have been read to the assembled group.Messages marked with have been read to the assembled group.
|
(6/4/2006 3:20:19 AM, in-room, #1524) {text} |
|
(5/26/2006 9:52:43 PM, in-room, #1523) Speakers Store |
|
(5/26/2006 12:18:36 AM, in-room, #1522) TVS and HDTVS Store |
|
(5/26/2006 12:07:12 AM, in-room, #1521) Tableware Store |
|
(5/25/2006 12:57:32 PM, in-room, #1520) Portable Audio Video Store |
|
(5/25/2006 12:43:13 PM, in-room, #1519) Photoprinters Online Store |
|
(5/25/2006 10:17:37 AM, in-room, #1518) Photoprinters Online Store |
|
(5/24/2006 5:01:16 AM, in-room, #1517) Receivers and Amplifiers Store |
|
(5/21/2006 6:35:23 PM, in-room, #1516) Baby Paradise |
|
(5/17/2006 5:44:21 AM, in-room, #1515) mp3 players store |
|
(5/11/2006 9:37:34 AM, in-room, #1514) Vacuum & Floor Care |
|
(5/10/2006 7:45:54 PM, in-room, #1513) All for a successful hunt! |
|
(4/26/2006 9:45:01 AM, in-room, #1512) Grand Casino |
|
(4/23/2006 7:41:21 PM, in-room, #1511) DVD Players and Recorders Store |
|
(4/23/2006 6:45:01 AM, in-room, #1510) Gardening Tools Store |
|
(4/20/2006 8:49:58 PM, in-room, #1509) Optics Online Store |
|
(4/20/2006 2:21:24 PM, in-room, #1508) Camcorders Store |
|
(4/11/2006 5:41:48 AM, in-room, #1507) Cordless Tools Store |
|
(4/10/2006 9:24:16 PM, in-room, #1506) Home Theater Systems Store |
|
(4/8/2006 4:10:38 PM, in-room, #1505) Camping and Hiking |
|
(4/6/2006 8:28:52 AM, in-room, #1504) Cookware and Baking Store |
|
(4/3/2006 4:28:56 AM, in-room, #1503) Construction Tools Store |
|
(4/1/2006 5:00:15 AM, in-room, #1502) Cycling Online Store |
|
(3/30/2006 11:15:22 AM, in-room, #1501) Digitalcameras Store |
|
Great Pharmacy Great Pharmacy infooo.com (3/19/2006 1:54:13 PM, in-room, #1499) buy xanax online buy cheap viagra buy cheap carisoprodol order valium buy ultram buy ultram buy ultram buy ultram order tramadol buy alprazolam cialis |
|
Great Pharmacy Great Pharmacy infooo.com (3/19/2006 1:54:13 PM, in-room, #1500) buy carisoprodol order cialis order cialis order xanax buy phentermine viagra order viagra order cialis order xanax order xanax buy xanax order valium |
|
Great Pharmacy Great Pharmacy infooo.com (3/19/2006 1:54:12 PM, in-room, #1498) buy carisoprodol order cialis order cialis order xanax buy phentermine viagra order viagra order cialis order xanax order xanax buy xanax order valium |
|
Great Pharmacy Great Pharmacy infooo.com (3/19/2006 1:54:12 PM, in-room, #1497) buy xanax online buy cheap viagra buy cheap carisoprodol order valium buy ultram buy ultram buy ultram buy ultram order tramadol buy alprazolam cialis |
|
Great Pharmacy Great Pharmacy infooo.com (3/18/2006 7:49:36 PM, in-room, #1495) buy valium valium online buy paxil paxil online order alprazolam alprazolam online buy alprazolam order soma soma online buy soma |
|
Great Pharmacy Great Pharmacy infooo.com (3/18/2006 7:49:36 PM, in-room, #1496) buy valium valium online buy paxil paxil online order alprazolam alprazolam online buy alprazolam order soma soma online buy soma |
|
(2/22/2006 6:44:53 AM, in-room, #1494) Tree card poker |
|
(2/19/2006 3:22:06 PM, in-room, #1493) I am very happy it |
|
(1/29/2006 1:55:51 PM, in-room, #1492) Hey guys, my name is Sam, I am a 24 year old player from San Michel, USA. I've been reading here for a few months and just want to be registered. I play online a lot Casino Bonus room. I am very excited, I hit my first Straight Flush a few minutes ago!!! in the beginning of my poker hobby.. can somebody tell me about other online places I could parctise? |
|
(1/28/2006 4:48:25 PM, #1491) Hi. Images are not loading. |
|
(1/28/2006 4:48:16 PM, in-room, #1490) Hi. Images are not loading. |
|
(12/25/2005 10:33:01 PM, in-room, #1489) Than will be engaged today? |
|
(12/25/2005 4:18:06 AM, in-room, #1488) Hi Whether you play on musical tools? |
|
(12/24/2005 12:08:49 AM, #1487) Good site. The guest book too good! Necessarily install to itself same. |
|
(12/23/2005 11:49:08 AM, in-room, #1486) Hi all! I want to establish the same guest book. Prompt as? |
|
(12/23/2005 9:56:17 AM, in-room, #1485) Hi To write the letter, it is necessary ... |
|
(12/23/2005 8:02:48 AM, in-room, #1484) Hi Good site. It would be desirable to return again and again! |
|
(12/23/2005 3:07:58 AM, in-room, #1483) hi Why do not answer my question? |
|
(12/23/2005 12:01:51 AM, in-room, #1482) Hi! How at you with weather? At us absolutely of gloom = ( |
|
(12/22/2005 8:17:16 PM, in-room, #1481) Tell, and here at you always so? |
|
(12/22/2005 10:19:42 AM, in-room, #1480) Hi Do not prompt how to adjust a font of the messages? |
|
(12/21/2005 9:58:45 AM, #1479) Hi As in your guestbook to include support html? |
|
(11/27/2005 3:54:13 PM, in-room, #1478) I want mp3 player. What will advise? |
|
(11/27/2005 3:54:09 PM, #1477) I want mp3 player. What will advise? |
|
(11/25/2005 11:37:32 AM, in-room, #1476) Hi! I have found a good site: http://www.best-dvd-players-store.info |
|
(11/25/2005 4:13:45 AM, #1475) |
|
(11/18/2005 1:17:45 AM, #1474) Great players can win http://www.only-win-casino.pp.rutournaments without cards. I am not a great player. :( |
|
(11/18/2005 1:17:43 AM, in-room, #1473) Great players can win http://www.only-win-casino.pp.rutournaments without cards. I am not a great player. :( |
|
(11/16/2005 5:43:08 AM, #1472) Hi hunters! This site for you! All for a successful hunt! Now! http://www.hunter-online-store.info |
|
(11/10/2005 3:09:58 PM, #1471) Hi! Me call Born! I from Nodsa. I invite on my site: www.best-tools-online.info Thank! |
|
Efrain Miramontes Miramontes government wiretapping (4/24/2005 10:39:38 PM, in-room, #1470) How is government wiretapping good for the U.S. |
|
phentermine phentermine phentermine (11/23/2004 11:12:37 AM, in-room, #1469) You are invited to visit some information about phentermine phentermine http://www.phentermine-top-deals.com/ |
|
acne medication acne medication acne medication (10/29/2004 12:43:02 PM, in-room, #1468) Please visit the pages about phendimetrazine | phendimetrazine | http://www.phendimetrazine-online-pharmacy.info/ | |
|
acne medication acne medication acne medication (10/29/2004 12:42:48 PM, in-room, #1467) Please visit the pages about phendimetrazine | phendimetrazine | http://www.phendimetrazine-online-pharmacy.info/ | |
|
everywhere everywhere everywhere (10/14/2004 9:33:34 AM, in-room, #1466) Please check out some information about everywhere | everywhere | http://www.taliesinfellows.org/ | ... Thanks!!! |
|
Spirituality (1/15/2003 7:30:55 PM, in-room, #1465) |
|
Religion (1/15/2003 7:30:54 PM, in-room, #1464) |
|
Education (1/15/2003 7:30:52 PM, in-room, #1463) |
|
Issues (1/15/2003 7:30:50 PM, in-room, #1462) |
|
Sciences (1/15/2003 7:30:48 PM, in-room, #1461) |
|
Social (1/15/2003 7:30:47 PM, in-room, #1460) |
|
Law (1/15/2003 7:30:45 PM, in-room, #1459) |
|
Society (1/15/2003 7:30:43 PM, in-room, #1458) |
|
39hfws345yZxo59n (1/15/2003 7:30:42 PM, in-room, #1457) |
|
sdiyf8wr638fhkwf (1/15/2003 7:30:40 PM, in-room, #1456) |
|
Spirituality (1/14/2003 7:06:35 PM, in-room, #1455) |
|
Religion (1/14/2003 7:06:33 PM, in-room, #1454) |
|
Education (1/14/2003 7:06:31 PM, in-room, #1453) |
|
Issues (1/14/2003 7:06:30 PM, in-room, #1452) |
|
Sciences (1/14/2003 7:06:28 PM, in-room, #1451) |
|
Social (1/14/2003 7:06:26 PM, in-room, #1450) |
|
Law (1/14/2003 7:06:24 PM, in-room, #1449) |
|
Society (1/14/2003 7:06:23 PM, in-room, #1448) |
|
39hfws345yZxo59n (1/14/2003 7:06:21 PM, in-room, #1447) |
|
sdiyf8wr638fhkwf (1/14/2003 7:06:19 PM, in-room, #1446) |
|
Spirituality (1/13/2003 7:27:45 PM, in-room, #1445) |
|
Religion (1/13/2003 7:27:44 PM, in-room, #1444) |
|
Issues (1/13/2003 7:27:43 PM, in-room, #1442) |
|
Education (1/13/2003 7:27:43 PM, in-room, #1443) |
|
Sciences (1/13/2003 7:27:42 PM, in-room, #1441) |
|
Social (1/13/2003 7:27:41 PM, in-room, #1440) |
|
Law (1/13/2003 7:27:41 PM, in-room, #1439) |
|
Society (1/13/2003 7:27:40 PM, in-room, #1438) |
|
39hfws345yZxo59n (1/13/2003 7:27:39 PM, in-room, #1437) |
|
sdiyf8wr638fhkwf (1/13/2003 7:27:38 PM, in-room, #1436) |
|
Spirituality (1/10/2003 5:38:39 PM, in-room, #1435) |
|
Religion (1/10/2003 5:38:38 PM, in-room, #1434) |
|
Education (1/10/2003 5:38:37 PM, in-room, #1433) |
|
Issues (1/10/2003 5:38:37 PM, in-room, #1432) |
|
Sciences (1/10/2003 5:38:36 PM, in-room, #1431) |
|
Social (1/10/2003 5:38:35 PM, in-room, #1430) |
|
Law (1/10/2003 5:38:35 PM, in-room, #1429) |
|
Society (1/10/2003 5:38:34 PM, in-room, #1428) |
|
39hfws345yZxo59n (1/10/2003 5:38:33 PM, in-room, #1427) |
|
sdiyf8wr638fhkwf (1/10/2003 5:38:32 PM, in-room, #1426) |
|
Spirituality (12/6/2002 5:58:58 PM, in-room, #1425) |
|
Religion (12/6/2002 5:58:58 PM, in-room, #1424) |
|
Education (12/6/2002 5:58:57 PM, in-room, #1423) |
|
Issues (12/6/2002 5:58:56 PM, in-room, #1422) |
|
Sciences (12/6/2002 5:58:56 PM, in-room, #1421) |
|
Social (12/6/2002 5:58:55 PM, in-room, #1420) |
|
Law (12/6/2002 5:58:54 PM, in-room, #1419) |
|
Society (12/6/2002 5:58:54 PM, in-room, #1418) |
|
39hfws345yZxo59n (12/6/2002 5:58:53 PM, in-room, #1417) |
|
sdiyf8wr638fhkwf (12/6/2002 5:58:52 PM, in-room, #1416) |
|
Spirituality (12/2/2002 6:48:03 PM, in-room, #1415) |
|
Religion (12/2/2002 6:48:03 PM, in-room, #1414) |
|
Education (12/2/2002 6:48:02 PM, in-room, #1413) |
|
Issues (12/2/2002 6:48:01 PM, in-room, #1412) |
|
Sciences (12/2/2002 6:48:01 PM, in-room, #1411) |
|
Social (12/2/2002 6:48:00 PM, in-room, #1410) |
|
Law (12/2/2002 6:47:59 PM, in-room, #1409) |
|
Society (12/2/2002 6:47:59 PM, in-room, #1408) |
|
39hfws345yZxo59n (12/2/2002 6:47:58 PM, in-room, #1407) |
|
sdiyf8wr638fhkwf (12/2/2002 6:47:57 PM, in-room, #1406) |
|
Spirituality (11/29/2002 6:59:59 PM, in-room, #1405) |
|
Religion (11/29/2002 6:59:59 PM, in-room, #1404) |
|
Education (11/29/2002 6:59:58 PM, in-room, #1403) |
|
Issues (11/29/2002 6:59:57 PM, in-room, #1402) |
|
Social (11/29/2002 6:59:56 PM, in-room, #1400) |
|
Sciences (11/29/2002 6:59:56 PM, in-room, #1401) |
|
Law (11/29/2002 6:59:55 PM, in-room, #1399) |
|
39hfws345yZxo59n (11/29/2002 6:59:54 PM, in-room, #1397) |
|
Society (11/29/2002 6:59:54 PM, in-room, #1398) |
|
sdiyf8wr638fhkwf (11/29/2002 6:59:53 PM, in-room, #1396) |
|
shunda wright JROTC (11/21/2002 7:24:44 PM, in-room, #1395) What is the law protesting about the 5th amendment when it comes to reading private diaries in court? |
|
Michael Sernocky (lendersforlife.com) ICANN role in registrar accountability CONT. (Open Microphone on DNS security/stability, 11/16/2001 12:44:34 AM, #1390) Dear Mr. Cerf, Check out the process TotalNIC puts registrants thru to change registrars on domains coming up for renewal there. What kind of nonsense is this? From: Totalnic Hostmaster Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:07 PM Subject: Re: Domain Transfers Dear Mr Sernocky, For your protection against the industry wide recent rash of fraud, it is contrary to TotalNIC policy to allow transfers to other registrars as we are unable to verify that it is indeed the owner or admin contact that has initiated the transfer. Due to inadequacies and restrictions in the upstream registry system, we have been forced to require the following for proof of identity and ownership. The domain name or domain names; a copy of the driver's license or picture page from the passport for the Administrative contact; on letterhead, a letter from the Registrant acknowledging the validity of the Administrative claim and; on letterhead, a letter from the Administrative contact asserting that they are the legal representative for the domain name(s). These items must be typewritten, notarized and sent to our CORE offices at Capital Networks, PTY LTD; PO Box 383; Dickson, ACT 2602; Australia. Please note that we have been informed that these requests are legal and will help insure the safety of your domain name, as well as those of our other customers. |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (http://ICBTollFreeNews.com) ALSC (Open Microphone on other topics, 11/15/2001 11:53:20 PM, #1389) On November 8th ICANN President Stuart Lynn held a press conference, during which he said, and I quote, "No decision could be taken on the ALSC. ICANN's ByLaws require a period for comment from it's Supporting Organizations and that would be the case whatever the agenda next week." Did I just hear Dr. Cerf say that a decision would be taken today, whether on the "basics" or the details of the report? What about Mr. Lynn's assurance of November 8th that no decision would be taken? |
|
Joop Teernstra (IDNO) Names Council Task Force (Open Microphone on other topics, 11/15/2001 11:18:47 PM, #1388) Further to the remarks of the GA Chair: I want to convey to the Board strong dissatisfaction with the task force that the Names Council has created to address DNSO reforms, with regards to criteria and questions asked from prospective new constituencies. (i.c. the Individual DN holders) Such questions have been answered on the comments-review@dnso.org , but they have NOT been acknowledged in the final report of the Task Force, for presentation to the Board. I would like to ask the Board to question the NC Chair on this point. |
|
daniel karrenberg ( ) (Open Microphone on DNS security/stability, 11/15/2001 8:32:15 PM, #1387) There appears to be rough consensus that many of them on the US east cost can be improved. The board have requested a study to help them select possible alternative locations. This is a hard problem and the board may not receive an answer making this decision easy. But the board needs to be be prepared to make a decision in order not to fail by indecision. My personal guidance: the most important element is the operator of the server. Obviously you want to look for capability and competence. More importantly you want to look for dedication to provide high quality service; on this critical level I firmly believe you cannot get or enforce this by contracts. You also want to look for independence from particular interests and most of all you want to look for diversity of the group of operators. The current group of operators has been selected by Jon Postel and the success of that selection is one of his legacies. The board needs to take good care of this. |
|
Jon Zittrain (Berkman Center) ICANN's role in registrar accountability (Open Microphone on other topics, 11/15/2001 8:14:57 PM, #1386) Hi - Last July I transferred a domain name from NSI/Verisign to another registrar. Since then I've gotten regular notices from Verisign that tell me, inaccurately, that it is only by their grace that the name hasn't been turned off, and that it will be disabled unless I pay up. It's easy enough for me, as an alert consumer, to simply ignore these blandishments/threats, but I'd guess a lot of consumers, or businesses where there is a diffusion of responsibility, believe such warnings and pay twice for the same name, transferring the registration back to Verisign. This doesn't seem fair, and while it may simply be a mistake, I'm curious to know what role ICANN plays in monitoring the range of mistakes which make $ in the mistaken registrar's favor. Is this a sort of matter for ICANN to take up under its registrar accreditation agreements, or is it to be handled through standard consumer protection laws? Thanks. |
|
John Berryhill ( ) ccTLDs and US Anti-Terror Measures (Reporting Session, 11/15/2001 6:40:01 PM, #1385) Does ICANN, a US corporation, intend to maintain delegation of the .ly ccTLD to an organization in Libya, given that the performance of service contracts with entities in Libya is prohibited by US anti-terrorism regulations at 31 CFR 550 et seq.? Can ICANN engage in negotiations with governments designated by the US Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control? |
|
Sheer El-Showk (Saraf) (Plenary Talk: Schneier, 11/14/2001 6:46:44 PM, #1384) To Bruce Schneier: When you talk about active defensive measures don't you think there is a lot that can be done at a static level before worrying about dynamic defence (which seems a little vague to me). I'm referring to disabling such things as such as auto-executing programs (in the MS world) and running services in chroot jails. I think most companies have let firewalls and commercial security products to lull them into ignoring simple securit practices like good passwords. Do you agree that most security problems are probably due to lack of applying good security policies rather than a flaw in those policies themselves. |
|
Miraj Khaled (Intech Online Ltd.) Coalition for Information Security (Plenary Talk: Tritak, 11/14/2001 6:34:27 PM, #1383) Mr. Tritak, If there is now a "War on Terrorism". shouldn't U.S. govt. also think about a global capmpaign against cyberterrorism? Because most critical national infrastructures can be infiltrated from outside national borders. And world business is now so interglobal that a breakdown of internet Infrastrucures in Asia may well affect various businesses worldwide.So a global concerted Inter-Governmental Campaign in cooperation with industry, security experts and organizations is urgently needed to minimize the risk/occurence of Information Security breaches. U.S. can take a leading role in organizing this Supranational coalition for Information Security, as they now are doing to tackle Conventional Terrorism. Thank You. |
|
Jon Zittrain (Berkman Center for Internet & Society) Preventing transfers between registrars (Panle: Registries and Registrars, 11/14/2001 12:49:41 AM, #1382) I transferred three domain names from NSI to gandi.net in July, just as they were about to expire. I am still receiving repeated notices from Verisign/NSI to "renew it or lose it" for each of these domain names, the most recent "urgent notice" received today. Presumably if I click to "retain" the name it'll unnecessarily give more $ to NSI and transfer the names back to them. Is ICANN geared to deal with such behavior? |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (htt://ICBTollFreeNews.com) (Panle: Registries and Registrars, 11/14/2001 12:31:15 AM, #1381) Whois reflects the registrant's country location. What would it take for a registrar to filter its whois database for embargoed countries? Surely the registrar doesn't need FBI assistance to accomplish this? |
|
joanna lane (internetstakeholders.com) (Panle: Registries and Registrars, 11/13/2001 10:47:48 PM, #1380) U.S.-based ICANN-accredited registrars are doing business with registrants who are members of terrorist organizations such as Hamas, and with registrants from countries where US trade embargoes are in force, such as Afghanistan. The ICANN Registrar Accreditation agreement specifies, Para. 3.7.2 Registrar shall abide by applicable laws and governmental regulations. Is this requirement in Para. 3. 7.2 necessary only to achieve ICANN accreditation, or to maintain ICANN accreditation as well? |
|
Joe Baptista (http://www.dot-god.com/) potential abuse of root servers by US Goverment (Panel: Root Name Server Security, 11/13/2001 9:32:43 PM, #1379) One thing I have yet to hear anyone address is what preventative measures are available to prevent the U.S. Government from using the root servers for covert operations. It is possible to use the roots to reroute traffic to proxies which capture the users information thereby violating the users integrety and privacy. |
|
Joop Teernstra (IDNO) (At Large Study Committee Report, 11/13/2001 3:48:01 AM, #1376) Can the ALSC provide any assurances that the members with voting rights will be real INDIVIDUAL domain name holders and not administrative contacts assigned by corporate bulk domain name holders? Will the definition of IDNH be tightened to provide this assurance? |
|
Joop Teernstra (IDNO) (Review Task Force Final Report, 11/13/2001 1:47:05 AM, #1375) The Review Task Force asked a series of questions from the original applicants for a new Constituency (IDNO) , to help them determining qualification. These questions were responded to on the official comments list and these answers have not been acknowledged in the report. Could you please publicly acknowledge that you have received such answers? |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (http://JudithOppenheimer.com) this morning's presentation (ENUM, 9/10/2001 4:55:50 PM, #1373) The ENUM presentation given this morning was woefully inadequate as to the current state of ENUM politics, describing for example the State Department SGA Report as a done deal without noting that it was rejected by the US Delegation to the ITU. (I am an SGA member, and an ENUM Forum founding member.) There are other "wishful thinking" elements in the report given this morning to ICANN as well, that are at the very least still in flux. Why isn't the ICANN board being more thoroughly and accurately informed? |
|
Yann Kwok (Mauritius) Fees for new gTLD (Open Microphone, 9/10/2001 3:50:24 PM, #1372) Following from the comment that Vint Cerf just read (about ICANN making money off introducing new gTLDs): Sometimes as ccTLD's, we feel that ICANN is pushing us as "side business" since ICANN is making more money off gTLD's - New gTLDs bring significantly more revenue than current ccTLD's. Can the ICANN board confirm that they are considering ccTLD and gTLD in equal weight ? |
|
Adiel AKPLOGAN (CAFEnet (NIC .TG) ) Involvement of developping Country (ENUM, 9/10/2001 3:40:04 PM, #1371) It is apear that Internet is more spread in developping country than any other technology befor. How Enum Commitee or forum (anyother Enum working group) take in consideration Developping country in it implementation? I think a big awarness job have to be done (with ICANN or any other instution help) for our comunity (especialy Local Teleco and regulatory Body) |
|
Bill Bezzant (InfoSiteServer (Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands)) Registrar Fee Structure (Open Microphone, 9/10/2001 3:17:18 PM, #1370) Greetings ICANN Board, I am concerned that the new Registrar Fee Schedule is structured such that ICANN realizes substantial new revenue with each new gTLD that ICANN authorizes. With the new fee structure, the growth of ICANN revenue is tied to the number of gTLD's in operation. ICANN can potentially double, triple, and quadruple its revenue by introducing more and more gTLD's. I believe the motivation for introducing new gTLD's should NOT be for financial gain. I recommend a fee structure with a relatively large Base Fee, and relatively small gTLD Registry Fee's for each gTLD which a Registrar seeks authorization. Such a fee structure will also ensure that a wide number of registrars are available to register domain names in obscure gTLD's like ".coop" or ".aero". Thank you for your consideration. |
|
vidaluz arista (NIC-NI) Working standards (Root-Server System Advisory Committee, 9/10/2001 2:54:39 PM, #1369) Are all root server operators working under the same administrative and technical standards? If so, where can we learn more about these standards? |
|
Robert Connor (DomeBase Proposal & Study of 11,000 Sunrise Names) (please ignore prior under wrong agenda item) (Open Microphone, 9/9/2001 11:02:03 PM, #1368) Dear Folks at Montevideo, My study of a random 11,000+ Sunrise registrations estimated around half were technically inconsistent with TM rules. Manual review gave plausible ones the benefit of the doubt -- including companies registering variations on a TM as originally requested by the IPC -- leaving 15-25% as probably bogus. The percentage is much greater for valuable non-trademarked names. People who registered non-trademarked names in the Land Rush are being cheated out of a chance at those names and their pre-registration fees. The DomeBase Proposal (see DomeBase.com) would correct this to the benefit of ICANN, Afilias, legitimate trademark holders, registrars, and LandRush pre-registrants. Without correction, future Sunrise periods may be in doubt. Afilias' current course of action leaves LandRush pre-registrants, and registrars as well, twisting in the wind. Please adopt the DomeBase Proposal. Thank you. Sincerely, Bob Connor |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) When will we have the 2nd round? (Open Microphone, 9/9/2001 10:53:37 PM, #1367) When will the ICANN Board introduce more Top Level Domains? Will Image Online Design's .web be added to the root servers in the 2nd round of new TLDs? |
|
Bill Semich (Internet Users Society - Niue) GAC principles not developed by bottom up process (Update on ccTLD Agreements, 9/9/2001 10:11:23 PM, #1362) I am distressed to see that the ICANN staff continues to accept the GAC principles as the primary set of principles for ccTLD management, redelegation and policy setting. The GAC principles are merely a recommendation to the ICANN Board, the Board has not accepted them, they have not been approved by the DNSO, or by the Names Council and the constituencies. If only the GAC principles are presented as the sole alternative to the proposed legacy model of agreements, then ICANN will be setting up a situation where many ccTLDs will be unable to sign any agreement with ICANN. If a ccTLD's government insists on using the GAC principles, but the ccTLD manager prefers to use the legacy agreement, by implication, ICANN staff will not move forward with an agreement. I strongly urge the Board to consider using the Best Practices Principles developed by the ccTLD constituency as the alternative to legacy agreements. |
|
Suhail Rana ( ) Afilias Landrush (Open Microphone, 9/9/2001 10:03:16 PM, #1361) Afilias did not make it clear that they were not going to have a thorough screening of Sunrise registrations? If they had made this clear then Landrush customers would have been able to decide whether pre-requests were worth submitting to Afilias registrars. The only risk advertised by Afilias and their registrars was that a bona fide trademark holder could get the name first, NOT that a Sunrise fraudster could lock the name out of the system before the Landrush phase. Therefore does Afilias not have a moral obligation to compensate Landrush customers who have lost money. |
|
Adiel AKPLOGAN (CAFEnet (NIC .TG) Africa) Triangular Agreement (Update on ccTLD Agreements, 9/9/2001 10:00:25 PM, #1360) 1 - How ICANN will decide which situation (Triangular or Legacy) is applicable for a ccTLD? 2 - What will hapen if for any political raison (realty in most Non democratical country), the triangular Agreement create a Dispute on the domain management? What will be ICANN position? |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) .info and .biz (Open Microphone, 9/9/2001 9:59:38 PM, #1359) Does the ICANN Board have any comments regarding the legality of the .info and .biz "lottery" that has come under fire lately? |
|
Rachel Macgregor (Internet Community in UK) Should ICANN, as regulator, intervene at Afilias (Open Microphone, 9/9/2001 9:35:42 PM, #1358) Although the Afilias roll-out is a 'proof of concept' testbed, does ICANN as regulator have any moral obligation to .info Landrush customers to intervene and suspend the .info Landrush since thousands of honest customers have been defrauded by false Sunrise claims and that loss will be cemented if the Landrush proceeds? Does ICANN as regulator have the authority to impose the so-called Domebase solution or an alternative mechanism that protects defrauded customers whose place in queues otherwise become valueless? Do the moral obligations of ICANN as regulator over-rule the experimental rigidity of the Afilias roll-out, because the "experiment" needs to be adapted or abandoned if the process has resulted in negligence? |
|
Leah Gallegos (AtlanticRoot Network, Inc.) registrant domain name transfer problems (Registration Transfer Rules, 9/9/2001 9:12:46 PM, #1357) Much of the empirical data collected by Verisign is flawed simply because when ISPs changed registrars they do business with, they changed all registrations completed by them on behalf of THEIR clients, as they had always done. Clients, for the most part did not care and did not know. Remember that at one time it was the ONLY way to register a domain name - via a provider |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (http://JudithOppenheimer.com) recalcitrant registrars (Registration Transfer Rules, 9/9/2001 9:10:14 PM, #1356) The issue here is a registrant rights issue. With ICANN unprepared to enforce registrant rights, why doesn't ICANN strengthen the registrant contracts with registrars, to provide for enforceability by the registrants themselves? |
|
Kai Schätzl (Conactive Internet Services) (Registration Transfer Rules, 9/9/2001 9:01:37 PM, #1355) It is good to have a losing registrar send out a receipt/confirmation request as a "last line of defense" against a fraudulent transfer. However, it should be quite sufficient to block a transfer if the registrant DENIES it. There is no need for an "auto-nack" procedure. Auto-nack is simply a means of trying to stop clients to leave a supplier they are not satisfied with. The specific format required (and different for each registrar), the short time and the fact that registrant's are getting asked TWICE puts too much confusion and hurdles in this process. Our clients have NOT "chosen" NSI as NSI claims. They came to US (not to NSI) and ordered a domain and some internet service. We ordered that domain from the single supplier available back then. Now we change the supplier because of the bad service and it's in our sole discretion to choose a new supplier. It's not up to NSI as the loosing registrar to question our choice of supplier. |
|
joanna lane (internetstakeholders.com) (Registration Transfer Rules, 9/9/2001 8:58:16 PM, #1354) Registrar Transfer Policy Does ICANN take any responsibility for enforcing the agreements it makes? Also, which Constituency does Mr Lynn recommend Registrants address their concerns and how, if they are not a member of a Constituency? |
|
Eric Beck (Canadian Domain Name Services Inc.) Regisrar Agreement needs specific language (Registration Transfer Rules, 9/9/2001 8:37:13 PM, #1353) Registrar agreement should include the following: maintain current policy 1. mandatory default ACK by losing Registrar regardless of expiry date 2. automatic removal of domain from the zone file at expiry date (Registry controlled) 3. automatic deletion of domain name at some agreed upon grace period (i.e., 40 days for example) -- (also Registry controlled) This solves all the problems, no room for interpretation. This needs to be done ASAP, not at some undetermined date in the far future! Eric Beck |
|
Amar Ochani (Open Microphone, 9/9/2001 8:20:56 PM, #1352) Extent of .info unqualified registrations have raised serious doubts about Afilias capability to manage the .info registry in a fair and equitable manner. This impression is leading to cyncism and frustration that bode ill for future rollout of tlds and Internet community’s participation in it. I request this meeting asks Affilias to spell out: (1) Steps they are taking to undo the false registrations during Sunrise Period. The steps announced so far will not even scratch the surface of problem. (2) Why Affilias is not willing to accept the help of Internet community, such as Domebase proposal/Simple solution put forward by ICANN forum. (3) Steps they are taking to protect the interests of pre-registrants who have spent considerable time and money to get fair chance during Landrush Period.(4) Steps they are taking to advise registrars to maintain the sanctity of pre-registration requests for the names which have been falsely registered during sunrise period. |
|
John Barberio ( ) deleted names (DNSO Names Council Report, 9/9/2001 7:45:03 PM, #1351) On the problem of deleted names, would this problem have been mitigated or reduced if there was less of a bottle neck of a small root. Would this problem still have arived with multiple roots? |
|
Bryan Suitt (RealTech Partners, Inc) The Future of .org (Open Microphone, 9/9/2001 7:33:24 PM, #1350) There is an extensive list of companies, organizations, and websites that have voiced their opposition to ANY change in the current web format for .org. 1. The formal definition of "Non Profit" is too narrow to justify the huge disruption this will cause with current .org owners. 2. How will ICANN police the web content to insure it is indeed non profit? 3. Many people have made sizeable investments in .org as a general use domain name. 4. After years of common law acceptance as a general use domain, it is not logical to disrupt the hundreds of thousands of .org owners and initiate a "new" strict format. 5. .The circumstances surrounding domain sale did not specify that the corporation be a non-profit. 6. Will the US government and/or ICANN sieze these names from the owners? The ends do not justify the means, because so many people will be negatively affected for the benefit of nobody. 7. Website content cannot be controlled by any government. |
|
Gregory Krajewski (Killer.web) Image Online Design (Open Microphone, 9/9/2001 7:00:45 PM, #1349) I am a supporter of Image Online Design. There are many of us around the world who feel that their dot web application should be well received during the next round of TLD selections. The people who support Image Online Design come from the US, China, the UK, Germany, South Korea, Greece and many other countries. This shows legitimate, "qualified" international support for this company. We all have written congress numerous times and even the president of the United States with respect to how this company should have a chance to upload it's registry into the legacy root. Nothing but praise has been heaped on this company for it's foresight, and commitment to the integrity of the DNS. Therefore I ask all ICANN board members to seriously consider Image Online Design's application in the next round of domain name selections. |
|
Roger Keating ( ) Honest answers to difficult questions. (Open Microphone, 9/9/2001 6:41:24 PM, #1348) Earlier today, Stuart Lynn made a statement that needs to be challenged. He said that while many accuse ICANN of moving slowly, when ICANN does something, it does it right. Given the lawsuits surrounding the .info and .biz registries, given the extent to which we see registrations being fraudulently entered, given the ("alleged") illegal lottery surrounding .biz in particular, given the lack of readiness we see demonstrated by the other chosen applicants, where is the evidence that ICANN is doing things right with regard to this rollout? Please cite specifics and suspend all rhetorical fluff. I don’t suspect these questions will be entered into the record at the conference as answering them honestly would require grappling with very raw and unsettling matters. |
|
Robert Connor (DomeBase Proposal & Study of 11,000 Sunrise Names) new gTLDs (Internationalized Domain Names, 9/9/2001 6:38:50 PM, #1347) Dear Folks at Montevideo, My study of a random 11,000+ Sunrise registrations estimated around half were technically inconsistent with TM rules. Manual review gave plausible ones the benefit of the doubt -- including companies registering variations on a TM as originally requested by the IPC -- leaving 15-25% as probably bogus. The percentage is much greater for valuable non-trademarked names. People who registered non-trademarked names in the Land Rush are being cheated out of a chance at those names and their pre-registration fees. The DomeBase Proposal (see DomeBase.com) would correct this to the benefit of ICANN, Afilias, legitimate trademark holders, registrars, and LandRush pre-registrants. Without correction, future Sunrise periods may be in doubt. Afilias' current course of action leaves LandRush pre-registrants, and registrars as well, twisting in the wind. Please adopt the DomeBase Proposal. Thank you. Sincerely, Bob Connor |
|
John Barberio ( ) On the Subject of Outreach. (Open Microphone, 9/9/2001 6:37:33 PM, #1346) Does the ICANN board understand how it is curently viewed from the outside? Wether or not there is truth to it, there is a lot of bad feeling, rumours of witholding member ship, and talk that ICANN has been poorly handled. If any atempt at outreach is to be made, ICANN must become seen as a more open and honest organisation. Curently, it is viewed by many as buerocratic and closed. Many at large members claim to have been stifled of information about the processes and meetings. And popular industry press such as 'The Register' have run many an article on the matter. What is the boards reaction to this? |
|
John Barberio ( ) (At Large Study Committee Report, 9/9/2001 6:20:55 PM, #1345) I understand the Committees atempts to consider the secure and reliable franchisment of ICANN members. And aplaud their efforts to ensure one person one vote. However, on the subject of raising the bar to require Domain Name ownership, I would like to aks if alternatives to this will be asessed first? It is noted in the paper that Entities that bulk register such as ISPs should inform the domain holders that they are eligable for membership. Could it not follow that ISPs could instead be used as points of verification for members other than domain ownership? Has the commitie considered groups who bulk register for third parties but who hold all domains rather than placing the third parties as the name holders? |
|
veni markovski ( ) ccTLD redelegation (Open Microphone, 9/9/2001 5:59:20 PM, #1344) Vint, the problems with redelegation should not be avoided, or delayed by ICANN. As you, and the BoD is well aware of, in Bulgaria we have reached an agreement between the government, ISOC, the ISP association, the academic network, and the educational network. The only party not agreed (of course) is the current TLDA, who are also authors of the current rules, ISP, and there is no appeal body to complain to.. In situations like this ICANN should be more flexible with redelegation. veni |
|
Jordan Richland (n/a) .info pre-registrations (Open Microphone, 9/9/2001 5:57:58 PM, #1342) I am quite disapointed about the .info pre-registration process. I invested several thousand dollars in landrush applications for names that were then fraudulently registered by sunrise registrants. I am disappointed (1) that Afilias did not take active steps to prevent these fraudulent registrations, (2) that public statements from Afilias seem to minimize the magnitude of this problem and its impact on legitimate landrush registrants, and (3) that Afilias has not announced actions to more aggressively correct the problem and help protect the rights and investments of landrush participants. There are many possible actions that Afilias could take. I hope Afilias will act fairly, quickly, and aggressively. Thank you. |
|
Charles Scott (Gaslight Media) Total Failure of New TLD's (Issues and process for evaluation of new TLDs, 9/9/2001 5:48:18 PM, #1341) I keep coming back to the thought that the introduction of new TLD's is unresolvably flawed, unfair, and problematic. The preasure being applied to move these TLD's forward further enforces my concerns. What consideration is there to abort all new TLD introduction and fully embrace the regional domain structure? Chuck Scott |
|
Richard Henderson (The Internet Challenge) How sacrosanct is the testbed process? (Issues and process for evaluation of new TLDs, 9/9/2001 5:28:27 PM, #1340) In the light of the following facts: 4981 names registered to one Austrian applicant who admits his claims are false : none deleted. 5000 other applications, many with facially ludicrous details : none deleted. False applications, like hawaii and maui.info, made for Afilias Board members : none deleted. Requests from applicants themselves to delete their false names : none deleted. Failure of Afilias to protect the interests and expenses of Landrush customers, through inadequate scrutiny of appliactions, and loss of 95% of most popular generic names to fraudsters. In the light of all these facts: Is the Afilias Sunrise an "outstanding performance" as RlaPlante says, or is Robert Connelly's criticism of an "abomination" Sunrise justified? Is the 'testbed' process so sacrosanct that it is more important than honesty, the protection of honest Landrush customers, and the good name of Afilias and ICANN? |
|
Bill Semich (Internet Users Society - Niue) Use of ccTLD or Territory/nation/locality name inf (GAC Report, 9/9/2001 4:31:29 PM, #1338) Mr. Twoomy: Is it the opinion of GAC that either just national units, or perhaps all units of government world wide, on all levels, somehow "own" or have some claim to the IP rights to names, letters or other words or codes that describe their geographical or geopolitical areas, or should at least have a claim on these? |
|
Sotiris Sotiropoulos (Hermes Network Inc.) ISO 3166-1: The Code List (GAC Report, 9/9/2001 4:24:27 PM, #1337) With respect to your stated concern over the ISO 3166-1 List in the .info TLD (among others), do your concerns extend to the names of cities, provinces/states, and even streets? |
|
Izumi Aizu (Asia Network Research) DOT Force Action Plan (GAC Report, 9/9/2001 4:20:12 PM, #1336) DOT Force, Governments, Private Sectore and Non-profit organizations (NPOs) under "G8" issued Genoa Action Plan was officially endorsed by G8 Leaders at Genoa Summit. In its Action Point 5, (www.dotforce.org/reports/), it says: d) Global policy and technical fora and organizations working on Internet and ICT issues should make a special effort to bring representatives of developing nations into their discussions and decision-making processes; For that we are organizing "Universal Participation WG", today right after Public Forum at Gauguin Room, here. |
|
Bob McKay The success of .info Sunrise!!! (Issues and process for evaluation of new TLDs, 9/9/2001 3:57:31 PM, #1334) Number 1 on this list has admitted that his "Sunrise" registrations were all faruds. Afilias and ICANN have to explain and be accountable to the Internet community at large and the "Landrush" participants who were defrauded out of hundreds of thousands of dollars lost in good faith to a process that is rife with bad faith and bad management..... 1 Konrad Plankenstein - Tiscover 4981 2 C J Lovik 360 3 Siegfried Langenbach - Joker.com 333 4 Yesnic 261 5 New-Top-Domain - Valetta 252 6 OMPC 235 7 Spy Productions 177 8 Fred Miller - John Hard (Landbase) 176 9 Nam Jeong Woo 165 10 Cass Foster 164 11 Steven Nelson 132 12 William Robathan 128 13 Patrick Nobriga 114 14 Rainer Weiss 112 15 Peter Morgan 105 |
|
Sotiris Sotiropoulos (Hermes Network Inc.) ALSO vs. IC (DNSO) (At Large Study Committee Report, 9/9/2001 3:38:42 PM, #1333) Pindar, Do you see the proposed ALSO as a body which negates the need for an Individual's Constituency within the Domain Name Support Organization? |
|
Marc Schneiders ( ) (At Large Study Committee Report, 9/9/2001 3:17:50 PM, #1332) Although I have a car, I can understand why those who do not, would want to have a voice in the traffic rules about what cars can and cannot do. Similarly, though I have some domains, I do understand that 'users' who do not (for whatever reason), need a voice in domain name policy. Not to mention IP, protocols, and depending topics. No land, not vote? |
|
Leah Gallegos (AtlanticRoot Network, Inc.) Reduction of number of BD seats (At Large Study Committee Report, 9/9/2001 2:38:28 PM, #1331) Both the MOU and bylaws mandate nine board seats based on the fact that there are a total of nineteen board seats. How do you reconcile reducing the number to six in violation of both of those documents and the overwhelming opposition of the at-large community? |
|
veni markovski ( Bulgaria) who in different countries will support the AL... (At Large Study Committee Report, 9/9/2001 2:29:09 PM, #1330) who in different countries will support the AL election process? Can you suggest this to ISOC chapters, ccTLDA, ISP associations, etc? We can't make Internauts vote, as can't democratic governments have 99.99 % voters activity, as we did in the past, under communism. After all, one of the basic rights is the right to choose. And choosing not to use this right, is also a choice. |
|
Asaad Alnajjar (Millennium Inc) ccTLD for commerce (Equitable Allocation of SRS Resources, 9/8/2001 9:31:16 PM, #1328) In my opinion; the ccTLDs should remain under the control of their countries. Some might advocate that it is means to get income to some countries that has no income. However, I think it might be more beneficial to start with to allow the development of these said ccTLDs with the condition that the registry and management has to stay within the country in question in order to facilitate future development of the communications infrastructure of these countries and put them on the cyber map. Thank You. |
|
Sotiris Sotiropoulos (Hermes Network Inc.) DNDEF (Restructuring and review process, 9/8/2001 8:47:57 PM, #1327) With respect to Mr. Stubbs comment(s) on Domain Name Definition during the discussion of domain name registration as a criteria for AtLarge membership: Is there any initiative by any body within or without ICANN to set out a definition of domain names? |
|
Asaad Alnajjar (Millennium Inc.) Difficulty in Registering Names (ICANN Board Elections, 9/8/2001 7:56:00 PM, #1326) A temporary solution for registering Domains in areas without Credit Card system can be achieved by using PrePaid cards similar to phone cards. Millennium Inc. has developed this system for Native Names and so far it is a sucess in the Middle East and many people has actually encouraged the process. Thank you. |
|
Pascal Bernhard (cube) Get in touch with communities (Session with DNSO Board Candidates, 9/8/2001 6:13:11 PM, #1325) Dear Candidates, does anybody among you have strategies and/or policies to get and keep in touch with the communities. Are there any plans to make the communities involved in Internet governance broader and get the whole process more democratic? Thank you. |
|
Roland Portig Ezula, TopText. (Public Forum, 9/8/2001 6:10:14 PM, #1324) In European medias and in discussion boards all over the web there is a discussion at that time on software bundles where toptext or similar software is offered on the web. As you know this software is about to change the websites of the webmasters. The links usually lead to gambling sites or site with adult and criminal content. With Ezual Toptext it is possible for everybody - also children - to get access to porno material and "snuff videos". Snuff videos are videos where a real person is baddly tortured - most of them are women - and at the end this person is really killed. I find that this trend is leading the web directly to the mob and the Mafia. This sort of "advertising" on the web takes also the base of income of millions of webmasters earning litle money in affiliate programs. What is ICANN willing to do to bann those practices and fight for clean internet and Human Rights. R.Portig |
