Messages marked with have been read to the assembled group.

Robert Connelly (PSI-Japan, Inc.) Time for elections. (Open Forum, 3/9/00 6:17:38 PM, #781) Let's have a minimum of 7 days for elections. Considering the fact that the designated voting member of any member firm/association/organization may be unavailable for 14 or more days, let's make sur there is enough time for the democratic process to take place. Regards, BobC

Bill Bickford (ccTLD and Administration Policies, 3/9/00 6:12:36 PM, #780) Good afternoon, We represent small business website owners, and they are very concerned about the introduction of new TLD's. They have invested enormous $ amounts into the marketing of their web site name. What can you do to protect their large investment in the domain name? Can they have first access to register their name in the new TLD's? Thank you for considering this very important matter. Bill

Stephen Deerhake (GDNS, Inc.) Clarification of quote from Michael Roberts (ccTLD and Administration Policies, 3/9/00 5:42:45 PM, #779) Question for Michael Roberts: In the Wall Street Journal electronic edition of 6.03.2000, you are quoted as describing ccTLD operators as "domain-name profiteers." Is this accurate? If so, is it your personal opinion or is it a reflection of ICANN Board and/or executive leadership opinion? If it is not accurate, will you commit to taking the neccessary steps to correct the record? [If MR isn't available for an answer, I would appreciate a response from Ms. Dyson]

gernot schabkar (Schabkar) (ccTLD and Administration Policies, 3/9/00 5:34:06 PM, #778) .shop domains wouldbe VERYGOOD do give a boost to ecommerce

Robert Connelly (PSI-Japan, Inc.) Japanese list of "Famous" & "Well-Known" Trademaks (Study Session, 3/9/00 4:38:18 PM, #777) Correction: I have "lived" with, not "loved" with piracy of trademarks in Japan in the past. I am pleased to say that the Japanese system now has provisions in place to mitigate against local filings of foreign marks by unrelated parties. BobC, 28.5 year resident of Japan.

Robert Connelly (PSI-Japan, Inc.) Japanese list of "Famous" & "Well-Known" Trademaks (Study Session, 3/9/00 4:23:57 PM, #776) In response to the speaker from Japan, it would be well to read the full text of "Famous and Well Known" Trademards. The whole concenpt is whether a Well Known Trademark foreign Trademark can be applied aginst an unregistered "similar" product in another jurisdiction. A Famouse foreign mark can be applied against a dissimilar product. I suggest the speaker confer with Professor Doi, author of the Japanese section of the aforementioned text. Regards, BobC, who has loved with Japanese trademark piracy in Japan until relatively recent years. BTW, I wish I had a spell program for this epistle;-{

Hakon Haugnes (NamePlanet) (Study Session, 3/9/00 4:15:30 PM, #775) My view is probably simplistic and pragmatic, but represents the common Internet users, who are the ones we serve. .Today there are some gTLDs in which Trademarks have strong interests. .Many internet users do not find an appropriate domain name Compromise: -Introduce a trademark, chartered domain. Let's call it com2. It will mirror pretty well the .com today since all trademarks will run to register here. -Let registrars decide which TLDs they want. Select a list of the 50 most wanted TLDs. -All registrars must accept registrations on all TLDs, and all must contribute to the registry, i.e. 1 USD pr domain. - There will be one organisation monitoring the registrars, which provide price information about the registrars' pricing. (Like Xoom and similars do on consumer products today) - Since there is so many TLDs, there is no incentive for trademarks to register on all, or for cybersquatters. - New TLDs can be introduced upon demand from registrars.

Kent Crispin (Songbird) New gTLDs (Study Session, 3/9/00 4:08:10 PM, #774) I also would like to strongly endorse Ken Stubbs point, which was also supported (obliquely) by Marilyn Cade. We should at least add *one* new gTLD. The problems the TM people mention are real, and must be addressed. But we cannot address those problems in an information vacuum.

Kent Crispin (Songbird) (Study Session, 3/9/00 4:01:42 PM, #773) Ms Kornfeld is incorrect -- the NCDNHC did not strongly endorse the position of a large rollout That was proposed, there was some discussion and some dissent.

Famous Names List (Open Forum, 3/9/00 3:43:01 PM, #772) I have a question... if my mark is not famous now, and doesnt get into the list (ebay wasnt famous 5 yrs ago), then later, it becomes famous and gets into the list... do i get the priority date of my registration so that all names close to mine will be removed during the time???? Vice versa... if a company drops out of the list who gets to register similar names first?? the ones who tried earlier??

