Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #841
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, November 11 2001          Volume 01 : Number 841

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

Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 12:59:17 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN restricts leafleting at Los Angeles conference

All assembly members,

  ICANN Bod and staff has it's hand out and want's it 
back full of your $$?  Seems like it!  See below...

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers will not permit
anyone to distribute leaflets or other such materials at its Nov. 2001
meetings unless they pay at least US $5000. Critics charge that this ban
inhibits free speech and goes against ICANN's own rules, which require
the
Corporation to "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and
transparent manner." 

See
http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/#highlights

Sincerely,
Christopher Chiu
Global Internet Liberty Campaign Organizer
American Civil Liberties Union
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,
- --
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: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 13:08:06 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ACLU response to ICANN's ban on leaflets

At 10:43 AM -0800 9/11/01, William X Walsh wrote:
>Friday, Friday, November 09, 2001, 10:33:21 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
>
>> American Civil Liberties Union letter on ICANN leafleting ban
>> November 9, 2001
>
>ACLU needs to stop going after schools for putting "God Bless America"
>on their school signs and start focusing on more important issues.
>
>This isn't one of them.

Yes it is.

- -- 
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: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 11:23:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Report on the NC Transfers Task Force activities

Chuck,

If there are Implementation issues for the VGRS Registry in reguards to
the current documents under discussion I would like to know about them.

AFAIK, I have see no mention of any work a Registry would have to
Implement for the stated documents. If you know otherwize would you please
enumerate what the registry would have to implement.

Please don't be vague, now is the time to deal in specifics.

thanks,

- -rick

On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> In my opinion, Bret's explanation of the consensus process is right on
> target.  With regard to impacted parties though, I would add one more to the
> registrars and registrants.  The registrar transfer process also involves
> registries.  In fact, the transfer process is part of the contractual
> relationship between registries and registrars (the Registry Registrar
> Agreement).  Depending on what is proposed as a solution, there are
> contractual and possibly implementation issues for registries as well.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bret A. Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 5:00 PM
> > To: Rick H Wesson
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Report on the NC Transfers Task Force activities
> >
> >
> > > Besides, don't you think its time we learn how to develop a
> > "consensus
> > > policy?"
> >
> > Absolutely. Here's my view of how it should be done.
> >
> > While the DNSO generally operates by consensus (Bylaws,
> > Article VI-B(2)(b)),
> > new policies that purport to place binding obligations on
> > registries and
> > registrars, like the transfer policy now under consideration,
> > have to meet a
> > more specific definition of a "consensus policy" as set out
> > in the various
> > accreditation contracts:
> >
> >   "Consensus Policies" are those adopted based on a consensus
> >   among Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process,
> >   as demonstrated by (1) the adoption of the policy by the
> >   ICANN Board of Directors, (2) a recommendation that the policy
> >   should be adopted, by at least a two-thirds vote of the council
> >   of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the matter is
> >   delegated, and (3) a written report and supporting materials
> >   (which must include all substantive submissions to the Supporting
> >   Organization relating to the proposal) that (i) documents the
> >   extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups,
> >   (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to achieve
> >   adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely
> >   to be impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of
> >   reasoned support and opposition to the proposed policy.
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-10nov99.htm
> > (Section I.B.1)
> > http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm
> > (Section 4.3.1)
> >
> > As I see it, you read that definition backwards to find the
> > chronological
> > order in which a consensus policy is created. In other words,
> > you first need
> > to create a report that meets the definition in subsection
> > (3). That report
> > is then adopted by the Names Council as specified in
> > subsection (2). And, in
> > turn, the report and the NC recommendation to adopt it are
> > passed to the
> > Board for a final vote, as set out in subsection (1). Only then are
> > registries and registrars bound to follow it.
> >
> > The job of a Working Group is to start the process by
> > creating the report
> > described in Section 3.
> >
> > The first requirement for the report is that it document "the
> > extent of
> > agreement and disagreement among impacted groups." In the
> > present case, the
> > "impacted groups" are pretty clearly the registrars and the
> > registrants. If
> > the latter voice is not represented, or even inadequately
> > represented, then
> > it's simply not possible to adequately complete this section
> > of the report.
> >
> > The next requirement of the report is that it document the
> > "outreach process
> > used to seek to achieve adequate representation of the views
> > of groups that
> > are likely to be impacted." This obviously assumes that there
> > is an outreach
> > process and that it is adequate for the task. In an open
> > working group, the
> > process is part of the outreach, as impacted parties given
> > adequate notice
> > of the opportunity to join can readily participate
> > themselves. In a closed
> > task force, affirmative outreach to impacted parties must be
> > undertaken,
> > both through the constituencies and to any unrepresented
> > impacted groups.
> >
> > I'm also skeptical that a TF that began work on 29 October
> > can create a
> > "consensus policy" -- with all the outreach and documentation
> > that such a
> > policy requires -- in time for a vote by the NC and ICANN
> > Board next week.
> > While it seems that the registrars have done an excellent job
> > preparing
> > something that has broad support from their constituency, the
> > process is
> > only half complete as long as the much larger and very
> > diverse community of
> > registrants has not also expressed its opinion.
> >
> > Commercial and non-commercial organizational registrants *might* be
> > adequately represented through the existing constituencies
> > (B&C, NCDNHC),
> > but individual domain name owners are not. Is the GA an
> > adequate forum for
> > representing them? I don't know. This is an instance though
> > in which our
> > collective failure to create a constituency for individual domain name
> > holders may have an impact, as it's not clear how to solicit
> > the views of
> > this impacted group.
> >
> > Given the fact that Verisign voted against the transfer policy and,
> > according to Danny's message this morning, has now expressed
> > doubt about the
> > adequacy of the representation of registrants in this
> > process, the TF and NC
> > would be well advised to invest the time and effort in outreach and
> > consultation necessary to ensure that Verisign is bound by
> > the outcome,
> > whatever it may be. Better to do it right the first time than find the
> > policy suspended by an indepedent review or AAA arbitration.
> >
> >           -- Bret
> >
> > --
> > 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: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 13:58:48 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Please fill-in UDRP Questionnaire

