Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #826
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, October 29 2001           Volume 01 : Number 826

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

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:19:22 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'  Rulings

Sunday, Sunday, October 28, 2001, 12:45:25 PM, Jeff Williams wrote:

> 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

Sorry, I meant someone real.

- -- 
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 21:19:22 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Ruli ngs

Sunday, Sunday, October 28, 2001, 8:30:07 AM, 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. 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.

Sure they would, under the guidelines currently in place, that give
the complainant FAR more rights than the law does.  But this would
give them an incentive to make sure the process is FAIR to both sides,
and that they DO in fact look at exactly what the LAW would do, and
now try and exceed it.

- -- 
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: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 00:24:12 -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, 12:45:25 PM, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> Sorry, I meant someone real.

  Than why reply to my response if I am not real?  Knee jerk again perhaps?
Or just mud slinging again?

>
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:41:41 +0100
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Web casting sponsorship

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0188_01C16066.4B586720
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

ICANN will cover the cost of webcasting for meeting  Nov 13-15.

The DNSO would like to request a sponsor or sponsors for the webcasting =
of the NC and GA meetings scheduled for November 12. The cost will be =
around USD12,000. Sponsorship is acknowledged.

Philip
NC Chair

- ------=_NextPart_000_0188_01C16066.4B586720
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>ICANN will cover the cost of webcasting for =
meeting&nbsp; Nov=20
13-15.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The DNSO would like to request a sponsor or =
sponsors&nbsp;for=20
the webcasting of the NC and GA meetings scheduled for&nbsp;November 12. =

</FONT><FONT size=3D2>The cost will be around USD12,000. Sponsorship is=20
acknowledged.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>NC Chair</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0188_01C16066.4B586720--

- --
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 14:34:38 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Web casting sponsorship

- --=====================_10396392==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

New.net?

On 10:41 29/10/01, Philip Sheppard said:
>ICANN will cover the cost of webcasting for meeting  Nov 13-15.
>
>The DNSO would like to request a sponsor or sponsors for the webcasting of 
>the NC and GA meetings scheduled for November 12. The cost will be around 
>USD12,000. Sponsorship is acknowledged.
>  Philip
>NC Chair
>

- --=====================_10396392==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
New.net?<br>
<br>
On 10:41 29/10/01, Philip Sheppard said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>ICANN will cover the
cost of webcasting for meeting&nbsp; Nov 13-15.</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font size=2>The DNSO would like to request a sponsor or sponsors for the
webcasting of the NC and GA meetings scheduled for November 12. The cost
will be around USD12,000. Sponsorship is acknowledged.</font><br>
&nbsp;<font size=2>Philip</font><br>
<font size=2>NC Chair</font><br>
&nbsp;</blockquote></html>

- --=====================_10396392==_.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

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

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 05:08:19 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Web casting sponsorship

Phillip and all assembly members,

  Thank you for filling in for Eric or funding person in the GA here.
We had hoped that he would be spearheading this effort.
I am sure that Hi-Teck.com will be wanting to belly up to the bar
in assisting in this funding with their donation.
Can you tell us all where (What account with routing number please)
that funds can be transferred to for this purpose?

  Again, thank you in advance for you assistance and cooperation.

Philip Sheppard wrote:

>    ICANN will cover the cost of webcasting for meeting  Nov 13-15.
>
> The DNSO would like to request a sponsor or sponsors for the
> webcasting of the NC and GA meetings scheduled for November 12. The
> cost will be around USD12,000. Sponsorship is acknowledged.
>
> Philip
> NC Chair
>
>
>

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 10:24:26 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

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

Ummm... I said take a look at the sequence of events in the strick.com case.
The lawsuit was not filed in the jurisdiction specified by the UDRP.  The
complainant always retains the right to file a lawsuit in any jurisdiction
that will hear the case, and preferably one remote from the respondent.

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

No.   Rule 4(k) says a suit can be brought even before there is a decision.

> > 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."

...and then the registrant bears the cost of pursuing the litigation, and
likely in a place she would prefer not to do so.

- --
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 10:25:46 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
>
> My impression was that it was custom,ary to file in the defendant's home
> turf.

