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
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 registrations
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
impact
.
-- Bret Fausett
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
tatives. A
Board veto, even at the proposed "super-majority" level, defeats this
purpose. The mere ability to threaten to reject a NC member alters the
balance of power and dilutes a constituency's influence.
-- Bret Fausett
(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
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 set,
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
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
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
Jeri Clausing wrote:
my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another
argument for open meetings? : )
Bingo.
-- Bret
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
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
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
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
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 has
The domain name issues raised by the
WIPO Report are some of the most difficult issues facing ICANN, and they
should be resolved within the SO structure and by the permanent board.
-- Bret Fausett
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
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
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
l Auerbach
Mikki Barry
Bret Fausett
Harold Feld
Jay Fenello
Jeff Graber
Milton Mueller
Peter Rony
David Steele
Dan Steinberg
Peter Dengate Thrush
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."
ICANN
Ellen Rony wrote:
We had a good turnout for a two-hour meeting with Esther Dyson (ED).
Thanks Ellen! A wonderful overview.
-- Bret
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 legitimate
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
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
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.
trademark owners should have first
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
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
=
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
=
e 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 the whole concept of Fair Hearing
Panels has been subvertted by inavertant editing
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.
My
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 it
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
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
fact
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
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
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.
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
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 reflect
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
47 matches
Mail list logo
