have been read to the assembled group.ICANN Yokohama Public Forum Substantive Real-Time Comments
July 15, 2000
Messages marked with have been read to the assembled group.
|
Bob (SuperRoot Consortium) Motion to the ICANN Board (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 6:04:22 PM, #887) Motion is for ICANN to recognize the internet community consensus already gathered by the ORSC, and for ICANN to submit the additional top level domains in the ORSC root zone file to the US Department of Commerce for approval. |
|
sal sarir (ibm) netsol (Open Comment, 7/15/00 6:00:56 PM, #886) Why icann ignoring what netsol are doing with gTLDS ? netsol are holding back all names that bought onhold and all names that expired after two years and suppose to go free . for me,it looks like a monopoly and preventing other registrars sell names but netsol are planning to go and sell these names for a minimum of 35$ ( more then 250% from other registrars ) , please comment . thanks , Sal. |
|
Shay Chinn (Technogeeks) Geographic areas the wrong way (Geography, 7/15/00 5:50:27 PM, #885) I believe that the geographic regions are the wrong way to group countries as it give a bad distribution of representation to the various groups of internet users. As it is nearly impossible to take people out of their countries I propose the following: We group the countries by the # of internet users from greatest to least. Using this list, attempt to create groups which have approximently the same number of internet users. That will be the grouping which will elect the director-at-large. Every election this process will be recalculated as the # of internet users per country changes. |
|
Teri Powell (Brittany Technologies, Inc.) (ccTLD, 7/15/00 5:45:20 PM, #884) Teri Powell (Voice of Reason name used on ICANN forums). cc tlds are being used as gTLDs. This is fact. An earlier speaker referenced the need for a search engine to address major issues of unbiased to tlds and TM issues concurrently. This type of search will be available August of this year. If this concept is provided to ICANN prior to the end of this ICANN meeting, will it help to assist in efficiency for new gTLDs since the cc tlds are being used as gTLDs at present. Please allow me this opportunity (prior to end of this meeting) to present this proposal. Thanks |
|
Leah Gallegos (The TLD Lobby) Deceptive advertising of ccTLD's (ccTLD, 7/15/00 5:45:15 PM, #883) I have to respectfully disagree with Roger Antao ( Antao & Chuang, Attorneys at Law) It is not and should not be within the realm of ICANN's responsibilities to regulate the activities of any TLD registries. It is a private function to be handled within legal venues. The only requirement should be within the countries where the ccTLD's do business, they should have to disclose their applicable laws and rules. If managed in the U.S. they should fall under deceptive advertising laws. |
|
Roger Antao ( Antao & Chuang, Attorneys at Law) Deceptive Marketing by ccTLD registrars (ccTLD, 7/15/00 5:34:24 PM, #882) There are some ccTLD administrators, and registrars, which are deceptively marketing their country specific TLD's as if they were generic top level domains to consumers in other countries. In other words, they deceptively market their ccTLD domain names by claiming "that they are just like .Com". In fact, unwary consumers may be unknowingly subjecting themselves, and their businesses, to the jurisdiction, and taxation, of foreign countries. Does ICANN intend to POLICE the actions of such ccTLD administrators? Doesn't ICANN have a duty to stop such deceptive practices since ICANN enters into contracts with ccTLD's? |
|
ted byfield (none) Bias in M@L seats discussion (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 5:27:00 PM, #881) The bias in the discussion about whether 9 is a "magic number" for M@L directors is clear from the fact that the Board never posed any such question about the non-M@L-derived board seats. Has there been any such question about SO-elected seats? Has any permament fixture on the Board ever spoken publicly of stepping down because his or her seat may not be needed? |
|
Bob (SuperRoot Consortium) Motion to the Board (Open Comment, 7/15/00 5:07:21 PM, #880) Motion is for ICANN to recognize the internet community consensus already gathered by the ORSC, and for ICANN to submit the additional top level domains in the ORSC root zone file to the US Department of Commerce for approval. |
|
Joe Chizmarik (The Knowledge Sculptors / Cyber On! America! ) Cap on # of Nominees (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 5:02:22 PM, #879) Perhaps rather than a simple fixed cap per region, you should consider a floating cap that is the greater of that fixed cap or the number of nominess needed to represent say at least 80% of the total nominations cast. |
|
