Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #920
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, December 12 2001         Volume 01 : Number 920

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 05:22:12 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
> I will be point blank here.  Is this within the GA mission?

No.

It indicates that one 'alternate root' vendor is exceedingly slimy,  but doesn't
imply anything about the others. 

Verisign spam might be an issue here, since ICANN has some authority over them,
but I haven't seen any of that recently. Perhaps they've reformed.

> If it is then I ask that some of you with great
> technical expertise help this fine dotcommoner deal with this frustration.  I
> have emailed on this matter
> privately and find it most disturbing but also of a technical manner beyond my
> expertise.

http://www.rahul.net/falk/#howtos
http://www.sputum.com/index2.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, 12 Dec 2001 11:39:16 +0100 (MET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

> We chase him around the world and he just keeps popping up other
> places. Like Leah said, one day he'll run out of ISP's. 
> FYI: ADNS has a trademark on '.USA' and no its not prohibited
> to get a trademark on a TLD - more ICANN FUD.
> John

Why don't you folks get it?
YOU CAN'T TRADEMARK A TLD AS A TLD!
Maybe you could trademark ".USA" for socks or for toilett paper but not for TLDs.
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78094748&action=Request+Status
Same thing with apple or orange: You can trademark apple for computers and orange for a mobile phone company.

Compare this case:

One bad guy wanted to trademark some future premium domain names. He filed e.g. two applications for "sex.shop". One for internet related goods and services ( http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=76031958&action=Request+Status ) and one for 'skin tanning preparations, namely tanning oils' (http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=+76092746&action=Request+Status ).
He won't get the TM for internet related goods and services but he already got the TM for skin tanning preparations, namely tanning oils.
With the TM "sex.shop" for tanning oil (LoL) he wanted to reverse hijack my domain name registered with new.net (I got some threats via e-mail and phone).
http://www.new.net/search_whois.tp?domain=sex&tld=shop

But as long as I don't sell tanning oil on www.sex.shop (LoL) I won't lose my domain. ;-)

What should this analogy tell you?
Don't waste your money at the TM office. ;-)

Regards,
Simon
http://nic.pro.xs2.net <-- get your professional dotPRO domain now!
http://nic.info.xs2.net <-- get 100% visibility
- --
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, 12 Dec 2001 18:58:20 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: European Union will study ICANN

This is good news to me :-)  Whoever is going to study it should come pay a
visit to us here in the GA... we have plenty to share ... *smile*

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

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Alexander
Svensson
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 5:44 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] FYI: European Union will study ICANN

According to Heise Online's Monika Ermert,
(http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/wst-11.12.01-000/)
the DG Information Society of the European Commission
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/information_society/
- -- please don't comment on the site's design! *sigh*)
will commission a study on ICANN's work.

The invitation for tenders is to be published in
the Official Journal of the European Communities
(http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/oj/index.html)
in February, according to Richard Delmas (DG Infosoc).
The selection process for new TLDs will form part of
the study.

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
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, 12 Dec 2001 14:14:49 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO NC TF on Structure-Discussion paper

DNSO NC TF on Structure

Discussion paper
Draft outline analysis of the ALSC final report proposals according to the
criteria specified in the terms of reference draft version2

1. Key proposals of the ALSC November 2001 report
�         Define potential electorate as individual domain name holders
�         Establish an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSC) to organise
that electorate
�         Fund the ALSO via membership dues as a condition of voting
�         Establish 6 ICANN regions
�         Elect 6 At-Large Board directors with 3 year term
�         Elect one 12 member ALSO Council (two per region)
�         Hold regional elections for 3 international posts and 3 regional
posts
�         Post no 1 (most votes) elected as At-Large Board director
�         Post no 2 and 3 (second and third highest votes) elected to ALSO
Council.
�         No 2 through no 6 regional winners form 5 member Regional Council.
�         Hold first elections in 2002.
�         ALSO provides consensus-based policy advice within ICANN's
mission.
�         Use Registrars as conduit to reach the potential electorate.
�         Review after two election cycles (6 years or 2008).

2. Evaluation against established criteria

Criteria     and        Evaluation

1. the efficacy of policy making within the DNSO

Criteria - degree of formal interaction between stakeholders
Evaluation -   Low. Compared with an individual domain name holders
constituency within the DNSO, the evaluation is negative.

Criteria - quantity of predicted unique issues of a new SO outside the
competence of DNSO versus issues within competence of DNSO
Evaluation - Low. There will be high overlap between issues discussed by an
ALSO with those of the DNSO
.
Criteria - mechanisms for cross-SO communication
Evaluation - Uncertain. No mechanisms are proposed. There will be membership
overlap and so informal cross communication. There will probably be a need
for formalised mechanisms.

Criteria - effect on the DNSO consensus process.
Evaluation - High. The ALSO provides the organisation of individuals and is
an enabler of consensus. The DNSO could use this input as part of its
consensus process.

