Re: [ga] Net-block issues

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> That sounds like a well though out plan.
>
> Could you please tell me who exactly you mean by "Fellow Followers"?

  Fellow Followers - Those that follow blindly or with blinders on, a
particular political ideology.

>
>
> Please name names.

  Sorry that list would exceed the DNSO GA 10k posting size limit.

>
>
> Also, how many persons support your plan?

  Approx. 100+K

>
> Again, please name names.

Sorry that list would FAR exceed the DNSO GA 10k posting size limit
and my 32k size limit.

>
>
> Finally, I believe the GA is open:

  Well everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.  The facts are documented
that it is not.  See archives of this Forum.

>
>
> >From the "rules of the GA list"
> (a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of the
> DNSO,
>     and open to all who are willing to contribute effort to the work of
> the
>     DNSO. The participants in the GA should be individuals who have a
>     knowledge of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for
>     which the DNSO has primary responsibility, and who are willing to
>     contribute time, effort and expertise to the work of the DNSO,
> including
>     work item proposal and development, discussion of work items, draft
>     document preparation, and participation in research and drafting
>     committees and working groups.

  Sounds great!  But in practice is hogwash!  >;)

>
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:26 AM
> To: Peter de Blanc
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Net-block issues
>
> Peter and all assembly members,
>
>   Two things must happen to facilitate what you are requesting me to
> propose.  1.) The IDNHC should be formed or the GA must open up for any
> and all interested parties that do not otherwise belong to another
> constituency as voting members.  2.) The At-Large must be re-initiated
> and funding for casting a ballot on UDRP (Current version) and/or any
> other vetted proposal for a revised UDRP.
>
>   Than a vote of the At-large with all of the Constituencies as well as
> the GA must be done.  Whichever proposal wins the majority of the votes
> is the choice of the Stakeholders.
>
>   All of this could have been accomplished over a year ago had not the
> ICANN BoD and "Fellow Followers" of their ideology  not blocked these
> building blocks put into place.  But alas, this is not the history we
> all suffer or to a very small extent benefit from...
>
> Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > OK, Jeff, so how do you propose that we might "bring it all into
> > compliance" ?
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 4:03 PM
> > To: Peter de Blanc
> > Cc: ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Net-block issues
> >
> > Peter and all assembly members,
> >
> >   As you know or should know the current version of the UDRP is not a
> > "Consensus" based policy or practice.  It is contrived or otherwise
> > edicted upon the stakeholders without their consent or even ability to
>
> > vote upon it as a policy tool.  As such, it is not a valid ICANN/WIPO
> > policy tool.
> >
> >   The registrar "Contracts" that potential registrants are not
> > "Consensus" based documents by the stakeholders as they were not
> > allowed to VOTE on them.  As such, they are not under the MoU and
> > White Paper valid documents or contracts by which registration of
> > domain names are managed.
> >
> >   Given these FACTS, it is inconsistent in the extreme to even
> > consider the present atmosphere or the DNS and especially Registration
>
> > of Domain Names as well as "Selection" of TLD's to be in compliance
> > with the White Paper and the MoU.
> >
> > Peter de Blanc wrote:
> >
> > > Whether you call it "ICANN meddling" or not, the ultimate authority
> > > here (in UDRP) comes by contract. Registries have "terms and
> > > conditions" of service. The registrars pass those terms and
> > > conditions
> >
> > > along to the users of the service. The users (domain name holders)
> > > contractually agree to be bound by those terms, in order to get a
> > > domain name. terms may be financial (they pay $ 25.00) or
> > > non-financial (they agree to UDRP).
> > >
> > > All of this comes by contract. Anyone is free to enter into, or not
> > > enter into a contract, or, for that matter, to attempt to negotiate
> > > the terms.
> > >
> > > All terms, including UDRP, could be re-negotiated in the future,
> > > provided enough of the stakeholders wish to.
> > >
> > > Peter de Blanc
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
> > > Sandy Harris
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 12:53 AM
> > > To: wsl@cerebalaw.com
> > > Cc: 'ga@dnso.org'
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Net-block issues
> > >
> > > "William S. Lovell" wrote:
> > >
> > > > > On the other hand, an ISP or a registry should not be acting
> > > > > against
> > >
> > > > > its customers for anything other than direct abuse OF the
> > > > > network.
> >
> > > > > There are laws against libel, trademark misuse, stalking,
> > > > > harassment, some types of pornography, 'hate literature',
> > > > > slander,
> >
> > > > > software 'piracy', ...
> > > > >
> > > > > All these forms of abuse ON the net are better dealt with by
> > > > > police and courts than by system admins. Courts have legal
> > > > > authority to act
> > >
> > > > > on these issues, experience and expertise, protections for the
> > > > > accused, standards of evidence, ... Neither ISPs nor registries
> > > > > have
> > >
> > > > > any of those.
> > > > >
> > > > > There may be some exceptions for extremely blatant violators,
> > > > > where an ISP or registry might reasonably help stop abuse, but
> > > > > when there is any doubt at all, they should give their customers
>
> > > > > the benefit of
> > >
> > > > > that doubt.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, while I feel that having registries disconnect spammers is
> > > > > not
> >
> > > > > a
> > >
> > > > > good idea (mainly because I don't trust ICANN to come up with
> > > > > good
> >
> > > > > guidelines and NSI are themselves spammers), I do think you can
> > > > > make
> > >
> > > > > a far better case for that than for having them try to enforce
> > > > > trademark restrictions.
> > > >
> > > > All of the above hangs together perfectly.  It also leads to the
> > > > key
> >
> > > > question, though.  Copying the phrase "Courts have legal authority
>
> > > > to act on these issues, experience and expertise, protections for
> > > > the accused, standards of evidence, ... Neither ISPs nor
> > > > registries have any of those," a complete statement would be made
> > > > if one added ICANN along with ISPs and registries, and with
> > > > specific emphasis on trademarks.  ICANN, with its UDRP and other
> > > > policy meddling, suffers
> >
> > > > from the same lack of legal authority, experience and expertise,
> > > > protections for the 'accused,' standards of evidence, and soforth.
> > > >
> > > > Bill Lovell
> > >
> > > I agree completely.
> > > --
> > > 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@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
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail
> > jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or
> > 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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