Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #944
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, December 29 2001         Volume 01 : Number 944

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

Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 12:42:02 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] sunrise

- --part1_118.a08e172.295cb76a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Can someone tell me the exact date the sunrise period ended ?

- --part1_118.a08e172.295cb76a_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Can someone tell me the exact date the sunrise period ended ?</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_118.a08e172.295cb76a_boundary--
- --
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, 27 Dec 2001 10:59:20 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Common and Simple

Thank you, very much for this post.

I would like to see all you suggest come about.

However I would also like to see and increase in awareness
regarding the political/social/monetary impacts that these
seemingly technical matters have on the world.  And in that
vain like to see an increase in participation of differing
schools of thought.  This will require professional patience on
the part of technically oriented folks.

"Gendron, Michael (MIS)" wrote:

>
> Most of you will not know me - I apologize for that.  I have been on this
> list for  over a year, but have sent very few posts.  The reason is simple:
> I do not have the inclination to entertain the lack of professionalism on
> this list - so I wind up deleting most emails without reading them.  I am
> saddened by this and as one of my New Years Resolutions I have promised
> myself that I would read email from this list.
>
> There are many good and well-meaning people on this list.  They represent
> different viewpoints - that is what makes this list useful. However, I do
> not understand why this list (and others) devolves into personal insults and
> a general lack of professionalism.
>
> It is my hope that we can all resolve to eliminate personalities from this
> list, stop bickering, have constructive dialog, achieve goals, and get the
> job done.  The amount of bandwidth (and time) we waste nit picking is
> unconscionable.  If we used this time and energy to problem solve, perhaps
> we could achieve more.
>
> For those of you who I offend - I apologize L
> For those of you who agree with me - thanks.
> For the rest - get involved!
>
> For all of us - lets work to make this electronic meeting place somewhere
> where we can get the job done.
>
> Happy holidays,
> Dr Michael Gendron
> Associate Professor
> CCSU
> --
> 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, 27 Dec 2001 10:59:05 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] who owns the internet

I really think that we should add perceptions of the ordinary
billion users to this equation.  All of this is for not without usage.

What they perceive determines what the want or not.

ICANN has a perception problem as they do not care.

Marketing is education and Education is marketing.

