| Ben Edelman BCIS in-room (5/22/1999 11:06:35 PM, #138) (Message has been read to the assembled group) test in-room comment |
| John Wilbanks Streaming away... (5/25/1999 1:19:55 PM, #139) (Message has been read to the assembled group) z |
| M S Hello! (5/25/1999 2:03:18 PM, #141) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Hello WS !! just got in to work.. Where are you? --MS |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET gTLD (5/25/1999 2:03:51 PM, #142) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Who were the 4 participants? |
| Mikki Barry DNRC gTLD (5/25/1999 2:06:30 PM, #143) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I find it amusing that it seems surprising to those who blocked the addition of new gTLDs that the one gTLD would have 3 names council seats. |
| Kent Crispin songbird (5/25/1999 2:07:13 PM, #144) (Message has been read to the assembled group) If the purpose of the constituencies is not numerical, then there does not need to be 3 representatives |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET gTLD (5/25/1999 2:08:16 PM, #145) (Message has been read to the assembled group) How will there be adequate and appropriate representation of differing opinions in the model Don is proposing? |
| Peter de Blanc VI ccTLD Admin ccTLD position (5/25/1999 2:09:20 PM, #146) (Message has been read to the assembled group) So far- no mention of RFC's 1591, etc continuing to govern admin of ccTLDs . Many ccTLDs have stated support of the continuation of RFC 1591 |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET gTLD (5/25/1999 2:11:42 PM, #147) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Where is there a definition of constituency which states that only an existing gTLD may be a constituent for a gTLD DNSO? |
| Kevin Boyle gTLD, 3 appointments - 1 company (5/25/1999 2:13:01 PM, #148) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I also find one company with 3 seats on the names council disturbing. There are other entities interested in forming constituencies that were not able to be present. Can there be other entities added after Berlin? |
| Mikki Barry DNRC commercial constituency (5/25/1999 2:18:26 PM, #149) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Jon Englund has been VERY active in the intellectual property field. To have him as a name council member in the commercial constituency unfairly increases the power of the intellectual property group across the DNSO. |
| Jeff Williams INEG. INC. ICANN's restricting formation of Constituencies (5/25/1999 2:21:30 PM, #150) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Esther and the ICANN INterim Board, Why last week on the IFWP mailing list was a sudden announcment that formation of DNSO constituency groups linited? What authority does ICANN have from arbitrarly liiting the formation of constituency groups? How does doing so meet the requirnments of the White Paper with respect to Openess and Transparency? |
| Kevin Boyle gTLD (5/25/1999 2:28:34 PM, #151) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The names of the 4 people present were spoken in the meeting room but Esther did not repeat them so they were not heard over the net. Who were they, please? |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET Registrar (5/25/1999 2:38:13 PM, #152) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Is constituency limited to existing "registrars"? |
| Mikki Barry DNRC inclusion (5/25/1999 2:38:47 PM, #153) (Message has been read to the assembled group) If ICANN is truly going to be a body that encourages diversity, constituencies should be focusing on inclusion rather than narrow definitions of who is allowed to join what constituency and who has a vote. Barbara Dooley's group seems to have done that. I haven't heard the others making the attempt for inclusion. |
| kent crispin songbird definition of registrar (5/25/1999 2:42:49 PM, #154) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The issue is: does ICANN (through it's contractual requirements) have a problem with small registrars? That is, the problem is not with the requirement that registrars be licensed; the problem is that the licensing requirements are high. |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET Registrar (5/25/1999 2:47:19 PM, #155) (Message has been read to the assembled group) With the understanding that ICANN's objective is to "offer broad participation and a variety of views" [E. Dyson], is ICANN willing to consider an additional gTLD constituency? The gTLD DNSO as described by Don Telage is narrow in participation and offers a restricted set of views. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC important clarification (5/25/1999 2:51:40 PM, #156) (Message has been read to the assembled group) DNRC has not yet looked at the compromise proposal and the board has not voted on it. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC important clarification (5/25/1999 2:57:38 PM, #157) (Message has been read to the assembled group) DNRC has not yet looked at the compromise proposal and the board has not voted on it. DNRC was not involved in any of these elections. DNRC needs to review these proposals before we accept them. |
| Jeff Graber Association of Internet Professionals Vote should be on-line (5/25/1999 3:04:34 PM, #158) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Any planned election should be handled on-line. Basing it on physical meeting is rather strange for an Internet org. |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET IP rights (5/25/1999 3:08:06 PM, #159) (Message has been read to the assembled group) If decisions are to be made in time frames assigned arbitrarily by ICANN, there should be consideration for a thorough review and reconsideration process. |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET Non Commercial DNSO (5/25/1999 3:19:29 PM, #160) (Message has been read to the assembled group) There appears to be a duality of approach, where exclusivity is a concern for NonCommercial DNSO proposals, but not for other constituencies. Is there a uniform ICANN approach toward DNSO constituency exclusivity? |
| kent crispin songbird (5/25/1999 3:20:46 PM, #161) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I note that the DNRC has been admitted into the IP constituency -- this exclusionary policy in the NCC seems remarkably backward. |
| kent crispin songbird (5/25/1999 3:24:08 PM, #162) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The NCC was *not* conceived as a place for minority interests; *all* the constituencies are for minority intersts; I repeat the example of the DNRC being included in the IP constituency. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC karl auerbach can't get the feed (5/25/1999 3:25:39 PM, #163) (Message has been read to the assembled group) He keeps getting a microsoft error. He wants to participate but can't. Can you do something? His email is karl@cavebear.com |
| Kevin Boyle Non-commercial TLD (5/25/1999 3:35:33 PM, #164) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Any attempt by ICANN to force or enforce direction of a constituency is very disturbing. If this is the case there needs to be a revealing of the reasons and goals for this intrusion of the pre-defined constituency process. |
| Karl Auerbach Relative size of constituencies (5/25/1999 3:42:42 PM, #165) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Given that there are far more individuals in the world than members of other constituencies, any body that represents individuals ought to have more votes for the council than other constituencies. There is certainly no fairness in having an entire constituency (and its votes) for one company and at the same time stuff the entire population of the world into an equal sized constituency. Those who disagree -- can you articulate, with precision and specificity, why such an unfair balance of power should exist within the DNSO? --karl-- |
| Mikki Barry DNRC individuals (5/25/1999 3:43:01 PM, #166) (Message has been read to the assembled group) No other constituency has been asked where their funding is coming from. Individuals need perhaps more representation than any other group. Most of the other constituencies take power FROM individuals (some more directly than others). They certainly need a say, seats on the name council, and the ability to vote on board members. The funding issue is secondary. |
| Karl Auerbach The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles Sunset provisions on constituencies (5/25/1999 4:21:25 PM, #167) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Why not have a sunset provision on each constituency? In other words, each constituency should cease to be 12 months after formation and have to re-justify its existance anew. Why not? Why should the constituencies created now be cast forever into concrete? --karl-- |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET Chuck Gomes (5/25/1999 4:30:19 PM, #168) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I would second Chuck's recommendation for a TLD expansion study, but would suggest that participation be open as the gTLD DNSO has not formerly been proposed or accepted. |
| Jeff Graber AIP Slow Down (5/25/1999 4:32:06 PM, #169) (Message has been read to the assembled group) How can you be "electing" people so soon! There should be an On-line process with a call for nominations and full voting. And it is way too soon anyways as this guy is saying right now!!! clap clap!!! |
| Mikki Barry DNRC remote questions (5/25/1999 4:33:19 PM, #170) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Would you PLEASE deal with our remote questions and comments in a timely manner? |
| Mikki Barry DNRC open, transparent, and accountable (5/25/1999 4:37:40 PM, #171) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Why is the GAC meeting closed? I would like to register a significant protest. I find it highly shocking that a country's designee would be removed from a meeting. |
| Karl Auerbach The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles GAC straw poll... (5/25/1999 4:39:15 PM, #172) (Message has been read to the assembled group) As to the vote about GAC being necessary... I vote that GAC is not needed, nor desireable. --karl-- |
