RE: [ga] Clarification w/r/t Jonathan Cohen's Involvement in Working Group B

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Kristy,

Some of us, that took part of in WG-B, actually have a technical
background. At least one of us are also participating from a hand-built
network. Mostly, we were the dissenters. IMHO, WG-B failed in one key
area. They never answered the ISP liability indemnifaction issue.
Without that, no kind of exclusion list, or UDRP process, will hold
water for long.

Please understand this, UDRP is not a court. I has no governmantal or
legal backing anywhere. It wouldn't take much for me to get a UDRP
deciosion excluded from a court case, on the grounds that UDRP is
irrelevent wrt trademark enforcement. The UDRP arbitrators do not have
competent jurisditction. Even if you call it an arbitration panel, MHSC
has had their domain since 1995, long before ICANN, and is not bound by
any sort of arbitration mandate in our contract with NSI. Any attempt to
do so would quickly find its way into a Delaware courthouse. More than
likely, were someone to try it, we would ignore the UDRP and stop NSI
from acting, on the UDRP decision, via the TRO mechanism. That being the
cheapest means necessary.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kristy [mailto:k@widgital.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:01 PM
> 
> Do any of these folks have any technical knowledge of the systems?
> 
> Could any of these folks build a network and get it online 
> with hardware and
> software only to help them along?
> 
> ?
> 
> ~k
> 
> 
> At 01:22 PM 8/30/2000 , Michael D. Palage wrote:
> >I am writing this email in response to a posting last week regarding
> >Jonathan Cohen's involvement in Working Group B. Let me 
> begin by disclosing
> >that I nominated Jonathan for reelection to the ICANN Board. 
> I believe that
> >I am qualified to describe Jonathan's involvement in Working 
> Group B, as I
> >was the original co-chair with Jonathan. After his election 
> to the ICANN
> >Board, I functioned as sole chair for several months until 
> the Names Counsel
> >appointed Kathy Kleiman and Philip Sheppard as joint Names 
> Counsel Liaisons.
> >
> >Working Group B was created last May at the regional ICANN meeting in
> >Berlin, Germany, along with Working Groups A & C. Jonathan 
> Cohen and Amadeu
> >Abril were appointed co-chairs of Working Group A. Because 
> of some of the
> >criticisms surrounding the procedures in Working Group A, it 
> was decided
> >that the one co-chair would be appointed by the Names 
> Council and the other
> >would be elected by the groups participants. I was elected 
> as the alternate
> >chair by default when no one else expressed an interest. 
> This election took
> >place prior to the ICANN Regional meeting in Santiago, Chile.
> >
> >At this time, Working Group B was still in the formative 
> stage, with no more
> >than twenty initial members. After the Santiago meeting, 
> Jonathan announced
> >his intention to run for a position on the ICANN Board. 
> Following this
> >announcement, Jonathan undertook a less visible role within 
> the Working
> >Group B process, although he continued to offer his insight 
> and expertise
> >leading up to the election.
> >
> >After his election to the ICANN Board for a period of one 
> year, I continued
> >to serve as the sole chair of Working Group B until the 
> appointment of Kathy
> >and Philip by the Names Counsel several months later.
> >
> >Having made this clarification, I would like to offer my 
> insights on some of
> >the candidates running for election to the ICANN Board from the DNSO.
> >
> >The reason that I nominated Jonathan for reelection was 
> because of his
> >diverse skill set and his record to date. Two of the bigger 
> challenges
> >facing the ICANN Board in the near future are overseeing the proof of
> >concept phase for new top-level domains, including any 
> potential issues
> >involving the intellectual property community, and 
> increasing involvement
> >among ccTLD registry operators in the ICANN process. I 
> believe that Jonathan
> >is uniquely qualified to handles these challenges based upon 
> his expertise
> >as an intellectual property attorney and in his involvement 
> in the Canadian
> >ccTLD registry.
> >
> >Although I believe that Jonathan is the most qualified candidate for
> >election to the Board, there are several other candidates 
> with impressive
> >credentials that could make a contribution to the Board. For 
> example, Jamie
> >Love has recently became a very active participant within 
> the ICANN process.
> >The best word to describe Jamie is passionate. Although I 
> may not always
> >agree with Jamie's viewpoints, I respect his unwavering 
> dedication to his
> >beliefs. I personally hope that Jamie considers running for 
> the recently
> >vacant Names Counsel position within the Non-Commercial 
> Constituency. I
> >believe that involvement at the Names Counsel level will 
> provide Jamie with
> >some valuable hands on experience with regard to the ICANN process.
> >
> >Turning my attention to Ron Weikers, I have know Ron for 
> several years and
> >use to working with him at a law firm in Philadelphia. 
> Although Ron has a
> >solid technical and legal background, he is a relative 
> newcomer to the ICANN
> >process. I have reservations about his ability to get up to 
> speed on the
> >issues confronting the Board, specifically those involving 
> the ccTLDs.
> >
> >With regard to the remaining candidates, Peter LeBlanc 
> appears to be a
> >popular candidate although I have never had the privilege of 
> meeting him. I
> >have a great deal of respect for several of the people that 
> have endorsed
> >his candidacy. Peter's strength appears to be in the ccTLD 
> community, which
> >as mentioned above is highly important at this point in 
> time. In reading
> >Peter's acceptance/position statement, however, it appears 
> that his primary
> >focus is advancing the interests of the ccTLD community. I 
> believe that the
> >strongest candidate should be the one that has his/her 
> finger on the pulse
> >of every constituency.
--
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