
know two days and a half before the end of the vote. I feel that whatever 
their position and the way they present the vote, rallying Members should 
be of real common interest.

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: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 04:25:10 -0800 (PST)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

On Sun, 28 Oct 2001, John Berryhill wrote:

> >
> > 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.
> 

Anytime you want to offer a 'better solution' for "mom & pop" you know
we're willing to look at and consider your proposed dispute policy - even
adopt it if it measures up as something fair and equitable for registrants
and the consumer public alike.

You know that John. And you know I mean it in the most sincere way.

So until then...

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.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 15:39:44 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution 

GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution
26 October 2001
http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/names-council-resolution-commentary-26oct01.htm
_________________________________________________________________

1. Background and Introduction

In August 2001, GAC became aware of anomalies in registration
practices during the .info sunrise period with respect to country
names. Accordingly, GAC in Montevideo considered the question and
published conclusions with respect to country names in its
Communiqué.[1] The ICANN Board supported the GAC recommendations
in principle and decided that such names should be registered by
the Registry to ICANN for the time being unless registered by a
valid trademark holder.[2] The Board has also initiated an Action
Plan to address other aspects of the issue and to report before
the March 2002 Accra meeting.[3]

These recent developments have given rise to some discussion in
the ICANN Community, notably on the DNSO lists. The Names Council,
on 11 October 2001 adopted a Resolution about this.[4]

GAC has comments and reservations about the Names Council
resolution. In the interests of a transparent and informed
discussion, and hopefully with a view to a resolution of any
outstanding difficulties, GAC submits this commentary for the
consideration of ICANN and all other parties concerned.

GAC would also recall that this is not the first time that it has
addressed this issue. In its November 2000 Marina del Rey opinion
on new gTLDs,[5] GAC stated that:

  3.5 The GAC discussed geographical, geopolitical, and ethnic
  concepts in relation to new gTLDs. These discussions will
  continue in subsequent meetings of the GAC.

  3.6 The GAC notes that WIPO Member States have asked WIPO to
  consider and make recommendations   on issues related to bad
  faith, abusive, misleading or unfair use of personal names,
  International Non-proprietary Names (INNs) for Pharmaceutical
  Substances, names of international intergovernmental
  organizations, geographical indications, indications of
  source or geographical terms, and trade names.

  3.6.1 WIPO's report may lead to the development of policies
  in these areas. In these circumstances, the registration
  policies for new gTLDs, as approved by ICANN, could make
  reference to the WIPO 2nd Domain Names Process and provide
  for ready adoption of any ICANN policies resulting from this
  process. Accordingly, should registration policies initially
  implemented by new gTLDs allow for registrations of names in
  any of these categories, registrants should be made aware
  that the adoption of such policies may have potential impact
  on registrations.

Had this advice been taken at the time, any registrant in the new
TLDs registering a name in any of the categories of names
addressed by the WIPO report would have done so in the full
knowledge that a policy development process arising from the WIPO
report could put at risk those registrations. GAC's attention was
drawn to the registration of large numbers of country names in
.info during the sunrise period and upon further investigation
it was evident that a large number of these registrations had not
met the necessary criteria. In the circumstances, and in light of
its previous statements, the GAC advised ICANN to take steps to
reserve country names in .info and assign them to the
corresponding governments and public authorities, at their request.

Such action provides an option, within a small part of the DNS,
for many countries that have expressed serious concerns about
this issue. The GAC's recommendation in Montevideo is a focused
response to an issue that is of great concern to many countries.

GAC is also aware that many governments that may have a concern
about the registration of their country names in .info are not
yet aware of these developments. Furthermore, registration of a
domain name tends to create expectations of continuing use by
Registrants. In the circumstances, the GAC's advice sought to
avoid conflict between such expectations and the expressed
interest of a number of countries to ensure that country names
are used in the interests of the general public in the country
concerned.

