Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #909
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, December 6 2001          Volume 01 : Number 909

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

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 21:29:26 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

The weirdest thing about all this is that if you control for defaults, the
rates of plaintiff success were roughly the same at all providers.

What made eRes different is that *everything* was online.  That, or
somthing else about the service (we may never know what), produced a
substantially lower level of defendant defaults, skewing the apparent
success rate.  Making it easier for defendants to actually answer the case
against them resulted in having more defendants win. 

Of course, lawyers just looked at the bottom line total, for
understandable reasons and the market did the rest.

Meanwhile, I refer you to this letter, sent 2/11/00, which ICANN never
deigned to answer:

http://www.icannwatch.org/archive/post_froomkin_udrp_letter.htm

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Dan Steinberg wrote:

> 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).
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
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 18:43:02 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fwd: .aero reconsideration request

This is not proper.

So I reinsert my position.

Please stay open and transparent as those of us who watch are not dumb just
tecno challenged, but we have our resources.  Or we are techno-brilliant but
do not want the abuse of posting, but we have our resources.

Edward Hasbrouck wrote:

> 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

- --
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 21:48:38 -0500
From: Craig Simon <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] resignation from NC transfers task force

Hi Danny,

In my view, appointing Jeff Williams as a GA representative would be to
hammer many many nails in the GA's coffin. Even to put his name forward,
for those of us who know the long and frustrating background of the Jeff
Williams story, is distressing. To follow through on this would put the GA
in a bad light, and subject it to enduring, irremediable ridicule.

Given the well-documented history of that individual's
self-misrepresentation, I would hope that, if he were appointed, the other
members on the task force would refuse to accept his participation. 

For a minute I considered volunteering for the task force position, just to
avoid this tragedy, but I really don't have the time or the strength of
background in that particular issue to do a first-rate job. I hope someone
with a serious interest in this and a decent reputation will step forward
soon. Otherwise, my suggestion is that the position should be left vacant.

Craig Simon

(William Walsh once maintained some useful information on this story at
http://www.dso.net/wwalsh/jeffw/ , but I see the content is no longer
there. I hope he resurrects it.)

- --
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, 06 Dec 2001 11:08:40 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Transfers TF Acceptance - Attn. Danny Younger

Hi All,

	Thomas Roessler volunteered too.  We need some kind of an election ...

best regards,
- - Joseph LEE (Fook Heng)
========================

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jeff
Williams
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 9:31 AM
To: General Assembly of the DNSO
Cc: Danny Younger
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

- --
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 22:18:08 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

On 5 Dec 2001, at 17:34, Kent Crispin wrote:

> Of *course* they are biased towards the plaintiff.

'nuf said
- --
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 19:59:13 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

Of course isn't it rational to assume that after Mr. Lovell's post that we understand
that being on-line favors the type of people who use the internet and perhaps does not
favor IP lawyers. Certainly it favors on-line in pro pers.  But was not that the gist
of the UDRP?  Or did we just create a lucrative forum after all.

I am not certain but the openness and transparency of the Internet is not really
helpful to the ambush tactics of a good trial attorney.  (oh believe me I mean nothing
derogatory here as any litigatant I want the best)

Surely discovery rules by most courts these days are helping "fast track" trial and aid
in settlement by open pretrial disclosure of all facts relevant, or not.  The Wipo
procedures go against that grain and aid the trial by best trial lawyer tactic.

This is a very complex issue but my belief is that the general grouping here is more
than adequate to give recommendations on such highly provocative issues.