Eric

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 00:56 27/12/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
> >As for 60% of users online time being "controlled" by 14 companies -- that
> >seems to ignore the amount of time users spend online sending and responding
> >to email -- still the most popular online activity, whether narrow band or
> >broadband, at home or at work.
>
> I am afraid you confuse the "time spent" with "used resources". Time is
> spent on the net on search engines, chat, webmail, sites. "time spent"
> actually means "time as being a target for real time spaming (advertizing)".
>
> >As for what ICANN is responsible for, among it's other limited
> >responsibilities, ICANN is introducing competition in the delivery of
> >registration services; however, it has never had any oversight over the
> >content of Web sites, nor the infrastructure which makes up the Internet.
> >And, frankly, I would think that we would all agree with that!
>
> I am afraid you are confusing the issues here. The fight is over the TM
> being repeated to the brains of the users. The emphasis on TM is only
> dependent on the UDRP and the pro-TM policy of the ICANN. Just 100 new
> gTLDs and the entire commercial picture of the Internet would be changed,
> becoming real and a true picture of the real world.
>
> The problem is that the current balance in term of IP is - as shownn by
> this study - only favoring a dwindling number of large commercial actors to
> the detriment of all the other TM holders and commercial sites. JMM only
> shows that 96 commercial leaders of the Internet have lost their shirt
> under the present ICANN commercial management.
>
> This means that the ICANN has lost 96 existing or real sponsors. This means
> loss in the BC Membership. This means disadventages for the IPC Members.
>
> >No one, not ICANN staff,ICANN board, nor ICANN stakeholders, wants to turn
> >control of access to content and content on web sites,  over to anyone other
> >than themselves!  I would think that one of the general areas of agreement
> >among the diverse ICANN stakeholder community.
>
> The first agreement in this stakeholder community is that the proper order
> is ICANN stakeholders, then ICANN GoD and then ICANN staff.
>
> Should that agreement be enforced, the joke of the 2000 MdR meeting
> allocating TLDs for their contents would nevar have occured, RFC 920 would
> be enforced, NSI would still be what it should be: a pool of secretaries
> registering names in a database.
>
> Tss, tss, tss. We all know that most of the so called ICANN policy comes
> from agregating your personal lobbying, Mike Roberts positions and Joe Sims
> protection of Jones Days interests. We all also know that there is some
> good rationale for that as this could have lead to a certain stability. The
> people asking for the protection of the Princes. Unfortunately we see here
> that this protection does not work and - dramatically reducing the number
> of Princes - dramatically reduces the protection and pave the way to the
> remaining Princes tiranny.
>
> In quoting that figures I did not think you would fight me. I though you
> would take it as a serious warning for your company, because this means
> that the market is becoming dangerous for AT&T. One among 110 is OK. One
> among 14 is far less confortable. At this speed, the net will be lead only
> by two or three companies next year. This only means one thing: the net
> will react and swicth to a new configuration, by-passing these three majors
> leaving them with a dramatical loss. Let suppose that MS, SAIC and ATT are
> these three leaders: MS will not survive a massive switch to a free stand
> alone system architecture, SAIC will not survive an open DNS and states
> sponsored webs of trust, and ATT will not survive a massive use of HiWi and
> legal obligations to reduce the costs of accesses, three likely
> architecture creeps we may observe speeded up by contents take over. With
> likely massive media, people and States support under such circumstances.
>
> Jefsey
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 1:53 PM
> >To: [email-masked]
> >Subject: [ga] who owns the internet
> >
> >
> >"Big corporations have a significant and growing presence on the Internet.
> >In March, just 14 companies controlled 60 percent of users' online time,
> >down from 110 companies two years earlier, Jupiter Media Metrix found.
> >Policy decisions and technological developments in the next year and beyond
> >could give big business even greater power in the online world."
> >
> >This shows the failure of the ICANN which was supposed to foster
> >competiton... I do not know if an other politic could have done better. But
> >this certainly explains the frustration of many.
> >
> >May be the author went confused with his words: "technical decisions for
> >political development"  would better explain the situation.
> >
> >Jefsey
> >
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> 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, 27 Dec 2001 20:03:15 +0100 (MET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] sunrise

> Can someone tell me the exact date the sunrise period ended ?

Received a challenge? ;-)

ALL SUNRISE CHALLENGES MUST BE SUBMITTED TO WIPO NO LATER THAN 23:59 UTC ON DECEMBER 26, 2001.
- --
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, 27 Dec 2001 15:57:57 -0500
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] sunrise

Third party challenges must be filed by 23:59 UTC ON DECEMBER 26, 2001.

However, under the revised rules  "the Registry reserves the right to bring,
after the conclusion of the Sunrise Challenge Period, a Challenge of Last
Resort in connection with Sunrise registrations appearing to be made in
violation of the sunrise registration conditions."

See
http://www.afilias.info/register/dispute_resolution/sunrise_challenge_policy
_revised

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 2:03 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] sunrise
>
>
> > Can someone tell me the exact date the sunrise period ended ?
>
> Received a challenge? ;-)
>
> ALL SUNRISE CHALLENGES MUST BE SUBMITTED TO WIPO NO LATER THAN
> 23:59 UTC ON DECEMBER 26, 2001.
> --
> 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, 27 Dec 2001 16:06:54 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] sunrise

I have to say that challenging the sunrise periods,
and helping to establish a better method should probably
be in one of the top ten priorities we have for the next year.

As a candidate for the chair I ask for input on this issue.

Sincerely,
Eric

[email-masked] wrote:

> > Can someone tell me the exact date the sunrise period ended ?
>
> Received a challenge? ;-)
>
> ALL SUNRISE CHALLENGES MUST BE SUBMITTED TO WIPO NO LATER THAN 23:59 UTC ON DECEMBER 26, 2001.
> --
> 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, 27 Dec 2001 19:50:32 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] I was asked to substantiate my serious concerns about the Afilias registry - look at this for a start

Richard and all assembly members,

  Richard asks on the bottom of this informational post, "Is this
acceptable conduct?"
It would be interesting to get some feedback from the DNSO GA members
on this...  I know our [INEGroup] members position is, NO this is
not acceptable conduct!  In fact it is not legal conduct.  However the
ICANN BoD and staff have a oversight responsibility under the MoU
and White paper contractual obligation to the DOC/NTIA and the
stakeholders.
Yet it seems that this sort of conduct by one of the ICANN BOD and
staff's
"Selections" for a registry (.INFO) will not be appropriately dealt
with...

