Anyone know the deadline, if there is one, for *activating* membership for
the upcoming election? I know it's not today. The activation page is
overloaded as well.
-- Bret
>> To the extent that the late registrations are coming predominately from
>> China (as I have seen reported) or non-English speaking and/or emerging
>> nations -- where information about ICANN may have been slow to reach
>> potential members -- these "random rejections" have a disproportionate
>>
Esther Dyson wrote:
> .We are not turning away particular groups
> of people; our system is simply rejecting attempts randomly.
> This is more like a traffic jam with too-small roads, not
> any kind of selection process or discrimination.
BUT:
To the extent that the late registratio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Some people have been writing and asking why i'm posting as Elisabeth.
> It's simple - my stuff is being censored by elizabeth.
For what it's worth Mr. Baptista, about two weeks ago, I made a formal
complaint to the DNSO Secretariat about your posts, which made complete
> But the question in my mind remains: What do you do when there are too many
> acceptable, on-topic, concise remote comments? How to choose?
One possibility is to time-shift part of the discussion. Take live the
seven or eight comments on a topic that real time will allow (2/3
selected by moder
Esther Dyson wrote:
>Second, I am more concerned that the voices and interests of individuals be
>*represented* in the work of the DNSO, than with precisely how that happens.
Another avenue for individual domain name holders to let their interests
be known would have been through participation
FYI -- A copy of my comments to the ICANN proposed bylaw changes.
-- Bret
= - - - - - - - - - - F O R W A R D - - - - - - - - - - =
Suggestions and comments follow each of the quoted revisions...
>RESOLVED, that Section 2(a) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws of the
>Corporation is hereby rep
>(As an IP attorney, I have severe doubts that anything that has such a
>functional role as a gTLD would be subject to trademark protection, in the
same way
>that there is no copyright protection for functional components. But wadda
>I know?)
Might it depend on the business model? If you're o
> The Internet community is invited to make comments on the proposed
> Amendments. Comments should be emailed to
> http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-dnso/maillist.html.
>
> The following proposed Amendments to the ICANN Bylaws are intended to
> implement an evident consensus among pa
Jon Zittrain wrote:
> The "quiet" stakeholders include the ones having a tough time
> organizing right now: individuals, non-commercial players, etc.
^^
Substitute "receiving recognition"...
-- Bret
Jon Zittrain wrote:
>This is one reason why the constituencies seem so unwieldy to me, and the
>arbitrariness of their definition is clear: commercial trademark interests
>get votes both through the tm and commercial constituencies; include
>individuals within non-commercial and they get one se
> Isn't there a famous case in England that shot
> down people who were camping on domain names with the intent to
Martin,
Part of the threat, as I see it, is how the text of the Abraham bill
would be used in practice. Jail time and $100,000 damage awards are scary
things.
The liability components of the bill speak in terms of intent, always a
tricky thing to define, and something that usually requires a
I note that the minutes from the May 27th Board Meeting have not yet been
posted to the ICANN web site? Any ETA?
http://www.icann.org/minutes/notes-minutes.html
-- Bret
I'm confused.
I just re-read the ICANN Press Communiqué from Berlin.
In the press release (written by the PR firm, not ICANN) is this sentence:
The Initial Board noted that a uniform dispute settlement
mechanism was a necessary element of a competitive
registrar system. The Initial Boa
>Also, they are soliciting comments by July 4 on whether the WIPO proposals
>should be 1) broadened to include all commercial disputes...
Please explain.
ICANN is empowered to "set policy for and direct the allocation of IP
number blocks, oversee the operation of the Internet root server syste
Jeri Clausing wrote:
>my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another
>argument for open meetings? : )
Bingo.
-- Bret
ICANN's press release read:
>The constituencies, which will elect the
>Names Council to act as the governing body of the Domain Name Supporting
>Organisation (DNSO), are the core of the DNSO.
For the record, I think a better way of understanding the DNSO is to
place the General Assembly at its "
Ben and Wendy --
Thank you for your efforts to make remote participation
possible. I was very impressed with the camera work, the
real time scribe and the remote comments page. I really had
a sense that I was seeing what was going on in the room.
