Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #905
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, December 5 2001         Volume 01 : Number 905

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

Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 21:30:54 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fwd: .aero reconsideration request

FYI. I confirm the positions expressed in this mail by Amadeu and Andy. 
Similar positions by other Directors. Vint had passed my concerns to 
Stuart. Edward could you pass on us Stuart responses link as the attitude 
you present seems detrimental to the ICANN.

I note that this situation is a lesson from the Proof of Concept TLD round. 
A sensible proof of concept would have been the DNSO to select the 
aeronautical world and chose ".aero" as an sTLD and ".air" as a gTLD. Then 
to issue a call for TLD Mamanager applications. We would have good grounds 
to address Edwards reasonable remarks and a good comparaison tool we miss 
today.

I obviously propose that to the thinking of the TLD Task Force.

>Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 09:17:07 -0800
>From: Edward Hasbrouck <[email-masked]>
>Subject: .aero reconsideration request
>To: ICANN-watchers@nodots-daemon
>Bcc: (Suppressed)
>Reply-to: [email-masked]
>Organization: The Practical Nomad
>X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.01)
>Priority: normal
>
>This morning I submitted a request to ICANN for reconsideration of the
>.aero sponsorship agreement with SITA.  I've asked for a stay of signing
>of the agrement while my request for reconsideration of its "approval" is
>pending, and I've asked that the agreement not be signed while my request
>for a stay is pending.  My request and all supporting documents are at:
><http://hasbrouck.org/icann/reconsider.html>
>
>In response to my earlier request to the ICANN Board on the .aero
>agreement, Amadeu Abril i Abril told me, "I cannot object to the said
>agreement as I have to abstain. SITA is negotiationg an outsourcing
>contract with CORE, and I have participated in some discussions related to
>this issue on CORE's side. Therefore I cannot vote in favour or against,
>just cannot participate in the discussions."  I presume that this means he
>will have to abstain in the Resconsideration Committee as well.
>
>Andy Mueller-Maguhn told me that, while no one on the Board requested that
>the agreement not be signed, my earlier requests did lead to good
>discussion within the Board as to the balance of industry and other
>interests, and the need for openness of TLd's to non-industry entities.
>
>The 3 December 2001 issue of Washington Internet Daily, which I don't have
>permission to copy, includes an article by Dugie Standeford with responses
>by Stuart Lynn of ICANN ("rubbish... pure fantasyland") and Alexandra
>Delimata of IATA to the report on .aero and .travel in my last newsletter.
>
>Peace,
>Edward Hasbrouck

- --
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, 04 Dec 2001 23:03:46 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] our money we will never get

ICANN preparatory budget.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00460.html

Stuart asks which new functions the ICANN should undertake...   (he also 
asks which one the ICANN should reduce, probably a long list from us 
resolving into "GA" :-)  )

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 09:32:45 -0800
From: Edward Hasbrouck <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .aero reconsideration request

This morning I submitted a request to ICANN for reconsideration of the 
.aero sponsorship agreement with SITA.  My request and all supporting 
documents are at: <http://hasbrouck.org/icann/reconsider.html> 

My reconsideration request concerns the changes made (during secret 
negotiations between ICANN and SITA) to the policies in the original  
proposal for .aero, and the manner in which those changes were made 
(without openness, transparency, consultation of relevant stakeholders or 
constituencies, consensus building, or a public forum by the Board).

If these changes are accepted, *most* of those who would have been 
eligible to register aero domains under the original proposal would be 
excluded.  And SITA would be allowed to renege on its commitment in the 
proposal to establish an open, representative, policy-making board to 
ensure that .aero is operated for the benefit of all stakeholders.

Since they directly concern the failure to consult the DNSO when policy is 
being decided on matters relevant to the DNSO, I invite and encourage the 
DNSO to intervene in support of my request for reconsideration and my 
request that Mr. Lynn not sign the .aero agreement until my request for a 
stay can be considered by the Reconsideration Committee.