What say you my fellow GA members?

Richard Henderson wrote:

>  In the Afilias Press Release of August 15th, you can read:
>
> QUOTE: Hal Lubsen, Afilias' CEO, said, "It is unfortunate that some
> individuals have misused the Sunrise period in an attempt to abuse the
> process."
>
> Four days later, Hal Lubsen's company received payment in the region
> of $13000 to support the application of supposedly Trademarked names
> with ZERO data - such as:
>
> Domain ID:  D70898-LRMS
> Domain Name:  BURUNDI.INFO
> Created On:  20-Aug-2001 15:22:20 UTC
> Expiration Date:  20-Aug-2006 15:22:20 UTC
> Trademark Name:  none
> Trademark Date:  2001-08-17
> Trademark Country:  none
> Trademark Number:  none
> Sponsoring Registrar:  Domain Bank, Inc. (R107-LRMS
>
> *****
>
> Domain ID:  D70909-LRMS
> Domain Name:  ESTONIA.INFO
> Created On:  20-Aug-2001 15:22:37 UTC
> Expiration Date:  20-Aug-2006 15:22:37 UTC
> Trademark Name:  none
> Trademark Date:  2001-08-17
> Trademark Country:  none
> Trademark Number:  none
> Sponsoring Registrar:  Domain Bank, Inc. (R107-LRMS)
>
> *****
>
> Domain ID:  D70901-LRMS
> Domain Name:  CHAD.INFO
> Created On:  20-Aug-2001 15:22:23 UTC
> Expiration Date:  20-Aug-2006 15:22:23 UTC
> Trademark Name:  none
> Trademark Date:  2001-08-17
> Trademark Country:  none
> Trademark Number:  none
> Sponsoring Registrar:  Domain Bank, Inc. (R107-LRMS)
>
> *****
>
> ...not to mention 88 others!
>
> Not only was there NO data, but every single Trademark date was
> outside the eligible deadline.
>
> And yet Hal Lubsen's company Domain Bank were willing to take around
> $13000 to submit these names and (in his own words) "abuse the
> process".
>
> Furthermore, in his capacity as CEO of Afilias, he presided over the
> registering of these totally ineligible applications (which his own
> company had profited from).
>
> And furthermore still, when William Lorenz decided that it was wrong
> to defraud the internet community, and requested 23 times (copies of
> all these requests available) to have the names immediately deleted so
> that they would be available at Landrush, his request was declined.
>
> To repeat the original quote from the Afilias Press Release:
>
> QUOTE: Hal Lubsen, Afilias' CEO, said, "It is unfortunate that some
> individuals have misused the Sunrise period in an attempt to abuse the
> process."
>
> Is this acceptable conduct?
>
>

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: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 00:56:31 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: Concerning a restricted .org

Vany and all,

Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:

> Hi Duncan, Chris and all:
>
> Thank you for bring this issue here.  And I think that is time to
> separate things.
>
> Duncan, I think you are confusing "Restriction"  with "Challenging
> Registrations".

  Not really Vany.  "Challenging Registrations" is in effect a form of
Restriction.  So let's not mix metaphors shall we?  >;)

>
>
> The Restriction part is about not allowing certain kind of entities to
> register in a TLD.

  Yes it is.  ANd as this applies to .ORG compared to the current
practice for .ORG today, consideration of restricting registrations
now would only lead to more legal trouble than necessary or
reasonable with those already with domain name registered
in the .ORG name space/gTLD.  In addition at this juncture
with respect to .ORG, going to a S,R model, would or could
be considered a restraint of trade and restriction of speech.

>
> For example, regardless which non-commercial organizations will register
> NIKE, for sure a
> commercial organization named NIKE won't be allowed to register inside
> .ORG, because the
> charter would prevent a commercial organization to register in .ORG.