Sincerely,

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> The weirdest thing about all this is that if you control for defaults, the
> rates of plaintiff success were roughly the same at all providers.
>
> What made eRes different is that *everything* was online.  That, or
> somthing else about the service (we may never know what), produced a
> substantially lower level of defendant defaults, skewing the apparent
> success rate.  Making it easier for defendants to actually answer the case
> against them resulted in having more defendants win.
>
> Of course, lawyers just looked at the bottom line total, for
> understandable reasons and the market did the rest.
>
> Meanwhile, I refer you to this letter, sent 2/11/00, which ICANN never
> deigned to answer:
>
> http://www.icannwatch.org/archive/post_froomkin_udrp_letter.htm
>
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>
> > 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).
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm here.<--
>
> --
> 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 20:29:20 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 22:18:08 -0500, L Gallegos wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2001, at 17:34, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > Of *course* they are biased towards the plaintiff.
>
> 'nuf said

Hi Leah

Kent fudges the argument as usual.  There is a world of a difference between
the statistical results tending towards the plaintiff and the indivual UDRP
providers actually having a *bias* in their decision making.

I'd recommend anybody interested in an excellent analysis on this subject to
read a book "Judgment Calls : High-Stakes Decisions in a Risky World" by John
C. Mowen.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671898833/qid=1007630400/sr=1-1/ref=sr
_1_8_1/002-8003210-2017657

Or search Google using "judgment/judgment calls".

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: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 17:31:00 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Stuart Lynn's reply to Karl

Since I reposted Karl's letter here, I should also post Stuart Lynn's reply:
*********

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:01:31 -0800
To: David Farber <[email-masked]>, "Declan McUllough" <[email-masked]>
From: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Response to Karl Auerbach's note

The postings from Karl Auerbach to your lists regarding access to records 
were forwarded to me. I thought each of you might be interested in my 
response below. Feel free to post or not, of course, as you see fit.

Many thanks
Stuart

_______

Karl is free to examine ICANN records any time he is ready to comply with 
established procedures that apply to him and any other Director -- in 
complete accordance with California law. Karl is not being singled out. 
Among other reasonable provisions, these procedures are designed to protect 
confidential records, such as personnel files. Karl wishes to set himself 
above the direct or delegated authority of the  ICANN Board of Directors, 
in declaring himself as the sole determinant of what is confidential and 
what is not. That is not his prerogative according to California law or 
ICANN bylaws.

The procedures to which he objects were endorsed by the Audit Committee of 
the ICANN Board, to whom the Board has delegated responsibility for this 
general area. He is always welcome to take his objections to the full Board 
should he wish. So far, he has not chosen to do so.
- -- 

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: [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, 06 Dec 2001 14:22:40 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stuart Lynn's reply to Karl

On 05:31 06/12/01, Joop Teernstra said:
>Karl is free to examine ICANN records any time he is ready to comply with 
>established procedures that apply to him and any other Director -- in 
>complete accordance with California law. Karl is not being singled out. 
>Among other reasonable provisions, these procedures are designed to 
>protect confidential records, such as personnel files. Karl wishes to set 
>himself above the direct or delegated authority of the  ICANN Board of 
>Directors, in declaring himself as the sole determinant of what is 
>confidential and what is not. That is not his prerogative according to 
>California law or ICANN bylaws.
>
>The procedures to which he objects were endorsed by the Audit Committee of 
>the ICANN Board, to whom the Board has delegated responsibility for this 
>general area. He is always welcome to take his objections to the full 
>Board should he wish. So far, he has not chosen to do so.

This would be far clearer if the requested documents were listed, if the 
document to be signed was produced and if the dates of the requests and 
responses were provided. Also if we known who else among the Directors has 
taken the oath that Karl describes as removing every legal right granted to 
Directors by the US and Calfornian law - and for the time being Stuart has 
not quoted a text which should be maintained online as a major document 
conditionning the management of the ICANN and the protection of several, 
says Stuart. This might explain why the BoD is acting as it does, either by 
non disclosure obligation like Amadeu in the .aero case, either by 
volontary ignorance not to abandon rights or by forced ignorance as Karl 
claims it in his personal case.

I note that that the comment of Stuart about the way Karl should address 
that problem seems arrogant to me and to publicly document the hurting 
attitude that Karl describes from the Staff. Am I wright or is that kind of 
attitude from Stuart acceptable in the US legal environement and in that 
situation were Suart is also a fellow Director?

