Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #882
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, November 27 2001          Volume 01 : Number 882

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

Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:51:54 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Vote?

Eric and all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,

  The first problem is which bull Eric?  The ALSC or the well
known and now documented stakeholder polls and comments
to this forum as well as in several news articles, and non ICANN
polls.

  The second important problem is that as you already know
Big business in ecommerce is in terms of real dollars is
not in the majority.  The GAO own figures which also have been
posted to the DNSO GA list on a number of occasions
represent 53% of all ecommerce revenue comes from small
to medium size business.  This percentage is expected to
increase in it's share of the total ecommerce area.

  The third, but of less impact is the growing non-commercial
or nonprofit portion of the Stakeholder community world wide
is also growing in terms of percentage according to the 2000
GAO census figures, and the revised 2001 figures as well.

  Hence Eric, it is not reasonable to reconsider as you seem to
suggest in the direction you also seem to be now flip-flopping
on and therefore the illegitimacy by in large of the ALSC's
"Final Report".

Eric Dierker wrote:

> You know Jeff if we could cut the crapp and bull and just recognize that big business
> is going to control; then maybe we could get Chuck to give some concessions.  You are
> oh so right on your points here but damned if I know how to get some consensus going
> on this issue.
>
> How about another vote?
>
> "Either any and all stakeholders, including stakeholder/usres
> have a right to participate, and that they are proportionately
> represented on the ICANN BoD without restriction or
> you do not have a legitimate At-Large."
>
> I say "yes"!!
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Eric and all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,
> >
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with Jeff's point of view here but I wonder if we cannot reach some
> > > middle ground for consensus.
> >
> >   I honestly don't believe there is any middle ground here Eric.
> > The MoU and the White Paper are pretty clear on this.
> > Either any and all stakeholders, including stakeholder/usres
> > have a right to participate, and that they are proportionately
> > represented on the ICANN BoD without restriction or
> > you do not have a legitimate At-Large.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am an absolutist when it comes to contractual and promises, but should not
> > > those of us working for the little guy try to find some compromise of consensus
> > > area that works?
> > >
> > > When does a side have no right or rite to demand a change toward a better
> > > position?
> > >
> > > Answers anyone?
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > Jeff William's wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chuck and all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,
> > > >
> > > > Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 4:56 AM
> > > > > > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > > > > > Cc: [ga]
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > (Text deleted)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is wrong with doing what basically happened to the other seven
> > > > > > constituencies.  Approve the concept in principle and then you will
> > > > > > find members and structure will come easily.  Also one could assert
> > > > > > that as a constituency can change its charter at will from that
> > > > > > initially approved why worry about what is there at the moment of
> > > > > > application as it could change the next day?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Personally I would find nothing wrong with that approach; I just think that
> > > > > it is extremely unlikely to happen.  The choices then are to sit around and
> > > > > wait and complain that nothing happens or do something that might increase
> > > > > the chances significantly.  A third alternative is to support the ALSC
> > > > > recommendations for an At-Large SO that could possibly meet many of the
> > > > > needs that an individuals' constituency might meet.
> > > >
> > > >   The problem with your third alternative is that the ALSC study did not
> > > > and still does not meet the polled consensus or the stakeholders
> > > > and interested parties.  Ergo Chuck, it cannot meet any of the
> > > > needs of the stakeholders adequately as it leaves out the vast
> > > > majority or stakeholders in their "Final Report"...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Chuck
> > > > >
> > > > > (Text deleted)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DPF
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > [email-masked]
> > > > > > ICQ 29964527
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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 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
> >
> > 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

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

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

Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:08:34 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Formulating Consensus ??

Dear Phiilp,
Patrick Corliss has brough to the attention of the GA the proposition of 
Danny Younger to call on Joanna Lane as a representative of the registrant 
community.

This proposition has not been discussed in the GA and will obviously 
creates a debate if you consider Joanna as a "representative of the 
registrant community". Yet - as one of those who could object to such a 
proposition - I will support it strongly if we could once for all agree on 
the concept of representation within the DNSO. I suppose that an agreement 
on this matter would also help reducing hours and tons of mailing.

