Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #825
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, October 29 2001           Volume 01 : Number 825

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

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 16:34:50 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution

Donna and all assembly members,

  Yes the problem still exists, I just checked again.  The
broken link is:
http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/DNS/gac/gac representatives.htm

  I would be nice if you could get it fixed sometime soon.

Austin, Donna wrote:

> Dear Mr Williams
>
> I apologise for the difficulties you have been experiencing in accessing the
> GAC website.  The Secretariat has been re-developing the site in recent
> times and this may have attributed to your inability to access the list of
> Accredited Representatives.  I have been able to access the site through
> your second link this morning which does provide details of Accredited
> Representatives.
>
> Should you continue to experience difficulties, could you please let me know
> and we will endeavour to fix the problem.
>
> Donna Austin
> GAC Secretariat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, 29 October 2001 9:05
> To: Alexander Svensson
> Cc: [email-masked]; Donna Austin; Karen Rose; Karl Auerbach; Don Evans;
> Phil Gramm; Kay Bailey Hutchison
> Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution
>
> Alex and all assembly members,
>
>   The GAC web page is http://www.noie.gov.au
>   The contacts link for the GAC is:
> http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/DNS/gac/contacts.htm
> Donna AUstin is the GAC Secretariat, which BTW is the only contact
> with and E-Mail address listed.  One wonders how stakeholders
> are to contact their GAC representative?
> The "Accredited Representatives" Contact link is:
> http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/DNS/gac/gac
> representatives.htm
> Which is currently broken Message: "The parameter is incorrect." when
> trying to link the this page.
>
>   Given all this, one must also wonder if the GAC cannot maintain their
> Web pages and does not provide a E-Mail address contact for their
> "Accredited Representatives", than how the hell can they really be
> given the respect for their opinions by the stakeholders that they
> represent?
>
>   I also don't recall my GAC representative soliciting my opinion on any
> issue that effects me, nor can I presently provide any comments
> to MY GAC representative presently via E-Mail or any other
> form.  Could this be by design?  I hope not.
>
> Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> > GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution
> > 26 October 2001
> >
> http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/names-council-resolution-commentary-26oc
> t01.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
>
> --
> 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
> IMPORTANT: This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain private or
> confidential information. If you think you may not be the intended
> recipient, or if you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the
> sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail. If you are not the
> intended recipient, you must not reproduce any part of this e-mail or
> disclose its contents to any other party.
>
> _________________________________________________________________________

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 17:05:27 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution

Donna and all assembly members,

  Thank you so much for this automated "Broken Record" response,
I am sure all appreciate it immensely (Sarcasm intended here)

Austin, Donna wrote:

> Dear Mr Williams
>
> I apologise for the difficulties you have been experiencing in accessing the
> GAC website.  The Secretariat has been re-developing the site in recent
> times and this may have attributed to your inability to access the list of
> Accredited Representatives.  I have been able to access the site through
> your second link this morning which does provide details of Accredited
> Representatives.
>
> Should you continue to experience difficulties, could you please let me know
> and we will endeavour to fix the problem.
>
> Donna Austin
> GAC Secretariat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, 29 October 2001 9:05
> To: Alexander Svensson
> Cc: [email-masked]; Donna Austin; Karen Rose; Karl Auerbach; Don Evans;
> Phil Gramm; Kay Bailey Hutchison
> Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution
>
> Alex and all assembly members,
>
>   The GAC web page is http://www.noie.gov.au
>   The contacts link for the GAC is:
> http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/DNS/gac/contacts.htm
> Donna AUstin is the GAC Secretariat, which BTW is the only contact
> with and E-Mail address listed.  One wonders how stakeholders
> are to contact their GAC representative?
> The "Accredited Representatives" Contact link is:
> http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/DNS/gac/gac
> representatives.htm
> Which is currently broken Message: "The parameter is incorrect." when
> trying to link the this page.
>
>   Given all this, one must also wonder if the GAC cannot maintain their
> Web pages and does not provide a E-Mail address contact for their
> "Accredited Representatives", than how the hell can they really be
> given the respect for their opinions by the stakeholders that they
> represent?
>
>   I also don't recall my GAC representative soliciting my opinion on any
> issue that effects me, nor can I presently provide any comments
> to MY GAC representative presently via E-Mail or any other
> form.  Could this be by design?  I hope not.
>
> Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> > GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution
> > 26 October 2001
> >
> http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/names-council-resolution-commentary-26oc
> t01.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
>
> --
> 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
> IMPORTANT: This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain private or
> confidential information. If you think you may not be the intended
> recipient, or if you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the
> sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail. If you are not the
> intended recipient, you must not reproduce any part of this e-mail or
> disclose its contents to any other party.
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:42:06 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'  Rulings