Jefsey

PS. This kind of situation is obviously a matter for the ICANN User 
Association I proposed.

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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 01:37:04 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] ASO General Assembly 2002 and Call for Nominations for ICANN Board of Directors

To: ICANN Announcement List <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 21:30:17 -0800

The Address Council of the Address Supporting Organisation is pleased to 
announce the 3rd ASO General Assembly meeting, to be held on Tuesday, 5 
March 2002 in Bangkok, Thailand. This meeting will be hosted by APNIC 
alongside APNIC's Open Policy Meeting, and will be open to all parties
with an interest in ASO policy matters. A detailed meeting agenda will 
be published in due course on the ASO web site, at
<http://www.aso.icann.org>.

In compliance with the ASO MoU 
<http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/aso-mou.html>, the Address Council and
ICANN hereby call for nominations to the ICANN Board to fill vacant ASO 
seats on the ICANN Board. The first such seat scheduled to become 
vacant on 1 October 2002 is currently occupied by Mr. Rob Blokzijl. 
However, candidates nominated at this time may also be chosen to fill 
other seats that may become vacant before or after this time. Note that 
appointments to the ICANN board must satisfy the geographic diversity 
constraints specified in section 3c. of the ASO MoU.

Any individual may be nominated within this process, with the exception
of any official of a national government or a multinational entity
established by treaty or other agreement between national governments 
(ICANN Bylaws Art. V., Sec 5). Self-nominations are permitted.
  
Nominations should be sent by email to <[email-masked]> and 
should state the following details :

  A. Nominee details

  1. Full name
  2. Organisational affiliation
  3. Email address
  4. Physical address
  5. Country of residence
  6. Telephone contact
  7. Biography

  B. Details of nominating individual

  1. Full name
  2. Organisational affiliation
  3. Email address
  4. Country of residence

Nominations must be submitted in English and must be received by the ASO 
Secretariat before 0900 UTC, 6 February 2002 (30 days prior to the
General Assembly meeting). All nominees will be contacted via email to 
confirm their willingness to serve as an ICANN Director. If the nominee 
is not contactable via email then the nomination will not be confirmed, 
a nominee must explicitly confirm the nomination to the ASO Secretariat 
to be considered as a candidate.

All confirmed nominations will be listed on the ASO website (see 
<http://www.aso.icann.org>) as soon as they are confirmed. Those wishing
to express support for any individuals who have been nominated should 
use the "ICANN Board - Support of Nomination" Form which will be made 
available on the ASO website.

The list of nominated individuals and the supporting comments will be 
passed to the Address Council after all nominees are confirmed, and
prior to the General Assembly meeting on 5 March 2002.

More information regarding the ASO GA and nominations process will be 
posted on the ASO website <http://www.aso.icann.org> in due course.

======================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, send an e-mail to <[email-masked]> 
with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line.

- --
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 11:29:14 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

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

> 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.

...On the thoroughly unrealistic assumption that UDRP respondents could
adequately defend a court case.

The real result would be more defaults, and thus more complainant wins, if
every one of these things went to court.

Registrars simply do not make an independent determination of whether the
court rendering the decision was a "court of competent jurisdiction" when
they receive a judgment, despite what the domain registration contract says.

People like to use bodacious-tatas.com as an example, but I chuckle because
nobody seems to have looked at the whois on that name, which was ordered
"cancelled" under the UDRP.

Go look.

Now, you want to know what is *really* going on with that name?  In parallel
with their UDRP complaint, the Tata folks also filed a lawsuit - in India.
You will notice that the domain name registrant is in New Jersey, and the
site never had anything to do with India.  However, pursuant to their
mechanical "hold" policy, NSI duly placed the domain name on hold and
maintains it in an inoperable condition pending the outcome of the suit in
India (in which the domain registrant was never served with process, and in
which the domain registrant has not participated).