2. the efficacy of ICANN decision making

Criteria- the ability of each proposal to generate valid consensus-based
policy making
Evaluation - Uncertain. The ALSO will enhance consensus within itself but
not per se within the ICANN community.

Criteria - possibility of the Board receiving contradictory advice from its
SOs and the impact on resolution mechanisms
Evaluation - High. Today the policy areas of the three SOs are distinct.
With an ALSO feeling able to comment on all ICANN policy areas  they may
conflict with each of the three existing SOs.

Criteria -  likely financial and representational robustness of any SO
Evaluation - Uncertain. The real test of individuals interest in at-large
will be when members are asked to pay to vote.

Criteria - likelihood of the proposal to achieve adequate, balanced and fair
stakeholder representation on the Board
Evaluation - High. The proposed ALSO structure should produce better
at-large representation than the status quo (subject to the financial
question above.) There will be one additional at-large member than the
status quo.

- --
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, 12 Dec 2001 07:32:15 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Eric and all assembly members,

  As far as I know the watchdog committee is only for the
voting and election process within the DNSO GA.  I was
not aware that the watchdog committee also had TF review
responsibilities as well...  Now I know that Danny has
called for a election for the Transfer TF.  He has
suggested that the runner-up's would be observers
on the Transfer TF.  This is not according to current
DNSO GA procedure as Thomas correctly pointed out.
It would also be quite strange as well for myself as one
of the candidates to serve on a watchdog committee
that would potentially be overseeing the Transfer
TF election.  That would seem to be a bit of a conflict.
Hence such a suggestion I would have to decline
to participate in such a capacity as I am a candidate.

  We now seem to also have one less candidate, one
Thomas Roessler whom seems to be unwilling to serve
on the TF due to some personal constraints regarding
yourself Eric, and me potentially being one of the
observers should he have been elected.  Ergo
you and I are the only two left in this election
for the Transfer TF members representing the
DNSO GA.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Kristys' post on this matter have been dignified and correct.
>
> The negative have been just that and obstructionist.
>
> While folks like myself, JW and wxw argue the niceties of procedures,
> moving forward
> is more important than legalities.
>
> Can we get JW, WXW and Roeland all on the watchdog committee.  Then I
> would know no one is cheating.
>
> 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

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, 12 Dec 2001 14:44:41 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

On 2001-12-12 07:32:15 -0800, Jeff Williams said to Eric Dierker:

>Ergo you and I are the only two left in this election for the 
>Transfer TF members representing the DNSO GA.

This is not (yet) correct.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.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, 12 Dec 2001 07:57:01 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2001-12-12 07:32:15 -0800, Jeff Williams said to Eric Dierker:
>
> >Ergo you and I are the only two left in this election for the
> >Transfer TF members representing the DNSO GA.
>
> This is not (yet) correct.

  Oh?  Than I take it from this comment or remark that you would be
willing to serve with the runner-up as an observer than?  And wasn't
this part or  your original position in objection?  Please advise.

  Given your prevailing attitude/behavioral condition, I can understand
your need/desire to contemplate.  Hence the "yet" in your reply
above.  However perhaps your need/desire to contemplate
further or otherwise attempt to mitigate here is a disservice to
the DNSO GA members as a replacement for Danny is needed
in fairly short order?  One can only imagine if the answer
to this question I am posing is yes, the concern and consideration
such a potential candidate might have for those that he/she would
potentially representing....

>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/

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, 12 Dec 2001 15:14:07 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

On 2001-12-12 07:57:01 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:

>> >Ergo you and I are the only two left in this election for the 
>> >Transfer TF members representing the DNSO GA.

>> This is not (yet) correct.

>  Oh?  Than I take it from this comment or remark that you would be 
>willing to serve with the runner-up as an observer than?  

No.

However, as you may have noticed, the ballot for the note has not 
yet been published.  This means that Danny still has a chance to 
correct the voting conditions.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.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, 12 Dec 2001 08:28:40 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2001-12-12 07:57:01 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >> >Ergo you and I are the only two left in this election for the
> >> >Transfer TF members representing the DNSO GA.
>
> >> This is not (yet) correct.
>
> >  Oh?  Than I take it from this comment or remark that you would be
> >willing to serve with the runner-up as an observer than?
>
> No.
>
> However, as you may have noticed, the ballot for the note has not
> yet been published.  This means that Danny still has a chance to
> correct the voting conditions.

  Ah yes understood of course.  However it would seem unreasonable
for Danny to correct such a ballot to the extent that ALL potential
observer(s) would be eliminated.  Hence I would therefore assume
that you would be withdrawing should that not be the case, given the
Runner-up(s) would be the observer(s) in that Eric and/or myself
would be the observer(s)?