|
Leah Gallegos (Voting member, GA) To all Candidates (Session with DNSO Board Candidates, 9/8/2001 5:20:23 PM, #1323) How will you deal with the ALSC/NAIS reports that call for a reduction in the number of board seats when they bylaws, promises, MOU and statements by ICANN in the past have guaranteed that there will be nine at-large board seats or half the board? Also, what is your intention regarding DNSO reform and inclusion of the IDNHC? Do you agree that if the cc's form their own SO, those three NC seats could go to the IC? |
|
andy duff (new.net) alsc report (Public Forum, 9/8/2001 4:08:20 PM, #1322) New.net applauds the time and effort put into both the ALSC and the NAIS report. We see both reports as positive contributions to the growing demands for greater representation of the interests of both individuals and small businesses within ICANN. The current constituency structure does not adequately represent the interests of individuals and small businesses using the internet and the Domain Name System. We support a 9/9 board split and membership requirements which are not limited to domain name holders, though we appreciate that the proposal for this limit in the membership has been suggested for practical reasons. We urge the General Assembly and the Board to continue to build a bottom-up consensus for greater involvement of small businesses within ICANN, as we believe that the lack of involvement of individuals and small businesses in the ICANN process presents a significant threat to ICANN's legitimacy among all users of the internet. |
|
Roland Portig number of directors (Public Forum, 9/8/2001 3:20:09 PM, #1321) Ladies and Gentlemen, at this time we see a recession in Asia, Europe and America. This recession is not only provided to the old economy but also to internet and new medias related branches. This recession in IT branch had not to take place neccressarily. But in the past the providers of the infrastructure of the web were not sufficiently listening to the small users. They only looked on the side of producers, administration and the big boys. So they strangulated the great lot of small users. Now we have a process of concentration on the it branch. And I fear that the needs of small users will not be paid enough attention. Therefore I propose that the board of directors must have an equivalent number of members of these users. Regards R.Portig |
|
Ulrich Cyrus (VIA NET.WORKS Deutschland GmbH) .info- /.biz-Domains: Chaotic Implementation (Issues, 9/8/2001 3:17:00 PM, #1320) I was listen to both speakers of Afilias and Neulevel and was wondering how perfectly the planned phases were performed. From our point, the introduction of these 2 domains was chaotic, appeared half-planned and we are utterly angry about it. Even last week we got the information, that another change for the application period had been made. (We register using registrar CORE). We feel, that the registries did try to perform the Implementation of their new TLDs much to fast. For future Introductions of new TLDs I would propose, that the phases does not have such a complex structure like the IP-Claims (.biz) and that the time periods are somewhat longer an not that short after signing the ICANN-contracts. And please: do not change timelines that often. Thank you very much an please excuse my bad english. Ulrich Cyrus BTW: The Videostreams tend to be overloaded, I had several interruptions and it is difficult to connect some of your pages at the moment. |
|
Bill Bezzant (InfoSiteServer) .info Sunrise Trademark Fraud (Public Forum, 9/8/2001 3:15:58 PM, #1319) Greetings ICANN DNSO General Assembly, I am one of many persons participating in the .info "Land Rush" by pre-registering domain names with Afilias-authorized registrars. I and others have expended substantial money and time to pre-register desirable domain names, only to find that almost every desirable non-trademarked name was already registered during the Sunrise period by means of trademark fraud. The majority of country names, major city names, and common commodity or industry terms have been registered using fraudulent trademarks. The estimated number is over 1,000 such fraudulent registrations. We request that the investment we have already laid-out be recognized and not negated, and that ICANN and Afilias develop an effective plan to erradicate the fraudulent Sunrise registrations and re-run the original "Land Rush" pre-registration database for proper award of those recovered domain names. Thank you. |
|
Pascal Bernhard (cube) Afilias Sunrise Period (9/8/2001 2:32:40 PM, #1318) What has been done about the registered SLDs which weren't applyint to the rules of the Sunrise period, because no Trademark was existing or the registrant was not the trademark holder? |
|
Roberto Gaetano (GA member) Alt-roots (and additional TLDs) ( Open Microphone, 6/4/2001 8:57:28 AM, #1317) Good morning. IMHO, alt-roots is a system that started as alternative to the then IANA root system, and still is. The two systems are natural competitors, and the consumers will choose which approach they like better. Incidentally, to be best suited to compete, ICANN has to be open to include new TLDs in its root as market requires. I would ask ICANN to give a clear indication to business, other market forces and all stakeholders on these two points: - ICANN will not merge its root with any other system; - ICANN will allow new TLDs if market requires. Thanks for your attention. |
|
Joop Teernstra (IDNO) At large membership and an Individuals Constituenc (At Large Membership, 6/4/2001 8:46:24 AM, #1316) Question for Carl Bildt If the Board decides today to recognize in principle that Individual Domain Name Holders should have their own constituency in the DNSO and representation on the Names council, will the ALScommittee feel that this has any bearing on the need for an @Large User membership of ICANN? |
|
Len Lindon (.humanrights [Dot Humanrights Interim Trust]) Recognition of non-ICANN root and tld ( Open Microphone, 6/4/2001 8:44:10 AM, #1315) Will ICANN today undertake to recognise the Human Rights Root Service and to resolve .humanrights on the ICANN root. See full text of letter requiring recognition at http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?uniqueroot;3B184D2800000037 Also mirrored at http://www.humanrights.com.au/dhr/letter.html Note this question submitted to each public comment section at these Meetings in the last 3 days-- including the opening session http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/ga-nc-subcomments-060201.html |
|
Carmen R Garcia (ROSE COMMUNICATIONS) UDRP Review ( Open Microphone, 6/4/2001 8:39:21 AM, #1314) COMMENTS FOR OPEN MICROPHONE SESSION First of all, congratulations for the facilities provided to track ICANN meetings from a remote site. We are very concerned on the effects of the UDRP Policy and Rules. We believe that an urgent review is needed and the Names Council should speed up its planned work on this matter to avoid the use of the UDRP Policy and Rules in an abusive manner as well as stopping the increasing number of disputes being presented under matters more related to "better rights" legitimate disputes rather than abusive registration of domain names. You may wish to access to our full report on this matter, produced after a serious analysis of the Policy and Rules and our won experience at the WIPO case D2000-1748. Report available in english at http://www.rose.es/udrpenglish.htm, or in Spanish at http://www.rose.es/udrpespanol.htm. Kind regards, from Toledo (Spain) |
|
Joop Teernstra (IDNO) DNSO constituencies (At Large Membership, 6/4/2001 8:23:53 AM, #1313) Joop Teernstra (IDNO) DNSO constituencies In Berlin , the ICANN Board refused to consider the petition that was presented for the creation of an Individual Domain Name Holders' constituency. In Santiago and Yokohama, again, it chose to defer the question. As a result, this constituency in-spe never got to hear what requirements would need to be fulfilled for the Board to approve it. Further self-organizing needs to take place. Much has taken place already. Now at this point, to progress any further, prospective organizers and members want to know if they are not wasting their time. Can the Board recognize an Individuals Constituency IN PRINCIPLE this time around? Joop www.idno.org |
|
Izumi Aizu (Asia Network Research) Open MIKE! (Chairman's Welcome, 6/3/2001 5:56:13 PM, #1312) We need 5 minutes, at least, for Open Mike, please!! |
|
Izumi Aizu (Asia Network Research) (Chairman's Welcome, 6/3/2001 5:54:58 PM, #1311) NAIS, NGO and Academic ICANN Study Interim Report titled: The Public Policy, Legitimacy and ICANN is now available online: www.naisproject.org. We have translated Executive summary into: French, Italian, Spanish, Chinese Major contents are: Conceptual study – why we need public voice at ICANN, who is public, where the legitimacy comes from Empirical Study – on At Large Election – We used common format: contextual valuables, analysis, interviews and reflections on lessons learned, made comparative We will complete the Final Report before Montevideo meeting. It will include specific recommendations on the structure, the role and the representation, including the election, of the At Large membership in the ICANN process. We like to emphasize that At Large Membership issues should not be considered and confined only within At Large framework. It does relate to the whole decision making dynamics of ICANN and therefore need to be considered as such. |
|
Izumi Aizu (Asia Network Research) Support Universal participation to ICANN (Presentation of Discussion Draft on a Unique Authoritative Root for the DNS, 6/3/2001 5:51:05 PM, #1310) Digital Opportunity Taskforce, DOT Force was created at G8 Summit in Okinawa. A joint-taskforce with representatives from Government, private sector and Non-profit from G8 and 9 developing countries plus a number of international organizations. In its conclusion we agreed with 9-point Action Plan which included Promotion of developing country participation to international forum such as ICANN, and support and Domain Name service infrastructure. We are hoping this Plan be endorsed by G8 Leaders at coming Genoa Summit. In response to this Call for Action, we propose to Formulate a Working Group in cooperation with ICANN to promote participation from developing countries to ICANN Process including provision of Travel Grant for developing country people to participate ICANN meetings and other measures. We plan to work on and hope to have more functional meeting then. Contact Izumi Aizu, izumi@anr.org Adam Peake, ajp@glocom.ac.jp (as members of DOT Force) |
|
Kendall Dawson (Concerned Individual) Clarification from Stuart Lynn (Chairman's Welcome, 6/3/2001 5:45:20 PM, #1309) Policy or discussion draft? The document cannot be both, but as Mr. Lynn has stated during his presentation that his posting reflects ICANN policy, I'd like to know the citation for that ICANN policy. |
|
Serge Bac ( ) (Presentation of Discussion Draft on a Unique Authoritative Root for the DNS, 6/3/2001 5:45:19 PM, #1308) Good day all, a plain simple question I would be glad the ICANN board can reply to:" Has ICANN any policy about multiple roots?". And if so, how much of the DNSO support is included in such a policy? Was the Lynn's draft paper intended to be an ICANN policy? because at the cery first post on ICANN web site it was not EVEN signed. Thanks and good work for you all Thanks. serge |
|
Leah Gallegos (AtlanticRoot Network, Inc.) Unique Root (Chairman's Welcome, 6/3/2001 5:25:31 PM, #1304) You are concerned, you say, that there will be instability on the net, yet ICANN is about to create the first major collision with a pre-existing TLD. How can this not be a consideration or "out of the scope" of IcANN? Why is ICANN not willing to discuss a "unique virtual root" with the rest of the community? We are certainly willing to invite you to the table. |
|
Patrick Corliss (DNSO GA) Lynn's Paper (Chairman's Welcome, 6/3/2001 5:07:59 PM, #1302) Why should ICANN claim the right to control the unique root? Why not co-operate with other roots? Isn't ICANN just burying its head in the sand by ignoring the other root systems? |
|
Sotiris Sotiropoulos (Hermes Network, Inc.) URGENT (Domain Name Supporting Organization Report, 6/3/2001 3:48:00 PM, #1301) Considering the amount of money generated and exchanged within the domain name market, will the ontological status of domain names be legally established in the near future? Are domain names property or not? If so, what kind of property, and whose? |
|
Carmen Rodriguez (ROSE COMMUNICATIONS) UDRP Review (Domain Name Supporting Organization Report, 6/3/2001 2:53:27 PM, #1300) COMMENTS FOR THE ICANN PUBLIC FORUM First of all, congratulations for the facilities provided to track ICANN meeting at a remote site. We are very concerned on the effects of the UDRP Policy and Rules. We believe that an urgent review is needed and the Names Council should speed up its work on this matter to avoid the use of the UDPR Policy and Rules in an abusive manner as well as stopping the increasing number of disputes presented, which are more matters of "better rights" legitimate disputes rather than abusive registration of domain names. You may wish to access to our full report on this matter, produced after a serious analysis of the Policy and Rules and our own experience at the WIPO case D2000-1748. Report available at http://www.rose.es/udrpenglish or http://www.rose.es/udrpespanol From Toledo (Spain) at 39 degrees temperature, kind regards |
|
Roberto Gaetano (GA member) International or not? (Simultaneous Language Translation, 6/3/2001 2:14:47 PM, #1299) All international organizations I know (I have worked for some, BTW) provide some kind of translation for foreign language. My question is: is ICANN an international organization, and therefore translation is a must, not a wish, or an US corporation, in which case english is more than sufficient. |
|
Joop Teernstra (IDNO) (Domain Name Supporting Organization Report, 6/3/2001 12:39:54 PM, #1298) Joop Teernstra (IDNO) DNSO constituencies In Berlin , the ICANN Board refused to consider the petition that was presented for the creation of an Individual Domain Name Holders' constituency. In Santiago and Yokohama, again, it chose to defer the question. As a result, this constituency in-spe never got to hear what requirements would need to be fulfilled for the Board to approve it. Further self-organizing needs to take place. It has taken place. Now at this point, to progress further, prospective members want to know, if they are not wasting their time. Can an Individuals Constituency expect to be recognized IN PRINCIPLE? Joop www.idno.org |
|
Derek Conant (DNSGA) ccSO (Domain Name Supporting Organization Report, 6/3/2001 12:35:59 PM, in-room, #1297) With regard to the ccSO proposal, a question that may be asked is, is the ccTLD group diverse enough to qualify for its own SO? If the ccSO proposal is accepted, when will there be a gTLD SO, and/or Registry and Registrar SOs, or a VeriSign SO for that matter? It seems that a group applying for SO status should be as diverse as the DNSO itself. Derek Conant DNSGA President and Chairman |
|
Page Howe ( JoeDomains.com) Individuals (Domain Name Supporting Organization Report, 6/3/2001 12:34:13 PM, #1296) As a remote attendee and registrant of a domain names, where is the appropriate place for everyday people who own domains names to voice our issues about the policy development of ICanN Page Howe |
|
Carmen Rodriguez (ROSE COMMUNICATIONS) (Domain Name Supporting Organization Report, 6/3/2001 12:26:15 PM, #1295) TO NAME COUNCIL Mr Sheppard Which is the deadline to complete the report on UDRP process? How will it be handled to allow contributions from interested parties? Thanks |
|
Kendall Dawson (Concerned Individual) Public Forum (Reports of ICANN Board Committees, 6/3/2001 9:38:31 AM, #1294) Today's session is called the "Public Forum". But, if "Q&A/discussion" does not mean public comments than that means there is only 1 hr for "open mic" at the very end! When do we get to the "Public" portion of this meeting?? How come the Public only gets 1 hour? |
|
Kendall Dawson (Concerned Individual) Public Elections (ICANN Budget and Finance, 6/3/2001 9:29:48 AM, #1293) Where is the money for Public Elections or Membership At Large in the proposed budget? |
|
Len Lindon (.humanrights / Dot Human Rights Interim Trust ) Recognition of non-ICANN root and tld (Open Forum, 6/2/2001 12:53:01 PM, #1288) Will ICANN today undertake to recognise the Human Rights Root Service and to resolve .humanrights on the ICANN root. See full text of letter requiring recognition at http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?uniqueroot;3B184D2800000037 Also mirrored at http://www.humanrights.com.au/dhr/letter.html |
|
Len Lindon (.humanrights / Dot Human Rights Interim Trust ) Recognition of non-ICANN root and tld (Research Report on Alternate Roots, 6/2/2001 12:48:08 PM, #1287) Will ICANN today undertake to recognise the Human Rights Root Service and to resolve .humanrights on the ICANN root. See full text of letter requiring recognition at http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?uniqueroot;3B184D2800000037 Also mirrored at http://www.humanrights.com.au/dhr/letter.html |
|
Joop Teernstra (IDNO) DNSO constituencies (Guest Speakers: Esther Dyson & David Johnson, 6/2/2001 12:05:40 PM, #1286) In Berlin , the ICANN Board refused to consider the petition that was presented for the creation of an Individual Domain Name Holders' constituency. In Santiago and Yokohama, again, it chose to defer the question. As a result, this constituency in-spe never got to hear what requirements would need to be fulfilled for the Board to approve it. Self-organizing needs to take place. It has taken place. Now at this point, to progress further, prospective members want to know, if they are not wasting their time. Can an Individuals Constituency expect to be recognized IN PRINCIPLE? Joop |
|
Roberto Gaetano (GA member) Representativity - legitimacy (Guest Speakers: Esther Dyson & David Johnson, 6/2/2001 11:50:45 AM, #1285) I think that the key issue boils down to a comment already made by Wilkinson and Twomey in a past ICANN meeting: either ICANN bases its representativity on wide consensus (AtLarge) or we have to have a role for national governments. It definitively cannot be ruled by business interests only. |
|
Kendall Dawson (Concerned Individual) CCtlds and Board seats (Opening, 6/2/2001 10:08:09 AM, #1284) ICANN has promised that there would be 9 elected Board members. 5 have been elected, which leaves 4 seats open. If the CCtld members are attempting to gain seats on the ICANN Board, do they plan to do this at the expense of Membership At Large seats? |
|
Sotiris Sotiropoulos (Hermes Network, Inc.) DNDEF (Open Forum, 6/2/2001 9:31:45 AM, #1283) Considering the amount of money generated and exchanged within the domain name market, will the ontological status of domain names be legally established in the near future? Are domain names property or not? If so, what kind of property, and whose? |
|
Len Lindon (.humanrights [Dot Humanrights Interim Trust]) Recognition of non-ICANN root and tld (Opening, 6/2/2001 9:05:57 AM, #1282) Will ICANN today undertake to recognise the Human Rights Root Service and to resolve .humanrights on the ICANN root. See full text of letter requiring recognition at http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?uniqueroot;3B184D2800000037 Also mirrored at http://www.humanrights.com.au/dhr/letter.html |
|
Donna Wentworth beautiful job (4/27/2001 10:51:56 PM, in-room, #1280) everyone! |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) RACE (Other Business, 3/12/2001 8:34:09 AM, #1276) VGRS's own Multilingual DNS FAQ states, "domain.com for a given language will be stored as bq--gde6djht.com." Since RACE describes an algorithm, the converse is true: bq--gde6djht will be rendered as "domain" in a given language. Which means that someone really clever might register in ASCII domains that, when RACEd, correspond to, say, famous names or trademarks in a given language. |
|
Jim Fleming ( Unir Corporation) ICANN has NOT Created Competition (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3/12/2001 8:24:40 AM, #1275) ICANN has not created competition. What has evolved since 1995 is that Price Regulation ($6) has been imposed on the 100% monopoly position of Verisign/NSI, no competition has been introduced. What has been introduced is a MLM-Multi-Level-Marketing structure of Registrars, franchised by ICANN. This SMALLER group of Registrars has replaced a large number of ISPs and web developers who used to be the "registrars". Those registrars self-organized in a bottom-up manner and no ICANN was needed and no fees (taxes) were paid to ICANN. How can ICANN claim to have increased competition ? |
|
Robert Connelly (PSI-Japan) Changing "B" not possible? (Introduction, 3/12/2001 7:21:35 AM, #1273) Dear Board Members: Regarding changing A or B to C, remember, we were told in November of 19899 that we could not make any changes to the DOC/NSI/ICANN. All parties had made major concessions and any changes would upset the equilibrium. Nonetheless, a bunch of us got together than evening and came up with a list of seven changes we considered essential. The following day, we presented them to the Board -- and all of them resulted in affirmative changes in the "unchangable agreement". Respectfully submitted, Bob Connelly |
|
Robert Connelly (PSI-Japan) Verisign comments continuing. (Introduction, 3/12/2001 7:15:46 AM, #1272) As for the allegation that the potential buyers of the NSI RegistraR business would immediately fire all the employees, that they only wanted to buy the customer database, the allegation is so simplistic that it is not worthy of being considered by this body. Apparently, concurrent with these discussions within DNSO (based upon our legitimate expectations that the DOC/NSI/ICANN agreement would be honored), ICANN's staff and agents have been negotiating with Verisign to abrogate what many of us in the Internet community consider to be in the best interests of this community. If my suspicions are correct, I think it is time for the staff to go back to the drawing board. Respectfully submitted, Bob Connelly |
|
Robert Connelly (PSI-Japan) Verisign contract change, continued (Introduction, 3/12/2001 7:14:52 AM, #1271) Continuing prior posting] Dear Board Members: Balance of prior posting: There have been many postings dealing with the deadline for Verisign to divest itself of either the registraR or the registrY business by May of this year. These postings have not been in a vacuum. Certainly ICANN has been aware of these discussions and the expectations of the Internet community in general. In my opinion, it was incumbent upon the ICANN staff to have let interested and affected parties be aware promptly that they were considering abrogating this provision of the DOC/NSI/ICANN agreement of November 1999. Even if it can be shown that option B is in the best interests of the Internet community (which I am willing to agree *could* be the case), I believe the Board should reject option B until all of the necessary details can be vetted before these interested parties. [More follows] |
|
Izumi Aizu (Asia Network Research) At Large Study Committee (Committee Reports, 3/12/2001 7:12:44 AM, in-room, #1270) [This is the comment I prepared this morning from the floor mike, curtailed due to time constraint] As a former member of Membership Advisory Committee(MAC) and now a member of NAIS (NGO and Academic ICANN Study), an independnt study group, I likt to point out that: The concept, structure and function of AtLarge were discussed and reached the consensus through careful study of its direct relationship with SOs. MAC Berline Report clearly indicated this as follows: "(Principle) 1. At-large membership should primarily represent those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations (SOs)." Therefore, if the study committee is going to consider the basic framework of At-Large Membership, then, I think, the committe must also deeply consider the basic framework of SOs and ICANN's overall decision making process and representation mechanism as a whole. |
|
Robert Connelly (PSI-Japan) Verisign contract revision. (Introduction, 3/12/2001 7:11:14 AM, #1269) Dear Board Members: Can someone explain a legal matter for me? 1. As I understand it, ICANN is subject to the "Brown Law", which requires that all meetings must be open to the public. 2. ICANN will not decide on option A or B tomorrow during their open meeting. 3. ICANN will make any decision on amending or maintaining (or finding a satisfactory option "C") later this month, perhaps by 31 March. 4. Will the DNSO have an adequate opportunity to provide its input by the end of the month? I think it is clear that the DNSO process has never operated on such a truncated time schedule. Therefore, any vote of the Board will be imposed from above rather than from "the bottom up", as we would prefer. I have a little saying I append to the bottom of my Email posting from time to time. "It doesn't do any good to run if you don't start on time". [To be completed later, Bob Connelly] |
|
James Seng (i-DNS.net) (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3/12/2001 7:08:07 AM, #1268) I have been given the opportunity to review the Guava doc released by Chase who is responsible to handle the sell off of NSI Registrar. Essentially, the the sell off the registrar but keep the whole operational intent by transfering it to Verisign Web Presence and then making VWP a 'reseller'. Beautiful play, Giving up "registrar" on nothing but in name. If this is the path of Option A, as much as I hate to admit, ICANN is in the position which has no choice since it did fullfil the requirements specific in the 1999 contract. However, what ICANN and the at large members need to review is the spirit of the contract has been fullfil. -James Seng |
|
Ellen Rony (Domain Name Handbook) ICANN/VRSN Agreement (New Registry Agreements, 3/12/2001 6:59:18 AM, #1267) If the stated goal of this change is to harmonize all the registry agreements, then wouldn't that best be accomplished by recompeting .COM, .ORG and .NET through a process (hopefully better than the one just completed) including a $50K non-refundable fee? How would the threat to change the nature of .ORG square with the UDRP decisions that have transferred identical or confusingly similar .ORG and .NET names to trademark owners? Recognizing that true infringement might still occur as regards website content, for which there are legal remedies, would .ORG domain name registrations be off-limits to trademark owners? |
|
Jim Fleming (Unir Corporation) Competition for ICANN (Other Business, 3/12/2001 6:38:13 AM, #1266) Given the fact that several companies are currently developing alternate roots, additional TLDs, new protocols, expanded address spaces, etc., and given the arrogant monopolistic posture of ICANN, (not Verisign/NSI), it appears clear that true competition will have to come for ICANN to create a level playing field. Given that, how can ICANN compete on that playing field as a non-profit company ? How can ICANN ignore strict IRS regulations concerning competition with for-profit companies ? Finally, does ICANN plan to convert to a for-profit once they and Verisign/NSI are free of their contractual ties to the U.S. Government ? |
|
Paul Stahura (eNom, Inc.) NSI Registrar exclusive agreements (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3/12/2001 6:32:34 AM, #1265) Last time around I believe there was a period of time setup in the NSI/ICANN/DOC agreement in which NSI-the-registrar was unable to make exclusive agreements with its customers. At the end of that period NSI was still in a dominant market postion, whereas today, it may not be so dominant. If a new "option B" agreement is entered into, will it include a new period whereby NSI-the-registrar allows its customers to withdraw from their exclusive NSI agreements, now that there are more competitive alternatives to choose from? |
|
Chris Fiander ( ) com/net/org portions (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3/12/2001 6:23:41 AM, #1264) .Com domains compromise of more than 65% of domains names currently on the internet... .Net compromise about 30% of the domain names currently on the internet... .Org compromises about 15% of the domain names currently on the internet... If Verisign is going to give up .org and POSSIBLY give up .Net it doesn't sound like they are going to be giving up as much as they would be with the current agreement where they need to devest of their Registrar or Registry by May 10th 2001 Also there is nothing stopping NSI becoming a registrar for .org or .net if they devest of those... In "Option A" VeriSign must devest of basically 50% of their organisation... in "Option B" they only must devest of approximatelly 20% of their organisation... looks like NSI/Verisign is getting a much better deal out of Option B than A! |
|
Leah Gallegos (Atlantic Root Network, Inc) multiple .COM/NET/ORG's (Introduction, 3/12/2001 6:23:15 AM, #1263) Under the present stance taken by ICANN, what is your projection for other roots establishing duplicates of .com/net/org? If it is true that ICANN is responsible for only it's root, then is that not true for all others, including other countries and private/public entities? Can you envision a dozen versions of .com? |
|
Adam Peake (GLOCOM/non-commercial constituency) allow correct ICANN processes (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3/12/2001 6:23:05 AM, #1262) Mr. Sclavos began his comments to the meeting claiming he VeriSign wished to be regarded as the most trusted company on Internet. He could demonstrate that commitment by agreeing a delay, subject to DoC agreement of course, to allow for Internet community to study and comment. As the Names Council noted yesterday, this contract may be wonderful, we just want the opportunity to judge and follow appropriate ICANN processes. Thanks, Adam |
|
Keith Teare (RealNames Corporation) VRSN agreement (Introduction, 3/12/2001 6:22:33 AM, #1261) It seems to me that Verisign is being entirely straightforward here. It has an existing agreement. That is AGREEMENT. it is signed. It is now agreeing to modifications in that agreement under certain conditions. ICANN clearly wins on .org. .net seems neutral. .com would likely stay with VRSN anyway. So that's neutral too. ICANN also gets $5m for .org and $200m spending commitment. Both pluses. VRSN is in its rights to say the old deal stands unless the new one is agreed. There should be no confusion. The new deal is better for ICANN and those who would like the entire infrastructure to progress, whilst also providing some stability and predictability for VRSN. Isn't this a real WIN-WIN? |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (ICBTollFreeNews.com) Verisign deal (Introduction, 3/12/2001 6:17:41 AM, #1260) What is the increase in funding from VeriSign to ICANN under the new deal? |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (ICBTollFreeNews.com) VeriSign agreement (Introduction, 3/12/2001 6:10:19 AM, #1259) Why wasn't the original VeriSign proposal last summer presented by the staff to the board, rather than being "handled" by staff, which only works for the board? |
|
Darryl (Dassa) Lynch (DHS International) Registrars - Commercial or Community Based (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3/12/2001 6:07:40 AM, #1258) Has the ICANN Board considered dividing the Registrar and Registry models further? Would not the Internet community be better served if non-commercial community based entities looked after the TLD's as the Registrar's and the commercial interests were limited to the Registry side at the second and higher levels? |
|
Jim Fleming (Unir Corporation) Multiple .COM Registries (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3/12/2001 6:04:17 AM, #1257) Isn't the real reason behind the recently disclosed ICANN - Verisign/NSI deal, the fact that artificial scarcity in the TLD name space, (created by ICANN and the DOC), has now made it clear that the .COM zone is essentially a "commercial root", and the COM zone will grow even larger and will be used to expand the name space via DLDs (Dash Level Domains) *-TLD.com as opposed to TLDs, thus making .COM the only TLD of interest, which will now encourage multiple .COM registries which will compete with ICANN and Verisign/NSI ? |
|
Mike Barnes Repurposing of .org (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3/12/2001 6:00:15 AM, #1256) "The net result of this would be a .org registry returned, after some appropriate transition period, to its originally intended function as a registry operated by and for non-profit organizations." - http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm RFC1591 specifically addresses the TLDs currently in use and their categorizations. "ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-government organizations may fit here." RFC920 has a similar entry. Nothing there specifies any profit or non-profit status being inherent to the .org TLD. Where did this "originally intended function" come from? |
|
Ellen Rony (Domain Name Handbook) ICANN/VRSN Agreement (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3/12/2001 5:56:56 AM, #1255) 1 Why has the the DNSO's role in review and assessment of this agreement been circumvented and trivialized? Where is the bottom-up consensus for this new arrangement? Where is the time for proper review? 2. How can companies rely on ICANN's contracts, agreements and bylaws, when they are so mutable? 3. Why is ICANN staff proposing what amounts to market manipulation; ICANN is a technical coordinator. |
|
Marcia Lynn (The NMB Network) .org (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3/12/2001 5:54:25 AM, #1254) 1) How will registrars enforce the proposed restriction of non-profit status? 2) What will happen to existing .orgs that are registered to individuals and for-profit businesses? 3) Do you believe it is fair to return to this restriction since it was previously lifted? Comment/not question: To me, this seems like a short-term marketing ploy to increase interest in .orgs in the face of new TLDs release. |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (ICBTollFreeNews.com) ICANN/Verisign contract (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3/12/2001 5:53:06 AM, #1253) Why is ICANN so intent on closing the VeriSign deal in a such hurry, while its been in talks, unknown to anyone else - some might even say secretively - since last summer? |
|
Bret Fausett ( ) (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3/12/2001 5:51:19 AM, #1252) On its conference call with financial analysts earlier this year, Verisign provided an overview of some of the things it was considering in the sale of the registrar business. One option presented on the call would have allowed the new purchaser of Verisign's registrar business to outsource all registrar and customer service functionality back to Verisign for a fee. In other words, under that scenario, the only thing that would likely change after the separation of the registry and registrar would be Versign's profit margin -- the technical services, customer support, trademarks, and all other aspects would remain the same. If the new agreement is not approved, is that kind of arrangement a realistic scenario under the existing agreement? Under ICANN's view, what constitutes "legal separation" under the November, 1999 agreement? Is there disagreement between ICANN and Verisign on what the terms of a "legal separation of ownership" should look like? |
|
Hampton Howe ( ) Verisign (New Registry Agreements, 3/12/2001 5:43:38 AM, #1251) Who is Joe Simms? Wouldnt it be cheaper to hire someone in this role, than continue to pay the legal fees of $500,000 per quarter. |
|
Chris Fiander ( ) NSI/Verisign compared to the New TLDs (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3/12/2001 5:42:56 AM, #1250) I submitted this in an incorrect topic... Please resubmit in New Registry Agreements com/net/org: The New TLDs have all these new sets of agreements... why should NSI/Verisign have special treatment with less agreements and less constrictions than the new TLDs... they had the monopoly before... so what... that monopoly has been broken and NSI/Verisign should comply with the new documents... I challenge the board to pressure NSI to comply with the a new agreement that comes closer to complying with the new TLD agreements! |
|
page howe ( ) Introduction of TLD's (Status of TLD Agreements, 3/12/2001 5:41:35 AM, #1249) Many companies, and specifically companies registriars and registriars involved with the registry operators have offered various "schemes" with regard to advance placement in the "land rush period". Does ICANN staff or the board have any policy at all regarding the proper "distribution" of the unsponsored open domain names? |
|
Jim Fleming (Unir Corporation) U.S. Franchise Laws (Other Business, 3/12/2001 5:36:40 AM, #1248) Given the U.S. Federal Trade Commission Franchise Rule(s): 1. Franchisee uses the Franchisor's brand/logo etc. 2. Franchisee is controlled by the Franchisor. 3. Franchisee pays more than $500 to Franchisor. Please explain why ICANN is immune from the U.S. Franchise laws in light of the contracts with the Registrars and new Registries which clearly encompass the above three points. |
|
Ray Fassett ( ) 5 year term (Introduction, 3/12/2001 5:28:27 AM, #1247) Please clarify the term limitation contained in the agreement. Can the unsponsored TLD be put out for open bid at the end of the term at the sole discretion of the Icann without documented, reasonable cause and be potentially then awarded to a new applicant? thanks, Ray Fassett |
|
Marcia Lynn (The NMB Network) new TLDs (Introduction, 3/12/2001 5:28:17 AM, #1246) I think you should reconsider IODs application before continuing on with new TLD implementation. The new gTLDs are mediocre, at best, and will in no way promote competition to .com, .net. and .org like .web will eventually do. Please reconsider IODs application immediately. |
|
Leah Gallegos (Atlantic Root Network, Inc) DNS collisions (Introduction, 3/12/2001 5:22:46 AM, #1245) Now that ICANN has proposed the introduction of colliders in THE name space, what is your position on new.net's challenge as an alternate root and registry to ICANN with its 18 colliding TLDs? Are you concerned with this trend to consider only individual roots and ignore all others? |
|
Mike Lampson (The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC) Registry/Registrar separation (New Registry Agreements, 3/12/2001 5:14:02 AM, #1244) What mechanism will be assure separation of the registry from the registrar? |
|
Chris Fiander ( ) NSI/Verisign compared to the New TLDs (New Registry Agreements, 3/12/2001 5:06:40 AM, #1243) The New TLDs have all these new sets of agreements... why should NSI/Verisign have special treatment with less agreements and less constrictions than the new TLDs... they had the monopoly before... so what... that monopoly has been broken and NSI/Verisign should comply with the new documents... I challenge the board to pressure NSI to comply with the a new agreement that comes closer to complying with the new TLD agreements! |
|
Jim Fleming (Unir Corporation) DOT.BIZ (New Registry Agreements, 3/12/2001 5:05:07 AM, #1242) Since ICANN spends an enormous amount of time claiming to be concerned about company's intellectual property, what does ICANN intend to do about our copyright and trademark claims for DOT-BIZ.com, REGISTER-BIZ.com and BIZ-REGISTRY.com in relation to any proposed deployment of the .BIZ TLD ? |
|
Greg Krajewski (Killer.web) Reconsideration Requests? (Introduction, 3/12/2001 5:00:09 AM, #1241) I would like to know when the reconsideration request for Image Online Design is going to be acted on....And also, if these requests are going to be denied based on a notion that only the 7 TLDs will be allowed, and no more...Does that not negate the effectiveness of this process, where relief is sought... |
|
Jim Fleming (Unir Corporation) CCTLDS (Other Business, 3/12/2001 4:58:54 AM, #1240) Some (so-called) CCTLDs have cumbersome multi-level restrictions such as .CO.NZ. as opposed to having names directly under .NZ. What does ICANN propose to do when Floating Root Technology allows for merged trees to allow for other parallel registries to fill in those trees directly below the CCTLD ? |
|
Adam Peake (Non-Commercial Constituency (GLOCOM/Tokyo)) comment on DNSO review (Committee Reports, 3/12/2001 4:55:42 AM, #1239) With the mics closed early this morning, a couple of comments. 1. DNSO Review. Must thank Theresa Swinehart for her work on the Task Force, and equally YJ Park for chairing the WG. Both have done tremendous amount of quality work. As noted earlier, the DNSO is severely under performing, yet this widely held concern is not reflected in the Task Force report. Any future work on the DNSO review should be left to open bottom up processes not processes managed by the Names Council. A suggestion to get this SO back on track and perhaps engender trust: the constituencies should provide information on a regular basis on their membership and geographic diversity. Constituencies should have open mailing lists with public archives, publicly available charters and membership requirements, including fees, voting methods, etc. Such information might help the board and community understand what the DNSO is, what work is being done, and in whose name. Thanks, Adam |
|
Chris Fiander ( ) ccTLD Agreements (Other Business, 3/12/2001 4:52:44 AM, #1238) Is there plans to make ccTLDs in different languages? for example chinnese charactors for chinese TLDs? |
|
Jim Fleming (Unir Corporation) CCTLDS (Other Business, 3/12/2001 4:51:49 AM, #1237) Why is it that a so-called CCTLD can be run from someone's basement in a third-world country with little or no concern about the "stability of the Internet", when so-called gTLDs are put through absurd subjective criteria simply because U.S. commercial companies wish to sell to the market which clearly exists, and which CCTLDs sell to as they please. Why aren't gTLDs required to meat the same standards as the MINIMUM qualified ccTLD as opposed to the billion dollar .COM level of qualification ? |
|
Keith Teare (RealNames Corp) Clarification (Status of TLD Agreements, 3/12/2001 4:48:22 AM, #1236) Clarification. No need to read unless you want to.But eansure Vint sees it. Part 2 Solutions? It's too late to roll the clock back. This would involve closing .com and insisting it be .com.us. Then all identities would be subsumed within countries as originally envisaged. To go further in solutions would seem self serving so I will resist, but I do think there is a way for a global naming system and a local identity system to co-exist and prosper. We just don't have it today. |
|
Keith Teare (RealNames Corp) Clarification (Status of TLD Agreements, 3/12/2001 4:48:06 AM, #1235) Clarification. No need to read unless you want to.But eansure Vint sees it. My question seemed ro require clarification. What I am saying is that the issues of ccTLD's are really issues about globalization and the existence of the "local". So long as there are nation states, and legal systems therin, surely naming and identity systems need to by controlled and run locally. By having gTLD's that are, by definition, global, aren't we underminimg the existence of controlled local identity and naming systems. In a sense I am questioning the very legitimacy of global gTLD's. The heirarchical system of DNS(.root, followed by countries, followed by categorical divisions (org.cctld com.cctld net.cctld edu.cctld) was a great beginning. com, org and net were originally US TLD's not global. Haven't we undermined the local by sanctioning global gTLD's? Or to put it the same way, haven't we flattened the namespace and undermined its heirarchical origins? |
|
Jim Fleming ( Unir Corporation) CCTLDs (Other Business, 3/12/2001 4:43:35 AM, #1234) At what point does ICANN drop the charade about claiming that TLDs such as .TV, .AM, .FM and .MD are CCTLDs when in fact, a TLD is a TLD (i.e an ASCII string). |
|
Sotiris Sotiropoulos (Hermes Network, Inc.) ccTLDs and RealNames (Reports on Internationalized Domain Names, 3/12/2001 4:29:43 AM, #1233) Will the ccTLDs resolve RealName keywords in their national roots? or will such resolution be limited to gTLDs? |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) ccTLDs (Other Business, 3/12/2001 4:17:38 AM, #1232) Why should the ccTLDs contribute to ICANN's cost of operation? What has ICANN done for the ccTLDs? |
|
Keith Teare (RealNames Corp) Local and Global (Status of TLD Agreements, 3/12/2001 4:17:10 AM, #1231) Other than Technical, what are the global issues that might over-ride the local? In some ways isn't the very existence of gTLD's a global over-ride of the local? |
|
Robert Hering (Arberon) At Large Membership Study (Committee Reports, 3/12/2001 2:06:44 AM, #1230) Why is the approach by the At Large Membership Study starting with a series of open-ended questions to individuals and constituents, without the benefit of tentative guides? It seems this approach, while supportive of openness and transparency, may foster delay and contention. Suggest that the committee at least publish some tentative initial guidance as to how an At Large membership might assist ICANN fulfill its technical and administrative role. Could the board please respond as to the rationale of the open-ended question approach versus a more structured approach? Thank you. Bob Hering rh1@msn.com |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) Membership @ Large study (Other Business, 3/12/2001 1:53:36 AM, #1229) Twice ICANN has promised the US Government that there would be nine elected board directors (once at their inception and once when Esther Dyson promised a Congressional committee). Why aren't the remaining 4 Board Members going to be elected BEFORE the At Large Study takes place? |
|
Jim Fleming (Unir Corporation) IPv6 .COM Servers (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3/12/2001 1:45:32 AM, #1228) What plans, if any, does ICANN and/or Verisign/NSI have to deploy "native" IPv6 .COM servers, and what additional fees will be required to be listed in those servers ? |