David Young (Verizon Communications) Further on Wording Change (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 4:51:39 PM, #878) "...the Annual Meeting of the Corporation in 2002, consist of the five (5) "At Large" Directors selected pursuant to Article II of these by laws leaving the remaining four (4)positions vacant." |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET Inc.) comments (New TLDs, 7/15/00 4:44:28 PM, #877) Perhaps the additonal 4 At Large Board Members could be ELECTED without regard to geopraphic region, allowing for global representatives. This solves the problem of matching 9 into 5. By allowing candidates to run as geographically specific OR global, the entire 9 could be elected now. |
|
David Young (Verizon Communications) Wording Change (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 4:42:19 PM, #876) Could this problem be addressed by recognising that there would still be 9 at-large directors, but that after 2002 4 positions would be vacant until the conclusion of the study? |
|
Jeff Bhavnanie (Computer Aided Services of Hong Kong) At Large membership (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 4:20:17 PM, #875) What is the criteria to select directors for elections? Will the 3rd world coutries be equally represented? Thanks. |
|
Oscar Robles (NIC-Mexico) (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 4:07:33 PM, #874) Ben, the comment number 28, from point I was made by me... just for the records |
|
Sal Sarid (ibm) trademarks (Open Comment, 7/15/00 4:04:14 PM, #873) I dont understand why icann accepting complaints for generic <-_ fixed that one ) terms like traditions.com,zero.com,president.com,or crew.com . The fact that J.crew won Icann case is unforgotten,it is exactly the same as other generic terms out there .. it seems like icann is motivated by large businesses and does not really help the ordinery person online ,I`d like to know why icann arbitrators have so many conflicted solutions for similar cases ? Thanks . Sal |
|
Leah Gallegos (The TLD Lobby) Limited Charter includes membership (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 3:58:52 PM, #871) It is my understanding that to achieve its limited charter, ICANN is to be a bottom up organization. In order for that to occur, there must be a membership at large or general membership available to all of the internet community. I don't understand how you would limit the membership and fulfill the charter. |
|
Leah Gallegos (The TLD Lobby) (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 3:51:55 PM, #870) If ICANN is not prepared to handle its obligations, perhaps it should not be doing it at all. It sounds as though the limitations may be too much to accomplish its mandate of a bottom up organization. |
|
M C ( ) Elections (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 3:47:59 PM, #869) When will we be able to vote for all 19 directors? It seems to me that then and only then will the process be fully democratic |
|
Roger Antao ( ) Agreement on Basic Principles (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 3:43:11 PM, #868) It seems to me that ICANN has put the cart before the horse, i.e., we are discussing adopting specific rules for electing candidates, without reaching agreement on the basic principles of the organization which the rules should reflect. For example, many board members are expressing their opinions of basic principles, as if they were written in stone. Wouldn't it make more sense to first hold sometype of "contintental congress" type assembly to decide the basic principles of the organization? |
|
Teri Powell (Brittany Technologies, Inc.) (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 3:28:58 PM, #867) To ICANN & Attendees, My name is Teri Powell. I would like to say that there is a proven search avenue which can assist the global issues of representing those who rely on e-mails and assist to alleviate most of the concerns of the TM issues. It is unbiased to specific TLDs without changing any of the root system. How may I approach ICANN to prove these Concerns have been met. Thank you |
|
ted byfield (none) (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 3:28:48 PM, #866) Initially, ICANN termed non-NomCom-originated M@L candidates "self-nominated"; when this term came under criticism, ICANN changed the term to "member-nominated." Art II, 1 of the by-laws statesthat "members" are not "Members" under the CNPBCL. Is the Board concerned that this expansion of the use of the term "member" in the context of elections might provide a stronger basis for a legal challenge to the M@L elections under California State law? |
|
Teri Powell (Brittany Technologies, Inc.) (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 3:12:05 PM, #865) ICANN Board, Membership representation is very important! We can assist the ones who can only use e-mail representation. Please read my previous comments. Teri Powell, Brittany Technologies, Inc. I respectfully ask that my previous comments be read and addressed. |