No.  Not at all.  Not if you can help it.  And, to win on an argument of "no
jurisdiction", one is still going to have to show up and argue that point.

- --
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 07:39:37 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'  Rulings

Mr. Walsh,

The 5 post per day per list limit has not been lifted.

~k

At 09:19 PM 10/28/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>Sunday, Sunday, October 28, 2001, 12:45:25 PM, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > 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
>
>Sorry, I meant someone real.
>
>--
>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

- --
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 07:49:17 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'   Rulings

Monday, Monday, October 29, 2001, 7:39:37 AM, Kristy McKee wrote:

> Mr. Walsh,

> The 5 post per day per list limit has not been lifted.

I go one over yesterday, and I get a warning like this on the public
list?

Get over it.

- -- 
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: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:23:03 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC agenda-MdR meeting 12 Nov.2001

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011112.NCmdr-agenda.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

   DNSO Names Council Marina del Rey Meeting on 12 November 2001 - agenda

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

26 October 2001

This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the DNSO
Names Council http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010711.NCprocedures-v3.0.html

Date and time

  1. The DNSO Names Council meeting in Marina del Rey will be held on 12
     November 2001, 14:00 - 17:00, [@ Marina Beach Marriott, Catalina Room]
     .

     (14:00 Los Angeles, 17:00 New York, 22:00 UTC, 23:00 CET, 11:00
     Auckland next day)

      ------------------------------------------------------------
      Local time between 30 October 2001 and end March 2002.
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         22:00
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      California, USA                            UTC-8+0DST  14:00
      Missouri, USA                              UTC-6+0DST  16:00
      Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+0DST  16:00
      Panama, Panama                             UTC-5+0DST  17:00
      Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+0DST  17:00
      St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST  18:00
      Santiago, Chile                            UTC-4+1DST  19:00
      Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST  19:00
      Nouakchott, Mauritania                     UTC+0+0DST  22:00
      London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+0DST  22:00
      Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+0DST  23:00
      Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+0DST  23:00
      Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+0DST  23:00
      Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+0DST  23:00
      Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST   7:00 next day
      Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST   7:00 next day
      Hobart, Australia                         UTC+10+1DST   9:00 next day
      Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+1DST  11:00 next day
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2002, 2:00 or 3:00 local
time
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

     Please visit http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/schedule.htm for details
     about all ICANN meetings (schedule, agendas, meeting rooms, hotels,
     visas, etc.)

  2.   Agenda

       1. Roll call

       2. Adoption of minutes of October 11, 2001 teleconference
          http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011011.NCteleconf-minutes.html

       3. At-large - session with ALSC - 30 mins
          http://www.atlargestudy.org/draft_final.shtml

       4. Transfers - NC resolution (Marilyn) - 40 mins

       5. IDN - NC resolution (Elisabeth) 10 mins

       6. Review TF interim report - comments (Philip) - 10 mins
          http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc01/msg00000.html

       7. Dot Org interim report - comments (Milton) - 10 mins.
          http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00142.html
          http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-dotorg/Arc01/

       8. GAC reaction to NC resolution (Philip) - 20 mins
          http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011026.gac-answer-NCresol.html

       9. TF and other status reports - 30 mins
             + WhoIs (Paul Kane nominee)
             + UDRP (Caroline)

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html
             + Structure (Philip)
             + ICANN TLDs (YJ)

      10. Security meeting preparation (Philip) - 10 mins

      11. AOB

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

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

- --
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 08:29:57 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'  Rulings

|> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 3:42 PM
|> 
|> 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.

From a justification stand-point, any number is hard. It all seems so ...
arbitrary. This is the largest problem I have with the entire UDRP process.

|> 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.

I am under the impression that almost every case of reverse-hijacking is
pressed by a large corp. Considering the entry criteria for pressing such a
case and it is almost inevitable. One cannot be small and broke whilst
pressing a reverse-hijacking attempt. For starters, one must have a valid
trademark, businesss mark, etc, in order to create the confusing bad-faith
criteria.