>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/

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, 12 Dec 2001 15:46:57 +0100 (MET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: FW: RE: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

- ---------------------Forward Begin-----------------------
From: [email-masked]
Sent: Wed Dec 12 13:10:02 CET 2001
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?
> Hi,
> 	I'm a dumb fellow and this is enlightening... wow... 
Your welcome ;-)

I didn't know that you
> cannot trademark Apple for computer!.  I guess that's why they have
> Machintosh ... :-)  This is really interesting.
- --> I wrote: 'Same thing with apple or orange: You [!!!]can[!!!] trademark 
apple for computers...'

> So, if I own www.stargate.com.my and I don't sell anything related to the
> movie (StarGate), I'm ok?
- --> Yes. But I think you this not new to you.

But I wouldn't try to use a domain name 'apple.gTLD/ccTLD. Such trademarks 
like apple are well know, therefore Apple Comp. Inc. would say 'you delute my 
trademark'

cheers
simon

> ============
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 6:39 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?
> > We chase him around the world and he just keeps popping up other
> > places. Like Leah said, one day he'll run out of ISP's.
> > FYI: ADNS has a trademark on '.USA' and no its not prohibited
> > to get a trademark on a TLD - more ICANN FUD.
> > John
> Why don't you folks get it?
> YOU CAN'T TRADEMARK A TLD AS A TLD!
> Maybe you could trademark '.USA' for socks or for toilett paper but not for
> TLDs.
> http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78094748&action=Reque
> st+Status
> Same thing with apple or orange: You can trademark apple for computers and
> orange for a mobile phone company.
> Compare this case:
> One bad guy wanted to trademark some future premium domain names. He filed
> e.g. two applications for 'sex.shop'. One for internet related goods and
> services (
> http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=76031958&action=Reque
> st+Status ) and one for 'skin tanning preparations, namely tanning oils'
> (http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=+76092746&action=Req
> uest+Status ).
> He won't get the TM for internet related goods and services but he already
> got the TM for skin tanning preparations, namely tanning oils.
> With the TM 'sex.shop' for tanning oil (LoL) he wanted to reverse hijack my
> domain name registered with new.net (I got some threats via e-mail and
> phone).
> http://www.new.net/search_whois.tp?domain=sex&tld=shop
> But as long as I don't sell tanning oil on www.sex.shop (LoL) I won't lose
> my domain. ;-)
> What should this analogy tell you?
> Don't waste your money at the TM office. ;-)
> Regards,
> Simon
> http://nic.pro.xs2.net <-- get your professional dotPRO domain now!
> http://nic.info.xs2.net <-- get 100% visibility
> --
> 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

- ---------------------Forward End-------------------------

- --
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, 12 Dec 2001 09:55:23 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> Thomas and all assembly members,
> 
> Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
> > On 2001-12-12 07:32:15 -0800, Jeff Williams said to Eric Dierker:
> >
> > >Ergo you and I are the only two left in this election for the
> > >Transfer TF members representing the DNSO GA.
> >
> > This is not (yet) correct.

Thank heaven.
 
>   Oh?  Than I take it from this comment or remark that you would be
> willing to serve with the runner-up as an observer than? ...

The whole business about the runner up becoming an observer is a suggestion
with neither a consensus nor a vote behind it. There isn't time to consider
it seriously for this election.

Apart from that, many people including me think its a dumb idea anyway.

> ... However perhaps your need/desire to contemplate
> further or otherwise attempt to mitigate here is a disservice to
> the DNSO GA members as a replacement for Danny is needed
> in fairly short order?

Yes, a replacement is needed. Let's elect one without introducing
irrelevant nonsense about observers.
- --
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, 12 Dec 2001 11:15:24 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

At 10:29 AM 12/12/2001 +0100, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>Thomas Roessler wrote on 11.12.01, 22:39:02:
> > This kind of change of rules is inappropriate at this point of time
> > (i.e., when the election is almost started).  Instead of changing
> > the meaning of a candidature and a vote at this point of time, the
> > GA membership should either be given an opportunity to decide on
> > this question by vote, too, or the vote should happen by the rules
> > which were to be expected from Danny's original announcement.
>
>I just looked in the archives, and Danny indeed
>announced on 2001-12-05:
>   If no one else volunteers for that position, I will
>   appoint Jeff Williams as the GA representative in
>   one week's time.
>
>/The/ representative means one person. If it had been
>known before the end of the (quasi-) nomination phase that
>one voting GA representative *and* two non-voting GA
>representatives were to be selected, we might have seen
>more than three volunteers.
>
>Danny explained in his 2001-12-11 posting that the
>expansion is due to an un-ratified proposal within the
>Task Force. While I understand that he wants to act as
>quickly as possible, it must be clear at the outset
>and /before/ the nomination process *how many* people
>(and how many of them with voting rights) are to be
>selected.
>
>To move forward:
>
>a) We could stick to the original proposal and take
>    a vote for *one* candidate. That is a quick way
>    to solve it, but if there should be additional
>    vacancies, we would need to take another vote.
>    (This seems to depend on the TF, right?)
>
>b) We could extend the nomination phase and see if
>    there are additional candidates under these new
>    circumstances. This is a clear-cut solution, but
>    it would leave the GA unrepresented while the
>    nomination is extended (and the holidays are
>    approaching, too).
>
>c) We could take a double vote in one (if that is
>    technically feasible):
>    GA voters could rank the current candidates
>    (Jeff, Eric, Thomas) and then choose whether
>    they want to send the first, the top 2 or top 3.
>    If a majority wants to send all 3, all 3 will
>    become GA representatives, while the first is
>    the voting representative.
>    But I'm afraid it would be a somewhat confusing
>    ballot. ;) Perhaps someone can improve it?
>
>I understand that Danny wants to commend those who
>step forward to work in the Task Force. But this
>cannot mean that everyone volunteering is guaranteed
>a place as representative (voting or non-voting) --
>the rules must be set out clearly before the whole
>thing starts.
>
>Personally, I would prefer a) to c) to b).

