<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Net-block issues
That sounds like a well though out plan.
Could you please tell me who exactly you mean by "Fellow Followers"?
Please name names.
Also, how many persons support your plan?
Again, please name names.
Finally, I believe the GA is open:
>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.
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
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|