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

That is "reverse-hijacking" and yes, we are in agreement there. However, I
point out that, were it not for the UDRP, the opportunity would not even
exist.
- --
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 17:32:10 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC agenda - MdR meeting 14 Nov. 2001

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011114.NCmdr-agenda.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

   DNSO Names Council Marina del Rey Meeting on 14 November 2001 - agenda

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

27 October 2001

This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the DNSO
Names Council http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010711.NCprocedures-v3.0.html

Date and time

Running time 120 mins Allocated time 110 mins.

  1. The DNSO Names Council meeting in Marina del Rey will be held on 14
     November 2001, 16:00 - 18:00, [@ Marina Beach Marriott, Catalina Room]
     .

     (16:00 Los Angeles, 19:00 New York, 24:00 UTC, 01:00 CET, 13:00
     Auckland next day)

      ------------------------------------------------------------
      Local time between 30 October 2001 and end March 2002.
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         24:00
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      California, USA                            UTC-8+0DST  16:00
      Missouri, USA                              UTC-6+0DST  18:00
      Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+0DST  18:00
      Panama, Panama                             UTC-5+0DST  19:00
      Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+0DST  19:00
      St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST  20:00
      Santiago, Chile                            UTC-4+1DST  21:00
      Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST  21:00
      Nouakchott, Mauritania                     UTC+0+0DST  24:00
      London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+0DST  24:00
      Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+0DST  01:00
      Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+0DST  01:00
      Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+0DST  01:00
      Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+0DST  01:00
      Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST   9:00 next day
      Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST   9:00 next day
      Hobart, Australia                         UTC+10+1DST  11:00 next day
      Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+1DST  13:00 next day
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2002, 2:00 or 3:00 local
time
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

     Please visit http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/schedule.htm for details
     about all ICANN meetings (schedule, agendas, meeting rooms, hotels,
     visas, etc.)

  2. Agenda

       1. Roll call

       2. Selection from previous ICANN agenda, issues of DNSO relevance -
          30 mins

       3. Round table on these issues - 60 mins.

       4. Selection of issues/rapporteurs to report to Board next day - 10
          mins.

       5. Next steps - 10 mins

       6. AOB

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

- --
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 08:38:03 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Ruli ngs

|> From: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 7:26 AM
|> 
|> From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
|> >
|> > My impression was that it was custom,ary to file in the 
|> defendant's home
|> > turf.
|> 
|> No.  Not at all.  Not if you can help it.  And, to win on an 
|> argument of "no jurisdiction", one is still going to have 
|> to show up and argue that point.

This is under US Civil Law?

- --
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 08:45:50 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Web casting sponsorship

|> From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 1:42 AM
|> 
|> ICANN will cover the cost of webcasting for meeting  Nov 13-15.
|> 
|> The DNSO would like to request a sponsor or sponsors 
|> for the webcasting of the NC and GA meetings scheduled 
|> for November 12. The cost will be around USD12,000. 

Considering that ICANN just denied sponsorship funding by New.Net, what is
the purpose of this request, at this time?

|> Sponsorship is acknowledged.

This is a bit terse, what does it mean?
- --
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 12:44:17 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>

> |> No.  Not at all.  Not if you can help it.  And, to win on an
> |> argument of "no jurisdiction", one is still going to have
> |> to show up and argue that point.
>
> This is under US Civil Law?

Absolutely, Roeland.  Each state has a "long arm" statute which, in general,
provides a basis for you to sue someone who resides out of state, if you
allege that they have caused injury to you, the plaintiff, in the state where
you reside.

Let's say you post something defamatory about me here on this list.   I am
not going to trek out to wherever you are in order to sue you.  I am going to
sue you right here in Delaware, because I am in Delaware and you have injured
me here.  If you don't show up to challenge either jurisdiction or the
substance of the suit, then I am going to win.

My next step will be to obtain enforcement of the judgment against you.  If
you do not cooperate, then I will have the judgment transferred to the courts
of your jurisdiction.  At that time, you have the option of challenging, in
your court, the adequacy of the jurisdiction of the Delaware court.  However,
if you lose, then I am going to seize your property and/or garnish your
wages, and you will be deemed to have waived your opportunity to challenge
the substantive matter of the suit, because you never showed up in Delaware
to do so.

- --
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 09:49:36 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Ruli ngs

Just a point of clarification then, in your hypothetical case;
This means that you can file in some other jurisdiction, removed from either
of us? One where neither party resides?