| Mikki Barry DNRC seconded re: chairman's comments (5/25/1999 4:40:29 PM, #173) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The chair's commentary is problematic. He should be as neutral as possible and should refrain from comment. |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET Names Council meeting (5/25/1999 4:43:23 PM, #174) (Message has been read to the assembled group) It is not appropriate for a meeting of an Interim Names Council in Berlin. The issues at hand are important, but not *that* time critical. It is far more important for an open process to be defined. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC seconded re: Milton's suggestion (5/25/1999 4:44:42 PM, #175) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Some non commercial TLDs should be exempt from any mandatory domain name dispute policy. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC WIPO Report (5/25/1999 4:49:27 PM, #176) (Message has been read to the assembled group) What is more important than what is deciding, is who gets to decide it. The procedure for decision making is clear. There is no crisis impending that necessitates consideration of the WIPO proposal outside of the already set procedures as mapped out in the by laws. Domain name registrations are increasing exponentially. As a percentage, disputes are acctually DECREASING. Let it go through appropriate channels rather than an interim board creating substantive and far reaching policy. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC WIPO Report (5/25/1999 4:50:27 PM, #177) (Message has been read to the assembled group) What is more important than what is deciding, is who gets to decide it. The procedure for decision making is clear. There is no crisis impending that necessitates consideration of the WIPO proposal outside of the already set procedures as mapped out in the by laws. Domain name registrations are increasing exponentially. As a percentage, disputes are acctually DECREASING. Let it go through appropriate channels rather than an interim board creating substantive and far reaching policy. |
| Karl Auerbach The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles Reading the questions (5/25/1999 4:53:47 PM, #178) (Message has been read to the assembled group) There are a lot of questions on the list that were not read by the chair. Could the chair please deal with all the questions/comments that have been sent via the net. --karl-- |
| Karl Auerbach The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles Research Committees (5/25/1999 4:55:50 PM, #179) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I register a strong protest against "research committees". We do not need to add more layers of bureaucracy to the DNSO. It is already verging on the Byzantine. "Research committee" is yet another euphemism for moving control of DNSO policy into closed, dark rooms. --karl-- |
| Jeff Graber AIP Establish on-line open process (5/25/1999 4:58:06 PM, #180) (Message has been read to the assembled group) It is great to have this simulcast but it is far more important for an open process to be defined. This mtg should work to establish this process to elect via an on-line method. |
| kent crispin songbird interim NC members (5/25/1999 5:08:02 PM, #181) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Can we stop all this discussion about the GAC? It is not the business of the DNSO. |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET RECOMMENDATION (5/25/1999 5:10:15 PM, #182) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Identify the issues that need to be researched, then allow them to be taken up by the DNSO constituency groups ONCE FORMED. The issue can be identified, as well as the responsible groups for later action. |
| Karl Auerbach The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles Please handle the questions from the net. (5/25/1999 5:10:21 PM, #183) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The last time that questions were read from the net, only a few were read. Please take net questions more frequently. --karl-- |
| jeff graber AIP nothing until formalities (5/25/1999 5:10:22 PM, #184) (Message has been read to the assembled group) My vote -- Do nothing until formal elections of members!! |
| jeff graber AIP nothing until formalities (5/25/1999 5:11:26 PM, #185) (Message has been read to the assembled group) My vote -- Do nothing until formal elections of members!! Mood of the mtg -- Should move swiftly to establish an on-line method for formal election. Do not undertake substansive decisions until such elections. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC research committees (5/25/1999 5:14:07 PM, #186) (Message has been read to the assembled group) How many layers do we need? First constituencies, now research committees? I am very concerned about this type of thing. Please don't add any more layers. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC fast vs. slow (5/25/1999 5:15:57 PM, #187) (Message has been read to the assembled group) It seems that people are advocating moving quickly on subjects they agree with, and slowly on subjects they disagree with. While this is human nature, perhaps we should consider the potential harms caused across the board by moving too rapidly. We have running code. Let's be careful about what we change about it. |
| David Schutt Speco Inc Research Comittees (5/25/1999 5:17:01 PM, #188) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I don't see necessity of creating research commitees at this point. |
| Karl Auerbach The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles We don't need a working group (5/25/1999 5:20:13 PM, #189) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Just as I object to "Research Committees", I also object to "working groups". There is utterly no reason to add so much structure to the DNSO and thus further hide responsibility, accountability, and openness. --karl-- |
| kent crispin songbird Suggestion (5/25/1999 5:20:55 PM, #190) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I suggest that the interim NC members have a get-acquainted dinner or other meeting. Certainly at least some of them will remain as NC members, and there is no reason for them to refrain from meeting with each other. |
| Karl Auerbach The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles Board and Research Committees (5/25/1999 5:28:52 PM, #191) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I do not care if the board has adopted "bylaws" about Research Committees. It is not the business of the ICANN board to organize the DNSO. It is the DNSO's business to organize the DNSO. A small group of board members should not be allowed impose "Research Committees" on the DNSO. --karl-- |
| Mikki Barry DNRC WIPO's report (5/25/1999 5:30:31 PM, #192) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Michael Sondow is correct in that there were no consumer groups represented on the Panel of Experts who gave in put to WIPO. Further, 4 members of that Panel of Experts have signed the petition asking for more time for commentary. Public interest groups, and others, do not have the time to read the 180 page report, not to mention write substantive comments. This is just way too soon. Although the discussions have lasted for a long time concerning the issues, there has never been clear consensus on even whether we even NEED an all encompassing mandatory policy, not to mention what is contained in that policy. It is creation of new international law where none currently exists. |
| David Schutt Speco Inc. Representation (5/25/1999 5:31:33 PM, #193) (Message has been read to the assembled group) WIPO is a commercial interest group and It's reports -only- represent a subset of commercial opinions. |
| David Schutt Speco Inc. Representation (5/25/1999 5:32:00 PM, #194) (Message has been read to the assembled group) WIPO is a commercial interest group and It's reports -only- represent a subset of commercial opinions. |
| kent crispin songbird (5/25/1999 5:32:14 PM, #195) (Message has been read to the assembled group) There is no question: the WIPO process has been open and transparent. The fact is that there are some people that will fight the recommendations to the bitter end. There is nothing that can be done about that. We need to move forward. |
| Michael Froomkin U.Miami School of Law Research Committees, properly structured (5/25/1999 5:32:38 PM, #196) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I do not share the opposition to research committees. Properly constituted, they could be very valuable. I suggest that a *small* number be formed (so as not to distract and dillute effort) and that they be taksed with operating in the IETF-style -- having their substantive debates online, and archived. While the (voting) committee members might be defined for decision making purposes (or be allowed to "define themeselves"), they could operate in ia fully transparent manner and accept input from anyone. In other words, research committees need not be secret. To the extent they allow thoughtful, collaberative, drafting and thinking between meetings they would seem to me to tend to promote openness, clarity, consensus and thoughtful decisions. They will also provide a fine mechanism for armchair participation by those of us who are not able to fly around the world. |
| Karl Auerbach The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles How many have read WIPO (5/25/1999 5:33:47 PM, #197) (Message has been read to the assembled group) A question to the audience: How many of you have read the WIPO report -- be honest, show your hand. And how many of you understand it fully -- again show your hand. I anticipate less than a forrest of hands waving in the air. So why do people want to race to adopt something that they have neither yet read nor yet understand? --karl-- |
| David Schutt Speco WIPO Report (5/25/1999 5:35:00 PM, #198) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The only business at hand is to create a representative organization. |
| Dan Steinberg Synthesis: Law & technology WIPO Report (5/25/1999 5:35:59 PM, #199) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I would like to echo the other comments to date. All decisions on the WIPO report should be deferred to the DNSO, and the first sub-task should be a discussion on whether the recommendations of the WIPO report are in scope for the organization. Only if such a determination is made should substantive discussion on the merits of the WIPO report be even considered. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC gTLDs (5/25/1999 5:38:20 PM, #200) (Message has been read to the assembled group) In response to Marilyn, if we should implement the WIPO report now and ask questions later, then why not add new gTLDs now, and revisit the decision later? You can't ask an interim, non elected board to make substantive policy decisions on this issue, but not on other issues, like creation of gTLDs. For every argument regarding why WIPO should be implemented, there is an almost identical argument as to why new gTLDs should be implemented. Again, it seems to come down to where your special interests lie. |