Do you have any earthly idea how long a lawsuit in India can last?  The
practical answer is "forever".  Cases creep through their courts at a pace
measured in decades.  There is, for most purposes, no practically functional
civil law system in that country.  Go find me a Union Carbide accident victim
in Bhopal who has received a single rupee.  And, there may be people reading
this for whom the accident ocurred before they were born.

So, what I hear being said here is that a system where anyone can render a
domain name permanently non-functional by filing a lawsuit in India is
preferable to a system where there is at least an opportunity to hash out the
dispute in a matter of two or three months.  No system is going to be
perfect, but some of what is said about "leaving it to the courts alone"
flies in the face of reality, if what you want is something approximating any
idea of "fair".

The other flaw with "leaving it to the courts" is this...  In the US, you are
free to ignore a civil lawsuit brought against you in a court which does not
have proper jurisdiction.  After the default, when the plaintiff comes to
enforce the judgment, then you can challenge, in your local court, on the
issue of whether the first court had proper jurisdiction.  However, under the
system that many here seem to prefer, then the winning default plaintiff in
the first court can simply go to the registrar and say, "lookee here, we
won", and the registrar will dutifully transfer the domain name without the
defendant ever having had the opportunity to pursue a collateral challenge as
he would in any ordinary civil suit.  Even some of the "alternative"
registries follow the same type of policy, and it is simply not "fair" to the
defendant who allows a default judgment to issue from a court which did not
have competent jurisdiction.

To make it "fairer", then the registrar has to become the arbiter of whether
jurisdiction was appropriate, which is a ridiculous role for a registrar to
play.  Consequently, that's why registrars never question jurisdiction of the
(usually remote) court issuing the default judgment.  On the other hand, if
the registrar says, "gee, I don't think there was jurisdiction here", then
just *who* do you think is going to get sued at that point?  You want the
registrar to stick their neck out and go to court for what, a ten dollar
contract?  Are you crazy?

A fundamental problem to be solved, and for which I have seen and offer no
solutions, but which is seldom discussed, is "how do you make it fair to
registrants without putting the registrar in a position where the registrar
becomes a target?"  The UDRP, in principle, is closer to an answer to that
question that leaving it to courts which have NO jurisdictional connection to
the domain name or the registrant.  Why people seem to prefer that type of
situation is a profound mystery to me.

John

- --
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 09:07:20 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 08:29:20PM +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 22:18:08 -0500, L Gallegos wrote:
> > On 5 Dec 2001, at 17:34, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > > Of *course* they are biased towards the plaintiff.
> >
> > 'nuf said
> 
> Hi Leah
> 
> Kent fudges the argument as usual.

More tedious ad hominems for the gallery...

>  There is a world of a difference between
> the statistical results tending towards the plaintiff and the indivual UDRP
> providers actually having a *bias* in their decision making.

You misrepresent my argument: Of course there is "a world of
difference".  That is precisely the point. 

- -- 
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: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 12:04:27 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

> eResolutions has never been ridiculed for decisions,
> like e.g. WIPO has been.

I beg to differ, so maybe I should make this ridicule as loud and clear as
possible.  eResolution is the ONLY UDRP provider ever to *reverse* a
determination which had already been made in the appropriate court of law.
The cello.com case should have been immediately rejected as res judicata.
How a UDRP panelist thought he could make a determination on a thinner record
and with no oral argument, when a US federal judge had already denied
cross-motions for summary judgment, and eventually dismissed the case WITH
PREJUDICE, went against the fundamental principle of the UDRP not to alter
rights under national law.  The eResolution cello.com decision is, for that
reason, the very top of my list of wrongheaded and dangerous UDRP decisions,
and was made without any regard to the UDRP principles.  Saying "that was a
court, but this is the UDRP" demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the
role of the UDRP relative to real live courts.