Aside from several "net congestion rebuffering"
Thanks for the overview, Ben, and for all of your work and Berkman's to
make remote participation possible. I know of at least 6 people who are
planning on staying up the night to be online with your group. I hope
it's a success.
-- Bret
Ben Edelman wrote:
>I'd consider online particip
Ellen Rony wrote:
>Substantial remote participation will move ICANN towards greater online
>involvement, and away from funneling input through a quarterly World Tour
>that only works for those with deep pockets.
Very good thoughts, Ellen.
I would challenge the Interim Board to make the meeting a
It appears that my concern that ICANN might take action on WIPO in Berlin
was misfounded. It's Bylaws appear to preclude such an action:
The Board shall refer proposals for substantive policies
not received from a Supporting Organization to the Supporting
Organization, if any, with primary res
Marsh, Miles (Gene) wrote:
>The danger is in the "if any" clause. ICANN could misconstrue this as
>an open door to take action due to the current lack of a formal SO.
My understanding is that the DNSO already exists. Bylaw VI (3)(a) reads:
Provision for specific supporting organizations shall
John B. Reynolds wrote:
>What part of "individual" don't you understand? ISOC's individual members
>vastly outnumber its commercial ones.
And not a single one of them will be allowed to participate directly in
the ISOC version of the non-commercial domain name holder constituency.
A rather bi
Esther Dyson wrote:
>Thanks for your comments. AS noted, we have not yet decided what we will
>do. It indeed depends on public comments, among other things. But aside from
>our process, do you have any comments on the substance of the WIPO report?
>We would welcome those.
>
>Esther
Yes, ICANN h
The latest agenda items for the Berlin ICANN meeting
(http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-details.html) suggest that "[t]he
ICANN Board of Directors will meet to discuss and vote on any pending
resolutions with regard to...WIPO Final Report, including annexes." ICANN
has invited public comment
ICANN's "Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts"
Statement contains a provision which reads: "Individual domain name
holders should be able to participate in constituencies for which they
qualify."
Depending on the decisions ICANN makes in approving competing
constituency appl
Ed -- I think you may have misspoken in your reply to Joop. Joop is
helping to organize an "Individual Domain Name Owners" constituency.
Personally, I know very little about that effort. In your response,
however, you mention the "dnso-ip" effort, which is different from what
Joop is working o
http://www.theonion.com/onion3514/unfit_to_govern.html
The article above, entitled "American People Ruled Unfit to Govern," is a
comic report of a supposed U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the
people of the United States were ruled too incompetent to represent
themselves and had the right
The discussion of the constituencies is important, but we shouldn't
forget about the General Assembly. It was the feature of the DNSO that
many of us thought most important, and the draft bylaws still give that
body the real "power" in the DNSO.
It is clear that organizational interests are r
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>gTLD registrieS ? There's only one... or does this mean "prospective
>registreis" ?
Constituencies are supposed to self-define, so it means what the group
decides it means. From what I've read on the lists, there is support for
including "prospective registries."
ICAN
Following the recent posts on the ICANN web site:
http://www.icann.org/dnso/constituency_groups.html
The undersigned are pleased to announce the creation of a new mailing
list to discuss the creation of the trademark, intellectual property and
anti-counterfeiting interest group contemplated
Ellen Rony wrote:
>We had a good turnout for a two-hour meeting with Esther Dyson (ED).
Thanks Ellen! A wonderful overview.
-- Bret
Jay Fenello wrote:
>Since ICANN has decided that a person or
>organization can belong to more than one
>constituency, one of the first orders of
>business is to define these constituencies
>in concrete terms. In other words, where
>and how do we draw the lines.
I think we should leave the con
Ronda Hauben wrote:
>This gives the sense that these are delegates of the Internet
>community. They are *not*. The Internet community is being
>disenfranchised by the whole process of the ICANN which is
>in itself an unauthoritized activity of the U.S. government
>acting outside of any legitimat
My recollection about the dissent inquiry is that it was sparked by a
question from the audience and that the only person trying to discount
Professor Froomkin as "only one dissent" was the WIPO presenter.