Joanna has strictly no right whatsoever to represent any community. She 
recently left the only existing attempt to structure that community. But 
she has every qualification to well represent the interests, concerns, 
particular needs and propositions of the individual registrants. As you 
have yourself no right to represent the Business Community, but absolutely 
legitimately have every qualification to represent the interest, concerns, 
etc... of the Business Community.

I would thefore strongly recommend that once for all we agree that all of 
us are no representatives in a democratic way but insuring a trustee 
representation towards consensus. And that a consensus is not a vote but a 
no major objection by qualified interests that (if the ICANN processus 
recently underlined by Danny is respected) a 2/3 vote of a balanced open 
group may warranty.

I would also add that if Joanna is fully qualified, experienced and 
competent about individual registrants, as myself also a bulk commercial 
registrant (I manage more than 2000 DNs for several portal chains) there 
are many issues that individual do not experience that should be 
represented. These involves matters like:

- - script management
- - payment systems and wire transfers
- - status reports - format, accuracy, legal value
- - user escrowning
- - UDRP insurance protection scheme
- - DN Title
- - DN usage international notarization
- - customership evaluation and compensation
- - legal responsibility of the Registrars/Registries
- - places of jurisdiction
- - name server management and bulk updates procedures and delays
- - emergency support - like the ncdnhc current problem
- - authentification of the registrant
- - TLD procedure harmonization

I suppose the BC or the ISPC could be a place to find such a representation 
with competence.
Best regards

Jefsey

On 17:46 26/11/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:12:11 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00423.html
>
>Joanna,
>
>Marilyn Cade, chair of the NC task force on transfers, has passed on to me as
>NC Chair, a request from Danny Younger for your participation in the task
>force as a representative of the registrant community but not as a
>representative of the GA.
>
>Typically, the working practice of task forces is that they comprise one rep
>from each Constituency and an optional rep from the GA. They do work to help
>formulate a recommendation to the NC.  In this work the TF themselves may
>consult experts and interested parties.
>
>Before taking this further could you let me know the basis for your
>qualification as a representative of the registrant community ?  In this it
>would be helpful to know the means of outreach to other registrants, how this
>is different to the nature of representation in the GA and how this is
>differentiated against the opinions currently available to the task force from
>its membership.
>
>Many thanks.
>
>Philip Sheppard
>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

- --
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: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 01:11:12 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Formulating Consensus ?? 

On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:13:16 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:

" . . . damned if I know how to get some consensus going on this issue."

On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:08:34 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

" . . . a consensus is not a vote but a no major objection by qualified
interests that (if the ICANN processus recently underlined by Danny is
respected) a 2/3 vote of a balanced open group may warranty."

Hi Eric & Jefsey

I have found, on the net, On Conflict and Consensus -- A Handbook on Formal
Consensus Decision Making.  The URL for the Table of Contents is as follows:

http://www.consensus.net/ocaccontents.html

This looks very promising as a way to formulate consensus.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 01:52:52 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] State Loses Case Over Generic Domain

State Loses Case Over Generic Domain
Warning! Truthful or Critical Content May Anger the Government! writes
Arthur Graaff    27 November 2001

http://www.content-wire.com/Home/Index.cfm?ccs=86&cs=1138

In a remarkable appeal judgment, the Dutch state has twice lost separate cases
on the usage of one and the same generic domain name.

The name concerned is for a site on the largest infrastructure project ever
undertaken in Holland, the new very controversial so-called 'Betuwelijn'
freight rail link from Rotterdam to Germany, that cuts right through the width
of the small country.

The accompanying promotional site is called 'Betuweroute.nl' and claims to
give all relevant information, but relevant here seemed to mean positive.

The word 'Betuweroute' is generic and descriptive, and means 'a route or path
through the Betuwe region'.

Early this spring, a variation on that name was registered by a Dutch
foundation and later used by a individual protester against this kind of
mega-money spillage, as many in Holland see it.

Their site would fill in the many gaps the PR-people left open.  But they
hyphenated the name into Betuwe-route.nl, and the domain registration
office accepted it.

