Sometime before 1990, I first heard about this "newfangled thing called the Internet." I had been an application programmer in a prior life, but since then had graduated from law school and acquired a cynical streak a mile wide. I looked at the phenomenon, thought it was cool, and proceeded to ignore it. After all, it was a relatively simple technology-demonstrator which did not offer much in the way of opportunities to generate legal fees.

Then the World Wide Web happened. The transformation of the Internet into a mass medium caught many people * myself included * by surprise. Now it was time to catch up.

I tackled the subject in earnest in early 1994. In those days, the Internet was so sparsely populated that the Sysops at Delphi.com would put up a weekly page listing all of the interesting domain names that had been registered during the preceding week. There were rarely more than two dozen of them.

I was frankly puzzled by the question of Internet Governance. It was hard to find reliable information on the subject in those days. Many people regarded the Internet as a self-organizing chaos phenomenon. I never really bought into this proposal. However, since I was a lawyer by trade (and a busy one at that) I did not find the time to truly get my arms around the subject.

Then The Internet Draft happened. In 1996, the late Dr. Jonathan Postel issued an Internet-Draft which proposed an expansion of the top level domain name space. I immediately saw that here was the confluence of several important topics in which I had an interest both financial and intellectual.

I learned of the formation and work of the IAHC too late to do anything but pose some pointed questions to the Committee. I recognized from the start that my failure to get wind of the process was due to my own inattention, the process having been publicized in the manner that was then current in the Internet Community. My attention therefore turned to the substance of the IAHC's recommendations, which I criticized, but ultimately came to understand.

I induced my law firm (Eaton & Van Winkle) to subscribe to the GTLD-MoU for several reasons. First, because participation in PAB offered a grass roots route for participation in Internet Governance. Second, because that participation offered an opportunity for me to learn about Domain Name Policy and ultimately to publicize my technical bend of mind to the most relevant crux of the Internet Community. And third, not because I thought the GTLD-MoU "got it right the first time" but because I really did (and still do) subscribe to the Internet paradigm of Deliver . . . Use . . .Refine.

Of course I underestimated the degree to which resistance would emerge to the GTLD-MoU. I have come to understand that there are two kinds of obstructionists in this game: those whose oxen are gored by the emergence of competition in this arena, and those who are piqued because Internet policy is not 100% consonant with their own personal preferences.

The first set of opponents are the big commercial interests which are generally satisfied with the status quo. Their trademarks are relatively secure and it's relatively painless to keep an eye on them. Their sinecures are enormously profitable, howbeit gained by usurpation of public property. And their armies of lawyers are ready, willing and able to use the legal mechanisms of the United States to inflict repeated abuses comparable to the roadrunner.com imbroglio.

The second set of opponents are paparazzi whose lives seem to revolve around the Internet as though the DNS were somehow as important as, (to be obvious) Kosovo or (to be trivial but frank) whether Milky Way bars are improved by the new caramel.

The net result may well be that we have proven that the Internet is ungovernable, and that the only paradigm that has a prayer of success is the ORSC model: ISPs will get their root information from the zone servers that their users want them to, and/or people will configure their own DNS clients to query alternate roots. The result of that phenomenon is that how domain names resolve will depend on whom you ask. This is a bad outcome.

An obvious alternative to the foregoing is that the United States Congress will tell us where to get root information. This is a bad outcome.

Another alternative * one which is obvious in principle but darned prickly to implement * is the establishment of a legitimate method of Internet Governance. When the United States constitutional convention set out to write a new constitution on a blank slate, it acted in excess of its authority. It was an illegitimate usurpation of governmental authority. Questions of legitimacy * of ICANN, or of any constituency which emerges under its auspices * will remain for a long time. Those questions will not soon be solved. The Founding Fathers of the United States acted illegitimately when they published the Constitution. When William the Conqueror (and most other dynastic founders in the history of England) established his rulership over England, he acted in excess of his legitimate authority. Similar episodes can be found throughout political life. As political scientist Robert A. Dahl wrote, decisions about what is or is not legitimate are made, in the first instance, by!
force or power, and ratified by time.

The most obvious alternative to corporate dominance of Internet Governance is to make sure that individuals as such have a voice in the process. The problem posed by this lies in the fact that a single person can carry dozens of different Internet-based personae. To control this phenomenon, as well as to take advantage of the provision in the emerging schema of Internet Governance for input from "domain name holders," it has been posited that "Individual Domain Name Holders" form a possibly coherent cluster. Because of the technical and financial barriers to securing a qualifying domain name, it will not occur that every member of the Internet Community will be included in this cluster. However, the barriers are very low and do not require the investment of thousands of dollars.

So, to come full circle, those members of the Internet Community who wish to see the domain name war decided by actors other than the existing insiders need to mobilize their power and influence. Since the Internet is ultimately a forum for the exchange of information, it is incumbent upon us to advance our agenda persuasively and responsibly.

/asbestos on> I am not opposed to the continued leadership of the Internet Society in this whole process. I believe that ISOC's influence on the domain name war has been beneficial, introducing a degree of legitimacy that would not otherwise have been achieved. I remain committed to preserving a role for individuals as such to govern the Internet. I also believe that the Individual Domain Name Holder constituency is ill-served by establishing criteria for membership which can be and are in fact met by a significant number of Fortune 500 Companies. While I applaud and welcome the participation of organizations in this aspect of the process, I believe that the cluster identified by the phrase ¡Individual Domain Name Holders' should be specified on the nature of the domain name registrant, not that of any of the contacts found in the associated records.
**********************************************************************

Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
> /asbestos on> <...> I remain committed to preserving a role for
> individuals as such to govern the Internet. I also believe that
> the Individual Domain Name Holder constituency is ill-served by
> establishing criteria for membership which can be and are in fact
> met by a significant number of Fortune 500 Companies. While I
> applaud and welcome the participation of organizations in this
> aspect of the process, I believe that the cluster identified by
> the phrase ?Individual Domain Name Holders' should be specified
> on the nature of the domain name registrant, not that of any of
> the contacts found in the associated records.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make on Tuesday. Allowing in
those who are associated with domains not held in their own names could open
the IDNO up for capture. Others have made convincing arguments for letting
in sole proprietorships (liability issues, anti-personal domain rules in
some TLDs), but I believe that is far as the exceptions should go.

From: dstein@travel-net.com

To: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>, <idno@radix.co.nz>,
<terastra@terabytz.co.nz>, <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET>
Subject: Re: [IDNO:119] Support Statement
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 14:02:47 GMT

Well said!!!
(yeah, I could do without the ISOC support statement but in the interest of
compromise I can live with it)

> Statement of Kevin J. Connolly on Internet Governance and Support for
the Individual Domain Name Holders as a logical constituency.
>

<snip>

From: "John B. Reynolds" <john@reynolds.chicago.il.us>
To: <rmeyer@mhsc.com>, "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>, <idno@radix.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:130] RE: Support Statement
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:59:53 -0500

If you had been reading my messages closely (including those you quote
below), you would have noticed that I have already stepped back from the
specific position you object to. However, I remain convinced that the
IDNO's credibility as an organization representing individuals requires some
sort of ownership-based restriction, lest it become a catchall for all
domain holders.

 

> While it may be true that the DNSO is more powerful than the general ICANN
> membership, it is also true that the stated rationale for the existence of
> Supporting Organizations is to limit discussions of the issues they are
> responsible for to those who have a tangible stake in their outcome (a
> potential future stake doesn't count). If the ICANN Board were to adopt an
> IDNO constituency proposal that effectively opened the DNSO to all comers,
> it would be tacitly admitting that its entire structure is a sham. That is
> not going to happen.

Matters affecting domain names *do* have an impact on those who don't have
'em yet. Such things as cost, privacy exposure, and liability do matter
to those who are thinking of obtaining a name.

So I wouldn't write potential holders off at all.

(I'm not saying that we must open the doors that wide, but I'm just saying
that it is an issue to be considered and not to be dismissed simply
because of some fear about what the ICANN board would or would not do.)

> While you and many other members of the IDNO may believe that Supporting
> Organizations and constituency divisions are wrong, you must be capable of
> recognizing that any constituency proposal that implicitly questions their
> legitimacy is certain to be rejected by the current ICANN Board.

No I am not so certain of that. Indeed I see the current constituency
structure as so ill conceived that it could readily collapse into a heap.

> This organization has a choice. We can stand on principle and fail,
> or compromise and have a chance at success. Advocacy of the latter
> course of action is not defeatism, but rather pragmatic realism.

I'm not about to abandon my principles.

As far as I'm concerned I've compromised all I'm going to.

The ICANN board needs this group to succeed. They are already under much
fire (from folks we don't often hear about, like NTIA) for the failure of
openness.

As I've said before, one should not compromise with one's self before
giving the opposing side the opportunity to concede the issue first.

--karl--

>I'm not particularly concerned that the IDNO would be taken over by
>unthinking zombies sent forth by AT&T to dominate and control.
>
>If one wants this effort to amount to anything it should adopt inclusive
>approaches to membership, not exclusionary ones.

I very strongly agree with you, Karl.
We are NOT in danger of capture if we allow only *people* in.
We are a constituency of *people* , not organizations and not corporations.
Even if Bill Gates himself wants to join, he cannot capture anything beyond
his single vote as a person.
One person will not have more than one vote, no matter how many
registrations he owns.