         I agree that (a) is the best.  If we were determined to do 
something akin to (c), we might be able to do so in the following way:  On 
the ballot, allow GA members to vote YES/NO on each of the three 
candidates.  The rule would be that the candidate witth the most YES votes 
is the representative, and the next highest vote-getter is the observer, 
except that a candidate will not be deemed elected to *any* position unless 
he receives YES votes on more than half the ballots submitted.  That gives 
the GA the option to elect two people if it chooses, but it also gives a 
majority of the GA the ability to say that it doesn't want particular 
people representing it on the TF (as either "representative" or 
"observer").  Either way, the GA gets the candidates it deserves.

Jon

- --
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, 12 Dec 2001 17:35:24 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO NC TF on Structure - HTML version on DNSO website deadline Dec 17

[To: [email-masked]]

Please find the DNSO NC Task Force on Structure, discussion paper at the
following HTML on the DNSO website.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011213.NCSTR-ALSC-analysis.html

[nc-str] ALSC discussion - Deadline Dec 17

DNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:52:33 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

In a closed-door session of the Board:

"I don't want a bunch of net.kooks like Karl and Andy spewing their garbage 
and sullying our credibility."  "Agreed.  We can't have Andy on any 
committee, even as an observer, because he might embarrass us with his 
comments about our procedural bullshit."  "But how will we deal with the fact 
that only Karl, Andy and Vint have expressed any interest in participating on 
this committee?"  "Perhaps we can use some procedural bullshit to deny Karl 
and Andy the opportunity to join, then we can stack the committee with those 
that have absolutely no interest in participating".  "Better yet, those of us 
that aren't interested and aren't willing to work can hold a vote that will 
determine that as a group we have decided not to send any interested 
observers to the committee".

"Question… I know that everyone in this room understands Vint's position on 
inter-galactic transfers, but shouldn't he at least state his position during 
an election?"  "Don't be ridiculous, this is only a beauty contest… why 
should those of us that don't care ask any candidate to actually state his 
position?"  "We all know that we don't want Karl and Andy to be on the 
Committee… that's the only thing that matters, so let's just ask the Chair to 
come up with a procedural way to make sure that they aren't included."  
"Sounds good to me.  Do we a second?"  "Seconded."  "The motion is passed.  
Next order of business… dealing with those troublemakers in the GA… if only 
they could start acting like responsible members of the Board…"

- --
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, 13 Dec 2001 07:16:55 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO NC TF on Structure-Discussion paper