|
Michael Froomkin (ICANNWAtch/U.Miami Law) Sunrise, UDRP & Consensus (Status of TLD Agreements, 3/12/2001 1:33:17 AM, #1227) The WG tasked with examining sunrise proposals reported that no consensus existed.On what theory of implementation of consensus can ICANN require or permit a sunrise proposal to be used in the new gTLDs? One key compromise in the UDRP was that both sides have access to judicial review of the decision in a court.A recent federal court decision by Judge Young in the corithinans.com case,however,holds that US Courts must disclaim the ability to decide cases brought by a losing domain name holder for lack of a cause of action, and perhaps also lack of subject matter jurisdiction.Given this reality, the UDRP of today turns out be a vastly different and far more unfair policy than the UDRP of a year ago. As there was clearly a consensus that having judicial review available for one side only was not acceptable, but that is what the UDRP apparently does in the USA now, wouldn't it be wrong to apply the UDRP to the new TLDs without first creating a new way to ensure parity of appeal rights? |
|
Greg Krajewski (Killer.web) Reconsideration Requests (New Registry Agreements, 3/12/2001 1:06:04 AM, #1226) Will the board approve any reconsideration requests at this meeting, and if not, why? If it is seen that these reconsideration requests are dismissed based on no other reason, that only the 7 will be acted upon, will further harm the process... Image Online Design has certainly a strong case, and ask that it be looked at carefully. |
|
Ray Fassett ( ) TLD Applications (Introduction, 3/12/2001 1:05:02 AM, #1225) It has been reported there has been some financial difficulty on part of some of the new TLD registries and that this may be hindering current negotiations. Does the board feel now that the projections submitted last October were too ambitious? either in terms of low unit pricing or projected volume registrations? thanks, Ray Fassett |
|
Robert Hering (Arberon) (Committee Reports, 3/12/2001 12:43:35 AM, #1224) Why is the approach by the At Large Membership Study starting with a series of open-ended questions to individuals and constituents, without the benefit of tentative guides? It seems this approach, while supportive of openness and transparency, may foster delay and contention. Suggest that the committee at least publish some tentative initial guidance as to how an At Large membership might assist ICANN fulfill its technical and administrative role. Could the board please respond as to the rationale of the open-ended question approach versus a more structured approach? Thank you. Bob Hering rh1@msn.com |
|
Alexander Svensson (icannchannel.de) At Large Study Committee (Committee Reports, 3/12/2001 12:31:14 AM, #1223) Pindar Wong has remarked in earlier ALSC presentations the ALSC request for data access. When will the ICANN Board give the ALSC and when will the ALSC make available all election data necessary to start with independent election analysis efforts? If it does not intend to, what are the reasons? |
|
Brad Engelmann ( ) Image Online Design/The .Web TLD (Other Business, 3/11/2001 11:44:32 PM, #1221) When will Image Online Design be allowed to include the .Web Registry into the 'A' root servers? There seems to be clear demand for this potential TLD, much more so than the recently approved TLDs. Why not avoid backlash from alternative root organizations by approving the .Web TLD? I believe there is a significant number that is very interested in this specific question. Addressing this question during this meeting would be greatly appreciated, and might quell the current frustration over newly added TLDs. Thank you very much for your consideration, Brad Engelmann. |
|
Darryl (Dassa) Lynch (DHS International) (Other Business, 3/11/2001 11:42:42 PM, #1220) There are a number of organisations that provide third and higher hostname registrations, as opposed to the registration of second level domain names. Some of these organisations are as large if not larger than a number of ccTLD registries in the number of Internet users they service. An example of one such organisation is at www.dhs.org which services over 161,000 hostnames and more than 154,000 users. Does the ICANN Board have any intention of recognising these types of organisations and will the Board attempt to involve such organisations more in the ICANN operations? If there is any intention of increasing participation from such organisations, what would the Board consider an appropriate level of participation? Should such organisations form their own constituency under the DNSO or should their participation take another form? |
|
Rebeka Goldberg (Digital Consciousness) Inconsistent ICANN Policy (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3/11/2001 10:49:56 PM, #1218) Kraaijenbrink: IOD goes against everything we’ve worked on the last two years they join registrar and registry. Sims (Melbourne March 11): White Paper does not say anything about separation of registry and registrar. a.) Please explain to the public ICANN's policy. b.) For fairness, review IOD's TLD application. |
|
Juan Namis (belize nic`) (New Registry Agreements, 3/11/2001 10:44:38 PM, in-room, #1216) Why ICANN doen not recognized that they are helping to the inestability of the internet and to create users confusing on the global internet by realising a new top level domain "biz" which is very close to a existing ccTLD "bz" fr the country of Belize. The Government of Belize has written to the ICANN board expressing their concern, but ICANN has fail to recognize their concern. |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) combined registry/registrar (New Registry Agreements, 3/11/2001 10:36:18 PM, #1215) Verisign/NSI is asking for a combined registry/Registrar Agreement. In this respect, what is the difference between the Verisign/NSI Agreement and the Image Online Design application which was rejected in November 2000? |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) VeriSign/NSI agreement (New Registry Agreements, 3/11/2001 10:35:32 PM, #1214) There were a significant number of comments on the ICANN public comment forum in opposition to the VeriSign/NSI agreement. Can the Board give the Internet Community an assurance that these will be given proper consideration and if so, how? |
|
Marc Schneiders ( ) ORG & Verisign (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3/11/2001 10:25:27 PM, #1213) Given the amount of protest, loud protest at that, (e.g. on ICANN's website message board) against the plans to change the 'charter' of ORG, should the ICANN Board not issue a statement *now*, that at least this part of the proposed 'deal' with Verisign is off? Merely letting those who have an ORG name, keep it, is not enough, it seems. It will not be sufficient to avoid misunderstandings about the character of the entities behind an ORG domain: the old registrants (invited to register in ORG by Verisign...), who might be of any type (also personal or commercial) versus the new, which would be non-profits. Changing ORG is bad, plain bad, I think for the stability of the internet. What is it good for, really, that cannot be achieved in other ways, e.g. a new TLD? I cannot shed the idea that the main (or only) reason for changing ORG's status is to make it impotent as a competitor to Verisign's COM. Some reassurance from the Board is really called for, to say the least. |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) DNSO Recommendation (New Registry Agreements, 3/11/2001 8:59:40 PM, #1212) Why hasn't the proposed VeriSign contract revision been formally submitted to the DNSO for their recommendation? |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) Combined registry/registrar (Other Business, 3/11/2001 8:57:49 PM, #1211) Verisign/NSI is asking for a combined registry/Registrar Agreement. In this respect, what is the difference between the Verisign/NSI Agreement and the Image Online Design application which was rejected in November 2000? |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) VeriSign/NSI comments (New Registry Agreements, 3/11/2001 8:56:28 PM, #1210) There are a significant number of comments on the ICANN public forum in opposition to the VeriSign/NSI agreement. Can the Board give the Internet Community an assurance that these will be given proper consideration and if so, how? |
|
Rebeka Goldberg (Digital Consciousness) Inconsistent ICANN Policy (ICANN Consultation Periods, 3/11/2001 9:11:37 AM, #1209) Kraaijenbrink: IOD goes against everything we’ve worked on the last two years they join registrar and registry. Sims (Melbourne March 11): White Paper does not say anything about separation of registry and registrar. a.) Please explain to the public ICANN's policy. b.) For fairness, review IOD's TLD application. |
|
John Barberio ( ) (Budget Committee, 3/11/2001 7:50:01 AM, #1208) A company which was to constantly hire and rehire consultant after consultant on technical matters which it could handle internaly would be called to justify this. Both on the matter of Cost, and on failure to use available resources. Matters such as being seen to handle it by recourse to a 'Profesional' do not counter the impresion that ICANN can not handle simple internal administration matters. Are there any responces to this ? |
|
page howe (.kids domains) (Approval of Agenda, 3/11/2001 7:26:56 AM, #1207) If it was not a Policy decision then why was the incentive given to Verisign /NSI to get more years on their agreement if they would seperate. An agreement that incentivizes NSI, and rewards them for doing it, is a statement of policy. |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) Public Forum Comments (Budget Committee, 3/11/2001 6:21:25 AM, #1206) There were a significant number of comments on the ICANN public comment forum in opposition to the VeriSign/NSI agreement. Can the Board give the Internet Community an assurance that these will be given proper consideration anfd if so, how? |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) Multiligual Testbed (Budget Committee, 3/11/2001 6:20:50 AM, #1205) Most people consider RACE -- the Row-based ASCII-Compatible Encoding standard, a kludge for using ASCII to encode non-Latin characters. What about all of the Asian markets that aren't being served by this ASCII-only system? Wouldn't it be better to restructure the DNS in a way that would actually meet the needs of a global linguistic environment? |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) Verisign/NSI Contract (Approval of Agenda, 3/11/2001 6:18:58 AM, #1204) Verisign/NSI is asking for a combined registry/Registrar Agreement. In this respect, what is the difference between the Verisign/NSI Agreement and the Image Online Design application which was rejected in November 2000? |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) The GA Chair (Budget Committee, 3/11/2001 5:59:59 AM, #1203) Why aren't the travel expenses for the GA chair included in the budget? |
|
Joanna Lane ( ) (Business Plan, 3/11/2001 5:41:23 AM, #1202) I'd like to volunteer for the interim committee for an Individuals commitee |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (ICBTollFreeNews.com) TLD's (Business Plan, 3/11/2001 4:51:41 AM, #1201) YJ Park makes a very good point. VeriSign and the new registries have an inherent conflict of interest in gauging the timeframe for introducing more TLD's, ie, marketshare competition to their own businesses. While perhaps not evaluating their own success, existing registries could easily say the "proof of concept" needs "more time" ... |
|
Sotiris Sotiropoulos (Hermes Network, Inc.) WHOIS (Business Plan, 3/11/2001 4:40:18 AM, #1200) There are many people with privacy concerns regarding the selling of WHOIS data by NSI/VeriSign to commercial entities. Is there any official DNSO position as regards the private information being sold by NSI? |
|
Darryl (Dassa) Lynch (DHS International) (Business Plan, 3/11/2001 4:32:24 AM, #1199) Does the NC have any position on expanding the UDRP to include other issues besides trademark ones. It would appear that for something that is named a Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy to be limited to only one form of dispute is not what the name suggests. Shouldn't the UDRP be expanded to cover all domain name disputes? |
|
eric dierker (hi-tek) language (Business Plan, 3/11/2001 4:24:47 AM, in-room, #1198) please insist that the chair respect multi-lingualism and slow down and use appropriate terms this is simply a matter of respect. |
|
John O'Donoghue (JOHNJOD) New Domain Names (Administrivia, 3/11/2001 1:57:25 AM, #1197) I believe what NEW.NET have done this week has revitalised the WEB which has taken a huge knocking lately regards online biznesses going broke and also new TLDs issues. There is amazing discussions going on the NEW.NET discussion page with regards pioneer ideas which are being passed round....Presently I say it is the most lively discussion page on the WEB at the moment and its positive ideas . Give NEW.NET a chance, the whole web needs a totally new shake-up . Enjoy your stay in Australia ....John O'D (Gold Coast, Queensland...Australia) |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) Verisign/NSI (Administrivia, 3/11/2001 1:15:50 AM, #1195) Why hasn't the proposed Verisign contract revision been formally submitted to the DNSO? The ICANN by-laws provide that ICANN staff aren't supposed to be initiating domain name policies -- rather, the Board should "refer proposals for substantive policies" relating to domain names to the DNSO for its "initial consideration and recommendation to the Board." |
|
Sotiris Sotiropoulos (Hermes Network, Inc.) WHOIS Info (AOB, 3/11/2001 1:12:59 AM, #1194) There are many people with privacy concerns regarding the selling of WHOIS data by NSI/VeriSign to commercial entities. Is there any official DNSO position as regards the private information being sold by NSI? |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) (Administrivia, 3/11/2001 1:09:04 AM, #1193) Most people consider RACE -- the Row-based ASCII-Compatible Encoding standard, a kludge for using ASCII to encode non-Latin characters. What about all of the Asian markets that aren't being served by this ASCII-only system? Wouldn't it be better to restructure the DNS in a way that would actually meet the needs of a global linguistic environment? |
|
Marc Schneiders (Venster (bijt.net)) Verisign and ORG (AOB, 3/11/2001 1:05:39 AM, #1192) As an individual ORG domain name user, I am concerned about the way in which ICANN seems to change the nature of ORG overnight in the context of a completely different issue. Is this good for the stability of the internet? Is it good for the trust of people in the management of the DNS by ICANN? |
|
Robert Connelly (PSI-Japan, Inc.) (Administrivia, 3/11/2001 1:04:59 AM, #1191) Dear GA: My comment relates to the election process for At Large members of the Board: A number of my colleagues, myself included, went through the procedures for being certified to vote. We were to receive some kind of authenticating procedure. We were to receive a ballot or password by Snailaail. The persons to whom I spoke did not receive the Snailmail and therefore were disenfranciezed. Regards, BobC |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) Combintation registry/registrar (Administrivia, 3/11/2001 1:02:02 AM, #1189) Why was IOD turned down for a combined registry/registar when VeriSign is asking for the ssame thing? |
|
Robert Connelly (PSI-Japan, Inc.) (Administrivia, 3/11/2001 12:58:30 AM, #1188) Dear GA: Several of my colleagues, myself included, signed up for the GA with the expectation of receiveing some kind of authentication or password which would allow us to vote on GA matters. We were to receive a ballot by Email. None of the individuatls to whom I spoke had received the ballot. Regards, BobC |
|
Robert Hering (Arberon) (Individuals, 3/11/2001 12:58:26 AM, #1187) Could someone please clarify the relationship between "indivdual" consituencies and the At large membership? Thank you |
|
Sotiris Sotiropoulos (Hermes Network, Inc.) VI. Individuals (Administrivia, 3/11/2001 12:38:50 AM, #1185) So, conceivably any group that comes forward claiming to represent individuals with an organization plan may be given constituency status? |
|
Darryl (Dassa) Lynch (DHS International) (Individuals, 3/11/2001 12:36:56 AM, #1184) It is alright for constituencies to be self forming but when submissions are rejected without full explanations and there are not specific guidelines for potential constituencies to follow in making a submission it is very difficult. Are there plans to produce a series of guidelines for the formation of potential constituency submissions and if in future proposals are made to form new constituencies what will be the basis for any approval or disapproval. |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) Why doesn't the GA make use of MAL? (Individuals, 3/11/2001 12:22:36 AM, #1183) The MAL program was designed to allow individuals to participate. Why doesn't the GA recommend changing the By-Laws to allow participation by MAL members? |
|
Sotiris Sotiropoulos (Hermes Network, Inc.) (Administrivia, 3/11/2001 12:09:44 AM, #1180) There are plenty of Individuals listed in the GA Voting Registry, yet no IDNH constituency, does this present a difficulty to the nomination of an unaffilited individual? |
|
Sotiris Sotiropoulos (Hermes Network, Inc.) (Administrivia, 3/11/2001 12:03:17 AM, #1179) How will the NC choose from the ranked candidates? specifically? process? |
|
Kendall Dawson (Private Individual) Individuals Constituency (DNSO General Assembly, 3/10/2001 11:47:20 PM, #1178) When will the GA ask for a time-schedule regarding the actual creation of an Individual's Constituency? |
|
first last (companyname) subject (category 3, 1/13/2001 3:30:21 AM, #1158) message body multiple lines |
|
ddd sss (asdf) asdf (1/13/2001 3:26:10 AM, #1157) sdf |
|
aa dd (sdf) test (1/13/2001 3:25:34 AM, #1156) asdf |
|
test (1/13/2001 3:23:42 AM, #1155) |
|
Ben Edelman (testing) subj (1/13/2001 3:21:21 AM, #1154) body |
|
Maryanne Hancock TiVo (11/28/2000 11:47:21 PM, in-room, #1153) How does the HDTV restriction relate technically to TiVo and Replay? |
|
Christopher Gahan Question for Mr. Sims (11/28/2000 11:43:32 PM, in-room, #1152) I pretty much agree with Mr. Sims position on the DMCA, mainly since Congress has the power to uphold copyright under Art. I. However, what concerns me, is that when you combine the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act AND the DMCA, what you get is essentially the permanent and complete control over intellectual property. Movie studios are now able to control all uses of their products for pretty much as long as they want. Not only does such control fall outside Congress's authority under Art. I, "To promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited times to..." What are his opinions about this? |
|
Bethany Rubin Fair Use & Technology (11/28/2000 11:15:15 PM, in-room, #1151) This question is for Mr. Simms. Presuming that it is technologically feasible, do the movie studios have any rationale other than fiscal gain for not encoding the opportunities for fair use into their products? Would they publicly fight such legislation if it was introduced? On what grounds? |
|
Anant Raut (11/28/2000 11:13:41 PM, in-room, #1150) From merriamwebster.com Main Entry: de·lu·so·ry Pronunciation: -s&-rE, -z&- Function: adjective Date: 15th century : DECEPTIVE, DELUSIVE |
|
Craig Cronheim contributory infringement (11/28/2000 10:42:52 PM, in-room, #1149) Why can't all of these issues be dealt with under contributory infringement? Is the anti-decryption aspect of the DMCA even necessary? |
|
Bryan Hancock GATS Explanation URL (11/27/2000 11:54:23 PM, in-room, #1148) http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/gatsqa_e.htm |
|
Maryanne Hancock Correction (11/27/2000 10:48:22 PM, in-room, #1147) I stand corrected - sorry for the confusion. Glad to see it! |
|
Christopher Gahan Intel v. Hamidi (11/21/2000 11:51:05 PM, in-room, #1140) What about the idea, which was brought up by McSwain, that the Hamidi situation involved two systems: the Internet as a whole and Intel's proprietary system? (In Marsh and Pruneyard, we had only one system--the real property in question.) I think that Hamidi should be able to feed as much stuff as he wants into the Internet cloud (albeit targeted at Intel's system) since, as was already mentioned in class, Intel has no proprietary right over that. If that stuff happens to penetrate Intel system, then they should likewise be able to remove it at their own discretion since they do own their own proprietary system. However, as I read it, the injunction bans Hamdidi from any access to the Internet as a whole. |
|
Maryanne Hancock Union email (11/21/2000 11:35:17 PM, in-room, #1139) What is the law on unions emailing employees of a non-unionized firm? |
|
Douglas Kiang How to define public property (11/21/2000 11:29:56 PM, in-room, #1138) If we are to define public v. private property by its primary function, is that to say that I could stand in the Harvard Quad and pass out religious tracts? The primary purpose of the common area in the Quad is for people to associate, yet I suspect I would be kicked off the Quad fairly quickly. What if this were a large private university? Would this qualify as a "company-owned town" in the same way that Chickasaw did? |
|
Bethany Rubin eBay v Bidders Edge (11/21/2000 11:18:25 PM, in-room, #1137) This decision relies on the notion that you can trespass electronically. The eBay judge clearly defines the computer systems as "personal property." The eBay decision further held that no actual harm need be shown from the appropriation of this electronic property. In fact, it relied on the notion that permitting Bidders' Edge to do this would open up the floodgates, so that even if Bidders' Edge alone didn't terribly burden eBay's systems, multiple entities engaging in the same crawling activities would. I do not see where the rationale is different for Intel. |
|
Dotan Oliar Trespass (11/21/2000 11:11:59 PM, in-room, #1136) The definition of trespass includes: TRESPASS TO CHATTELS - Intentional intermeddling with a chattel in possession of another which results in (a) dispossession of the chattel, (b) deprivation of the use of the chattel for a long period of time, (c) impairment of the condition, quality, usefulness of the chattel or (d) harm to the person of the possessor or persons or things in which he has a legally protected interest. So what Hamidi did is included in the tort of trespass to chattels. |
|
Claire Prestel (11/21/2000 11:07:44 PM, in-room, #1135) what if infirmation.com started sending out a newsletter - announcing which firms were paying what, promoting whom, downsizing where - to young associates who had ever accessed their site. and they sent the newsletter to the associates work emails. i would want to get it, and i wouldn't want my firm to be able to stop it! |
|
Chris Babbitt Common Carrier (11/21/2000 11:05:55 PM, in-room, #1134) ISPs would have no value absent their position on the public network known as the Internet. When ISPs begin to buy parts of this network, they step into the position of the early railroads, who had the ability to discriminate between different kinds of freight to be shipped on their networks. Eventually, the "common carrier" doctrine emerged, prohibiting these network owners/hub operators from such discrimination. The necessary extension of this to telephone companies was obvious (especially in light of ATT's early history of discrimination). Now, the extension of common carrier regulations to ISPs, to me, seems obvious. As we are increasingly dependent on the Internet network, the strategic behavior of hub-operators can have devastating consequences, especially if ISPs like ATT own a chunk of the Internet backbone. |
|
Bryan Hancock Strict Scrutiny Standard (11/21/2000 10:54:18 PM, in-room, #1133) If the Court applies strict scrutiny, the law or regulation "will be sustained only if it (1) serves a compelling governmental objective; and (2) is "necessary," i.e., drawn as narrowly as possible to achieve that objective (since a broader-than-needed restriction wouldn’t be a "necessary" means.)" DISCLAIMER: This is my memory of ConLaw supplemented with a quotation from the Emmanuel Outline. |
|
Leslie Ballantyne Spamming (11/20/2000 11:35:28 PM, in-room, #1131) If the nature of the internet really is intended to be consensual, would a better route to all this be through tightening up enforcement of the "remove-list" system whereby individuals and senders can directly agree not to send/receive without the involvement of third parties and the expansion of all this into a potential inclusion of those not intended to be on the black hole list? |
|
Douglas Kiang What If Spam Becomes Illegal? (11/20/2000 11:11:27 PM, in-room, #1130) If, at some point, spam is ruled to be illegal in a court of law, will the MAPS RBL continue? Will it take on the role of enforcer, or will it step aside and let law enforcement do its job? |
|
(11/20/2000 11:01:31 PM, in-room, #1129) "The war won't be over until the last spammer's head is stuck onto a spear at the city limits." [Paul Vixie, NANOG mailing list, Sept.1997] |
|
(11/20/2000 10:35:20 PM, in-room, #1128) What is the difference between something like MAPS and something like spamhaus.com? |
|
Mac Henderson (dotLaw) Please Review Before Posting (New TLDs, 11/16/2000 10:15:30 PM, in-room, #1127) I am not sure of ground rules - Is the Board accepting comments from the applicants? if so dotLaw, Inc. has a clarification for ICANN Board with respect to their previous question about representativeness. dotLaw will represent a complete cross-section of legal service providers and legal service consumers. This representation will indeed be truly international in scope. The blue paper previously submitted and posted notes actual positive bar association response [username: Coralie Matayoshi]. The dotLaw proposal has also now cleared the ABA Technical committee and up review by the ABA Executive Comm. on 12/1/00. Unfortunately due process through these large legal organizations inevitably takes several months. Their final determinations will be available in December. In addition, dotLaw does have a rigorous certification process. It is covered in detail in point 10 of the previously submitted and posted blue paper. dotLaw, Inc. Thank you |
|
Mac Henderson (dotLaw) Locator Information (New TLDs, 11/16/2000 6:15:30 PM, in-room, #1126) I am one of the founders of dotLaw. I did not stay for today's meeting, but we are monitoring the web cast. If the Board has any questions, please contact me at the e-mail above or at 202-822-4035, Thank you for your help Mac Henderson - dotLaw |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (ICBTollFreeNews.com) 888 has no relation with Sunrise (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 4:24:11 AM, #1125) Michael Palage stated that toll free 888 is a precedent for trademark protection in the DNS. On the contrary, the FCC ruled in In the Matter of ) CC Docket No. 95-155 Toll Free Service Access Codes ) FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: March 27, 1998 Released: March 31, 1998 that "Although we recognize commenters' concerns regarding trademark infringement and unfair competition, we find that those issues properly should be addressed by the courts under the trademark protection and unfair competition laws, rather than by the Commission." |
|
Ray Fassett (Rock-N-Roll.Net) (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 4:15:13 AM, #1124) I do not believe a sunrise period is necessary for any TLD especially in light of the fact that the UDRP has alrerady been set up to address this specific issue. |
|
friedrich kisters (human bios gmbh) domain names (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 4:15:05 AM, #1123) Could you kindly explain the general public, why domain names are NOT treated like addresses. If they were, everyone would realize that they simply cannot violate trademarks. Friedrich Kisters CEO Human Bios GmbH Switzerland |
|
Blaise Avé-Lallemant ( GA) (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 4:08:51 AM, #1121) In light of the impact of introducing any new gTLDs, I feel it is important to be most judicious and patient in deciding to choose new extensions. While a lot of time has been put in to applications and reviews, there should more time given for comments and study of these domains. Perhaps the recent introduction of the slew of ccTLDs can be studied in more depth, before making the decision to engrain new domains to the global internet. |
|
Lynn Farny ( ) (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 4:05:02 AM, #1120) The Internet is moving beyond its frontier phase where "anything goes" into a more mature environment. ICANN's Board should select the new generic TLDs carefully and only chose a minimum number of new TLDs and only those that are actually needed for the existing environment to continue an orderly evolution. For this round, I would only open up one or two new domains, let those settle in and then perhaps chose others later. This is a way to guard against cybersquatting and mass registrations of multiple domains while enabling the Net to expand in an orderly manner. |
|
Gregory Krajewski (At Large Member) Image Online Design (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 4:01:41 AM, #1119) I would just like to voice my support for IOD's dot web application. They have a well rounded proposal to provide trademark protection as well as protect consumer interests. Lastly, please do not discount the amount of support this company has received, and contrary to belief the ICANN public comment board does represent a broad representation of internet users from around the world. Thank you. |
|
joanna lane ( ) (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 3:57:47 AM, #1118) Can the board allay fears felt by the At Large membership about possible conflicts of interests, in particular with regard various roles held by Mr. Ken Stubbs |
|
Ray Fassett (Rock-N-Roll.Net) (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 3:54:28 AM, #1117) Does the ICANN board feel there is any conflict of interest involving any of the applications other than such conflicts that have already been publicly addressed? thanks, Ray Fassett |
|
Joe Howe ( .Kids Domains, Inc.) Create Space (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 3:51:47 AM, #1116) At this point ICANN has an opportunity to create a "Greenspace" for children. .Kids Domains, Inc. has put forward a plan to enforce voluntary restrictions agreed to among registrants. The Staff report at this time credits .Kids Domains, Inc. as having the best possible opportunity to enforce such restrictions. With all .kids applicants agreeing that now is the time to create this TLD I urge the ICANN board to agree with earlier comments and grant .Kids Domains, Inc. the sponsored and restricted TLD. With technical soundness approved through the staff report I ask the Board Members to continue to examine this decision. |
|
Steve McLain (Internet Events International) .event TLD (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 3:47:10 AM, #1115) We would like to assure our global colleagues that the .event TLD is intended to operate in multiple languages at launch time. These include, but will not be limited to, English, Portugese, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Mandarin Chinese, and Japanese. Additional languages to be added later will include, but are not limited to, Russian, Hindi, Arabic, Hebrew, and any other languages dictated by market needs. Steve McLain, Executive Vice President, Internet Events International, Inc. |
|
Joop Teernstra (idno) DNSO reform (Debate on Issues, 11/16/2000 3:45:19 AM, #1114) When will the Board decide on admitting an Individual Domain Name Holder's constituency into the DNSO? the Charter of this constituency is ready for your scrutiny. www.idno.org/organiz.htm |
|
Oscar Robles (NIC-Mexico) Contracts ICANN/cctlds (Public Comment, 11/16/2000 3:40:04 AM, #1113) Forget about GAC principles, if my government wants the cctld they will have it, with our without GAC principles, with or without your blessing. It's been six months since you instructed the staff to work closely with us, and nothing happened since then. You should care about operational issues and let politics to governments. If you were committed to the stability of the DNS system we invite you to come and sit in the same table to negotiate contracts between cctlds and ICANN. |
|
Marcia Arbott (The NMB Network) (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 3:33:56 AM, #1112) Dear ICANN Board, Staff, and meeting attendees both physical and remote: Several years ago, lots of people identified a need for additional TLDs, but very few did anything about it. Image Online Design is a company that didn't just sit back and talk about the inevitable evolution of the DNS, they did something about it, by initializing and then expanding the .web registry for over four years. They are the pioneers of the .web registry, deserve applause for their ground-breaking steps to introduce choice to all internet users, and deserve to have their .web database added to the A-root servers. They have publicly stated that they are more than willing to work with ICANN to bring their vision and years of hard work to fruition. Please, Board Members, do what is fair and just so that people can continue to stand behind your organization. Allow Image Online Design's database entry to the A-root servers. Sincerely hoping justice will guide you, Marcia Lynn Arbott |
|
Joe Chizmarik (The Knowledge Sculptors/Cyber On! America!) How to Evaluate New TLDs (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 2:54:20 AM, #1111) Choose those that will most increase community, cooperation, and competition in an area of endeavor; choose a few now for proof of concept then evaluate and re-visit at a later date. |
|
YangWoo Ko (PeaceNet) Multiligual Domain Names (Public Comment, 11/16/2000 2:45:30 AM, #1110) Regarding multiligual domain name registration, in August this year, ICANN alreday commented that multilingual domain name system must be accomplished through open standards. NSI Registry started multiligual domain name registration service a few days ago for Chinese, Korean, and Japanese characters. Now is the time for ICANN as a technology coordination body to start a monitoring on this new service closely as mentioned in the comment. So, I kindly request ICANN Board to make a committee, or a WG, or whatever, which will examine the current status and effects of multilingual domain name deployment. In this examination, possible effects to Internet end users should be regarded as a top priority. |
|
YangWoo Ko (PeaceNet) DNSO Review - Constituency (Public Comment, 11/16/2000 2:41:49 AM, #1109) = Reorganizing constituency structure There is a strong consensus on the fact that constituencies are still not operating effectively and should be improved. Some interests are over represented while others are not or under represented. This unfair represenation problem should be solved by reorganizing constituency structure. DNSO can be categorized by two constraints - Supply/Demand & Commercial/Noncommercial. Using this categorization, DNSO will have the following four constituencies: - ccTLD ( Supply, Noncommercial ) - Internet Business ( Supply, Commercial ) - Commercial Internet Users ( Demand, Commercial ) - Noncommercial Internet Users ( Demand, Noncommercial ) |
|
YangWoo Ko (PeaceNet) Form DNSO Review WG (Public Comment, 11/16/2000 2:40:59 AM, #1108) = Establishing Working Group for DNSO Review Discussions so far regarding DNSO Review revealed that effectiveness and efficiency of DNSO should be and can be improved. So, DNSO should establish a Working Group which will do more detailed review on DNSO and suggest DNSO improvement plan. |
|
YangWoo Ko (PeaceNet) DNSO Review - Revitalize GA (Public Comment, 11/16/2000 2:39:33 AM, #1107) = General Assembly should be revitalized. Currently, General Assembly is left out of the loop in consensus building process. Whether intended or not, the Names Council has been discussing and resolving issues inside the Names Council or its own committee rather than designating those works to Working Groups or other bodies of General Assembly. Therefore, the starting point to revitalize General Assembly is that the Names Council plays its management role as is defined under ICANN Bylaw. |
|
YangWoo Ko (PeaceNet) DNSO Review (Public Comment, 11/16/2000 2:37:27 AM, #1106) = Names Council is not an executive. Under the ICANN Bylaws, the Names Council is responsible for the management of the consensus building process of the DNSO. But, the Names Council often has been acting as a representative legislature, empowered to make rules, rather than as the facilitator. When the Names Council can not find community consensus from the proposed recommendation, the Names Council is advised to return it to the body from which it is originted for further work or forward it to the board with statement that it lacks community consensus. (ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B SEction 2. (d)) |
|
Richard Sexton (ORSC) Single letter domains (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 2:29:38 AM, #1105) The Sarnoff proposal was originally .i but were told you can't have a single letter tld and the name is now .iii The histrical reson single letter tlds weew not allowed was the same reason single letter tlds were not allowed and that is Jon Postel felt one day the DNS would expand to a million names and we might need to split up names so that say vrx.net would be vrx.ne.t to distributre the load. In a 30+ million SLD world, it's *readily* apparant that there IS NO TECHNICAL REASN to continue to reserve single letter domains. What is ICANN doing to reverse this accident of history? |
|
Thomas Occhipinti (Spectral Web, Inc.) Image Online Design, Inc. (Public Comment, 11/16/2000 1:09:51 AM, #1103) Spectral Web, Inc. advocates for diversity and competition in the domain industry and supports the application of Image Online Design. Image Online Design has already proven its technological viability, has a strong registrant base, and is the .web pioneer. Spectral Web, Inc. asks ICANN to approve the application of Image Online Design at this time. Sincerely, Thomas Occhipinti President, Spectral Web, Inc. |
|
Richard Sexton (ORSC) Single letter domains (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 12:46:28 AM, #1101) The Sarnoff proposal was originally .i but were told you can't have a single letter tld and the name is now .iii The histrical reson single letter tlds weew not allowed was the same reason single letter tlds were not allowed and that is Jon Postel felt one day the DNS would expand to a million names and we might need to split up names so that say vrx.net would be vrx.ne.t to distributre the load. In a 30+ million SLD world, it's *readily* apparant that there IS NO TECHNICAL REASN to continue to reserve single letter domains. What is ICANN doing to reverse this accident of history? |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (ICBTollFreeNews.com) colliding TLD's (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 12:41:30 AM, #1100) What is ICANN's position regarding probable challenge from existing TLD's if you choose to adopt colliders for the ICANN root? |
|
Rebeka Goldberg (Digital Consciousness) (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 12:32:45 AM, #1099) Is the application from Neustar for .web still valid, after the divorce of Melbourne IT from the Joint Venture/JV Team (the original bidder for this application)? |
|
friedrich kisters (human bios gmbh) Core (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 12:30:42 AM, #1098) To CORE: Could you kindly explain the general public, how your "premium services" work. Thank you. Friedrich Kisters CEO Human Bios GmbH Switzerland |
|
friedrich kisters (human bios gmbh) Afilias (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 12:28:44 AM, #1097) To NeuStar and Afilias: Isn't .web the best know ending for a new gtlds, because IOD has already been introducing it into the internet community for over 4 years now? Don't you feel it to be unappropriate to request becoming the registry for .web now, exclusively for the sake of economic advantages and instead of IOD, who did the work you didn't do? Friedrich Kisters CEO Human Bios GmbH Switzerland |
|
Marcia Arbott (The NMB Network) IOD's presentation (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/16/2000 12:02:56 AM, #1096) To the ICANN Board of Directors and Staff, I would like it duly noted that I support Image Online Design, Inc.'s and believe they should be awarded the .web registry for the reasons I've outlined in the public forum II. (There is a restriction on number of characters in this submission and I am not allowed for write my reasons in their entirety.) Marcia Lynn Arbott |
|
friedrich kisters (human bios gmbh) Afilias (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 11:55:01 PM, #1094) May we ask to openly discuss the following issue: AFILIAS is talking about their geografical diversity. In reality we are talking about ONE single company and therefore, geographically seen, about an extremely large monopole, which with the help of its international presence will be able to PREVENT any kind of diversity. This of cours means the exactly the opposite of what Afilias states. May we ask what ICANNs position regarding this issue is? Thank you. Friedrich Kisters CEO Human Bios GmbH Switzerland |
|
Andy Coombs (The Walt Disney Company) Personal DNS (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 11:43:43 PM, #1093) Proposals for new "personal" top-level domain name space do not satisfy the purposes implied by this designation. The Board should adopt the BC proposal to study ccTLD implementation of personal top-level domain name space. This will serve the additional purposes of encouraging maximum expansion of the personal domain name space and encourage constructive communication with the ccTLDs. |
|
Diane Cabell (Berkman Center) Abacus Testimony (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 11:37:40 PM, #1092) Neither Harvard Law School nor the Berkman Center takes any position on any gTLD application. Abacus was specifically informed that the briefing papers presented at our Sunday conference were the volunteer work of individual students at HLS and did not represent any official or formal approval by any one other than the student author. |
|
Alex Floum ( ) NCDNHC Resolutions (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 11:25:14 PM, #1089) I vote in favor of both of NCDNHC's resolutions regarding new top-level domain applications. D. Alexander FLoum Intellectual Property Attorney iplawyer@law.com |
|
Alexander Svensson (icannchannel.de) NCDNHC Comments (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 11:23:28 PM, #1087) Just for info: The NCDNHC comments are indeed available online at http://www.ncdnhc.org/docs/event/meeting-13112000.html |
|
Len Lindon (Court of ICANN Governance) (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 11:18:05 PM, #1086) Notice of Court hearing now re ICANN breach "... The provisional view of the Court is that ICANN has no authority or legitimacy outside the State of California in the USA. And that it is in breach of both international human rights law and the corporate laws presently applying in California..." "... In a human rights sense, ICANN is itself a "cybersquatter" on a gobal public resource-- and on the precedent of the WIPO UDRP cases ought have its "domain" transferred to the worldwide community of internet users (and potential users: see Court of the Digital Divide)..." -------------------------------------------------------- http://www.worldcourt4humanrights.com/icanngovorder.html Non-compliance with Court order Breach proceedings v ICANN (failure to allow newly-elected directors to vote, failure to remove non-elected directors) Live Hearing: 8.30am est (9.30pm UTC) Wednesday 15 November 2000 Continuation hearing from Tuesday 14 November |
|
Alex Floum, Esq. ( ) IOD (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 11:07:07 PM, #1085) Abril i Abril made a good point: "entities selected by this procedure will be empowered over time". In other words, if Iodesign is chosen, it will get all the infusion of capital and technical expertise it needs. It will be a self-fulfilling prophecy leading to a very popular, robust, and "thick" registrar. Also, IOD would have to follow through on its promises of adequate technical prowess and capitalization. ICANN can thus grant conditional approval to IOD. The internet community WOULD back this decision. Thank you for your consideration of my comments, D. Alexander Floum, Intellectual Property Attorney iplawyer@law.com |
|
Margaret Rhodes (self-employed) restricted commercial TLD (Public Comment on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 11:03:45 PM, #1084) The proposals for restricted commercial TLDs seem to address directly the important need to give clarity and predictability to commercial users -- both consumers and businesses -- who want to know that the commercial space on the internet -- where they spend most of their time -- is a reliable, safe place to do business. |
|
Steve McLain (Internet Events International) Official Response from IEI (Staff Report on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 10:30:49 PM, #1083) ICANN evaluators emphasized the fact that IEI does not have prior experience as a registry/registrar. While this is correct, it is a tremendous advantage. We offer ICANN, and the Internet community as a whole, new blood and fresh ideas, which will ensure the continued vitality of the Internet. According to the application instructions, "ICANN seeks… TLDs that will provide… a diverse range of concepts for innovative uses of the DNS." By recommending only the large conglomerates, with no notable change to the status quo, ICANN is setting a precedent that will be the exact antithesis of what it requested. It is our anticipation that the Directors of ICANN’s Board will evaluate the merits of our proposal with a more objective approach than that evidenced by the staff evaluation. This is a very exciting time that has the potential to revolutionize an already revolutionary arena. We are sure ICANN would rather be remembered for creating history, rather than merely repeating it. |