| Karl Auerbach The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles Point about ICANN's board (5/25/1999 5:39:24 PM, #201) (Message has been read to the assembled group) One speaker (from AT&T I believe) suggested that ICANN's board has the power to enact policy. That is incorrect; the board does not have the power to enact substantive policy regarding domain names and trademarks, the WIPO report. That power is vested in the DNSO and only the DNSO by the ICANN organic documents. --karl-- |
| kent crispin songbird working groups (5/25/1999 5:44:22 PM, #202) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Closed research committees are not good, but working groups in the mode of the IETF are perfectly open, and such working groups should be formed -- set up mailing lists, define a charter, etd |
| Karl Auerbach The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles No need to ask the board (5/25/1999 5:45:25 PM, #203) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The board's actions specifying the structure of the DNSO is beyond the Board's powers given in the articles/bylaws. So why is it being proposed to ask the board to create constituency policy? The DNSO has full, plenary authority to act as it will in these matters. --karl-- |
| kent crispin songbird Working Groups (5/25/1999 5:47:18 PM, #204) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The Interim NC should set up mailing lists and other stuff for the DNSO, and that should be done soon. |
| kent crispin songbird PLEASE READ THE DAMN ONLINE COMMENTS (5/25/1999 5:48:05 PM, #205) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Please read the online comments. |
| Dan Steinberg Arrogant Juvenile (Emeritus, former chief counsel) Audience poll on how many read the WIPO report (5/25/1999 5:58:46 PM, #206) (Message has been read to the assembled group) For those that claim to have understood the report, remind them all that they are under oath and that the penalty for perjury in Germany is... |
| Dan Steinberg Arrogant Juvenile (emeritus) Thanks (5/25/1999 6:02:57 PM, #207) (Message has been read to the assembled group) No need to read this out, but many thanks for the prompt response to submitted comments. It makes remote participation a valuable experience. |
| Craig Simon Delay Adoption of WIPO policy (5/25/1999 6:23:08 PM, #208) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Regarding the WIPO recommendations. There was a dominant sentiment expressed by participants in various IFWP working groups that any NEWCO interim board should refrain from making critical decisions regarding DNS policy until a permanent board was selected. Therefore, if the ICANN interim board wishes to demonstrate continuity and harmony with the IFWP process, I believe it would inappropriate for the board to adopt any dispute resolution policy regarding gTLDs or ccTLDs until properly constituted MAC and DNSO bodies have made their pronouncements on this issue. Craig Simon |
| Dr Ivan Bishop personal query (5/25/1999 6:31:29 PM, #209) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Given the recent establishment of the devolved Scottish parliament that only highlights the desires and needs of the Scots to be recognised once more as a nation once more, is there any reason why the Scottish parliament should not obtain an ISO3166 listing AND a ccTLD for Scotland? Thankyou. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC general questions (5/25/1999 6:43:19 PM, #210) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Will all of the representatives of every country of the GAC reveal all of their interests in Internet issues and how they came to be representatives to the GAC? Would all of the representatives also please reveal who of their delegations read the entire WIPO report, and what comments they had besides "adopt it?" |
| Mikki Barry DNRC caring about consumers (5/25/1999 7:17:15 PM, #211) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I'm sorry, but if you really cared about consumers, Mr. Twoomey, you would not be advocating the WIPO plan. I echo what Milton Mueller had to say. |
| Dr Ivan Bishop personal query (5/25/1999 7:17:41 PM, #212) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The country code issue seems to be a hot topic, I'd be grateful if you could put my question about a Scottish ccTLD to the chair. thanks. Dr Ivan Bishop |
| Mikki Barry DNRC GAC and openness (5/25/1999 7:22:28 PM, #213) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Is the GAC required to be open, promote due process, poll constituents prior to the adoption of delegate positions, etc? Otherwise, it would seem like all the horrors of governmental control with none of the safeguards. |
| dr ivan bishop persoanl comment not true (5/25/1999 7:46:51 PM, #214) (Message has been read to the assembled group) ISO3166/MA says a country code may be assigned if three conditions are met. ISO will be approached in the near future about this matter for Scotlands code. If ISO adds scotland will the ccTLD be assigned or will this panel and what it stands for, bow to pressure from London NOT to, and thus become a tool of government? It seems ICANN will do whatever any major government tells it to do. |
| John Wilbanks BCIS Streaming away... (5/25/1999 8:00:00 PM, #140) (Message has been read to the assembled group) all systems are go here -- both servers are working as far as I can tell. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC WIPO process (5/25/1999 8:01:04 PM, #215) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The WIPO process was open, yes. But it was not transparent or accountable. There were no "votes" taken. There was no "consensus" on even whether WIPO was the sole place for dispute resolution. I would go so far as to doubt that even a majority of all the participants agree that there should be a mandatory dispute policy and that one policy should be run by WIPO. In fact, every IFWP meeting reached no consensus on these issues except Reston, who said that SEVERAL dispute resolution processes should be developed. Despite the contention that this has been argued and rehashed, there IS no consensus. In the face of such lack of consensus, and in the face of already existing laws of soverign nations that WELL cover trademark holder's rights, it is not prudent for the GAC to endorse the WIPO policy, nor is it proper for the ICANN interim board to consider it. |
| Ben Edelman test test (5/25/1999 11:05:38 PM, #216) (Message has been read to the assembled group) message goes here |
| Ben Edelman BCIS Test (5/25/1999 11:14:32 PM, #219) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) scribe only |
| Ben Edelman newtest3 edelman (5/25/1999 11:17:02 PM, #220) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) nonsub |
| Ben Edelman newtest3 edelman (5/25/1999 11:23:38 PM, #221) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) nonsub |
| test test none none (5/25/1999 11:25:09 PM, #222) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) You mispellled my name. |
| test test none none (5/25/1999 11:25:58 PM, #223) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) You mispellled my name. |
| this is test test (5/25/1999 11:27:45 PM, #224) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) Huh? |
| wendy seltzer un autre scribe un autre test (5/25/1999 11:28:40 PM, #225) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) What do you think?? |
| Ben Edelman bcis expl (5/25/1999 11:30:45 PM, #226) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) test |
| Ben Edelman bcis expl (5/25/1999 11:31:04 PM, #227) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) test |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET schedule (5/26/1999 8:59:09 AM, #228) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Can you givethe agenda for those of us who want to schedule our one hour of sleep tonight in the US? |
| john wilbanks please hang up phone! (5/26/1999 9:02:11 AM, #229) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I need to dial in again! |
| john wilbanks bcis please hang up phone! (5/26/1999 9:02:24 AM, #230) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I need to dial in again! |
| (5/26/1999 9:18:10 AM, #231) (Message has been read to the assembled group) |
| charles nesson berkman center realtime scribing (5/26/1999 9:59:45 AM, #232) (Message has been read to the assembled group) can one access the realtime scribing of the event? |
| Bret Fausett Budget (5/26/1999 10:21:02 AM, #233) (Message has been read to the assembled group) What are ICANN's legal needs that require over 20% of the corporation's budget to be devoted to this service? |
| Bret Fausett Budget (5/26/1999 10:21:08 AM, #234) (Message has been read to the assembled group) What are ICANN's legal needs that require over 20% of the corporation's budget to be devoted to this service? |
| Ken Stubbs Internet Council Of Registrars (CORE) GTLD Constituancy (5/26/1999 10:26:06 AM, #235) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) NSI is currently a "designated monopoly" during the transition period in which its monoploly is to be replaced by a competitive system. during this transition period, it is inconceivable that the monopoly holder should be allowed to fill, or nominate, all three names council seats of this constituancy. there is a serious need for policy guidance on how to end the monopoly and move to a "competitive system". to allow the monopolist to have an unfair and truly disproportionit share of the votes on how to end its economic advantage is entirely irrational. NSI should be limited to one seat on the names council. when there are additional gtld'sin the future then the other two seats should be open to an election process to be determined. |
| Patrick O'Brien DOmainz Regional Regsitries (5/26/1999 10:52:56 AM, #236) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Is the Board considering introduction of a REGISTRY--REGISTRAR concept in realtion to the regional IP Regsitries? If so, when |
