RE: [ga] What causes the problem?

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Okay, let's try to sort out what is in the scope of the various groups.  And
to spend energy where it is useful and where it can make a significant
difference.  

First, the UDRP, whether one likes it as a concept or not, exists. And is
working. You can go check out the list of cases and make your own value
judgment about the outcomes.  I don't know what value it adds to suggest a
boycott.  When infringements occur, some action takes place.  If there is
objection to the extension to the extension to geographic names, then one
should participate in the forum where that debate is taking place. It's not
ICANN. It's WIPO.

You could have chosen to participate by filing comments in RFC-2 of the WIPO
process. And if you missed that, please still submit comments. I've found
WIPO open to listening,even if you miss deadlines. The public process for
comment, by the way, is only beginning, with public meetings being held
around the world. I've not paid much attention them, but recall that the
first is in Chicago; others are in Europe and Asia; and that online comments
are welcomed.   The WIPO considerations are in response to letters from
member governments. They didn't generate their work program at the request
of ICANN. You can check out the site at WIPO.int, and see the letter of
request from 19 member countries.  

About the  study of the @large and what is the right approach. There is a
process to study what should happen next, chaired by Carl Bildt, a highly
respected European.  There will be a meeting,  I understand, of the @Large
group to take public comment in Melbourne, in Stockhelm, and in other
mechanisms. Perhaps that is a better strategy for this group to be focused
on? To ensure that online participation can be included in those meetings?
and that the meetings take place at the ICANN Meetings when the largest
representation of folks can participate?  

What is in this group's scope is about the GA. what is the GA doing to do to
add meaning, create an appearance at least of organizational structure so
that all can participate. Electing a chair is a first step.

Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:Eric@Hi-Tek.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 8:59 PM
To: jo-uk@rcn.com
Cc: Sotiropoulos; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Greg Burton; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] What causes the problem?


Amen brothers and sisters, this is positive and progressive.  If we are
going to
move forward let us look to tommorrow.
Critical yet moving forward.  Greg it is a conundrum.

Ultreya,


Joanna Lane wrote:

> Sotiris wrote:-
>  (BTW
> Imbalance is also what has led to the current stand-still in the WG-Review
> Discussion.  I would just like to ask the Chair of the WG-Review why it is
> that
> he feels it more pressing upon his time to move forward matters in the GA
> List,
> to which he has no [to my knowledge] official relation, other than having
> been
> nominated as candidate for some nebulous election, and not instead push on
> to
> complete the WGr? )
>
> - Sotiris, I think you are being a little disingenuous here. The GA Chair
> issue is certainly
> not nebulous and since the GA is a topic on this list, it is hardly
> inappropriate for Greg to seek feedback from
> the membership as a way to move both the GA and WG-Review forward.
> His efforts deserve our support, not criticism.
> Joanna
>
> Sotiris wrote:-
> One thing that could be done is to immediately call for a moratorium on
all
> pending UDRP actions which do not involve infringement of a demonstrably
> coined
> word or clearly associative commercial interest/intent.  I think such a
move
> would go a long way to bringing a little bit of respectability back to
some
> areas of Justice.  Further, they could publicly lay aside their plans for
> *somehow* adding geographical indications and other excuses to a growing
> list of
> *reasons* for domain USURPATION.  Who gets a geographic name after all?
Do
> we
> live in the same reality?  Do they really want to start stirring up such
> problems?  Do you want to allow them to do so?  Do we?  There must be a
> reconsideration of priorities, and there should be evidence of goodwill on
> both
> sides.  Certain substantial moves have to be made, not merely gestures.
>
> - I think this is worth consideration, but hang on, we need a DNDEF don't
we
> to come up with a viable alternative?
>
> To
> date, the record shows that there are 5 AtLarge Directors on the Board.
> Correct
> me if I'm wrong, but are there not supposed to be 9?  If there are
supposed
> to
> be nine, why are there only five?  Whose interests were being served when
> the
> decision to go with 5 was taken?  How much more plain can it be?
>
> - Could your world@large site be used to run elections for the other 4?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html