Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #908
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, December 6 2001          Volume 01 : Number 908

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

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:46:19 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Declaration of Interest - NC Transfers TF

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote on 05.12.01, 08:49:04:
> I think TR would do a great job.

So do I. The right to participate in such a 
task force is not much, but if the GA was not
even able to fill this position meaningfully, 
it could as well stop doing what it does.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

> On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:
[...]
>> I'm hereby declaring my interest in participating in this task
>> force, as a GA representative.  Be, however, advised that I won't be
>> able to attend any phyiscal in-person meetings of the task force.
>>
>> If some other reasonable candidate for this task force shows up who
>> seems to be more suitable than myself, I'll happily redraw my
>> candidature.

- --
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, 5 Dec 2001 13:57:29 -0800
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] resignation from NC transfers task force

Kristy McKee writes:
 > As we are all awaiting proof that you, Joe, are not Kent Crispin.

I have never claimed to represent a mythical organization.  I have only
ever claimed to represent myself.  As soon as I see physical proof of
the existence of the mythical INEGroup, then I may start believing
things that the entity known as [email-masked] claims.  Until
then, it is unreasonable to expect that there is actually a real person
behind the multiple claims.

You may look me up in the phone book, if you care to verify my
existence.

/Joe
- --
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, 5 Dec 2001 23:22:39 -0000
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

Hi John,

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
<snip>
And if the lawyer knows that NAF has a higher complainant win rate than
eRes,
that lawyer is "scrupulous" if she witholds that information from her
client?

It would be malpractie NOT to seek to obtain the most favorable outcome for
one's client.  Apparently, some former DRP's have no scruples when it comes
to ignoring one of a lawyer's primary ethical obligations.
<snip>
- --

I understand your points entirely - the problem is that such discrepancy
exists between forums in the first place, not that lawyers may choose to
exploit that discrepancy (as their paying clients would expect).

Regards

Paul Cotton

- --
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 17:31:23 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Transfers TF Acceptance - Attn. Danny Younger

Danny and all assembly members,

  I hearby accept the position on the Transfers TF by which you vacated.

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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 18:34:06 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

On 5 Dec 2001, at 23:22, Paul Cotton wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
> <snip>
> And if the lawyer knows that NAF has a higher complainant win rate than
> eRes, that lawyer is "scrupulous" if she witholds that information from her
> client?
> 
> It would be malpractie NOT to seek to obtain the most favorable outcome for
> one's client.  Apparently, some former DRP's have no scruples when it comes
> to ignoring one of a lawyer's primary ethical obligations. <snip> --
> 
> I understand your points entirely - the problem is that such discrepancy
> exists between forums in the first place, not that lawyers may choose to
> exploit that discrepancy (as their paying clients would expect).
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paul Cotton
> 

I agree with you Paul.  On the assumption that the UDRP is in any way 
fair or just (NOT), it would seem feasible that to stop forum shopping 
cases would be assigned on a rotating basis.  That would go against 
the grain of IP interests, but would be a bit more fair to all - just a bit.

I would love to be able to "eat my words" and see some type of just 
program to resolve disputes.  I don't see that with the UDRP at all.

Leah

- --
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 17:40:18 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Cyber security Czar on increasing security

All assembly members,

  FYI: http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/svfront/033011.htm

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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 15:44:43 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:22:39PM -0000, Paul Cotton wrote, in reply to 
John Berryhill:
> > one's client.  Apparently, some former DRP's have no scruples when it comes
> > to ignoring one of a lawyer's primary ethical obligations.
> 
> I understand your points entirely - the problem is that such discrepancy
> exists between forums in the first place, not that lawyers may choose to
> exploit that discrepancy (as their paying clients would expect).

The fact that there is a discrepancy illustrates a strong bias on
eResolutions part, not bias on the part of the other providers (which,
at 82% and 82.9% in favor of plaintiffs were essentially equal). 

Many people don't understand the simple statistical fact that an 82%
conviction rate says absolutely nothing about the quality of the system:
the system is designed to deal with obvious cases, and so a high rate of
success for plaintiffs is the expected (and desired) result.  Similarly,
you cannot judge the quality of a doctor by the survival rate of his
patients: a great doctor that takes only difficult cases might have a
50% survival rate for his patients; a lousy doctor that primarily takes
easy cases might have a 95% recovery rate.  If you went by the
statistics you would go to the lousy doctor every time, and be part of
his 5% failure rate. 