|
Bret Fausett ( ) The Last 4 Board Members (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 3:11:33 PM, #864) I would encourage the Board at its meeting tomorrow to set a date for the election of the last 4 At Large Board members, even if that date comes next year. There is a fear that ICANN will cap the At Large directors at the 5 soon to be elected, and a firm deadline for election of the remaining 4 directors would put that to rest. |
|
Leah Gallegos (The TLD Lobby) membership and endorsement (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 3:11:32 PM, #863) Why should member lists be hidden? Is there not a requirement to produce membership lists for a non-profit corporation under California law? Publication of supporter lists should be a must. It must be a transparent process, eliminating any possible fraud. Only the ballot should be secret. Just how will you weed out the nominees if you are limiting their number? How will you control a number over 100 from North America? Who will make that decision since this is an At-Large election? |
|
Teri Powell (Brittany Technologies, Inc.) (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 3:00:00 PM, #862) ICANN & Attendees, My name is Teri Powell, At Large Member. Participated actively and consistently as Voice of Reason on ICANN forums. Please see my comments under previous session (TLDs)to understand our position. Brittany Technologies, Inc. can be of assistance to those who do not have a web presence and have to rely on e-mail. Please! We are here to help Everyone! Must read my previous comments to understand our scope and viable levels. |
|
Leah Gallegos (The TLD Lobby) (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 2:56:01 PM, #861) I have a problem with the "limitations" of ICANN facilities and staff to accommodate a large number of candidates. Since there is no "primary" election to weed them out, and members choose to nominate, ICANN should respect it and find the capability to list them. Supporting candidates: All candidates should be able to invite support from all regions. Supporters should be able to support more than one candidate, with the assumption that there could more than one with ample qualifications with appeal to an individual. Should a candidate then dicide not to run or an additional candidate be nominated, you still have the opportunity to support. Support should also be able to be withdrawn. The threshold is totally unreasonable. 1-2% is average for this type of election or 100 whichever is lower. ICANN must follow California non-profit corporation law. |
|
Bret Fausett ( ) Nomination Committee (At Large Membership, 7/15/00 2:37:53 PM, #860) Given the number of nominees that the NomComm has received (167), how many candidates does it expect to nominate from each region and how will it distinguish among the undoubtedly large number of similarly qualified applicants? |
|
Teri Powell (Brittany Technologies, Inc.) The Search Avenue (New TLDs, 7/15/00 2:21:17 PM, #858) To: ICANN and Those in Attendance, I would like to introduce myself first. My name is Teri Powell. I am on the Board of Directors of Brittany Technologies, Inc. I am the poster and participant on the ICANN forums who is known by the name Voice of Reason. There has been a quanity of discussion on the viability and stability of the effect of new TLDs. We provide a platform of Search which is Unbiased to the TLD. Nothing has to change within the Roots for our Search to serve the Purpose of the issues which have been presented here at this ICANN meeting. We will be pleased to work closely with all Registrars/Registries to accomplish a Global Solution. We have the Search Operation. Comments are welcomed and we honestly feel we have the Avenue to several of the issues which has held back new TLDs-including the Trade Mark Representation issues. http://www.brittanytechnologies.com |
|
Monika Ermert (c't, Germany) Extension of MoU (Reports, 7/15/00 2:03:18 PM, #857) To Becky Burr, what is the time frame for the extension of the MoU? Or will the end of US DoC oversight over the ICANN only ended with the fulfilment of specific preconditions? Could you name all conditions (for example is the finance problem with the ccTLDs not a new one)? To Paul Twomey, Did the GAC discuss the extension of the MoU? Are there no concerns from other governments to an unlimited extension of DoC oversight? Thank you both for answering, Monika Ermert |
|