We can make this abundantly clear in our charter.

A company, such as Procter and Gamble does not belong in the IDNO, period.

I will strongly oppose those who will want to keep *people* out for no
other reason than that their DN is registered to a company.
On the other hand, I will listen to arguments that will increase our chance
to be accepted by ICANN, although that is not what I call a genuine
bottom-up self-organizing.
We ourselves should be the ultimate judge of what it is that constitutes us.

At this point in time, it cannot be said that any of the approved
constituencies has room for the typical interests of the individual DN
owner, either because they have only organizational members, or because
they typically represent the interests of corporations.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

 

At 19:59 3/06/1999 -0500, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>
>If you had been reading my messages closely (including those you quote
>below), you would have noticed that I have already stepped back from the
>specific position you object to. However, I remain convinced that the
>IDNO's credibility as an organization representing individuals requires some
>sort of ownership-based restriction, lest it become a catchall for all
>domain holders.
>

John,

Have you read our charter? www.democracy.orn.nz/idno/organiz.htm

Your are welcome to suggest any improvement in the language on that point.
"Ownership" is indeed central.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

To: "John B. Reynolds" <john@reynolds.chicago.il.us>,
"Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>, <idno@radix.co.nz>
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:134] Re: Support Statement

At 18:38 3/06/1999 -0500, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>
>While it may be true that the DNSO is more powerful than the general ICANN
>membership, it is also true that the stated rationale for the existence of
>Supporting Organizations is to limit discussions of the issues they are
>responsible for to those who have a tangible stake in their outcome (a
>potential future stake doesn't count). If the ICANN Board were to adopt an
>IDNO constituency proposal that effectively opened the DNSO to all comers,
>it would be tacitly admitting that its entire structure is a sham. That is
>not going to happen.
>
John,

I had a similar discussion in Berlin with the .au registrar.
First of all, opening the door to all comers, just means: opening the door
to 3 more seats on the Names Council to represent these comers. They will
be our responsibility. Would that be too much? If the idno constituency
represents those interests (no, *people*) who care about *their* domains,
is that not what representation on the NC was intended for?
Or should the NC be only for registrars, TM interest and businesses, with a
token and fractious Non-commercial (impossible to define) constituency
thrown in?

>While the IDNO may have greater flexibility in defining "individual",
>acceptance by ICANN of a definition so broad as to encompass essentially all
>domain holders would raise many of the same questions about DNSO
>constituency divisions as admitting non-domain holders would for SOs.
>
It may encompass all DN holders, but what we stand for will typically not
be attractive to a corporation, who will have trouble getting even one
individual to "own" its domain name.

>While you and many other members of the IDNO may believe that Supporting
>Organizations and constituency divisions are wrong, you must be capable of
>recognizing that any constituency proposal that implicitly questions their
>legitimacy is certain to be rejected by the current ICANN Board. This
>organization has a choice. We can stand on principle and fail, or
>compromise and have a chance at success. Advocacy of the latter course of
>action is not defeatism, but rather pragmatic realism.
>
What compromise would you suggest, John? Isn't it much to early to talk
about compromising?

Frankly, being rejected by the non-elected ICANN board only enhances our
standing. I have already experienced it twice.

Standing on the principles of the White Paper will ultimately bring us
many more members.
The Cyberspace Association as an organization of individual stakeholders
will be an organization of relevance, sure of a place within a democratic
DNSO of a democratic ICANN.

If we are not going to have a democratic ICANN, why should we even bother
to be part of it?

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

 

From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Subject: [IDNO:137] Re: Support Statement
Cc: idno@radix.co.nz

At 02:35 PM 6/3/99 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>My question is whether the actual problem is worth the effort?
>
>(Unlike a lot of my questions, this is a real, not a rhetorical, question.
>;-)
>
>My own gut feeling is that when you take the individual out of the
>organization, a lot of people will act as individual people. For example,
>I'm a Cisco employee, but at the IETF, although there are a lot of Cisco

The IETF environment has a history and a process which mitigates against
most efforts to capture (although some will claim that there have been
exceptions) and "party-line" behaviors DO show up occasionally.

In any event, the concern is strong enough in this case, I believe to make
explicit rules for countering capture reasonable. My note's last paragraph
contained language intended to focus on 'individuals' while limiting the
extent of their influence.

Specifically, Candidate statement of criteria:

A "member" owns one or more name registrations. A member may designate a
representative. A member has only one vote in IDNO, for all of their
registrations. Registrations are related if they share the same
registration name or if the registrations share an organization
relationship. Related registrations may have only one membership.

d/

From: Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:138] Domain ownership qualifying for IDNO membership (was Re:
Support Statement)
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <v03102806b37cef39e84e@[202.27.208.11]>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 36b9a9bd88833302d9ec45d67296a70c

>Taking the term "individual" within IDNO, the challenge is to permit anyONE
>with a domain name (through whatever legal vehicle) to join, but not allow
>an organization (or person, for that matter) to be overrepresented. An
>obvious example of this potential is that Proctor and Gamble have
>registered a very large number of names and you don't want to give them one
>vote per name.

>Do you want to allow "Netscape.com" to have a different member from
>"AOL.com", even though AOL owns Netscape?

Maybe we look at who is the _beneficial_ owner of the domain.

Sole proprietorships have one beneficial owner. Family trusts have a limited number of (related) beneficial owners.

I set up radiodx.com for a club I am a member of. It is an incorporated society here in NZ, so legally (I think) the domain ownership is shared by the membership of the club. radiodx.com would thus not be able to join IDNO.

netscape.com is owned by AOL, but AOL itself has a number of shareholders, and if you trace them all up to the final beneficial owner, these people are not related to each other, and possibly don't know each other from a bar of soap. Thus netscape.com's owners could not be members of the IDNO (through their "ownership" of netscape.com, at least).

I'll leave it to the legal eagles to work out the fine print.

Andrew P. Gardner ZL2VOA 176.E 41.1S
Wairarapa, New Zealand http://navigator.co.nz/andy
Mediumwave DXer - Drake R8A
http://radio.net.nz - NZ's Broadcast Radio directory

Subject: [IDNO:136] RE: Support Statement
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:58:02 -0700

I guess I missed the turn you had made. However, I am a bit old
fashioned in the fact that I don't falsify records. It's simply too much
work to track which lie you told where. It also closes other legal
options. There is the issue of credibility and reputation. By the same
token, I don't use psuedonyms. I am who I say I am and that's all that I
am.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John B. Reynolds [mailto:john@reynolds.chicago.il.us]
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 1999 7:30 PM
>
> This occurred to me after my original reply:
>
> Even my the requirements I originally suggested would not
> bring the dire
> consequences suggested by Mr. Meyer, since they could have
> been satisfied by
> registering domains under one's name with a falsified
> address, or even under
> a pseudonym. This is, of course, a moot point, since I had
> already modified
> my position before Roeland objected to it.

From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Subject: Re: [IDNO:135] Re: Support Statement
Cc: "John B. Reynolds" <john@reynolds.chicago.il.us>, <rmeyer@mhsc.com>,
"Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>, <idno@radix.co.nz>

At 02:40 PM 6/4/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>Your are welcome to suggest any improvement in the language on that point.
>"Ownership" is indeed central.

The current language does not adequately permit mechanical determination of
who is the 'owner' and it does not mitigate at all against capture. For
example, does a person get a separate membership for each domain name
registered? if not, that needs to be stated.

I've offered some additional constraining language, but it does not deal
with the mechanical determination of 'owner' All we have are
Administrative, technical and billing points of contact. How can you let
the "owner' be other than one of these?

d/

From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Subject: Re: [IDNO:133] We are a constituency of *people* (was:support
statement)
Cc: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>, idno@radix.co.nz

At 02:16 PM 6/4/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>I very strongly agree with you, Karl.
>We are NOT in danger of capture if we allow only *people* in.
>We are a constituency of *people* , not organizations and not corporations.

So, brandenburg.com qualifies me to join, since it is affiliated with my
unincorporated sole proprietaorship? But if I incorporate, then I can't join?

If this is true, then what is the "individual" domain name that Stef has,
other than nma.com?

I believe that the use of incorporation vehicles should not preclude
individuals.

d/

 

Subject: RE: [IDNO:134] Re: Support Statement
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 22:29:57 -0500

Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> At 18:38 3/06/1999 -0500, John B. Reynolds wrote:
> >
> >While it may be true that the DNSO is more powerful than the
> general ICANN
> >membership, it is also true that the stated rationale for the
> existence of
> >Supporting Organizations is to limit discussions of the issues they are
> >responsible for to those who have a tangible stake in their outcome (a
> >potential future stake doesn't count). If the ICANN Board were
> to adopt an
> >IDNO constituency proposal that effectively opened the DNSO to
> all comers,
> >it would be tacitly admitting that its entire structure is a
> sham. That is
> >not going to happen.
> >
> John,
>
> I had a similar discussion in Berlin with the .au registrar.
> First of all, opening the door to all comers, just means: opening the door
> to 3 more seats on the Names Council to represent these comers. They will
> be our responsibility. Would that be too much? If the idno constituency
> represents those interests (no, *people*) who care about *their* domains,
> is that not what representation on the NC was intended for?
> Or should the NC be only for registrars, TM interest and
> businesses, with a
> token and fractious Non-commercial (impossible to define) constituency
> thrown in?