The fact that the other two providers had almost identical conviction
rates is actually an indication that they were following more objective
criteria than eResolution. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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 17:49:42 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

John and all assembly members,

  You are absolutely right here John!  It's amazing that the International
council for ICANN would do such a thing.  Just appalling!  She should
be fired on the spot!

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> > "It is but an open secret that lawyers advising their clients in domain
> name
> > cases have no scruples about quoting the figures and saying that the odds
> > are better with a given provider."
>
> I don't understand that quote at all.  Why is it unscrupulous for a lawyer to
> provide statistical information to her client?
>
> What is the "scrupulous" lawyer to do when choosing a dispute resolution
> provider for a client desiring to file a UDRP complaint?  Roll dice?  Pick
> eRes because they are "better"?
>
> And if the lawyer knows that NAF has a higher complainant win rate than eRes,
> that lawyer is "scrupulous" if she witholds that information from her client?
>
> It would be malpractie NOT to seek to obtain the most favorable outcome for
> one's client.  Apparently, some former DRP's have no scruples when it comes
> to ignoring one of a lawyer's primary ethical obligations.
>
> You know what eRes' BIGGEST problem was?  They were so freaking proud of
> their online system that they had zero appreciation for the fact that most
> lawyers practice on paper, and don't feel like getting a username and
> password for the privilege of submitting their work to a web form which is
> going to screw up all of their text formatting.  Complainants were thus
> forced to use an interface that they didn't like, and were uncomfortable
> with.   The first time I submitted a response in an eRes dispute, I had
> carefully converted the response and all exhibits into a single .pdf file for
> convenient electronic submission only to find out that I could not submit
> anything until the clerk felt like getting around to giving me a password -
> maybe even before the deadline.  Only then did I find out that the clerk was
> confused, and that they couldn't deal with a .pdf file.  If eRes had ANY
> interest in a marketable service, they might have invested some effort into
> finding out how lawyers would WANT to submit papers, rather than forcing
> people with little time or interest into monkeying around with a bunch of web
> forms - lawyers just don't practice that way.
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 15:48:43 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 05, 2001, 3:44:43 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:

> The fact that the other two providers had almost identical conviction
> rates is actually an indication that they were following more objective
> criteria than eResolution. 

Wrong.  Go back to elementary concepts.

- -- 
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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 15:59:48 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

This is aside from the point that, if it had been a court case, according to
ALL of the law, including trademark law, those convictions might not be
convictions in the first place.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 3:45 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay 
|> under udrp
|> 
|> 
|> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:22:39PM -0000, Paul Cotton wrote, 
|> in reply to 
|> John Berryhill:
|> > > one's client.  Apparently, some former DRP's have no 
|> scruples when it comes
|> > > to ignoring one of a lawyer's primary ethical obligations.
|> > 
|> > I understand your points entirely - the problem is that 
|> such discrepancy
|> > exists between forums in the first place, not that lawyers 
|> may choose to
|> > exploit that discrepancy (as their paying clients would expect).
|> 
|> The fact that there is a discrepancy illustrates a strong bias on
|> eResolutions part, not bias on the part of the other 
|> providers (which,
|> at 82% and 82.9% in favor of plaintiffs were essentially equal). 
|> 
|> Many people don't understand the simple statistical fact that an 82%
|> conviction rate says absolutely nothing about the quality of 
|> the system:
|> the system is designed to deal with obvious cases, and so a 
|> high rate of
|> success for plaintiffs is the expected (and desired) result. 
|>  Similarly,
|> you cannot judge the quality of a doctor by the survival rate of his
|> patients: a great doctor that takes only difficult cases might have a
|> 50% survival rate for his patients; a lousy doctor that 
|> primarily takes
|> easy cases might have a 95% recovery rate.  If you went by the
|> statistics you would go to the lousy doctor every time, and 
|> be part of
|> his 5% failure rate. 
|> 
|> The fact that the other two providers had almost identical conviction
|> rates is actually an indication that they were following 
|> more objective
|> criteria than eResolution. 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
|> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
|> --
|> 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, 05 Dec 2001 19:25:23 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

If GA members feel this way I suggest posting specific comments to this effect at
the UDRP questionnaire.
The deadline for submissions is fast approaching.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html is a
working URL for the questionnaire (now translated into French, Spanish and I
heard a rumour about Japanese as well).