Not so the ministry concerned, that feared confusion.

It started summary proceedings against the foundation and lost.

Then, over the same name, it started a case against the protester, Koen IJff,
and won.

In the meantime, a debate started on the state's grip on domain names and
content, and soon the 'freedom of expression' argument showed up.

The state's lawyer denies this, and points to the possible confusion.

That did not cut much fat with the surfing and sitebuilding community.

But IJff hit back, albeit at a cost, and got his way.

Last week the court published its explanation.

It seems to accept his lawyers' argument that the state is trying to suppress
freedom of expression and the free flow of information, because among others
since this spring, the ministry suddenly started to register all kind of
variations on the Betuweroute or Betuwelijn names, including hyphens, and
.net, .org and .com.

The judges find the state has no business claiming generic names for its own
exclusive usage.

At a 2-1 score for freedom of content, it is unclear whether the state's
appeal against their first lost case, will continue.

- --
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: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:02:41 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Formulating Consensus ??

Thank you Patrick,

Here is a quote from that URL;
"Additionally, the values and principles which form the basis of commitment
 to work together to resolve conflict need to be clearly defined, and accepted
by all involved."

And here is a quote from our creation;
"The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of the DNSO,
    and open to all who are willing to contribute effort to the work of the
    DNSO."

And so I ask;

What are the values and principles which form the basis of commitment here?
Certainly they are not clearly defined not accepted by all involved.

I just worked through some issues with a member, when I actually agreed with him

and directly quoted him for a proposal he negatively asserted that I was "flip
flopping".
Now clearly we had different values and principles.

Here is another partial quote;
"and participation in research and drafting committees and working groups."

I think we should have a standing drafting committee to put proposals together
for consensus.
I would call it a GA council.

Sincerely,
Eric

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:13:16 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> " . . . damned if I know how to get some consensus going on this issue."
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:08:34 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> " . . . a consensus is not a vote but a no major objection by qualified
> interests that (if the ICANN processus recently underlined by Danny is
> respected) a 2/3 vote of a balanced open group may warranty."
>
> Hi Eric & Jefsey
>
> I have found, on the net, On Conflict and Consensus -- A Handbook on Formal
> Consensus Decision Making.  The URL for the Table of Contents is as follows:
>
> http://www.consensus.net/ocaccontents.html
>
> This looks very promising as a way to formulate consensus.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:12:09 +0100
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Names Council Marina del Rey Minutes, 14 November

- --qlTNgmc+xy1dBmNv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

- --qlTNgmc+xy1dBmNv
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="20011114.NCmdr-minutes.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

ICANN/DNSO

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

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

23 November 2001.

The DNSO Names Council meeting in Marina del Rey held on Wednesday 14
November 2001, 16:00 - 18:00, [@ Catalina room] .

(16:00 LA, 19:00 New York, 24:00 UTC, 01:00 Paris (next day), 09:00 Japan/Korea 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
    London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+0DST  24:00
    Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+0DST  01:00 next day
    Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+0DST  01:00 next day
    Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+0DST  01:00 next day
    Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+0DST  01:00 next day
    Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST   9:00 next day
    Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST   9:00 next day
    Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+1DST   11:00 next day
    Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+1DST   13:00 next day
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    The DST ends/starts on last Sunday of October (with some exceptions)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

Agenda http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011114.NCmdr-agenda.html

List of attendees:

   Peter de Blanc                 ccTLD
   Elisabeth Porteneuve           ccTLD
   Oscar Robles Garay             ccTLD
   Philip Sheppard                Business
   Marilyn Cade                   Business   Proxy for Grant Forsyth
   Antonio Harris                 ISPCP
   Greg Ruth                      ISPCP
   Tony Holmes                    ISPCP
   Ken Stubbs                     Registrars  Proxy for Paul Kane, Erica Roberts
   Roger Cochetti                 gTLD
   Cary Kamp                      gTLD
   Richard Tindal                 gTLD
   Axel Aus der Muhlen            IP  Proxy for Caroline Chicoine, Guillermo Carey
   Youn Jung Park                 NCDNH
   Vany Martinez                  NCDNH
   Milton Mueller                 NCDNNH
   Glen de Saint Géry             Secretary

List of absentees:

   Grant Forsyth                  Business
   Caroline Chicoine              IP
   Guillermo Carey                IP
   Erica Roberts                  Registrars
   Paul Kane                      Registrars

Quorum (11) present at 16:00 Los Angeles time (UTC 24:00)

Ph. Sheppard chaired the NC meeting.