Peace,

Edward Hasbrouck
- ----------------
Edward Hasbrouck
<[email-masked]>
<http://hasbrouck.org>

- --
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, 04 Dec 2001 18:44:08 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .aero reconsideration request

Edward and all assembly members,

  Great work here Ed!  You have my support on this.  I will put it to
our [INEGroup]  members and see what they collectively think.  It will be an
up or down vote.  I betting that our members will approve overwhelmingly
though from what I read of you proposal.

Edward Hasbrouck wrote:

> This morning I submitted a request to ICANN for reconsideration of the
> .aero sponsorship agreement with SITA.  My request and all supporting
> documents are at: <http://hasbrouck.org/icann/reconsider.html>
>
> My reconsideration request concerns the changes made (during secret
> negotiations between ICANN and SITA) to the policies in the original
> proposal for .aero, and the manner in which those changes were made
> (without openness, transparency, consultation of relevant stakeholders or
> constituencies, consensus building, or a public forum by the Board).
>
> If these changes are accepted, *most* of those who would have been
> eligible to register aero domains under the original proposal would be
> excluded.  And SITA would be allowed to renege on its commitment in the
> proposal to establish an open, representative, policy-making board to
> ensure that .aero is operated for the benefit of all stakeholders.
>
> Since they directly concern the failure to consult the DNSO when policy is
> being decided on matters relevant to the DNSO, I invite and encourage the
> DNSO to intervene in support of my request for reconsideration and my
> request that Mr. Lynn not sign the .aero agreement until my request for a
> stay can be considered by the Reconsideration Committee.
>
> Peace,
>
> Edward Hasbrouck
> ----------------
> Edward Hasbrouck
> <[email-masked]>
> <http://hasbrouck.org>
>
> --
> 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

- --
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, 04 Dec 2001 18:56:16 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [ga] Top Three Issues

Daryl and all stakeholders or interested parties,

Daryl Tempesta wrote:

> Why are seats to be appointed by the board at all?

  Good question and sort of what I was trying to get across.  Glad
you at least picked up on it!  >;)

  My answer is that the current non-elected ICANN BOD members
want to "Stack the Deck" so to speak so that the true voice and vote
of the majority of stakeholders/users cannot be represented
legitimately.

> It
> seems that the proposed 1 seat for gTLDs should be at
> least 2 and maybe 3 since this is where the public
> focuses its position. Specifically the independent
> domain owners are in the tens of millions and should
> be better represented. Unless I have may facts mixed
> up!

  No you don't have you facts mixed up.  However the number of
Stakeholdders/users far exceeds the Stakeholders/domoan name holders.