  Yes, however NIKE may also have a non-commercial arm or subsidiary
of it's parent corp., the commercial NIKE.  This could be true, and is
in a number of other Corps. in the US and elsewhere...  Hence, to restrict
registrations in .ORG by the parent Corps. commercial activity disregarding
any of it's non-commercial identity would be inconsistent with both reality
and US law.

>
>
> The "DRP process" is about challenging registrations.  Entites will
> Challenge Registrations
> regardless if the TLD is Unesponsored Unrestricted or Unesponsored
> Restricted or Sponsored Restricted
> or Sponsonsored Unrestricted (the only category that according to ICANN
> doesn't exists).

  Yes this is true.  But if U,U or S,U it is much less likely that that such
challenges will be attempted in many if not most instances, and if such
a challenge is attempted the success rate is likely very low.

>  But if a good DRP
> process is achieved inside .ORG a decision with clear preference to the
> Non-Commercial organizations could be achieved.

Yes, but you get into the same old problem of splitting hairs between
non-commercial and non-profit.

>
>
> Now, stablished that Restriction doesn't means "Challenging
> Registrations", then we can go futher.
> One thing is the Charter, other thing is the kind of DRP used.  The
> relationship betweem them is that
> the Charter will stablish which kind of DRP will be used and how it will
> be applied (to all domain names regardless
> registration or only to registrations that will take place after
> divesture, to give clear advantage to Non-Commercial Organizations
> over Commercial ones or make it similar as UDRP?, to follow a fair
> process when the complaiant is amongst two Non-COmmercials?).

  This would require a revamping of the current ill conceived WIPO
UDRP to be reasonable successful.

>
>
> Taking your own example:  NIKE the shoes, NIKE the Nicaraguan
> Non-profit.  The a good DRP process for .ORG would dismiss
> inmediatly any complaint if iniciated by NIKE the sports shoes because
> it is a commercial.   A good DRP for
> .ORG would have clear advantages for NOn-COmmercial organizations and
> would give clear preference to NIKE the Nicaraguan NOn-Profit
> over such domain if the complaiant is NIKE the Nicaragua Non-Profit.
> This would be possible if .ORG is Sponsored Restricted, because in
> Sponsored Restricted you have the freedom to define the Charter and to
> also design your own DRP process.  With Sponsored Unrestricted
> there's no charter as such and if, such a category would exists in the
> future, probably the DRP process would be the UDRP we know.

  Why would S,U or even U,U have such a concern?  Why would
S,R have such and advantage presently?  How could such a new
DRP once divestiture of .ORG be assured to be significantly
different from the present UDRP?

>
>
> Now lets take another example you gave:  US Non-Profit IP Lawyers vs
> Zimbawan Human Rights Organization.
> A good DRP process would assure to both a fair process regardless their
> actual legal status, since in .ORG
> there should be no difference between non-commercial organizations and
> non-commercial activities.

  "Should" is an optional term in this context.  Jurisdictional restraints and
conditions would be key here.  Hence the contention in this argument is
not necessarily, or even likely adequate.

>
> However, Duncan, in this scenario is totally irrelevant if .ORG is U-U
> or U-R or S-U or S-R. You can have the scenario you exposes with actual
> model of .ORG.  The case you are exposing here is about Intelectual
> Property rights in the Non-Commercial World, not about restriction.

  Not really true.  It is both in reality.

>
>
> And the most difficult example you gave:  Tunisian government fake
> non-commercial organization vs Legitimate Non-Commercial Organization.
> I clarify you, again, this is NOT A RESTRICTION issue.  This is an issue
> of proper DRP process just like the previous
> case regardless if .ORG is UU, UR, SU or SR.

If U,U or S,U, than this becomes a non-problem.  With U,R or S,R
the problem becomes much more likely and distinct, not to mention
messy.

>

>
>
> And in the Unrestricted category, there are abuses already but the abuse
> comes from the Commercial interests that registers domains
> names only to protect intelectual property preventing that a legimit
> Non-Commercial organization (whether formally or not incorporated
> legally in their country) can be identified inside .ORG by its domain
> name that, by casuality, it is the same than the domain name of the
> commercial one.