As an institution, eResolution demonstrated their disregard for UDRP
principles by going after eResolution.com - even though the domain name was
registered before eResolution had developed any trademark claim at all.  The
eResolution.com decision did not issue from them, but eResolution
demonstrated their "fairness" by bringing the complaint, which should have
been rejected on the ground that the domain name simply could not have been
registered with a bad faith intent against them.  Sorry, you live by the
sword and you die by it.  I have zero sympathy, and a deep well of contempt,
for hypocritical bastards like eResolution who now claim they are going out
of business because they were nice guys.  They weren't and they proved it by
their own cynical use of the UDRP itself.

In fact, it was THAT case which was the primary precedent relied on by the
idiot who tried to hi-jack tobacco.com.

If you want to defend eResolution, then explain the decisions in efads.com,
host.com, or federalcourtofcanada.com.  Try to explain why it is taking them
more than six months to decide a simple geographic name case -
princeedwardisland.com.  Try to explain why their clerks would not cooperate
by providing contact info to other DRP's when eRes panelists had been
requested in three-member disputes before other providers, and would merely
provide snotty "that's not one of our cases" when a respondent attempted to
use the UDRP provision allowing selection of any providers' panelist roster.
How many phone calls and emails do you think it should take for them to
simply provide WIPO with an address?  They have had their share of quirks and
oddball decisions.  The martyr routine from them now is a bit much to
stomach.

John

- --
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 12:25:25 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] FYI:  Possible lawsuit against Network Solutions/Verisign 

http://www.daze.net/nsi-lawsuit.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, 06 Dec 2001 18:40:57 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

(re-sent)

Good evening.

Joop wrote:
>Wasn't it Roberto who was sitting on that Review Task Force on behalf of 
>the GA?
>I did not see his contributions to the council ML.

Only the NC reps are subscribed to the Council ML.
My contributions were provided in the ad-hoc ML of the Review TF.
Since this list is not public, I always forwarded my contributions to the 
GA, so there is nothing that is not in the public domain.

The final report contains the GA rep's (myself) comments in the "Minority 
viewpoints" section. These comments reflected to the best I could the debate 
in the GA on the three points of:
- - GA Chair election
- - New Constituencies
- - Consensus

Best regards
Roberto

P.S.: I am against withdrawing GA reps from the WGs/TFs/whatever. The fact 
we are not listened to is not a good enough reason to stop talking: now we 
have on record the opposition, for instance, to adult supervision by NC in 
the election of the GA Chair. Otherwise, there would have been consensus.
The problem, as we can see now, is that qualified volounteers who want to 
provide contributions to the bodies that address substancial DNS-related 
issues are becoming a scarce resource.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

- --
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 09:44:19 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

|> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 5:35 PM

|> 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 

|> But the statistics are simply not evidence for either unfairness or bias.

Aside from all the bogus analysis I have been reading wrt UDRP. I offer Mark
Twain's observations;

1 There are three kinds of lies in this world; Lies, damned lies, and
statistics.
2 Figures never lie, but liars always figure.

[disclaimer: I may not have punctuation or wording exactly correct. Also,
one of those two may actually belong to Will Rogers. memory fails]

It is fallacious to try and conclude anything regarding quality from
statistical output. Judiciary activities are NOT binary. Rather, they are an
analog process and the UDRP isn't anywhere near as reliable or as
quantifiable as a Schmidt trigger.

Designing a system that is biased towards the plaintif whilst also blocking
the defendant's access to more fair systems, does not only catch the obvious
violations, it denies the non-violating defendants fair access to legitimate
grievance. IOW, it also persecutes the innocent as a necessary by-product.
It assumes that there are no innocent defendants. It is the equivalent of
presumed guilt until proven innocent. It has all the inherent evils and
abuses of Napoleonic justice.

As problematic as the legal system is, it is still the more fair system and
the UDRP usurps that system.

- --
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 09:54:03 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Stuart Lynn's reply to Karl

|> I note that that the comment of Stuart about the way Karl 
|> should address that problem seems arrogant to me and to 
|> publicly document the hurting attitude that Karl describes 
|> from the Staff. 

