RE: [ga] Net-block issues

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

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


--
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