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

["Michael D. Palage" <mpalage@infonetworks.com>]

Dear Dennis:

You raise several excellent points that I would like to provide some further
clarification on.

1) Thanks for the Political Correct "PC" label.  There have been many
e-mails that I have written only to delete them before hitting the send
button. The ICANN process has a way of raising one's blood pressure.

2) I genuinely regreted your resignation from Working Group B and I asked
you on several occasions to reconsider your decision.  As I have disclosed
in most reports associated with Working Group B, the majority of the
participants were trademark owners. However, because of the restrictions
placed on participation in Working Group A, any one that asked to join was
added to the list. I did not believe that I had the authority to pick and
choose participants. During the first months I spent a significant amount of
time getting representation from ALL constituencies. After LA, I saw that
the heavy concentration of trademark types was a problem. That is why I
contacted Eric Menge and asked for his help in increasing participation
among the little guys.  As a result, Eric was able to arrange for several
Working Group B teleconferences. As I reported to the Names Counsel, lack of
proper funding limits the outreach and effort of a Working Group.

3) As a trademark attorney I acknowledge that trademark rights are NOT
absolute. I also acknowledge that there are probably situtations that exist
where a trademark owner prevails in a dispute NOT based upon the merits of
the case but because of the economics of the situation. However, life is not
fair. Although the trademark community had a significance representation in
Working Group B, they did not dictate the process (but they did have a LOUD
voice). If they did hijack the process I believe that WIPO would be working
on the creation of a Famous Marks list as we speak. The fact that Working
Group B reached consensus in NOT creating a list is a MAJOR departure from
the WIPO report. To my knowledge Working Group A & C pretty much adopted the
WIPO recommendations in whole. I think that the remaining non-trademark
Working Group B participants made a difference and it should not be
overlooked.

4) I agree with you that Jamie is a valuable addition to the ICANN family.
People like Jamie, Allen Davidson and Kathy Kleiman keep people honest and
that is invaluable. That is why I stated that he was a qualified candidate.



-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Schaefer [mailto:apsdps@mediaone.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 8:37 PM
To: Kristy
Cc: mpalage@infonetworks.com; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Clarification w/r/t Jonathan Cohen's Involvement
inWorking Group B


Kristy--

Michael Palage has written a nice, politically-correct assessment  of the
candidates.

Let me offer a politically incorrect alternative.

I was one of the original volunteers for Working B.  I was also one of the
people
who endorsed Jonathan Cohen for the Board.   I came to regret both these
actions.

Michael is a lawyer, and he seems to benefit from a job that permits him to
travel to meetings, and to work intensively on this topic.  I give him total
credit for what he has done.

I also fault him for failing to include individuals who make up the vast
majority
of domain name owners, and who do not have his resources.   That blind spot
has
made him contribute to the evolution of a Web that is little more than a
global
shopping mall.  If he would care to argue publically about the serious
defects
that caused me to resign from Working Group B, I would be more than happy to
do
so.

If Michael (and Jonathan) could come to realize that free speech trumps
commerce
-- and that democracy is better than autocracy --   both of them would be
far
better candidates.

Vote for Jamie Love --  the Net is a human resource for the benefit of all
people.

>Dennis Schaefer

Kristy wrote:

> 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>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

--
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