On 13:04 28/10/01 -0800, Roeland Meyer said:

>It is reasonable considering the alternative legal costs, but dropping it to
>$25K US is also reasonable, considering that there is no set criteria. In
>the case of an abusive complaint, which is usually brought about by a large
>corp,

I could justify $25-30 K US, but not higher.
Not all complainants will be large corps (I would like to see statistics on 
this) and a small player defending his  trademark should not be intimidated 
by the size of the bond.
The basic purpose is to compensate the victim of an attempted hijacking for 
his cost and trouble.
Looking forward to Jeff's legal staff's effort. :)

- --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 19:48:37 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Bond amount consideration to: Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'  Rulings

Joop and all assembly members,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> On 13:04 28/10/01 -0800, Roeland Meyer said:
>
> >It is reasonable considering the alternative legal costs, but dropping it to
> >$25K US is also reasonable, considering that there is no set criteria. In
> >the case of an abusive complaint, which is usually brought about by a large
> >corp,
>
> I could justify $25-30 K US, but not higher.
> Not all complainants will be large corps (I would like to see statistics on
> this) and a small player defending his  trademark should not be intimidated
> by the size of the bond.

  True, not all registrants (Players, your term Joop) are large corps.
But it is a good idea to address the bond size as most US federal courts
do, with that likelihood in mind.

>
> The basic purpose is to compensate the victim of an attempted hijacking for
> his cost and trouble.

  Yes indeed true.  And if the trouble is excessive, which it can be, than
a higher bond is reasonable.  Ergo there should be no trouble with the
50k amount given Roelands nicely done explanation.

>
> Looking forward to Jeff's legal staff's effort. :)

  If an when our organization is requested to do so, I also
look forward to the same.  However that has not occurred
yet or to date.

>
>
> --Joop
>
>

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 18:32:08 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] an interesting question from the GAC position

- --=====================_13908894==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

The GAC has published comments on the NC position.

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

This rises a very intersting question:

<quote>
NC:
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.

GAC:
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.

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

GAC:
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

</quote>

the current gTLDs are proof of concept. The TLDs are generic.
Now we learn that the in November 2000 the GAC had risen the
issue and that GAC consider .info special.

The GAC meetings where held BEFORE the TLD show. Carl
Auerback - however an elected Director - was refused to access
the GAC meeting room. The @large Directors had been made
seated after the TLD show, because Directors sharing into the
vote had to have followed the file from the beining.

Also, we hear that Afilias have had discussion with the GAC
what seems to be the proper way to address the problem.
What is surprising is that they made a motion over it. This
should have been first asked by Afilias to Staff, from Staff
to DNSO, from DNSO to meet with GAC. This seems therefore
more like the GAC claiming an agreement discussed in
Nov; 2000.

Now, during the TLD Show Affilias got .info while it was
quite agreed it would get .web, because of the action of
only a few Direectors not specially in favor of inclusive
roots, that everyone understood as to protect the rights
of IOD.

Questions:
1. what is special about .info supposed to be only a
     second rank interst to Affilias
2. would the GAC demand be the same for .web - they
     seem to say no
3. which was the DN really wanted by Affilias?

We may remember that:

- - VeriSign stock jumped up 1.4 billion (said Joanna in
   Montevideo) after .info was granted to Affilias. Would
   have it been the same for .web?

- - Jon Postel was wanting to preserve .info for the press
   and information industy. GAC obvsiouly understand
   it that way.

- - The .info DN values is more expensive that .com.
   Why as the proof of concept is for a second gTLD
   comparable to .com.

- - At the end of the Stockholm meeting Vint Cerf
   protested against the inclusive roots and called
   them TLD cybersquatters saying they were taking
   all the good words. ICANN could have done that for
   a long, for a lower retail price.

- - Stuart Lynn's attitude to New.net today is an attitude
   against competition.

All this seems to show that ICANN considers their
business as auctioning TLDs and starts beeing good
at it. This is something that the DNSO should debate
upon before it is enforced as a strategy. It also gives
a totally different flavor to the disputes concerning the
"single authoritative root", the supposed greed of the
inclusive roots and the patriotism of the DNS defense
by the Jon Postel Army.