Kuenduck Park (CivilNet) About WG-E (Reports, 7/15/00 11:47:50 AM, #856) For the more representaive of ICANN, ICANN must consider of future users. In a few years, various internet users - with gender, age, economic, culture, geographic difference- will coming. WG-E submitted the final report, but I think that "awareness and outreach" need real activities based on research report. And, by ICANN structure, AT Large membership is close to this theme. In this situation, I have three opinion. 1. WG-E research result have to connect to "awareness & outreach" execution. 2. WG-E is strongly connected to At Large membership outreach activity. For this activity, They must make a commiittee for "awareness and outreach" 3. "awareness and outreach" execution need money, every part of ICANN & Internet communities start to make fund. Thanks. |
|
Karl Auerbach GAO Report (Reports, 7/15/00 11:33:37 AM, #854) The GAO report said the following - it is *NOT* an an endorsement, indeed it is quite the opposite: "It is unclear whether the Department has the authority to transfer control of the authoritative root server to ICANN. ... It is uncertain whether transferring control would involve the transfer of government property to a private entity. However, to the extent it would, it is unclear if the Department has the requisite authority to effect such a transfer." |
|
Dennis Schaefer (Individual) Thing-ification (New TLDs, 7/15/00 11:29:08 AM, #853) The GAO report cited by Mike raised some major legal questions that still cloud ICANN: Page 25 says "It is unclear whether the Department has the authority to transfer control of the authoritative root server to ICANN." Page 26 says " It is also unclear whether such a transition will involve a transfer of government property to a private entity. If so, the transfer would have to be consistent with federal property laws." Does the Board plan any activity to clarify these issues? |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (ICB Inc.) trademark/UDRP issue (New TLDs, 7/15/00 11:00:55 AM, #852) I quote with his permission, Roland J. Meyer, who has over 20 years total experience in software design and technical management, and is a past member of ACM and IEEE-CS, and current member of the Internet Society (ISOC), Internet Domain name and DNS operator, Object Technology Users Group (OTUG), and Open Root-Server Confederation (ORSC): "I am begining to dislike the anti-cyber-squatting law intensly. Until a few weeks ago, I was neutral. The growing side-effects are really horrible. It's bad law, especially coupled with the extra-governmental UDRP. WIPO really pulled a fast one on us. We are in a much less stable environment than were were in, even two years ago." |
|
Matthew Pappas ( ) domain names as speech (New TLDs, 7/15/00 10:56:41 AM, #851) Domain names are indeed speech. In theory, as Esther Dyson stated a few minutes ago, the UDRP might support free speech and non-commercial use of trademarks in domain names. However, in practice, this is not consistently the case. When developing policies for introducing new TLDs, please consider and attempt to foresee how the policies might be manipulated or abused to the detriment of free speech. Thank you. --Matthew Pappas twix@mail.utexas.edu |
|
Leah Gallegos (The TLD Lobby) (New TLDs, 7/15/00 10:55:48 AM, #850) UDRP, in addition to all its flaws, allows arbitrators with abundant conflicts of interests to decide cases. The entire process is flawed. |
|
Marc Schneiders (Venster) UDRP & Free Speech (New TLDs, 7/15/00 10:46:42 AM, #849) Why is Chair saying twice that UDRP takes care of Free Speech Rights? Has this not been questioned seriously the last few weeks in the Press? |
|
Karl Auerbach Pre-Dawn (New TLDs, 7/15/00 10:43:07 AM, #848) People are more important than trademarks. I propose the following: That any new TLD be required to accept no registrations until it has permitted all individuals who desire to do so the opportunity to register names that that person routinely uses. This is called "Pre-Dawn". It occurs before "Sunrise". |
|
Karl Auerbach (IDNO) UDRP and new TLDS (New TLDs, 7/15/00 10:36:21 AM, #847) The UDRP is premised on a belief that there is a wrong that may be committed against those who hold trademarks. If that is true, then it stands to reason that the same kind of wrong may be committed against those who have use of a name based on a foundation other than trademark. The UDRP of today is available only to mark owners. The UDRP should be amended to remove the requirement that it may be wielded only by those who have marks. Instead, the UDRP should be available by anyone, whether he/she holds a mark or not, who believes that their use of a name has been abused. |
|
Leah Gallegos (The TLD Lobby) (New TLDs, 7/15/00 10:35:49 AM, #846) Assuming that the stability of the internet is not an issue and that the DNS is not an index service, why must we protect intellectual property when we have a legal system to take care of possible infringements or other complaints. The present overly protective stance for IP interests boils down to the expense of transaction costs to the IP sector. The trademark law in the US was designed specifically for the mark holder to police his own mark. ICANN and registrars should be detached. The present UDRP is inherently unfair and biased completely for the IP sector. Rolling out new TLD's should not be a daunting task. The root will not be affected adversely. It should remain a first come,first served basis. There should not be any less than 10 gTLD's initially. If the reason is to determine its success, you need at least that many to derive statistics. |