| Kent Crispin registrars (5/26/1999 10:59:18 AM, #237) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Is NSI formally accredited as an accredited registrar? |
| Charles Nesson berkman center camera work (5/26/1999 11:09:04 AM, #238) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Am enjoying the excellent coverage. Camera work is first class. Great how the video, audio, and scribing work together to give a real sense of coherent presence. |
| Bret Fausett Remote Participation (5/26/1999 11:26:42 AM, #239) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Your coverage is excellent. Kudos to the camera operator. I feel like I'm there. |
| Kent Crispin capture (5/26/1999 11:57:22 AM, #240) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Capture is a very significant concern, and large numbers of members is a neccessary, but not a sufficient, guarantee against it. Other mechanisms *must* be implemented. It is in my opinion very important to proceed slowly, and with constant review. |
| Sue Leader ISOCNZ MAC Recommendation on membership (5/26/1999 12:09:01 PM, #241) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The audio is sporadic here, but if I heard correctly, there is a recommendation from MAC that the Membership should *not* have the right to change the By-Laws. If the members do not have the right to change the constitution of the organisation then they lack the most basic right of membership of any organisation (normally done via AGM or SGM). I would view with concern any suggestion that such a basic right were to be removed. A clarification would be appreciated. |
| Robert Hanke callisto germany.net MAC (5/26/1999 12:21:58 PM, #242) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) What kind of people do you basically want to gather as members? |
| Bob Hasted Nortel Networks (5/26/1999 12:31:48 PM, #243) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) Please correct last name in your notes. Also add that the issue is the government of a major facet of Globl Infrastucture. Democracy is the least bad form of government. Let's enfranchise everyone, not just an elite such as the rich, or netheads or chosen few. |
| Bob Hasted Nortel Networks MAC (5/26/1999 12:32:46 PM, #244) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) Please correct last name in your notes. Also add that the issue is the government of a major facet of Globl Infrastucture. Democracy is the least bad form of government. Let's enfranchise everyone, not just an elite such as the rich, or netheads or chosen few. |
| Kent Crispin songbird PLEASE FIX THE CAMERA (5/26/1999 1:48:18 PM, #245) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Please remove the out to lunch sign |
| Richard Lindsay interQ inc. (5/26/1999 2:29:44 PM, #246) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) my organization is interQ inc. not interview. |
| Kent Crispin songbird geographical diversity (5/26/1999 2:32:40 PM, #247) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The earlier drafts of the DNSO bylaws dealt in great detail with this issue, and came up with a complex, but fair method. It should be looked at again. |
| Jeff Shrewsbury Info Avenue Internet Services Remote not working (5/26/1999 2:42:47 PM, #248) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I'm getting rejected from the remote feed from Berlin on Real Audio/Video. The error message says server is full. Has anyone checked this, because it wasn't a problem yesterday. |
| PAVAN DUGGAL THE CYBERLAW ASSOCIATION WHY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST POTENTIAL CANDIDATES (5/26/1999 2:45:30 PM, #249) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) THE PROPOSED POLICY IS VERY LAUDATORY.BUT IT STATES THAT A PERSON WHO STANDS FOR A REGIONAL POOL CANNOT STAND FOR ELECTIONS FOR THE POST OF DIRECTOR FOR THE GLOBAL POOL.THIS IS VERY DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST THE POTENTIAL CANDIDATE.THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ADOPTING THIS STAND.THERE IS GOING TO BE ONLY ONE ELECTON,BARRING THE FIRST POSSIBLE PROPOSED STAGGERED ELECTION.A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE SHOULD BE ABLE TO STAND FOR BOTH THE REGIONAL AND GLOBAL POOL SIMULTANEOUSLY.DEPRIVING THE POTENTIAL CANDIDATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST UNCONDITIONALLY IS ILLEGAL AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE BY THE COURT.THE POLICY FOR GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATIONSHOULD NOT TREAD UPON OR LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF THE MEMBER TO STAND FORBOTH REGIONAL AND WORLD POOLS |
| Karl Auerbach Cisco Systems (5/26/1999 2:49:51 PM, #250) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Why is the CEO fee set at the $100,000(US) level? --karl-- |
| Ken Freed Media Visions Webzine Network Democracy (5/26/1999 2:52:08 PM, #251) (Message has been read to the assembled group) To: Esther, Dennis and meeting participants -- Could you please comment about the desire among many of us for a more openly democratic process in taking the DNS decisions that will effect everyone on the planet? And, could you please remark on the idea of a global Internet constitutions with a clear bill of rights and responsibilities? P.S. Esther -- Nice job on Charlie Rose show. |
| Bret Fausett DNSO Constituencies (5/26/1999 3:02:02 PM, #252) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I am concerned that some of the constituency proposals submitted to the Interim Board allow membership only for trade organizations. As a remote participant, I am not certain where these proposals are after yesterday, but I would encourage the Board to reject any proposal that makes trade organizations the sole members in any constituency. Individuals, companies, owners of trademarks and other IP are more than capable of representing themselves, without being filtered through organizational bodies. |
| Karl Auerbach Cisco Systems Feeds are down (5/26/1999 3:03:53 PM, #253) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Please, someone check the Real feeds. The two R5 audio feeds are simply buzzing. The Germany based video feed is at the maximum server load (and many of us lost the audio portion.) The Germany based audio is giving an error page. In other words, man of us can neither see nor hear what is going on. --karl-- |
| (5/26/1999 3:10:20 PM, #254) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) |
| (5/26/1999 3:13:12 PM, #255) (Message has been read to the assembled group) |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET gTLD DNSO (5/26/1999 3:13:14 PM, #256) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Again, I ask for clarification... Is there a requirement for a gTLD constituency to be an EXISTING gTLD registry for inclusion? |
| Robert Hanke callisto germany.net gTLD constituency (5/26/1999 3:16:33 PM, #257) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) Two seats of the seats to the Names Council to be left vacant until further gTLD registries join this constituency. It simply cannot be the case, that a single entity, furthermore being still gTLD monopolist, appoints three seats to the Names Council. |
| Ken Freed Media Visions Webzine Noncommercial Domain Owners (5/26/1999 3:20:24 PM, #258) (Message has been read to the assembled group) All panelists -- Do you feel the proposals now being discussed at the meeting adequately represents those without a financial stake in DNS registration? If not, what can be done to make the process more democratic? Thank y. |
| Jon Zittrain gTLD constituency (5/26/1999 3:22:01 PM, #259) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) For Don T-- 1/ Have the stewards of .mil, .gov, .int, and .arpa been approached about, or indicated any interest in, participating in the gTLD constituency? Does it make sense to have them involved, or does their "closed" nature suggest they don't belong? Would they be welcome if they were interested? 2/ What's the current status of .edu? |
| Karl Auerbach Cisco Systems Statement from Ellen Rony (5/26/1999 3:22:28 PM, #260) (Message has been read to the assembled group) This posted on behalf of Ellen Rony (who is having computer troubles this very early morning in California). From: Ellen Rony "There are many reasons to put the brakes on the WIPO Final Report and defer any decisions on the recommendations therein. Not the least of these is ICANN's own Bylaws. >From Article VI, Section 2 (c) The Board shall refer proposals for substantive policies not received from a Supporting Organization to the Supporting Organization, if any, with primary responsibility for the area to which the proposal relates for initial consideration and recommendation to the Board. ICANN's primary responsibility right now is to set up the structure of the corporation, so that complex and controversial proposals such as those discussed in the WIPO Final Report can receive the careful consideration they deserve at the DNSO level first. Ellen Rony, AOAJ Co-author, The Domain Name Handbook Signatory to the petition to ICANN and the DOC, posted at www.domainhandbook.com/petition-0599.html |
| Kent Crispin songbird NCC (5/26/1999 3:24:48 PM, #261) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The committee proposed by Milton is *not* balanced -- the ACM-IGC is a 4 person committee that was just constituted; the ICIIU is a fake organization. It would be ludicrous to try to "balance" them with the many real organizations signed up on the ISOC web site. |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET Milton (5/26/1999 3:28:56 PM, #262) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Milton Mueller's comments regarding constituency involvement are quite appropriate. Further open participation (and especially for a gTLD DNSO) is not a trivial facade, but an absolute necessity for any meaningful representation. |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Consituencies! (5/26/1999 3:34:59 PM, #263) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I do not want to be a member of a constituency. Yet, ICANN and the DNSO are telling me and everyone else "you can not participate as an individual". That is a denial of the basic premises of the White Paper. The creation of a constituency for individuals, inadequate as a step as it is to repair the basic unfairness created by the constituency approach, is an absolute necessity. --karl-- |