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 5 Dec 2001, at 23:22, Paul Cotton wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
> > <snip>
> > And if the lawyer knows that NAF has a higher complainant win rate than
> > eRes, that lawyer is "scrupulous" if she witholds that information from her
> > client?
> >
> > It would be malpractie NOT to seek to obtain the most favorable outcome for
> > one's client.  Apparently, some former DRP's have no scruples when it comes
> > to ignoring one of a lawyer's primary ethical obligations. <snip> --
> >
> > I understand your points entirely - the problem is that such discrepancy
> > exists between forums in the first place, not that lawyers may choose to
> > exploit that discrepancy (as their paying clients would expect).
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Paul Cotton
> >
>
> I agree with you Paul.  On the assumption that the UDRP is in any way
> fair or just (NOT), it would seem feasible that to stop forum shopping
> cases would be assigned on a rotating basis.  That would go against
> the grain of IP interests, but would be a bit more fair to all - just a bit.
>
> I would love to be able to "eat my words" and see some type of just
> program to resolve disputes.  I don't see that with the UDRP at all.
>
> Leah
>
> --
> 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

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 00:25:15 -0000
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

Kent,

The fact that NAF might mirror the WIPO "favor tm holders, get more cases"
model is more indicative of their seeing the path to riches than for them
being more objective.  When they are rewarded financially for favoring one
party over another in full knowledge that they are not reviewed then
objectivity is the first thing to go.

You are correct, the UDRP is designed to deal with "obvious cases", but how
many times have the panelists rejected the chance to make a decision because
they see the domain and circumstances as not being an "obvious case"?

Regards

Paul Cotton

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:22:39PM -0000, Paul Cotton wrote, in reply to
John Berryhill:
> > one's client.  Apparently, some former DRP's have no scruples when it
comes
> > to ignoring one of a lawyer's primary ethical obligations.
>
> I understand your points entirely - the problem is that such discrepancy
> exists between forums in the first place, not that lawyers may choose to
> exploit that discrepancy (as their paying clients would expect).

The fact that there is a discrepancy illustrates a strong bias on
eResolutions part, not bias on the part of the other providers (which,
at 82% and 82.9% in favor of plaintiffs were essentially equal).

Many people don't understand the simple statistical fact that an 82%
conviction rate says absolutely nothing about the quality of the system:
the system is designed to deal with obvious cases, and so a high rate of
success for plaintiffs is the expected (and desired) result.  Similarly,
you cannot judge the quality of a doctor by the survival rate of his
patients: a great doctor that takes only difficult cases might have a
50% survival rate for his patients; a lousy doctor that primarily takes
easy cases might have a 95% recovery rate.  If you went by the
statistics you would go to the lousy doctor every time, and be part of
his 5% failure rate.

The fact that the other two providers had almost identical conviction
rates is actually an indication that they were following more objective
criteria than eResolution.

- --
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 01:39:26 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, at 15:44 [=GMT-0800], Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:22:39PM -0000, Paul Cotton wrote, in reply to 
> John Berryhill:
> > > one's client.  Apparently, some former DRP's have no scruples when it comes
> > > to ignoring one of a lawyer's primary ethical obligations.
> > I understand your points entirely - the problem is that such discrepancy
> > exists between forums in the first place, not that lawyers may choose to
> > exploit that discrepancy (as their paying clients would expect).
> 
> The fact that there is a discrepancy illustrates a strong bias on
> eResolutions part, not bias on the part of the other providers (which,
> at 82% and 82.9% in favor of plaintiffs were essentially equal). 
> 
> Many people don't understand the simple statistical fact that an 82%
> conviction rate says absolutely nothing about the quality of the system:
> the system is designed to deal with obvious cases, and so a high rate of
> success for plaintiffs is the expected (and desired) result.  Similarly,
> you cannot judge the quality of a doctor by the survival rate of his
> patients: a great doctor that takes only difficult cases might have a
> 50% survival rate for his patients; a lousy doctor that primarily takes
> easy cases might have a 95% recovery rate.  If you went by the
> statistics you would go to the lousy doctor every time, and be part of
> his 5% failure rate. 
> 
> The fact that the other two providers had almost identical conviction
> rates is actually an indication that they were following more objective
> criteria than eResolution. 