No, Paul, you're fine.

First notice that this page was generated by MS Word.

- ----------------------------------------------------
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97">
- --------------------------------------------------

Then notice the only validation happening is to ensure you understand the 
mail field is mandatory.  Now, what you type into that is entirely up to 
you - it certainly does not need to be an email address, just a letter is 
enough to pass through this security.

- ----------------------------------
<script type="text/javascript">
function Check() {
if(document.forms[0].mail.value == "") {
alert("Mail field is mandatory");
} else {
alert("Your answer has been submitted");
}
return (document.forms[0].mail.value != "")
}
</script>
- -----------------------------------------------

Now notice where the form goes:

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
<form name="form1" action="/cgi-bin/udrp-review-quest.pl" onSubmit="return 
Check()" method="get">
- --------------------------------------

it goes somewhere and probably sends a group of people an email with the 
responses; but certainly is not involved with a database or report enabling 
device...

This page is a spoof; but much safer than the previous idea that we'd all 
use MS Word to type up responses which will never be read.

...

~k

At 05:45 PM 11/9/2001 +0000, Paul Cotton wrote:
>Unless I am going mad, when you click submit on that form and it opens an
>alert with "Your answer has been submitted" it doesn't actually appear to
>send anything anywhere.
>
>Regards
>
>Paul Cotton
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 8:43 PM
>Subject: [ga] Please fill-in UDRP Questionnaire
>
>
>[To: [email-masked]]
>[To: [email-masked]]
>[To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]
>_______________________________________________
>
>Please find below the url for the UDRP Review Questionnaire.
>  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html
>Please complete the questionnaire online and "submit" at the end.
>Your participation is much appreciated.
>Thank you
>
>DNSO Secretariat
>
>--
>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

- --
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: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 14:10:08 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ACLU response to ICANN's ban on leaflets

WXW and all assembly members,

  WXW, anytime civil liberties are thwarted or otherwise abused it
is everyone's concern, or should be regardless of the venue.  All
freedom loving peoples around the globe recognize this as a
basic value.  As an american, I am disgusted in other americans
like yourself that do not.