That first paragraph was intended to address why the IDNO should be limited
to domain holders rather that admitting all individuals as Karl Auerbach
suggested (I didn't make that as clear as I might have). Both your response
and the IDNO charter appear to support this portion of my position.

>
> >While the IDNO may have greater flexibility in defining "individual",
> >acceptance by ICANN of a definition so broad as to encompass
> essentially all
> >domain holders would raise many of the same questions about DNSO
> >constituency divisions as admitting non-domain holders would for SOs.
> >
> It may encompass all DN holders, but what we stand for will typically not
> be attractive to a corporation, who will have trouble getting even one
> individual to "own" its domain name.
>
> >While you and many other members of the IDNO may believe that Supporting
> >Organizations and constituency divisions are wrong, you must be
> capable of
> >recognizing that any constituency proposal that implicitly
> questions their
> >legitimacy is certain to be rejected by the current ICANN Board. This
> >organization has a choice. We can stand on principle and fail, or
> >compromise and have a chance at success. Advocacy of the latter
> course of
> >action is not defeatism, but rather pragmatic realism.
> >
> What compromise would you suggest, John? Isn't it much to early to talk
> about compromising?

Perhaps. Karl and I have been arguing from polar opposite positions, while
the IDNO charter and probable consensus position lies somewhere in between.
This may have influenced my choice of language.

>
> Frankly, being rejected by the non-elected ICANN board only enhances our
> standing. I have already experienced it twice.
>
> Standing on the principles of the White Paper will ultimately bring us
> many more members.
> The Cyberspace Association as an organization of individual stakeholders
> will be an organization of relevance, sure of a place within a democratic
> DNSO of a democratic ICANN.
>
> If we are not going to have a democratic ICANN, why should we even bother
> to be part of it?
>

It may be necessary to push ICANN gradually toward greater democracy rather
than try to drag it all the way in one step.

Joop,

Since Nov98, they have always refered to themselves as the Initial
Board. So, it is not a surprise to me. As you know, I had already
expected some of what happened in Berlin. In the aftermath, I would hope
for some improvement in Santiago, but I would not expect it. That the
GAC is being effective is actually a negative. If anything, the ICANN is
more unapproachable than ever and they still don't have a visible source
of funding. Not that we'd ever know, since the books aren't any more
open than the rest of the ICANN.

I suspect that the ICANN isn't about privatization as much as it is
about Internationalization, always a Clinton soft spot. If that were
made public, the American people, and it's Congress, would be up in arms
over the whole issue. IOW, I'm begining to smell a rat. It is the one
thing that US Congress wouldn't tolerate with the IAHC and what stopped
the IAHC dead in it's tracks. Now we have all the IAHC players in
control and the GAC seems to be heading back to the Internationalization
persuasion. It may be a different format, but it is starting to smell
like old IAHC fish.

Most of the governments, in the world, do NOT have much respect for
individual rights. NA active IDNO would complicate things for them.

From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO-ANNOUNCE:7] Accepting an interim seat on the Names Council, from one of
NSI's

Dear supporters of the IDNO,

I am passing on to you a letter that I received today from Don Telage.
I propose that we accept his offer.
I would like to nominate for the interim Karl Auerbach and if somebody
would like to nominate me, I would accept too.
Karl may still be out of email reach, so I don't know if he will accept.
NSI has to inform ICANN in 2 days, so we can have a quick vote on this.
Please go to the voting site. There are 2 questions for you to answer.
ACCEPT THE OFFER? (yes/No)
YOUR PREFERRED CHOICE of candidate. (preferential choice)
Whoever has forgotten login and password, please email me right away.

Please vote on this urgently. I have promised Don Telage a reply in 36 hours.

P.S. While you are at the polling booth , you might as well think about the
level of membership fee for the IDNO. I have put up a question and a
series of figures for you to ponder.

*********
the letter:

Mr. Joop Teernstra
Mr. Gene Miles

Joop, Gene: NSI is disappointed by the lack of recognition of the TDLA and
IDNO constituencies in Berlin. It seems inconsistent with the White Paper,
and reflects our growing concern over capture of the Names Council by
established players and big business. This fact, together with the fact that
the bylaws allocate 3 Names Council seats for the gTLD constituency, has
lead us to conclude that we must act to rectify this omission. We have
therefore concluded that the proper action for NSI is to offer (with no
strings attached) a voice on the Names Council to each of these
constituencies through two of the gTLD seats until your constituencies are
independently recognized. If you are interested in this offer, please let
me know ASAP, and tell me who your representative is. I must respond to
ICANN within 2 days. I will send you details in a subsequent e-mail.
Sincerely, don

Donald N. Telage, Ph. D.
Senior Vice President and Director
Network Solutions, Inc.

Board of Trustees of ARIN
don@telage.com <mailto:don@telage.com>
dont@netsol.com <mailto:dont@netsol.com>

(703) 742-4707

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap puller of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

 

To: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>, <idno@radix.co.nz>,
<idno-announce@radix.co.nz>, <karl@cavebear.com>
Subject: RE: [IDNO-ANNOUNCE:7] Accepting an interim seat on the Names Council, from one of NSI's
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 22:42:24 -0500

Yes! This is a step toward recognition!

I hope Karl Auerbach will accept the nomination AND I am pleased to nominate
Joop Teernstra.

We obviously need to move quickly on this. Are there other nomination?

Kevin M. Kelly
http://www.KMKelly.net

 

From: Rex <linux@traveling.com>
Reply-To: linux@traveling.com
Organization: Traveling.Com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: idno@radix.co.nz, idno-announce@radix.co.nz
Subject: [IDNO:198] Nomination of Joop Teernstra for interim seat on the Names Council,
References: <199906090258.OAA13984@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <375DF49A.2179@traveling.com>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: c525c3b7a8a837a3b73988e8c78ca2ed

I Rex T. Barnes would like to nominate Joop Teernstra for the interim
seat
on the Names Council

rex@traveling.com

At 22:42 8/06/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>Yes! This is a step toward recognition!
>
>I hope Karl Auerbach will accept the nomination AND I am pleased to nominate
>Joop Teernstra.
>
Thanks Kevin.

>We obviously need to move quickly on this. Are there other nomination?
>
The preference voting will act as a nominating process.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap puller of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners

 

On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, Kevin M. Kelly wrote:

> I hope Karl Auerbach will accept the nomination AND I am pleased to nominate
> Joop Teernstra.

i second the nominations for both joop and karl. having been involved in a
process like this - though not internet related - many times, i can
emphatize with the personal effort and sacrifice needed. our hopes are
with the both of you. good luck !

By the grace of God, /\_/\ "All dogs go to heaven."
dinesh@alphaque.com (0 0)

From: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
To: idno@radix.co.nz
Subject: [IDNO:201] Re: Accepting an interim seat on the Names Council, from one of
NSI's
In-Reply-To: <4.0.1.19990609131541.01b11750@pop.clear.net.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906082303070.4438-100000@npax.cavebear.com>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: c5bbd910e1194b96b60ef26de3e5ea51

> I am passing on to you a letter that I received today from Don Telage.
> I propose that we accept his offer.

> I would like to nominate for the interim Karl Auerbach...

I'm back[*].

And I am honored beyond words.

I'm not sure whether to accept -- Joop is, in my mind, the leader of this
group and has put far more effort into it than I have. I've just helped
here and there.

We also need to think very hard about what NSI's offer means. Does it
come with hidden strings or, possibly worse, does it come with
opportunities for others to brew up all kinds of conspiratorial theories
or otherwise say that the IDNO has sold out to NSI?

Given the depths to which much of this debate has fallen, we need to take
a great deal of care to avoid those "appearances of impropriety".

So give me an evening to cogitate on this.

--karl--

[*] From Vancouver, BC, where I give a technical presentation at on
implementation experiences with RTP/RTCP (RFC1889/1890) at an IEEE
Communications Society event. [Which was rather interesting given that I
was a Cisco person talking about streaming multimedia in the same session
in which a Microsoft person talked about Quality of Service networking --
kind of a reversal of roles.]

From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Subject: [IDNO:210] NSI's interests
In-Reply-To: <199906091054.WAA26625@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
References: <199906090657.SAA20258@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <4.2.0.56.19990609071853.00a18d50@mail.bayarea.net>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 51badbcfe486dcc092767a0f6cfdd464

At 05:54 AM 6/9/99 -0500, Kevin M. Kelly wrote:
>Nevertheless, this is not an entirely altruistic offer by NSI. They clearly
>want to move the process forward. I think that all they expect to get from
>their support.
>
>Beside we have plenty of NSI skeptics on this list ;-) So I'm not too
>worried!

Might as well earn my keep...

NSI benefits from delay. This is not just my own opinion, or the opinion
of a few die-hard skeptics, it is Wall Street's opinion. The more delay,
the more entrenched NSI's market position. The more delay, the longer they
reap monopoly profits.

Hence, I am struck by the claim that NSI wants to move the process forward.

They have been careful to do very little to move it forward, in the last 3
years, and have worked quite hard, particularly through Washington, D.C.
lobbying and public fear-mongering, to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt,
to delay the process. I would strongly urge the group to step far more
carefully than you are seeming inclined.