On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:14:49 +0100, "DNSO Secretariat"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>DNSO NC TF on Structure
>
>Discussion paper
>Draft outline analysis of the ALSC final report proposals according to the
>criteria specified in the terms of reference draft version2
>
>
>1. Key proposals of the ALSC November 2001 report
>�         Define potential electorate as individual domain name holders
>�         Establish an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSC) to organise
>that electorate
>�         Fund the ALSO via membership dues as a condition of voting
>�         Establish 6 ICANN regions
>�         Elect 6 At-Large Board directors with 3 year term
>�         Elect one 12 member ALSO Council (two per region)
>�         Hold regional elections for 3 international posts and 3 regional
>posts
>�         Post no 1 (most votes) elected as At-Large Board director
>�         Post no 2 and 3 (second and third highest votes) elected to ALSO
>Council.
>�         No 2 through no 6 regional winners form 5 member Regional Council.
>�         Hold first elections in 2002.
>�         ALSO provides consensus-based policy advice within ICANN's
>mission.
>�         Use Registrars as conduit to reach the potential electorate.
>�         Review after two election cycles (6 years or 2008).
>
>2. Evaluation against established criteria
>
>Criteria     and        Evaluation
>
>1. the efficacy of policy making within the DNSO
>
>Criteria - degree of formal interaction between stakeholders
>Evaluation -   Low. Compared with an individual domain name holders
>constituency within the DNSO, the evaluation is negative.
>
>Criteria - quantity of predicted unique issues of a new SO outside the
>competence of DNSO versus issues within competence of DNSO
>Evaluation - Low. There will be high overlap between issues discussed by an
>ALSO with those of the DNSO
>.
>Criteria - mechanisms for cross-SO communication
>Evaluation - Uncertain. No mechanisms are proposed. There will be membership
>overlap and so informal cross communication. There will probably be a need
>for formalised mechanisms.
>
>Criteria - effect on the DNSO consensus process.
>Evaluation - High. The ALSO provides the organisation of individuals and is
>an enabler of consensus. The DNSO could use this input as part of its
>consensus process.
>
>2. the efficacy of ICANN decision making
>
>Criteria- the ability of each proposal to generate valid consensus-based
>policy making
>Evaluation - Uncertain. The ALSO will enhance consensus within itself but
>not per se within the ICANN community.
>
>Criteria - possibility of the Board receiving contradictory advice from its
>SOs and the impact on resolution mechanisms
>Evaluation - High. Today the policy areas of the three SOs are distinct.
>With an ALSO feeling able to comment on all ICANN policy areas  they may
>conflict with each of the three existing SOs.
>
>Criteria -  likely financial and representational robustness of any SO
>Evaluation - Uncertain. The real test of individuals interest in at-large
>will be when members are asked to pay to vote.
>
>Criteria - likelihood of the proposal to achieve adequate, balanced and fair
>stakeholder representation on the Board
>Evaluation - High. The proposed ALSO structure should produce better
>at-large representation than the status quo (subject to the financial
>question above.) There will be one additional at-large member than the
>status quo.

Any feedback on this analysis is welcome.  Please note it is not a
position paper of the Taskforce but a paper drafted by the TF Chair as
a starting point.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:25:46 +0000
From: Erick Iriarte <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] II Congreso Iberoamericano Independiente de Nombres de Dominio