| Mikki Barry DNRC individual constituency (5/26/1999 3:36:23 PM, #264) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Individuals make up, by far, the largest single group on the Internet. ICANN may fundamentally change the face of the Internet from one of information and communication, directly impacting individual uses of the Internet. Even now, the vast majority of traffic on the Internet is non commercial by individuals. The fact that a constituency to represent them even needs to be justified is remarkable to me. Each other constituency is for special interests. This constituency for individuals is possibly the MOST important. |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Eloquent Argument? (5/26/1999 3:40:51 PM, #265) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The matter of individuals in the DNSO is not a mere "eloquent argument", it is a necessity. The mere fact that individual membership has to come forth before the entire board and justify itself is a strong indication that ICANN is on the wrong path. This is not a matter that needs debate. ICANN is giving strong signals that individuals are lower than second class citizens of the Internet. --karl-- |
| Kent Crispin songbird Individual constituency in dnso (5/26/1999 3:42:11 PM, #266) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The primary argument against one is, as noted, that there will be an at-large membership of ICANN itself. This is a strong argument. But also, it must be considered that there is no restriction on membership on the General Assembly. This is non-voting membership, to be sure, but it certainly is a place where a position can be presented and argued. |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Individuals (5/26/1999 3:46:11 PM, #267) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The DNSO is the locus of policy on Domain Names. The Board, and thus the general membership, has very little power to overturn DNSO based policies. Therefore, in order to give individuals a voice in Domain Name matters, it is necessary under the ICANN structure to have an individual constituency in the DNSO. --karl-- |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET Mike's comments (5/26/1999 3:47:02 PM, #268) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I believe a primary concern from many about the "stacking of the deck" to which Mike refers is the perception that it is being stacked in a predetermined manner to fit the will of the board and certain commercial interests. The general perception of stacking is likely unavoidable due to the nature of the issues. It is not the stacking, but the manner which is in question. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC "deck stacking" (5/26/1999 3:49:25 PM, #269) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I find it rather interesting that the idea of "deck stacking" is coming up given how many constituencies are dominated by singular groups such as POC/CORE, INTA, etc. Individuals SHOULD and MUST have representation. |
| Kent Crispin songbird stacking the deck (5/26/1999 3:51:05 PM, #270) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Large numbers are *not* a guarantee against stacking the deck. |
| Bret Fausett Individual Domain Name Holders (5/26/1999 3:51:48 PM, #271) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I raise my remote hand in favor of an individual domain name holder constituency. |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Take that vote again (5/26/1999 3:53:14 PM, #272) (Message has been read to the assembled group) There was a call for a show of hands for the individual constituency. To be fair, there must be a similar show of hands for support for each of the other constituencies and any lack of unanimity should be construed in the same for as it was for the individual constituency. --karl-- |
| Pat Crawford Private Individual Individual constituency (5/26/1999 3:53:18 PM, #273) (Message has been read to the assembled group) We must have representation of individuals. The net grew through the efforts of individuals. Simple answer is do not allow anyone who has any commercial interest to stand for committee. There are plenty of us who never have and probably never will have any commercial interest in the WWW. |
| Kent Crispin songbird minority interests (5/26/1999 3:54:06 PM, #274) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The rights of minorities are of course important, but tyranny of the minority is also clearly a significant problem. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC please take the remote comments (5/26/1999 3:54:19 PM, #275) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Before the idea of individual constituencies is left, PLEASE take the remote comments. Many who support the individual constituency did not have the resources to come to Berlin. Don't discount their support. |
| Ken Freed Media Visions Webzine IDNO Constituency (5/26/1999 3:55:34 PM, #276) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Your straw pole a moment ago on IDNO (1/3 for, 1/3 agains, 1/2 undecided) should not be construed as a carte blanche for the ICANN board to do what it wants. Please beware of hubris. Joop's strong statements express the views of many individuals, like myself, who fear being steamrollered by the commercial interests trying to strike it rich in the cyberspace land rush. By the principles of natural law, we deserve a voice! |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET TLDA (5/26/1999 3:55:41 PM, #277) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The Top Level Domain Association has proposed a model which would work well with the stricture now placed upon the gTLD DNSO constituency. The TLDA has proposed an open and participatory structure which would provide 2 NC representatives in conjunction with the NSI nominated representative. It is appropriate for NSI to have a representative on the NC. It is equally appropriate for there to be non-NSI representation in the gTLD DNSO in the same time frame. Vaulting the additional NC positions would only ensure a single voice for gTLD's, namely NSI. |
| Michael Froomkin U.Miami School of Law Sample Bias (individual members) (5/26/1999 3:57:24 PM, #278) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I don't find it odd that the people who are able to attend in Berlin are not the group most wild about indivdual representation. I would imagine that the individual who cannot attend -- because they don't have an organization to pay their travel -- might feel rather differently. So I am very uncomfortable with the Chair's conclulsion that the 1/3 1/3 1/3 split is a mandate for the Board to make a choice of its own. I personally do not have a view on whether there must be an indivdual constituency as such. I am concerned that individuals be represented in a meaningful way. It is also important that individual membership not swamp the non-commercial group, which I think will be the natural home of, e.g. educational institutions (which have very different issues and concerns). One might, in the long run, find that the Board itself represents individuals sufficiently, but that may have to await the formation of the Initial Board, and the final version of the selection procedures for that body. |
| Kent Crispin songbird Answer to Richard Sexton's question (5/26/1999 4:00:35 PM, #279) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The various prospective TLDs can go to the commercial constituency; the ISP constituency; or non-commercial. The constituencies cannot be precise, otherwise there will be hundreds. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC summaries of the remote comments (5/26/1999 4:01:48 PM, #280) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Taking only sumamries of the remote comments negates their impact. Each person at the microphone was given at least 2 minutes. Most of our remote comments, taken as a whole, are STILL under 2 minutes long. Please don't sumamrize them. Read them as sent. |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Constituencies are wrong (5/26/1999 4:03:18 PM, #281) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The discussion is very clearly indicating that constituencies are a failed experiment. The failure is obvious by the mere fact that your statements have relegated me to having no voice in the DNSO. Scrap constituencies and resume a structure in which the DNSO is composed soly of individuals -- individuals who represent companies, individuals who hold trademarks, individuals who are just individuals. They can then form fluid coalitions with the flex and flow of issues. --karl-- |
| Pat Crawford Private Individual Substantive or not? (5/26/1999 4:04:11 PM, #282) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Esther has said that there are no substantive comments to be read out at present. If that is the case - why is the SUBSTANTIVE comments page full to bursting? |
| David Maher Policy Oversight Committee Non-commercial constituency (5/26/1999 4:04:17 PM, #283) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) In the notes regarding the attempts to form the non-commercial DN Holder consitituency, (Maher, Sondow, and Mueller), there are one or more references to the "ISOC proposal". This should correctly be referred to as the proposal by approximately 30 organizations who have signed on to the web site maintained by ISOC. |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET TLDA (5/26/1999 4:04:37 PM, #284) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Richard Sexton asked a very clear and concise question. The TLDA is a legitimate constituency with an appropriate right for recognition. This needs to be addressed now, in Berlin. |
| Pat Crawford Private Individual Substantive or not? (5/26/1999 4:04:43 PM, #285) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Esther has said that there are no substantive comments to be read out at present. If that is the case - why is the SUBSTANTIVE comments page full to bursting? |