Here is my own assessment of NSI's offer:

1. The group is seriously trying to develop itself as a representative of
Internet domain name holding individuals.

2. The group is quite young in that effort and quite small.

3. In my opinion, it is premature for the group to be named as a
representative. Recognition of being a representative group needs to come
AFTER reaching a sufficient 'mass', not before. For all of the enthusiasm
of the early members, take a look at the group's size and composition and
consider honestly whether it can yet claim that it has developed a broad
enough and large enough base of support to claim that it is a GLOBAL
representative for Internet individuals?

4. In Berlin, the ICANN Board specified ONE gTLD representative, until
there are more gTLDs. Hence, NSI's offer goes against a limitation and NSI
knows this.

5. NSI is, as usual, trying to create controversy. It is a brilliant
ploy, since it looks as if they are trying to be good guys while the ICANN
Board is likely to look bad. But NSI knows that that is exactly how it is
likely to play.

NSI gets to create a problem, add to ICANN's troubles, possibly cause more
delay, but look like good guys. That's pretty good bang for the buck.

Please do not aid NSI in this disruptive effort. Focus on growing the
organization and gaining constituency participation. Everything
constructive will flow from that.

d/

Firstly, I support both Karl and Joop as representatives.

Secondly, I commend NSI for their kind offer. Even if it is in their
best interest to foment an opposition, they NEED the opposition for
anti-trust reasons. If they are the only gTLD registry left standing, on
Sep00, then they have a DOJ problem the size of Microsoft's. However
misguided, they may sometimes appear, they mostly try to do the "right
thing". There is plenty of evidence for this. They are also not stupid,
being the one-and-only gTLD registry, is a dangerous situation from many
perspectives.

Thirdly, Kevin's point about the ISOC bashing should be considered. Not
all of us ISOC members are evil nor are we all academics.<grin>

Forth, when Dyson made that statemnent she unilaterally spoke in direct
opposition to the ICANN's own by-laws. If it sticks, there is clear
evidence of lack of process. When an organization doesn't even follow
its own rules, but rather the voice of a single individual, then it is
not an organization. It is a dictatorship and the single voice is its
tyrant. I also believe that Esther very much knew what she was doing
when she did this and did it anyway. This indicates that she is very
confident in her power-base. Sufficiently so that she cares less for the
opinions of others due to the appearance that their opinions do not
matter. The fact that she did it to the constituency that NSI claimed
sole membership of is irrelevant. There may be more members, in that
contituency, in the future (NSI would sincerely hope, remember, they are
naked, with no cover, and they have "incoming". Size isn't always a
"good thing" it makes one a better target, in their case, the only
target).

-----------------------------
Roeland M.J. Meyer
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
mailto://rmeyer@mhsc.com

I have been a NSI skeptic. Hated their policies.

I looked to the whole ICANN deal with quite a bit of hope initially and have
since been appalled and dismayed.

I (like many others) had started to turn a skeptic that tiny domain name
holders could hardly do anything about the whole thing but yet unable to
give up hope.

That having been said...

It was extremely heartening to see ICANN and NSI at loggerheads at Berlin
(as many of you know was participating online. And at cost of repeating
Great job - Joop and Karl !).

It lid a tiny flame of hope that the fight between them would explode and be
hard, tough and really nasty.

They are two devils from hell and we, the mere citizens of internet, would
benefit enormously from there clash as they will now 'need' the support of
'real' stakeholders to score points against each other.

NSI has done all the damage it can do. It has in recent time taken quite a
few knocks and find control slipping out of there hands.

ICANN seems to be hell bent on moving them to the irrelevant role of being
just another domain name issuers and in process 'Surping' NSI's traditional
leverages of - policy implementation, root server control and domain pricing
- without subjecting themselves (ICANN) to any kind of accountability or
mandate what so ever other than some spin doctoring in media.

Make no mistake NSI is bleeding and needs us and our movementum, legitimize
offered by the act of endorsing us (among other factors) to regain and
retain some hold on their levers and hence this offer and there sudden
change of being reasonable lately.

As thing stand, right now, compared to ICANN - NSI seems to be an angel to
me.

(Especially as we already have some competition fastly coming in place to
NSI on domain name issuance.)

Its in our interest to keep both of them on equal footing and at each others
throats (and most important alive !). General internet community can only
gain from their individual thrust at each other for absolute control over
internet.

I very strongly support that we take this opportunity presented to us and
make most of it without getting attached to either of them.

Both Karl and Joop would make excellent representatives for us.

They will be pretty soon all kinds of noises once we take this seat.

We will need Joop's invaluable manuevouring skills to navigate the pitfalls
ahead - negotiate with other groups and modulate pressures from ICANN.

Sri

***
My Background (if you are interested !)

A couple of years ago I was a small time 'techie' - bought a couple of
domain names and was busy tinkering with my tiny linux box and apache server
to get somewhere on the internet.

Blissfully unconcerned of the whole deal of domain name vs. trademark,
internet goverance, etc - read a couple of articles on and off on net. But
that was it.

Then before I knew it - I got hit in face with a pretty eloquently written
legal letters, attorneys, tiny window of time to respond intelligently to
them and had come close to be at the receiving end of NSI domain dispute
policy and all nine yards.

(Hence the start of my involvement in the whole issue and the vengence to
seek some fairness for Individual domain name holders !).

(You could take a peek at some of my comments at
http://wipo2.wipo.int/dns_comments/rfc3/0190.html)

From: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>, idno@radix.co.nz
Subject: Re: [IDNO:196] Accepting an interim seat on the Names Council, from one of
NSI's
References: <199906090258.OAA13984@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: f6103ea3be1073a28e14bc66b002d43e

Of course you should accept it. I strongly support Karl Auerbach, but would also
urge that whoever you select be able to attend the Santiago meeting.
--MM

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Dear supporters of the IDNO,
>
> I am passing on to you a letter that I received today from Don Telage.
> I propose that we accept his offer.

o: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>, idno@radix.co.nz
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:221] Re: NSI's interests
In-Reply-To: <199906091442.CAA33020@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
References: <199906091054.WAA26625@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
<199906090657.SAA20258@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <199906100027.MAA27657@fep4-orange.clear.net.nz>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 4e472dc1cfd1bf47b520fc2e94942ed3

At 07:42 9/06/1999 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:

>>Beside we have plenty of NSI skeptics on this list ;-) So I'm not too
>>worried!
>
>
>Might as well earn my keep...
>
Thank you Dave for your words of caution. They will be heeded.
But where do you stand yourself on the participation of Individual DN
owners in the DNSO?
You qualify for IDNO membership, yet you have not joined us.
Do you really want us to succeed?

<snip>
>Here is my own assessment of NSI's offer:
>
>1. The group is seriously trying to develop itself as a representative of
>Internet domain name holding individuals.
>
>2. The group is quite young in that effort and quite small.
>
>3. In my opinion, it is premature for the group to be named as a
>representative. Recognition of being a representative group needs to come
>AFTER reaching a sufficient 'mass', not before. For all of the enthusiasm
>of the early members, take a look at the group's size and composition and
>consider honestly whether it can yet claim that it has developed a broad
>enough and large enough base of support to claim that it is a GLOBAL
>representative for Internet individuals?
>
This appears to be an assesment of *us*.
Who we are and how numerous we are is of political value, sure, but what we
stand for is a principle:
that Individual DN owners are stakeholders in the DNS.
When the interim ICANN board decided to gerrymander the DNSO into
constituencies, the Individual DN owners should have been included and
given recognition as stakeholders.
AFTER that we can organize and grow as a group.

Only really motivated people join a group *before* they know that they are
going to get any representation.
Our critical mass is in our motivation.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap puller of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

From: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
To: idno@radix.co.nz
Subject: [IDNO:219] Working groups are forming
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906091636180.7537-100000@npax.cavebear.com>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 156ca29e07ae967e4617d952400224ea

I've heard that the DNSO is now forming working groups to start dealing
with things like the WIPO report.

That's substantive material.

And ICANN's failure to recognize us puts us in a position in which when we
arrive, if ever, that decisions will have been made that will not be
reopened.

In other words, the game could be over by the time we get there.

We need to complain in very strong terms that this is inherently unfair
and prejudicial.

--karl--

Just out of curiosity, is there a browsable archive of this list?
If so, could someone send me the URL?

--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain

To: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>, <idno@radix.co.nz>
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:274] with copy to Don Heath
Cc: heath@isoc.org

At 13:00 11/06/1999 -0400, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>Ahem . . . I've been on the IDNO list since before there was an IDNO list
:-) and I can testify that DonHeathBashing is one of the oldest and most
revered threads in the discussion. Leaving aside the excursion into
JonPostelBashing (de mortuis nil nisi bonum not having penetrated the
consciousness of some domain name warriors) it's simply revisonist to
suggest that IDNO did not start out as a "Let's oppose the Don Heath view
of constituencies."
>
The only thing I remember is that I said that sadly Don Heath chose not to
talk to me in Berlin. This reflected my willingness to talk to him-- I
approached him and asked for some time to talk. He said "not now" as he was
with someone else and never came back to me.
Doesn't sound like bashing to me.
Interesting how you interpret the start of the IDNO. Do you call the Paris
Draft a "Let's oppose the Don Heath view of constituencies" document?
Kevin, let me tell you, as I am not on the ISOC list, I do not know what is
the Don Heath view of constituencies.
I'll have to take your word for it.