Porque
de vez en cuando
es bueno algo de informacion en Espa�ol

Erick Iriarte Ahon
Comunidad Alfa-Redi
http.//www.alfa-redi.org

>Delivered-To: [email-masked]
>Mailing-List: [email-masked]
>Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 23:19:38 +0100
>To: [email-masked]
>From: Maky <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [MakyPress] 495 - 7-10/12/2001
>
>------------------------- MAKY PRESS ---------------------------
>                 -- noticias para internautas --
>              A�o II. 2� �poca, n�m 495, 7-10/12/2001
>________________________________________________________________
>
>EN PORTADA
>� II Congreso Iberoamericano Independiente sobre Nombres de
>Dominio (http://www.dominiuris.com/congreso/index.htm)
>
>________________________________________________________________
>
>EN PORTADA
>________________________________________________________________
>
>II CONGRESO IBEROAMERICANO INDEPENDIENTE SOBRE NOMBRES DE DOMINIO
>
>(MakyPress) Durante los d�as 5 al 8 de diciembre de 2001 tuvo
>lugar en Badajoz, Espa�a, el II Congreso Iberoamericano
>Independiente sobre Nombres de Dominio que se ha ocupado
>extensamente de este signo distintivo; el principal que de
>momento ha conocido Internet. A pesar de las dificultades para su
>celebraci�n, debido a la ausencia de financiaci�n externa, el
>evento ha podido salir adelante sobre todo gracias al tes�n,
>ilusi�n y trabajo desinteresado de los organizadores GRUPO 3000,
>sin cuya participaci�n no se habr�an podido desarrollar las
>jornadas.
>
>El Congreso fue inaugurado el d�a 5 por el Director de la Escuela
>de Ingenier�as T�cnicas de la Universidad de Extremadura, en
>cuyas instalaciones se impartieron las conferencias, as� como por
>D. Carlos Castro Castro, Director General de Servicios de la
>Sociedad de la Informaci�n de la Junta de Extremadura, quien
>acudi� en representaci�n del Presidente, D. Carlos Rodr�guez
>Ibarra que no pudo acudir por cuestiones de agenda. D. Carlos
>Castro puso de manifiesto c�mo Extremadura es una regi�n pionera
>en el desarrollo de iniciativas que acerquen verdaderamente
>Internet a los ciudadanos, como por ejemplo el implantar en zonas
>rurales instalaciones p�blicas y gratuitas de acceso a Internet,
>que contrasta con las actuaciones que al respecto emprenden otras
>administraciones como la central; en este sentido, el Director
>General fue especialmente cr�tico con el Proyecto de Ley de
>Servicios de la Sociedad de la Informaci�n en que actualmente
>trabaja el Gobierno.
>
>La parte acad�mica del primer d�a fue abierta por D. Miguel �ngel
>Davara, un aut�ntico pionero del Derecho Inform�tico, quien puso
>de manifiesto los riesgos y mitos del desarrollo tecnol�gico.
>Davara destac�, en una l�nea cr�tica continuada posteriormente
>por otros ponentes, c�mo el desarrollo tecnol�gico, merced a un
>concepto "sui generis" de propiedad, propicia la aparici�n una
>estructura amo/esclavo que, lejos de la libertad prometida, nos
>distancia de la misma, encamin�ndonos hacia una especie de
>dictadura tecnol�gica, donde los medios de comunicaci�n se
>convierten en medios de control. Pero con base en un nuevo
>humanismo tecnol�gico, hay que ser optimistas, pues como indica
>este autor en su libro "De las autopistas de la informaci�n a la
>Sociedad Virtual" (Pag. 185), "No debemos olvidar que si la
>eficacia y el progreso son necesarios, nunca deben ser comparados
>a un precio en el que est� incluido un recorte en las libertades
>de la persona."
>
>Seguidamente quien suscribe este art�culo expuso una breve
>historia de Internet, destacando algunos datos, como que Espa�a
>fue un pa�s pionero en el desarrollo de la tecnolog�a de
>conmutaci�n de paquetes (que posibilita en gran medida Internet)
>al ser el primer Estado del mundo que cont�, en los a�os 60, con
>una red p�blica de transmisi�n de datos con base en esta
>tecnolog�a. El origen y desarrollo de Internet revela que �sta
>naci�, fundamentalmente, para hacer circular la informaci�n
>libremente y en la actualidad se est�n observando tendencias que
>nos dirigen hacia el camino contrario. El desarrollo
>institucional del Sistema de Nombres de Dominio, con el excesivo
>paternalismo norteamericano y la presi�n de los "lobbys" de los
>grandes titulares de marca y derechos de propiedad intelectual,
>nos aleja cada vez m�s de los principios y valores que
>posibilitaron la aparici�n de Internet.
>
>D. Ram�n Ponz, por su parte, explic� la configuraci�n actual del
>entramado institucional del sistema de nombres de dominio, en
>cuya c�spide se sit�a la ICANN, corporaci�n californiana, bajo la
>estricta observancia del Departamento de Comercio Norteamericano,
>con unas l�neas de actuaci�n que, como puso de manifiesto el
>Consejo de Estado franc�s, se encuentran guiadas en mayor medida
>por intereses norteamericanos en detrimento de la soberan�a de
>los dem�s Estados.
>
>Por �ltimo, D. Humberto Carrasco, prestigioso abogado chileno,
>nos introdujo desde la perspectiva jur�dica en el nombre de
>dominio, para esbozar las l�neas definidoras de este particular
>signo distintivo cuya aparici�n ha provocado Internet, y que
>tantas conexiones presenta con las instituciones identificativas
>anteriores a Internet.
>
>Las Jornadas para profesionales, que tuvieron lugar por las
>tardes, comenzaron explicando el funcionamiento del nombre de
>dominio y sus funciones originales, fundamentalmente de car�cter