|
Len Lindon (Court of ICANN Governance) Court hearing on ICANN non-compliance (Welcome, 11/15/2000 10:20:49 PM, #1082) Non-compliance hearing today. Deliberate and knowing failure and refusal of ICANN to comply with the Order of the Court of ICANN Governance dated Friday 10 November 2000. Failure to remove non-elected directors and to allow newly-elected directors to vote. Breaches of California State law, USA national law and international human rights laws. http://www.worldcourt4humanrights.com/icanngovorder.html Decision on penalty under consideration (submissions still accepted). This notice submitted to ICANN Public Forum at 1.10pm local time, Wed 15 Nov. |
|
Stuart Goold (CECUA) Citizens and the GIS (Public Comment, 11/15/2000 9:22:45 PM, #1081) Does the world citizen have the right to his/her own domain in their own name and does an individual business have the right to use their own trading name and if so, how is this to be achieved on a global basis. |
|
Rebeka Goldberg (Digital Consciousness) (Staff Report on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 9:21:58 PM, #1080) Please freeze the new TLD evaluation process and prepare an ICANN At Large Members vote on the new TLD's. |
|
Alex Floum, Esq. ( ) IOD (Staff Report on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 9:11:53 PM, #1079) I recommend granting the .web registrar to IODesign. ICANN should grant at least one TLD to the main pioneer of a major new tld. IOD has a pioneer's preference, and the overwhelming majority of comments on ICANN's public comment board have been in favor of IOD. |
|
Joe Howe ( .Kids Domains, Inc.) TLD Approval (Staff Report on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 9:04:09 PM, #1078) Does the board take into effect the ability for .Kids Domains, Inc. to successfully address the difficult international differences(That Staff Suggests) as discussed in our application? |
|
Joe Howe ( .Kids Domains, Inc.) Criteria (Staff Report on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 9:00:55 PM, #1077) It seems as though the staff report has included the registration policies in the technological review of the .Kids Domains, Inc. proposal. Do you feel as though the .Kids Domains, Inc. proposal is technically sound? The only comments I have heard are regarding international laws and rules that don't apply to technical issues. |
|
Richard Sexton (ORSC) kids and xxx (Staff Report on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 8:42:05 PM, #1076) Would it be possible to have a quick show of hands - how many people in the audience would want their kids explicitly identified as such by a .kids email address or website? On the other hand, that the registrar community doesn't want .xxx is irrelevent; it's the marketplace that makes these calls, not a business lobby that may not want to "sully itself" with a pornographic tld. Given that half the net is porn, .xxx seems like the most successful candidate for a new tld no matter how distasteful this may seem to poeple in Marina Del Rey. |
|
Richard Sexton (ORSC) kids and xxx (Staff Report on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 8:42:01 PM, #1075) Would it be possible to have a quick show of hands - how many people in the audience would want their kids explicitly identified as such by a .kids email address or website? On the other hand, that the registrar community doesn't want .xxx is irrelevent; it's the marketplace that makes these calls, not a business lobby that may not want to "sully itself" with a pornographic tld. Given that half the net is porn, .xxx seems like the most successful candidate for a new tld no matter how distasteful this may seem to poeple in Marine Del Rey. |
|
Fabrizio Coppola (Scientia (ipotesi.net)) Solution for new TLDs (Staff Report on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 8:35:58 PM, #1074) Would you agree on the following solution? It enhances competition and reduces conflicts: - .web to IOD ; - .info to Afilias ; - .biz to JVTeam. This would be fair for IOD, that has mantained a .web registry for 4 years and is supported by generic Internet users. Fabrizio Coppola Scientia (ipotesi.net) Italy |
|
Marcia Arbott (The NMB Network) (Staff Report on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 8:07:27 PM, #1072) To all present: Please note that an analysis of applications (most especially in respect to the staff's comments about Image Online Design, Inc.'s application) violated the following ICANN Bylaw: Bylaws Amended Bylaws July 16, 2000 (c) The Corporation shall not apply its standards, policies, procedures or practices inequitably or single out any particular party for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause, such as the promotion of effective competition. Please rectify this violation before proceeding further. Thank you, Marcia Lynn Arbott |
|
Rebeka Goldberg (Digital Consciousness) (Staff Report on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 8:06:30 PM, #1071) Evaluation Team/Report Is there is a conflict of interest for Arthur Andersen with Core/Afilias application evaluation? Please clarify this point. Thank you. |
|
Gene Marsh (Diebold Incorporated) Consultative period (Staff Report on New TLDs, 11/15/2000 7:45:35 PM, #1070) In light of the cancelling of the consultative period, has there been any serious consideration for allowing the applicants more than three minutes to respond to the ICANN Staff Report? |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (ICBTollFreeNews.com) Andrew's report suggestion (Reports, 11/15/2000 7:05:12 PM, #1069) I thoroughly support the remarks of Karl Auerbach regarding the "clean sheet" study. |
|
Thomas Roessler At Large Study Staff Paper (Reports, 11/15/2000 6:48:05 PM, #1068) Suggestions on the Study Committee. TWO members of the group should be board members, one of them an elected At Large director. Only one member (possibly an initial board member) would create perception of bias. Possibly let the two board members co-chair the group. Define - in advance! - clear procedures according to which the committee would acknowledge consensus. |
|
Nobuo Sakiyama ( ) Moblization in Japan (Reports, 11/15/2000 6:47:55 PM, #1067) ICANN should investigate the details of the mobilization on the At-Large election in Asia/Pacific region, because many employees (at least 10,000, I think) of IT comanies in Japan were ordered by their employers to vote to Mr. Katoh. ICANN staffs only can send inquires to all at-large members. Please see also: http://www.CivilSocietyInternetForum.org/election-report.html |
|
Gene Marsh (Diebold Incorporated) Action on recommendations (Reports, 11/15/2000 6:47:15 PM, #1066) Will the board take any action on the DNSO recommendations? |
|
Srikanth Narra (idno) Ideal and fair setup (Whois, 11/15/2000 1:24:58 AM, #1064) Whois information should be kept open but not completely freely accesible. If anyone wants to look up info on someone - they should provide plausible reason - after an online agreement stating the information will not be used in ways that is not as stated and legal. Then the whois records should be served. Also, An automatic email should be sent to the person/firm stated in whois record - that a particular entity or person has requested a whois on the particular domain name / handle, etc. Fair to one and all.. Plus the whois database so created should be hacker proofed and watch for robot-bolts. |
|
Srikanth Narra (idno) Report outline (Whois, 11/15/2000 1:15:10 AM, #1063) Conclusion :- We are going to come up with one site where all whois info can be gather by anyone in world. For future consideration :- in unlikely event that someone in China or Iraq doesn't get completely slandered by some repressive regime for having a website and manages to get the news out to world - we will white wash it a bit - forever consider further action. Amen. Betweenlines :- Idoits - did you actually think we will do somethign other than what IP and TM wants ? |
|
Srikanth Narra (idno) icann transperent and open (Whois, 11/15/2000 1:06:34 AM, #1062) Also very representative and democratic right ? |
|
Srikanth Narra (idno) what about repressive govts /Stakers ? (Whois, 11/15/2000 1:01:50 AM, #1061) Why give out whois info the same way credit reports are kept and given for consumers in US ? That way the person on whom whois is being quieried knows that someone is looking him/her up. That way the person can stay on alert both in terms of persicussion be it from repressive govts or perverts. Does no one have any responsibility to individuals safety ? |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) privacy vs commercial sites (Net-User Trust, 11/15/2000 12:31:20 AM, #1060) What privacy would be afforded to the SOHO with a commercial site? Publishing a phone number and address could place individuals in jeopardy. |
|
friedrich Kisters (Human Bios GmbH) domain names vs. IP (trademark law) (Business Plan, 11/15/2000 12:28:20 AM, #1059) 1. Domain names cannot have any negative impact on trademarkholders rights, as they are mere addresses. The content of websites may have such a negative impact. Existing trademarklaw offers a strong legal bases as to sue violations at the level of website contents and needs no substantial amendments. 2. The sunrise provision allowing early registration by trademark holders is not grounded in law. U.S. (and european (WPG)) trademark law is a balance of the rights of holders and the rights of non-infringing users of the mark. Furthermore, under U.S. (and european (WPG)) trademark law, the holder has duty to police its mark. 3.An early registration is granting trademark holders rights that are above and beyond the law. The sunrise creates a presumption that commercial use is the superior use of the Internet. Commercial use of the Internet should not be given superior rights to individuals and non-commercial interests. |
|
Marcia Arbott ( ) (Net-User Trust, 11/15/2000 12:27:27 AM, #1058) Please be aware that as of this moment, Michael Froomkin is speaking (regardless of the error in your message subject topic) and I, representing myself and over 500 friends, associates and relatives, fully stand behind the views and opinions that Michael Froomkin is currently expressing. Sincrely, --Marcia Lynn Arbott |
|
Alex Floum ( ) (Business Plan, 11/15/2000 12:20:30 AM, #1057) As an intellectual property attorney representing many trademark owners, I agree 100% with Professor Froomkin's views. D. Alexander Floum, Esq. |
|
Alex Floum ( ) (Business Plan, 11/15/2000 12:15:32 AM, #1056) As an intellectual property attorney representing many trademark owners, I think that trademark protection is vital. On the other hand, any provision which would allow a trademark owner to pre-register or win transfer of a registration for a domain name not identical with or confusingly similar to a mark is counter-productive. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the courts have agreed that trademarks and domain names are two separate ideas, and they should not be confused. Because generic domain names by definition cannot be trademarked (the PTO disregards the .com, .net or other tld signifier), they should not be usurped by trademark owners. In other words, generic domain names should be registered on a first-come, first-served basis. D. Alexander Floum, Esq. |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) IP rights (Business Plan, 11/15/2000 12:12:52 AM, #1055) How about protecting citizen's rights in their own countries? If WiPO has its way, there will be no advisory sites on medication, no criticism and no individual will have any security in registering a domain name or any long-held name. With the "sunrise" provisions and UDRP, the name space will not only be opened for the public, but will, in fact, be closed. WIPO's proposals will damage the users and individual domain name holders irreparably. |
|
Len Lindon (Court of ICANN Governance) (Business Plan, 11/15/2000 12:01:51 AM, #1054) re Protection of IP rights-- at least as much work needs to focus on protection of HUMAN RIGHTS (as defined by longstanding internationally-accepted UN Standards) |
|
Joop Teernstra (idno) DNSO review/reform (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 11:36:45 PM, #1053) DNSO review. It is not surprising that the existing "constituencies" have not shown much enthousiasm to Review their existing dominance. The old Interin Board has created the DNSO structure. It makes no sense that any other body than the Board itself,duly elected, takes responsibility for a new DNSO structure. |
|
Alex Floum ( ) (Results of Review Questionnaire, 11/14/2000 11:14:41 PM, #1052) As an intellectual property attorney representing the interests of clients interested in domain name issues, I request that applicants be given a fair opportunity to respond to the staff comments. I also request that the hang-over board members step down immediately so as to comply with ICANN's previous promises and fair procedures. |
|
Alex Floum ( ) (Report from the GA Chair, 11/14/2000 11:06:23 PM, #1051) The hangover board members have remained well past their mandated time. This violates the Administrative Procedures Act. |
|
Edward Gildred (MONA) new domain registration (Report from the GA Chair, 11/14/2000 10:57:12 PM, #1050) 1. Will ICANN control the sale of new URL's based on the new domains selected (as it does with .com, .net, .gov, etc.,) or will the entities sponsoring the proposed new domains be given that responsibility? 2. In either case, will all accredited domain registration companies be able to register the new URLs as they currently do with currently available URLs? 3. When will URLs with the new domains be available to the general public for registration? 4. Is there a waiting list or some other type of process for those who want to register URLs based on the new domains ICANN is expected to approve? |
|
Len Lindon (Court of ICANN Governance) Court orders ICANN to make changes (Report from the GA Chair, 11/14/2000 10:45:24 PM, #1048) Does ICANN intend to comply with the Court order last Friday that the non-elected directors resign and that newly elected directors have voting rights now? |
|
Alex Floum ( ) (Report from the GA Chair, 11/14/2000 10:42:20 PM, #1046) Voting on new TLD's by the current ICANN board is like Florida Secretary of State, a long-time Bush campaigner, voting on Florida ballot issues. New board should be appointed NOW! |
|
Alex Floum ( ) (Report from the GA Chair, 11/14/2000 10:40:56 PM, #1045) Are representatives of all of the potential registrars at the meeting? I.e. does ioDesign have a representative ready to respond to staff reports? If not, then deciding new tld's would be unfair at this point. |
|
Douglas Kiang .biz already exists? (11/14/2000 10:34:17 PM, in-room, #1044) Can you talk a little bit about the fact that supposedly, .biz already exists on an alternate root server? Will "chaos" ensue if ICANN approves someone else to handle this? |
|
Alex Floum ( ) (Status Report, 11/14/2000 9:49:18 PM, #1040) I agree with proposals 1 and 3 that the holdover board members immediately resign and that new board members be appointed before the new gTLD's are decided. I think IOD's .web proposal and Name-Space's .shop proposal have been given biased, negative reviews when they are both valid proposals. I demand that this vote be counted as timely since I was not allowed to participate in the live vote via webcast. D. Alexander Floum, Attorney. |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) remote participants not counted (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 9:22:49 PM, #1039) We have repeatedly attempted to vote as participants and have been ignored. |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) vote (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 9:20:41 PM, #1038) reslotion 2 : Favor |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) vote (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 9:20:05 PM, #1037) resolutoin 1: Favor |
|
vishnu das (ave-lallemant technologies, inc) (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 9:19:56 PM, #1036) favor resolution 2 |
|
vishnu das (ave-lallemant technologies, inc) (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 9:19:26 PM, #1035) abstain |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (ICBTollFreeNews.com) Froomkin's proposal (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 9:18:42 PM, #1034) I support Michael Froomkin's proposal that the over-extended board members take their leave now, as promised in sworn testimony before Congress and the U.S. public. I do NOT support the CDT's misguided proposal #2. (I expect this vote to be considered timely as no count was taken 'live' among the remote participants, during the actual count.) |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 9:12:56 PM, #1033) I heartily agree that the holdover board members should resign immediately. In addition, those four seats should be filled by the second choice in the elections for four of the five regions. |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (ICBTollFreeNews.com) vote (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 9:11:11 PM, #1032) I vote yes to Resolution #1, that the new TLD decision be postponed until the new At Large board members are seated. I vote yes to Resolution #3, that the new TLD decision be postponed until all the applicants have had time to respond to the Staff Report. (I expect this vote to be considered timely as no count was taken 'live' among the remote participants, during the actual count.) |
|
Marcia Arbott ( ) #1,#2,#3,#4 (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 9:04:52 PM, #1031) As a remote participant, I want my vote counted for #1 and #2. --Marcia Arbott |
|
Marcia Arbott ( ) #1,#2,#3,#4 (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 9:04:01 PM, #1030) |
|
blaise ave-lallemant vote res#4 (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 8:54:35 PM, #1029) Resolution 4: opposed |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) Vote #4 (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 8:54:17 PM, #1028) Against |
|
Rebeka Goldberg ( ) (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 8:54:13 PM, #1027) Proposal: Let the At-Large Members vote on the new Tld's |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) vote #3 (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 8:53:04 PM, #1026) Favor |
|
blaise ave-lallemant vote (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 8:52:33 PM, #1025) Resolution 3: opposed |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) vote (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 8:52:08 PM, #1024) Favor #1 Favor #2 |
|
blaise ave-lallemant vote (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 8:50:43 PM, #1023) Resolution 2: favor |
|
blaise ave-lallemant vote (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 8:49:51 PM, #1022) favor |
|
Chris Kwak (Bear Stearns) Resolution 4. (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 8:49:12 PM, #1021) For resolution 4. |
|
Daniel Howarth (JapansOnline.com) If IOD don't get the .web (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 8:16:07 PM, #1020) If IOD don't get the .web and another registra gets it, there clearly will be a court case about it. Why dismiss IOD now, you will be saving time in the future. Sorry just put throughing my point. Regards Mr. Daniel Howarth |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) remote participants (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 8:11:10 PM, #1019) Again, we are here and would like a voice, please |
|
Joop Teernstra (idno) (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 7:50:43 PM, #1017) Has anybody given an expose of where the IDNO constituency building effort now stands? That representatives have been elected? That a Charter has been ratified? |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) (Debate on Issues, 11/14/2000 7:42:23 PM, #1016) There have been repeated attempts for individual constituancy. It has been ignored. |
|
Vikash Patel ( ) (Status Report, 11/14/2000 6:31:15 PM, #1013) By simply reading the comments on this forum, anyone can easily see that the majority of people favor IOD for .web. Personally, I feel that IOD has done and will continue to do a remarkable job running the .web registry. According to comments on the public comment board, several letters have been written to many influential people regarding the assignment of .web to IOD. If people feel this strongly about the future of the Internet and how IOD can promote competition, then the clear choice is IOD for .web. Thanks! Vikash Patel |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) sunrise - UDRP (New TLDs, 11/13/2000 2:08:23 AM, #1011) UDRP does not apply to two trademark holders with legitimate rights to the name |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) icann at large orgs (At Large Membership and Elections, 11/13/2000 12:58:02 AM, #1010) There are also mailing lists open to regions and at large as a whole. They can be found at www.TLDlobby.com and www.ador-doc.org |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) disparity (At Large Membership and Elections, 11/13/2000 12:45:08 AM, #1009) I heard a real problem. There is always this assumption that the board needs to do what is good for the corporation, but the corporation exists to do what is right for the internet - technically. This is a chasm. |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) Privacy (UDRP Review, 11/12/2000 11:21:41 PM, #1008) How would you propose to protect the SOHO from being attacked by any nut in the world if all private information must be published? Also, what reason can you give for private citizens providing process servers easy access to them? Since the Lanham Act is specific about the repsponsibilty of policing marks falls upon the mark holder, why do privacy concerns have to be given up for IP interests and attorneys? |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) UDRP is inherently biased (UDRP Review, 11/12/2000 11:12:47 PM, #1007) What can be done to establish parity between individual and small business domain name holders, since it is obvious that ICANN/UDRP was established to protect IP interests and leave out the rest of the domain name holders. |
|
edgar pansu Icann and governance (11/6/2000 7:26:28 PM, in-room, #1004) Hi, in a lot of medias flourished the expression "Icann is the main instrument of Internet Governance", in France it became Icann is a future governement for Internet. My question: could the Icann extend its power to other matters than domain names administration? |
|
Anant Raut What does this law do for me that I can't already? (10/24/2000 10:39:30 PM, in-room, #1003) I as a parent can purchase nannynet, or a variety of software packages that screen out obviously pornographic sites. What I'm worried about is my kids getting exposed to indecent material on chat rooms, usenet groups, etc., which can't be screened out by most of these programs. What does your bill do for me that I can't already do? |
|
Darren Shulman Olin Center Web Site (10/23/2000 10:32:36 PM, in-room, #1002) What is the URL for the website where we can find the paper? |
|
vinay ahuja hello (10/18/2000 10:25:57 AM, in-room, #1001) sir what are the diffrent type of measures taken by diffrent countries to curb the cybercrime as pornography? |
|
Anant Raut Brian's scenario is off-base (10/17/2000 11:45:37 PM, in-room, #1000) If I'm a merchant, and I know that JZ will pay x dollars for a book online, Brian thinks that every merchant will charge him x dollars, no matter where he goes. But if I'm Merchant #2, trying to grow my business, why wouldn't I offer JZ the same book at x-1 dollars? And then Merchant #3 would offer at x-2, etc., until the market drives the prices back down to normal. This assumes that the flow of information possible through the Internet continues in this e-commerce marketplace. |
|
Maryanne Hancock B2B (10/17/2000 11:40:52 PM, in-room, #999) While we are focusing on monitoring in the b2c environment - this issue is at least as sensitive in the b2b world because of the competitive data collected. |
|
Bryan Hancock E-commerce price discrimination (10/17/2000 11:35:37 PM, in-room, #998) Here is the website of the leading firm that creates software to use consumer information for pricing adjustments online: http://www.talussolutions.com/products/ecommerce.html |
|
Anant Raut Bargaining power (10/17/2000 11:23:02 PM, in-room, #997) I feel like the catchphrase "bargaining power" is being bandied about too quickly. It seems as applicable as arguing that consumers have no "bargaining power" against grocery stores in setting the price of milk. The competition in a market in which you're free to change your employment should act as a stopgap, unlike, say, a third world sweatshop, where switching costs for employees are much higher. |
|
Jenny Lee fyi (10/17/2000 11:14:07 PM, in-room, #996) There's an article in today's NY Times about Anonymity on the Net. They mention Bruce Fischman and his visit here yesterday! |
|
Douglas Kiang Notification Policy? (10/17/2000 10:44:13 PM, in-room, #995) What is the employer's responsibility to inform its emplyees that surveillance of e-mail and other communication is taking place? Should we assume that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a work environment, even if no notice of this surveillance has been posted? |
|
(10/17/2000 10:35:19 PM, in-room, #994) http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/17/technology/17ONLI.html |
|
Max Cholmetsky Legislation (10/17/2000 3:03:22 AM, in-room, #993) This question is for Bruce Fischman. What legislation do you propose as necessary to insure responsible behavior on the internet without sacrificing privacy yet providing the tools and the means required for plaintiffs to be able to confront their accusers in defamation actions when those who libel others can do so almost with impunity by hiding behind bogus addresses and fake identities? |
|
Max Cholmetsky Legislation (10/17/2000 3:03:04 AM, in-room, #992) This question is for Bruce Fischman. What legislation do you propose as necessary to insure responsible behavior on the internet without sacrificing privacy yet providing the tools and the means required for plaintiffs to be able to confront their accusers in defamation actions when those who libel others can do so almost with impunity by hiding behind bogus addresses and fake identities? |
|
Bethany Rubin What if subpoena can't work? (10/16/2000 11:31:32 PM, in-room, #991) Our discussion has so far centered on the notion that we can in fact find out the anonymous poster's identity - either via entrapment or via subpoena. But what do you do when you can't find out the identity, i.e. all postings are done on public terminals that don't require passwords to log on, or from the computer of another person with or without his consent? Is the anonymous poster then essentially free of any potential legal liability? Even if they're not and convicted in absentia, how would this judgment ever be enforced? |
|
Amanda Moger notice by ISPs (10/16/2000 10:56:32 PM, in-room, #990) Is 10 days to 2 weeks a meaningful amount of time? How often do those people successfully quash supeonas? |
|
Amanda Moger cyber fingerprinting (10/16/2000 10:50:46 PM, in-room, #989) What do they do with the cyber fingerprinting - is that sufficient proof of identity to file a suit or do they just use it for something like a cease and desist letter? |
|
Jason Barkham Lighting (10/16/2000 10:31:57 PM, in-room, #988) Becca, I can't read the screen. Thanks Jason |
|
rebecca Nesson (10/16/2000 10:17:32 PM, in-room, #987) test comment |
|
Bryan Hancock Harvard Newsserver (10/10/2000 11:23:55 PM, in-room, #986) Our newsserver is: news.fas.harvard.edu A good sample newsgroup is: rec.travel.europe Hope this helps! Bryan |
|
Jeff Rosenfeld wiretaps (10/9/2000 10:44:14 PM, in-room, #985) Chart available at http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/wiretap_stats.html |
|
Bryan Hancock Wiretap report URL (10/9/2000 10:44:10 PM, in-room, #984) http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap99/contents.html |
|
Otho Ross response re: TLDs (10/3/2000 2:59:46 AM, #983) Mr. Gallegos stated that ".NEWS", ".BIZ" and several other domains have been "in use" "for years". I challenge this. Where have they ever been "in use"? No DNS system now will resolve these names, to my knowledge. I think some people are just "pre-registering" them in the hopes that they will be approved. I hope they tell their customers that that the TLDs have not been approved. |
|
Robert Hall Assignment of Domain Names (10/3/2000 2:58:29 AM, #982) A search conducted on the web on the internet today, brings up many references to varied things. Are you in favor of this diversity? Or should the name be only used by a few companies? Is this an item for consideration by ICANN? Or individual government control in each country? |
|
bethany rubin foreign governments and icann (10/3/2000 2:48:30 AM, #981) how can icann maintain legitimacy if it doesn't have the mandate of multiple governments? international organizations such as the un that do have the backing of most of the world's countries have a hard enough time. do you see icann pursuing a un-type (or form) role with respect to the internet or do you see icann as completely separate from individual governments? what would need to be done to ensure that your vision of icann is achieved? |
|
Otho Ross new TLDs? (10/3/2000 2:47:07 AM, #980) What I have heard is that any new TLD will just create another land-rush. Even if you open up 5 more, there will be 5 more land-rushes. Is this good? |
|
charles oriez auction (10/3/2000 2:44:56 AM, #979) i came late. who was proposing auctioning |
|
Craig Simon Global Namespace and the Unique DNS Root (10/3/2000 2:40:00 AM, #978) Would the candidates please comment on the "IAB Comment on the Unique DNS Root"? What does it mean to have a globally accessible namespace like the DNS if it is not a globally coherent one? How many candidates oppose the IAB statement, and might argue instead that a fractured Internet namespace would be beneficial? |
|
Dennis Schaefer (10/3/2000 2:31:53 AM, #977) In July, the GAO report on ICANN made the odd statement that the GAO couldn't tell whether any government property had been transferred to ICANN (but noted that no such transfer had been intended.) My question for the candidates is, in your opinion, is the DNS government property, and did the Dept. of Commerce in fact transfer it to ICANN? >Dennis Schaefer Marblehead, MA |
|
Stephen Sachs UDRP acceptable? (10/3/2000 2:22:25 AM, #976) We on the web couldn't see who raised their hands just now. Could you indicate it on the discussion list? |
|
dave wurtz trademark rights (10/3/2000 2:13:02 AM, #975) Would owning a domain that has the word "javascript" in it be against the UDRP? and what determines a common mark? |
|
jeanette hofmann (10/3/2000 1:52:18 AM, #974) To all candidates: Should the DOC's authority over the root zone file be transferred to ICANN or a third organization? |
|
Leah Gallegos Election glitches (10/3/2000 1:34:12 AM, #973) To all candidates: How do you feel you plan to establish technologically sound election processes in the future and will you fight for true membership at-large to elect the board? |
|
David wurtz gTLDS (10/3/2000 1:27:15 AM, #972) I have read numerous things on the web that recommend not generic tlds but specific. I think if the new tlds were restricted to a select group it would defeat the purpose of the internet as a whole. Do you agree? |
|
Leah Gallegos New TLD's (10/3/2000 1:18:14 AM, #971) The application process for new ICANN TLD's is underway. There are rumors that some applications include exiting TLD's which have been in use by other registries and managers for years. ICANN's adoption of those TLD's would then create collisions. Would you support ICANN's adoption of those TLD's which have been claimed via first use by existing managers and which are already included in other public root systems such as ORSC? Examples: .NEWS, .BIZ, .WEB, .MOV, .HOME, .MART, SEX, .HERE, etc., many of which have been in use for several years. Would you support inclusion of other roots' TLD's in the ICANN default rootzone as are ccTLD's? |
|
R N (Bob) Hall Accessibility and Use (10/2/2000 11:30:00 PM, #970) Should individuals and organizations be assured of experimental access to some part or realm of the internet? Is this an area that is or should be part of ICANN's concerns in regard to their present or future role? Thank you for any comments. |
|
glenn brown artists' rights and work for hire (10/2/2000 2:46:47 AM, #969) Mr. Valenti: You say that you believe in the right of authors to protect what they've created. How do you reconcile this stance with the ubiquity of "work for hire" in the entertainment business -- a practice so pervasive that it essentially offers artists a choice between handing their rights over to publishers or abandoning their works to their desk drawers? |
|
Serge Egelman Rights of the artists (10/2/2000 2:46:40 AM, #968) This question is for Mr. Valenti: He has said on multiple occasions during this debate that he wants the rights of the artist to be the first priority. He also claims that regardless of the medium, all artists should have total copyright control over their works. If this is the case, why does he support such legislation made by the MPAA and the RIAA that forces the rights to the works to fall into the hands of the record and movie companies (thus the artist loses all control)? |
|
Chris Scharff Stealing? (10/2/2000 2:40:06 AM, #967) I buy a CD and want to watch it on my Linux box, how am I stealing? |
|
Jim Other fair use rights (10/2/2000 2:39:45 AM, #966) What about the other fair use rights? What if I want to distribute a brief clip of a DVD as part of a critical review? What if I want to excercise my rights to parody, etc? I can no longer do this under the DMCA |
|
Samuel Berry Related Issues (10/2/2000 2:39:08 AM, #965) In light of recent revelations about the marketing of inappropriate movies to minors, I don't think that the movie industry should be too moralistic about its "property rights". In fact, intellectual property rights are, and should be, whatever Congress decides. For example, I don't think Congress should grant this monopoly right to works that contain excessive violence or sexual content. I would advocate adding a provision requiring a jury finding of "community acceptability" (i.e., no gratuitous violence or sex) for any copyright enforcement action to succeed. Also, intellectual property needs to be clarified in order to avoid stifling commerce on the internet. Protection should not extend to business practices on the internet. |
|
Albert Mao Technological Protection Mechanisms (10/2/2000 2:39:06 AM, #964) Jack Valenti: Many technological devices that are employed to protect copyrighted works are based on mathematical theorems. If a mathematician makes a purely mathematical discovery that inadvertantly facilitates circumvention of a technological protection mechanism, should this mathematician be vulnerable to legal retribution and should it be legal to disseminate his discovery? Note that under the DMCA it is illegal to use or distribute any information that can be used to circumvent a technological protection mechanism. |
|
Chris Scharff If I own a copy of a CD (10/2/2000 2:37:56 AM, #963) If I own a copy of a CD, how do i violate the fair use clause by downloading a copy of that song on MP3? |
|
Mike Utke Post 2600 letters (10/2/2000 2:37:35 AM, #962) After Judge Kaplan ruled in the 2600 case, the MPAA began sending out letters to other mirroring DeCSS. These letters relied on the ruling to convince these sites to shut themselves down (or else face the same consequences 2600 did). Did the MPAA send out letters to the New York Times, Disney, etc., since they all link to DeCSS in articles and search engines? If no, why not? |
|
Danny Silverman Valenti's fair use (10/2/2000 2:37:11 AM, #961) Does fair use now mean that we must watch advertisments in the classroom at the beginning of DVDs before we can fast-forward to our section? that we can no longer copy segments of videos for use in presentations? That we can no longer, for instance, view German DVDs in our German class because they are region-encoded differently? |
|
Danny Silverman Valenti's fair use (10/2/2000 2:37:09 AM, #960) Does fair use now mean that we must watch advertisments in the classroom at the beginning of DVDs before we can fast-forward to our section? that we can no longer copy segments of videos for use in presentations? That we can no longer, for instance, view German DVDs in our German class because they are region-encoded differently? |
|
Christopher Lambert The fallibility of technology (10/2/2000 2:36:52 AM, #959) Given that any technology may be circumvented given sufficient resources (as has been consistently proven), and hence that legal and technological attempts by the MPAA to limit the distribution to their strict definition of legality will likely be bypassed and the protected media distributed on the internet, what does the MPAA propose for a long term solution? |
|
Chris Scharff Check a movie out form a library? (10/2/2000 2:36:14 AM, #958) If I check out a DVD movie from a library under the fair use clause, how do I then violate the fair use clause by using a reverse engineered descrambler to watch it on the Unix box in my classroom? |
|
Macki Question for Valenti regarding linking (10/2/2000 2:35:56 AM, #957) Question for Valenti: While Judge Kaplan agreed to prohibit 2600 from linking to DeCSS, why do websites owned and operated by MPAA member companies, like Disney, along with websites like CNN, Scientific American, The New York Times, and Wired, continue to link to DeCSS without objection? |
|
chris davis DeCSS and the MPAA (10/2/2000 2:35:21 AM, #956) For Mr. Valenti: You were asked earlier questions about the DVD and DeSS case, and I would like to hear why, it is considered illegal for me, to watch, on my Linux system, a dvd, which I have purchased. Is this not fair use of the dvd I have purchased? |
|
Sarah Lai Stirland (10/2/2000 2:34:16 AM, #955) Here's a page that links to DECSS source code: http://revjim.freeshell.org/decss.html Doesn't this page show how ineffective Judge Kaplan's decision on 2600's links is? |
|
Ari Gordin Liability (10/2/2000 2:30:51 AM, #954) If a company develops a device with both legal and illegal uses, is the company liable for such illegal uses? |
|
Travis Savo Question for Jack: (10/2/2000 2:29:35 AM, #953) Technically, DivX allows people to distribute movies. So does ASF from microsoft. How do you intend to stop these technologies from "taking your piece of the pie"? |
|
Kevin Bankston follow up to fair use: right or defense (10/2/2000 2:29:24 AM, #952) Prof Lessig: You said that fair use supports a right to hack copyright controls--but wouldn't this just limit fair use to hackers and their friends? Shouldn't an affirmative right to fair use mandate that privately created content control not prohibit fair uses? Then we wouldn't need to hack MPAA technology--rather, the MPAA's technology would have to conform to the fair use doctrine. |
|
Patrick Park Straight answers from Valenti (10/2/2000 2:28:26 AM, #951) Mr. Valenti, I am watching this debate on the Internet and I have yet to hear you answer a question or give a reason for your 'beliefs' in a straight, clear way. Why are you so evasive? Is it because you understand the inherent ridiculousness of your position? |
|
michael moore Napster/Fair Use (10/2/2000 2:28:20 AM, #950) Mr. Valenti, if I assign my class an activity using Napster, are we protected by educational Fair use? |
|
Glenn Buckholz Encryption (10/2/2000 2:27:17 AM, #949) Earlier it was stated Encryption is the law of the land, It is a mathamatical concept the theories of which include the possibility that it is broken, so has has the Decss violated the concept of encryption by breaking it? |
|
Check Mater DVD Country Codes (10/2/2000 2:26:25 AM, #948) How does the MPAA think that in the era of the Internet, the concept of DVD Country Codes can still be sustained? That's what's happening right now - Europeans have to wait till the good Americans decide to give them their content. |
|
Adi Knishinsky Copyright Alternatives (10/2/2000 2:26:22 AM, #947) Regardless of the legal implications regarding copyright laws, why doesn't the MPAA look at alternatives that are capable of replacing the monetary losses being experienced? EXAMPLE: When the boat is sinking, you don't think of suing the boat maker, you innovate new ideas to keep you afloat until another boat comes along. |
|
Ben Wilkinson Gnutella (10/2/2000 2:26:11 AM, #946) Do you think it is possible to stop piracy by shutting down each and every P2P program that is developed? |
|
aron craig DMCA defeate 'limited time'? (10/2/2000 2:25:42 AM, #945) It seems that the DMCA bypasses the 'limited time' clause of copyright law. If the public cannot decrypt a work and all copies are encrypted it can no longer enter into the public domain. Mr. Valenti, how can you marry these two opposing positions? |
|
Sylvia Caras Perversion of Language (10/2/2000 2:24:30 AM, #944) Would Lessig put his comment on the perversion of language in a larger social context? I see this in many discussions today, where words are given odd and paradoxical meanings. I think it relates to how we are communicating and thus links back to this intellectual property dialogue. |
|
Cmdr Taco File Sharing (10/2/2000 2:24:30 AM, #943) Do you believe that a filing sharing network such as Napster or Gnutella can ever operate totally legally? |
|
Curtiss Priest "property" (10/2/2000 2:22:41 AM, #942) Have we lost the battle the moment we call it "intellectual property?" If not property, what is it? Is it "symbols in the public domain" once transmitted? Valenti refers to "limited period of time." So should the period be variable depending upon what the production system requires to produce it? |
|
Curtiss Priest move up a level (10/2/2000 2:16:56 AM, #941) Can we recognize that existing law will always lag technology. So, can Lessig couch his defense more in terms of what will be lost, rather than appealing to prior case law that is already outdated? |
|
Sarah Lai Stirland Control vs. Lack of Control (10/2/2000 2:13:13 AM, #940) For both the speakers: You both talk about control/lack of control of content either explicitly or implicitly, could you try to address what a middle ground might be? How do you envision content being used in a fair way in the digital world at the same time as fairly compensating artists? I think that's the most immediate issue that concerns the business and artistic communities. |
|
Albert Castaneda (10/2/2000 2:10:23 AM, #939) Mexican American Political Association Valenti represents the MPAA is policing the Internet, DVD Playback, and all means of Bradcast to make sure Film and TV corporations get pay for any and all media play globally. Even encarcerating kids to accomplish it. Wants to control the Internet Globally and collect from the world. But refuses to address the issues of Internet pay for Actors "Pay per Play" Sag/Aftra strike negotiation broke down specifically because Valenti et al refuse to address ANY issue dealing with internet and actors being compensated residuals. Billions at stake for MAPAA members Make but not share. ****Question: IS THIS A DOUBLE STANDARD.??? |
|
Duncan McQueen RecordTV (10/2/2000 2:08:56 AM, #938) Valenti stated that he knew nothing about the RecordTV case, however he said that RecordTV operator David Simon "willingly and knowingly has built a business based on offering its customers access to valuable stolen property," according to a statement issued by his office. Can he explain his basis for this belief? |
|
Timothy Phillips mauling the public domain (10/2/2000 2:08:54 AM, #937) Mr. Valenti: Look at the Thomas Nast cartoon at http://www.boondocksnet.com/gallery/nast711111.html That's you in the stands, viewing the bloody specatacle with such glee. The mauled woman is the public domain. The tiger is the CTEA and the "anti-trafficking" and "anti-circumvention" provisions of the DMCA. Have a nice day. Tim Phillips |
|
D. Friend appropriation of public wealth (10/2/2000 2:00:33 AM, #936) mr. valenti: Why is a person who recombines informational material from the public sphere not merely engaging in the private appropriation of public wealth? and, do I owe James Boyle money now? - as this came from his book Shamans, Software, and Spleens |
|
Curtiss Priest ask Mr. Valenti (10/2/2000 1:57:08 AM, #935) Do you believe our copyrighted "entertainment" -- from songs to movies, is improving the cultures of other countries? |
|
D Hudson competition (10/2/2000 1:56:34 AM, #934) For Jack Valenti (1) How can the MPAA foster competition between different schemes to protect copyright? (2) Is it piracy for third parties to create DVD players without the MPAA's permission? |
|
Curtiss Priest the "Sony Bono amendment" (10/2/2000 1:55:15 AM, #933) What good did this accomplish? Is it producing more intellectual property wealth? |
|
Curtiss Priest make enough to make more (10/2/2000 1:51:18 AM, #932) Is this statement of Lessig's a new way to think about copyright? At a certain point we have diminishing returns to copyright payments. How do we make the products of copyrighted acts available to the maximum number of recipients at the lowest possible price? |
|
Beth Bassett Napster (10/2/2000 1:51:18 AM, #931) Do you feel that Napster is a free speech vs. commercial rights issue? |
|
Scott Dier copyright/france (10/2/2000 1:47:40 AM, #930) Please, Mr. Valenti, with your vast knowledge on the French reveloution, do you know the differences between "copyright" pre reveloution, and post reveloution? (The changes in scope of the laws) And, can you please note the 'class' of people who overturned the goverment, and why they felt that copyright law was to be abolished? (working class was being legislated out of working because simple things they were creating were being copyrighted and they couldn't make a buck) How the heck does this corelate to todays problems? |