An important footnote came at the end of the presentation. Someone
incorrectly assumed
Milton Mueller wrote:
>Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>
>> My personal view is that constituencies are defined by the general
>> interest (i.e. the implications of trademarks and other intellectual
>> property on the internet) not by a more narrow political position (i.e.
>>
Karl Auerbach wrote:
>And, of course, being a transparent, accountable entity, we know who on
>the ICANN board voted for and who against. And we have the minutes of the
>debate.
>
>Don't we?
At the press conference after the closed meeting, the Board announced
that all decisions were unanimous
Karl Auerbach wrote:
>For the ying of the constituency of trademark owners there is the yang of
>the constituency of those who desire to use names in those areas in which
>trademarks do not run, i.e. the legitimate areas not covered by a mark.
My personal view is that constituencies are defined
Just a quick message to let you know what's going on in Singapore on the
DNSO front.
A meeting was held on Tuesday, March 2nd among many of the parties active
in the DNSO process to review the two DNSO proposals and look for areas
of consensus. In the morning session, we reviewed many of our a
Not only are issues of substance separating the Paris proposal from the
dnso.org proposal, but the style of the drafts (IMHO) is preventing even
an attempt at merging them. As a recent post from Kent Crispin made
clear, the dnso.org draft is "explicitly high level," while the Paris
proposal pr
My original post asked about whether there was really a need for giving
executive power to the Names Council, even if just to act in an
"emergency" capacity. Kent's re-threaded response ("Timely decision") not
only answered a different question (i.e. the need for timely action on
*all* decisio
There has been much discussion about the need to give the DNSO Names
Council some executive powers to deal with "emergency" or "pressing" DNS
issues that may arise from time to time. The thought is, as I understand
it, that the DNSO may be called upon to provide advice and recommendation
to th
cy.
-- Bret
=========
Bret A. Fausett
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
21 School Street, Third Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Telephone: (617) 227-1600
Facsimile: (617) 227-1608
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.fausett.com
=
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>I'm just tossing this to start things off. It addresses the fundamental
>issue wrt trademarks. It is an insight that I think we can all agree with
>at some level. Much of the disagreements between the two drafts are on
>trademark issues. I feel that it is long past time
Kent Crispin wrote:
>If the RCs can ignore the hearings at will, then the hearings in
>general are useless, and they might as well be stricken from the
>document.
I don't think they can ignore the hearings at will, but they need to be
able to exercise their professional judgment about what is
John B. Reynolds wrote:
> 5.11 Further Review of Changes
>
> Whenever a proposal has been changed as a result of
> the preceding processes, any changes resulting from
> such processes shall be republished on the DNSO
> website and subject to review under the prior
> provisions of this section.
>
r,
then perhaps we can add language giving the committee discretion to open
and close discussions.
-- Bret
Original series of posts:
>On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 10:37:39PM -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>> Einar Stefferud wrote:
>>
>> >Here I am in strong agreement that
Sean Garrett wrote:
>**What would you like to see on ICANN's Web site?
Any document that if produced or received by a US Government agency would
be subject to a Freedom of Information Act request should be publicly
available on the ICANN web site.
-- Bret
(P.S. I realize that this could
Einar Stefferud wrote:
>Here I am in strong agreement that the whole concept of Fair Hearing
>Panels has been subvertted by inavertant editing whcih converts them
>into a mecahisim to be used to stop progress on any Research Committee
>proposal that someone does not like.
I don't think that's a
John B. Reynolds wrote:
>5.11. The "Fair Hearing" provisions of Sections 5.8, 5.10, and 5.11 make it
>possible for any special interest or special interest group to delay almost
>indefinitely any policy that they disagree with.
I don't see this. Especially not the "indefinitely" part. I think
Ellen Rony wrote:
>WITSA Application: http://www.witsa.org/press/domainapp.htm
>
>Paris Draft Proposal (February 4, 1999): http://dnso.association.org/
>
>Which earlier proposals (i.e., the five posted on the page) do these two
>replace. Are there others?