>t�cnico, a las que ha trascendido en la actualidad. Igualmente,
>se trataron los aspectos pr�cticos del Nombre de dominio, as�
>como los problemas derivados de los nuevos dominios que se han
>creado, sobre todo en relaci�n con el .biz (que, al menos en
>Espa�a, no est� teniendo mucho �xito) y el .info, llamado a
>provocar gran litigiosidad, como muestra el caso barcelona.info
>que fue detalladamente analizado por D. Sergi Moreu y D. Ram�n
>Ponz.
>
>La ma�ana del segundo d�a fue dedicada al an�lisis de las normas
>que regulan los dominios gen�ricos y el espa�ol .es. Los dominios
>gen�ricos de primer nivel (.com, .net, .org) se encuentran
>regulados por las denominadas, con sus siglas en ingl�s, como
>UDRP (pol�tica unificada de resoluci�n de disputas), y fueron
>explicadas por D. Luis H. de Larramendi, abogado experto y
>pionero en el estudio de los nombres de dominio y �rbitro de la
>OMPI para la resoluci�n de conflictos. Tambi�n fueron estudiadas,
>por D. Julio Pardo, las normas que se ocupan del dominio .es,
>poniendo de manifiesto los principales errores y cr�ticas de que
>se hacen acreedoras, tanto las normas como la aplicaci�n, por
>momentos arbitraria, que se efect�a de las mismas. Finalmente, D.
>Fernando Carbajo, profesor de la Universidad de Salamanca, y
>autor del primer libro de habla hispana que se ocupa en exclusiva
>de los dominios en su vertiente jur�dica, concluy� la ma�ana con
>un interesante an�lisis de la incidencia de los nombres de
>dominio sobre los contratos y relaciones de distribuci�n en el
>mercado electr�nico; relaciones que, como la franquicia, cada vez
>son m�s frecuentes y que precisan de un gran proceso de
>redefinici�n para adaptarse a las condiciones que impone un nuevo
>mercado virtual como el que posibilita Internet.
>
>La tarde del jueves 6 de diciembre fue dedicada �ntegramente a
>las normas UDRP y los procedimientos que se siguen a su amparo.
>De esta forma, D. Sergi Moreu expuso la posici�n del demandante
>en este particular procedimiento, mientras que D. Javier Maestre
>explic� la forma en que puede defenderse el titular leg�timo del
>dominio, as� como los medios de reacci�n a su alcance ante
>posibles arbitrariedades del proceso UDRP. Finalmente, y como
>paso previo a interesante debate, D. Luis H. de Larramendi
>proporcion� una visi�n integradora, poniendo de manifiesto c�mo
>hay algunos aspectos de las UDRP y del procedimiento ante la OMPI
>(Organizaci�n Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual) que necesitan
>reformarse para su mejora.
>
>Los asistentes efectuaron un exhaustivo an�lisis de estas normas
>y de su aplicaci�n. De forma un�nime, se acepta la necesidad de
>reformar algunos aspectos del procedimiento, en el sentido de
>dotarle de mayores garant�as y de asegurar la independencia de
>los panelistas que deciden los asuntos, para posibilitar la
>aparici�n de un cuerpo doctrinal coherente que elimine la actual
>incertidumbre sobre los criterios interpretativos que se siguen.
>A pesar de ello, hay autores que elevan su cr�tica algunos
>pelda�os, argumentando, acaso no sin raz�n, que el procedimiento
>UDRP y la OMPI se encuentra intencionadamente inclinado a favor
>de los titulares de marca y en detrimento de los titulares de
>nombres de dominio. Si bien se admite que durante un tiempo se
>cometieron excesos por parte de los titulares de dominio, s� que
>da la impresi�n de que el p�ndulo ahora se ha inclinado a favor
>de los titulares de marca y que es necesaria, por consiguiente,
>una reacci�n en sentido inverso.
>
>La ma�ana del tercer d�a fue abierta por D. Carlos S�nchez
>Almeida, abogado experto en nuevas tecnolog�as, especialmente en
>su vertiente penal, cuyas palabras no dejan espacio para la
>indiferencia. En su conferencia, puso de manifiesto las nuevas
>relaciones de poder que se desarrollan en Internet y c�mo la
>mayor�a de los intentos regulatorios obedecen en primer lugar a
>intento por perpetuar, una vez adquirida, la propiedad de los
>nuevos elementos y recursos a que da lugar el desarrollo
>tecnol�gico.
>
>David Casacuberta, profesor de Filosof�a de la Universidad
>Aut�noma de Barcelona, sigui� profundizando en las relaciones de
>poder que se instauran en Internet. Evidenci� los intentos de
>control informativo que actualmente desarrollan los poderes
>f�cticos y c�mo se dirigen, directa o indirectamente, a
>restringir las manifestaciones de la libertad de expresi�n,
>derecho fundamental consagrado en la mayor�a de las
>constituciones del mundo.
>
>Por �ltimo, Humberto Carrasco ilustr� a los asistentes sobre el
>particular procedimiento de registro y oposici�n que se ha
>instaurado en Chile, compar�ndolo con el proceso UDRP. El sistema
>arbitral chileno es uno de los m�s avanzados de nuestro entorno
>cultural y todo un modelo a seguir por los distintos pa�ses,
>especialmente Espa�a, cuya gesti�n del dominio .es deja
>ciertamente mucho que desear.
>
>En las jornadas de la tarde, el viernes d�a 7 de diciembre, se
>trataron algunos problemas de la normativa sobre el dominio .es,
>como, por ejemplo, la ausencia de cobertura legal de la que
>adolece la legislaci�n reglamentaria en la materia, la falta de
>adecuaci�n a la normativa sobre tasas o la imposici�n de
>requisitos no previstos en las normas, y que dan lugar a un
>elevado nivel de conflictos. Igualmente fue analizado, por parte
