Messages marked with were read to the assembled group.

Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) Individual constituency (ICANN Board Update, 11/2/99 8:47:41 AM, #590) When does the Board plan to recognize some form of Individual Domain Name constituency? If there are no plans to do so, why not?

Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) For Cohen, Pisanty (Constituency Reports, 11/2/99 9:40:19 AM, #591) What are your positions on allowing individual stakeholders (domain name holders) representation within ICANN?

Dennis Schaefer (Self) (Constituency Reports, 11/2/99 9:53:50 AM, #592) Do any of the Board Members fear that adoption of UDRP's and evaluation of Famous Marks exclusions are decisions that will be made controversial -- and may have to be revisited -- because of this open question of individual representation? Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA

Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) WG-B (Working Group Reviews, 11/2/99 10:00:41 AM, #593) How will WG-B reconcile its decisions on the definitions of famous marks and the implementation of the protection of same with US and international law? Additionally, would you please break down the vote results for famous mark protection by constituency participation?

Wendy Seltzer (Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel) For wg-b: Fair Use (Working Group Reviews, 11/2/99 10:07:29 AM, #594) How much of your discussion has focused on the issues surrounding possible fair use of famous marks? If trademark law itself is to be applied to domain names, will its exceptions apply as well? How can we avoid undue burden on would-be fair users?

Dennis Schaefer (Self) (Constituency Reports, 11/2/99 10:13:33 AM, #595) Working Group B excluded remote participation in yesterday's meeting. The group was told beforehand that opportunities for remote participation would be sought. In addition, members like myself expressed concern regarding a possible "trade association bias" in the vote that was mentioned. For the record, I am noting as member of Working Group B that this group needs to focus a little more on openness and transparency. Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA

Mikki Barry (DNRC) fair use (Constituency Reports, 11/2/99 10:32:03 AM, #596) I find it rather interesting that Amadeu would hold up "fair use" as a US only doctrine, while simultaneously embracing the US only doctrine of dilution and the mostly US doctrine of "famous marks."

Erick Iriarte (Derecho.Org) Group B (Working Group Reviews, 11/2/99 10:37:56 AM, #597) Habra problema de escribirlo en español? Anyway, i try to participate in group b, with a group of latin-american lawyer's. The problem is i make the step's in the web page to suscribe and participate with this group, but don't recive any answer of anything. I think is imposible to understand that the group only see the common-law point of the problematic, and don't have persons of latin-america with different point-of-view (is a roman-law).?? When can participate this group?? Erick Iriarte Derecho.Org

Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) Autonomy of the GA (NC/GA Relationship, 11/2/99 11:12:28 AM, #598) To what extent should the GA be autonomous from the Names Council? If the GA is to be controlled by the NC, then what is the purpose of the GA? Without any autonomy, the GA is nothing but a discussion list.

Patrick Greenwell Election of GA chair by NC (DNSO Management/Administration, 11/2/99 11:17:27 AM, #600) I am very concerned that the Names Council is putting itself in the position of electing the Chair of the General Assembly. Consituencies are supposed to be self forming, and seats should be held by those elected from within the constiuency, not from without.

Mikki Barry (DNRC) (DNSO Management/Administration, 11/2/99 11:19:33 AM, #601) To me, it's far more of an issues of disenfranchising individuals and other non business entities in the DNSO in general. We are not allowed to vote for our own representatives, nor are we allowed to vote for directors from the GA. This, to me, is a significant problem. Individuals should either have a constituency, or the directors should be elected directly from the GA.

Mikki Barry (DNRC) (NC/GA Relationship, 11/2/99 11:25:02 AM, #602) Why should the NC elect the GA chair? This makes no sense whatsoever. I agree completely with Karl on this point.

Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) GA involvement (NC/GA Relationship, 11/2/99 11:26:45 AM, #603) Why is the GA characterized as not having thought through the issues, or as incapable of making substantive decisions for itself? The GA is not comprised of children who need their hands held; we are capable of acting in our own best interests. The current attitude towards the GA reflects fear of that ability, and not arecognition of it.

Patrick Greenwell (NC/GA Relationship, 11/2/99 11:38:20 AM, #604) That the Bylaws state that the GA chair are to be elected by the NC is not the issue. The issue is that the Bylaws are in violation of the concept of self-organizing constituencies and should be altered accordingly.

Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) expression of the GA (NC/GA Relationship, 11/2/99 11:38:35 AM, #605) The GA mailing list is the SOLE expression of the GA. This was strenuously argued for by the NC in San Jose. Why is the GA being redefined at every turn, at the whim of the NC?

Mikki Barry (DNRC) bringing individuals into constituencies (NC/GA Relationship, 11/2/99 11:45:40 AM, #606) There are very few constituencies where individuals will be welcomed, and even fewer that give individuals full voting privileges. The dilution of individuals into a constituency structure that is already 6 to 1 business interests is not the way to achieve balance.

Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Holder) Second Karl's motion (NC/GA Relationship, 11/2/99 11:56:04 AM, #608) I second Karl's motion.

Dennis Schaefer (Self) (NC/GA Relationship, 11/2/99 11:56:05 AM, #609) I second the motion of Karl Auerbach. Dennis Schaefer

Mikki Barry (DNRC) Karl Auerbach's motion (NC/GA Relationship, 11/2/99 11:57:35 AM, #610) Karl's motion is an excellent idea. It would assist in the perception that the GA is a useless body. Please take it seriously.

Erick Iriarte (Derecho.Org) (NC/GA Relationship, 11/2/99 11:59:38 AM, #611) Habra problema de escribirlo en español? how you make a really representative organization around the internet when some minories (linguistic, cultural, economic, etc.)don't participate? If we don't make a good system of participation (like the chat and videoconference for this meeting), we dont' go to anywhere. Erick Iriarte Derecho.Org

Dennis Schaefer (Self) (Working Group Reviews, 11/2/99 12:10:31 PM, #612) Common perception is that Names Council members must chair Working Groups -- hence requiring an element of NC approval. This is a topic in Working Group B right now. What is the correct answer? Dennis Schaefer

Joop Teernstra (idno) (DNSO Management/Administration, 11/2/99 12:21:25 PM, #614) Disenfranchisement. Dave Crocker mentioned that the acceptability of the NC hinges on its representativity. The selection of the 7 constituencies lies at the root of the dissatisfaction. A step towards a solution: Karl Auerbach's's motion. 1.GA forms workgroups 2.WG 's report to GA 3.WG Reports approved by GA I support this motion. In order to make this work in practice, the GA needs an on-line voting mechanism.