| Bret Fausett Trade Organizations as Members (5/26/1999 4:07:18 PM, #286) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The comment board shows that my comment below was read. I don't believe that it was. Did I just miss it? ======================= DNSO Constituencies (5/26/99 3:02:02 PM, #252) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I am concerned that some of the constituency proposals submitted to the Interim Board allow membership only for trade organizations. As a remote participant, I am not certain where these proposals are after yesterday, but I would encourage the Board to reject any proposal that makes trade organizations the sole members in any constituency. Individuals, companies, owners of trademarks and other IP are more than capable of representing themselves, without being filtered through organizational bodies. |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Sunset on constituencies (5/26/1999 4:08:54 PM, #287) (Message has been read to the assembled group) DNSO constituencies should have a sunset provision ... once a year they should expire. And once a year they should have to re-apply for existance. --karl-- |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET gTLD DNSO (5/26/1999 4:13:04 PM, #288) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Again, there is the appearance of duality in the ICANN Board approach. While there is a genuine effort to make certain that disparate groups (such as for the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders) to work together toward compromise, there is no such concern for the gTLD DNSO. I propose either the addition of the TLDA as an additional gTLD Constituency, or the mandate of a compromise effort between NSI and the TLDA. |
| Peter Olson Internationalt Patent-Bureau Excellent audio/video (5/26/1999 4:13:05 PM, #289) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I'm in Seattle watching your show. The Cambridge site did not run video, but this coming through excellently from the German site. |
| Pat Crawford Private Individual Individual constituency (5/26/1999 4:19:53 PM, #290) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I would asked to have minuted the fact that even remote participation in this conference is a costly exercise for individuals in countries where online time is charged by the minute. There is bound to be a bias in representation from countries where Internet access is free. |
| Pat Crawford Private Individual Individual constituency (5/26/1999 4:20:29 PM, #291) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I would asked to have minuted the fact that even remote participation in this conference is a costly exercise for individuals in countries where online time is charged by the minute. There is bound to be a bias in representation from countries where Internet access is free. |
| Pat Crawford Private Individual Individual constituency (5/26/1999 4:20:59 PM, #292) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I would asked to have minuted the fact that even remote participation in this conference is a costly exercise for individuals in countries where online time is charged by the minute. There is bound to be a bias in representation from countries where Internet access is free. |
| Mikki Barry Another Arrogant Juvenile Mockery of the online comments (5/26/1999 4:25:46 PM, #293) (Message has been read to the assembled group) This is utterly outrageous. Online commentary has just been relegated to the "end" when the threads have been lost. Our comments have essentially been neutralized and ignored. |
| Dan Steinberg Synthesis: Law & Technology WIPO (5/26/1999 4:32:39 PM, #294) (Message has been read to the assembled group) First, Just a reminder that the White Paper request to WIPO was much more narrowly drafted than WIPO's self-imposed mandate. It is unclear why we should be even considering the report. If I went into a restaurant and asked for a salad, but got a salad, steak and dessert delivered to my table. I would be displeased. I would be even more displeased if the waiter (no matter how politely) asked me to *pay* for it. Second, the fact that the DNSO does not yet exist should not in itself be reason to move forward rather than defer the issue. It is only in the case of a real perceived emergency that such a course of action would be appropriate. Is there an emergency? I think not. I think, to use Becky Burr's terminology that 'the trains are on time'. So I reiterate the need to defer all action on the WIPO report to the eventual DNSO. I do this recognizing that I may not like the eventual DNSO. But I would rather be arguing in the right *courtroom*, whether I win, lose or draw. And I would rather not be arguing about it, but if I must... Thank you |
| Ken Freed Media Visions Webzine Distribute copies of Online Comments at Meeting (5/26/1999 4:33:45 PM, #295) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Since time does not allow you to share aloud all of the "substantive" comments filed online by those of us unable to attend the Berlin meeting, please printout and photocopy all of these comments for on-site distribution at the end of the meeting to the ICANN board and the others there. Thank you. Also, please archive these comments along with the scribe notes for future reference, perhaps at the Berkman website. Thank you again. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC WIPO process (5/26/1999 4:42:26 PM, #296) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Despite the length of time this has been debated, there has still been no consensus on even whether there should BE a mandatory alternative dispute policy across all gTLDs. This proves that until such consensus on whether the policy should exist, whether it should be across all gTLDs, and whether it should be mandatory and uniform, this should not be implemented. Further, there has not been time for substantive comment to be provided regarding this policy. The ICANN bylaws prohibit the unelected board from making this decision. It needs to go through the DNSO. Bottom-up is the mandate. Francis Guerry has just mentioned that the WIPO process "protects minors." Please tell us where, in any mandate or request from a government, anyone brought up "protection of minors?" This is certainly not within WIPO's charter. There is no consensus on whether there even should BE a mandatory arbitration policy. There is definitely no consensus on what should be IN that policy. |
| Mike Edwards IFPI Secretariat WIPO Report (5/26/1999 4:48:26 PM, #297) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I would add my applause to that whch followed Francis Currie's report. The compelling reason for adopting the WIPO recommendations without delay were set out in his last sentence: we are in danger of having to grapple in the future with the problem of reconciling diverse dispute resolution processes. The WIPO recommendations were arrived at after a lengthy and transparent public consultation process, open to all. More importantly, they are eminently sensible approach to safeguarding the future of the internet. IFPI representing the worldwide recording industry (over 1200 members in 78 countries) urges the ICANN Board to adopt the recommendations. |
| Michael Froomkin U.Miami School of Law/WIPO "public interest rep." WIPO (5/26/1999 4:48:54 PM, #298) (Message has been read to the assembled group) As noted in the conclusion to my report at http://personal.law.miami.edu/~amf/commentary.htm: 1. Several key parts of the Final Report are new or substantially different from the Interim Report. In particular, the definition of cybersquatting is wholly new, and the Annexes are so new they were never even shown to the advisory Experts group. As a result, key concepts and suggestions have yet to be exposed to public comment and debate. 2. Much of the WIPO proposal requires a leap into relatively uncharted territory. For example we have almost no experience with they type of online international business-to-business and especially business-to-consumer arbitration proposed in the Final Report. As a result, ICANN's ultimate adoption of any of these proposals should be hedged with some type of "sunset" clause which would force a regular review of the outcome of its decisions. It is also critical to note that the Annexes [the part Icann is asked to adopt] differ materially from the body of the report It is also critical to note that the Annex IV contemplates giving a registrant 10 days to file entire defense to cybersquatting charge FROM DATE OF EMAIL of complaint. Not only is a requirement of actual notice a basis of most civilized legal system, but an attempt to impose a contractal scheme that lacked it would not be enforceable under the consumer law of many countries. In any case, how many people can find, retain, instruct a laywer in 10 days and assemble their entire defense in that time (minus time to actually *read* the email...) |
| Mike Edwards IFPI Secretariat WIPO Report (5/26/1999 4:49:08 PM, #299) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I would add my applause to that whch followed Francis Currie's report. The compelling reason for adopting the WIPO recommendations without delay were set out in his last sentence: we are in danger of having to grapple in the future with the problem of reconciling diverse dispute resolution processes. The WIPO recommendations were arrived at after a lengthy and transparent public consultation process, open to all. More importantly, they represent an eminently sensible approach to safeguarding the future of the internet, and avoiding damaging disputes. IFPI representing the worldwide recording industry (over 1200 members in 78 countries) urges the ICANN Board to adopt the recommendations. |
| Srikanth Narra Individual (5/26/1999 4:50:42 PM, #300) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Francis We are seeing some companies (sun microsystem - datacenter.com - (moviebuff, etc.)) in recent times...where it gives rise to The situation of someone trademarking an existing domain name string and going after the domain name registrant. What does WIPO say on this issue ? Can we - the domain name registrants hope to see some mechanism like the arbiraty process where domain name registants can stop someone gaining trademark rights on existing domain names that do not belong to them. |