>Moreover, I've been underwhelmed by the silence that has met the
announcement that ISOC is formally considering whether to support a
constituency of individuals as such. For those who are bothering to pay
attention, the message I bring is this: it's better to influence Don
Heath's policy views than to try to convince the Internet Community to
ignore him. Here's a little hint: Don has mor influence with the ultimate
decisionmakers than any of the founding members of The Cyberspace
Association have; indeed, his influence over the process is probably on the
same order of magnitude as that of our whole membership taken in the
aggregate. What's more, he's no longer opposed to ISOC supporting an
individuals' constituency.

I also asked you privately to tell Don Heath that we would like to hear
from him. Didn't you do that? Why then complain about the lack of public
reaction on our list?

I think we all understand about Don's influence with the ultimate
decisionmakers. What IDNO in it's innocence stands for is the polite
request to be a small part (3 seats on the NC for crying out loud!) of a
democratic future decisionmaking structure, where those affected by policy
can have their representation.
If Don Heath is coming round to agreeing with that, we should be hearing
from him.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

 

From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Subject: Re: [IDNO:274] with copy to Don Heath
Cc: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>, <idno@radix.co.nz>,
heath@isoc.org

At 12:04 PM 6/12/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>The only thing I remember is that I said that sadly Don Heath chose not to

Joop, and everyone else,

Let me strongly encourage you all to stop this, and similar, threads
immediately.

It has nothing to do with the focus of this group and is sure to take
energy away from that focus and to add little but emotion.

The easiest way to stop the thread is for everyone simply to stop. No
responses to joop's note. No responses to my note. Just return to the
main programming.

d/

At 18:54 11/06/1999 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 12:04 PM 6/12/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>The only thing I remember is that I said that sadly Don Heath chose not to
>
>
>Joop, and everyone else,
>
>Let me strongly encourage you all to stop this, and similar, threads
>immediately.
>
Immediately, eh?

>It has nothing to do with the focus of this group and is sure to take
>energy away from that focus and to add little but emotion.
>
Why could it not lead to compromise and peace, Dave?

>The easiest way to stop the thread is for everyone simply to stop. No
>responses to joop's note. No responses to my note. Just return to the
>main programming.
>
Main programming to do what, Dave? Get ready for non-acceptance by the
interim ICANN board? No matter what we do?
You seem to know things that could save us a lot of time, energy and money.
Please share.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

Just got the following interesting message from Joop:

----- Forwarded message from Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz> -----

Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:44:27 +1200
To: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: Warning to Kent Crispin

At 10:52 11/06/1999 -0700, you wrote:

>
>I notice you carefully did not respond to my point as far as ICANN
>was concerned. In any case, "bashing" is a matter of tone as much
>as it is of content. It would be a pleasant relief to hear
>something in a positive tone from you.
>
Ad hominems as in the last line will not be tolerated here.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

----- End forwarded message -----

--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain

To: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>, Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>,
idno@radix.co.nz

My apologies for the tardy comment: I'm just back in town and catching up on what
happened this week.

It strikes me that NSI has launched a serious offensive on the Hill and in the press in
order to attack ICANN's board. This seems like a very sound strategy since the Board
looks a tad authoritarian in having asked NSI to restrict its constituency to one
NC member. Even a disinterested observer might ask how ICANN can craft such an exception to its
own rules.

They look all the more authoritarian in light of their refusal to reconize an individual's
constituency while pushing for quick action on the WIPO draft over the protests of
most commenters (many of whom, I was advised by Esther) had their comments deleted
from the posting site. Now would seem to be a good moment for the burning glare of publicity.

My only concern is this: if I were in Esther's shoes, and I truly didn't see any problem
whatsoever in the WIPO draft, I wouldn't hesitate to further withhold IDNO recognition now. She
can claim that NSI is at least as guilty as the board in dispensing two seats like patronage, suggest that
this solves the IDNO new constituency problem, and potentially have a less vociferous IDNO on the dispute
resolution process (because we're locked in with NSI).

Being so late to the fair, maybe I'll find out all this has already been discussed and resolved. Hope so.
This is a very interesting development!

Dennis Schaefer

Hi

Is there some list I should be on?

Joop - Forgive me for never finding the time to talk. I certainly
didn't mean any discourtesy.

Be careful about paying too much attention to Michael Sondow and Jeff
Williams. Even though I pay no attention to either, I am aware that
their favorite pastime is picking on me and/or ISOC. Actually, I
have gone out of my way in an attempt to help Michael, but he seems
rather to be more than a little suspicious. sigh

I can tell you this, I/we have some very altruistic principles, that
are posted on our web, and I live up to them. I nor ISOC have any
designs at all on ICANN, the DNSO, or the NCDNHC. We would dearly
like to see a consensus develop.

Best,
Don

To: idno@radix.co.nz
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:282] how about the charter and other tasks ahead

Dear members,

We were in the middle of discussing the charter and the parts that still
need filling in.
We also need to identify who can volunteer for what. Andy Gardner has
special talents to do publicity and has offered his help there.
All other volonteers please mail Sri, or myself. Later on we can turn the
volunteer position into something more formal.

Can we form a small team for the Charter draft? Karl, Dan, Kevin?
As a last item for the membership articles, I would like a brief discussion
on the desirability of having a 2 class membership structure to enable
people who are as yet without a DN to support us too.
Drawbacks: it gives ICANN one more argument to relegate us to the "at
large" membership. Pro: it gives us more members in this critical initial
period.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

This was the first posting in the thread: A democxracy can defend itself

Dear IDNO Members,

Luckily we already have a good voting system in place.
It is easy to go to the website and show our collective will again.

I must ask you to consider ostracising two people who have invaded our list
and who are trying to play a well-tried routine at the expense of our unity.
These people are known through their thousands of postings over the years
of the DN wars. For some, they *are* the DN wars.
Their postings are often disingenuous. They are often impolite and in
breach of good form.
Take for example the way Mr Crispin barged in, demanding to know where the
archives were.
Or Mr Crocker, the list-guest who "does not necessarily agree" with us,
demanding that the listowner ceases a thread on peacemaking with ISOC,
"immediately".

At this stage we are still extremely vulnerable. We are still less than a
hundred people who still have to come to a division of tasks to channel our
energies to further the best interests of all Individual DN owners.
We cannot afford to have paid people in our midst who have only one goal
and that is to thwart us in organizing a credible constituency.
And credible we will have to be. You heard that from Mr Crocker, and in
that, I'm afraid, he is right.
He said other things that are right too, and that makes what he is doing
so insidious.
Since he himself professed that we are better off without these DNS wars on
our list, he makes it easier for us to ask him to do the honourable thing
and leave us in peace, doing what he tells us is good for us.
I would like to ask Mr Crispin, who reposts private messages and insults
listmembers, to do the same thing.

I ask both of you to leave. Please unsubscribe from idno.

I am not silencing the discussion with you. All our members are free to go
to the unmoderated ifwp list to continue the argument with you. Just not
on our construction-list.

To back up my request I am asking for a second for this motion and then ask
the idno members of this list to vote on the issue. I hope you still
remember login and password. Otherwise, ask me privately.

Please read again the article in computerwire. It is in this context that
I'm asking you to exercise your rights in our agora and to drop your
ostrakon in the ballot box.

Joop Teernstra

From: "John B. Reynolds" <john@reynolds.chicago.il.us>
To: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>, <idno@radix.co.nz>
Subject: RE: [IDNO:283] a democracy can defend itself
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:42:41 -0500

If it comes to a vote, I will vote against removing them. I believe that we
should resist the natural impulse to define criticism out of existence by
declaring it "disruptive". We can easily recognize when messages we
disagree with violate behavioral norms (and sometimes imagine that they do
even when they don't), but we tend to be blind to our own transgressions.
It is precisely this dichotomy that fueled the Dave Crocker ISOC thread that
you cite as evidence for his removal. Crocker contended that other list
members' negative comments about ISOC and/or ICANN were disruptive and
off-topic and should be banned. Others then complained that his comments
were themselves out of bounds. It seems pretty clear to me that both sides'
perceptions of what is and is not legitimate debate were influenced by their
respective political views, and that acceptance of either Dave's position or
yours would constitute politically motivated censorship.

Kent's case is even clearer. I see absolutely no basis for declaring that
it is beyond the pale to ask (I have seen no "demand") whether this list has
an archive. There is also no evidence whatsoever that either Crsipin or
Crocker is paid to post to this list. I know of only one paid list
disrupter, but I don't think that he has posted to this list.

This effort's youth and vulnerability are reasons to resist censorship, not
to institute it. If we can not adequately defend our ideals and goals from
our critics within our own forum by any means short of silencing them, how
can we expect to do so elsewhere where we are in the minority?

John B. Reynolds wrote:
>If it comes to a vote, I will vote against removing them. I
>believe that we
>should resist the natural impulse to define criticism out of existence by
>declaring it "disruptive".

I agree! If this organization cannot strong withstand criticism then we
haven't got much of a chance in the "real world."

Who's to decide what's "disruptive"--we are not always in agreement on "the
fact" or "the point."