|
mike flynn Fair Use v. Right of Access (10/2/2000 1:44:07 AM, #929) How does Professor Lessig arrive at a right of access from the doctrine of fair use, which is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement? Please have him connect the dots. This refers to his comments about the anti-circumvention language in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. |
|
Kevin Bankston fair use: right or defense? (10/2/2000 1:41:25 AM, #928) Professor Lessig: Fair use has traditionally been treated by the courts as merely a First Amendment derived defense against copyright infringement actions, rather than as an affirmative First Amendment right. But as privately deployed rights management hardware/software and restrictive licenses supercede copyright laws as the primary mode of protecting content, and copyright infringement actions become increasingly irrelevant, so will this defense. Will that be the end of fair use? Or can a legitimate argument be made that fair use is a constitutional right rather than merely a defense to an infringement suit? If so, what is that argument? Can you name any specific cases that would support this argument? |
|
mike flynn Napster (10/2/2000 1:39:31 AM, #927) How does Professor Lessig propose to insure the fair return to creators that he referenced whose works are being dowloaded using Napster or other peer-to-peer technologies? |
|
Curtiss Priest right to use (10/2/2000 1:36:46 AM, #926) we have the opportunity for many derivative works. We could, for example, use music in a way to help people better understand themselves and others. May we use songs that have therapeutic meanings -- many -- and put them to use, without needing to pay for each use? |
|
Jim O'Connor Who will decide? (10/2/2000 1:35:52 AM, #925) Will this issue be resolved based on what is best for society (the public and artists) or who has the best lobbyists? |
|
Frederick Wasser (10/2/2000 1:34:39 AM, #924) Did I hear Lessig say that Jefferson specifically linked copyright with the first amendment? Where is this published? |
|
Curtiss Priest culture (10/2/2000 1:31:07 AM, #923) If music is so central to culture, which I believe it is, why does it need to be so expensive? After a certain level of compensation, aren't artists (and producers) compensated enough? Do they all need to live million dollar life-styles? |
|
Dave Burstein Cost of proposal (10/2/2000 1:29:23 AM, #922) Mr. Valenti Protecting content your way includes requirements on equipment that can add massive costs to equipment - such as DSL modems whose cost is rapidly coming down towards $50. International standards traditionally require licensing to all on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, but that hasn't been accepted by any of your recommended technologies. Conquering the digital divide requires the same enabler the mass distribution of your companies movies require - inexpensive equipment. Right now, most of the equipment endorsed requires particular operating systems, and the cheapest, Linux,unavailable from most vendors. I'm afraid, because if the standard way to deliver video becomes, say, Windows video player, then Microsoft has a remarkable tool to control content. Can you accept reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for licensing the protection you want the courts and regulators to require? Thanks |
|
Francois (10/2/2000 1:25:46 AM, #921) QUESTION TO LAWRENCE LESSIG: You have argued that "IP" is not really "property" in the same way that a house can be. As a point of history, would you know who first called copyrights "property", either in general (perhaps the Berne Office?) or in U.S. Law? Has it always been true that copyrights could be traded for money, instead of remaining with the authors themselves? |
|
Curtiss Priest greed (10/2/2000 1:25:41 AM, #920) Do we need a "greed system" to support artistry ? |
|
Scott Dier MP3.com and new laws (10/2/2000 1:22:06 AM, #919) Do you feel that the pending act in the House to make MP3.com's my.mp3.com serivce legal (by making it legal to keep a database of CD's to provide fair use copies of music) is a good thing? Do you feel it will help future music sales, or do you feel that it will erode IP to artists in the future? |
|
Scott Dier dmca / encryption (10/2/2000 1:07:39 AM, #918) With the DMCA, do you feel that circumventing encryption for fair use is legal. Do you feel that digital technologies should be treated any different in fair use than analog technologies? |
|
Michael Kroposki Copyright infringement ?= Jaywalking (10/1/2000 2:52:01 AM, #917) Does ruling illegal an act done regularly by 22 million citizens undermine respect for the copyright laws so that they are considered with the same regard as jaywalking statutes? |
|
Michael Kroposki DMCA Unconstitutional? (10/1/2000 2:51:28 AM, #916) Is DMCA unconstitutional because it allows authors to control their works via federal statute for unlimited times? |
|
(9/26/2000 11:22:11 PM, in-room, #905) the term 'effectively controls access to a work' is defined in the DMCA in Sec 1201 A 3B: |
|
david arkush dmca text (9/26/2000 11:20:28 PM, in-room, #904) http://eon.law.harvard.edu/property00/alternatives/dmca.html |
|
Douglas Kiang Why Jane Should Walk (9/26/2000 11:16:52 PM, in-room, #903) While it is true that Jane circumvented the protection, she is protected under the reverse engineering clause since as a C.S. student she can legitimately claim that she looked under the hood as a means of research. Fair use might also apply here, if she viewed the copyrighted materials. |
|
Maryanne Hancock punishing potential infringement (9/26/2000 11:15:49 PM, in-room, #902) Isn't the oddity of this law that it punishes because there is potential for copyright infringement, rather than because there is an actual violation of copyright? |
|
Bryan Hancock DMCA and distribution (9/26/2000 11:13:44 PM, in-room, #901) I think the DMCA is controlling distribution in a way very consistent with traditional copyright law. The technological measures are a distribution control mechanism. Defeating those measures enables unauthorized distribution. |
|
Bethany Rubin DMCA (9/26/2000 11:12:13 PM, in-room, #900) What does "effectively controls access" mean? What standard is the DMCA trying to institute? If someone with reasoanble-level computer skils can hack it is access effectively controlled? If only very skilled people can hack it is the standard met? |
|
Peter Binas A new abilty to restrict plausible behavior? (9/26/2000 11:00:55 PM, in-room, #899) While there is a lot of hand-wringing going on about how terrible it will be when owners of copyrighted product will be able to rstrict use of their products beyond the realm of copyright through the use of contracts, it is important to note thatthis is not a process driven by the Web. It is only further enabled by it. Currently, any publisher of a book or magazine could easily include, as part of a pre-purchase license agreement included on the exterior of the book. Under ProCD, it seems that such an offline action would likely be upheld. Yet, no publisher in their right mind would do this-- market forces effectively contain this. The same could easily be the case online. Given this fact, it seems more likely that those who fear over-regulation online do not so much fear over-regulation, but just an end to the current free-for-all. While the Old West had its romance, it may be time to move on. |
|
Matthew Bate (9/26/2000 10:59:19 PM, in-room, #898) Can you "hack" the kinds of trusted systems proposed by SDMI? If so, won't there still be a need for legal intervention? |
|
Jason Barkham Free speech and legislatures (9/26/2000 10:52:59 PM, in-room, #897) If the legislature pushes too far, won't the Supreme Court rein it in? |
|
Bryan Hancock Posting the source code (9/25/2000 11:50:52 PM, in-room, #893) Would a possible solution to the infeasability problem be to simply post the program to the source code author's website? Or would this posting of the source code make copying even easier by having any security measures also posted in the source code? |
|
Jason Barkham Why free code??? (9/25/2000 11:17:31 PM, in-room, #892) Other than a sense of duty to the human race, why would anyone code for free? If all code were free, who would pay the programmers? |
|
Adiel AKPLOGAN (CAFEnet (TOGO)) Comment and Question (Open Comment, 7/15/2000 11:15:10 AM, #888) What about the Icann @ large regions! Why Africa is put together with midle-est? I haven't ear any answer from the board! |
|
Bob (SuperRoot Consortium) Motion to the ICANN Board (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 11:04:22 AM, #887) Motion is for ICANN to recognize the internet community consensus already gathered by the ORSC, and for ICANN to submit the additional top level domains in the ORSC root zone file to the US Department of Commerce for approval. |
|
sal sarir (ibm) netsol (Open Comment, 7/15/2000 11:00:56 AM, #886) Why icann ignoring what netsol are doing with gTLDS ? netsol are holding back all names that bought onhold and all names that expired after two years and suppose to go free . for me,it looks like a monopoly and preventing other registrars sell names but netsol are planning to go and sell these names for a minimum of 35$ ( more then 250% from other registrars ) , please comment . thanks , Sal. |
|
Shay Chinn (Technogeeks) Geographic areas the wrong way (Geography, 7/15/2000 10:50:27 AM, #885) I believe that the geographic regions are the wrong way to group countries as it give a bad distribution of representation to the various groups of internet users. As it is nearly impossible to take people out of their countries I propose the following: We group the countries by the # of internet users from greatest to least. Using this list, attempt to create groups which have approximently the same number of internet users. That will be the grouping which will elect the director-at-large. Every election this process will be recalculated as the # of internet users per country changes. |
|
Teri Powell (Brittany Technologies, Inc.) (ccTLD, 7/15/2000 10:45:20 AM, #884) Teri Powell (Voice of Reason name used on ICANN forums). cc tlds are being used as gTLDs. This is fact. An earlier speaker referenced the need for a search engine to address major issues of unbiased to tlds and TM issues concurrently. This type of search will be available August of this year. If this concept is provided to ICANN prior to the end of this ICANN meeting, will it help to assist in efficiency for new gTLDs since the cc tlds are being used as gTLDs at present. Please allow me this opportunity (prior to end of this meeting) to present this proposal. Thanks |
|
Leah Gallegos (The TLD Lobby) Deceptive advertising of ccTLD's (ccTLD, 7/15/2000 10:45:15 AM, #883) I have to respectfully disagree with Roger Antao ( Antao & Chuang, Attorneys at Law) It is not and should not be within the realm of ICANN's responsibilities to regulate the activities of any TLD registries. It is a private function to be handled within legal venues. The only requirement should be within the countries where the ccTLD's do business, they should have to disclose their applicable laws and rules. If managed in the U.S. they should fall under deceptive advertising laws. |
|
Roger Antao ( Antao & Chuang, Attorneys at Law) Deceptive Marketing by ccTLD registrars (ccTLD, 7/15/2000 10:34:24 AM, #882) There are some ccTLD administrators, and registrars, which are deceptively marketing their country specific TLD's as if they were generic top level domains to consumers in other countries. In other words, they deceptively market their ccTLD domain names by claiming "that they are just like .Com". In fact, unwary consumers may be unknowingly subjecting themselves, and their businesses, to the jurisdiction, and taxation, of foreign countries. Does ICANN intend to POLICE the actions of such ccTLD administrators? Doesn't ICANN have a duty to stop such deceptive practices since ICANN enters into contracts with ccTLD's? |
|
ted byfield (none) Bias in M@L seats discussion (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 10:27:00 AM, #881) The bias in the discussion about whether 9 is a "magic number" for M@L directors is clear from the fact that the Board never posed any such question about the non-M@L-derived board seats. Has there been any such question about SO-elected seats? Has any permament fixture on the Board ever spoken publicly of stepping down because his or her seat may not be needed? |
|
Bob (SuperRoot Consortium) Motion to the Board (Open Comment, 7/15/2000 10:07:21 AM, #880) Motion is for ICANN to recognize the internet community consensus already gathered by the ORSC, and for ICANN to submit the additional top level domains in the ORSC root zone file to the US Department of Commerce for approval. |
|
Joe Chizmarik (The Knowledge Sculptors / Cyber On! America! ) Cap on # of Nominees (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 10:02:22 AM, #879) Perhaps rather than a simple fixed cap per region, you should consider a floating cap that is the greater of that fixed cap or the number of nominess needed to represent say at least 80% of the total nominations cast. |
|
David Young (Verizon Communications) Further on Wording Change (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 9:51:39 AM, #878) "...the Annual Meeting of the Corporation in 2002, consist of the five (5) "At Large" Directors selected pursuant to Article II of these by laws leaving the remaining four (4)positions vacant." |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET Inc.) comments (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 9:44:28 AM, #877) Perhaps the additonal 4 At Large Board Members could be ELECTED without regard to geopraphic region, allowing for global representatives. This solves the problem of matching 9 into 5. By allowing candidates to run as geographically specific OR global, the entire 9 could be elected now. |
|
David Young (Verizon Communications) Wording Change (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 9:42:19 AM, #876) Could this problem be addressed by recognising that there would still be 9 at-large directors, but that after 2002 4 positions would be vacant until the conclusion of the study? |
|
Jeff Bhavnanie (Computer Aided Services of Hong Kong) At Large membership (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 9:20:17 AM, #875) What is the criteria to select directors for elections? Will the 3rd world coutries be equally represented? Thanks. |
|
Oscar Robles (NIC-Mexico) (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 9:07:33 AM, #874) Ben, the comment number 28, from point I was made by me... just for the records |
|
Sal Sarid (ibm) trademarks (Open Comment, 7/15/2000 9:04:14 AM, #873) I dont understand why icann accepting complaints for generic <-_ fixed that one ) terms like traditions.com,zero.com,president.com,or crew.com . The fact that J.crew won Icann case is unforgotten,it is exactly the same as other generic terms out there .. it seems like icann is motivated by large businesses and does not really help the ordinery person online ,I`d like to know why icann arbitrators have so many conflicted solutions for similar cases ? Thanks . Sal |
|
Leah Gallegos (The TLD Lobby) Limited Charter includes membership (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 8:58:52 AM, #871) It is my understanding that to achieve its limited charter, ICANN is to be a bottom up organization. In order for that to occur, there must be a membership at large or general membership available to all of the internet community. I don't understand how you would limit the membership and fulfill the charter. |
|
Leah Gallegos (The TLD Lobby) (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 8:51:55 AM, #870) If ICANN is not prepared to handle its obligations, perhaps it should not be doing it at all. It sounds as though the limitations may be too much to accomplish its mandate of a bottom up organization. |
|
M C ( ) Elections (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 8:47:59 AM, #869) When will we be able to vote for all 19 directors? It seems to me that then and only then will the process be fully democratic |
|
Roger Antao ( ) Agreement on Basic Principles (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 8:43:11 AM, #868) It seems to me that ICANN has put the cart before the horse, i.e., we are discussing adopting specific rules for electing candidates, without reaching agreement on the basic principles of the organization which the rules should reflect. For example, many board members are expressing their opinions of basic principles, as if they were written in stone. Wouldn't it make more sense to first hold sometype of "contintental congress" type assembly to decide the basic principles of the organization? |
|
Teri Powell (Brittany Technologies, Inc.) (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 8:28:58 AM, #867) To ICANN & Attendees, My name is Teri Powell. I would like to say that there is a proven search avenue which can assist the global issues of representing those who rely on e-mails and assist to alleviate most of the concerns of the TM issues. It is unbiased to specific TLDs without changing any of the root system. How may I approach ICANN to prove these Concerns have been met. Thank you |
|
ted byfield (none) (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 8:28:48 AM, #866) Initially, ICANN termed non-NomCom-originated M@L candidates "self-nominated"; when this term came under criticism, ICANN changed the term to "member-nominated." Art II, 1 of the by-laws statesthat "members" are not "Members" under the CNPBCL. Is the Board concerned that this expansion of the use of the term "member" in the context of elections might provide a stronger basis for a legal challenge to the M@L elections under California State law? |
|
Teri Powell (Brittany Technologies, Inc.) (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 8:12:05 AM, #865) ICANN Board, Membership representation is very important! We can assist the ones who can only use e-mail representation. Please read my previous comments. Teri Powell, Brittany Technologies, Inc. I respectfully ask that my previous comments be read and addressed. |
|
Bret Fausett ( ) The Last 4 Board Members (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 8:11:33 AM, #864) I would encourage the Board at its meeting tomorrow to set a date for the election of the last 4 At Large Board members, even if that date comes next year. There is a fear that ICANN will cap the At Large directors at the 5 soon to be elected, and a firm deadline for election of the remaining 4 directors would put that to rest. |
|
Leah Gallegos (The TLD Lobby) membership and endorsement (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 8:11:32 AM, #863) Why should member lists be hidden? Is there not a requirement to produce membership lists for a non-profit corporation under California law? Publication of supporter lists should be a must. It must be a transparent process, eliminating any possible fraud. Only the ballot should be secret. Just how will you weed out the nominees if you are limiting their number? How will you control a number over 100 from North America? Who will make that decision since this is an At-Large election? |
|
Teri Powell (Brittany Technologies, Inc.) (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 8:00:00 AM, #862) ICANN & Attendees, My name is Teri Powell, At Large Member. Participated actively and consistently as Voice of Reason on ICANN forums. Please see my comments under previous session (TLDs)to understand our position. Brittany Technologies, Inc. can be of assistance to those who do not have a web presence and have to rely on e-mail. Please! We are here to help Everyone! Must read my previous comments to understand our scope and viable levels. |
|
Leah Gallegos (The TLD Lobby) (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 7:56:01 AM, #861) I have a problem with the "limitations" of ICANN facilities and staff to accommodate a large number of candidates. Since there is no "primary" election to weed them out, and members choose to nominate, ICANN should respect it and find the capability to list them. Supporting candidates: All candidates should be able to invite support from all regions. Supporters should be able to support more than one candidate, with the assumption that there could more than one with ample qualifications with appeal to an individual. Should a candidate then dicide not to run or an additional candidate be nominated, you still have the opportunity to support. Support should also be able to be withdrawn. The threshold is totally unreasonable. 1-2% is average for this type of election or 100 whichever is lower. ICANN must follow California non-profit corporation law. |
|
Bret Fausett ( ) Nomination Committee (At Large Membership, 7/15/2000 7:37:53 AM, #860) Given the number of nominees that the NomComm has received (167), how many candidates does it expect to nominate from each region and how will it distinguish among the undoubtedly large number of similarly qualified applicants? |
|
Teri Powell (Brittany Technologies, Inc.) The Search Avenue (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 7:21:17 AM, #858) To: ICANN and Those in Attendance, I would like to introduce myself first. My name is Teri Powell. I am on the Board of Directors of Brittany Technologies, Inc. I am the poster and participant on the ICANN forums who is known by the name Voice of Reason. There has been a quanity of discussion on the viability and stability of the effect of new TLDs. We provide a platform of Search which is Unbiased to the TLD. Nothing has to change within the Roots for our Search to serve the Purpose of the issues which have been presented here at this ICANN meeting. We will be pleased to work closely with all Registrars/Registries to accomplish a Global Solution. We have the Search Operation. Comments are welcomed and we honestly feel we have the Avenue to several of the issues which has held back new TLDs-including the Trade Mark Representation issues. http://www.brittanytechnologies.com |
|
Monika Ermert (c't, Germany) Extension of MoU (Reports, 7/15/2000 7:03:18 AM, #857) To Becky Burr, what is the time frame for the extension of the MoU? Or will the end of US DoC oversight over the ICANN only ended with the fulfilment of specific preconditions? Could you name all conditions (for example is the finance problem with the ccTLDs not a new one)? To Paul Twomey, Did the GAC discuss the extension of the MoU? Are there no concerns from other governments to an unlimited extension of DoC oversight? Thank you both for answering, Monika Ermert |
|
Kuenduck Park (CivilNet) About WG-E (Reports, 7/15/2000 4:47:50 AM, #856) For the more representaive of ICANN, ICANN must consider of future users. In a few years, various internet users - with gender, age, economic, culture, geographic difference- will coming. WG-E submitted the final report, but I think that "awareness and outreach" need real activities based on research report. And, by ICANN structure, AT Large membership is close to this theme. In this situation, I have three opinion. 1. WG-E research result have to connect to "awareness & outreach" execution. 2. WG-E is strongly connected to At Large membership outreach activity. For this activity, They must make a commiittee for "awareness and outreach" 3. "awareness and outreach" execution need money, every part of ICANN & Internet communities start to make fund. Thanks. |
|
Karl Auerbach GAO Report (Reports, 7/15/2000 4:33:37 AM, #854) The GAO report said the following - it is *NOT* an an endorsement, indeed it is quite the opposite: "It is unclear whether the Department has the authority to transfer control of the authoritative root server to ICANN. ... It is uncertain whether transferring control would involve the transfer of government property to a private entity. However, to the extent it would, it is unclear if the Department has the requisite authority to effect such a transfer." |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Individual) Thing-ification (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 4:29:08 AM, #853) The GAO report cited by Mike raised some major legal questions that still cloud ICANN: Page 25 says "It is unclear whether the Department has the authority to transfer control of the authoritative root server to ICANN." Page 26 says " It is also unclear whether such a transition will involve a transfer of government property to a private entity. If so, the transfer would have to be consistent with federal property laws." Does the Board plan any activity to clarify these issues? |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (ICB Inc.) trademark/UDRP issue (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 4:00:55 AM, #852) I quote with his permission, Roland J. Meyer, who has over 20 years total experience in software design and technical management, and is a past member of ACM and IEEE-CS, and current member of the Internet Society (ISOC), Internet Domain name and DNS operator, Object Technology Users Group (OTUG), and Open Root-Server Confederation (ORSC): "I am begining to dislike the anti-cyber-squatting law intensly. Until a few weeks ago, I was neutral. The growing side-effects are really horrible. It's bad law, especially coupled with the extra-governmental UDRP. WIPO really pulled a fast one on us. We are in a much less stable environment than were were in, even two years ago." |
|
Matthew Pappas ( ) domain names as speech (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 3:56:41 AM, #851) Domain names are indeed speech. In theory, as Esther Dyson stated a few minutes ago, the UDRP might support free speech and non-commercial use of trademarks in domain names. However, in practice, this is not consistently the case. When developing policies for introducing new TLDs, please consider and attempt to foresee how the policies might be manipulated or abused to the detriment of free speech. Thank you. --Matthew Pappas twix@mail.utexas.edu |
|
Leah Gallegos (The TLD Lobby) (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 3:55:48 AM, #850) UDRP, in addition to all its flaws, allows arbitrators with abundant conflicts of interests to decide cases. The entire process is flawed. |
|
Marc Schneiders (Venster) UDRP & Free Speech (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 3:46:42 AM, #849) Why is Chair saying twice that UDRP takes care of Free Speech Rights? Has this not been questioned seriously the last few weeks in the Press? |
|
Karl Auerbach Pre-Dawn (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 3:43:07 AM, #848) People are more important than trademarks. I propose the following: That any new TLD be required to accept no registrations until it has permitted all individuals who desire to do so the opportunity to register names that that person routinely uses. This is called "Pre-Dawn". It occurs before "Sunrise". |
|
Karl Auerbach (IDNO) UDRP and new TLDS (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 3:36:21 AM, #847) The UDRP is premised on a belief that there is a wrong that may be committed against those who hold trademarks. If that is true, then it stands to reason that the same kind of wrong may be committed against those who have use of a name based on a foundation other than trademark. The UDRP of today is available only to mark owners. The UDRP should be amended to remove the requirement that it may be wielded only by those who have marks. Instead, the UDRP should be available by anyone, whether he/she holds a mark or not, who believes that their use of a name has been abused. |
|
Leah Gallegos (The TLD Lobby) (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 3:35:49 AM, #846) Assuming that the stability of the internet is not an issue and that the DNS is not an index service, why must we protect intellectual property when we have a legal system to take care of possible infringements or other complaints. The present overly protective stance for IP interests boils down to the expense of transaction costs to the IP sector. The trademark law in the US was designed specifically for the mark holder to police his own mark. ICANN and registrars should be detached. The present UDRP is inherently unfair and biased completely for the IP sector. Rolling out new TLD's should not be a daunting task. The root will not be affected adversely. It should remain a first come,first served basis. There should not be any less than 10 gTLD's initially. If the reason is to determine its success, you need at least that many to derive statistics. |
|
Ray Fassett (Rock-N-Roll.Net) Benefits to ICANN (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 3:30:14 AM, #845) Does ICANN expect to realize any financial gain specific to the introduction of new gTLD's, most notably from the (new) Registries that are chosen? For example, a substantial lump sum fee paid to ICANN for the right to be the main registry for the respective new TLD. |
|
Karl Auerbach responsibility for "stability" (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 3:15:44 AM, #843) Non-technical comment (i.e. I'm not sure that this is the right time to make it, if so feel free to hold it until the right time.) To whom is the obligation of "stability" owed? And how may it be enforced? In other words, who has a legal right to enforce failures of this obligation? For example, suppose a user can't reach http://www.cavebear.web/ - Ought that user to be able to bring a sucessful legal action against ICANN or DNS operators for the failure? It seems to me that if ICANN imposes a responsibility of "stability" that it had better be willing to stand behind that responsibility or, if ICANN is unwilling, that some set of broad shoulders be clearly designated to carry that burden. |
|
Karl Auerbach (Cisco Systems) (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 2:57:46 AM, #841) Peter Deutsch has run an actual test in which he created a root system with several million TLDs. It worked. Speaking as a professional technologist, having been part of the Internet since 1974, I find the assertion that new TLDs will damage "stability" to be disingenuous. Rather than surrendering to hypothetical and unspecified Chimera of "instability", may I request that those who express that fear be specific and precise and say exactly what they mean. I might note that if one compares the rate of DNS failures - even if one includes the less established TLDs, such as .web - and compares it to the non-connectivity due to inter-ISP congestion, routing failures, and such, that those causes are several orders of magnitude larger. In other words, DNS stability - even in the competitive, non-ICANN root systems - is a an imaginary monster. --karl-- |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET Inc.) (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 2:40:23 AM, #839) Does ICANN propose allowing new registries to perform registration services in addition to registry services? Would this be a separate or inclusive agreement? |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET Inc.) (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 2:37:18 AM, #838) How does ICANN propose to handle the cases of TLD proponents who do not have the facilities to operate registries themselves? Does ICAN envision acting as ombudsman for such issues? |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET Inc.) (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 2:25:40 AM, #837) Is it the express intent of ICANN to determine potential TLDs by their potential to separate affinity groups among TLDs? |
|
Simon Higgs (Higgs Communications) The IANA's File of iTLD Requests (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 2:06:43 AM, #836) What is the ICANN policy/position on the original TLD requests sent to IANA? No mention of these requests has been made in any information published by ICANN. The list was published by the late Dr. Jon Postel of the IANA, and may be found here: http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html |
|
Marc Schneiders (Venster) Users rights first? (New TLDs, 7/15/2000 1:54:29 AM, #833) Would it not be necessary for ICANN to take a position on the following matters *before* the introduction of any new gTLDs: 1. Is registering a domain name in order to make a profit off it by selling it (without any website or business being attached to it) in itself (i.e. apart from clearcut infringement of trademarks etc.) an act of bad faith? 2. Is it not absolutely required to know what the policies and rules are regarding UDRP and related matters, before people can be asked to put any trust in the new gTLDs? Are we to expect businesses to build on a new domain name when it can be taken away from them so easily? Are we to expect people to pay for the registration, periodically moreover, when it is very uncertain what the procedures for ousting them are? |
|
Sotiris Sotiropoulos (Hermes Network, Inc.) Trademark Issues (Roll Call, 7/15/2000 1:44:58 AM, #832) Since the purpose of a trademark is not to give the owner of a mark complete control over the mark, but just to prevent confusion. What will be done to prevent the Right of free speech and to ensure that trademark protection is not used for anticompetitive purposes? |
|
Nestor Requeno (Member @ Large--Los Angeles, California USA) PROPOSED FRAMOWORK FOR NEXT STEPS EXISTS (Developing Countries, 7/14/2000 10:14:18 AM, #830) I would respectfully direct the Names Council to review the public comments posted at the New gTLDs 74 Questions Public Forum for details on the administrative/staff implementation & roles towar the workgroup, sustatinability (structuaral and fiscal), and the integrated-constituency implemantation plan development. Specifically please note the threads of July 4, 6, 9 and 11 -- re "15 Point Motion", "51 page response", "ICANN should administer TLDs one step further", and "Interesting twist". Respectfully, Nestor Requeno, Member @ Large Los Angeles, California, USA |
|
Teri ( ) Being Prepared (Review Committee, 7/14/2000 7:58:50 AM, #829) ICANN, Why were these very "basic" accounting issues not already handled prior to this meeting. The meeting is coming off as disorganized. This is a waste of time. Why not focus on votes to add the gTLDs, etc. and quit with the unnecessary Intake Committees, etc. Thanks |
|
Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO Constituencies (Discussion, 7/14/2000 7:18:14 AM, #828) Question to DNSO, Cochetti and Roberts Why obviscation on the IDNO Cochetti and Roberts with the Intake Committee? |
|
Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO Particpation (Discussion, 7/14/2000 6:48:57 AM, #827) Question to DNSO, Why with advance knowledge is Kori not being allowed to sit in for Kathy here? |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Individual) (Status Report, 7/14/2000 5:25:49 AM, #824) Please poll the audience on this motion. Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA |
|
Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) At-Large membership concerns (Discussion, 7/14/2000 5:20:20 AM, #823) Question to DNSO, Why after aome folks have subscribed and recieved confirmation to the At-Large membership are they (myself included) not able to participate because their password is not working? When can this small problem be corrected? Why after several E-Mails to the At-Large membership "Info" E-Mail address and administrator do these silly problems go uncorrected? |
|
Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and New TLD's (Discussion, 7/14/2000 5:07:02 AM, #822) Question to DNSO, What would be possible determination for "Parties" that might wish to submit and be granted Registry status for TLD's they wish to manage? |
|
Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and Participation/Working Groups (Discussion, 7/14/2000 4:57:31 AM, #821) Question to DNSO and Roberto, Why is only the NC (Questionable ligitimacy in the first place) the only ones to create a Working group? Shouldn't this be voted upon by the stakeholders? |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Individual) (Status Report, 7/14/2000 4:56:47 AM, #820) I heartily endorse the notion of creating a Working Group to consider the question of an individuals constituency. As an indivdiual domain name owner, I can confirm that I have indeed contacted the NonCommercial Constituency to try to find some way to meet the membership criteria in order to obtain a voice in ICANN. I just don't belong there, and I find myself going through contortions trying to find some way to claim that I 'represent' a non-com organization. Please resolve this matter. I hope the Names Council will receive this this recommendation and respond thoughtfully and definitively. Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA |
|
Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and Participation/Constituencies (Discussion, 7/14/2000 4:54:18 AM, #819) Question to DNSO, If the ACM says or believes that there is an Importance of an Individuals Constituency, why has the DNSO or certain factions (Individuals, Harald A.) seemed to wish to block any such representation? |
|
Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and original election process (Discussion, 7/14/2000 4:43:04 AM, #818) Question to DNSO, When will there be and opertunity to have a new election on the DNSO with respect to Chair and co-chair which was notably illigitimate and fradulent? |
|
Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and Participation (Discussion, 7/14/2000 4:38:34 AM, #817) Question to DNSO, When will the DNSO discontinue the active practice of limiting participation in Working groups as they have done thus far? |
|
Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and TLD's (Discussion, 7/14/2000 4:35:12 AM, #816) Question to DNSO, How broad based does a individuals constituency need to be? Hasn't the IDNO sufficiently demonstrated their broad base support? What are the criterion if any for determining "broad base"? |
|
Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and TLD's (Discussion, 7/14/2000 4:33:01 AM, #814) Question to DNSO, When will individuals or small Domain Name owners either individually or in small like minded groups be allowed to participate on a level playing field with respect to DNS issues especially new TLD's? |
|
Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and Selective Censorship (Discussion, 7/14/2000 4:19:03 AM, #811) Question to DNSO, Why is it that the DNSO assembly members not had the opertunity until recently, to vote on Mailing list rules ligitimately? |
|
Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and Selective Censorship (Discussion, 7/14/2000 4:17:52 AM, #810) Question to DNSO, When will the DNSO to discontinue Selective Censorship which has hampered participation? |
|
Nestor Requeno (Memeber At Large) What Now? -- Continued, Part 2 (Feedback, 7/14/2000 3:38:16 AM, #803) Continuation [[ Due to 1000 Character limit]]I think that motions/positions which mentions/alluded [to] the DNSO endorsement must be put to a GA vote, and only if passed by a majority, mention/maintain that is supported by the GA/DNSO by a majority/[breakndown of vote]. At the discretion of the DNSO Chair, short of, or in the absence of a majority vote, a given constituency may still submit the motion/potition/resolution but ALSO openly disclose that the DNSO either voted-it down -- or -- that the constituency did not consider the vote/decision of the GA/DNSO as a whole to move forward in approaching the Board on this items. That is, the use/mis-use of the DNSO name should be guarded and duly protected !!! Thank you for considering my comment. Very Truly Yours, Nestor Requeno, GA Registered Voter & Member At Large Los Angeles, California USA |
|
Nestor Requeno (Memeber At Large) What now? (Status Report, 7/14/2000 3:36:36 AM, #802) I'm concerned about the allusions made of some of the position papers/resolutions which claim/allude DNSO endorsement . . . Shouldn't there be a GA vote for any of the postion paper from the particular constituencies to be forwarded to the Board "in the name of the DNSO"? Nestor Requeno, GA Registered Voter & Member At Large Los Angeles, California USA |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Individual) (Status Report, 7/14/2000 3:05:21 AM, #801) Individual domain name owners are completely locked out of this entire debate over new gTLD's. How can DNSO claim to be concerned about protecting trademarks when in fact there is no one representing anyone but the trademark owners and their legal representatives speaking to DNSO? Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA |
|
(6/20/2000 3:22:36 PM, in-room, #798) I'm a Canadian, but wasn't NY Times v. Sullivan relevant because the plaintiff was a governmental entity? |
|
(6/20/2000 3:09:29 PM, in-room, #797) |
|
(6/20/2000 3:09:07 PM, in-room, #796) |
|
(6/20/2000 3:08:58 PM, in-room, #795) just right |
|
neil wise Cyberwire article (6/20/2000 2:53:11 PM, in-room, #794) I had trouble determining whether the Meeks/McCullagh article (on confidential lists of blocked sites)was tongue-in-cheek |
|
Josephine (Philippines) PICS (6/20/2000 2:50:02 PM, in-room, #793) But doesn't PICS give a web site the right to discriminate users who have specific preferences and thus disallow them from entering, unless the users change their preferences? |
|
Josephine (Philippines) (6/20/2000 2:27:51 PM, in-room, #792) Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, does it refer to only source ISP/OSPs or does it also include target ISPs for purposes of contributory copyright infringement? |
|
(6/20/2000 2:22:05 PM, in-room, #791) 776 f supp 235 |
|
(6/20/2000 2:04:55 PM, in-room, #790) Attempt to control it |
|
A. Lincoln Speech (6/20/2000 2:04:45 PM, in-room, #789) attempts to conttrol dangerous |
|
(6/20/2000 2:04:18 PM, in-room, #788) attempts to control speech |
|
francis Sia (6/20/2000 1:56:30 PM, in-room, #787) I think the governance of the internet should be run by the government- with each government of every state determining the various policies applicable to them individually |
|
a b (6/19/2000 5:48:00 PM, in-room, #784) d |
|
abcd efgh (6/19/2000 5:43:43 PM, in-room, #783) ijkl |
|
a bc (6/19/2000 4:28:32 PM, in-room, #782) derg |
|
Robert Connelly (PSI-Japan, Inc.) Time for elections. (Open Forum, 3/9/2000 5:17:38 PM, #781) Let's have a minimum of 7 days for elections. Considering the fact that the designated voting member of any member firm/association/organization may be unavailable for 14 or more days, let's make sur there is enough time for the democratic process to take place. Regards, BobC |
|
Bill Bickford (ccTLD and Administration Policies, 3/9/2000 5:12:36 PM, #780) Good afternoon, We represent small business website owners, and they are very concerned about the introduction of new TLD's. They have invested enormous $ amounts into the marketing of their web site name. What can you do to protect their large investment in the domain name? Can they have first access to register their name in the new TLD's? Thank you for considering this very important matter. Bill |
|
Stephen Deerhake (GDNS, Inc.) Clarification of quote from Michael Roberts (ccTLD and Administration Policies, 3/9/2000 4:42:45 PM, #779) Question for Michael Roberts: In the Wall Street Journal electronic edition of 6.03.2000, you are quoted as describing ccTLD operators as "domain-name profiteers." Is this accurate? If so, is it your personal opinion or is it a reflection of ICANN Board and/or executive leadership opinion? If it is not accurate, will you commit to taking the neccessary steps to correct the record? [If MR isn't available for an answer, I would appreciate a response from Ms. Dyson] |
|
gernot schabkar (Schabkar) (ccTLD and Administration Policies, 3/9/2000 4:34:06 PM, #778) .shop domains wouldbe VERYGOOD do give a boost to ecommerce |
|
Robert Connelly (PSI-Japan, Inc.) Japanese list of "Famous" & "Well-Known" Trademaks (Study Session, 3/9/2000 3:38:18 PM, #777) Correction: I have "lived" with, not "loved" with piracy of trademarks in Japan in the past. I am pleased to say that the Japanese system now has provisions in place to mitigate against local filings of foreign marks by unrelated parties. BobC, 28.5 year resident of Japan. |
|
Robert Connelly (PSI-Japan, Inc.) Japanese list of "Famous" & "Well-Known" Trademaks (Study Session, 3/9/2000 3:23:57 PM, #776) In response to the speaker from Japan, it would be well to read the full text of "Famous and Well Known" Trademards. The whole concenpt is whether a Well Known Trademark foreign Trademark can be applied aginst an unregistered "similar" product in another jurisdiction. A Famouse foreign mark can be applied against a dissimilar product. I suggest the speaker confer with Professor Doi, author of the Japanese section of the aforementioned text. Regards, BobC, who has loved with Japanese trademark piracy in Japan until relatively recent years. BTW, I wish I had a spell program for this epistle;-{ |
|
Hakon Haugnes (NamePlanet) (Study Session, 3/9/2000 3:15:30 PM, #775) My view is probably simplistic and pragmatic, but represents the common Internet users, who are the ones we serve. .Today there are some gTLDs in which Trademarks have strong interests. .Many internet users do not find an appropriate domain name Compromise: -Introduce a trademark, chartered domain. Let's call it com2. It will mirror pretty well the .com today since all trademarks will run to register here. -Let registrars decide which TLDs they want. Select a list of the 50 most wanted TLDs. -All registrars must accept registrations on all TLDs, and all must contribute to the registry, i.e. 1 USD pr domain. - There will be one organisation monitoring the registrars, which provide price information about the registrars' pricing. (Like Xoom and similars do on consumer products today) - Since there is so many TLDs, there is no incentive for trademarks to register on all, or for cybersquatters. - New TLDs can be introduced upon demand from registrars. |
|
Kent Crispin (Songbird) New gTLDs (Study Session, 3/9/2000 3:08:10 PM, #774) I also would like to strongly endorse Ken Stubbs point, which was also supported (obliquely) by Marilyn Cade. We should at least add *one* new gTLD. The problems the TM people mention are real, and must be addressed. But we cannot address those problems in an information vacuum. |
|