Dennis Schaefer (Self) (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/00 3:25:16 PM, #771) Working Group B's operation was flawed by poor methods that prevented individual participation. Can the Board address any efforts it has taken to ensure that Working Groups do not themselves get captured?

Dennis Schaefer (Self) (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/00 3:25:10 PM, #770) Working Group B's operation was flawed by poor methods that prevented individual participation. Can the Board address any efforts it has taken to ensure that Working Groups do not themselves get captured?

Joe Baptista (PCCF) .eu (Reports, 3/9/00 2:49:53 PM, #769) What is happening with the .eu top level domain requested by the Eropean Union?

Angelo Gonzalez (Self (from Galicia, Spain) ) (Reports, 3/9/00 2:36:15 PM, #768) This Angelo Gonzalez again. I want to correct a mistake in my message this morning. I was mostly concerned about methods to spread the word about ICANN and the creation of the At Large membership. and did not realize that I wrote the word "directors" where I should have written "council members". I do favor the idea of the two-stage approach for the election of At Large Directors. So, what I meant was "direct election of Council Members".

Michael Sernocky (KeyCorporateDomains.com) (Study Session, 3/9/00 2:33:15 PM, #767) Wouldn't the benefit of such seizure of porno sites by "eminent domain" action be that ISP's and parents could much more easily block offensive materials from children and help increase the credibility of your body ???

Angelo Gonzalez (Self (from Galicia, Spain) ) (Reports, 3/9/00 2:17:41 PM, #766) This Angelo Gonzalez again. I want to correct a mistake in my message this morning. I was mostly concerned about methods to spread the word about ICANN and the creation of the At Large membership. and did not realize that I wrote the word "directors" where I should have written "council members". I do favor the idea of the two-stage approach for the election of At Large Directors. So, what I meant was "direct election of Council Members".

Michael Sernocky (KeyCorporateDomains.com) .XXX and .SEX TLD's (Study Session, 3/9/00 2:14:42 PM, #765) I propose that an effective solution to deal with the scurge of pornography that is epidemic in and a black eye to the .COM and other TLD's would be to create new TLD's of .XXX and .SEX ! Then , the internet governance could assert its right and power of "eminent domain" to "condemn" and seize pornographic sites in the .COM and other tld's because they are in the "right of way" of progress for all. The fair compensation for the seizure would be the pornographer would be "entitled" to the same domain name they had in the .COM space in the new .xxx or .sex TLD's.

Domingo Barón (IDNO) Policy directions. (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/00 1:21:06 PM, #763) Whether the Board administering the affairs of ICANN is elected directly by the At Large Membership or by some yet-to-be-defined intermediate structure, the essential policy directions to be followed by the Board must, in my view, be determined by the At Large Membership. The directly or indirectly elected Board may propose new policy directions, but these must be ultimately subject to the veto of the At Large Membership.

Alex Kreit (Students for Sensible Drug Policy) Government Regulation of Speech Online (Open Forum, 3/9/00 12:39:44 PM, #761) What does the ICANN Board think of Government regulation of speech online? There is currently a bill being spronsored by Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Orin Hatch (R-UT), (S.1428) Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, that among other things would make it a felony to link to Web sites with information about where to buy "drug paraphernalia" such as roach clips, bowls, and bongs. Do you think a measure like this could ever really work and, if asked to, would you support its implimentation? Or do you think it is impossible for individual nations to regulate speech in an international community?

Angelo Gonzalez (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/00 12:37:20 PM, #760) This is Angelo Gonzalez from Galicia, Spain, I have heard Vanny Martinez I do agreed with what she said. As a member (myself) of the MITF, I believe that the election of At large directors should be direct (I mean by a global At Large membership). Of course in order to crate/reach that membership there is the need to present the relevant info in their own languages to those potential members. I have been doing that here in Spain. I am now in the process of translating the web membership form and then it is my plan to place this form in several sites in the Peninsula's web sites, together with the apropriate info.