Email is a terrible means of developing interpersonal relationships. Anyone
else ever had to get on the telephone to clarify the apparent hostile tone
of an email message?

(Kevin Kelly)

To: "John B. Reynolds" <john@reynolds.chicago.il.us>, idno@radix.co.nz
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:287] Re: a democracy can defend itself

At 01:42 13/06/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>
>If it comes to a vote, I will vote against removing them.

That's democracy.

I believe that we
>should resist the natural impulse to define criticism out of existence by
>declaring it "disruptive". We can easily recognize when messages we
>disagree with violate behavioral norms (and sometimes imagine that they do
>even when they don't), but we tend to be blind to our own transgressions.
>It is precisely this dichotomy that fueled the Dave Crocker ISOC thread that
>you cite as evidence for his removal. Crocker contended that other list
>members' negative comments about ISOC and/or ICANN were disruptive and
>off-topic and should be banned. Others then complained that his comments
>were themselves out of bounds. It seems pretty clear to me that both sides'
>perceptions of what is and is not legitimate debate were influenced by their
>respective political views, and that acceptance of either Dave's position or
>yours would constitute politically motivated censorship.
>

John, I think you do not see what they are doing. Sowing discord is very
different from criticism . We have only a limited time to organize, before
Santiago.
All this writing has already seriously taken energy away from our goal.
Our list should not be yet another political discussion list where the DNS
wars can rage on. There are two other lists to do that on.
Crispin's list of "bashings" was carefully extracted from discussion
initiated by himself, or Mr Crocker.

>Kent's case is even clearer. I see absolutely no basis for declaring that
>it is beyond the pale to ask (I have seen no "demand") whether this list has
>an archive. There is also no evidence whatsoever that either Crsipin or
>Crocker is paid to post to this list. I know of only one paid list
>disrupter, but I don't think that he has posted to this list.
>
I see 3 reasons for the removal of Mr Crispin
1. behaviour unbecoming for a guest (he is not an IDNO member; that he
qualifies to be one but chooses not to, does not make him less of a guest
here) including ad hominems against listmembers.
2. reposting of a private message to the list
3. crossposting of a listmessage to another list (the discuss@dnso.org)
without the author's permission.

The fact that I gave him the chance to unsub himself voluntarily is already
a concession.

>This effort's youth and vulnerability are reasons to resist censorship, not
>to institute it. If we can not adequately defend our ideals and goals from
>our critics within our own forum by any means short of silencing them, how
>can we expect to do so elsewhere where we are in the minority?
>
Censorship is a term that you should not lightly use, John. I know a lot
about it from real life. It is about the power to cut speach or writing off
at the source. When 40 -odd people want a little private corner for
themselves to get some work done and *ask* their opponents to give them
some peace, that is not censorship. Pulling someone's internet access or
domain, *that* is censorship.
Keeping hostile gatecrashers out of a party is not.

It has been clearly announced that this is a moderated list. We have no
time for bloodsports here.
If you care about democracy and censorship issues and you care about the
survival of this list and of the IDNO, please offer your services to the
moderating committee. Your input is truly welcome there.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

From: Dan Steinberg <dstein@travel-net.com>
Organization: Synthesis

Actually folks, there is an easier way:
If you feel that 'someone' is disruptive, ignore them. Engaging them
in debate is counter-productive and you lose. Debating whether or not
to ban/shun/censure/censor them again disrupts from your own agenda
and puts them and their agenda(s) in the spotlight.

My option is very easy: ignoring someone requires no effort, except
for the suppressing the urge to respond to someone's outrageous
statements. Believe me, it much easier than quitting smoking. After
a day or two you will no longer feel the urge to hit the reply button.
And you will feel empowerment as an individual. This shift happens one
person at a time. No consensus is required. No debate. You have all
had the debate inside your heads anyway.

Think about it.

BTW. This is my one and only post on the subject.

At 01:46 AM 6/14/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 01:42 13/06/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>John, I think you do not see what they are doing. Sowing discord is very

This list has been having regular postings by participants who engage in
bashing one or another group. If you are seriously concerned about actions
that sow discord, look carefully to that pattern, rather than to the few
voices trying to point out the problem with those postings.

>different from criticism . We have only a limited time to organize, before
>Santiago.
>All this writing has already seriously taken energy away from our goal.

Limited time, indeed. That is why it is so strange that your response to
efforts at suggesting focusing on constructive content, rather than on
bashing, is to do more bashing, albeit in the form of a formal ostracism
effort. If you are worried about efficient use of the group's time, this
initiative is a most peculiar way to show it.

My previous note encouraged stopping the bashing and, instead, focusing on
constructive work, for precisely the reasons you list, time and energy.

>Our list should not be yet another political discussion list where the DNS
>wars can rage on. There are two other lists to do that on.
>Crispin's list of "bashings" was carefully extracted from discussion
>initiated by himself, or Mr Crocker.

You did not 'extract' my statements, you changed them, adding your own
interpretation.

>2. reposting of a private message to the list

Joop, you occupy a position of formal authority on this list. Operating
under color of authority carries special burdens on the person in
authority. The note you sent could quite reasonably be viewed as an abuse
of power.

This group has not defined any mechanisms for pursuing complaints, such as
about abuses of authroity. Hence, Kent had no recourse for taking
exception to your not other than to publish it to the list.

>3. crossposting of a list message to another list (the discuss@dnso.org)
>without the author's permission.

I don't know what list of rules or etiquette you are drawing this one from,
but cross-posting is usually considered no more than inefficient. I
suppose that cross-posting from a private list is sometimes considered a
privacy violation, but this list isn't private.

>The fact that I gave him the chance to unsub himself voluntarily is already
>a concession.

You create a demand and then draw a conclusion from a failure to respond to
your demand, considering the failure to be damning? (And, by the way, it
is not even clear what "concession" you think should be drawn from that
failure.)

>It has been clearly announced that this is a moderated list. We have no

1. It is not moderated. Postings are re-sent directly. The term
"moderated" for discussion groups means that postings go through a
moderator who decides whether to forward them.

2. Where has it been announced that the list is moderated? In particular,
where is it in the stable storage, namely the web pages?

I suspect that you have a much more complete and precise sense of the
details for the group and the list -- in your head -- than is written or
than anyone else. That does not make those details valid.

d/

From: Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
To: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
cc: idno@radix.co.nz
Subject: Re: [IDNO:282] how about the charter and other tasks ahead

> Can we form a small team for the Charter draft? Karl, Dan, Kevin?

Of course I can help.

> As a last item for the membership articles, I would like a brief discussion
> on the desirability of having a 2 class membership structure to enable
> people who are as yet without a DN to support us too.
> Drawbacks: it gives ICANN one more argument to relegate us to the "at
> large" membership. Pro: it gives us more members in this critical initial
> period.

Two points -- as for the "general membership is enough" argument. We must
never let that pass unchallanged. There is no equivalence between general
membership and membership in an SO. We are entitled to both.

As for two classes -- In the materials we've put together so far we're
pretty liberal about membership already. And we answered the concern
about conflicts by saying "go buy an unconflicted registration" on the
presumption that that is a pretty inexpensive way to obtain resolve a
dispute. It is this latter point that makes me feel that we ought to
simply require everybody to have a domain name under their belt.

By-the-way, since I suspect that we all are pretty immune to the closed
meeting disease, I suspect that none of us will object to non-members
observing.

--karl--

From: "Karl E. Peters" <bridge@darientel.net>
Reply-To: bridge@darientel.net
Organization: Bridge International Holdings. Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Steinberg <dstein@travel-net.com>
CC: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>, idno@radix.co.nz
Subject: Re: [IDNO:289] Opposition in a democracy...

To one and all:
I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Steinberg's approach to the perceived
"invaders and obstructers"!!! When the USA has opposition groups such as the
Communist extremists or neo-Nazis movements in America, it is best dealt with by
giving them ample chance to be known for what they believe in open forum and have
the nation turn away from them on their own. The greatest heights of these groups
in America was achieved when incredible attention was given them by those trying
to drown them out. If the ideas of the group are so easily diverted that they
follow such ideas, they would not have been up to the tasks at hand, anyway.
Those who would fall away at the first sign of different ideas will do so when the
battle begins, if not before, and it is better to know where you stand as a group
BEFORE going to battle. I vote that irritants and opponents be given all the
freedoms they have here and simply die on their own accord for lack of fertile
ground to grow in among us. Not glorifying them with concerted attempts to
counter their every remark will also give them less ground to stand on if they
truly want to disrupt. We should simply announce to new joiners that the sole
purpose of this group is to obtain and protect the rights of the little guys in
the internet world and that anyone not wishing to further this end will be
ignored. Options on the ballots should be those that advance the cause, however
they might propose to do so, and thus those irritants will have little or no
influence other than the occasional discordant voice that will come across as a
clanging cymbal rather than a harmonic influence. Those who have ears and minds
will know the difference. If they are dissuaded from our principles, some may
leave. Others will be strengthened and educated in their resolve by hearing what
the clanging cymbal sounds like in their composition.

Very sincerely yours,
Karl E. Peters
karl.peters@bridgecompanies.com

Dan Steinberg wrote:

> Actually folks, there is an easier way:
> If you feel that 'someone' is disruptive, ignore them.