  This sounds on the surface like a strong argument.  But as I briefly
outlined above, some commercial corps. have non-commercial
subsidiaries with the same name. So to go with this argument above,
one therefore restricts unfairly, and likely illegally non-commercial
entities related to existing commercial ones.  This would create
a legal morass that would dwarf what the present UDRP has
thus fare engendered thus far.

>
>
> Can we agree at this point that:
> 1.  Sponsored Restricted is the most effective way to prevent that
> commercial entities take away domain names that otherwise non-commercial
> could use for legimit purposes?

  No it isn't (See some of the reasons/arguments provided above
in response)...

>
> 2.  That Challenging Registrations is an issue about the DRP adopted and
> not about Restriction when you are dealing with the scenario
> Non-Commercial vs Non-Commercial?

  Also no this is not exactly correct to.  (Also see arguments provided
in response above).

>
> 3.  That a .ORG Charter in the model of Sponsored Restricted is open to
> define that there's no difference between Non-Commercial Organizations
> legally incorporated and Informal Non-Commercial groups and activities,
> and as such, the DRP process should not make any discrimination just
> because lack of legal documents?

Again no here as well.  Lack of proper legal documents must be in part
part of any DRP process.

>
> 4.  That being an "Sponsored" TLD is very important in the same level
> than being "Restricted or Unrestricted" because it obligates the
> Sponsoring Registry to engage with its target community?

  Yes, sponsored would seem to be a must.

>
>
> Looking forward to read your comments.
>
> Best Regards
> Vany
>
> Chris Bailey wrote:
> >
> > >Reply-To: "Pruett, Duncan" <[email-masked]>
> > >From: "Pruett, Duncan" <[email-masked]>
> > >To: "Chris Bailey" <[email-masked]>
> > >Subject: Fw: Discuss digest, Vol 1 #187 - 14 msgs
> > >Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 10:30:48 +0100
> > >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
> > >
> > >Chris,
> > >
> > >I'm typing this from home, and here I'm not a member of the NCDNHC list, but
> > >something has to be said about Vany's comments. Please feel free to forward
> > >this to the list on my behalf (I won't be checking the list for a while, but
> > >I hope this contribution helps people/Vany understand the problem). In
> > >addition to arguing this out with everyone
> > >on the list, I went through this whole discussion with her on a subway train
> > >on the way to a reception during the Stockholm meetings - why can't people
> > >see how problematic this restriction thing is? Making .org restricted is the
> > >BEST way to open up the TLD for abuse. The easy example she gives of company
> > >ABC is too simplistic. That's how it should work in a perfect world. But it
> > >assumes that an international definition of a non-profit is possible. But it
> > >just isn't!
> > >
> > >Let me give better examples:
> > >
> > >Nicaraguans for Intellectuals Killed or Exiled (NIKE) registers "nike.org".
> > >They're a non-profit human rights group. Nike (the corporation) comes along
> > >and takes them to court using the special DRP under discussion. They
> > >challenge the non-profit credentials of the group in question. In order to
> > >prove that they are bona fide, Nicaraguans for Intellectuals Killed or
> > >Exiled have to produce their non-profit "registration" they got from the
> > >Nicaraguan government. But they don't have any, and it turns out that in the
> > >eyes of the Nicaraguan authorities, NIKE is an outlaw organisation (since it
> > >is critical of the government's policies) which would never register them as
> > >a non-profit. Nike (the corporation) can't have the name itself, but, like
> > >with the UDRP, it can demand that the registration be cancelled.
> > >
> > >Another: An IP lawyers' group in the US (a bona fide non-proft with the very
> > >trustworthy 501c3 status) wants "rights.org". But right now it's held by a
> > >human rights group in Zimbabwe critical of President Mugabe. Mugabe
> > >challenges the registration, to prevent this group having such a high
> > >profile on the internet, and the arbitrators are told by a sovereign state
> > >that the registration has been made by a "terrorist group". Do they have any
> > >choice but to accept Mugabe's definition. Once the domain name is cancelled,
> > >the IP Lawyer's group gets the name! A group in a country where there is
> > >less respect for the rule of law, or where the system is corrupt will suffer
> > >from an internationally enforcable definition. The group in the US, where
> > >there is a rock solid, uncorruptible system in place, will gain from an
> > >"international" definition.
> > >
> > >Another: In Tunisia, the government sets up a puppet NGO which registers
> > >"amnestytunisia.org" to put out positive human rights information about
> > >Tunisia. People in Tunisia and elsewhere may be duped into thinking that
> > >this site (filled with government propaganda) is linked with Amnesty
> > >International, whose real Tunisian chapter isn't even involved in putting
> > >out information about human rights in Tunisia (Amnesty local groups only
> > >campaign on issues outside their own country). Amnesty International
> > >challenges the registration, saying that the name is misleading and that the
> > >group is a fake. The sponsored TLD arbitration panel would be able to say
> > >that the local group is a registered non-profit, based on the national
> > >Tunisian criteria, and based on the organisation's papers. The complaint
> > >would fail. The current UDRP would give Amnesty a better chance of curbing
> > >the abuse than a sponsored DRP.
> > >
> > >Vany must look beyond the nice easy example of how the DRP could help, and
> > >look for ways in which it might do damage. Whether .org is sponsored or
> > >unsponsored is far less important than whether it is restricted or not. It
> > >should not be.
> > >
> > >This is an area where the democratic international trade union movement has
> > >a long experience. Groups (particularly membership organisations - think
> > >_freedom of association_ here) that do _good_ work in the field of rights
> > >and democracy often either undermined, or completely outlawed by their own
> > >governments.
> > >
> > >Happy holidays!
> > >
> > >Duncan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> --
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales, BSEE
> Information Technology Specialist
> Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> Member of the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency
> Tel: (507) 317-0169
> http://www.sdnp.org.pa
> e-mail:  [email-masked]
>
> Are you a Non-Commercial organization and have a domain name?
> Join the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency, ncdnhc.icann-ncc.org
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:02:34 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Captain, O my Captain