You are right, statistics can prove anyything you like. To let them
prove what you are saying, we have to assume that all those
complainants (I mean they chose the venue) who went for eResolution
were ****ing stupid, at least after it became clear that eResolution
more often decided in favour of complainant. Have you any statistics
to explain that?

Of course most people who have been studying the UDRP have also been
looking at many individual cases. And have seen how serious the
arbitrators followed the rules and explained their conclusions in
their decisions. eResolutions has never been ridiculed for decisions,
like e.g. WIPO has been. 

It is the interpretation that counts, and that requires valid
concepts. In law this means 'fair'.

"They hang more killers in Texas", doesn't mean a thing. It certainly
does not mean that the Texas legal system is morally better. If I may
say so.

Have a quiet sailing.

- --
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, 5 Dec 2001 20:02:54 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

On 5 Dec 2001, at 15:44, Kent Crispin wrote:

> 
> The fact that the other two providers had almost identical conviction
> rates is actually an indication that they were following more objective
> criteria than eResolution. 
> 

Or that both are equally biased toward the Plaintiff.  Sheesh.

- --
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 19:20:39 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

Roeland and all assembly members,

  Good points here Roeland.  It is obvious beyond the obvious that
Kent is not legally well versed.  His analogy made that clear.
The extra-legal provisions of the UDRP as well as the Registrar
agreements requiring everyone to submit to the UDRP are
ICANN's Achilles heal.  Sooner or later this will be well
understood.  The fact now that eResolutions has made it's
opinion known, perhaps the exceleration of this becoming
much better known.

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> This is aside from the point that, if it had been a court case, according to
> ALL of the law, including trademark law, those convictions might not be
> convictions in the first place.
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 3:45 PM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay
> |> under udrp
> |>
> |>
> |> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:22:39PM -0000, Paul Cotton wrote,
> |> in reply to
> |> John Berryhill:
> |> > > one's client.  Apparently, some former DRP's have no
> |> scruples when it comes
> |> > > to ignoring one of a lawyer's primary ethical obligations.
> |> >
> |> > I understand your points entirely - the problem is that
> |> such discrepancy
> |> > exists between forums in the first place, not that lawyers
> |> may choose to
> |> > exploit that discrepancy (as their paying clients would expect).
> |>
> |> The fact that there is a discrepancy illustrates a strong bias on
> |> eResolutions part, not bias on the part of the other
> |> providers (which,
> |> at 82% and 82.9% in favor of plaintiffs were essentially equal).
> |>
> |> Many people don't understand the simple statistical fact that an 82%
> |> conviction rate says absolutely nothing about the quality of
> |> the system:
> |> the system is designed to deal with obvious cases, and so a
> |> high rate of
> |> success for plaintiffs is the expected (and desired) result.
> |>  Similarly,
> |> you cannot judge the quality of a doctor by the survival rate of his
> |> patients: a great doctor that takes only difficult cases might have a
> |> 50% survival rate for his patients; a lousy doctor that
> |> primarily takes
> |> easy cases might have a 95% recovery rate.  If you went by the
> |> statistics you would go to the lousy doctor every time, and
> |> be part of
> |> his 5% failure rate.
> |>
> |> The fact that the other two providers had almost identical conviction
> |> rates is actually an indication that they were following
> |> more objective
> |> criteria than eResolution.
> |>
> |> --
> |> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> |> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> |> --
> |> 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 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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 17:27:31 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: The end of the road

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:31:47PM -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> 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.

Nothing I said has anything remotely to do with the ICANN Staff; your
assumption that there is even a GA "position" to evaluate is very much
at issue; and your statement does not relate to the point I was making. 
In all honesty it seems to me that my message simply provided you with a
convenient hook upon which to hang a goodbye message. 

Be that as it may.  While I am firmly convinced that it is essentially
ludicrous to speak of the "position of the GA" as a whole, that does not
imply that I think that every member of the GA is worthless.  Quite the
contrary -- there are a great many people on the GA list that I hold in
high regard.  

Nonetheless, the GA as a forum for determining consensus, or indeed
*any* decision-making at the level required for ICANN, *is* worthless,
and the sooner we rid ourselves of the illusion of power, the better. 
The GA is a forum for discussion, not decision, and it cannot be
otherwise.  At the base, the GA is an open email list, and such a base
is simply not adequate for decision making at the level required for
ICANN. 

I said that the GA is for discussion, not decision.  Indeed, the GA
could be extremely valuable as a discussion forum, but in fact it is
failing even at that.  This fact is at least as disappointing to me as
it is to you. 