Kent Crispin (Songbird) (Study Session, 3/9/2000 3:01:42 PM, #773) Ms Kornfeld is incorrect -- the NCDNHC did not strongly endorse the position of a large rollout That was proposed, there was some discussion and some dissent. |
|
Famous Names List (Open Forum, 3/9/2000 2:43:01 PM, #772) I have a question... if my mark is not famous now, and doesnt get into the list (ebay wasnt famous 5 yrs ago), then later, it becomes famous and gets into the list... do i get the priority date of my registration so that all names close to mine will be removed during the time???? Vice versa... if a company drops out of the list who gets to register similar names first?? the ones who tried earlier?? |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/2000 2:25:16 PM, #771) Working Group B's operation was flawed by poor methods that prevented individual participation. Can the Board address any efforts it has taken to ensure that Working Groups do not themselves get captured? |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/2000 2:25:10 PM, #770) Working Group B's operation was flawed by poor methods that prevented individual participation. Can the Board address any efforts it has taken to ensure that Working Groups do not themselves get captured? |
|
Joe Baptista (PCCF) .eu (Reports, 3/9/2000 1:49:53 PM, #769) What is happening with the .eu top level domain requested by the Eropean Union? |
|
Angelo Gonzalez (Self (from Galicia, Spain) ) (Reports, 3/9/2000 1:36:15 PM, #768) This Angelo Gonzalez again. I want to correct a mistake in my message this morning. I was mostly concerned about methods to spread the word about ICANN and the creation of the At Large membership. and did not realize that I wrote the word "directors" where I should have written "council members". I do favor the idea of the two-stage approach for the election of At Large Directors. So, what I meant was "direct election of Council Members". |
|
Michael Sernocky (KeyCorporateDomains.com) (Study Session, 3/9/2000 1:33:15 PM, #767) Wouldn't the benefit of such seizure of porno sites by "eminent domain" action be that ISP's and parents could much more easily block offensive materials from children and help increase the credibility of your body ??? |
|
Angelo Gonzalez (Self (from Galicia, Spain) ) (Reports, 3/9/2000 1:17:41 PM, #766) This Angelo Gonzalez again. I want to correct a mistake in my message this morning. I was mostly concerned about methods to spread the word about ICANN and the creation of the At Large membership. and did not realize that I wrote the word "directors" where I should have written "council members". I do favor the idea of the two-stage approach for the election of At Large Directors. So, what I meant was "direct election of Council Members". |
|
Michael Sernocky (KeyCorporateDomains.com) .XXX and .SEX TLD's (Study Session, 3/9/2000 1:14:42 PM, #765) I propose that an effective solution to deal with the scurge of pornography that is epidemic in and a black eye to the .COM and other TLD's would be to create new TLD's of .XXX and .SEX ! Then , the internet governance could assert its right and power of "eminent domain" to "condemn" and seize pornographic sites in the .COM and other tld's because they are in the "right of way" of progress for all. The fair compensation for the seizure would be the pornographer would be "entitled" to the same domain name they had in the .COM space in the new .xxx or .sex TLD's. |
|
Domingo Barón (IDNO) Policy directions. (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/2000 12:21:06 PM, #763) Whether the Board administering the affairs of ICANN is elected directly by the At Large Membership or by some yet-to-be-defined intermediate structure, the essential policy directions to be followed by the Board must, in my view, be determined by the At Large Membership. The directly or indirectly elected Board may propose new policy directions, but these must be ultimately subject to the veto of the At Large Membership. |
|
Alex Kreit (Students for Sensible Drug Policy) Government Regulation of Speech Online (Open Forum, 3/9/2000 11:39:44 AM, #761) What does the ICANN Board think of Government regulation of speech online? There is currently a bill being spronsored by Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Orin Hatch (R-UT), (S.1428) Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, that among other things would make it a felony to link to Web sites with information about where to buy "drug paraphernalia" such as roach clips, bowls, and bongs. Do you think a measure like this could ever really work and, if asked to, would you support its implimentation? Or do you think it is impossible for individual nations to regulate speech in an international community? |
|
Angelo Gonzalez (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/2000 11:37:20 AM, #760) This is Angelo Gonzalez from Galicia, Spain, I have heard Vanny Martinez I do agreed with what she said. As a member (myself) of the MITF, I believe that the election of At large directors should be direct (I mean by a global At Large membership). Of course in order to crate/reach that membership there is the need to present the relevant info in their own languages to those potential members. I have been doing that here in Spain. I am now in the process of translating the web membership form and then it is my plan to place this form in several sites in the Peninsula's web sites, together with the apropriate info. |
|
Thomas Lowenhaupt (The Communisphere Project) The "deliberative nominating committee" (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/2000 11:31:23 AM, #759) The Common Cause / Center for Democracy and Technology report offers many excellent suggestions. However, the call for an ICANN appointed "deliberative nominating committee" is a significant flaw, as it empowers the current board to anoint an "official recommended slate" to the At Large membership. I've palced more extensive comments on this issue and suggestions on the nominating process on the ICANN At Large comment area. Take a look. Tom Lowenhaupt |
|
Aaron Marcus (National HJ Society) Elections (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/2000 11:15:23 AM, #758) The ICANN contract, if we remember correctly, expires this September. What would be the harm in holding special elections for a six month term to allow for time to increase the constituency base. Then a more inclusive election could be held when the contract is renewed and the full two year term could be implimented. |
|
Keith Davidson Delays in election of at large directors (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/2000 11:13:18 AM, #757) How is it that some people think that the 6000 + at large members would make any worse a choice of directors than the existing appointments? |
|
Michael Sernocky (KeyCorporateDomains.com) ICANN UDRP (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/2000 10:59:25 AM, #756) How can I or anybody register for candidacy to become a board member of ICANN, and what are the prerequisites to qualify ? |
|
Joop Teernstra (idno) (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/2000 10:44:09 AM, #755) In how far will the new at-large directors have input in actual policy making? Is there a good reason to fear the direct choice of the at-large electorate? |
|
Marc Holitscher (Unit for Internet Studies) ICANN-Study (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/2000 10:29:37 AM, #754) Why have not more people from outside the United States been consulted on the at-large membership by the authors of the report? |
|
Thomas Lowenhaupt (The Communisphere Project) Membership Implementation Task Force (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/2000 10:22:04 AM, #753) I lost the feed for the beginning of the session, so this may have been answered, if not - I presume a Membership Implemetation Task Force was created as per the ICANN board directive 99.144: Who is on the Task Force? They've apparently already recruited 5,000+ members. What steps did they (will they) take to "outreach and recruit...a broad and numerous membership that is globally representative of the Internet user community..."? Thomas Lowenhaupt |
|
Ariel Benjamin (Hampshire College) Represented? (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/2000 9:39:25 AM, #751) To an overwhelming majority of users of the internet, ICANN is transparent in their operations (in other words most users have no idea who or what ICANN is). It is clear that ICANN-created-policy effects virtually all internet users. This seems to be governance, despite its lack of publicity. How do you rectify the fact that internet users have nearly no voice in this process? |
|
Erin Pettigrew (Hampshire College) Independent Panel Membership (Independent Review, 3/9/2000 9:37:07 AM, #750) Firstly, I feel that my first comment was disregarded and should be addressed in depth. Funding is intrinsicly linked the goals and ethics of an organization. Regardless, I would like to address the issues of the Independent Review Panel. Again, I am concerned about representation in ICANN. I am very much in support of the Independent Review Panel, and yet I was puzzled by the choice to have a panel comprised primarily of those in law. I understand that the function of the panel is to establish those actions and policy as contrary to bylaws, yet I feel that in a regulatory committee, all should be represented. What is your response to this? |
|
Brenden Tamilio (Hampshire College (Amherst, MA, USA)) (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/2000 9:35:28 AM, #749) With only about 350 people currently attending, and a handful online, how does ICANN plan to get more internet users interested in their proceedings? Granted, most internet users are unaware of The Body, and those that are seem disinterested. Can a body whose purpose is to (in some ways) represent and legislate for a constituency have any authority if the constituency is apathetic? |
|
Erin Pettigrew (Hampshire College) Corporate "Sponsorship"? (ICANN Budget 2000-2001, 3/9/2000 9:12:29 AM, #748) I am concerned that there will be unfair representaion of commercial interests due to the financial situation of ICANN. How does "sponsorship" translate to real political affects on the policy of ICANN? I see Microsoft logos plastered all over the conference room. If ICANN represents the interests of all internet users, including those non-commercial, how does finacial "vested interest" figure into this? As Jane-schmo internet user, how am I assured representation when I am not making large "donations" to the organization? |
|
Joop Teernstra (idno) Timeline (Independent Review, 3/9/2000 8:59:48 AM, #747) Could the ICANN Board please commit itself to an early deadline for implementing the Independent Review Panel? It should be possible that by July, 2000, in time for the Yokohama meeting, the nominations committee is in place. As soon as the A/L council is formed, its delegates could be added to the Nomination committee. There is no need to wait for the formation of the at-large council, as there are still too many uncertainties surrounding that body. The longer the opportunity for Review (I hesitate to call it independent) is denied to petitioners, the more the bitterness against arbitrary Board decisions will grow. (this comment was submitted to the ICANN website in advance of the meeting) |
|
José cruz (parlamento centroamericano) (GAC Public Forum, 3/9/2000 12:49:57 AM, #746) |
|
Fredrick Vega (Inter American University of Puerto Rico) Current Inconsistency between Trademarks (GAC Public Forum, 3/8/2000 7:00:18 PM, #745) Inconsistency between the Trademarks International Recognition and ICANN We all know there are inconsistencies among the trademarks international legislations and Treaties and the domain names systems. Its aggravated when you add the countries Top Level Domains. 1. WIPO made some frameworks to develop a better registration process among the Trademarks, but what real steps are ICANN making toward the same objectives?. 2. What is the process to appointing the panel of Arbitration in case of complaint and who are the ones appointed. 3. What it's the International participation in ICANN among the International community, the percentage of Participation among the ICANN members? Fredrick Vega-Lozada |
|
Fernando Ramos (LEGALIA www.legalia.com) (GAC Public Forum, 3/8/2000 6:30:58 PM, #744) Hellow this is Fernando Ramos from Spain, a solicitor from Spain speciliced in e-commerce. My comment is Don´t you think using digital signatures for the asigned names and numbers contract will be binding for the person or company how gets the DNS?, so in this case they canot refuse the electronical arbitration? Thanks |
|
Joe Baptista (PCCF) What happens if? (GAC Public Forum, 3/8/2000 5:37:12 PM, #743) What happens if the world get's fed up with ICANN and switches it's root servers to an ICANN competitor? |
|
Mark Measday (Josmarian Group) GAC attendees (GAC Public Forum, 3/8/2000 5:04:22 PM, #742) Could the 29 GAC attendees be enumerated at the appropriate time (should this question not be asked from the floor)? Could the absentees be listed? Is 29 a quorum of world governments? |
|
Mark Measday (Josmarian Group) Working groups (Report from Working Groups, 3/8/2000 2:28:07 PM, #740) (on behalf of G.Brady Ltd) Is there any formal non-disclosure requirement for Names Council and working group members and others privy to wg and ga work in advance? Should there be? MM |
|
Robert Connelly (PSI-Japan, Inc.) Financial committment to become Accredited Member (Budget Report, 3/8/2000 1:33:49 PM, #739) Dear Colleagues: Is there any reason that a membership fee could not be made a condition for obtaining ICANN Accreditation as a Registrar? Seems like such an obvious option. But oftentimes, there are reasons that the obvious is not acceptable. I've been trying to just get some of the Asian Accredited Registrars to just join the Constituency. BobC |
|
Robert Connelly (PSI-Japan, Inc.) Getting more ICANN Accredited Registrars to join (Budget Report, 3/8/2000 1:26:03 PM, #738) In tems of the budget, we have a problem getting many of the ICANN Accredited Registrars to join the consitituency. It is an unfortunate circumstance. Regards, BobC |
|
eileen kent (Names Council Chair Report, 3/8/2000 1:08:11 PM, #737) I left the g.a. because of the "noise to signal" problem. I filtered out the worst offenders but the discussion was dominated by them. I was, unfortunately, somewhat intimidated by personal attacks and slander that others experienced. |
|
Kenneth Vestergaard Cost, etc. (GAC Public Forum, 3/8/2000 12:05:32 PM, #733) How soon is it possible to introduce the new domain names, and what will the cost be (registration, annual fee)? |
|
Joop Teernstra (idno) GA -full (Main Issues, 3/8/2000 10:17:52 AM, #732) The market for the unmonitored list is small, because it is in competition with the ifwp and such open lists |
|
Joop Teernstra (idno) GA vs. NC (Main Issues, 3/8/2000 10:12:56 AM, #730) Thank you Roberto, but your personal commitment to bring issues to the NC needs to be translated into some more permanent structure. You may not be there for long. The issues of today may be different from those of tomorrow. |
|
Joop Teernstra (idno) GA vs. NC (Main Issues, 3/8/2000 9:55:38 AM, #729) The key problem is that not all stakeholders in the DNS are adequately represented. Therefore, either the constituency structure must be enlarged, or the GA must be given decisionmaking powers. |
|
RAKOTONDRAMANANA Hery Zo (SIMICRO INTERNET) (Main Issues, 3/8/2000 9:40:56 AM, #727) Hi all, I'm from Madagascar and we're planning to create an ISOC Chapter for Madagascar which aim is to promote the use of Internet as a tool for work. How will ICANN or ISOC interact with these chapters? Is there some actions held by these association to help developping countries (like Madagascar) participate to the development (and the use) of Internet. Thank you for your attention and hope we'll have some answers to these questions. Hery Zo RAKOTONDRAMANANA Madagascar |
|
kent crispin membership and voting (Main Issues, 3/8/2000 9:21:15 AM, #726) I think the IETF forms a very good model for the GA; the IETF does not vote, and does not have this problem of defining membership. |
|
Ben Edelma (thisisatest) subj (2/27/2000 7:02:17 AM, #717) message |
|
Ksenya's webast is this a US problem? (11/19/1999 12:09:14 AM, in-room, #715) People in the webcast from both Holland nad Netherlands say that this is not a problem in their countries. The Russian audience seems to agree. Is this only a problem in America? |
|
Karl Auerbach Is being placed on the RBL defamatory? (11/19/1999 12:02:31 AM, in-room, #714) Could one who is placed onto the RBL list make a sustainable claim that they are being defamed? --karl-- |
|
Webcast team Real life "spam" mail (11/19/1999 12:00:27 AM, in-room, #713) Right now you can receive Spam mail in your regular mail. It does not seem to be such a huge problem, or at least we have become "used to it". How is email different? |
|
msanchez@law.harvar (11/18/1999 11:55:30 PM, in-room, #712) a remote participant in this class Stella from Argentina: wants to know why the discussion about spam is focus on the area of freedom os speech and not in the area of discrimination. does the freedom of speech provide better solutions.? |
|
Lantz Rowland Re: Digital Signature (11/18/1999 11:45:24 PM, in-room, #711) Phillip Zimmerman's PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) provides both a solid unbreachable signiture allow with a _distributed_ authority model of trust. Lantz |
|
Karl Auerbach Sprint filter 112 (11/18/1999 11:38:06 PM, in-room, #710) (It's a bit inaudible out here but I heard someone mention routers...) There is the "famous" routing filter imposed by Sprint (filter #112), it is a filter that, as a major side effect makes it virtually impossible for many small sites to receive IP packets at all, much less e-mail. How is Sprint's policy in adopting this filter any less troubling than RBL? Indeed, since that filter doesn't even have an opt-in, it could be construed in a worse light. --karl-- |
|
Gavin Single ISP availability (11/18/1999 11:37:33 PM, in-room, #709) Almost all of Indian Country (particularly in the west) is likely to have only one (if that) ISP available. Thus blocking an ISP could wipe out email connectivity for an entire tribe. |
|
Karl Auerbach Junkbusters vs doubleclick (11/18/1999 11:31:38 PM, in-room, #708) RBL isn't the only kind of content filter - we've got Net Nanny for web sites, etc etc. I use the "junkbusters" software to filter out those annoying "doubleclick" ads from web sites. (These same ads finance many sites - so I can't say that they are an unmitigated evil.) Am I violating the copyright rights of the web page publisher by essentially mechanically editing their "work"? --karl-- |
|
Lantz Rowland WA Law on Commercial EMail (11/18/1999 11:29:54 PM, in-room, #707) I seem to have confused the group by mentioning the phrase 'junk fax' . Washingtons Law is specifically written to stop Electronic Mail Spam. Please pay attention. It works very very well. |
|
Lantz Rowland re: DNS Single Authority (11/18/1999 11:17:16 PM, #705) Regarding the speaker comment about the requirements for a single authority I would like it clarified that by design there is only a requirement for a single authority per top level domain. There is nothing to preclude and a lot infavor of spinning off com as a domain authority and building a responsible replacement for it. Lantz |
|
Norbert Weinrichter volume, money and return (11/18/1999 11:09:38 PM, #704) Three comments 1) The submit button is somehow linked to a key I hadnt expected. Sorry for the last comment 2) The webcasting works fine, but the volume is very low 3) The course is somehow loosing its link to the most interesting thing: money. Who cares about privacy, spam and free speach. Money makes the world go round ;-) |
|
Karl Auerbach Is it spam? (11/18/1999 11:04:29 PM, #702) Many have said that it would be "spam" if ICANN were to try to contact domain name owners to notifiy them of items that pertain to their participation in ICANN (e.g. an invitation to join the "At-Large"). The question is: would this this be "spam" or would this be a legitimate means of contacting those who are designated as "contacts" in the whois database(s). --karl-- |
|
Lantz Rowland Vixie Enterprises Pop Accounts (11/18/1999 11:00:08 PM, #701) Are Vixie Enterprises pop accounts available? With RBH protection of course. Lantz |
|
Lantz Rowland WA State Rcw 19.190 (11/18/1999 10:54:31 PM, #700) I recieve about 300 pieces of solicited legit EMail per day with only about two pieces of Unsolicited EMail (UcEM) per day. This is ratio is after, publicly listing my address as being a resident of the State of Washington along with about one warning letter every couple of months to spammers about the legal and financial risk to sending Spam at WA. I love the style and effect of equating EMail Spam to WA Junk Fax law. This puts the burdon and expense back into the hands of the Spammers. I would like to hear this group discuss the Law and ways of integrating RBH's tech into the process. Thanks, Lantz Rcw 19.190 Ref - http://mcnichol.com/spam/rcw.htm WA State - RCW 19.190 - Commercial Electronic Mail |
|
Karl Auerbach (11/18/1999 10:52:14 PM, #699) I use RBL. I trust the RBL folk's judgement. That's my choice. My users don't object. To me, RBL is a valuable *service* that I voluntarily use. How is RBL different from the choice made by many companies to throw out all 3rd class postal mail that arrives via the USPS? |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) Future Meetings (Report on At-Large Membership, 11/4/1999 7:21:36 PM, #694) Please adopt a resolution for future meetings establishing parity between remote participants and physical attendees in terms of questions, question length, and follow-up questions. Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA |
|
Jay Fenello (Fenello.com, Inc.) Mike's comments on lawfulness (Report on At-Large Membership, 11/4/1999 6:51:29 PM, #693) Mike said that ICANN will do nothing that will be at odds with legal processes in the assorted soveriegn jurisdictions. How is this even conceptually possible, given that the laws within the multiple jurisdictions are often at odds with each other? Jay. |
|
Srikanth Narra (Individual Domain Name Owners) Independent Review Committee (Report on At-Large Membership, 11/4/1999 6:49:57 PM, #692) If ICANN is serious about taking help from Carter Centre and Ralph Nader and like - why not put Jimmy Carter and Ralph Nader on the Independent Review Committee ? Wouldn't it be the ideal place from them to start the clean up ? |
|
Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) (Open Public Comment, 11/4/1999 6:39:36 PM, #691) When is the Board going to allow individual stakeholders to have its own Constituency within the DNSO? |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) Trade Association-Ism (Report on At-Large Membership, 11/4/1999 6:36:37 PM, #690) When will ICANN's lawyer complete an analysis of ICANN's obligations to SBA, and will this analysis be made public? Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA |
|
Ward Goodwin (EmpireOne, Inc.) (Open Public Comment, 11/4/1999 6:36:16 PM, #689) Follow up question on checks and balances. Who if anyone has the authority to remove 1 or more board members if it is deemed necessary? Ward Goodwin |
|
Alan Davidson (Center for Democracy and Technology) (Report on At-Large Membership, 11/4/1999 6:34:39 PM, #688) [Apologies if this question has already been addressed.] ICANN faces a tremendous challenge in attracting an appropriately broad and representative membership. The indirect, attenuated, and vague nature of the current election process does not help. It would be hard enough to get people around the world involved in voting for Board Members of an organization they know little about. Asking people to vote for Council Members who will in turn vote for Board Members in some undisclosed way is a truly daunting task. How much flexibility remains for the implementation task force to craft an election process that is attractive of the broad range of voters needed to confer legitimacy on this process? - Alan Davidson, CDT |
|
Srikanth Narra (Individual Domain Name Owners) Independent review committe.. (Public Comment Period on At-Large Membership, 11/4/1999 6:32:33 PM, #687) Well Independent review committee for checks and balances..hmm... When will the independent review committee look into the continued embargo on IDNO's petition made in accordance with the bylaws ? Also where is the item on agenda that says the board will vote in UDRP or is it going to be another closed door deal with an announcement at the end of day saying - the board voted, etc. |
|
Thomas Lowenhaupt (The Communisphere Project) Beyond Membership (Report on At-Large Membership, 11/4/1999 6:32:23 PM, #686) A non membership question - A recurrent theme expressed by the ICANN has been that its role is a very limited one. To those who've shown immense concern over a perceived lack of openness and democratic process, the ICANN response has been, "It's just names and numbers, what are you getting so excited about?" To those who have seen the ICANN evolving into a general governance body, the response has been "World government, us, what have you been smoking?" After a year of operation what Internet functions have you found to be outside the scope of the ICANN's charter? Are these functions in need of governance? If so, what mechanism(s) would board members feel appropriate to provide this oversight / coordination / governance? What role will the ICANN play in detailing and fostering their implementation? If not ICANN, which organization would initiate these? Commerce? Congress? Sincerely, Thomas Lowenhaupt The Comunisphere Project toml@communisphere.com |
|
Mark Kern (Rainbow Technologies) (Report on At-Large Membership, 11/4/1999 6:31:25 PM, #685) Who makes up the committe that does the checks and balances? How do these members become installed on this committe? |
|
Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) Happy with the process (Report on At-Large Membership, 11/4/1999 6:25:46 PM, #684) No, we are not happy with how you're oging forward with the At-Large process. |
|
Ward Goodwin (EmpireOne, Inc.) Checks and balances (Open Public Comment Period, 11/4/1999 6:23:31 PM, #682) What checks and balances are there on a board of directors to protect the public if they start to break their own by-laws and change the rules in ways that enhance their control over sections of the global internet? Ward Goodwin |
|
Angelo Gonzalez (self (Galicia, Spain)) (Report on At-Large Membership, 11/4/1999 6:22:58 PM, #681) From: Angelo Gonzalez in Galicia, Spain Has a calendar been set for the way the outreach program will be conducted? I mean, dates. |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) Trade Association-Ism (Report on At-Large Membership, 11/4/1999 5:59:43 PM, #679) Why would any individual pay dues to belong to an organization for the sole purpose of electing an unknown representative who in turn will elect Board Members? Trade associations and professional groups can easily afford to pull members in this way, and indeed have an interest in doing so. This membership technique threatens to tilt elections and decisions to "top-down" mode. Please correct this bias to ensure parity for individuals. Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA |
|
Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) At-Large membership bylaws issues (Open Public Comment Period, 11/4/1999 5:44:50 PM, #678) The bylaw requiring all 9 of the At-Large board members to become inactive if the membership drops below 5,000 is a dangerous rule, which allows a large group to have an effective tool for manipulating the composition of the ICANN Board by directing their membership to withdrawl from the At-Large body. The disenfranchisement of the At-Large body by excluding them as Members of ICANN, and requiring the selection of an At-Large Executive Committee who will then choose the At-Large Board members smacks of yet another top-down organization, and takes away any legitimacy the At-Large body would have as an effective body within ICANN. This At-Large body cannot stand as a substitute for a Constituency of individual stakeholders. Domain name holders are not equal to passive consumers of the Internet, and it's wrong to assume that their interests will be addressed by any such diluted body. |
|
Michael Sernocky (Key Corporate Domains) Registrar Oversight (Public Comment Period 2, 11/4/1999 2:36:04 AM, #677) Is it your plan to put in place mechanisms to investigate and punish "abuses" by Registrars i.e. that enable and facilitate "special interest" third parties to unjustly "hijack" a Domain from the original registrant without giving that registrant just compensation and due process ??? For example, Whom (what body)is going to investigate current allegations that Network Solutions (on behalf of America Online)effectively "Hijacked" AOLsearch.com (Africans Online Search) from its lawful registrant without notice, offering just compensation or giving Due Process to that "Individual" registrant??? |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) Various subjects (Open Public Comment Period, 11/4/1999 1:53:50 AM, #676) First, the UDRP. It was mentioned that if a consensus is brought to ICANN to make changes in the UDRP, it would be implemented. My question is, how shall we show this consensus? What form would this consensus take? The posted comments show that there is significant dissent. What more is necessary? Given that large trademark holder are putting their efforts behind US laws, should we even be pushing this still? Second, what do individuals have to do in order to have their own constituency with identical weight, powers, and benefits to the other 7 constituencies? Please be specific. Third, the funding issues are significantly of note given that the Intellectual Property Constituency is going to "charge" the one public interest non profit, DNRC, the same as large monied groups such as INTA. This type of disproportionate fees seem to be filtering through the entire process. I am worried that it will close us out. |
|
Michael Froomkin (U.Miami School of Law / ICANNWatch.org) Privacy (Public Comment on Registrar-related Agreements, 11/4/1999 1:49:12 AM, #675) Do the current agreements in any way prevent ICANN (if it so chose) from creating a privacy enhanced gTLD, for example a ".private" in which the registrant's contact details (whether or not disclosed to the registrar) are NOT published in Whois -- like unlisted telephone numbers provided by telcos? If there is anything in this package of agreements that would prevent ICANN from pursuing this course of action if it so chose, in either an "open" or a "closed" gTLD, then there is a very serious problem with the agreements that needs to be rectified. |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) Influencing Legislation (Report on Proposed ICANN/NSI/DOC Agreements, 11/4/1999 1:28:42 AM, #674) Foundation grants, such as Merkle's, usually require the grantee to hold a tax exemption and refrain from influencing legislation. As a condition of the Merkle grant, will ICANN board members and officers (including the NC) refrain from testifying to Congress regarding pending or possible legislation? Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA |
|
Joe Chizmarik (The Knowledge Sculptors' Cyber On! America!) NSI Agreement (Public Comment on Registrar-related Agreements, 11/4/1999 1:21:44 AM, #673) With the adamant opposition of some registrars to this agreement, the board should at least specify a procedure and timetable to resolve the stated 7 points before signing the agreement; failing this, the board should reject the agreement at this time and continue its work toward consensus. |
|
Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) UDRP (Public Comment on Registrar-related Agreements, 11/4/1999 1:20:59 AM, #672) Why was the initial drafting and subsequent revision of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy a closed, invitation-only process top-heavy with business and trademark/intellectual property interests? |
|
Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) For the ICANN Board (Open Public Comment Period, 11/4/1999 1:19:00 AM, #671) When is the ICANN Board going to address the growing need for a new Constituency within DNSO for individual domain name holders? When is the ICANN Board going to adhere to its own by-laws in these and other matters? |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) Questions from Audience (Report on Proposed ICANN/NSI/DOC Agreements, 11/4/1999 12:39:40 AM, #669) With no disrespect to the panel ... many questions from the audience have not received a clear or direct reply today. This seems to be why attendees ask follow-up questions. Remote participants,not getting follow-ups, often don't get answers. Can something be done about this? Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA Dennis Schaefer Marblehead, MA USA |
|
Srikanth Narra (Individual Domain Name Owner) Online Individual participation (Open Public Comment Period, 11/4/1999 12:36:58 AM, #668) It will be refreshing if someone would respond to online individuals comments with something more than a. we share ur concern b. what do u suggest we do about that (addressing the room) and drift away to next question.. c. they did have input and participated d. we discussed this in past and there seems to be concensus..drift away from it to next question... At most answer at a tangent to the core of the question or step over most questions by totally ignoring them. Pls understand unlike present-in-person participants - online participants do not have ability to continue conversation or redirect the replier's attention to the point of question. |
|
Michael Sernocky (Key Corporate Domains) Registrar Oversight (Public Comment Period 2, 11/4/1999 12:35:48 AM, #667) Is it your plan to put in place mechanisms to investigate and punish "abuses" by Registrars i.e. that enable and facilitate "special interest" third parties to "hijack" a Domain from the original registrant without giving that registrant due process ??? For example, Whom (what body)is going to investigate the current allegation that Network Solutions ( on behalf of America Online ) confiscated AOLsearch.com (Africans Online Search)from its original registrant without showing good cause or giving Due Process to that registrant??? |
|
Wendy Seltzer (Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel) Transparency of SRS APIs? (Report on Proposed ICANN/NSI/DOC Agreements, 11/4/1999 12:19:07 AM, #666) With all the concern shown for the transparency of ICANN processes, I wonder whether the non-transparency of access to the registry has been addressed. Every registrar must still sign a confidentiality agreement with NSI restricting its ability to use and discuss the shared registration system, and this closure restricts competition by registrars. It limits the public oversight of name registration, and also inhibits the opening of registration software to a broader development process. Has there been any movement toward opening the interface to the Shared Registration System? |
|
Srikanth Narra (Individual Domain Name Owner) question about responsibilty (Report on Proposed ICANN/NSI/DOC Agreements, 11/4/1999 12:12:29 AM, #665) Who is/will be responsible if a individual loose their domain name due to incorrect contact details and its not the fault of individual but due to techinical failing of the register ? |
|
Srikanth Narra whois update problems (Report on Proposed ICANN/NSI/DOC Agreements, 11/4/1999 12:02:34 AM, #664) Here seems to be problem with updating domain details with NSI - including contact details. The customer help line is not a 800 number and near impossible to get thru. What about individuals who can now be ripped off their domain names because their contact details are not current, under this UDRP which some many of our board member think is a perfect policy ? Do any of the board members own domain names or had experience with being on the other side of dispute resolution policy before ? |
|
Srikanth Narra (Individual Domain Name Owner) Merkle grant (Open Public Comment Period, 11/3/1999 11:48:53 PM, #663) Did Merkle consult with anyone at ICANN regarding ICANN's preferences/opinions for the other grant awardees mentioned in today's Times? (Carter Center/Ralph Naders organization) If someone from Merkle is not around to answer. Would Ms.Esther or board clarify if their opinion was sort or given on this matter ?..ie..in other words - did anyone on board have a role in possibly influencing, in some manner, the distribution of Merkle funds. In which case the 'whole money for promoting democracy' will end up doing nothing more than giving ICANN some more time to facilitate business to colonize the Net, while they point to Ralph Nader and Jimmy Carter as "looking into our membership activities". (Due apologies to Ralph Nader folks - you are one of our last straws we (unrepresented individuals) are grabbing at and we do not wish to see you possibly tainted with this money) |
|
Ward Goodwin (EmpireOne, Inc.) Database Ownership (Public Comment on Registrar-related Agreements, 11/3/1999 11:39:03 PM, #662) Is there going to be a firm determination of who OWNS the com/net/org database? Ward Goodwin Albany, NY |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) NSI DRP (Report on Proposed ICANN/NSI/DOC Agreements, 11/3/1999 11:30:00 PM, #661) The NSI dispute policy is a nightmare in terms of due process, notice, and accountability .... not to mention a serious misapplication of trademark law. By requiring NSI to implement its current dispute policy as part of this agreement, is ICANN concerned that it may incur liability for the "sins" of NSI? Is NTIA worried that it is stepping into Trademark Law by permitting ICANN to take this step? Dennis Schaefer Marblehead, MA USA |
|
Ward Goodwin (EmpireOne, Inc.) ICANN Oversight (Open Public Comment Period, 11/3/1999 11:23:37 PM, #660) I am a proponent of checks and balances for any organization that may control as much as ICANN. In that vein who has the authority to check the ICANN board? In other words, who/what can fire one or more ICANN directors? |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) Funding of ICANN (Public Comment Period 2, 11/3/1999 9:47:33 PM, #659) If ICANN approves an exclusion mechanism for Famous Marks, this will have the effect of granting trademark holders rights to domain names, without the holder's having to pay a registration fee. Shouldn't this be considered a cost center in ICANN's annual budget, since it represents revenue that will never be earned by registries? Shouldn't it also be tracked closely? Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA |
|
Srikanth Narra Funding - Merkle (Public Comment Period 2, 11/3/1999 9:33:33 PM, #658) What assurances does the board have to offer that it will use the merkle grant or any other such funds in the sprit it is intended? Given its track record - I would predict that ICANN will most likely twist and present the Merkle Grants to ICANN as well as Jimmy Carter, Ralph Nader to increase democracy as some kind of extended lease of life/credibility while it carries on its usual big business colonization at the cost of Individuals and other unrepresented interests - while Ralph and others will temporarly shutup as - they are supposed to work with ICANN to resolve the problem. 1. Can we hear some clear items (not white wash - like will deal with it later, etc) as how and what board will do to refute this scenario will not materialize. 2. From funding/finance stand point how does it work ? Is there some kind of mechanism to use the funds received for certain purposes only or all the funds received go into one pool and used as the expenses need to be paid. Sri |
|
Erick Iriarte (Derecho.Org) Plutocracy (Public Comment Period 2, 11/3/1999 9:30:48 PM, #657) Is possible that future of ICANN is make a plutocracy? Because it seems we walk to this way. And this is not a good way. Erick Iriarte Derecho.Org |
|
Ward Goodwin (EmpireOne, Inc.) Funding (Public Comment Period 2, 11/3/1999 9:02:55 PM, #656) What checks and/or balances are there on the board to not increase spending and the need to aquire funds to pay for that spending? |
|
Erick Iriarte (Derecho.Org) UDRP (Open Public Comment Period, 11/3/1999 8:41:06 PM, #655) and another question: somebody use the principles of UDRP (o something similar) to resolve some case (in the court or arbitration) and win? and one thing more, this is only for arbitration (that have international rules), but if you want to use in a national case, perpharps you have problems.. with the difference between common-law and roman-law! Erick Iriarte Derecho.Org |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) consensus ( Public Comment Period 1, 11/3/1999 8:40:46 PM, #654) How can we possibly show ICANN consensus to change the UDRP when ICANN refuses to tell us how THEY have reached the consensus that they claim? |
|
Srikanth Narra (Individual Domain Name Owner) Merkle funding (Open Public Comment Period, 11/3/1999 8:40:29 PM, #653) What assurances does the board have to offer that it will use the merkle grant or any other such funds in the sprit it is intended? Given its track record - it would be too far off to estimate that ICANN will most likely twist and present the Merkle Grants to ICANN as well as Jimmy Carter, Ralph Nader to increase democracy as some kind of extended lease of life/credibility while it carries on its usual big business colonization at the cost of Individuals and other unrepresented interests. Especially with now as Ralph will have to temporarly shutup as - they are supposed to work with ICANN to resolve it. Can we hear some clear items (not white wash - like will deal with it later, etc) as how and what board will do to refute this prediction I am making. Sri |
|
Srikanth Narra (In'duh'vidual) Merkle funding (Open Public Comment Period, 11/3/1999 8:39:12 PM, #652) What assurances does the board have to offer that it will use the merkle grant or any other such funds in the sprint it is intended? Given its track record - it would not be too far off to estimate that ICANN will most likely twist and present the Merkle Grants to ICANN as well as Jimmy Carter, Ralph Nader to increase democracy as some kind of extended lease of life/credibility while it carries on its usual big business colonization at the cost of Individuals and other unrepresented interests. Especially with now as Ralph will have to temporarly shutup as - they are supposed to work with ICANN to resolve it. Can we hear some clear items (not white wash - like will deal with it later, etc) as how and what board will do to refute this prediction I am making. Sri |
|
Srikanth Narra (Individual domain name owner) Individual Input (Welcoming Remarks, 11/3/1999 8:34:46 PM, #651) We keep hearing that individual domain name owners input has been heard and all blah blah from board. Can we hear some clear items where this input has had effect - so far ? Sri |
|
Srikanth Narra (In'duh'vidual) Merkle funding (Open Public Comment Period, 11/3/1999 8:32:21 PM, #650) What assurances does the board have to offer that it will use the merkle grant or any other such funds in the sprint it is intended? Given its track record - it would not be too far off to estimate that ICANN will most likely twist and present the Merkle Grants to ICANN as well as Jimmy Carter, Ralph Nader to increase democracy as some kind of extended lease of life/credibility while it carries on its usual big business colonization at the cost of Individuals and other unrepresented interests. Especially with now as Ralph will have to temporarly shutup as - they are supposed to work with ICANN to resolve it. Can we hear some clear items (not white wash - like will deal with it later, etc) as how and what board will do to refute this prediction I am making. Sri |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) tarnishment (Committee and Project Reports, 11/3/1999 8:05:50 PM, #648) I beg to differ with Esther's interpretation. The plain language of the UDRP says that you can use tarnishment as an example of bad faith. The UDRP should NOT extend this far. The free speech aspects must override trademark law, as it does in every other medium on the planet. |
|
Mark Babiarz ( Public Comment Period 1, 11/3/1999 8:02:19 PM, #647) Thank you for answering my questions. Yesterday a gentleman said corporations wouldn't use this UDRP under it's existing form. Are you considering these comments? Also, if corporations aren't going to use it and ICANN will have to change the UDRP to go against the laws of many countries, why not just let the court systems decide these issues? I feel under the UDRP, this policy will cause frivulous harrassment from corporations! How will the UDRP deal with these issues? Thank you. Mark Babiarz |
|
Bill Baron (Committee and Project Reports, 11/3/1999 7:49:52 PM, #646) Question for Mr. Touton: What does he think the Internet community expects from the Uniform Dispute Resolution process regarding: 1) Time for complete resolution 2) Cost of the process |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) UDRP (Committee and Project Reports, 11/3/1999 7:48:34 PM, #644) I'm sorry, but there was no consensus for this UDRP that was reported to anyone, even though we asked multiple times. Many of us took significant amounts of time to provide comments. Hardly any of these comments were incorporated. Ellen is exactly right. The board is not elected. The new members of the board were elected from a constituency group made up of 6 to 1 business interests. Individuals were not represented at all. There was NO NEED for the UDRP to be rushed through while other important issues such as new gTLDs (which would have helped the "cybersquatting" problem) have been put on the back burner. |
|