  1. Agenda Items 2, 3 and 4:
     Selection from previous ICANN agenda, issues of DNSO relevance,
     Round table on these issues
     Selection of issues/ rapporteurs to Board next day

     These items were dealt with together.

     gTLDs: Registries
     http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001/archive/pres/rodin.html

     A blue print draft drawn up by a Task Force is now available on
     Security Issues - Registry failure.
     Best Practices on security and reliablity issues were consisdered.
     There will be a report back in the near future.
     Rita Rodin will report back to the board. 5 to 10 minutes.

     gTLDs Registrars

     The Registrars reviewed escrow and data recovery and identified
     certain problems.
     Important issues were:
     - the ability to maintain user capacity in case of catastrophy
     - the ability to make sure the user was not hurt by lack of
     service
     - service contracts
     There will be a report in late January or February 2002.
     Mike Palage will report to the Board. 5 to 10 minutes.

     ccTLDs
     http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001/archive/pres/cctld.html

     Three days of meetings were held, including sessions specifically
     about security.
     Three key areas were defined:
     - Existing process of getting IANA database updated and the
     necessity of 24x7 live support.
     - Best Practice documentation on Security
     -Shared ccTLD back-up, as well as funding.
     Peter de Blanc will report to the Board. 5 to 10 minutes

     Business, IP and ISP constituencies (joint report)
     http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001/archive/pres/sheppard.html

     ISPs have different views about best practices.
     Philip Sheppard will make a joint report back to the Board
     briefly.

     In the French speaking group led by Elisabeth Porteneuve, key
     issues were infrastructure, redundancy and connectivity.

     The NCDNH identified the following key issues:

     - A group that represents expertise that could be drawn upon by
     ICANN in non-propriety matters.
     - Focus on civil liberty implications and technical matters.
     - Concise text archives are needed to assist developing countries
     and non-English speakers understand.
     Milton Mueller will report back to the Board.

     Overlap from Agenda Monday 12 November 2001
     Agenda Item 6: Adoption of final report from the Review Task
     Force:
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html

     P. Sheppard reported that the drafting meeting held to resolve
     minor text differences revealed some more fundamental issues. The
     Review Task Force will review this issue and report back to the
     December meeting.

     Agenda Item 9:
     WhoIs:
     Marilyn Cade reported that 3000 responses have been received, 14
     questions with narrative replies, and all members of the Task
     Force have read the answers in a first cut.
     It is important to remember that this is an anecdotal survey of a
     self selected group of how people who use WhoIs react and not a
     statistical survey.
     A written preface to the survey will be done to explain this.
     It does not deal with new gTLDs
     The data will be publically available.
     A report will be out by the Ghana meeting.

     UDRP:
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html

     The UDRP Questionnaire is posted on the DNSO website and the
     deadline for comments is 17th December 2001.
     The NC agreed on the need to encourage a broad set of responses.

     Structure task force:
     The Chair proposed the NC make a short motion in support of the
     ALSC report giving notice that the NC or the constituencies will
     be commenting on detail later and laying down a marker for further
     DNSO involvement.

     Motion:

     Proposed by Philip Sheppard and seconded by Antonio Harris:

     Whereas the At-Large Study Committee (ALSC) has issued its report
     dated November 5, 2001,

     Whereas discussion on specific proposals within this report are
     now happening within DNSO Constituencies,

     Whereas the Names Council has held initial discussions at two
     meetings,

     The Names Council recommends that the ICANN Board look favourably
     at the broad principles outlined in the report and that the Board
     endorses the ALSC's proposal to extend the life of the committee
     until March 2002 in order to allow the ALSC to work with the DNSO
     and other parties towards implementation mechanisms.