> 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.  

Yes -- trying to teach ICANN how to be a government is like trying to
teach a pig how to talk -- it's frustrating for you, and it annoys the
pig.  The point is, of course, that it is a stupid waste of *your* time
to try to turn ICANN into something it can't be.  (I know the game very
well, because I spent several years on a similar fruitless mission.)
More specifically, it is a waste of time to try to restructure ICANN --
structure is simply not the issue; the nature if ICANN is determined by
external constraints, not internal ones. 

On the other hand, it is most definitely *not* a waste of *anyone's*
time to develop cogent input about domain name policy.  Despite your
insinuation above, I really don't speak for the ICANN staff.  But from
my dealings with them, I believe that they are in fact deeply interested
in responsible and constructive input in the subject area of primary
concern to them, namely, domain name policy.  But they really can't do 
much about the constant outcries for massive changes in structure.

Kent

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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, 5 Dec 2001 17:34:42 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 08:02:54PM -0500, L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5 Dec 2001, at 15:44, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The fact that the other two providers had almost identical conviction
> > rates is actually an indication that they were following more objective
> > criteria than eResolution. 
> > 
> 
> Or that both are equally biased toward the Plaintiff.  Sheesh.

Of *course* they are biased towards the plaintiff.  That is an obvious,
expected, and desired result of the design of the system -- it is
supposed to catch *obvious cases of abuse*, and with that as a
fundamental premise, decisions for the plaintiff *should* be in the vast
majority.  If they weren't, the system would be a clear failure.  (In
fact, of course, a large percentage of cases are simply not contested.)

The fact that eResolution tried to tilt the balance the other way is
indicative of a problem with eResolution, not a problem with the others.

This is not to say that the UDRP is perfect, of course.  But the
statistics are simply not evidence for either unfairness or bias. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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 17:44:01 -0800
From: Edward Hasbrouck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fwd: .aero reconsideration request

On 4 Dec 2001 at 21:30, "Jefsey Morfin" <Jefsey Morfin 
<[email-masked]>> wrote:

> Edward could you pass on us Stuart responses link as the attitude
> you present seems detrimental to the ICANN.

Stuart Lynn's statements were in a copyrighted newsletter.  The author 
kindly sent me a copy, but I don't have permission to post it. It is 
available only to paid subscribers, not online for free.  I have asked th 
author for permission to post the article.

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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 19:51:46 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

At 5:34 PM -0800 5/12/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 08:02:54PM -0500, L Gallegos wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5 Dec 2001, at 15:44, Kent Crispin wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The fact that the other two providers had almost identical conviction
>> > rates is actually an indication that they were following more objective
>> > criteria than eResolution.
>> >
>>
>> Or that both are equally biased toward the Plaintiff.  Sheesh.
>
>Of *course* they are biased towards the plaintiff.  That is an obvious,
>expected, and desired result of the design of the system -- it is
>supposed to catch *obvious cases of abuse*, and with that as a
>fundamental premise, decisions for the plaintiff *should* be in the vast
>majority.

But there is one fault in your argument. You're assuming, quite wrongfully,
that a high percentage of the case are bought by complainants that have an
*obvious case of abuse*.

Was the case the UDRP *caught* - bodacious-tatas.com and *obvious case of
abuse* ???

>If they weren't, the system would be a clear failure.  (In
>fact, of course, a large percentage of cases are simply not contested.)

In fact, of course, that doesn't prove anything, other than many people are
confused as hell when they find themselves on the receiving end of a UDRP,
by a complainant they didn't even know of beforehand, and probably think
there's no way the complaint would stand up in court.

>The fact that eResolution tried to tilt the balance the other way is
>indicative of a problem with eResolution, not a problem with the others.

I was going to write that it amazes me that you can write such bull and
keep a straight face. Then I reminded myself that it's Kent doing tha
talking, and he can write ANYTHING and keep a straight face.

>This is not to say that the UDRP is perfect, of course.  But the
>statistics are simply not evidence for either unfairness or bias.

I can guarantee  that a one-by-one analysis of all cases - with access to
all material - by a panel of independent, knowledgeable people would bring
to light a huge list of bad decisions, mostly for the complainant.

And once one bad decision appears, most of the other WIPO and NAF panelists
jump on it and use it as precendent for *further* bad decisions.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #908
************************