Messages marked with have been read to the assembled group.

Mikki Barry (DNRC) Various subjects (Open Public Comment Period, 11/3/99 4:53:50 PM, #676) First, the UDRP. It was mentioned that if a consensus is brought to ICANN to make changes in the UDRP, it would be implemented. My question is, how shall we show this consensus? What form would this consensus take? The posted comments show that there is significant dissent. What more is necessary? Given that large trademark holder are putting their efforts behind US laws, should we even be pushing this still? Second, what do individuals have to do in order to have their own constituency with identical weight, powers, and benefits to the other 7 constituencies? Please be specific. Third, the funding issues are significantly of note given that the Intellectual Property Constituency is going to "charge" the one public interest non profit, DNRC, the same as large monied groups such as INTA. This type of disproportionate fees seem to be filtering through the entire process. I am worried that it will close us out.

Michael Froomkin (U.Miami School of Law / ICANNWatch.org) Privacy (Public Comment on Registrar-related Agreements, 11/3/99 4:49:12 PM, #675) Do the current agreements in any way prevent ICANN (if it so chose) from creating a privacy enhanced gTLD, for example a ".private" in which the registrant's contact details (whether or not disclosed to the registrar) are NOT published in Whois -- like unlisted telephone numbers provided by telcos? If there is anything in this package of agreements that would prevent ICANN from pursuing this course of action if it so chose, in either an "open" or a "closed" gTLD, then there is a very serious problem with the agreements that needs to be rectified.

Dennis Schaefer (Self) Influencing Legislation (Report on Proposed ICANN/NSI/DOC Agreements, 11/3/99 4:28:42 PM, #674) Foundation grants, such as Merkle's, usually require the grantee to hold a tax exemption and refrain from influencing legislation. As a condition of the Merkle grant, will ICANN board members and officers (including the NC) refrain from testifying to Congress regarding pending or possible legislation? Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA

Joe Chizmarik (The Knowledge Sculptors' Cyber On! America!) NSI Agreement (Public Comment on Registrar-related Agreements, 11/3/99 4:21:44 PM, #673) With the adamant opposition of some registrars to this agreement, the board should at least specify a procedure and timetable to resolve the stated 7 points before signing the agreement; failing this, the board should reject the agreement at this time and continue its work toward consensus.

Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) UDRP (Public Comment on Registrar-related Agreements, 11/3/99 4:20:59 PM, #672) Why was the initial drafting and subsequent revision of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy a closed, invitation-only process top-heavy with business and trademark/intellectual property interests?

Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) For the ICANN Board (Open Public Comment Period, 11/3/99 4:19:00 PM, #671) When is the ICANN Board going to address the growing need for a new Constituency within DNSO for individual domain name holders? When is the ICANN Board going to adhere to its own by-laws in these and other matters?

Dennis Schaefer (Self) Questions from Audience (Report on Proposed ICANN/NSI/DOC Agreements, 11/3/99 3:39:40 PM, #669) With no disrespect to the panel ... many questions from the audience have not received a clear or direct reply today. This seems to be why attendees ask follow-up questions. Remote participants,not getting follow-ups, often don't get answers. Can something be done about this? Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA

Srikanth Narra (Individual Domain Name Owner) Online Individual participation (Open Public Comment Period, 11/3/99 3:36:58 PM, #668) It will be refreshing if someone would respond to online individuals comments with something more than a. we share ur concern b. what do u suggest we do about that (addressing the room) and drift away to next question.. c. they did have input and participated d. we discussed this in past and there seems to be concensus..drift away from it to next question... At most answer at a tangent to the core of the question or step over most questions by totally ignoring them. Pls understand unlike present-in-person participants - online participants do not have ability to continue conversation or redirect the replier's attention to the point of question.

Michael Sernocky (Key Corporate Domains) Registrar Oversight (Public Comment Period 2, 11/3/99 3:35:48 PM, #667) Is it your plan to put in place mechanisms to investigate and punish "abuses" by Registrars i.e. that enable and facilitate "special interest" third parties to "hijack" a Domain from the original registrant without giving that registrant due process ??? For example, Whom (what body)is going to investigate the current allegation that Network Solutions ( on behalf of America Online ) confiscated AOLsearch.com (Africans Online Search)from its original registrant without showing good cause or giving Due Process to that registrant???

Wendy Seltzer (Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel) Transparency of SRS APIs? (Report on Proposed ICANN/NSI/DOC Agreements, 11/3/99 3:19:07 PM, #666) With all the concern shown for the transparency of ICANN processes, I wonder whether the non-transparency of access to the registry has been addressed. Every registrar must still sign a confidentiality agreement with NSI restricting its ability to use and discuss the shared registration system, and this closure restricts competition by registrars. It limits the public oversight of name registration, and also inhibits the opening of registration software to a broader development process. Has there been any movement toward opening the interface to the Shared Registration System?