I think it's safe to say that these t
Karl Auerbach wrote:
>(Remember as it stands, SO's still direct ICANN policy, the board has only
>the thinnest of grounds to stop an SO initiative.)
>
>So what you are seeing in that statement about SO's being advisers is
>nothing more than a fig leaf - but it doesn't even begin to cover up the
>f
Milton Mueller wrote:
>Sorry, Brett. No set of constituencies that provides a special place for
>"trademark interests" and does not ALSO include a special, reserved place for
>"free expression/public interest interests" is not acceptable. I don't care
>what political deals you think it is necessa
It's never too late for comments and support. We'll be working all night.
Please let us know your thoughts. This has grown out of the previously
posted drafts and the public commentary, with a draft cover letter that
describes the philosphy. -- Bret
=---
Ellen Rony wrote:
>Does this 1/30/99 draft supercede both the ORSC (V2) and AIP (1/19) drafts?
>Please advise.
This latest draft -- which some are calling the "draft" draft -- was
simply an effort to find common pieces of the earlier submissions and put
them together in a way that seemed coher
One more thought as we continue to talk about this idea of a
constituency-based Names Council, and the addition of constituencies
beyond those in current drafts.
While I see nothing wrong with adding new constituencies, we ought to
make sure that we create constituencies that people active i
A few thoughts on constituences and memberships.
Speaking for myself, I've waffled on the whole constituency thing for a
long time. I first thought they'd be a good idea, then I thought that
they would not, and now I'm really indifferent. I've realized though that
the changes in my thinking h
So it doesn't get lost in the high traffic from the last week, I'd like
to resurrect Jock Gill's post below on the necessity for access to
records. Speaking for myself (and not for the AIP -- though I am
cross-posting to their list for their input), I think it's an excellent
point, and I would
A few comments on Jay's summary, which sounds all the right notes.
Jay Fenello wrote:
>My impression of this process was that there are only
>a few, major philosophical differences that must be
>resolved. One is whether the DNSO will feature a top
>down, or bottom up decision making process.
Jay Fenello wrote:
>P.S. I have asked that the CC be transcribed,
>but this has not yet been confirmed.
I was asked by one of the conference organizers whether I would consent
to the call being recorded and then transcribed or made available on the
internet via RealAudio. Of course, I consent
Ellen Rony wrote:
>The proposal of the Association of Internet Professionals (AIP) has been
>added to the side-by-side comparison of four other DNSO draft proposals.
>
>See: http://www.domainhandbook.com/comp-dnso.html
Thanks Ellen! -- Bret
__
To
Michael Sondow wrote:
>I have looked carefully over the AIP website, but can find no information on
>the membership, organizational structure, or direction of AIP. Can you
>provide this information?
Sure. I believe there is a some information on the main AIP web site
(http://www.association.org)
For those of you who may want a text version,
the Association of Internet Professional's DNSO bylaw draft is below.
The other companion documents are on
the AIP's web site at http://dnso.association.org
-- Bret
===
1.0 INTRODUCTION
These Bylaw
Christopher Ambler wrote:
>The DNSO will come up with recommendations based on the majority,
>and often not even on that. The ICANN will then receive this
>recommendation, along with separate recommendations from each
>and every person or group who feels that the DNSO recommendation
>does not refl
Let me pose a question that has not been considered in this thread and
which I think is important.
Isn't there some protection of the rights of minorities built into the
fact that the DNSO only recommends DN policy to ICANN?
The will of the majority can only make a recommendation. The DNSO
Eric Weisberg wrote:
>This discussion illustrates how arbitrary an attempt to populate a board
>through designation of defined constituencies must be...
Exactly my point.
>Why not apply the KISS principle? Let nature dynamically allocate the
>seats among interests and philosophies by a proporti
Kent Crispin wrote:
>A private attorney who didn't want to spend the money to be, or
>didn't feel they fit, in one of the other constituencies -- eg, a
>trademark attorney that didn't want to be part of the TM
>constituency. Concretely, maybe Bret Fausett.
Actually, I think the "trademark lawy
68 matches
Mail list logo