From: Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
To: idno@radix.co.nz
cc: comments@icann.org
Subject: [IDNO:296] Re: a democracy can defend itself
In-Reply-To: <199906131557.DAA23436@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
X-X-Sender: karl@npax.cavebear.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.10.9906131034480.-329651@prime-radiant.cavebear.com>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 8cb9c519c31b9580cfa8d7861076d38c

> Dave Crocker and I are both individual domain name holders,
> and meet every possible criteria for membership in an individual
> domain name holders constituency. Our messages have in fact been
> polite -- even, by Internet standards, restrained.

I personally am happy to let you and Dave be here with full powers of
discussion - but only if you join the IDNO.

If you do not join and you simply want to post from the Peanut Gallery,
then I'm not so sympathetic.

As for "politeness" and "restraint".... let's allow the reader to decide.

As for the IDNO:

The IDNO is the constituency-in-formation for individual domain name
holders.

The IDNO is not a substitute for general membership in ICANN.

Nor is general membership a substitute for the IDNO.

We, of course, have our growing pains. And because we are largely doing
this as a volunteer effort in our spare time from our real jobs, the
effort is somewhat slow and halting.

And since we are doing this all in public, all the gritty parts of our
effort, including disagreements and strong opinions are visible to our
detractors.

Nor do we have the benefit of a professional press agency or full time
staff.

Right now we are hammering out the details of what charactistics define an
individual domain name owner.

Defining membership is, of course, a critical issue we need to resolve
prior to our initiating outreach efforts to increase our membership.

--karl--

From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <25370.929301871.1@nma.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 12:24:31 -0700
Sender: stef@nma.com
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <25372.929301871@nma.com>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 7bbd74176b021b961dc7ff2008a7891b

Dan is right on the mark.

The only way to avoid adding (and thus depleting) your own energy to
the disruptors is to withold your replies.

I have been practicing this for several years, with a few unfortunate
lapses and I can attest to the fact that it works.

But, it requires real self discipline, so brace your self and
practice, practice, practice.

This will also be my only post on the subject. Cheers...\Stef

>From Dan's message Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:56:37 -0400:
}
}Actually folks, there is an easier way:

From: "John B. Reynolds" <john@reynolds.chicago.il.us>
To: <idno@radix.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:303] a democracy must defend itself through ideas, not their suppression
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:59:24 -0500

Political processes where democracy and freedom of speech are respected are
inherently messy. Consensus is often difficult to reach in an environment
where many diverse and often diametrically opposed points of view can be
expressed. It would be much easier to take action if opposing points of
view were not allowed. This does not justify their suppression or
marginalization on the basis of expediency. Much of the criticism that has
been leveled at ICANN has been due to its failure to recognize this. This
group should not make the same mistake.

Our credibility as a representative of individual domain holders depends
upon our discussions remaining open to all of them, even those who question
the legitimacy of our effort, and yes, even those who may be actively trying
to undermine it. If we are not sufficiently sure of our ideals and goals to
withstand their efforts within our own list, we will surely be incapable of
defending ourselves elsewhere.

For this reason, I continue to oppose the removal of anyone from this list.
I oppose formal list moderation as well, on the grounds that it would be
unlikely to limit itself to cases of genuine abuse. I have not yet seen any
messages on this list that I would categorize as abusive.

(John Reynolds)

To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Cc: idno@radix.co.nz
Subject: [IDNO:304] Re: a democracy can defend itself
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 21:08:50 GMT
References: <199906130643.SAA08555@tardis.patho.gen.nz> <199906130416.QAA04545@tardis.patho.gen.nz> <199906131502.DAA22052@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
In-Reply-To: <199906131502.DAA22052@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tardis.patho.gen.nz id JAA32116
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <37651d76.51512313@mail.dso.net>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 110d5673f8812030a1d46b0f4a75a154

On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 07:54:15 -0700, Dave Crocker
<dcrocker@brandenburg.com> wrote:

>At 01:46 AM 6/14/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>At 01:42 13/06/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>>John, I think you do not see what they are doing. Sowing discord is very
>
>This list has been having regular postings by participants who engage in
>bashing one or another group. If you are seriously concerned about actions
>that sow discord, look carefully to that pattern, rather than to the few
>voices trying to point out the problem with those postings.

I would note that nothing of the kind was happening until you showed
up to sow it.

I have asked you many times and you will not answer. Why are you here
Dave? You oppose the idea of an IDNO constituency. So what is your
purpose on this forum?

--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services

At 04:37 13/06/1999 -0700, d3nnis wrote:
>Joop, Karl, Kevin, Jeff, Sri (to name just a few) ....
>
>I'm very interested in discussing how IDNO will formulate its position on
the WIPO draft.
>
I think we all are. This will be one of the most challenging tasks ahead of
us. Mind you, the WIPO draft is a 140 page dense legal document of which
most people have only come to sniff the odors.
Although there were plenty of hands that went up in Berlin when Dan
Steinberg asked who has actually read it (I read more than most, under the
guiding hand of Peter Dengate Thrush, who is one of the few who really
grasps the full extent of the Dispute policy proposed) I suspect that most
of those were the of the TM lobby who simple want ICANN to endorse it, in
toto, pronto.

>For example, will there be a committee, and if so, will it submit a report
to the full membership prior
>to Santiago?
We should form a committee on it, no doubt, but we have to settle a few
more basic things about our constituency first.
Membership, membership fees, procedures.
Then we can steam ahead with our position on the WIPO draft.

It is for this very reason, that any haste adopted in the DNSO would be
indecent, as the DNSO itself has not yet been constituted.
But you read what the observers at the latest phone conf had to say..

Better yet, is the Board's endorsement a dead issue, or is this something
that we
>should consider protesting in IDNO's capacity as the representative of the
largest number of domain
>name owners?
>
The Board's endorsement is only partial. The most contentious parts have
been sent to the DNSO.

>Also, is there any agreement as yet as to how the DNSO will tackle this
>subject?
>
LOL! There is no agreement yet as to who is going to be represented in the
DNSO.

>I found Sri's domain name problem description to be very interesting. I
haven't had the opportunity to compare my NSI tiff with his, but I have a
feeling we could find a lot of interesting themes were we to swap notes.
>
The domain-policy@lists.internic.net used to be a good repository for
complaints against NSI's policies.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

>That you would take them as antagonistic is, perhaps a correct assessment
>of the PRESENCE of antagonism, but is very much an incorrect assessment of
>its SOURCE.
>

Dave is very good at carefully avoiding the question and not answering
it directly.

I ask you directly then Mr Crocker, do you support the goals and
efforts of the IDNO? If not, then with what purpose did you join this
forum?

Not more skirting the question, please answer it directly.

--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services

From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:321] a democracy can defend itself
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <4.0.1.19990614090533.01ac8820@pop.clear.net.nz>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 67ff59c6ac1a6a1b28b9f491b0cb39d3

Dear members,

In case anyone needs more convincing of the hostile intent of our "guests"
from the registrar constituency, please note that Mr Crispin posted my
entire message to the dnso list, from where it went to the ifwp list and
was further embellished with sarcastic comment from Mr Crocker.

>In light of that statement, the attached message from Joop Teernstra
>on the idno list is most interesting. I note that both Dave Crocker
>and myself *are* individual domain name owners, and fully entitled,
>by any definition, to participate in the list. And I hardly need to
>point out that such behavior seriously undermines the credibility of
>the IDNO...hopefully Joop will realize that before too long.=20
>
>For reference, in case anyone needs to check, I have placed the
>relevant email messages at http://songbird.com/kent/idno (it isn't
>all that difficult to create an archive...)

For that kind of flagrant disregard for list-rules anyone will get kicked
off, not just from our list.
ISOC members may want to tell us how the ISOC list would deal with such
behaviour.

For those who need to be reminded,

1. this list is a volunteer effort by unpaid people. Please respect it. It
is the only resource for communication and organizing effort of the IDNO
constituency. Having a Domain Name does not give you a licence to disrupt
the efforts of other DN owners to organize.

2. this list is moderated. Such is announced on our webpage. The moderation
is intended to be light and tolerant, and it does not mean pre-vetting of
messages by the moderator(s). In cases of abuse, it can mean a call for
partial or total ostracism, delivered by democratic majority vote by the
IDNO members on this list.

3. Observe normal netiquette. This means: absolutely no reposting of
private messages. It also means: no reposting of list messages elsewhere
without permission of the author.

4. Try to avoid ad hominem arguments and refrain from insults. Insulting
people is a way of shutting them up.
If any listmember feels insulted by another listmember, the offended party
should complain to the listowner(s) , not to the list.
The listowner will then request the offender to apologize. Refusal to do so
will be dealt with by a vote of the IDNO members on the list.