William X Walsh wrote:

> Friday, Friday, November 09, 2001, 10:33:21 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > American Civil Liberties Union letter on ICANN leafleting ban
> > November 9, 2001
>
> ACLU needs to stop going after schools for putting "God Bless America"
> on their school signs and start focusing on more important issues.
>
> This isn't one of them.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
> Webcertificates.info
> SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 14:24:42 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Please fill-in UDRP Questionnaire

Paul and all assembly members,

  This questionnaire does not seem to be suited for Internet community input
or stakeholder input.  As such it cannot adequately provide accurate
information by which a informed decision could be made as to the
aspects of the ICANN/WIPO UDRP.

Paul Cotton wrote:

> Unless I am going mad, when you click submit on that form and it opens an
> alert with "Your answer has been submitted" it doesn't actually appear to
> send anything anywhere.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul Cotton
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 8:43 PM
> Subject: [ga] Please fill-in UDRP Questionnaire
>
> [To: [email-masked]]
> [To: [email-masked]]
> [To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]
> _______________________________________________
>
> Please find below the url for the UDRP Review Questionnaire.
>  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html
> Please complete the questionnaire online and "submit" at the end.
> Your participation is much appreciated.
> Thank you
>
> DNSO Secretariat
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 22:13:56 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] [council] Invitation to reception for Senior Vice-Minister Kenji Kosaka  

Posted to the Council list:

Dear colleague:

I am pleased to inform you that our welcoming keynote speaker on 
Tuesday morning will be Senior Vice-Minister Kosaka of Japan's 
Ministry for Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and 
Telecommunications. He will speak on: "A Secure and Stable Internet: 
No Time To Wait".

There will be a special reception to welcome Senior Vice-Minister 
Kosaka on Monday, November 12, 5:00-6:00 pm in the Peninsular Room of 
the Marriott Hotel. I would like to invite each of you to attend that 
reception. Please could you let Diane Schoeder or me know if you will 
be able to attend.

I do hope you will be able to join us.

Stuart
- -- 

- --
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: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 22:16:46 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] RARE DOMAINS.COM SUES VERISIGN OVER SEARCH ENGINE FEATURE

posted to the registrar list:

From BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 11/9/01
Compiled by Professor Michael Geist, BNA Consulting Editor.

RARE DOMAINS.COM SUES VERISIGN OVER SEARCH ENGINE FEATURE
Rare Domains.com is suing Internet addressing giant VeriSign
for allegedly infringing on a patent for a search engine
feature.  The feature in dispute allows the search engine to
check to see if a desired domain name has already been
registered. The feature then provides available alternatives
to the requested domain name if it is in fact taken.  The
suit demands that Verisign stop offering the feature and pay
undetermined monetary damages.
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/171999.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: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 22:20:32 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Congressman Howard Berman 

posted to registrars list:

Dear All - Register.com is pleased to invite you to breakfast and
conversation with Congressman Howard Berman at 7:30 am - 8:15 am on Monday,
November 12 at the Marriott in Marina del Rey (Room TBA).

Congressman Berman will provide the view from Washington:  How the newly
security-conscious environment among US policy makers and legislators
affects the domain name system and particularly the state of IP protections
on the Internet."

As you know, Congressman Berman is the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Courts, the Internet, and Member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee
on Immigration and Claims, as well as one of the key Members on the
International Relations Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives.  He
is one of the leading IP experts on the Hill and well-versed in domain name
issues, having participated in Judiciary hearings and briefings on ICANN.
His discussion of the effects of the heightened security environment in
Washington DC on Internet business and intellectual property interests fits
well with the overall security theme of the ICANN meeting.  For further
information, please see his website at http://www.house.gov/berman/.

We hope that you will join Congressman Berman and please send this
invitation to all ICANN Board Members, staff, and others within the DNSO
constituencies!  Please also RSVP to Brandon Paine at [email-masked].