>
>
> peace
>
> > >
> > > 5 seats for the At-Large (by region)
> > > 2 seats for the At-Large (appointed by 2/3 of the
> > Board)
> > > 2 seats for the PSO
> > > 2 seats for the ASO
> > > 1 seats for the ccSO
> > > 1 seat for the gTLDs
> > > 1 seat for the registrars
> > > 3 seats split between ISP, Non-Commercial, IP, and
> > Business (on a rotating
> > > basis)
> > > 1 seat appointed by ISOC
>
> --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > Danny and all assembly members,
> >
> > [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > Peter,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your comments.  The issue of
> > representation at the Board level
> > > is of concern to everyone in the ICANN community.
> > At MdR, I had occasion to
> > > speak with a Board member who indicated that the
> > following was under serious
> > > discussion:
> > >
> > > 5 seats for the At-Large (by region)
> > > 2 seats for the At-Large (appointed by 2/3 of the
> > Board)
> > > 2 seats for the PSO
> > > 2 seats for the ASO
> > > 1 seats for the ccSO
> > > 1 seat for the gTLDs
> > > 1 seat for the registrars
> > > 3 seats split between ISP, Non-Commercial, IP, and
> > Business (on a rotating
> > > basis)
> > > 1 seat appointed by ISOC
> >
> >   I hope that this is really not that seriously
> > being considered.  If so it is
> > still
> > a huge departure from the polls taken on the ALSC
> > forum as well as
> > the general comments received there as well.  For
> > the existing ICANN
> > Board to appoint two or the At-Large BoD members
> > seems to be
> > a bit akin to nepotism or is at least very subject
> > to it.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Doubtless there are many possible options, but
> > each that I have evaluated
> > > denies the full complement of nine seats for the
> > At-Large that was promised
> > > to the Internet Community.  By arguing that the
> > ccTLDs require an SO with at
> > > least one Board Seat, your associates have opened
> > the door for registrars and
> > > the gTLDs to also argue that they too deserve a
> > Board seat, and this has led
> > > to every other constituency arguing that they
> > should similarly not be denied.
> > >  In short, you bear a certain responsibility for
> > the structural
> > > reconsiderations that are now being envisiged.
> > >
> > > But please understand that we don't hold this
> > against you, as the right to
> > > self-organization is paramount and well respected
> > by members of this Assembly.
> >
> >   Hummm?  This comment seems to be a stark departure
> > of just yesterday
> > in your comments towards INEGroup.  Why is that
> > Danny?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Similarly, be clear about this point:  the bulk of
> > the members in the General
> > > Assembly will become the members of the At-Large
> > as soon as it is
> > > constituted.  While the ccSO will have a solitary
> > Board seat, the At-Large
> > > will have a substantially greater degree of
> > representation, and it will
> > > choose to support those that have shown an
> > affinity for the positions
> > > represented by its loyalists in the GA.
> > >
> > > You have stated, "Please separate issues of
> > importance to the GA of the DNSO
> > > from those of the @LM".  At this point in time, I
> > no longer believe that such
> > > separation is possible.  This ICANN is an evolving
> > organization wherein
> > > admittedly structures may change, but the
> > participants will not.  The
> > > participants in the GA will become the
> > participants in the At-Large, and we
> > > will assuredly remember those that gave the GA
> > short shrift and those that
> > > respected the need for full and proper
> > representation in the ICANN process.
> > >
> > > We have respected the contributions and
> > participation of the ccTLDs within
> > > this Assembly, and many of us would like to see
> > their efforts come to
> > > fruition.  So please understand that when we focus
> > on the details at the
> > > origin of this experiment, we similarly act based
> > on self-organizing
> > > motivations.
> > >
> > > We choose to focus on the promises made by Esther
> > Dyson that we expect to be
> > > upheld.  Putting it within a context that should
> > be familiar to you, if IANA
> > > were to break its promises and commitments
> > regarding redelegations that were
> > > made in good faith a few years ago, and suddenly
> > embark on a course of action
> > > to deny your members their participatory rights,
> > you at the very least would
> > > take umbrage if not offense at such action.
> > >
> > > We have similar sensibilities.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Danny younger
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
> =====
> Daryl Tempesta
> HotDot.com
> 288 Civic Center Dr
> Scotts Valley, 95066
> 831-239-9656 (c)
> 831-439-9239 (h)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
> http://shopping.yahoo.com

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, 04 Dec 2001 20:41:32 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:[Guest] - [Idno-discuss] CIRA General Meeting in Toronto

Sotiris and all,

  Thank you for notifying us of this important event.  I had somehow
slipped
my schedule.  As I understand it some of our members will attending.

  Some other interesting information regarding this meeting regarding
the CA UDRP can be found at http://www.cira.ca/en/cat_Dpr.html
I would suggest that anyone attending read the contained documents
carefully before attending.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> To all interested IDNOers:
>
> CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, is
> having its annual general meeting in Toronto this coming
> Thursday.
>
> For more info on the meeting and registration details:
>
> http://www.cira.ca/news-releases/54.html
>
> http://www.thewillowgroup.ca/cira.html
>
> Hope to see some of you there?  Let me know if you'll be
> attending.
>
> --
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Hermes Network Inc.
>         Toronto, Canada
>
> ----
> direct: 416.422.1034
>
> icq: 34564103
> _______________________________________________
> Idno-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://listserver.isocnz.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/idno-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

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

Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 20:52:38 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] To make the GA something worth and to take into account

Jefsey and all assembly members,

  Some very good points and ideas here Jefsey.  I have a few comments
to offer on some of them.  (See below my comments)

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Fellow GA,
> I understand that there is some sort of consensus to correct the GA
> situation. Here is a plan I propose to that end.
>
> 1. to nominate and elect a Chair wanting to be a debate and resolution
> peaceful catalyst.