Mark Babiarz ( Public Comment Period 1, 11/3/1999 7:47:04 PM, #643) Thank you for answering my questions. Yesterday a gentleman said corporations wouldn't use this UDRP under it's existing form. Are you considering these comments? Under the UDRP, this policy will cause frivulous harrassment from corporations! How will the UDRP deal with these issues? Also, if corporations aren't going to use it and ICANN will have to change the UDRP to go against the laws of many countries, why not just let the court systems decide these issues? Thank you. Mark Babiarz |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) UDRP (Committee and Project Reports, 11/3/1999 7:41:33 PM, #642) The UDRP was not consistant with the Santiago resolutions because there was no provision for any type of reverse domain hijacking preventions. Further, is there any truth to the statement that Louis Touton added the the language of "tarnishment" to the draft after the small drafting committee had already provided a draft? The concept of "tarnishment" negates free speech (such as IHateMicrosoft.com). The current draft could easily be read to include non commercial websites that are solely providing opinions. This concept goes far beyond any current laws, and must be stricken from the UDRP. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) WIPO (Committee and Project Reports, 11/3/1999 7:32:36 PM, #641) I am curious as to why WIPO was allowed to participate with the GAC when organizations who represent a more balanced view of intellectual property rights were not accorded the same invitation. |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) Let The Public In (Open Public Comment Period, 11/3/1999 6:12:26 PM, #640) ICANN is suffering from an acute "democracy-gap". The Merkle Grants to multiple public interest organizations --while good -- emphasize this point. The SBA criticism of ICANN last week merely reinforced the same criticisms you are hearing from within, from members like myself. Wouldn't it be better, in the face of this clear public statement, to refrain from policy making such as the UDRP, and Famous Marks exclusions -- which will be tantamount to law -- until ICANN has received a clean bill of democratic health from various groups and interests? Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA |
|
Robert Stoddard (Internet Communications) new gTLDs ( Public Comment Period 1, 11/3/1999 5:39:39 PM, #638) Since the answers to: gTLDs--how many, how soon and how to? seem to become more and more complicated, I invite DNSO WG-C to review the Non-Categorized system SIMPLIFIEDDOMAINS. It coexists with existing DNS, is currently operational, is non-categorized and protects famous names. What more could you want?? |
|
Phil Osborn Another Roadside Attraction (Agenda Discussion, 11/3/1999 7:07:22 AM, #637) I attended the Sunday Workshop sponsored by the Berkman Center. At Sunday's end, I pointed out the inadequacies of the proposed voting model. First, it excludes the majority constituency by default. Most people are not on line, yet are impacted by ICANN’s policies re future access. On the other hand, the stake in the internet varies, so why should everyone get an equal vote? |
|
Francis Fanego (Rose FX) (Agenda Discussion, 11/3/1999 6:47:23 AM, #636) |
|
Phil Osborn Another Roadside Attraction (Agenda Discussion, 11/3/1999 6:47:20 AM, #635) Phil Osborn, netizen philosborn@hotmail.com |
|
Mark Poole (Computer Management Outreach Services) automated participation (Agenda Discussion, 11/3/1999 4:03:38 AM, #634) In exploring participation it seems to me that when the entire process can be squelched by existing national powers without warning the real lasting model would be one that can survive by merit of its fundamental formation. This comes to light with these meetings when you recognize they are exploring the issue of a digital darwinism. My question, sent too late to be heard is whether or not possible funding will also include an audience response device that could guide, realtime, the direction of the exploration? Thank you. |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) (TLD Competition, 11/1/1999 1:19:13 AM, #585) I am a member of the DNSO general assembly. I can't elect Board members there even though I participate in a working group. Now I also cannot elect the At Large Board Members. It sounds melodramatic, but I as a fully participating individual am a second class citizen in ICANN terms. I think this violates the spirit and the letter of the MoU. Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) (TLD Competition, 11/1/1999 12:57:14 AM, #584) I was very disappointed to learn that ICANN had abandoned the idea of direct election, in favor of an At Large body. This seems to me to favor the capture of the council by trade associations and organized bodies that can monitor ICANN activities as part of their professional life. Comments? Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) (TLD Competition, 10/31/1999 11:27:38 PM, #582) Would anyone object in principle to the notion of ICANN's proposing a classification system to the sources of international law? Then waiting for an answer? It seems to me the question here is one in which ICANN cannot simply 'administer' the question of names without entering the content of trademark law. Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) (TLD Competition, 10/31/1999 11:11:20 PM, #581) A famous mark holder once claimed to me that they believed themselves entitled to any gTLD registration of their name by dint of their Section 42 Trademark classification. This suggests that classification schemes may be essential to avoid a land rush of litigation. Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) UDRP (Tutorials, 10/31/1999 8:19:16 PM, #580) Because it requires a mandatory proceeding, the UDRP requires US citizens who want a domain name to contractually agree to submit to a process that is not obligated to respect the property or due process rights they possess under law. How does the Department of Commerce -- a government agency -- authorize ICANN to do something that the Deparment itself is not authorized to do under the Constitution? Are the "consensus" and "bottom-up" requirements in ICANN's contract assumed to have dispensed with this matter? Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA |
|
Leon Koay models of consensus (Journey to Consensus, 10/31/1999 7:22:07 PM, #579) There have been other institutions that incorporate consensus as a decision-making tool. What real-life models has ICANN considered in attempting to implement consensual decision-making, and to what extent have these been found relevant? |
|
Mattie Jackson Leern Computers (10/22/1999 7:37:06 PM, in-room, #575) Hi Grandpa, Mommy sed yoo neeed me to help yoo leern computers. Well, i'm an exthpert. OK, here's the plan. First, get your Tonka Construction video game and tell your mom to "load it up" for you. To make the dozer go, just push the button on the "mouse" with one hand and roll the ball toward my room. Then, push the button again when you want the little construction people to come out and dynamite the rocks and wreck everything all around! Really cool! Oh yeah, the thing that slides out from the machine that you're sposed to put disks in is a really good place to keep your graham crackers. So, thats it. Do you need some help with your VCR too? I'm really good at that. I love you grandpa. Love, Mattie. |
|
Gavin Personal use thoughts (10/22/1999 12:01:47 AM, in-room, #574) It would seem that part of our desire to not punish Jane for only using the information herself is that in order to detect her breach of the system would require a monitoring system that would raise the ire of the privacy-wonks. |
|
jake (10/21/1999 11:45:07 PM, in-room, #573) Barlow on copyright law in the early days: Is there anything a man don't stand to lose If the Devil wants to take it all away? -Mexicali Blues |
|
(10/21/1999 11:42:14 PM, in-room, #572) Barlow on copyright law in the early days: Is there anything a man don't stand to lose If the Devil wants to take it all away? -Mexicali Blues |
|
Cynic University's position on notes (10/21/1999 11:19:02 PM, in-room, #571) Isn't it really the case that the University's concern is protection of the fiction that there is substantially greater value of Harvard attendance relative to other schools, as opposed to the reality that people go to Harvard, or particularly HBS, to gain access to the alumni network. Separately, it would seem that the student's notes are their own expression of an idea, separate and apart from the expression of the same idea given by the professor. |
|
mvs (10/21/1999 11:15:50 PM, in-room, #570) are harvard's lecture copyrightable??? |
|
je (10/21/1999 11:11:09 PM, in-room, #569) wouldn't the publishing industry be AGAINST on-line distribution of books? today, a large portion of the value they add involves the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of books. all of these functions would essentially be obviated by digital replication and distribution. in the end, setting aside the the filtering and editing functions, will publishers even survive the digital revolution? |
|
mvs (10/21/1999 11:08:58 PM, in-room, #568) how to promote the progress of science and useful arts with such a rigid attempt (TS) to secure the exclusive rights of authors, publishers, etc? Jefferson was right. |
|
mvs (10/21/1999 10:56:57 PM, in-room, #567) are the people stupid enough to need a publisher to filter literature for them? they are not real art critiques, they are just following thier economic interests. |
|
mvs (10/21/1999 10:55:25 PM, in-room, #566) is the particular interest of some companies (microsof/publishers/etc.) more important than the benefit of the entire society to have access to information? what about the constitutional principles underlying the recognition of CR: free distribution/access to ideas? |
|
dominic sagolla librarians & publishers (10/21/1999 10:52:38 PM, in-room, #565) as a librarian, Glenn, don't you see a tremendous opportunity to serve those that don't have access to technology or "private libraries" as public resources? are you afraid of the competition from the evermore-present bookstore? |
|
Cynthia (10/21/1999 10:46:55 PM, in-room, #564) How would you pay for the books on-line? How will you protect customers when giving out their private information or their credit card numbers? |
|
Cynthia (10/21/1999 10:44:23 PM, in-room, #563) How will the publishers control that the book on-line will not be downloaded or copied? Do you think that copyright law will have to be amended? |
|
Scott Sinawi Windows v. Linux/UNIX (10/14/1999 11:50:15 PM, in-room, #562) lose the 1000 character limit! |
|
Gavin Things would have been different (10/14/1999 11:39:06 PM, in-room, #561) IBM's OS/2 Warp was vastly superior to Windows 95 in a number of ways, and beat Windows 95 to market by 6 months. If IBM had given OS/2 Warp away for free when they had the chance, the competitive landscape would be entirely different. It would have been probable that we would have a duopoly of operating systems for the PC (and now a "tri-opoly" with Linux on the scene). |
|
j (10/14/1999 11:30:50 PM, in-room, #560) why disrupt an obviously vibrant and fast-changing market (for internet platform software) before the dust has even begun to settle? if we have faith in our antitrust department, why not wait until the damage (if any) is done, or at least knowable? are there in fact dire consequences if microsoft were to control the (for free) browser market? |
|
Gavin Punishment for Microsoft (10/14/1999 11:12:34 PM, in-room, #559) One rationale for antitrust action against Microsoft might be that it did in fact engage in prohibited activities which harmed consumers and competitors in the past. With a sufficiently severe spanking, Microsoft might think twice about attempting similar behavior in this new space. |
|
Cynthia (10/7/1999 11:19:51 PM, in-room, #557) How to regulate the Internet at an international level? Have there been any proposals? |
|
(10/7/1999 10:59:49 PM, in-room, #556) anonimity is useful for the political debate, for certain groups such as resistance against an authoritarian government. it is a nice tool against retaliation for your political ideology. |
|
Hijacker Hijacking? (10/7/1999 10:52:22 PM, in-room, #555) Hey wait a minute ... how can we be hijacking the Internet when we (i.e. Americans) invented it in the first place? |
|
Gavin An example of transition gullibility (10/7/1999 10:50:08 PM, in-room, #554) How many of us have received urgent emails which turn out to be "Urban Legends?" |
|
vic (10/7/1999 10:31:03 PM, in-room, #553) if we have anonimous freedom of speech right in the real world, why should not we have it in the virtual world |
|
(10/7/1999 10:27:57 PM, in-room, #552) I feel sorry for Zeran but I do not want AOL/compuserve/etc. to become the Internet Censor |
|
Anonymous Test (10/7/1999 10:23:33 PM, in-room, #551) Is this working? |
|
markread2 (9/30/1999 11:13:11 PM, in-room, #547) |
|
markread1 (9/30/1999 11:12:12 PM, in-room, #546) |
|
Joe Banks (9/23/1999 11:59:44 PM, in-room, #544) PGP is open source. So Cryptoanalysists can look for security holes and patch. |
|
Ksenya Medvedev E-mail vs. mail (9/23/1999 11:40:02 PM, in-room, #543) It was mentioned that the electronic data transferred across the net is like a post-card, for anyone to see. I certainly would not want my bank records, for example, to be transferred between my branch and the bank via post-card. In the world today, a whole lot of business is done through mail, and all that protects all our "confidential" information from unwanted eyes is a thin peace of sealed paper. So how is transmission of electronic data different? Right now if the Federal Government had a good reason to belive that certain mail contained hazardous or "criminal" communications, all they need to do is track that letter and obtain one sharp letter opener. Why not grant same protection to electronic tranfers. Hide electronic data in the envelope of encryption, and send it away, allowing the government to come in with a "letter opener" (provided due process). We have been confortable with that idea for a long time, why not now? |
|
J. (9/23/1999 11:23:29 PM, in-room, #541) Under CESA, what exactly is the "minimal review" that the government will make before permitting an export? Will key recovery of any sort be a condition? Can the government incorporate the info gathered in review into its decrytption techniques - ie, learn to crack the code? Will there be geographic, industry sector, or political factors in permitting export? |
|
Bob Easy access to strong encryption (9/23/1999 11:22:23 PM, in-room, #540) www.pgpi.com Available outside the U.S. |
|
anonymous (9/23/1999 11:17:05 PM, in-room, #539) What would be the feeling toward a set of rules whereby encryption could become widespread, yet upon subpoena individuals/organizations would be compelled to turn over their keys? That way a balance could be struck between the desire for privacy and the desires of law enforcement. It guarantees that proper safeguards could be implemented (procedural and privacy) and, upon authorization, the government could seize the computers, thereby notifying the affected parties and preventing against the destruction of evidence. Anyone refusing to divulge their keys, such as those who desire to contest the legality of the search could simply be held in contempt. |
|
Laurie Sickmen Rollback of law enforcement protection (9/23/1999 11:11:28 PM, in-room, #538) The reason why the status quo of 10,20 or 50 years ago for law enforcement protections should not be satisfactory, is that criminals do not use the same techniques and tools that they did 10,20 and 50 years ago. How can we allow those looking to thwart the law to have an absolute upper hand without even seeking to maintaina balance? |
|
George Kaplan Real time access? (9/23/1999 11:03:53 PM, in-room, #537) Wouldn't there be a delay in getting a key in key escrow? I thought there were a bunch of procedures to follow (both legal and technical). Have there been any actual cases to date in which the FBI would have benefitted from real time access? |
|
Lucy (9/23/1999 11:00:34 PM, in-room, #536) How is the key escrow agency storing the keys and protecting them from the break-ins? If they are using encryption to do that, who has the key to the key recovery agent's system? |
|
Eugene Kashpuref (9/23/1999 10:58:05 PM, in-room, #535) does not the FBI already know how to decrypt strong encryption programs? |
|
Patrick Kremer Circularity of Trust Issue (9/23/1999 10:53:22 PM, in-room, #534) The trust issue is circular: You trust the government to preserve your security from others, but you don't trust them to invade your privacy. A "trusted" third-party has no such loyalties, yet you trust them because they are not the government. Using banks is a poor example because there is an obvious, tangible result when something is tampered with. In this case, the commodity is not money, but information. Information can be held by multiple parties at once, whereas money cannot. One cannot know in any sort of reparable manner whether one's information has been stolen. Counterargument: There can be records. The counterargument is nullified by the premise that the 3rd-party vendor is selling you out. Records can be doctored and "lost" without trace. Do you really trust a private corporation to know everything you know? |
|
Victoria Sanchez (9/23/1999 10:47:28 PM, in-room, #533) does not the backdoor make the encryption useless/ less secure? |
|
Patrick Kremer "Legitimate" law enforcement access (9/23/1999 10:44:30 PM, in-room, #532) What are the boundaries on "legitimate" and who has the ability to obtain the keys? Doesn't the ability to decrypt communications entail a certain level of responsibility to share such information? What are the national security and foreign policy implications of giving a third-party carte blanche access to view such communications? |
|
anonymous (9/23/1999 10:43:28 PM, in-room, #531) Getting back to the postcard analogy. Most people think it sufficient to protect their communications with envelopes, which offer protection from prying eyes but not from anyone with a real determination to investigate the contents of the letter. To extend this analogy to the internet, I think most individuals would be content with some base level of encryption -- something to mask their communications to the casual observer -- and have no real need for anything wholly inaccessable to outsiders. Many financial and governmental institutions do have an increased need for protection and should be allowed an enhanced form of encryption. Sticking with the analogy, these are the same entities that currently use registered mail, armored cars, etc. The question thus is: why enhance the privacy of individual communications, when most people are perfectly content with the status quo, and when it threatens to come at a cost to the same law-abiding citizens? |
|
Victoria Sanchez (9/23/1999 10:39:29 PM, in-room, #530) fbi does survive outside the US, for instance they conduct investigations in south america |
|
Victoria Sanchez (9/23/1999 10:38:13 PM, in-room, #529) but the FBI/cia does not need the court order outside ? |
|
Victoria Sanchez (9/23/1999 10:32:18 PM, in-room, #528) if the world is so dangerous, and we need the FBI to protect us, who is going to protect us from the FBI? Specially outside the US. |
|
Joe Banks Question for Alan (9/23/1999 10:29:31 PM, in-room, #527) If you are concerned about third party interception (but not necessarily government interception) what is your position on attempts to regulate key size to set a range that is safe from third party brute force attack, but not govt. brute force attack? |
|
Joe Banks Criminals, terrorists, child pornographers (9/23/1999 10:23:24 PM, in-room, #526) Lions and tigers and bears. Oh my! |
|
Joe Banks Why keys? (9/23/1999 10:22:35 PM, in-room, #525) Why does the FBI need a copy of keys, if it can seize computers (which usually contains keys on hard drive or RAM)? |
|
Lisa Pearlman hi, i am a communist (9/23/1999 10:21:11 PM, in-room, #524) just wanted everyone to know that. |
|
Jake Erhard where am I (9/23/1999 10:18:23 PM, in-room, #523) where the hell am I |
|
Victoria Sanchez (9/23/1999 10:15:20 PM, in-room, #522) does it work? |
|
Joe Banks Comment (9/23/1999 10:14:55 PM, in-room, #521) Comment |
|
Mark Langston (IDNO Steering Committee) You ran away (Public Comment, 8/26/1999 11:49:02 PM, #512) Someone calls for open comments when there's FINALLY time for them, after Amadeu successfully postponed their reading earlier in the meeting, and before anyone can react, the meeting's adjourned. It's actions just like this that call into question your openness and honesty. Behavior such as this serves to illustrate your real interests and desires: Yourselves. You should all be ashamed. |
|
Paul Stauffer (Boston University) procedures (Next Meetings, 8/26/1999 10:55:43 PM, #511) Please arrange for an independent parliamentarian for your next face-to-face meeting. I think you would get a LOT more accomplished. |
|
Richard Lindsay (interQ Inc.) Regards to motions (WG Updates, 8/26/1999 10:14:48 PM, #510) I am going to write this to make it clearer, it is hard to hear when I can comment. I think overdeference to Robert's Rules, and on wording of motions and ammendments somewhat defeats our purpose of discussing issues and reaching consensus. I don't think it is fair to any non-native English speakers either. Maybe we can try to discuss more in a round table fashion, giving guidelines and emphasis rather than strictly worded motions. Just my opinion. Richard |
|
Mark Langston (IDNO Steering Committee) Motion 2, which passed... (WG Updates, 8/26/1999 9:49:53 PM, #509) Are you intending to *limit* participation to only two people from each constituency with that motion??? |
|
Mark Langston (IDNO Steering Committee) NC doing WG-D's work? (WG Updates, 8/26/1999 9:11:28 PM, #508) I'm curious to know why the NC feels that it must do the work of WG-D, a body which it has already designated to determine the process for WGs? It would appear that the NC wants to impose structure from above rather than wait for the recommendations of a concensus document from WG-D. |
|
Mark Langston (IDNO Steering Committee) Process v. Result (WG Updates, 8/26/1999 9:08:03 PM, #507) It is important that results are achieved in the WGs. However, the desire for a working, fair process has been voiced in all current WGs, and yet some on the Names Council want the work to proceed without this structure, in the interest of expediency rather than equity. The desire for fairness and equity in the process is not an attempt to delay or obstruct; it's just an attempt to ensure that the results we achieve are acceptable to all, and to eliminate the need or desire to redo the work (for example, WG-A). |
|
Clifford Paravicini (BolNet - NIC BOLIVIA) Participacion de los Gobiernos (Public Comment, 8/26/1999 12:44:19 AM, #504) En el caso Boliviano existe armonia en la concepcion sobre el manerjo de dominios donde coinciden: Gobierno, Universidades e ISPs (los mas significativos). Las coincidencias reciden en: 1o Hasta ahora no han existido conflictos en la administracion del dominio nacional. 2o Si bien existe presion para "liberar" el dominio .com.bo, hasta el presente las entidades comerciales no han elaborado una propuesta acabada. 3o Si existe algun costo "internacional" de quienes proveen numeros IP, es obvio que a nivel nacional en Bolivia tendra que existir un costo congruente con los grandes proveedores para realizar la redistribucion a nivel nacional. 4o Si existe algun costo en la antigua asignacion del dominio .bo y sus niveles secundarios, esto tambien se tranferira a los usuarios finales que requieran esos dominios. Esto es un servicio por lo tanto se paga lo razonanble, no es un negocio. Esto es todo por el momento. Atentamente. Clifford |
|
Ole Jacobsen (Cisco Systems) (Public Comment, 8/26/1999 12:43:28 AM, #503) The audio feed is silent and the video feed is unreachable. (18:44) Boston time. Ole |
|
francois menard (consultant) SRS Protocol and IETF RFC (Public Comment, 8/26/1999 12:19:48 AM, #502) I would like to ask NSI if they intend to see their proprietary SRS protocol be standardized by an IETF working group ? -=Francois=- |
|
Karl Auerbach (IDNO) IDNO petition (Public Comment, 8/26/1999 12:16:30 AM, #501) Why is the IDNO petition, a petition that was made in a timely manner and in proper form, not on the agenda for this meeting? |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Cyberspace Assn) (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/26/1999 12:13:57 AM, #500) Estoy dispuesto a creer que Uds' removieron este reunion afuera de los EEUU para el proposito de evadir las autoridades constitucionales que deberian de haber traido este proceso a todo un fin inmediato. Dennis Schaefer |
|
Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Owner) Clearness? Fariness? (Public Comment, 8/26/1999 12:05:30 AM, #498) If you insist on being clear rather than fair, the only thing you'll end up with is a framework that is clearly unfair. I fail to understand why all of this must be achieved without a fully-formed organization. If ICANN is our organization,r espect our wishes. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) Wait a minute! (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/26/1999 12:05:01 AM, #497) Better to be clear than to be fair? With all due respect, just who is ICANN to be making those types of decisions for the world? Deciding this in 30 to 45 days without an individual or non-commercial constituency, and in the face of the petition presented in Berlin is a VERY bad idea. |
|
Karl Auerbach (IDNO) consensus? (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/26/1999 12:03:07 AM, #496) Your list of interested parties failed to mention the millions of individuals who own domain names and who will largely be the defendants/victims in these matters. |
|
Karl Auerbach (IDNO) Relevant (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/26/1999 12:01:21 AM, #495) You are going to sit down with the voices that you "consider relevant"? Who are you to chose who is relevant? |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Cyberspace Assn) (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/1999 11:45:39 PM, #494) I have to vigorously protest the coining of a term "cybersquatting" to describe activity that should be laudatory. Speculation in domain names shouldn't be considered abusive unless it somehow engages in price fixing or other forms of anticompetitive activity. It reflects the essence of a free market economy. Some observers will be inclined to call this "corporate welfare" -- the reservation of domain names for businesses that don't want to go to the expense of buying them. Then there are free speech matters which defy description in 1000 characters. Please shelf this idea of cybersquatting and define the specific activities that deserve prohibition. Dennis Schaefer USA |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/1999 11:45:36 PM, #493) Individual and non-profit domain name holders are impacted in a significant and negative manner. 1) There has been no consensus of the Internet community that a uniform dispute resolution policy is workable or even desirable. 2) The definition of "bad faith" in ICANN’s dispute policies is flawed and should be revisited. There are still many cases under this definition, where an innocent domain name holder operating legitimately can be charged with being a "cybersquatter" and/or having registered the domain name in "bad faith" triggering this dispute policy. As an example, "bad faith" charges may be triggered by something as innocent as a domain name holder’s wish to avoid litigation costs by settling a claim. 3) Again, the intellectual property community is asking for greater rights and protections on the Internet than they receive in any other medium. |
|
Karl Auerbach (IDNO) VI-B 2(b) again (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/1999 11:43:02 PM, #491) You missed the point, the "nominees" *MUST* have been selected by an express procedure by the Constituencies in order for a working group to be validly constituted. In other words, I'm suggesting that the working group was constituted in violation of the ICANN bylaws. |
|
Karl Auerbach (IDNO) Procedure? (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/1999 11:40:41 PM, #490) Have these recommendations been passed upon by the DNSO Names Council, in particular have they found the proper degree of consensus as they are required to do in the ICANN by-laws? If not, then these are merely working group proposals and *NOT* proposals of the DNSO and are thus not yet properly before the ICANN board. |
|
Karl Auerbach (IDNO) Avoiding loaded words that prejudge the answer (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/1999 11:35:20 PM, #489) Two questions: 1. Apparently "interested organization" were queried. Why weren't queries sent to those actually holding domain names? It would have been easy to do, the whois database lists millions of interested people and organizations. And one could have simply selected a sample to query. In the absence of all recognized Constituencies, not to mention the yet unrecognized IDNO, the Working group was underrepresentative. The ICANN board, without members elected from the at-large, is not in a position to accept the recommendations. 2. Bylaw VI-B Section 2(b) says of working groups: "...Such bodies shall include at least one representative nominated by each recognized Constituency..." Who, exactly, are the representatives that were actually "nominated" by their constituencies? |
|
Karl Auerbach (IDNO) Avoiding loaded words that prejudge the answer (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/1999 11:33:16 PM, #488) We don't call those who speculate in land or fine art pejoritive names such as "land-squatter" or "arts-quatter". Let's recognize that in the domain name space, speculation is not an automatic wrong and drop the conclusionary word "cybersquatter". |
|
Ellen Rony (Domain Name Handbook) (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/1999 11:15:33 PM, #487) The consensus recommendation submitted on August 3 by the Names Council included no formal input either by the not-yet-recognized NCDHC or by the general assembly of the at large members. These issue are of major concern to the two unrepresented Internet groups -- non commercial users and individuals. To move forward on this policy with this obvious shortcoming would be a travesty and disenfranchise arguably the largest unrepresented members of the Internet.\ Why is there no time to do it right, but always time to do it over? I urge ICANN to table these recommendations until they receive broader geographic visibility and comment. |
|
Srikanth Narra (IDNO) Avery case - 2 (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/1999 11:13:37 PM, #486) With the post avery case situation. One way the mandatory "mediation" will be used by the trademark interests is as a means of getting the registerents to tip their hand at the mediation - so they can sue the heck out of them later in court. After all, the trademark interests loose nothing - bring about this mandatory mediation other than some loose change. Suggestion :- 1. Let IDNO in as a constitutency. We are not against trademark interests. A few of us are small business trademark owners ourselves. We can all working together come up with more sane proposals. All this railroading (and one sided advocacy model type functioning) will only work to discredit ICANN and everybodies efforts. 2.Trademark interests can show some creativity to build some brand equity for their prime domain names or actively promote technical solutions like realnames.com. It will aid everyone. |
|
Srikanth Narra (IDNO) Avery Case. (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/1999 11:12:57 PM, #485) Request for comment :- I would like someone from wg-a and/or the board to comment on the avery (avery.net/dennison.net) case judgement in favor of individual domain name owner passed yesterday. Especially from the perspective of WIPO's proposed dispute resolution policy in the current form. Isn't the present dispute resolution policy propose pretty much what the lower court ruled basing on at large definition of dilution and infringment. That the appeals court overruled ? How can a defendent get damages for loss of his time, etc like it was suggested by the appeals court in this case - under the "mandatory" mediation of present dispute resolution policy ? |
|
Srikanth Narra (IDNO) geographic diversity (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 11:05:25 PM, #484) Merit of people should be the criteria. IF there is no geographic diversity. Efforts should be made to create awareness in those regions. We don;t want some kind of reservations !! |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) at large means at large (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 11:01:39 PM, #483) I think all "at large" representatives should be elected "at large" with no geographic limitations whatsoever. |
|
Ellen Rony (Domain Name Handbook) (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 10:56:25 PM, #482) Mr. Crew's proposal for an intermeded At Large Council was not posted for public comment in accordance with the bylaws. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the ICANN board to take any action on it or even to discuss it any further. |
|
Dinesh Nair (IDNO) (Public Comment, 8/25/1999 10:30:33 PM, #481) Earlier this morning I submitted an online comment -- which was read out aloud -- that each member of the Board express their views on a proposal to admit the IDNO as a constituency. 3 Board members spoke, and the Chair inferred "consensus" from that. |
|
Ellen Rony (Domain Name Handbook) (Public Comment, 8/25/1999 10:25:42 PM, #480) When deciding whether or not to go forward with any of these proposals, could we please hear from *each* of the board members their reasons for support or opposition. Even without a voice vote, the Internet community deserves to know where the independent thinking of each of the unelected, interim board members. It is worrisome when we hear that all the decisions to date, save one, have been unanimous. How do you do that? You probably couldn't even agree on a lunch menu! |
|
Karl Auerbach (IDNO) (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 10:23:41 PM, #479) There can be an at-large council without removing at-large direct votes from members. |
|
Srikanth Narra (IDNO) IDNO (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 10:22:52 PM, #477) IDNO should have its own constituency. At large is not substitute. IDNO'ers are the ones getting sued, threatened and injured directly as a side effect of ICANN efforts. Its happening now and they need representation now. Not later not as a part of someother larger audience. |
|
Karl Auerbach (IDNO) (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 10:16:33 PM, #476) Does anyone have any statistics to indicate that this "derivative action" problem is anything but a flight of imagination? I've participated in several California non-profits and never have seen a derivative action used, much less one that is sucessful. This is a complicated and troublesome mechanism to avoid a phantom. |
|
Dave Crocker (Brandenburg Consulting) Online voting (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 10:15:41 PM, #475) Let's be VERY careful about creating institutional requirements to use technology that does not already have an extensive history of deployment and use. Online voting, digital certificates and the rest of such possibilities, but they have almost no history of use. In fact my impression is that they have no case law to make their use legally "safe". d/ |
|
Karl Auerbach (IDNO) Costs and more (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 10:12:53 PM, #474) An intermediary council is, as is clearly described in the staff report, a mechanism through which ICANN can strip the at-large members of the statutory rights. It strikes me as odd that ICANN is working (and presumably spending legal fees) to strip at large members of rights. |
|
Dinesh Nair (IDNO) At-Large and individual domain name owners (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 10:07:21 PM, #473) Earlier this morning, we heard comments on how the IDNO as a constituency was unnecessary due to the at-large membership. However, what is not explicit is that the at-large includes everyone with a stake, including the unborn child in Nepal. Individual domain name holders have a stake in this as a constituency and relegating them to the at-large is a pretext for dilution of their interests. Could we at least acknowledge that domain name holders have concerns of their own which need addressing and could be diluted in the at-large ? |
|
Ellen Rony (Domain Name Handbook) (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 10:07:02 PM, #472) If there is to be parity with other SOs, a fully supportable proposition, then the At Large membership should choose their own representatives, instead of the establishing the intermediation proposal suggested by Mr. Crew. The individual members would surely oppose having their representation filtered by an At Large Council *appointed* by the ICANN board. |
|
Joe Chizmarik (The Knowledge Sculptors) At Large Directors (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 10:04:03 PM, #471) I think the At Large Directors should be elected directly by the At Large Membership; anything less would not fairly represent the people at the heart of the Internet. |
|
Thomas Lowenhaupt (The Communisphere Project) Consumers too - (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 10:02:07 PM, #470) I propose a four pronged recruitment effort: 1. NSI and the testbed registrars are established organizations with direct and regular contact with domain name holders and should provide access to their customer lists as part of the membership drive. 2. ICANN's financial sponsors should be persuaded to contribute their contact/employee lists as well as to make contributions to an "At Large Membership Development Fund" aimed at furthering the Internet's democratic development. 3. One hundred leading consumer groups should be contacted and encouraged to approach their memberships about participating in the ICANN At Large election. 4. Existing internet-related membership organizations should be contacted for prospective members but "automatic membership" should not be provided to anyone. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 10:00:16 PM, #469) There would be no "professionals" running the Internet if it were not for the users. The users deserve the right to have their voices heard and not diluted. This is not a case of the "elite" versus the "arrogant juvenniles." We MUST allow users to have voices. |
|
Karl Auerbach (IDNO) Costs and more (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 9:54:16 PM, #468) The business about "statutory membership" was *NOT* discussed widely. |
|
Thomas Lowenhaupt (The Communisphere Project) "50,000 members - no capture" (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 9:50:02 PM, #467) I propose a four pronged recruitment effort: 1. NSI and the testbed registrars are established organizations with direct and regular contact with domain name holders and should provide access to their customer lists as part of the membership drive. 2. ICANN's financial sponsors should be persuaded to contribute their contact/employee lists as well as to make contributions to an "At Large Membership Development Fund" aimed at furthering the Internet's democratic development. 3. One hundred leading consumer groups should be contacted and encouraged to approach their memberships about participating in the ICANN At Large election. 4. Existing internet-related membership organizations should be contacted for prospective members but "automatic membership" should not be provided to anyone. |
|
Srikanth Narra (IDNO) outreach /creating awareness (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 9:45:56 PM, #466) We should request all the registers to give out a brochure or information booklet of some sort that tells the domain name registerents in easy to understand manner - what the whole internet goverance/ICANN, etc is all about - who the players are, what their rights are and how they can participate in the process. Possibilly with links / urls of associations participating / forming. It will create enough awareness and facilitate participation of interested members. |
|
Eric Menge (U.S. Small Business Administration) Small Business and at-large membership (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 9:45:52 PM, #465) The Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration submits these two comments to the Staff's Report on ICANN At-Large Membership. Advocacy agrees with the staff's recommendations on the first four criteria presented contained in Recommendation III.1, but the requirement to support the cost of ICANN membership could create a barrier to participation for representatives from individuals and small businesses. If a membership fee is to be accessed, Advocacy urges ICANN to keep the fee low or to provide a waiver process for either the entire fee or a part of the fee. In response to Recommendation IV.2, Advocacy offers its assistance to the ICANN staff in its efforts to attract membership. Advocacy has extensive contacts with individual small businesses and with small businesses associations and could facilitate ICANN's outreach efforts. |
|
Karl Auerbach Costs and more (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 9:45:47 PM, #464) 4. If there is to be "sunrise" provision that prevents the the at-large from arising until N members are enrolled: - Why would anyone bother to join before that level is reached? It's a chicken-and-egg problem. - Why are not similar minimum participation requirements placed on other parts of ICANN? 5. The attempt to remove A-L members as "statutory members" appears as nothing less than an attempt to eliminate the concept of "accountability" from ICANN. California law is not irrational and is far from the blank check for unwarranted derivative actions that the report suggests it might be. 6. Removal of direct voting from the at-large is a pretext to remove statutory rights from the memberships. |
|
Karl Auerbach Costs (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 9:45:18 PM, #463) 1. At-large membership *IS NOT* a substitute for full parity access to SO's. Yet, this report appears as if it is being used to justify the exclusion of those who would be A-L members also having a full role in the SOs. 2. For membership outreach - use the contacts found in the whois database. Certainly those who pay for DNS names and IP addresses have a direct interest. 3. A large part of the cost of the at-large comes from a belief that individuals are often electronic fabrications or otherwise misrepresent their credentials. This may be true. But it is also true of corporations and associations. For example, INEG. If the at-large is to bear costs based on a mis-trust of its members, it is equally valid that in other parts of ICANN, corporations should be required to demonstrate their identity and people acting as their representatives ought to be required to prove the authenticity of their appointments. |
|
Srikanth Narra (IDNO) Out reach. (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 9:40:54 PM, #462) We should request all the registers to give our a brochure or information booklet of some sort that tells the domain name registerents what the whole internet goverance/ICANN, etc is all about. It will create enough awareness and facilitate participation of interested members. |
|
Thomas Lowenhaupt (The Communisphere Project) Too narrow a view of its role. (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 9:36:33 PM, #461) If the Internet only affected those who currently use it, I'd agree with the staff's recommendation an organization like ISOC be the place to recruit ICANN's At Large members. However, the net has already become an integral part of society, having a significant impact on the operation of all businesses, institutions, governments, and individuals. Today, we have a choice; we can maintain a narrow focus and continue to treat the activities of ICANN as merely "technical". Or we can acknowledge that, like the book, newspaper, telephone, radio, TV and computer the net is making an imprint on everyone's life, and we need to begin involving a wider public in its governance. Let's not leave it to the next generation to clean up our mess. Let's acknowledge the net's wide impact and set reasonable policies on its governance. And let's get everyone we can into the process. |
|
Ellen Rony (Domain Name Handbook) (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 9:32:28 PM, #460) Would the ICANN board please address these questions: 1. What supports the staff's recommendation that a 5,000-person membership is attainable in order to hold elections? Can this be used to justify delays in replacing the Interim board with elected members? 2. Why should define its membership so as to be immune to a derivative action? 3. Isn't it possible that partnerships with existing Internet-related organizations to build membership builds opportunity for capture by the larger, better funded and organized groups? Won't ICANN risk accusations of bias and selectivity by reaching out only to the best known ones? 4. What efforts will be made to reach out to the known stakeholders--registrants, respondents to NOI, Green Paper and related mailing lists? |
|
Thomas Lowenhaupt (The Communisphere Project) Shallow Pool (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 9:27:02 PM, #458) The Internet's become omnipresent and we need to decide how best to involve those not currently intimate in its operation with its governance. ICANN's staff recommendation that we look to ISOC as the key provider of At Large members seems a bit too "quick and dirty" for me. I'll try a parallel to underscore my objection: Why not limit voting for public office holders to government employees - for indeed, it is they who are most immediately affected by government actions. We ordinary citizens are tangentially involved with only a small fraction of its rules and regulations. Most have no impact on us whatsoever. But our government employees spend their lives on these narrow but important issues. Their very livelihood depends on the proper and continued operation of the government, so why not put it into their hands? |
|
Karl Auerbach (Independent Review, 8/25/1999 9:17:08 PM, #457) Yes,I do disagree |
|