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

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

Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 08:51:02 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Report on the NC Transfers Task Force activities

Rick,

There may or may not be implementation issues.  The document does not
specify who has implementation responsibility. But the fact of the matter is
that the registrar transfer procedures are a part of the RRA between
registrars and registries and would therefore directly involve registries
and their existing agreements with registrars.  Hence my point: registries
are an impacted party in addition to registrars and registrants.  Also, it
should be noted that the impact on thick registries may be different from
that on thin.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:23 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: 'Bret A. Fausett'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Report on the NC Transfers Task Force activities
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> If there are Implementation issues for the VGRS Registry in 
> reguards to
> the current documents under discussion I would like to know 
> about them.
> 
> AFAIK, I have see no mention of any work a Registry would have to
> Implement for the stated documents. If you know otherwize 
> would you please
> enumerate what the registry would have to implement.
> 
> Please don't be vague, now is the time to deal in specifics.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> -rick
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > In my opinion, Bret's explanation of the consensus process 
> is right on
> > target.  With regard to impacted parties though, I would 
> add one more to the
> > registrars and registrants.  The registrar transfer process 
> also involves
> > registries.  In fact, the transfer process is part of the 
> contractual
> > relationship between registries and registrars (the 
> Registry Registrar
> > Agreement).  Depending on what is proposed as a solution, there are
> > contractual and possibly implementation issues for 
> registries as well.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bret A. Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 5:00 PM
> > > To: Rick H Wesson
> > > Cc: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Report on the NC Transfers Task Force activities
> > >
> > >
> > > > Besides, don't you think its time we learn how to develop a
> > > "consensus
> > > > policy?"
> > >
> > > Absolutely. Here's my view of how it should be done.
> > >
> > > While the DNSO generally operates by consensus (Bylaws,
> > > Article VI-B(2)(b)),
> > > new policies that purport to place binding obligations on
> > > registries and
> > > registrars, like the transfer policy now under consideration,
> > > have to meet a
> > > more specific definition of a "consensus policy" as set out
> > > in the various
> > > accreditation contracts:
> > >
> > >   "Consensus Policies" are those adopted based on a consensus
> > >   among Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process,
> > >   as demonstrated by (1) the adoption of the policy by the
> > >   ICANN Board of Directors, (2) a recommendation that the policy
> > >   should be adopted, by at least a two-thirds vote of the council
> > >   of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the matter is
> > >   delegated, and (3) a written report and supporting materials
> > >   (which must include all substantive submissions to the 
> Supporting
> > >   Organization relating to the proposal) that (i) documents the
> > >   extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups,
> > >   (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to achieve
> > >   adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely
> > >   to be impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of
> > >   reasoned support and opposition to the proposed policy.
> > >
> > > http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-10nov99.htm
> > > (Section I.B.1)
> > > http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm
> > > (Section 4.3.1)
> > >
> > > As I see it, you read that definition backwards to find the
> > > chronological
> > > order in which a consensus policy is created. In other words,
> > > you first need
> > > to create a report that meets the definition in subsection
> > > (3). That report
> > > is then adopted by the Names Council as specified in
> > > subsection (2). And, in
> > > turn, the report and the NC recommendation to adopt it are
> > > passed to the
> > > Board for a final vote, as set out in subsection (1). 
> Only then are
> > > registries and registrars bound to follow it.
> > >
> > > The job of a Working Group is to start the process by
> > > creating the report
> > > described in Section 3.
> > >
> > > The first requirement for the report is that it document "the
> > > extent of
> > > agreement and disagreement among impacted groups." In the
> > > present case, the
> > > "impacted groups" are pretty clearly the registrars and the
> > > registrants. If
> > > the latter voice is not represented, or even inadequately
> > > represented, then
> > > it's simply not possible to adequately complete this section
> > > of the report.
> > >
> > > The next requirement of the report is that it document the
> > > "outreach process
> > > used to seek to achieve adequate representation of the views
> > > of groups that
> > > are likely to be impacted." This obviously assumes that there
> > > is an outreach
> > > process and that it is adequate for the task. In an open
> > > working group, the
> > > process is part of the outreach, as impacted parties given
> > > adequate notice
> > > of the opportunity to join can readily participate
> > > themselves. In a closed
> > > task force, affirmative outreach to impacted parties must be
> > > undertaken,
> > > both through the constituencies and to any unrepresented
> > > impacted groups.
> > >
> > > I'm also skeptical that a TF that began work on 29 October
> > > can create a
> > > "consensus policy" -- with all the outreach and documentation
> > > that such a
> > > policy requires -- in time for a vote by the NC and ICANN
> > > Board next week.
> > > While it seems that the registrars have done an excellent job
> > > preparing
> > > something that has broad support from their constituency, the
> > > process is
> > > only half complete as long as the much larger and very
> > > diverse community of
> > > registrants has not also expressed its opinion.
> > >
> > > Commercial and non-commercial organizational registrants 
> *might* be
> > > adequately represented through the existing constituencies
> > > (B&C, NCDNHC),
> > > but individual domain name owners are not. Is the GA an
> > > adequate forum for
> > > representing them? I don't know. This is an instance though
> > > in which our
> > > collective failure to create a constituency for 
> individual domain name
> > > holders may have an impact, as it's not clear how to solicit
> > > the views of
> > > this impacted group.
> > >
> > > Given the fact that Verisign voted against the transfer 
> policy and,
> > > according to Danny's message this morning, has now expressed
> > > doubt about the
> > > adequacy of the representation of registrants in this
> > > process, the TF and NC
> > > would be well advised to invest the time and effort in 
> outreach and
> > > consultation necessary to ensure that Verisign is bound by
> > > the outcome,
> > > whatever it may be. Better to do it right the first time 
> than find the
> > > policy suspended by an indepedent review or AAA arbitration.
> > >
> > >           -- Bret
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> >
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 08:32:21 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RARE DOMAINS.COM SUES VERISIGN OVER SEARCH ENGINE FEATUR E