2. The WIPO-2 Report

The recent WIPO resolution[6] mandates special sessions of the
Standing Committee on Trademarks (SCT)[7] to address each aspect
of the WIPO-2 Report.[8] The SCT is asked to submit a report by
September 2002.

3. The GAC Recommendation

Following thorough discussion, the GAC Communiqué addresses
primarily country names in .info according to ISO 3166-1.[9] In
developing its response, the GAC consulted with both ICANN and
Afilias with a view to ensuring a feasible and workable solution.

From the point of view of a number of governments and public
authorities, this is a minimum acceptable position and leaves
open a range of related issues to be addressed in the future.

4. Names Council Resolution

It follows that resolution that has been adopted by the Names
Council raises several specific problems from GAC's point of
view. In general, the debate within the DNSO appears not to
recognise the major effort made by GAC members to circumscribe
and limit their requirement for reservation of the names of
countries in .info according to ISO 3166-1, as well as actively
seeking cooperation with Afilias regarding the approach..

The GAC, provides the following comments in relation to aspects
of the Names Council's resolution:

    1. That while it understands the concerns of the GAC, caution
    should be exercised to avoid a short-term reaction to a problem
    that is not inherent to dot info.

The GAC acknowledges that the problem is not inherent to dot
info, however, the GAC made the recommendation to the ICANN
Board because of the 'special nature of .info' and in response
to significant concerns raised with the GAC prior to the
Montevideo meeting. It has not suggested that the reservation
be applied to any other gTLD.

    2. That there is not a full understanding of the implications
    for suppliers and users of retrospective action of the kind
    GAC seeks.

The GAC discussed their proposal with Afilias staff during
the Montevideo meeting. The reservation as recommended by the
GAC, does not hinder Afilias in the administration of their
registration process of names in .info and as such, there are
no retrospective implications for suppliers and users.

It should also be remembered that the GAC first flagged concerns
about the use of geographical and geopolitical names as an issue
in November 2000. In particular, the GAC specifically recommended
that the issues under consideration in the WIPO 2 report and the
possible impact of ongoing policy discussions be raised with
registrants.

    3. That, due to the inherent complexity, the best forum for
    governments to seek solutions to the problems perceived by the
    GAC is the existing forum of such intellectual property
    expertise, namely the inter-governmental specialised UN agency,
    the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) combined
    with the existing forum for representing the internet community
    in policy making, the DNSO, and other relevant stakeholders.

WIPO is a member of the GAC and as such, the GAC is aware of the
work being undertaken by WIPO in this area. WIPO has referred the
question back to its member governments who have decided on the
immediate follow-up.

It must also be acknowledged that as the domain name system operates
in a dynamic environment, the GAC is aware that it may be called on
to provide advice in specific areas that may precede the work of
inter-governmental organisations such as WIPO. In this vein, ICANN
is to be commended for taking action, as it has done.

In response to the request to the ICANN Board:

    (a) To recommend to the GAC that it reconsiders its recommendation
    in this matter in the light of the work already in progress at
    WIPO following the recent WIPO report 'The Recognition of Rights
    and the use of Names in the Internet Domain Name System; and

    (b) To encourage the GAC and all interested parts of the ICANN
    structure to contribute to WIPO's work in this respect.

The GAC supports the notion that all interested parts of the ICANN
structure contribute to WIPO's work not only in respect to geographic
identifiers , but in relation to the work of WIPO more generally.
Many members of the GAC are also Member States of WIPO and as such
are well-informed on the work being undertaken.

    (c) to invite the Names Council to participate in the discussion
    group on ISO 3166-1 names.

The GAC welcomes the opportunity to discuss the issue with the DNSO on
the understanding that the interested parties, including governments
can participate effectively.

In conclusion, the GAC would welcome further discussion with the DNSO
and Names Council members in order to clarify the arguments on both
parts. However, the GAC disagrees with some of the arguments and
conclusions in the Names Council Resolution of 11 October 2001. GAC
members will be glad to participate in the Action Plan recently
announced by ICANN in this respect.