|
Ray Fassett (Rock-N-Roll.Net) Benefits to ICANN (New TLDs, 7/15/00 10:30:14 AM, #845) Does ICANN expect to realize any financial gain specific to the introduction of new gTLD's, most notably from the (new) Registries that are chosen? For example, a substantial lump sum fee paid to ICANN for the right to be the main registry for the respective new TLD. |
|
Karl Auerbach responsibility for "stability" (New TLDs, 7/15/00 10:15:44 AM, #843) Non-technical comment (i.e. I'm not sure that this is the right time to make it, if so feel free to hold it until the right time.) To whom is the obligation of "stability" owed? And how may it be enforced? In other words, who has a legal right to enforce failures of this obligation? For example, suppose a user can't reach http://www.cavebear.web/ - Ought that user to be able to bring a sucessful legal action against ICANN or DNS operators for the failure? It seems to me that if ICANN imposes a responsibility of "stability" that it had better be willing to stand behind that responsibility or, if ICANN is unwilling, that some set of broad shoulders be clearly designated to carry that burden. |
|
Karl Auerbach (Cisco Systems) (New TLDs, 7/15/00 9:57:46 AM, #841) Peter Deutsch has run an actual test in which he created a root system with several million TLDs. It worked. Speaking as a professional technologist, having been part of the Internet since 1974, I find the assertion that new TLDs will damage "stability" to be disingenuous. Rather than surrendering to hypothetical and unspecified Chimera of "instability", may I request that those who express that fear be specific and precise and say exactly what they mean. I might note that if one compares the rate of DNS failures - even if one includes the less established TLDs, such as .web - and compares it to the non-connectivity due to inter-ISP congestion, routing failures, and such, that those causes are several orders of magnitude larger. In other words, DNS stability - even in the competitive, non-ICANN root systems - is a an imaginary monster. --karl-- |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET Inc.) (New TLDs, 7/15/00 9:40:23 AM, #839) Does ICANN propose allowing new registries to perform registration services in addition to registry services? Would this be a separate or inclusive agreement? |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET Inc.) (New TLDs, 7/15/00 9:37:18 AM, #838) How does ICANN propose to handle the cases of TLD proponents who do not have the facilities to operate registries themselves? Does ICAN envision acting as ombudsman for such issues? |
|
Gene Marsh (anycastNET Inc.) (New TLDs, 7/15/00 9:25:40 AM, #837) Is it the express intent of ICANN to determine potential TLDs by their potential to separate affinity groups among TLDs? |
|
Simon Higgs (Higgs Communications) The IANA's File of iTLD Requests (New TLDs, 7/15/00 9:06:43 AM, #836) What is the ICANN policy/position on the original TLD requests sent to IANA? No mention of these requests has been made in any information published by ICANN. The list was published by the late Dr. Jon Postel of the IANA, and may be found here: http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html |
|
Marc Schneiders (Venster) Users rights first? (New TLDs, 7/15/00 8:54:29 AM, #833) Would it not be necessary for ICANN to take a position on the following matters *before* the introduction of any new gTLDs: 1. Is registering a domain name in order to make a profit off it by selling it (without any website or business being attached to it) in itself (i.e. apart from clearcut infringement of trademarks etc.) an act of bad faith? 2. Is it not absolutely required to know what the policies and rules are regarding UDRP and related matters, before people can be asked to put any trust in the new gTLDs? Are we to expect businesses to build on a new domain name when it can be taken away from them so easily? Are we to expect people to pay for the registration, periodically moreover, when it is very uncertain what the procedures for ousting them are? |
|
Sotiris Sotiropoulos (Hermes Network, Inc.) Trademark Issues (Roll Call, 7/15/00 8:44:58 AM, #832) Since the purpose of a trademark is not to give the owner of a mark complete control over the mark, but just to prevent confusion. What will be done to prevent the Right of free speech and to ensure that trademark protection is not used for anticompetitive purposes? |
All times are Yokohama (GMT +9)
This file is automatically generated.