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 9:44 AM
|> To: Roeland Meyer; [GA]
|> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'
|> Rulings
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
|> 
|> > |> No.  Not at all.  Not if you can help it.  And, to win on an
|> > |> argument of "no jurisdiction", one is still going to have
|> > |> to show up and argue that point.
|> >
|> > This is under US Civil Law?
|> 
|> Absolutely, Roeland.  Each state has a "long arm" statute 
|> which, in general,
|> provides a basis for you to sue someone who resides out of 
|> state, if you
|> allege that they have caused injury to you, the plaintiff, 
|> in the state where
|> you reside.
|> 
|> Let's say you post something defamatory about me here on 
|> this list.   I am
|> not going to trek out to wherever you are in order to sue 
|> you.  I am going to
|> sue you right here in Delaware, because I am in Delaware and 
|> you have injured
|> me here.  If you don't show up to challenge either 
|> jurisdiction or the
|> substance of the suit, then I am going to win.
|> 
|> My next step will be to obtain enforcement of the judgment 
|> against you.  If
|> you do not cooperate, then I will have the judgment 
|> transferred to the courts
|> of your jurisdiction.  At that time, you have the option of 
|> challenging, in
|> your court, the adequacy of the jurisdiction of the Delaware 
|> court.  However,
|> if you lose, then I am going to seize your property and/or 
|> garnish your
|> wages, and you will be deemed to have waived your 
|> opportunity to challenge
|> the substantive matter of the suit, because you never showed 
|> up in Delaware
|> to do so.
|> 
|> 
- --
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 14:01:03 -0500
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: Nuestar receives contract for ".US"  cctld

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01C16082.2594AC80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

FYI
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usca/index.html

- ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01C16082.2594AC80
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>FYI</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><A=20
href=3D"http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usca/index.html">http=
://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usca/index.html</A></DIV></BODY><=
/HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01C16082.2594AC80--

- --
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 14:04:09 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NeuStar awarded .US TLD

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2001/us_102901.htm
- --
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 12:17:37 -0800 (PST)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Web casting sponsorship

Philip,

The PacificRoot has ample facilties as well as the infrastructure to
deliver the webcasting services which you request sponsorship for from a
bandwidth and last mile perspective - both for live streaming broadcasts
and on demand media . Perhaps you are familiar with our services to the
Democratic National Convention last year.

We can arrange for the Vyvx TV1 (NTSC) feeds either by having trucks
onsite to provide the satellite uplinks or if enough time exists
we can bring in DS3/TV1 feeds directly to the events via VenuNet
Vyvx feeds (probably not enough time for that at this point but
we can try)

We can also provide the Servers onsite to produce the media source
streams, all that would be left for you to decide upon would be which
camera crews and technical direction staff you desire and finding funding 
to pay for those crews as well as the rental on the satellite trucks or
VenuNET feeds. Again, we are capable and willing to explore the
possibilites of providing sponsorship for the other expenses involved.

Typically, when we provide services for live concerts or sports events it
is customary to give us 'at least' 90 days lead time - but we can
certainly
get the trucks in place for the broadcasts if you act quickly enough. 

We can also put you in contact with some veteran television production
teams as well as far as the camera and technical production aspects of
this event and even coordinate those aspects if you desire.

To sum up the remaining costs that you will need to address from
other potential sponsors please consider:

1.) The cost of the Vyvx feeds

2.) The cost of the production (camera/grip/lighting) crew and technical
direction team

The window of time is quickly running out to arrange even such a basic
production operation, so please consider that the sooner the DNSO can make
a determination the better the chances are to provide for the logistics.

For future reference, please be aware live events with large audiences are
often booked up to six months in advance for the sake of seamless logistics.

Kindest regards,

- --

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.com

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> ICANN will cover the cost of webcasting for meeting  Nov 13-15.
> 
> The DNSO would like to request a sponsor or sponsors for the webcasting of the NC and GA meetings scheduled for November 12. The cost will be around USD12,000. Sponsorship is acknowledged.
> 
> Philip
> NC Chair
> 
> 

- --
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 #826
************************