Dr Paul Twomey
Chair

26 October 2001

_________________________________________________________________

Notes:

[1] http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/communique-09sep01.htm

[2] http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-10sep01.htm

[3] http://www.icann.org/montevideo/action-plan-country-names-09oct01.htm

[4] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00202.html

[5] http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/new-tld-opinion-16nov00.htm

[6] Assembly of the Member States of the WIPO, September 24 to
    October 3 2001. Decision on the Report of the Second WIPO Internet
    Domain Name process.

[7] Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs
    and Geographical Indications (SCT).

[8] Names of inter-governmental organisations (IGO), Geographical
    Names, International Non-Proprietary Names of pharmaceuticals
    (INNs) and Personal names.

[9] As interpreted by ICANN and in official languages and in English.

- --
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 09:47:21 -0500
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

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

The problem is that the plaintiff gets to pick where that suit is filed.
See, e.g. the sequence of events noted at www.strick.com.

UDRP rule 4(k) states that the domain name registrant may decide to take the
matter to court at any time, including prior to a decision in the UDRP
proceeding.  If there is such pending litigation, the UDRP decision will not
be implemented.  So, how does the present UDRP not do what you are proposing
be done?

- --
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 08:05:03 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

Sunday, Sunday, October 28, 2001, 6:47:21 AM, John Berryhill wrote:

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

> The problem is that the plaintiff gets to pick where that suit is filed.
> See, e.g. the sequence of events noted at www.strick.com.

That needs to be removed completely.  The UDRP should not have any
bearing on the jurisdiction of a court case.

Besides, this section only gets invoked if the domain registrant has
lost.

> UDRP rule 4(k) states that the domain name registrant may decide to take the
> matter to court at any time, including prior to a decision in the UDRP
> proceeding. If there is such pending litigation, the UDRP decision will not
> be implemented.  So, how does the present UDRP not do what you are proposing
> be done?

Because he then bears the cost of pursuing the litigation.  My point
was that the registrant should be able to say, "I don't submit to
arbitration on this, if you want to come after me for infringement,
then you must do it in a court that has jurisdiction on this matter."

- -- 
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 08:30:07 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Ruli ngs

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 8:05 AM

|> was that the registrant should be able to say, "I don't submit to
|> arbitration on this, if you want to come after me for infringement,
|> then you must do it in a court that has jurisdiction on this matter."

I see your point and agree. However, on the political  front, almost all
defendants and every name-squatter, will opt out of the UDRP system by
default. This sits well with me, but it wont sit well with WIPO/ICANN.
Without the mandatory part of the UDRP, the UDRP becomes a piece of
tissue-paper. WIPO isn't stupid, they'll see right through that.
- --
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 08:24:49 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Ruli ngs

Hello John,

My impression was that it was custom,ary to file in the defendant's home
turf.

|> From: John Berryhill [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 6:47 AM
|> 
|> From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
|> >
|> > 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.
|> 
|> The problem is that the plaintiff gets to pick where that 
|> suit is filed.
|> See, e.g. the sequence of events noted at www.strick.com.
|> 
|> UDRP rule 4(k) states that the domain name registrant may 
|> decide to take the
|> matter to court at any time, including prior to a decision 
|> in the UDRP
|> proceeding.  If there is such pending litigation, the UDRP 
|> decision will not
|> be implemented.  So, how does the present UDRP not do what 
|> you are proposing
|> be done?
- --
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 08:35:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

On Sun, 28 Oct 2001, John Berryhill wrote:

> 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.