Thomas Lowenhaupt (The Communisphere Project) Broaden the Membership Pool (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 9:15:46 PM, #456) I propose a four pronged recruitment effort: 1. NSI and the testbed registrars are established organizations with direct and regular contact with domain name holders and should provide access to their customer lists as part of the membership drive. 2. ICANN's financial sponsors should be persuaded to contribute their contact/employee lists as well as to make contributions to an "At Large Membership Development Fund" aimed at furthering the Internet's democratic development. 3. One hundred leading consumer groups should be contacted and encouraged to approach their memberships about participating in the ICANN At Large election. 4. Existing internet-related membership organizations should be contacted for prospective members but "automatic membership" should not be provided to anyone. |
|
Karl Auerbach (Independent Review, 8/25/1999 9:12:23 PM, #455) Q1: Why should the body being reviewed, i.e. the board approve the review panel? (Answer: it should not.) Q2: The supporting organizations should not be the source of IRP nominations -- the SO's are not widely representative of the internet community, only of "interests". The nominations should come from the at-large. |
|
Eric Menge (U.S. Small Business Administration) Principle 21 (Independent Review, 8/25/1999 9:01:42 PM, #453) The Office of Advocacy of the United States Small Business commends the Advisory Committee for Independent Review on its thorough work and supports the a vast majority of the principles recommended. However, in response to Principle 21, Advocacy recommends that IRP be given the power to stay a Board action. The IRP's stay then can be overruled by an affirmative vote of a supra-majority (6 members) of the ICANN board. The 30-day time period would be sufficient for the Board to respond to an IRP stay. Advocacy does have one other question in response to the Final Report. Is there a procedure for removing an IRP member for malfeasance? It may be necessary at some point in the future to have such a procedure in place. Thanks you for consideration of these issues. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) director's terms (Director Terms, 8/25/1999 8:28:42 PM, #450) Since this was supposed to be an Interim Board, formed solely to implement creation of a membership and election of the Initial Board, there should be NO further extension of director's terms. |
|
Dave Crocker (Brandenburg Consulting) Representing individuals / IDNO as representative (DNSO Report, 8/25/1999 7:38:08 PM, #448) 1/2 of the ICANN board comes from the GA and is based on "individuals". We need to focus on underlying issues rather than the details of form and labels. The fact that those selected by the GA are not labeled explicitly to be representing individuals does not change the fact the body from which they are drawn comprise individuals and no other discernible constituency. IDNO has a problematic history, focusing on criticism, not constructive content. Worse is that it has repeatedly put chilling pressure on those with opinions that diverged from IDNO leadership. Membership requires stating adherence to their charter; the tone is equivalent to a "loyalty oath." IDNO has yet to put forward constructive suggestions, for positive actions to be taken now or in the future, with respect to the *CONTENT* of DNSO work. Their statements about membership and real work seem to rest on FIRST being recognized by by ICANN, and only THEN figuring out the positions. |
|
Eric Menge (US Small Business Administration) At Large Membership (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 7:09:52 PM, #447) Advocacy believes that membership criteria contained in Recommendation III.1 must be carefully considered because of the impact it will have in determining membership. Advocacy agrees with staff’s recommendations on the first four criteria presented, but the requirement to support the cost of ICANN membership could create a barrier to participation for representatives from individuals and small businesses. If a membership fee is to be accessed, Advocacy urges ICANN to keep the fee low or to provide a waiver process for either the entire fee or a part of the fee. In response to Recommendation IV.2, Advocacy offers its assistance to the ICANN staff in its efforts to attract membership. Advocacy has extensive contacts with individual small businesses and with small businesses associations and could facilitate ICANN’s outreach efforts. |
|
Eric Menge (US Small Business Administration) At Large Membership (At Large Membership, 8/25/1999 7:09:34 PM, #446) The Office of Advocacy of the United States Small Business Administration supports most of the recommendations in the Staff’s Report on ICANN At-Large Membership. For full discussion of the Office of Advocacy and the role of small business on the Internet, please see our comments filed in response to the DNSO WG-A’s Final Report to the ICANN Board, filed with ICANN on August 25, 1999. Advocacy would like to address directly two of the proposals contained in the staff report. |
|
Bret Fausett (Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP) Individuals (DNSO Report, 8/25/1999 7:01:07 PM, #445) (My second comment, so you don't have to read it, but wanted to get it into the notes) If the exclusion of individuals from the NCDNHC is based on the (unduly optimistic) belief that the IDNO will be recognized, shouldn't individual domain name holders be allowed to participate there and in other constituencies until a separate IDNO is recognized? |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Cyberspace Association) (Welcome, 8/25/1999 6:54:08 PM, #444) I came into this issue earlier this year when my teenage son was beset at school by lawyers from a well-known bleach company because they wanted his domain name. They did so because the dispute process the company used basically assumed that business' interest were stronger than individuals. ICANN now is adopting this same assumption. Individuals have no "interest" in domain names according to the Names Council. ICANN's draft dispute process characterizes my son's domain name as a "parasitical and predatory" practice. To me, ICANN has ample evidence that it is large busineses that are devouring individual's property, but is working hard to keep them individuals out. I, as a parent, and as an Internet user, have no place to look to, no resource, for dealing with this except to the institution that ICANN is supposed to be. I am very disappointed that ICANN refuses to recognize how vital a role this is. Dennis Schaefer USA |
|
Michael Froomkin (UM School of Law) IDNO (Public Comment, 8/25/1999 6:53:43 PM, #443) Re E.Dyson's question about membership numbers: other constitutencies have small #s of members; this concern is met often by ""virtual" representatioin by e.g. people from trade associations. I don't share this concern, but would the concern be met by having IDNO members from groups like EFF? consumer groups? |
|
Dinesh Nair (IDNO) Individual Domain Name Owners (DNSO Report, 8/25/1999 6:52:09 PM, #442) Other than Ms Dyson, the rest of the ICANN Board seem rather silent on this issue of th IDNO. Can we publicly hear their views on the inclusion of IDNO as a constituency ? |
|
Mark Langston IDNO are stakeholders (Public Comment, 8/25/1999 6:50:25 PM, #441) Individual Domain Name Holders are stakeholders in the DNSO, as much as any other member of any other constituency. As such, it is unfair to attempt to lump them in with the At-Large membership. Furthermore, IDNOs share a common interest, in much the same way the NCDNHs do, or the IPC members do. They may have other affiliations as well, but they have decided that it is their interest in the system as *individuals* which is most important. As such, individual domain name holders should have their own constituency. To refuse them this constituency dilutes their voice to the point of meaninglessness. |
|
Bret Fausett (Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP) NCDNHC (DNSO Report, 8/25/1999 6:41:45 PM, #440) What is the justification for excluding individual domain name holders who use their domain for non-commercial purposes from the proposed NCDNHC? |
|
Richard Lindsay (interQ Inc.) Geographic representation (DNSO Report, 8/25/1999 6:11:06 PM, #439) I believe that it would not be a terrible thing if a constituency only had 2 seats, because for the moment they could not find 3 separate regional representatives. While I understand this is not "the best person for the job" all the time, but this geographic representation is very important from the Japanese resident who is not Japanese |
|
Richard Lindsay (interQ Inc.) IDNO (DNSO Report, 8/25/1999 5:56:19 PM, #437) While if I hear the arguement long enough, I find myself being swayed; when the further question of "individual constituencies" for the ASO, or PSO is raised, I come back to the same conclusion that there are other venues for individuals to be heard. There is the at large membership, there is the GA of the DNSO, and there are the Working Groups, at least as far as the DNSO goes. I think the fear is that the individuals will be left out, perhaps these could be assuaged by a more robust and active MAC and some progress with regard to the at large ICANN board members. |
|
Bret Fausett (Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP) Individuals (DNSO Report, 8/25/1999 5:56:13 PM, #436) In Singapore, the Board resolved that "Individual domain name holders should be able to participate in constituencies for which they qualify." How do you reconcile that statement with the constitution of the constituencies provisionally recognized to date, each of which exclude individuals? Is the current deficiency something that will be addressed prior to permanent recognition of DNSO constituencies? |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) individual constituency (DNSO Report, 8/25/1999 5:55:35 PM, #435) Given that individuals are the single largest group of Internet users, it is remarkable that substantive issues that speak directly to the rights of domain name holders are being resolved with neither individuals, nor non commercial organicational users being represented. The very idea that the individual consituency is being questioned sends a very strong message to the general public that they are "not welcomed" at the ICANN table. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) dispute resolution policy (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/1999 5:07:34 PM, #434) Individual and non-profit domain name holders are impacted in a significant and negative manner. 1) There has been no consensus of the Internet community that a uniform dispute resolution policy is workable or even desirable. 2) The definition of "bad faith" in ICANN’s dispute policies is flawed and should be revisited. There are still many cases under this definition, where an innocent domain name holder operating legitimately can be charged with being a "cybersquatter" and/or having registered the domain name in "bad faith" triggering this dispute policy. As an example, "bad faith" charges may be triggered by something as innocent as a domain name holder’s wish to avoid litigation costs by settling a claim. 3) Again, the intellectual property community is asking for greater rights and protections on the Internet than they receive in any other medium. |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Cyberspace Association) (Welcome, 8/25/1999 3:59:16 PM, #430) Quisiera saber si la junta de directores se decidio conscientemente que abrocharia la adopcion (o no-adopcion) del proceso de resolucion de disputas sin haber reconocido todos los grupos constituyentes. O es que esto sencillamente se paso sin que nadie lo planeaba? Si fue el primero, es que no habia nadie en la junta opuesta? Quien? No les parece importante tener una votacion amplia y equilibrada, con representacion de todos los grupos afectados, antes de considerar cualquiera recomendacion del consilio de nombres? (Mis gracias a nuestros amables hospederos chilenos por acordarnos que el ingles no es el unico idioma ni en el Internet ni en los E.U.) Dennis Schaefer |
|
carlos munoz (uach) happy (Working Groups, 8/25/1999 5:06:18 AM, #424) |
|
D. R. Arthur (Freese-Notis Weather.Net) IP Number policy by ARIN needs appellate to ICANN (Open Discussion, 8/25/1999 3:35:41 AM, #423) IP Number policy by ARIN needs appellate to ICANN when dealing with legacy I. P. assignments and difficulties. ICANN (now that IAHC and IANA are in limbo?) needs to assist those that are using IP space in the past get assignment/contacts in database to reflect actual users at current time. Appellate proceedings need handled when ARIN fails to reach resolution in matters to past allocations completed by Internic carried over from IANA. Will ICANN act as appellate or where does authority go when ARIN fails to recognize users in place? |
|
Clifford Paravicini (BolNet - NIC BOLIVIA) (Working Groups, 8/25/1999 1:42:26 AM, #422) |
|
William Walsh (DNSPolicy.com / DSo Internet) Government control over ccTLDs? (Open Discussion, 8/25/1999 1:21:18 AM, #421) Can language be inserted in this motion that will specify that this proposal is limited to the com/net/org TLDs, and that the issue will be revisted once WorkgroupC completes it work. This should be specified rather than assumed so that there is no chance for misunderstanding. William X. Walsh |
|
William Walsh (DNSPolicy.com / DSo Internet) Government control over ccTLDs? (Open Discussion, 8/25/1999 1:18:38 AM, #420) Can language be inserted in this motion that will specify that this proposal is limited to the com/net/org TLDs, and that the issue will be revisted once WorkgroupC completes it work. This should be specified rather than assumed so that there is no chance for misunderstanding. William X. Walsh |
|
daniel edelman (Working Groups, 8/25/1999 1:04:41 AM, #419) warm regards & best wishes to ben edelman. daniel edelman |
|
Srikanth Narra (IDNO) Status of China (Working Groups, 8/25/1999 12:32:12 AM, #418) Is China there as a observer or participant ? |
|
William Walsh (DNSPolicy.com / DSo Internet) Government control over ccTLDs? (Working Groups, 8/25/1999 12:06:02 AM, #417) Hello, I am William X. Walsh, DSo Internet and DNSPolicy.com The comments made appear to assume that the Governments have rights over the ccTLD that represent the country they govern. In fact this is not the case. Nearly all ccTLDs were delegated without government input, and to say that the governments have any say in ccTLD delegation or management decisions is to usurp the principle of RFC1591. I want to know by what authority the GAC would have ICANN assert over ccTLDs this type of control by governments? This would violate the precepts under which these domains were delegated. Please clarify these issues so that those of us who currently hold domains registered under ccTLDs that do not currently have government control can know exactly how their rights will be affected by these assumptions the GAC is making with regard to ccTLDs. |
|
Mark Langston (The revised WG-A motion) (Working Groups, 8/24/1999 11:37:41 PM, #416) What's the difference between a drafting committee and a working group, and who will be able to participate in the drafting committee? |
|
Srikanth Narra (IDNO) modifed motion (Working Groups, 8/24/1999 11:35:17 PM, #415) Asking for WX what about the protection of due process right ? |
|
Clifford Paravicini (BolNet) Identificacion (Working Groups, 8/24/1999 11:34:00 PM, #414) Las personas que estan hablando no se identifican y tampoco las identifica la traductora. |
|
Mark Langston Reminder: IDNO (Board Members, 8/24/1999 11:21:32 PM, #413) Andrew, the GA has approved a motion to ask you to consider IDNO's petition tomorrow. Please don't ignore that in your presentation. |
|
Srikanth Narra (IDNO) IDNO (Working Groups, 8/24/1999 11:21:13 PM, #412) when is the consideration of IDNO ? |
|
Mark Langston WG-A idea (Working Groups, 8/24/1999 10:55:04 PM, #411) Would people agree to accepting the WG-A proposal with an unconditional "sunset" clause, as just brought up by Prof. Froomkin? Also, this isn't the place or time to resolve all of WG-A's problems. |
|
Michael Froomkin (UM Law School) WIPO/WG-A (Working Groups, 8/24/1999 10:54:22 PM, #410) I would like to point out that large parts of the WIPO report first appeared in the Final Report. The procedural appendecies were not even shown to the advisory experts' group before issuance; indeed the part that did not change (famous marks) is the most controversial. The WIPO procedure was in many ways exemplary, but one cannot claim consensus for its conclusions unless that happened after publication. If we could get in place a good way to address the outstanding issues (I don't think that's WIPO), then the issue is whether as a temporary matter the WGA proposal is better than NSI's policy. Perhaps the way to find a compromise is to take WGA's suggestion with some sort of sunset provision? Or something to create real incentives for a real fix - FAST. PS. The issue of a uniform policy is itself controversial. For one thing, it may violate anti-trust/competition law of many jurisdictions.' Is there a legal opinion on this issue? |
|
Srikanth Narra (IDNO) (Working Groups, 8/24/1999 10:45:38 PM, #408) Thank you for taking the question. On which points in the final report were his concerns reflected in the final report ? and where were they accomidated ? Michael is online thru chat - can we hear his comments on the issue please |
|
Srikanth Narra (IDNO) (Working Groups, 8/24/1999 10:27:02 PM, #406) What about the comments of Michael Frooklin regards the WIPO recommendation ? Were they consider in WG-A ? If so what was the reaction or feedback on those concerns ? |
|
Jon Englund (Excite@Home) Nii (Names Council, 8/24/1999 9:46:25 PM, #405) Nii, Thank you for chairing the meeting today; you are doing it well. Question: Will you be reading any of the remote comments during the session today? |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) (DNSO management, 8/24/1999 9:45:11 PM, #404) Before calling for a vote, could the moderators repeat the question being voted on in English and Spanish? After voting, could the moderators repeat the results in English and Spanish? Dennis Schaefer |
|
Jon Englund (Excite@Home) Show of Hands? (Names Council, 8/24/1999 9:42:14 PM, #403) I object to the General Assembly voting process -- I would like to vote, and I'm sure that other remote users would as well. In addition, GA "voting" is not addressed in the ICANN or DNSO bylaws. We should be very cautious about this GA "voting" procedure. The NC is given the authority in the bylaws to determine consensus in the DNSO. Jon Englund |
|
Richard Lindsay (interQ Inc.) IDNO proposal (Constituency, 8/24/1999 9:30:07 PM, #402) I believe the Names Council should vote on this, and send it up to the ICANN board. If the NC does not approve it, the recommendation should be forwarded as not approved. |
|
Jeffrey Neuman (Constituency, 8/24/1999 9:28:33 PM, #401) I do not support. |
|
Richard Lindsay (interQ Inc.) Shows of support (Constituency, 8/24/1999 9:28:32 PM, #400) There are many participants on IRC now as well, please try to get our votes as well. |
|
Bret Fausett (Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP) (Constituency, 8/24/1999 9:27:36 PM, #399) I support the motion. -- Bret |
|
Mark Langston IDNO recognition (Constituency, 8/24/1999 9:18:15 PM, #398) I motion that the GA officially request that the ICANN Board of Directors consider the IDNO petition for constituency. |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Self) (Constituency, 8/24/1999 9:07:32 PM, #396) As a member of IDNO, I would like to ask when the ICANN Board plans to consider IDNO's petition for recognition. Esther Dyson's response to Joop Teernstra on August 11 did not clearly explain the nature of the obstacles that prevented consideration of this question. Dennis Schaefer |
|
Bret Fausett (Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP) IDNO (Constituency, 8/24/1999 9:03:08 PM, #394) For discussion: What is the justification (other than current exclusion) for creating a *separate* constituency, rather than integrating individuals into the current constituency? (In other words, don't non-commercial individuals have more in common with non-commercial organizations than they do with other individuals operating commercial sites?) Is it possible/preferable to bring individual domain name owners into the existing constituencies to participate as full members in the commercial, non-commercial and trademark constituencies? |
|
Dinesh Nair (IDNO) IDNO Recognition (Constituency, 8/24/1999 9:02:30 PM, #393) ICANN's summarily not allowing IDNO and individual domain name owners a voice in these meetings is extremely short- sighted as it's this constituency which will be the largest in the domain game. At least, Joop Ternstra was given his 5 minutes, but let's get real here, shall we ? |
|
Jeffrey Neuman Registrar Constituency (Constituency, 8/24/1999 8:59:47 PM, #392) I would like a further explanation on why the registrars need to vote in secrecy. Especially in light of the US Congressional mandate for ICANN as a whole to operate in public. |
|
Mark Langston GA Chair (DNSO management, 8/24/1999 8:22:33 PM, #389) The entire GA should have input on the chair issue. Those thre in Santiago are not representative of the entire GA. |
|
Roeland Meyer (Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.) WIPO open process? (5/27/1999 6:00:20 PM, #336) 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. |
|
Bret Fausett ( ) Priorities (5/26/1999 6:29:21 PM, #335) 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. |
|
Pat Crawford (Private Individual) Individual constituency (5/26/1999 6:06:59 PM, #334) Someone should switch the mike off |
|
Ken Freed (Media Visions) (5/26/1999 6:05:34 PM, #333) 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 6:05:04 PM, #332) 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! |
|
Karl Auerbach ( ) Porsche (5/26/1999 6:04:18 PM, #331) 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-- |
|
Kent Crispin (songbird) Technical Advisory Group (5/26/1999 5:57:00 PM, #330) 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. |
|
Srikanth Narra (Individual Domain Name Owner) Protection for famous trademarks (5/26/1999 5:50:59 PM, #329) 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) Security (5/26/1999 5:46:02 PM, #328) 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 ) Unrepresented Individual domain name owner (5/26/1999 5:46:01 PM, #327) 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. |
|
Karl Auerbach ( ) Could NSI be more specific? (5/26/1999 5:45:34 PM, #326) 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-- |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) READ THE COMMENTS (5/26/1999 5:36:30 PM, #325) The online participants have been here as long as the Berlin participants. PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE COMMENTS TO THE GROUP! |
|
Kent Crispin (songbird) WIPO (5/26/1999 5:31:06 PM, #324) 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. |
|
Karl Auerbach ( ) WIPO didn't do its homeworkd (5/26/1999 5:30:39 PM, #323) 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-- |
|
Srikanth Narra (Individual Domain Name Owner) WIPO arbitration from 3rd world countries view (5/26/1999 5:29:27 PM, #322) 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. |
|
Ken Freed (Media Visions Webzine) WIPO Bias? (5/26/1999 5:28:13 PM, #321) 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. |
|
Karl Auerbach ( ) Degree of privacy protection (5/26/1999 5:26:40 PM, #320) 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-- |
|
Mike Edwards (IFPI Secretariat) WIPO (5/26/1999 5:24:35 PM, #319) 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. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC ) Privacy and the "whois" (5/26/1999 5:24:33 PM, #318) 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. |
|
Pat Crawford (Private Individual) Individual constituency (5/26/1999 5:21:43 PM, #317) 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. |
|
Srikanth Narra (Individual Domain Name Owner) Contact Information. (5/26/1999 5:19:45 PM, #316) 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. |
|
Michael Froomkin (U.Miami School of law) the contribution of the academic community (5/26/1999 5:18:59 PM, #315) 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, #314) 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 5:18:48 PM, #313) 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. |
|
Kent Crispin (songbird) procedural safeguards (5/26/1999 5:16:42 PM, #312) 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. |
|
Karl Auerbach (Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles) Cybersquatting (5/26/1999 5:16:14 PM, #311) 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-- |
|
Srikanth Narra (Individual Domain Name Owner) Domain Name vs. TradeMark Issue (5/26/1999 5:15:56 PM, #310) 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. |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) WIPO Dispute Resolution (5/26/1999 5:13:00 PM, #309) 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. |
|
Kent Crispin (songbird) uniformity (5/26/1999 5:09:48 PM, #308) 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) gTLD Registries (5/26/1999 5:07:26 PM, #307) 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, |
|
Srikanth Narra (Individual Domain Name Holder) domain name vs. trademarks (5/26/1999 5:06:04 PM, #306) 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 vs. trademarks (5/26/1999 5:05:34 PM, #305) 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 ? |
|
Karl Auerbach (Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles) Third level domains (5/26/1999 5:04:20 PM, #304) How does the WIPO report purport to handle anonymous registrations at the third level of domain names? --karl-- |
|
Karl Auerbach (Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles) Prudence is neither arrogant nor juvenile (5/26/1999 5:03:26 PM, #303) 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-- |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC - Arrogant Juveniles) We DID add substantive comments (5/26/1999 4:55:27 PM, #302) 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. |
|
Srikanth Narra (Individual) domain name vs. trademark (5/26/1999 4:50:56 PM, #301) 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) (5/26/1999 4:50:42 PM, #300) 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. |
|
Mike Edwards (IFPI Secretariat) WIPO Report (5/26/1999 4:49:08 PM, #299) 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. |
|
Michael Froomkin (U.Miami School of Law/WIPO "public interest rep.") WIPO (5/26/1999 4:48:54 PM, #298) 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 4:48:26 PM, #297) 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. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) WIPO process (5/26/1999 4:42:26 PM, #296) 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. |
|
Ken Freed (Media Visions Webzine) Distribute copies of Online Comments at Meeting (5/26/1999 4:33:45 PM, #295) 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. |
|
Dan Steinberg (Synthesis: Law & Technology) WIPO (5/26/1999 4:32:39 PM, #294) 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 |
|
Mikki Barry (Another Arrogant Juvenile) Mockery of the online comments (5/26/1999 4:25:46 PM, #293) 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. |
|
Pat Crawford (Private Individual) Individual constituency (5/26/1999 4:19:53 PM, #290) 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. |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) gTLD DNSO (5/26/1999 4:13:04 PM, #288) 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. |
|
Karl Auerbach (Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles) Sunset on constituencies (5/26/1999 4:08:54 PM, #287) 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-- |
|
Bret Fausett ( ) Trade Organizations as Members (5/26/1999 4:07:18 PM, #286) 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. |
|
Pat Crawford (Private Individual) Substantive or not? (5/26/1999 4:04:43 PM, #285) 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? |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) TLDA (5/26/1999 4:04:37 PM, #284) 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 4:04:11 PM, #282) 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? |
|
Karl Auerbach (Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles) Constituencies are wrong (5/26/1999 4:03:18 PM, #281) 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-- |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) summaries of the remote comments (5/26/1999 4:01:48 PM, #280) 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. |
|
Kent Crispin (songbird) Answer to Richard Sexton's question (5/26/1999 4:00:35 PM, #279) 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. |
|
Michael Froomkin (U.Miami School of Law) Sample Bias (individual members) (5/26/1999 3:57:24 PM, #278) 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. |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) TLDA (5/26/1999 3:55:41 PM, #277) 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. |
|
Ken Freed (Media Visions Webzine) IDNO Constituency (5/26/1999 3:55:34 PM, #276) 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! |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) please take the remote comments (5/26/1999 3:54:19 PM, #275) 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. |
|
Kent Crispin (songbird) minority interests (5/26/1999 3:54:06 PM, #274) The rights of minorities are of course important, but tyranny of the minority is also clearly a significant problem. |
|
Pat Crawford (Private Individual) Individual constituency (5/26/1999 3:53:18 PM, #273) 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. |
|
Karl Auerbach (Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles) Take that vote again (5/26/1999 3:53:14 PM, #272) 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-- |
|
Bret Fausett ( ) Individual Domain Name Holders (5/26/1999 3:51:48 PM, #271) I raise my remote hand in favor of an individual domain name holder constituency. |
|
Kent Crispin (songbird) stacking the deck (5/26/1999 3:51:05 PM, #270) Large numbers are *not* a guarantee against stacking the deck. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) "deck stacking" (5/26/1999 3:49:25 PM, #269) 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. |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) Mike's comments (5/26/1999 3:47:02 PM, #268) 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. |
|
Karl Auerbach (Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles) Individuals (5/26/1999 3:46:11 PM, #267) 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-- |
|
Kent Crispin (songbird) Individual constituency in dnso (5/26/1999 3:42:11 PM, #266) 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) Eloquent Argument? (5/26/1999 3:40:51 PM, #265) 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-- |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) individual constituency (5/26/1999 3:36:23 PM, #264) 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) Consituencies! (5/26/1999 3:34:59 PM, #263) 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-- |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) Milton (5/26/1999 3:28:56 PM, #262) 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. |
|
Kent Crispin (songbird) NCC (5/26/1999 3:24:48 PM, #261) 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. |
|
Karl Auerbach (Cisco Systems) Statement from Ellen Rony (5/26/1999 3:22:28 PM, #260) 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 |
|
Jon Zittrain ( ) gTLD constituency (5/26/1999 3:22:01 PM, in-room, #259) 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? |
|
Ken Freed (Media Visions Webzine) Noncommercial Domain Owners (5/26/1999 3:20:24 PM, #258) 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. |
|
Robert Hanke (callisto germany.net) gTLD constituency (5/26/1999 3:16:33 PM, in-room, #257) 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. |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) gTLD DNSO (5/26/1999 3:13:14 PM, #256) Again, I ask for clarification... Is there a requirement for a gTLD constituency to be an EXISTING gTLD registry for inclusion? |
|
Bret Fausett ( ) DNSO Constituencies (5/26/1999 3:02:02 PM, #252) 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. |
|
Ken Freed (Media Visions Webzine) Network Democracy (5/26/1999 2:52:08 PM, #251) 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. |
|
Karl Auerbach (Cisco Systems) (5/26/1999 2:49:51 PM, #250) Why is the CEO fee set at the $100,000(US) level? --karl-- |
|
PAVAN DUGGAL (THE CYBERLAW ASSOCIATION) WHY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST POTENTIAL CANDIDATES (5/26/1999 2:45:30 PM, in-room, #249) 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 |
|
Kent Crispin (songbird) geographical diversity (5/26/1999 2:32:40 PM, #247) 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. |
|
Robert Hanke (callisto germany.net) MAC (5/26/1999 12:21:58 PM, in-room, #242) What kind of people do you basically want to gather as members? |
|
Sue Leader (ISOCNZ) MAC Recommendation on membership (5/26/1999 12:09:01 PM, #241) 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. |
|
Kent Crispin ( ) capture (5/26/1999 11:57:22 AM, #240) 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. |
|
Kent Crispin ( ) registrars (5/26/1999 10:59:18 AM, #237) Is NSI formally accredited as an accredited registrar? |
|
Patrick O'Brien (DOmainz) Regional Regsitries (5/26/1999 10:52:56 AM, #236) Is the Board considering introduction of a REGISTRY--REGISTRAR concept in realtion to the regional IP Regsitries? If so, when |
|
Ken Stubbs (Internet Council Of Registrars (CORE)) GTLD Constituancy (5/26/1999 10:26:06 AM, in-room, #235) 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. |
|
Bret Fausett ( ) Budget (5/26/1999 10:21:08 AM, #234) What are ICANN's legal needs that require over 20% of the corporation's budget to be devoted to this service? |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) WIPO process (5/25/1999 8:01:04 PM, #215) 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. |
|
dr ivan bishop (persoanl) comment not true (5/25/1999 7:46:51 PM, #214) 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. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) GAC and openness (5/25/1999 7:22:28 PM, #213) 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 (personal query) (5/25/1999 7:17:41 PM, #212) 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) caring about consumers (5/25/1999 7:17:15 PM, #211) 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. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) general questions (5/25/1999 6:43:19 PM, #210) 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?" |
|
Dr Ivan Bishop (personal query) (5/25/1999 6:31:29 PM, #209) 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. |
|
Craig Simon ( ) Delay Adoption of WIPO policy (5/25/1999 6:23:08 PM, #208) 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 |
|
Dan Steinberg (Arrogant Juvenile (emeritus)) Thanks (5/25/1999 6:02:57 PM, #207) No need to read this out, but many thanks for the prompt response to submitted comments. It makes remote participation a valuable experience. |
|
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) 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... |
|
kent crispin (songbird) Working Groups (5/25/1999 5:47:18 PM, #204) The Interim NC should set up mailing lists and other stuff for the DNSO, and that should be done soon. |
|
Karl Auerbach (The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles) No need to ask the board (5/25/1999 5:45:25 PM, #203) 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 5:44:22 PM, #202) 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) Point about ICANN's board (5/25/1999 5:39:24 PM, #201) 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-- |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) gTLDs (5/25/1999 5:38:20 PM, #200) 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. |
|
Dan Steinberg (Synthesis: Law & technology) WIPO Report (5/25/1999 5:35:59 PM, #199) 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. |
|
David Schutt (Speco) WIPO Report (5/25/1999 5:35:00 PM, #198) The only business at hand is to create a representative organization. |
|
Karl Auerbach (The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles) How many have read WIPO (5/25/1999 5:33:47 PM, #197) 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-- |
|
Michael Froomkin (U.Miami School of Law) Research Committees, properly structured (5/25/1999 5:32:38 PM, #196) 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. |
|
kent crispin (songbird) (5/25/1999 5:32:14 PM, #195) 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. |
|
David Schutt (Speco Inc.) Representation (5/25/1999 5:32:00 PM, #194) 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 5:31:33 PM, #193) WIPO is a commercial interest group and It's reports -only- represent a subset of commercial opinions. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) WIPO's report (5/25/1999 5:30:31 PM, #192) 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. |
|
Karl Auerbach (The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles) Board and Research Committees (5/25/1999 5:28:52 PM, #191) 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-- |
|
kent crispin (songbird) Suggestion (5/25/1999 5:20:55 PM, #190) 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) We don't need a working group (5/25/1999 5:20:13 PM, #189) 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-- |
|
David Schutt (Speco Inc) Research Comittees (5/25/1999 5:17:01 PM, #188) I don't see necessity of creating research commitees at this point. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) fast vs. slow (5/25/1999 5:15:57 PM, #187) 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. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) research committees (5/25/1999 5:14:07 PM, #186) 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. |
|
jeff graber (AIP) nothing until formalities (5/25/1999 5:11:26 PM, #185) 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. |
|
jeff graber (AIP) nothing until formalities (5/25/1999 5:10:22 PM, #184) My vote -- Do nothing until formal elections of members!! |
|
Karl Auerbach (The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles) Please handle the questions from the net. (5/25/1999 5:10:21 PM, #183) The last time that questions were read from the net, only a few were read. Please take net questions more frequently. --karl-- |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) RECOMMENDATION (5/25/1999 5:10:15 PM, #182) 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. |
|
kent crispin (songbird) interim NC members (5/25/1999 5:08:02 PM, #181) Can we stop all this discussion about the GAC? It is not the business of the DNSO. |
|
Jeff Graber (AIP) Establish on-line open process (5/25/1999 4:58:06 PM, #180) 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. |
|
Karl Auerbach (The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles) Research Committees (5/25/1999 4:55:50 PM, #179) 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-- |
|
Karl Auerbach (The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles) Reading the questions (5/25/1999 4:53:47 PM, #178) 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-- |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) WIPO Report (5/25/1999 4:50:27 PM, #177) 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 4:49:27 PM, #176) 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) seconded re: Milton's suggestion (5/25/1999 4:44:42 PM, #175) Some non commercial TLDs should be exempt from any mandatory domain name dispute policy. |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) Names Council meeting (5/25/1999 4:43:23 PM, #174) 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: chairman's comments (5/25/1999 4:40:29 PM, #173) The chair's commentary is problematic. He should be as neutral as possible and should refrain from comment. |
|
Karl Auerbach (The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles) GAC straw poll... (5/25/1999 4:39:15 PM, #172) As to the vote about GAC being necessary... I vote that GAC is not needed, nor desireable. --karl-- |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) open, transparent, and accountable (5/25/1999 4:37:40 PM, #171) 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. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) remote questions (5/25/1999 4:33:19 PM, #170) Would you PLEASE deal with our remote questions and comments in a timely manner? |
|
Jeff Graber (AIP) Slow Down (5/25/1999 4:32:06 PM, #169) 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!!! |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) Chuck Gomes (5/25/1999 4:30:19 PM, #168) 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. |
|
Karl Auerbach (The Ancient Order of Arrogant Juveniles) Sunset provisions on constituencies (5/25/1999 4:21:25 PM, #167) 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-- |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) individuals (5/25/1999 3:43:01 PM, #166) 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 ( ) Relative size of constituencies (5/25/1999 3:42:42 PM, #165) 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-- |
|
Kevin Boyle ( ) Non-commercial TLD (5/25/1999 3:35:33 PM, #164) 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. |
|
kent crispin (songbird) (5/25/1999 3:24:08 PM, #162) 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. |
|
kent crispin (songbird) (5/25/1999 3:20:46 PM, #161) I note that the DNRC has been admitted into the IP constituency -- this exclusionary policy in the NCC seems remarkably backward. |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) Non Commercial DNSO (5/25/1999 3:19:29 PM, #160) 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? |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) IP rights (5/25/1999 3:08:06 PM, #159) If decisions are to be made in time frames assigned arbitrarily by ICANN, there should be consideration for a thorough review and reconsideration process. |
|
Jeff Graber (Association of Internet Professionals) Vote should be on-line (5/25/1999 3:04:34 PM, #158) Any planned election should be handled on-line. Basing it on physical meeting is rather strange for an Internet org. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) important clarification (5/25/1999 2:57:38 PM, #157) 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. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) important clarification (5/25/1999 2:51:40 PM, #156) DNRC has not yet looked at the compromise proposal and the board has not voted on it. |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) Registrar (5/25/1999 2:47:19 PM, #155) 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. |
|
kent crispin (songbird) definition of registrar (5/25/1999 2:42:49 PM, #154) 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. |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) inclusion (5/25/1999 2:38:47 PM, #153) 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. |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) Registrar (5/25/1999 2:38:13 PM, #152) Is constituency limited to existing "registrars"? |
|
Kevin Boyle ( ) gTLD (5/25/1999 2:28:34 PM, #151) 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? |
|
Jeff Williams (INEG. INC.) ICANN's restricting formation of Constituencies (5/25/1999 2:21:30 PM, #150) 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? |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) commercial constituency (5/25/1999 2:18:26 PM, #149) 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. |
|
Kevin Boyle ( ) gTLD, 3 appointments - 1 company (5/25/1999 2:13:01 PM, #148) 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? |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) gTLD (5/25/1999 2:11:42 PM, #147) Where is there a definition of constituency which states that only an existing gTLD may be a constituent for a gTLD DNSO? |
|
Peter de Blanc (VI ccTLD Admin) ccTLD position (5/25/1999 2:09:20 PM, #146) 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 2:08:16 PM, #145) How will there be adequate and appropriate representation of differing opinions in the model Don is proposing? |
|
Kent Crispin (songbird) (5/25/1999 2:07:13 PM, #144) If the purpose of the constituencies is not numerical, then there does not need to be 3 representatives |
|
Mikki Barry (DNRC) gTLD (5/25/1999 2:06:30 PM, #143) 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. |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET) gTLD (5/25/1999 2:03:51 PM, #142) Who were the 4 participants? |
|
Jon Garfunkel Question (5/20/1999 9:40:01 PM, #134) Question to Stallman-- Won't he concede that "Free Software" is a subset of "Open Source Software"? It is constantly annoying to hear him define them as two different sets to give him higher moral ground. Really takes away from his message. It's as if he's a charity volunteer decrying any paid positions in charity organizations because they are "fundamentally different." Hey, they're doing the same thing. Richard-- stop the semantic gymnastics, and work constructively with the definitions that the group has already framed. |
|
Tuyet A. Tran (5/20/1999 6:57:04 PM, #133) I think the goals of the Berkman Center are laudable. Hopefully, other universities will follow suit in generating more open educational resources & intellectual content.e.g. Stanford University CCRMA (computer) permits browsers to read the list of courses,syllabi, but, deny all access to the actual content itself including past lecture notes. CCRMA will allow access to its CLM ( Common Lisp) files that are already offered by other universities. In other words, this example shows that collaboration is extended only when there are pre-existing participation. Stanford retains control of another streamlined version of CLM where one would need to purchase rather than offering free download. |
All times are Stockholm (GMT +2)
This file is automatically generated.