     Decision D1: Motion adopted and passed unanamously.

     Ken Stubbs left the meeting at 17.10 and gave his proxies to Roger
     Cochetti.

     ICANN TLD's:
     http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf

     YJ Park reported on the Board committee set up to propose
     evaluation criteria for new TLDs.
     Conclusions to date are:
     - debate on the kind of criteria
     - different timeline for different TLDs
     - parallel evaluation tracts for different TLDs
     - specification of the multilingual aspect
     An interim report has been published for public comments, the
     period closing on 17 December 2001.
     A final report will be published and presented at the Ghana
     meetings.

     AOB:

     Roger Cochetti moved a motion seconded by Peter de Blanc

     That authorisation be be given for the payment of $30 000 to AFNIC
     being an agreed charge of $5000 per month from April to September
     2001 and moves that council approves this payment.

     Decision D2:

     Motion adopted by all but one. Elisabeth Porteneuve abstained.

     The meeting adjourned at 18.00 Los Angeles time.

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

     AAn ansd iihiuhhughjvgAn inetrim report has been

- --qlTNgmc+xy1dBmNv--
- --
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: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 03:20:59 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "Publication Occurs Where Article Downloaded" -- Australian Judge

Turf wars: Internet defamation
By Jeremy Szwider  27 November 2001

http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/ebusiness/story/0,2000024981,20261845,00.htm

OPINION: The Victorian Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling on 28
August 2001 [Joseph Gutnick v Dow Jones & Company Inc. [2001] VSC 305] on the
contentious topic of jurisdiction on the Internet.

In response to an application to stop a defamation claim being heard in
Victoria, Justice Hedigan held that the "publication" of an online article
occurred in the jurisdiction where the article was downloaded, regardless of
where it was uploaded or where the publisher's server resided.

The global media giant Dow Jones, published an article entitled Unholy
Gains--which Gutnick claims defamed him--in a paper-based and an Internet
form--in its weekly financial journal, Barron's. The online version of the
article was uploaded via Dow Jones' Web server which resides in New Jersey.

Over 300,000 copies of the relevant edition of the magazine were
distributed--98 percent of which were sold in the United States. The magazine
had five subscribers in Victoria, including stockbrokers JB Were and two of
the large Australian investment institutions, AXA and AMP.

But it was not possible to establish how many Victorians downloaded the story
from the Internet. The site recorded about 550,000 hits, less than 0.01
percent of them from people with Australian credit cards. It was not
ascertainable how many of these users were Victorian but it was agreed that
"several hundred" downloads had taken place in Victoria.

Before the defamation action could be tried in court, the significant issue
was which jurisdiction would be the relevant forum. This was a major obstacle
for Gutnick as defamation is easier to prove in Australia than it is to prove
in the United States, where the First Amendment of the US Constitution
guarantees freedom of speech. It would also be less costly than briefing his
lawyers to attend proceedings in the United States.

Subscribers downloaded and paid for the article through a Victorian Web
browser and the meaning of the article was conveyed to the reader in Victoria.
For these reasons, Gutnick succeeded in establishing that Victoria was the
relevant jurisdiction. The Victorian Supreme Court will now hear the
defamation case, subject to any appeal on the jurisdiction issue by Dow Jones.

This ruling follows international precedents relating to Internet defamation
cases. It also follows traditional common law principles of defamation
established over several centuries and adapts it to the new Internet age. The
judgement follows the path of legal principles that have been able to adapt to
new technologies over the years, such as television, telex, fax, radio, and
now the Internet and e-mail.

This case is important for all Internet publishers and e-mail users as they
may need be answerable to the laws of overseas countries where the information
is downloaded. As the Internet has a worldwide reach, foreigners uploading
information to the Internet or sending e-mails to Australians need to be aware
of Australian laws.

The laws relating to cyberspace are still in their infancy and a landmark
ruling such as the Gutnick case is likely to be strongly considered in a
multitude of jurisdictions worldwide. Internet publishers will need to be
aware of the laws of all other countries that follow this path.