  Indeed yes this needs to get underway as soon as possible.

>
> 2. to look for/develop and implement a motion management system

  What do you have in mind here?  Not sure what you mean here....

>
> 3. to set-up a list of topics we want to debate seriously in listing the
> matters that Members want to see addressed without any exclusive.

  Yes indeed!

>
> 4. to set-up a GA web site where each debated matter has a page showing the
> position links of the people wanting to participate to a public consensus
> writing. Each position link links a page by a contributor expressing his
> position that everyone may read and comment. The target is that
> progressively positions may converge and resolve into consensual position
> of agreement or of disagreement clear description.

  This is a good idea but would take some very close dedication to
implement.  But it is doable.

>
> 5. to incorporate the ICANN GA as a non profit "ICANN user association".
> The target is not to compete with the @large as the Internet Global
> Community, but as a important member of  ICANN community.

  Good idea here as well if it is separate from the proposed or final
format of the At-Large/ALSO.  Is that what you had in mind?

>
>
> Such an organization could be used as a permanent secretariat for the GA
> Members:
> 6. to develop relations with other governance centers and to interface with
> Staff and BoD.

  Ok.

>
> 7. to develop formal relations with the Consistencies he Members of which
> as GA Members

  Ok good here too!

>
> 8. to establish information channels with DoC, Congress and White House in
> the USA and their counter parts in the other countries.

  Very much agreed here.  In fact the DNSO GA should be doing this
already.  But funding seems to be the biggest hold up.

>
> 9. to carry an outreach program mainly oriented towards diversity in
> concerns and origins and towards consumer organizations

  Agreed.

>
> 10. to serve as a watch dog assembly concerning corruption and decisions
> increasing the financial, the lingual and the digital divide on the Internet.

  Ok.

>
>
> We would expect this to foster:
> - a common feeling of responsibility towards the governance and to the
> world as far as the ICANN is concerned. Supporting what is good, reporting
> on what is wrong, proposing solutions.
> - a common maturity through serious debate on serious matters resulting
> into published votes.
> - a body of consensual positions or clearly worded oppositions for the
> benefit of the other ICANN units and of the public and the media.

  All good here too.  But would this body have voting power within
the ICANN BoD as you see it?  Or just within the DNSO?

>
>
> This has a cost. So we need money. This money will never reach us if we do
> not have a banking account, that is if we are not incorporated. My
> proposition for getting that money is that this ICANN user association
> sponsors Internet governance related propositions and in the meanwhile gets
> some donations and accepts mutual help. Running as site is not a big expense!

  Very much agreed here.  This is the only avenue left to the DNSO GA
as the ICANN BoD is not going to provide any budget/funds for the
DNSO GA a la Stuart Lynns several statements along these lines and
the current budget just recently posted.

>
>
> Such propositions could be:
> - sponsoring a newspaper per country who would report on the GA and publish
> its positions
> - sponsoring a yearly Internet meeting/Trade show and an Internet solutions
> portal

  Very good ideas here for generating funds as well as using them.

>
> - sponsoring local training program where Member could participate
> - sponsoring the publication of documents and books on the Internet
> - tags, teashirts, etc...
> This just to show that this is possible.

  Ok good ideas here pretty much.  I am not sure about the t-shirt thing
though...

>
>
> This idea is: we are 1000 with a very precise interest: a good service of
> the ICANN to the public. There is no reason we cannot succeed in obtaining
> it and in becoming a serious and usefull institution.

  Agreed.

>
>
> My 2 cents.
> Jefsey
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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, 04 Dec 2001 23:31:47 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The end of the road

on 12/4/01 2:16 PM, Kent Crispin at [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> The GA, however, is a zoo, and nobody takes it seriously.  Since people
> don't take it seriously, there is no particular reason to speak up if it
> takes an insane or wildly unrealistic position, and hence the assumption
> that the people who do speak up are a consensus is clearly invalid.