O Captain!  My Captain!
http://www.yoga.com/raw/readings/OCaptainMyCaptain.html

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Captain, O my Captain

> Dear Eric,
> this message is about this problem hopefully  *not* to explode but to be
> handled appropriately by Vint. But if it must, let be it. I fully
> understand that Stuart may want to hide perfectly reasonable things for
> perfectly reasonable reasons. But if he wants to hide them this is because
> he is an unreasonable situation and tries to handle it at his best. That
> unreasonable situation must be addressed because the truth always free us -
> and Stuart - on the medium or long term. This is common interest for a
> common service mission. Maybe the nets security, certainly the nets
> stability are concerned.
>
> Jefsey

<snip>

- --
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, 28 Dec 2001 08:28:35 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] sunrise

So, Mr. Anonymous wrote me this;

> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > I have to say that challenging the sunrise periods,
> > and helping to establish a better method should probably
> > be in one of the top ten priorities we have for the next year.
> >
> > As a candidate for the chair I ask for input on this issue.
>
> OK, here's one: A "pre-dawn" period for those who have rights in names
> other than rights derived from trademark laws.  The pre-dawn registration
> occurs before sunrise and trumps any "sunrise" registration.
>
> People are more important than trademarks, so people who have uses for
> names ought to have the first opportunity.
>
> Second, for every sunrise there is a sunset - all "sunrise" registrations
> ought to lapse and be re-justified every so often (like every two years).
>

I believe this person is trying to tell us that a first come first right
is
not
possible.  So we are going to have to work in the framework as
dictated by the IP interests.  I think the above positive concepts may
well
work.

And when it is Eric Dierker versus Dierker Inc. the first come first
right
should prevail.

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: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 12:20:27 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Captain, O my Captain

- --part1_127.987817d.295e03db_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Patrick:

http://www.fullmoongraphics.com/psalm.html

- --part1_127.987817d.295e03db_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Patrick:<BR>
<BR>
http://www.fullmoongraphics.com/psalm.html</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_127.987817d.295e03db_boundary--
- --
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: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 18:16:05 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "New Mechanism for the Internet Community to Submit Comments"

On Saturday, December 01, 2001 11:27 AM, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:

> Thank you for your note. I am sure it is no surprise to you to learn
> that work is already underway to create a new mechanism for the
> Internet community to submit comments.

Hi Stuart

I note your above comments and wonder how did we go with the "new mechanism
for the Internet community to submit comments" ?

Have I missed it, perhaps ?

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #944
************************