| Srikanth Narra Individual domain name vs. trademark (5/26/1999 4:50:56 PM, #301) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Francis We are seeing some companies (sun microsystem - datacenter.com - (moviebuff, etc.)) in recent times...where it gives rise to The situation of someone trademarking an existing domain name string and going after the domain name registrant. What does WIPO say on this issue ? Can we - the domain name registrants hope to see some mechanism like the arbiraty process where domain name registants can stop someone gaining trademark rights on existing domain names that do not belong to them. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC - Arrogant Juveniles We DID add substantive comments (5/26/1999 4:55:27 PM, #302) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I am personally insulted by Mike Roberts contention that the signatories of the petition asking the board to defer the deliberations on the WIPO process did not offer substantive comments. 1) Most of us provided detailed and lengthy comments to WIPO itself. Many of which were ignored. 2) Most of us have had less than 3 weeks to read AND begin writing comments regarding substantive issues of the final report. 3) The most important issue here is "Who Decides" not what is decided. This sets the stage for ALL of the rest of the decisions made by ICANN. |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Prudence is neither arrogant nor juvenile (5/26/1999 5:03:26 PM, #303) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I am concerned that the temporary president of ICANN once more writes off and insults those of us who believe that the WIPO proposal needs long study and should not be adopted until well reviewed by the internet community. As was seen, even in yesterday's DNSO meeting, one heavily attended by intellectual property interests and specialists, there were many, possibly a large majority, who do not yet understand the report. Asking review by the entire Internet community is neither arrogant nor juvenile. Rather it is simply common sense prudence. --karl-- |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Third level domains (5/26/1999 5:04:20 PM, #304) (Message has been read to the assembled group) How does the WIPO report purport to handle anonymous registrations at the third level of domain names? --karl-- |
| Srikanth Narra Individual domain name vs. trademarks (5/26/1999 5:05:34 PM, #305) (Message has been read to the assembled group) WIPO does not create a fair level field between trademark holders (with there literally unlimited resources) and domain name holders (with extremely limited resources). Exactly how many reverse hijacking cases has WIPO considered... More precisely how many unnevering letters, if any - that never came to the point of being a 'case' has WIPO considered ? |
| Srikanth Narra Individual Domain Name Holder domain name vs. trademarks (5/26/1999 5:06:04 PM, #306) (Message has been read to the assembled group) WIPO does not create a fair level field between trademark holders (with there literally unlimited resources) and domain name holders (with extremely limited resources). Exactly how many reverse hijacking cases has WIPO considered... More precisely how many unnevering letters, if any - that never came to the point of being a 'case' has WIPO considered ? |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET gTLD Registries (5/26/1999 5:07:26 PM, #307) (Message has been read to the assembled group) As there is only one gTLD registry being recognized at this time, what is the ICANN plan and time frame for the accreditation/acceptance of additional gTLD registries? Is this a matter to be taken up by the gTLD DNSO (thereby furthering the monopoly that NSI now holds)? This thread would further the argument that additional representation in the gTLD DNSO is an absolute necessity now, not later, |
| Kent Crispin songbird uniformity (5/26/1999 5:09:48 PM, #308) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The real issue here is not the details of the WIPO report -- the issue is the adoption of a uniform policy. The WIPO policy may not be perfect, but no policy can be perfect. The WIPO policy can modified and evolved. The new registrars need a uniform policy from which to work. |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET WIPO Dispute Resolution (5/26/1999 5:13:00 PM, #309) (Message has been read to the assembled group) In the light that there has been substantive legal precedent regarding the resolution of Domain Name Disputes, there is serious question as to the value of a formal dispute resoltution mechanism. Such a device would only occupy more resources and promote the potential of conflict between the resolution mechanism and local or national legal bodies. |
| Srikanth Narra Individual Domain Name Owner Domain Name vs. TradeMark Issue (5/26/1999 5:15:56 PM, #310) (Message has been read to the assembled group) WIPO is not the way to solve to the issue of domain name vs. trademark issue. It however makes a good start for a evolution of a mechanism. ICANN board should take WIPO as such. and Commence its own process (request for prosopals/comments) to arrive at the domain name vs. trademark resolution mechanism. |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Cybersquatting (5/26/1999 5:16:14 PM, #311) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Please stop use of the word "cybersquatting". It is conclusionary -- it is a shorthand saying that the person accused is guilty without benefit of a trial or inquiry into the facts. Speculation, in land, securities, commodities, etc is an honorable thing in most cultures. Ownership of a domain name for speculative purposes is not intrinsically different than speculation for land or securities. So why does the WIPO report treat it differently? We must ask the WIPO proponents why they complain about losing to a domain name speculator but simply accept that the next office building they may occupy was built by a land speculator? Similarly, one must ask the WIPO proponents, why they defer to other mark holders while automatically placing a non-mark holder into a pejorative category by calling that person a "squatter"? --karl-- |
| Kent Crispin songbird procedural safeguards (5/26/1999 5:16:42 PM, #312) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The WIPO Policy is just a statement; it's implementation is in policies of ICANN. Procedural safeguards for registrar policies exist in the structure of ICANN itself. The WIPO policies are not cast in concrete, and in fact they call for further study on many issues. |
| Srikanth Narra Individual Domain Name Owner Contact Information. (5/26/1999 5:18:48 PM, #313) (Message has been read to the assembled group) As to privacy issue. The contact information should be taken offline completely. And made avaliable on the same lines as the credit information and report is kept and made avaliable in US. That should take care of all concerned. |
| Michael Froomkin U.Miami School of law the contribution of the academic community (5/26/1999 5:18:59 PM, #314) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I do not know which board member said the "academic community" had no substantive comments to make as he was not on camera. I suppose I qualify as part of that group....Would he please go on the record as to whether by this he means he did not read my report in response to either the interim report or the WIPO Final Report, or whether he considers it non-substantive? It is not a short report, but that of course does not indicate substance. But it does suggest it may not be read. |
| Michael Froomkin U.Miami School of law the contribution of the academic community (5/26/1999 5:18:59 PM, #315) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I do not know which board member said the "academic community" had no substantive comments to make as he was not on camera. I suppose I qualify as part of that group....Would he please go on the record as to whether by this he means he did not read my report in response to either the interim report or the WIPO Final Report, or whether he considers it non-substantive? It is not a short report, but that of course does not indicate substance. But it does suggest it may not be read. |
| Srikanth Narra Individual Domain Name Owner Contact Information. (5/26/1999 5:19:45 PM, #316) (Message has been read to the assembled group) As to privacy issue. The contact information should be taken offline completely. And made avaliable on the same lines as the credit information and report is kept and made avaliable in US. That should take care of all concerned. The increasing amounts of spam mail I receive due to my e-mail being listed in whois database is incredible and frustrating. |
| Pat Crawford Private Individual Individual constituency (5/26/1999 5:21:43 PM, #317) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Since famous names protection has been restricted to globally famous names - may we have a published list to refer to in order that prospective domain registrants can be sure that they will not run into problems. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC Privacy and the "whois" (5/26/1999 5:24:33 PM, #318) (Message has been read to the assembled group) As someone who has been stalked via the information in the "whois" database, I can tell you that there are significant issues, especially for small business users and individuals. Please consider that when creating mandatory disclosure policies. |
| Mike Edwards IFPI Secretariat WIPO (5/26/1999 5:24:35 PM, #319) (Message has been read to the assembled group) 1.Previous speakers have mentioned the importance of public access to contact details. This is a critically important issue not only for the purpose of protecting trademark rights, but also for protecting other intellectual property rights. Without such access, there will be no legal means for defending property rights. We take cognisance of the privacy issues dealt with in paragraph 86. We agree that this is an important issue that needs further examination. However, we do not feel that privacy claims should prevent the disclosure of the identity of the perpetrators of egregious, bad faith acts of piracy, simply by claiming that their activities are non-commercial. The criterion should be the impact of the activity on legitimate economic interests, not whether the activity is conducted for economic gain on the part of the perpetrator. 2. I think it is wishful thinking to think that cybersquatting will soon be a thing of the past. Predatory, bad faith trademark registrations of famous marks existed in all jurisdictions until international conventions provided a remedy. They still exist today in those jurisdictions where the conventions have not been acceded to. The WIPO proposals for an alternative dispute resolution process provide just the same sort of solution for the cyber world. |
| Karl Auerbach Degree of privacy protection (5/26/1999 5:26:40 PM, #320) (Message has been read to the assembled group) In the Reston IFWP meeting last July, there was strong agreeemnt that privacy should be governed by the EU privacy standards. Those are sensible standards. There is no reason to backtrack on that agreement. --karl-- |