>de los responsables de la tienda virtual DeNuestraTierra.com y
>desde la perspectiva empresarial, el problema de la
>identificaci�n en Internet y los riesgos que se corren cuando se
>desembarca en este medio.
>
>Finalmente, Humberto Carrasco concluy� la jornada con su ponencia-
>mesa redonda sobre las "Keywords", un nuevo sistema de
>identificaci�n que, si cumple las previsiones de sus impulsores,
>se encuentra llamado a tener una importancia identificativa para
>Internet mayor incluso que los actuales nombres de dominio. Este
>proyecto, en el que entre otros participa la compa��a de software
>actualmente m�s omnipresente, se encamina a trasladar los
>engranajes del sistema de identificaci�n, desde el modelo l�gico
>estructurado de los dominios, hacia el software del navegador y
>se encuentra llamado a producir grandes conflictos.
>
>La jornada de clausura del s�bado comenz� con la conferencia de
>D. Javier Maestre en la que se plante� la insuficiencia de las
>doctrinas jur�dicas actuales en materia distintiva y la necesidad
>de elaborar una Teor�a General que aglutine a las diferentes
>categor�as identificadoras de trascendencia jur�dica. D. Javier
>Plaza, profesor de Derecho Civil de la Universidad de Valencia
>dict� la �ltima conferencia analizando la relaciones del nombre
>de dominio con una de las categor�as distintivas m�s importantes
>de la historia, el nombre de las personas f�sicas.
>
>Finalmente, tras una mesa redonda, en la que la mayor�a de los
>ponentes efectuaron una breve valoraci�n del Congreso y los temas
>tratados, �ste fue clausurado por D. Javier Maestre, invitando a
>los asistentes para acudir la pr�xima cita a celebrar en Chile el
>a�o pr�ximo.
>
>As�, el Congreso concluy� con gran �xito y los objetivos, a pesar
>de la ausencia de financiaci�n, fueron cumplidos. Las jornadas
>evidenciaron c�mo Internet es un nuevo medio de desarrollo para
>el ser humano que, como todos, aunque se encuentra en proceso de
>definici�n, reclama un sistema de identificaci�n para las
>iniciativas que alberga. En este sentido, el nombre de dominio,
>principal elemento de identificaci�n actual de ese medio, nos
>enfrenta con el viejo problema de la identificaci�n que ha
>acompa�ado al hombre desde sus or�genes. Pero Internet es un
>medio en evoluci�n que cambia y, por consiguiente, no es de
>extra�ar tampoco que el sistema de identificaci�n siga los pasos
>del medio al que se encuentra adscrito. Y al respecto cabe
>efectuar dos consideraciones.
>
>En primer lugar, que las actuales tendencias que se observan en
>Internet se sit�an en la l�nea de pretender, en contra de su
>concepci�n originaria, un mayor control de la informaci�n y de
>las personas que en ella interact�an y, consecuentemente, el
>sistema de identificaci�n sigue esa misma tendencia, como pone
>manifiesto la figura de las Keywords que podr�a desbancar al
>nombre de dominio como el principal elemento de identificaci�n de
>Internet.
>
>En segundo lugar, que las instituciones identificativas se
>encuentran afectadas por un gran dinamismo, que opera tanto sobre
>la instituci�n identificativa concreta (por ejemplo, nombre de
>persona f�sica), que a lo largo de la historia sufre grandes
>modificaciones seg�n el tiempo y la civilizaci�n que analicemos,
>as� como sobre el elemento o signo concreto de identificaci�n
>que, a lo largo de su vida y como sucede en Espa�a con el Toro de
>Osborne, puede atravesar diferentes categor�as en materia
>distintiva (desde marca a incono de identificaci�n cultural).
>
>Todo ello evidencia la necesidad de elaborar una Teor�a General
>en materia distintiva que trascienda al doble dinamismo analizado
>y que, integrando las distintas categor�as identificativas de
>trascendencia jur�dica a que da lugar la actividad humana,
>proporcione satisfactorias respuestas a los interrogantes que se
>plantean en los proleg�menos del Siglo XXI.
>
>Todas y estas cuestiones seguir�n siendo analizadas por los
>expertos que intervinieron de cara a la celebraci�n del III
>Congreso Iberoamericano Independiente sobre nombres de dominio
>que presumiblemente tendr� lugar en el mes de Agosto de 2001 en
>Santiago de Chile, y ser� coordinado por Humberto Carrasco.
>
>(En el n�mero de ma�ana daremos informaci�n adicional a esta
>________________________________________________________________
>
>_________________ INFORMACION SOBRE MAKY PRESS _________________
>________________________________________________________________
>
>Tu direcci�n de suscripci�n a este bolet�n es [email-masked]
>Para darte de baja, env�a un mensaje a:
>mailto:makypress-baja-faia=[email-masked]
>
>Para obtener ayuda, visita:
>http://para.villanos.net/lista/makypress
>________________________________________________________________
>
>MAKY PRESS es una publicaci�n gratuita de <http://villanos.net> y editada 
>por Maky ([email-masked]) para los internautas de
>habla hispana.
>
>Fidonet las recibe por: Vicente Fons
>Nuestros colaboradores son los internautas...
>...y eso ser�a largo de poner aqu� ;)
>
>Para consultar n�meros anteriores: 
><http://para.villanos.net/lista/makypress/archivo/>
>
>Contra el Spam:EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/
>
>          Hecho por:<http://www.villanos.net> (c)2001
>_____________________ FIN DEL MENSAJE ;) ______________________
>
>

- --
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 #920
************************