I don't know too many directors that would tolerate such restrictions.
Especially since those directors usually represent the funders/investors of
the corporation, or the major controlling interests.

|> Am I right or is that kind of attitude from Stuart acceptable 
|> in the US legal environement and in that situation were Suart 
|> is also a fellow Director?

No, it is not acceptable.

- --
IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking legal action based on anything I
say or write, you are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of an attorney.

- --
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, 06 Dec 2001 11:35:50 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

Is not the real problem the age old problem of money?

If a "defendant" has the money to take the matter to court then he has a fair
shot.

If not then he probably does not stand a chance in the UDRP either.

Ergo the group that allows for easier methodology and simplistic filings in the
UDRP is going to favor the registrant who cannot afford attorneys.  The groups
that require lawyer type filings is going to favor those who can afford them.
(remember the ABA would prefer the later, job security)

US Workers Compensation concepts were developed for this very reason, there is
precedence.  Our more socialistic countries throughout the world are replete with
such examples.

So it goes without saying that the UDRP process must be one that favors the
registrant.  Systems and Solutions in such matters must be worked out to favor
the underclass.  Anything that favors the already privileged is simply power
grabbing, and a furtherance of monopolistic tendencies on the Internet.

Please review the matters during our industrial revolution.  You do not pass
rules to protect the rich and powerful you produce rules to protect those that
need protection.

Sincerely,
Eric

- --
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, 06 Dec 2001 12:23:50 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

Roberto Gaetano wrote:
<major snippage>

> The final report contains the GA rep's (myself) comments in the "Minority
> viewpoints" section. These comments reflected to the best I could the debate
> in the GA on the three points of:
> - GA Chair election

No recommendation was a result of logic that stems from false premises.  Your
comments were on the mark,
thank you.

> - New Constituencies

Sent to oblivion by obviscation.  Self criticism is seldom helpful.  Why would
existing power bases vote to dilute their power.  Again your comments were
reflective of what I percieve as the GA belief, as it were.

> - Consensus

Since the NC is reflective of what they want to see as the core of the groups
that should be represented, then their vote and theirs alone should represent
consensus?  The TF logic on this is incredible.
(this point brings us to your last and most important)

> P.S.: I am against withdrawing GA reps from the WGs/TFs/whatever. The fact
> we are not listened to is not a good enough reason to stop talking: now we
> have on record the opposition, for instance, to adult supervision by NC in
> the election of the GA Chair. Otherwise, there would have been consensus.
> The problem, as we can see now, is that qualified volounteers who want to
> provide contributions to the bodies that address substancial DNS-related
> issues are becoming a scarce resource.
>

Much to the chagrin of many I agree with your outlook here.  I have seen what
the alternative does and it only does harm.  I only add that the GA within
itself must become more tolerant and moderate, Roberto has shown that this
approach in fact yields our best credentials.

Sincerely,
Eric

- --
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, 06 Dec 2001 14:00:28 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Links - DNSO

Companies I work with do a lot of linking.  Some for dough and others
for show.  We also get linked to alot both for funny reasons and for
money reasons.

It is considered polite on this list to just give a URL as below rather
than reprinting the entire matter here.
It is considered impolite to refer to something and not give the URL -
link.

While this reference has further referencing data to get to a particular
article: it is really just based upon the Domain Name {wired.com}.

Therefor it would seem to me that it is not mission creep that the GA
discuss the rights of linking, in that we should Organize Support (SO)
and or define schematics within Domain Name usage such as linking.

We seem to be stuck in the moment of Registrant registration rights and
avoid the issues of use.

{lest there be doubt this is relevant to the often considered off topic
concept of the Terrorist DNs)

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,48874,00.html?tw=wn20011206

"Let us all try to remember that whether an individual has been naughty
or nice - is between them and St. Claus."

Sincerely,
Eric

- --
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 #909
************************