Jefsey
- --=====================_13908894==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
The GAC has published comments on the NC position.<br>
<br>
GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution <br>
26 October 2001 <br>
<font color="#0000FF"><u><a href="http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/names-council-resolution-commentary-26oct01.htm" eudora="autourl">http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/names-council-resolution-commentary-26oct01.</a><a href="http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/names-council-resolution-commentary-26oct01.htm" eudora="autourl">htm</a><br>
<br>
</u></font>This rises a very intersting question:<br>
<br>
&lt;quote&gt;<br>
NC:<br>
1. That while it understands the concerns of the GAC, caution <br>
should be exercised to avoid a short-term reaction to a problem <br>
that is not inherent to dot info.<br>
<br>
GAC:<br>
The GAC acknowledges that the problem is not inherent to dot <br>
info, however, the GAC made the recommendation to the ICANN <br>
Board because of the 'special nature of .info' and in response <br>
to significant concerns raised with the GAC prior to the <br>
Montevideo meeting. It has not suggested that the reservation <br>
be applied to any other gTLD.<br>
<br>
NC:<br>
2. That there is not a full understanding of the implications <br>
for suppliers and users of retrospective action of the kind <br>
GAC seeks.<br>
<br>
GAC:<br>
The GAC discussed their proposal with Afilias staff during <br>
the Montevideo meeting. The reservation as recommended by the <br>
GAC, does not hinder Afilias in the administration of their <br>
registration process of names in .info and as such, there are <br>
no retrospective implications for suppliers and users.<br>
It should also be remembered that the GAC first flagged concerns <br>
about the use of geographical and geopolitical names as an issue <br>
in November 2000. In particular, the GAC specifically recommended <br>
that the issues under consideration in the WIPO 2 report and the <br>
possible impact of ongoing policy discussions be raised with <br>
registrants<br>
<br>
&lt;/quote&gt;<br>
<br>
the current gTLDs are proof of concept. The TLDs are generic.<br>
Now we learn that the in November 2000 the GAC had risen the <br>
issue and that GAC consider .info special.<br>
<br>
The GAC meetings where held BEFORE the TLD show. Carl<br>
Auerback - however an elected Director - was refused to access<br>
the GAC meeting room. The @large Directors had been made<br>
seated after the TLD show, because Directors sharing into the<br>
vote had to have followed the file from the beining.<br>
<br>
Also, we hear that Afilias have had discussion with the GAC<br>
what seems to be the proper way to address the problem. <br>
What is surprising is that they made a motion over it. This<br>
should have been first asked by Afilias to Staff, from Staff<br>
to DNSO, from DNSO to meet with GAC. This seems therefore<br>
more like the GAC claiming an agreement discussed in <br>
Nov; 2000.<br>
<br>
Now, during the TLD Show Affilias got .info while it was <br>
quite agreed it would get .web, because of the action of<br>
only a few Direectors not specially in favor of inclusive <br>
roots, that everyone understood as to protect the rights <br>
of IOD.<br>
<br>
Questions:<br>
1. what is special about .info supposed to be only a <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; second rank interst to Affilias<br>
2. would the GAC demand be the same for .web - they<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; seem to say no<br>
3. which was the DN really wanted by Affilias?<br>
<br>
We may remember that:<br>
<br>
- - VeriSign stock jumped up 1.4 billion (said Joanna in <br>
&nbsp; Montevideo) after .info was granted to Affilias. Would<br>
&nbsp; have it been the same for .web?<br>
<br>
- - Jon Postel was wanting to preserve .info for the press<br>
&nbsp; and information industy. GAC obvsiouly understand<br>
&nbsp; it that way. <br>
<br>
- - The .info DN values is more expensive that .com.<br>
&nbsp; Why as the proof of concept is for a second gTLD <br>
&nbsp; comparable to .com.<br>
<br>
- - At the end of the Stockholm meeting Vint Cerf <br>
&nbsp; protested against the inclusive roots and called <br>
&nbsp; them TLD cybersquatters saying they were taking<br>
&nbsp; all the good words. ICANN could have done that for<br>
&nbsp; a long, for a lower retail price.<br>
<br>
- - Stuart Lynn's attitude to New.net today is an attitude<br>
&nbsp; against competition.<br>
<br>
All this seems to show that ICANN considers their <br>
business as auctioning TLDs and starts beeing good <br>
at it. This is something that the DNSO should debate <br>
upon before it is enforced as a strategy. It also gives <br>
a totally different flavor to the disputes concerning the <br>
&quot;single authoritative root&quot;, the supposed greed of the <br>
inclusive roots and the patriotism of the DNS defense<br>
by the Jon Postel Army. <br>
<br>
Jefsey</html>

- --=====================_13908894==_.ALT--

- --
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 #825
************************