But John, the UDRP represents two bites at the apple. If a complaintant
loses, they *still* can take the issue to court.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 08:53:59 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

Contrary to popular belief. The civil system is not the crimninal justice
system. In civil court, unless the complaint is dismissed with prejudice,
the complaint can get refiled. I've seen this go on as many as three times
before the judge gets tired of it and does the prejudicial dismissal. This
is usually caused by pro se plaintiffs as attorney's tend to not want to
piss off a courthouse that they have to work in every day. The extremeists
eco-nazi groups were well known for this until they got some professional
legal help.

So, multiple bites at apples is not only possible, but is done more often
than you think.

This only applies to US courts, of course and ...

- --
IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking legal action based on anything I
say or write, you are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of an attorney.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 8:35 AM
|> To: John Berryhill
|> Cc: [GA]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 
|> 'Hijacking' Rulings
|> 
|> 
|> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001, John Berryhill wrote:
|> 
|> > 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.
|> 
|> But John, the UDRP represents two bites at the apple. If a 
|> complaintant
|> loses, they *still* can take the issue to court.
|> 
|> 
|> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
|> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
|>                                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
|> 
- --
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 11:41:01 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Ruli ngs

At 8:30 AM -0800 28/10/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
>|> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 8:05 AM
>
>|> was that the registrant should be able to say, "I don't submit to
>|> arbitration on this, if you want to come after me for infringement,
>|> then you must do it in a court that has jurisdiction on this matter."
>
>I see your point and agree. However, on the political  front, almost all
>defendants and every name-squatter, will opt out of the UDRP system by
>default.

But this is because the current system is heavily weighted in favour of the
complainant, and the system allows the panel to make highly questionable
decisions that would not stand up in court. They can do this with little
fear of retribution, as all they need to do is leave conflicting evidence
out of their "findings" and it's hidden from view.

The full evidence in a UDRP needs to be publically available, and findings
subject to peer review.

Some rules regarding precedent need to be established, and providers need
to be forced to stick to the UDRP rules and be beaten with a stick when
they make their own rules up.

Clean up the sytem, open it up and make it fair, and respondents are likely
to stick with it.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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 12:45:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'  Rulings

WXW and all assembly members,

William X Walsh wrote:

> 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?

  Sure I will volunteer.  I am sure that with the help of my legal staff
I can come up with something to at least discuss and debate here.
What I would like to know however is their a minimum amount that
the bond should be set for?

>
>
> --
> 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

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 10:42:41 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'  Rulings

|> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 12:45 PM
|> 
|> WXW and all assembly members,
|> 
|> William X Walsh wrote:
|> 
|> > 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?
|> 
|>   Sure I will volunteer.  I am sure that with the help of my 
|> legal staff
|> I can come up with something to at least discuss and debate here.
|> What I would like to know however is their a minimum amount that
|> the bond should be set for?

$50K US should cover most expenses.
- --
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 12:50:52 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] <INFO> sunrise domains for Sale?

Sanjeev and all assembly members,

  Interesting information.  Thank you for it!

  There are several reasons that could be attributed for what you seem
to have observed.  But if I was to guess, it would be that Afilias is still

under some legal pressure, and as a consequence wants to be able to
pull these Domain names back, just in case....  My wonder is have any
or all of the supposed registrants been notified of this status, and if so
what have they been actually told?

Sanjeev Goyal wrote:

> 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

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 12:58:39 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No room on the bus

Roeland and all assembly members,

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> 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 think the answer is probably no.  However as you know Eric is still
the GA's designated funding goto guy at the moment.  Perhaps he
can shed some light on this question.  Eric?

> 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.

  Agreed.

>
>
> 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.

  Also agreed.

>
>
> 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.

  Yet Mr. Lynn has indicated differently.  Perhaps Ms. Hewitt was
unaware of this?

>
>
> 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.

  Yes.  And as you know this has been pointed our a number of times
before.

>
>
> |> 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).

  Perhaps Karl can get some strait answers.  Perhaps not.  Lets hope he
can.

>
>
> 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?

  Indeed we have known this for some time now...

>
> --
> 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

- --
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #823
************************