Thomas Lowenhaupt (The Communisphere Project) The "deliberative nominating committee" (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/00 12:31:23 PM, #759) The Common Cause / Center for Democracy and Technology report offers many excellent suggestions. However, the call for an ICANN appointed "deliberative nominating committee" is a significant flaw, as it empowers the current board to anoint an "official recommended slate" to the At Large membership. I've palced more extensive comments on this issue and suggestions on the nominating process on the ICANN At Large comment area. Take a look. Tom Lowenhaupt

Aaron Marcus (National HJ Society) Elections (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/00 12:15:23 PM, #758) The ICANN contract, if we remember correctly, expires this September. What would be the harm in holding special elections for a six month term to allow for time to increase the constituency base. Then a more inclusive election could be held when the contract is renewed and the full two year term could be implimented.

Keith Davidson Delays in election of at large directors (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/00 12:13:18 PM, #757) How is it that some people think that the 6000 + at large members would make any worse a choice of directors than the existing appointments?

Michael Sernocky (KeyCorporateDomains.com) ICANN UDRP (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/00 11:59:25 AM, #756) How can I or anybody register for candidacy to become a board member of ICANN, and what are the prerequisites to qualify ?

Joop Teernstra (idno) (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/00 11:44:09 AM, #755) In how far will the new at-large directors have input in actual policy making? Is there a good reason to fear the direct choice of the at-large electorate?

Marc Holitscher (Unit for Internet Studies) ICANN-Study (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/00 11:29:37 AM, #754) Why have not more people from outside the United States been consulted on the at-large membership by the authors of the report?

Thomas Lowenhaupt (The Communisphere Project) Membership Implementation Task Force (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/00 11:22:04 AM, #753) I lost the feed for the beginning of the session, so this may have been answered, if not - I presume a Membership Implemetation Task Force was created as per the ICANN board directive 99.144: Who is on the Task Force? They've apparently already recruited 5,000+ members. What steps did they (will they) take to "outreach and recruit...a broad and numerous membership that is globally representative of the Internet user community..."? Thomas Lowenhaupt

Ariel Benjamin (Hampshire College) Represented? (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/00 10:39:25 AM, #751) To an overwhelming majority of users of the internet, ICANN is transparent in their operations (in other words most users have no idea who or what ICANN is). It is clear that ICANN-created-policy effects virtually all internet users. This seems to be governance, despite its lack of publicity. How do you rectify the fact that internet users have nearly no voice in this process?

Erin Pettigrew (Hampshire College) Independent Panel Membership (Independent Review, 3/9/00 10:37:07 AM, #750) Firstly, I feel that my first comment was disregarded and should be addressed in depth. Funding is intrinsicly linked the goals and ethics of an organization. Regardless, I would like to address the issues of the Independent Review Panel. Again, I am concerned about representation in ICANN. I am very much in support of the Independent Review Panel, and yet I was puzzled by the choice to have a panel comprised primarily of those in law. I understand that the function of the panel is to establish those actions and policy as contrary to bylaws, yet I feel that in a regulatory committee, all should be represented. What is your response to this?

Brenden Tamilio (Hampshire College (Amherst, MA, USA)) (At Large Membership and Elections, 3/9/00 10:35:28 AM, #749) With only about 350 people currently attending, and a handful online, how does ICANN plan to get more internet users interested in their proceedings? Granted, most internet users are unaware of The Body, and those that are seem disinterested. Can a body whose purpose is to (in some ways) represent and legislate for a constituency have any authority if the constituency is apathetic?

Erin Pettigrew (Hampshire College) Corporate "Sponsorship"? (ICANN Budget 2000-2001, 3/9/00 10:12:29 AM, #748) I am concerned that there will be unfair representaion of commercial interests due to the financial situation of ICANN. How does "sponsorship" translate to real political affects on the policy of ICANN? I see Microsoft logos plastered all over the conference room. If ICANN represents the interests of all internet users, including those non-commercial, how does finacial "vested interest" figure into this? As Jane-schmo internet user, how am I assured representation when I am not making large "donations" to the organization?

Joop Teernstra (idno) Timeline (Independent Review, 3/9/00 9:59:48 AM, #747) Could the ICANN Board please commit itself to an early deadline for implementing the Independent Review Panel? It should be possible that by July, 2000, in time for the Yokohama meeting, the nominations committee is in place. As soon as the A/L council is formed, its delegates could be added to the Nomination committee. There is no need to wait for the formation of the at-large council, as there are still too many uncertainties surrounding that body. The longer the opportunity for Review (I hesitate to call it independent) is denied to petitioners, the more the bitterness against arbitrary Board decisions will grow. (this comment was submitted to the ICANN website in advance of the meeting)