Thanks for the heads up from the Staff that the GA's position is untenable.

on 12/3/01 6:23 PM, L Gallegos at [email-masked] wrote:
 
> It seems to me that every time an individual is willing to give the
> passion, time and effort to areas where individuals need a voice, that
> willingness is shunned or totally discouraged to the point where he or
> she gives up.

That's right, and unlike Roeland, I don't feel the need to give any advance
warning.  

Regards,

Joanna

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents")

Part I: Introduction, Principles and Definitions
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II: Flow Chart
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III - Time Line Guide
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 23:40:43 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] unsubscribe

Thank you to those who remain to fight for the unrepresented.
I will not forget you.

Regards,

Joanna

- --
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, 4 Dec 2001 22:29:45 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: [Discuss] New insights into the legal significance of "generic"

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "PacificRoot Hostmaster" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Discuss] New insights into the legal significance of "generic"

> What advice does ARNI give ?
>
> Are people able to register in the .BIZ registry run by ARNI ?
>
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info
> IPv16....One Better !!
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 9:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] New insights into the legal significance of "generic"
>
>
> > ARNI gives no such advice.  In addition, this court case was an Arizona
> > court and was not over another registry's entry but over
> > trademark/tradename and between two registrants in the same registry,
> > both of whom have several domains registered.
> >
> > On 4 Dec 2001, at 21:50, Jim Fleming wrote:
> >
> > > .BIZ existed long before ICANN...
> > > http://www.dot-biz.com/TimeLine/
> > >
> > > People are advised to register in BOTH of
> > > the IPv4 .BIZ registries, for reliable and
> > > redundant DNS service.
> > > http://www.dot-biz.com/DNS101/
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim Fleming
> > > http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
> > > http://www.Register-BIZ.com
> > > http://www.BIZ-Registry.com
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Karl E. Peters" <[email-masked]>
> > > To: <[email-masked]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 9:29 PM
> > > Subject: [Discuss] New insights into the legal significance of "generic"
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Domain Name followers,
> > > >     If the following are not generic names, what are? Who owns a
> > > > trade mark on "sex".  What a concept, eh? The following is from
> > > > another list, but rather pertinent to what we are all about, I
> > > > think...   -Karl
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --------------------------
> > > >
> > > > http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/newdocket/docketformmain.asp
> > > >
> > > > Arizona Superior Court: Case Number cv2001-018340
> > > >
> > > > Where Sex.BIZ, Music.BIZ, and Books.Biz were established as valuable
> > > > trade names and/or trade marks and rights associated with registered
> > > > copyrights as well as use through interstate commerce with first use date
> > > > of 15 Jun 96.
> > > >
> > > > DDRP is invoked and the above domain names will be transferred from
> > > > the defendant's Account with The PacificRoot Registry to that of the
> > > > plaintiff's registry account with the PacificRoot Registry in accordance
> > > > with the court order showing that the Superior Court of Arizona found in
> > > > favor of the plaintiff, in accordance with the provisions of the DDRP
> > > > located at http://www.pacroot/ddrp_current.shtml.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Discuss mailing list
> > > > [email-masked]
> > > > http://ador-doc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Discuss mailing list
> > > [email-masked]
> > > http://ador-doc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > http://ador-doc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
>

- --
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, 05 Dec 2001 17:22:36 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Karl soldiers on

[Forwarded from Dave Farber's IP list; I invite ICANN representatives to 
reply. Background on Karl's relationship with ICANN (and campaign for a 
board seat last year: 
http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=Auerbach --Declan]

>Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:52:32 -0800 (PST)
>From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
>To: David Farber <[email-masked]>
>
>Here's more on my now year-long quest to inspect ICANN's records:
>
>A Director of virtually any corporation in the US has several rights and
>obligations.
>
>The obligation side of the equation is very strong - it's called a
>"fiduciary" duty, which is one of most stringent obligations that our
>legal system can impose on a person.  As part of that duty, a Director is
>compelled to exercise his or her *independent* judgement.  The ability of
>a Director to elect to rely upon the judgement of others is very tightly
>circumscribed.
>
>As a Director I could be personally liable for corporate misdeeds.  There
>are laws that protect some directors, but they are largely really not much
>more than rice-paper walls that may easily be pierced.
>
>In other words, there are big Swords of Damocleas that hang above
>Directors.
>
>The legal system recognizes that it is useless to impose responsibility on
>Directors without also giving them, each of them individually, the powers
>to become informed so that they may make informed judgements. To that end
>the law gives Directors strong powers to inquire into every aspect of a
>corporation's operations.
>
>Under the California corporations code that governs
>non-profit/public-benefit corporations (such as ICANN) those rights are
>"absolute":
>
>         6334.  Every director shall have the absolute right at any
>         reasonable time to inspect and copy all books, records and documents
>         of every kind and to inspect the physical properties of the
>         corporation of which such person is a director.
>
>It's not often that a legislature underscores that a right is "absolute".
>;-)
>
>This right to inspect and copy not a collective power that may be
>exercised only by the board acting in concert.  Rather it is a distinct
>power that exists in each and every Director - it may be exercised upon
>the independent discretion of each Director.
>
>And a Director is not required to indicate to corporate management the
>purpose of his or her inspection or what he or she is looking for.
>
>I have asked to inspect ICANN's financial records along with several other
>documents (such as the employee handbook and proprietary rights
>agreements, if any, that govern employee conduct).  I have also asked to
>review the billing statements and conflict waiver requests from those who
>render professional services to ICANN - that's a natural part of my role
>on ICANN's "conflicts" committee, but it is a request that I could make
>even were I not on the conflicts committee.
>
>In my experience as a Director of various corporations, inspection of the
>corporate financial records is a good way to inquire as to the efficiency
>and behavior of corporate management.  In most corporations, requests such
>as mine are quickly and fully answered by management without stonewalling,
>without demands for restrictive covenants that would force a Director to
>surrender his or her rights of independent judgement, and without
>statements from management that more than implicitly assert that the
>Director has some nefarious purpose.
>
>One must remember that those fiduciary obligations that I mentioned impose
>upon a Director an obligation of loyalty to the corporation.  That
>obligation generally requires that a Director keep confidential that
>corporate information that is, in-fact, confidential.  However, the
>Director is not compelled to blindly and unthinkingly accept any
>self-serving labels of confidentiality that corporate management may chose
>to apply.
>
>I made my initial request to inspect the financial records - in particular
>the general ledger - more than a year ago.  Despite repeated efforts and
>requests, I still have not been allowed to see those records.
>
>Oh, ICANN's management will say that they have afforded an opportunity;
>that I merely need to sign away my duty of independent judgement, that I
>merely need to allow corporate management to bind me in advance in how I
>may review the activities of that very same management; that I allow
>management to set conditions on the inspection that are so limiting that
>they would render any such inspection marginal and superficial.
>
>To sign these agreements would be to abandon my Director's obligations of
>independent judgement - I would be agreeing to allow my decisions to be
>controled by ICANN's management - by exactly the same people whose actions
>I am obligated to review.
>
>To add insult to injury the "agreements" that ICANN has demanded that I
>sign are cast in the most condescending of language and contain unfounded
>assertions against my personal integrity.
>
>All of this has occurred for the most part outside of the public eye.
>And even if I do gain access to corporate records the information that I
>review will almost certainly remain inaccessible to the public - My
>obligation of loyalty to the corporation demands that I use the
>information only to improve the corporation and it is unlikely that
>disclosure would further that obligation.  But one can not agree in
>advance, as ICANN's management is demanding, that disclosure may never
>occur.  For example: In the unlikely event that I were to discover
>information that must be disclosed - such as evidence of criminal activity
>- then, of course, my duties would be affected accordingly.
>
>ICANN's management has demonstrated over the course of the last year that
>it has an institutional hostility and an intent to preventing me from
>carrying out my duties as a Director of the Corporation.
>
>My recourse is to either abandon my obligations as a Director or to
>initiate such steps outside of the corporate boundaries as are consistent
>with my obligation of loyalty to the corporation.
>
>Such steps cost money, potentially lots of money.
>
>                 --karl--

- --Joop

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #905
************************