I thought the revenue-by-litigation business plans had all fallen on the
internet scrap-heap by now. I'll bet that I've got code that creates a
pre-existing condition that these schmucks haven't covered.

It doesn't do the credibility, of the hi-tech community, any good when such
vacuous suits are publicized. This is right on up there with that bogus
"Linux" trademark fiasco, of a few years back.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 7:17 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] RARE DOMAINS.COM SUES VERISIGN OVER SEARCH 
|> ENGINE FEATURE
|> 
|> 
|> posted to the registrar list:
|> 
|> From BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 11/9/01
|> Compiled by Professor Michael Geist, BNA Consulting Editor.
|> 
|> RARE DOMAINS.COM SUES VERISIGN OVER SEARCH ENGINE FEATURE
|> Rare Domains.com is suing Internet addressing giant VeriSign
|> for allegedly infringing on a patent for a search engine
|> feature.  The feature in dispute allows the search engine to
|> check to see if a desired domain name has already been
|> registered. The feature then provides available alternatives
|> to the requested domain name if it is in fact taken.  The
|> suit demands that Verisign stop offering the feature and pay
|> undetermined monetary damages.
|> http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/171999.html
|> 
|> --
|> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
|> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
|> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
|> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 22:37:30 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Update: ICANN backs down on leaflet restrictions

Andrew and all,

  Andrew, you full of beans here... More below your comments/nonsense.

Andrew McLaughlin wrote:

> Chris:
>
> Dream on.  The policy is the same now as it ever was -- as you well know,
> because you've been at prior ICANN meetings with the same rules about
> commercial marketing materials, and you've observed firsthand the unfettered
> distribution of policy proposals, statements, etc., around the meeting area.

  Too bad the web page shows the update which shows that you are
not being honest here Andrew.  Nice try, but you just full of beans.

>
>
> Question:  Why didn't anyone from the ACLU bother to contact ICANN to see
> what the rules were?

  Why should they have to when it is well documented and than an announcement
came out that was contrary to that documentation and than changed once
Chris made a issue from it.  Thank you Chris.  And well done again!

>  Could it be that you weren't interested in the actual
> rules, but rather preferred to contort the website language to make for a
> splashy press release?  Or perhaps there was some other reason?

  Now you are baiting here Andrew.  How crude and rude.

>
>
> As one of the lawyers who fought with the ACLU against the US Communications
> Decency Act, I'm astonished by this episode.  I expect a much higher level
> of professionalism from your organization.

  And you go it in spades!  The problem is you are trying to spin, and
you are failing...  Face it, you guys got cough again!

>
>
> --andrew
>
>      -------------------------------------------------------------------
> andrew mclaughlin        |       chief policy officer & cfo
> internet corporation for assigned names and numbers
> <[email-masked]>         |        <http://www.icann.org>
>      -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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 #841
************************