| Ken Freed Media Visions Webzine WIPO Bias? (5/26/1999 5:28:13 PM, #321) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Esther duly voiced frustration about the lack of substantive comments on the WIPO report, with the bulk of remark from the floor directed at the timing of adoption. For the sake of substance, then, and at the risk of offense, may I point out that the emperor's "new clothes" appear to be the same old rags? Can it be that WIPO is not interested in the fair resolution of disputes according to some uniform and universal standard, perhaps, but instead is only interested in safeguarding the IP turf of its members? This would explain why a fair, reasonable global DN dispute policy is not yet being accepted. Indeed, it would be in the interest of WIPO to prevent such a global standard from being adopted. A deeply fractured system of DN dispute resolution generally favors those IP owners with deeper pockets, who can use this seeming chaos to effectively intimidate smaller stakeholders lacking a court a last resort. Threfore, I urge the ICANN board to maintain critical skepticism about the WIPO report, a mixed bag of blessings and curses. Think long-term and global. -- Ken Freed Media Visions P.S. This vital issue really should be the subject of a global vote, not the decision of one committee. |
| Srikanth Narra Individual Domain Name Owner WIPO arbitration from 3rd world countries view (5/26/1999 5:29:27 PM, #322) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Arbitration is so overly unfair if the domain name registrant is in 3rd world country and the accusor is in Western world. $3000 even $1500 is collosale amount to bear for a domain name registrant in this countries. Add to that lack of access to lawyers well versed in this issues in the said country. The process, if its being taken seriously by ICANN, should take this factors into considersation. The domain name registrant who cannot afford this process / a defense should be provided a defense in the arbitary process. Something onlines of what a goverment would provide a accused who cannot afford a lawyer. |
| Karl Auerbach WIPO didn't do its homeworkd (5/26/1999 5:30:39 PM, #323) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The WIPO report states what it believes the domain name system is. However, it didn't do it's homework. It's recital of domain name functionality was limited to essentially nothing more than the use of DNS to support the web. The DNS is much more. It is being used as a foundation for IP telephony, it is being proposed as a vehicle for the distribution of public key information, it is being used to route electronic mail, etc. There is a significant reason to believe that the WIPO analysis was made using an inadequate understanding of what the Domain Name System is and what it is used for. As such, there is substantial risk that adoption of the WIPO proposals could prejudice and encumber future growth of the Internet into areas other than the world wide web. --karl-- |
| Kent Crispin songbird WIPO (5/26/1999 5:31:06 PM, #324) (Message has been read to the assembled group) We have reached the point of diminshing returns on this topic: the same points are being repeated. The talk here is dwarfed by the work that has preceeded us. The WIPO process is not chopped liver, and we cannot possibly rehash that work here. If we delay this and pass it off to the DNSO we will simply continue the same arguments. We need to move forward and get something concrete in place, so we have something further to work with. |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET READ THE COMMENTS (5/26/1999 5:36:30 PM, #325) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The online participants have been here as long as the Berlin participants. PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE COMMENTS TO THE GROUP! |
| Karl Auerbach Could NSI be more specific? (5/26/1999 5:45:34 PM, #326) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Could the NSI person (Mr. Johnson?) please describe exactly what information needs to be kept confidential? Is it crypto keys and the like? A list of specifics would probably be helpful. --karl-- |
| Srikanth Narra Individual Domain Name Owner Unrepresented Individual domain name owner (5/26/1999 5:46:01 PM, #327) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Sirs Coming from a third world country just getting on internet - one of the few who is fortunate enough to participate online in your proceedings... On behalf of innumerable population of individual domain name owners / aspirants - Please be more considerate of those who are unrepresented at this meeting. Its becoming really intimidating and sort of surreal from where we are - in a third world country with limited resources - money wise or even connections wise..that icann is even considering WIPO or people even think that complusory arbiration policy is in some manner 'fair' and affortable. |
| Kent Crispin songbird Security (5/26/1999 5:46:02 PM, #328) (Message has been read to the assembled group) David Johnson is blowing smoke. No security expert worth anything would use "security by obscurity" as a means of protecting a computer system. |
| Srikanth Narra Individual Domain Name Owner Protection for famous trademarks (5/26/1999 5:50:59 PM, #329) (Message has been read to the assembled group) In view of what the individual from American Trademark Association as pointed out..with Porsche case..using in rem action and the success they have been able to get with it. It would be prudent to drop the provisions for protection for "famous trademark" issue as suggested in the WIPO out completely. No need for ICANN to consider WIPO recommendations on this issue any more. |
| Kent Crispin songbird Technical Advisory Group (5/26/1999 5:57:00 PM, #330) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I also was asked to serve on the TAG, and declined for exactly the same reasons as John -- I was told by several lawyers that I would, essentialy, be terminally stupid to sign the non disclosure agreement. |
| Karl Auerbach Porsche (5/26/1999 6:04:18 PM, #331) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I might remind folks that Portia was Caeser's wife. So perhaps Ferry (sp?) Porche was usurping a well established use when he created his company. The question of what constitutes a "legitimate" right to a name is a difficult one, but the WIPO report simply uses it as a conclusion. --karl-- |
| Ken Freed Media Visions (5/26/1999 6:05:04 PM, #332) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Thank you for just announcing, Esther, that these comments are being copied and distributed to those at the meeting. Displaying them on the screen was a good step, and a separtate screen set aside for these online comments may be useful atthe Santiago meeting. Thank you all for being there! |
| Ken Freed Media Visions (5/26/1999 6:05:34 PM, #333) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Thank you for just announcing, Esther, that these comments are being copied and distributed to those at the meeting. Displaying them on the screen was a good step, and a separtate screen set aside for these online comments may be useful atthe Santiago meeting. Thank you all for being there! |
| Pat Crawford Private Individual Individual constituency (5/26/1999 6:06:59 PM, #334) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Someone should switch the mike off |
| Bret Fausett Priorities (5/26/1999 6:29:21 PM, #335) (Message has been read to the assembled group) What I heard after listening to all of today's meeting is that there are many involved in this process who are encouraging the Interim Board to slow down the membership process (with only 3 seats initially elected or holding elections only after thousands of members are assembled) but who also advocate rushing the WIPO report forward tomorrow. This places the priorities of the Interim Board in the wrong places. The Interim Board should concentrate on fully constructing this entity that will become ICANN and refer substantive decisions to the SOs and those who will be around for the long term. |
| Ben Edelman BCIS test (5/26/1999 9:00:00 PM, #217) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) note to scribe |
| Ben Edelman public public comment (5/26/1999 10:00:00 PM, #218) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) not a note to scribe! |
| Roeland Meyer Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc. WIPO open process? (5/27/1999 6:00:20 PM, #336) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The "comments" process, wrt the WIPO report, was as open as the IANA process for creating ICANN bylaws. Yes, a comments/suggestion box was available. Yes, all comments were dutifully filed. However, there was absolutely no indication that most of them were read. What is more, there is clear indication the none of them were acted upon. This is an indication of an obstinate process, not a failure of the community to "get it right". It means that ICANN and WIPO have no interest in paying any attention to the *real* community, those of us actually developing, running, and using the Internet, on a day-to-day basis. The WIPO understanding of DNS is strictly from luser perspective and an ignorant luser at that. As Karl has already stated, this eliminates/hampers many current and new features. I acknowledge the effect that law should have on the internet. In fact, I have recently argued that very point, on the ISOC lists, and have stated that the technical community is guilty of a certain type of arrogance in this regard. However, this does not excuse an equal arrogance on the part of the trademark community (WIPO), exhibited by the WIPO report process. Unlike our bretheren in the academic community, Those of us in the commercial software development community are very well versed in IP and Business law, as it effects our daily revenue stream. Albeit, most of us are not lawyers. We learn such law as a practical daily business requirement (cheaper than calling a $250/hr IP lawyer every five minutes). My point is that some of us are certainly not completely ignorant of existing law. I simply can not accept that 100% of the comments/suggestions, in either case (ICANN or WIPO), were invalid, or that they could be ignored and trivialized. To me this indicates a broken process which may, in the final analysis, be irrepairable and should be ignored in its own right. |
All times are Berlin (GMT +1)
This file is automatically generated.