International publishers and media networks may consider restricting access to
their Web sites to certain foreigners to avoid unwanted defamation actions.
This is a strong public policy consideration that should be factored into this
ongoing defamation-jurisdiction debate, particularly as the nucleus of the
Internet revolves around the free flow of information around the world.

Jeremy Szwider is a solicitor at Phillips Fox. He can be contacted at
[email-masked] or on 03 9274 5233.

- --
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: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 04:18:00 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Formulating Consensus -- Affinity Groups ??

On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:02:41 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:

> I think we should have a standing drafting committee to put proposals
> together for consensus.  I would call it a GA council.

Hi Eric

Try this quote from the "consensus" website:

"The next step is the development of an organization which is non-hierarchical
or egalitarian.  A corresponding structure would include: participatory
democracy, routine universal skill-building and information sharing, rotation
of leadership roles, frequent evaluations, and, perhaps most importantly,
equal access to power.

Hierarchical structures are not, in and of themselves, the problem.  But their
use concentrates power at the top and, invariably, the top becomes less and
less accessible to the people at the bottom, who are usually most affected by
the decisions made by those at the top."
http://www.consensus.net/revolutionary.html

Sound familiar to anyone ?

So not a GA Council, Eric.  How do you like this quote:

"Each member of the organization would belong to an affinity group of between
5 and 20 adults.  Each affinity group would be autonomous, having complete
authority to decide who is in the affinity group, how the affinity group is
organized internally, and to what degree the affinity group directly
participates in the organization.

Affinity groups can be created by a group of new members, a split or spin off
from an existing affinity group, or individuals drawn from other affinity
groups into a new affinity group.  The relationships between members of an
affinity group are created by the people involved.  In this organization,
behaviors are expected to be nonviolent, respectful, and egalitarian."
http://www.consensus.net/formalconsensusfor100.html

Ok, in the GA we are all internet "users".  What other factors have we got in
common?  Looking at myself:

Regional?              I'm in the Pacific region.
Technical?            Not very.
Country Code?    Yes, .au.
More TLDs?         Definitely.
Lawyer or IP?        No.
Dotcommoner?     ??
etc.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 04:49:54 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Names Council Task Forces

Hi Joanna

On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:12:11 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote to the Names Council
mailing list saying:

> Joanna,
> Marilyn Cade, chair of the NC task force on transfers, has passed on to me
> as NC Chair,  a request from Danny Younger for your participation in the
> task force as a representative of the registrant community but not as a
> representative of the GA.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00423.html

On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:55:51 -0400, you replied saying, in part:

> To summarize, the task force would greatly benefit from having a
> representative available who is dedicated to the impact on registrants,
> with an established, if not exclusive, interest in individuals.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00427.html

Thank you for your reply to Philip Sheppard's posting to the Names Council
mailing list.  A couple of questions occur to me which, in the spirit or
openness and transparency, you might wish to assist me with.

(1)    Does your response mean that you have accepted a position on the
Transfer Task Force as a representative of the registrant community?

(2)    Would you agree that this would suggest that there is no representative
of the GA mailing list?  If so, do you consider this appropriate in the light
of your Best Practices methodology?  Or is that not applicable in this case?

(3)    How is it that you have secured posting rights to the Names Council
mailing list?  I thought membership was tightly controlled.   Or is it that
all task force members have been given these privileges?

Thank you in advance for your kind reply.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 06:53:08 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] (fwd) [nc-str] Structure Task Force - request for Constituency positions

On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:27:17 +0100, "Philip Sheppard"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Please forward this to the liaison 7 list.
>Thanks.
>Philip
>-----------------------------------
>
>Dear Constituency Secretariats, 
>the Names Council task force on structure will start work shortly. To help with this in the first instance please send to me copies of any Constituency position papers you have the At-Large Study Committee report.
>Many thanks.
>
>Philip Sheppard

I can't recall off the top of my head if the GA came to a formal
position,  I do recall and have archived the vote on the DNSO becoming
bicarmal.

I'll have a look through the archives over the next couple of days but
if anyone has handy any URLs that will be useful.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 #882
************************