Srikanth Narra (Individual Domain Name Owner) question about responsibilty (Report on Proposed ICANN/NSI/DOC Agreements, 11/3/99 3:12:29 PM, #665) Who is/will be responsible if a individual loose their domain name due to incorrect contact details and its not the fault of individual but due to techinical failing of the register ?

Srikanth Narra whois update problems (Report on Proposed ICANN/NSI/DOC Agreements, 11/3/99 3:02:34 PM, #664) Here seems to be problem with updating domain details with NSI - including contact details. The customer help line is not a 800 number and near impossible to get thru. What about individuals who can now be ripped off their domain names because their contact details are not current, under this UDRP which some many of our board member think is a perfect policy ? Do any of the board members own domain names or had experience with being on the other side of dispute resolution policy before ?

Srikanth Narra (Individual Domain Name Owner) Merkle grant (Open Public Comment Period, 11/3/99 2:48:53 PM, #663) Did Merkle consult with anyone at ICANN regarding ICANN's preferences/opinions for the other grant awardees mentioned in today's Times? (Carter Center/Ralph Naders organization) If someone from Merkle is not around to answer. Would Ms.Esther or board clarify if their opinion was sort or given on this matter ?..ie..in other words - did anyone on board have a role in possibly influencing, in some manner, the distribution of Merkle funds. In which case the 'whole money for promoting democracy' will end up doing nothing more than giving ICANN some more time to facilitate business to colonize the Net, while they point to Ralph Nader and Jimmy Carter as "looking into our membership activities". (Due apologies to Ralph Nader folks - you are one of our last straws we (unrepresented individuals) are grabbing at and we do not wish to see you possibly tainted with this money)

Ward Goodwin (EmpireOne, Inc.) Database Ownership (Public Comment on Registrar-related Agreements, 11/3/99 2:39:03 PM, #662) Is there going to be a firm determination of who OWNS the com/net/org database? Ward Goodwin Albany, NY

Dennis Schaefer (Self) NSI DRP (Report on Proposed ICANN/NSI/DOC Agreements, 11/3/99 2:30:00 PM, #661) The NSI dispute policy is a nightmare in terms of due process, notice, and accountability .... not to mention a serious misapplication of trademark law. By requiring NSI to implement its current dispute policy as part of this agreement, is ICANN concerned that it may incur liability for the "sins" of NSI? Is NTIA worried that it is stepping into Trademark Law by permitting ICANN to take this step? Dennis Schaefer Marblehead, MA USA

Ward Goodwin (EmpireOne, Inc.) ICANN Oversight (Open Public Comment Period, 11/3/99 2:23:37 PM, #660) I am a proponent of checks and balances for any organization that may control as much as ICANN. In that vein who has the authority to check the ICANN board? In other words, who/what can fire one or more ICANN directors?

Dennis Schaefer (Self) Funding of ICANN (Public Comment Period 2, 11/3/99 12:47:33 PM, #659) If ICANN approves an exclusion mechanism for Famous Marks, this will have the effect of granting trademark holders rights to domain names, without the holder's having to pay a registration fee. Shouldn't this be considered a cost center in ICANN's annual budget, since it represents revenue that will never be earned by registries? Shouldn't it also be tracked closely? Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA

Srikanth Narra Funding - Merkle (Public Comment Period 2, 11/3/99 12:33:33 PM, #658) What assurances does the board have to offer that it will use the merkle grant or any other such funds in the sprit it is intended? Given its track record - I would predict that ICANN will most likely twist and present the Merkle Grants to ICANN as well as Jimmy Carter, Ralph Nader to increase democracy as some kind of extended lease of life/credibility while it carries on its usual big business colonization at the cost of Individuals and other unrepresented interests - while Ralph and others will temporarly shutup as - they are supposed to work with ICANN to resolve the problem. 1. Can we hear some clear items (not white wash - like will deal with it later, etc) as how and what board will do to refute this scenario will not materialize. 2. From funding/finance stand point how does it work ? Is there some kind of mechanism to use the funds received for certain purposes only or all the funds received go into one pool and used as the expenses need to be paid. Sri

Erick Iriarte (Derecho.Org) Plutocracy (Public Comment Period 2, 11/3/99 12:30:48 PM, #657) Is possible that future of ICANN is make a plutocracy? Because it seems we walk to this way. And this is not a good way. Erick Iriarte Derecho.Org

Ward Goodwin (EmpireOne, Inc.) Funding (Public Comment Period 2, 11/3/99 12:02:55 PM, #656) What checks and/or balances are there on the board to not increase spending and the need to aquire funds to pay for that spending?

Erick Iriarte (Derecho.Org) UDRP (Open Public Comment Period, 11/3/99 11:41:06 AM, #655) and another question: somebody use the principles of UDRP (o something similar) to resolve some case (in the court or arbitration) and win? and one thing more, this is only for arbitration (that have international rules), but if you want to use in a national case, perpharps you have problems.. with the difference between common-law and roman-law! Erick Iriarte Derecho.Org

Mikki Barry (DNRC) consensus ( Public Comment Period 1, 11/3/99 11:40:46 AM, #654) How can we possibly show ICANN consensus to change the UDRP when ICANN refuses to tell us how THEY have reached the consensus that they claim?

Srikanth Narra (Individual domain name owner) Individual Input (Welcoming Remarks, 11/3/99 11:34:46 AM, #651) We keep hearing that individual domain name owners input has been heard and all blah blah from board. Can we hear some clear items where this input has had effect - so far ? Sri

Mikki Barry (DNRC) tarnishment (Committee and Project Reports, 11/3/99 11:05:50 AM, #648) I beg to differ with Esther's interpretation. The plain language of the UDRP says that you can use tarnishment as an example of bad faith. The UDRP should NOT extend this far. The free speech aspects must override trademark law, as it does in every other medium on the planet.

Mark Babiarz ( Public Comment Period 1, 11/3/99 11:02:19 AM, #647) Thank you for answering my questions. Yesterday a gentleman said corporations wouldn't use this UDRP under it's existing form. Are you considering these comments? Also, if corporations aren't going to use it and ICANN will have to change the UDRP to go against the laws of many countries, why not just let the court systems decide these issues? I feel under the UDRP, this policy will cause frivulous harrassment from corporations! How will the UDRP deal with these issues? Thank you. Mark Babiarz

Bill Baron (Committee and Project Reports, 11/3/99 10:49:52 AM, #646) Question for Mr. Touton: What does he think the Internet community expects from the Uniform Dispute Resolution process regarding: 1) Time for complete resolution 2) Cost of the process

Mikki Barry (DNRC) UDRP (Committee and Project Reports, 11/3/99 10:48:34 AM, #644) I'm sorry, but there was no consensus for this UDRP that was reported to anyone, even though we asked multiple times. Many of us took significant amounts of time to provide comments. Hardly any of these comments were incorporated. Ellen is exactly right. The board is not elected. The new members of the board were elected from a constituency group made up of 6 to 1 business interests. Individuals were not represented at all. There was NO NEED for the UDRP to be rushed through while other important issues such as new gTLDs (which would have helped the "cybersquatting" problem) have been put on the back burner.

Mark Babiarz ( Public Comment Period 1, 11/3/99 10:47:04 AM, #643) Thank you for answering my questions. Yesterday a gentleman said corporations wouldn't use this UDRP under it's existing form. Are you considering these comments? Under the UDRP, this policy will cause frivulous harrassment from corporations! How will the UDRP deal with these issues? Also, if corporations aren't going to use it and ICANN will have to change the UDRP to go against the laws of many countries, why not just let the court systems decide these issues? Thank you. Mark Babiarz

Mikki Barry (DNRC) UDRP (Committee and Project Reports, 11/3/99 10:41:33 AM, #642) The UDRP was not consistant with the Santiago resolutions because there was no provision for any type of reverse domain hijacking preventions. Further, is there any truth to the statement that Louis Touton added the the language of "tarnishment" to the draft after the small drafting committee had already provided a draft? The concept of "tarnishment" negates free speech (such as IHateMicrosoft.com). The current draft could easily be read to include non commercial websites that are solely providing opinions. This concept goes far beyond any current laws, and must be stricken from the UDRP.

Mikki Barry (DNRC) WIPO (Committee and Project Reports, 11/3/99 10:32:36 AM, #641) I am curious as to why WIPO was allowed to participate with the GAC when organizations who represent a more balanced view of intellectual property rights were not accorded the same invitation.

Dennis Schaefer (Self) Let The Public In (Open Public Comment Period, 11/3/99 9:12:26 AM, #640) ICANN is suffering from an acute "democracy-gap". The Merkle Grants to multiple public interest organizations --while good -- emphasize this point. The SBA criticism of ICANN last week merely reinforced the same criticisms you are hearing from within, from members like myself. Wouldn't it be better, in the face of this clear public statement, to refrain from policy making such as the UDRP, and Famous Marks exclusions -- which will be tantamount to law -- until ICANN has received a clean bill of democratic health from various groups and interests? Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA

Robert Stoddard (Internet Communications) new gTLDs ( Public Comment Period 1, 11/3/99 8:39:39 AM, #638) Since the answers to: gTLDs--how many, how soon and how to? seem to become more and more complicated, I invite DNSO WG-C to review the Non-Categorized system SIMPLIFIEDDOMAINS. It coexists with existing DNS, is currently operational, is non-categorized and protects famous names. What more could you want??