5. Non-members are the guests of IDNO and should be especially sensitive to
the rules.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

From: "Karl E. Peters" <bridge@darientel.net>
Reply-To: karl.peters@bridgecompanies.com
Organization: Bridge International Holdings. Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IDNO <idno@radix.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:323] Dynamics of opposition group handling...
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms9EE041DFE022C064A6A1BC1F"
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <37646327.48A44EAD@darientel.net>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: fdbecff7c9b7b421ff136c8d83d95a25

To one and all:
I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Steinberg's approach to the
perceived
"invaders and obstructers"!!! When the USA has opposition groups such
as the Communist extremists or neo-Nazis movements in America, it is
best
dealt with by giving them ample chance to be known for what they believe
in open forum and have the nation turn away from them on their own. The
greatest heights of these groups in America was achieved when incredible
attention was given them by those trying to drown them out. If the
ideas of the group are so easily diverted that they follow such ideas,
they would not have been up to the tasks at hand, anyway. Those who
would fall away at the first sign of different ideas will do so when the
battle begins, if not before, and it is better to know where you stand
as a group BEFORE going to battle. I vote that irritants and opponents
be given all the freedoms they have here and simply die on their own
accord for lack of fertile ground to grow in among us. Not glorifying
them with concerted attempts to counter their every remark will also
give them less ground to stand on if they truly want to disrupt. We
should simply announce to new joiners that the sole purpose of this
group is to obtain and protect the rights of the little guys in the
internet world and that anyone not wishing to further this end will be
ignored. Options on the ballots should be those that advance the cause,
however they might propose to do so, and thus those irritants will have
little or no influence other than the occasional discordant voice that
will come across as a clanging cymbal rather than a harmonic influence.
Those who have ears and minds will know the difference. If they are
dissuaded from our principles, some may leave. Others will be
strengthened and educated in their resolve by hearing what the clanging
cymbal sounds like in their composition.

Very sincerely yours,
Karl E. Peters
karl.peters@bridgecompanies.com

From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:326] Re: a democracy can defend itself
Cc: "William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>, <idno@radix.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <199906132327.LAA35726@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
References: <199906132227.KAA34093@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
<199906132213.KAA33795@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <4.0.1.19990614133612.01c199c0@pop.clear.net.nz>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 8a33c72b0c8f644d3a27bc2697ab58df

At 16:07 13/06/1999 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 03:27 PM 6/13/99 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>Let's go back to your first questions WIlliam, Given Kent and Daves
>>antagonism towards the very concept of the IDNO, one would wonder about
>>their purpose for participating in the IDNO discussion list.
>
>
>Roeland, your note is a good demonstration of the very deep problem with
>the kind of censorship being pursued.
>
Sheesh, Dave. More myth in the making. Censorship being pursued? I have
not removed anybody from the list, not even revoked write privileges. I
have proposed that the members vote on *asking* both of you to do the right
thing and go voluntarily.
I have done this because I feel responsible for the well-being of this
list. I "own" this list in that sense.
Kent,on the ifwp list, calls that abuse of power.
Are we already a public body of ICANN? With what yardstick are we being
measured?

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Subject: Re: [IDNO:321] a democracy can defend itself
Cc: idno@radix.co.nz

At 01:26 PM 6/14/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>was further embellished with sarcastic comment from Mr Crocker.

Joop, I was under the impression that New Zealand spoke a variant of
English as its primary language and that that variant was no more extreme
or strange than the American variant.

Hence I am at a loss to understand how you could interpret the referenced
note as sarcasm. It was a direct statement of a direct reaction. I did
put in a tag line, quite incidental to the main comment, which offered a
silly explanation for the bizarre situation. Yes, that tag line was in the
form of sarcasm. Can it be that you missed the entire paragraph of
serious, simple, direct comment that preceded it and was clearly the
primary focus of my note?

>For that kind of flagrant disregard for list-rules anyone will get kicked
>off, not just from our list.

Please cite the documentation of list rules that we all were afforded prior
access to. As with Kent, I have been unable to locate them. If you are
going to take a legalistic approach and claim that rules have been
violated, you need to be able to point at those rules and ensure that
participants have been able to be aware of them.

At 03:53 PM 6/14/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >Roeland, your note is a good demonstration of the very deep problem with
> >the kind of censorship being pursued.
> >
>Sheesh, Dave. More myth in the making. Censorship being pursued? I have
>not removed anybody from the list, not even revoked write privileges. I

Again there seems to be some misunderstanding about relatively simple
English. "Being pursued" is not the same as "having taken place". It
means that there is an attempt to exercise censorship undwerway, not that
it has already been performed.

Having a group vote to exercise censorship does not make it something other
than censorship. It is an exercise of power to stifle speech, and the term
is particularly significant with respect to "political" speech".

>have proposed that the members vote on *asking* both of you to do the right
>thing and go voluntarily.

Your language about voluntary departure was your own direct request that we
leave of our own effort, as a matter separate from the vote. The exact
language you used in the portion of your note requesting a vote was:

"I must ask you to consider ostracizing two people who have
invaded our list..."

Ostracism is not a voluntary step performed by the target. It is a
coercive step performed by the community.

>Are we already a public body of ICANN? With what yardstick are we being
>measured?

You seek recognition as a representative body in a public process. As I
commented earlier, recognition should come from an operational basis. If
you cannot sustain criteria applied to public processes now, why would one
expect you to later?

d/

From: william@dso.net (William X. Walsh)
To: idno@radix.co.nz
Cc: dcrocker@brandenburg.com
Subject: [IDNO:332] Re: a democracy can defend itself
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 07:48:18 GMT

Dave,

You have REPEATEDLY ignored being asked a number of times what your
intentions are in joining this forum.

As a founding member of the IDNO, I move that if you do not answer
this question in a timely manner, you be removed from non-member
observer status on this list.

You and Kent did the same thing you are doing here on the ORSC list,
and I am loathe to let you get away with it now.

What was your intention in joining this forum?

Do you or do you not support the concepts and goals the IDNO has set
forward, including the need for an individuals' constituency in the
DNSO?

You have a history of diverting discussions and disrupting forums by
subtling beginning arguments over semantics as you have done here.
You have done this NUMEROUS times in the past.

State your intentions in this forum!

If you do not support this effort, what is your purpose in being here?

A clear concise question that is abundantly easy for you to answer,
and which will help the members of this list make a decision as to
your status in our forum.

--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net Fax:(209) 671-7934

From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:336] Re: [discuss] Re: a democracy can defend itself
Cc: list@ifwp.org, discuss@dnso.org
In-Reply-To: <19990613220723.A16085@songbird.com>
References: <199906140132.NAA39216@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
<199906140132.NAA39216@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <4.0.1.19990614211238.01a62630@pop.clear.net.nz>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: bb1980bb98a014634c9bb2eee1b80833

At 22:07 13/06/1999 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>There is no information concerning what is meant by "civil
>discourse", nor is there any indication of where I might find out
>anything about it.
>
Among civilised people there is not much need to spell out what civil
discourse is. It gets noted when it is absent.
We owe you a debt of gratitude for forcing us early on to formalize list
rules.
They are now posted on the website. They will be repeated at regular
intervals on the list.

>> ISOC members may want to tell us how the ISOC list would deal with such
>> behaviour.
>>
>> For those who need to be reminded,
>
>Since I have never seen any of this before, I can hardly be reminded.
>
I did post a request/reminder not to cross-post on june 4. You may have
missed that. But you did not miss the request for a statement of position
for non-members.
Since you are now aware of the rules, why do you still violate them and
continue to crosspost without asking?
Do you think the dnso list appreciates it?

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:340] List rules up for your approval vote
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <19990614130236.JKAX2926.mta2-rme@[210.55.122.246]>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 0d7727acf3090a947731adf29a30c63d

Dear all,

I have put the list rules as they were published on the list up on the
voting site for your approval.
This way they become *our* rules, not *my* rules.
Yep, another round of voting. You'll get used to it.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>
To: <idno@radix.co.nz>, <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Cc: <heath@isoc.org>
Subject: [IDNO:341] Re: with copy to Don Heath
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tardis.patho.gen.nz id BAA58772
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <s764ce0e.075@gw1.rspab.com>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: aa580d50fe6cdf74a1e05f89d1269fa3

Hmmm, I don't recall your request that I ask Don to contact us. Must have gotten lost in the noise. I think that for now, we should give ISOC time to build an internal consensus and see where it leads. As I have said, I believe very strongly that ISOC will support a model of internet governance in which individuals as such have a significant voice.

KJC

From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>
To: <idno@radix.co.nz>, <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Cc: <discuss@dnso.org>, <list@ifwp.org>
Subject: [IDNO:336] Re: [discuss] Re: a democracy can defend itself
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 6f5a59ef903df088324ef5927af77840

What I find completely from hunger is the suggestion that democratic principles are served by the imposition from on high of rules of behavior whose objective is transparently to squelch criticism. The statement that allowing Mr. Crispin to unsub voluntarily was a concession is itself terribly de-legitimating.

Much is made of the fact that one had to sign the gTLD-MoU in order to play in the PAB sandbox, but so very little is made of the fact that the gTLD-MoU reflected the rough consensus of the internet community as to how to proceed for the first "cut." There was never a suggestion that the gTLD-MoU was the last word on the subject; on the contrary, it was, but its nature, intended to change in light of experience.

Alas, today we are engaged in constructing an edifice so baroque, with so many clearly-identified and countervailing positions, that the flexibility that was inherent in the gTLD-MoU has truly gone off in its handbasket to hell. Those who squabble around the pile of rip-rap that surrounds this edifice are beginning to resemble a pack of very crazed and fairly hungry dogs.

Instead of trying to oust Kent Crispin and Dave Crocker, this organization should be trying to coopt them. Their support would go far to emphasize the importance of the individual as such in the making of domain name policy. Their ostracism . . . brought on for decision by means which are patently extrademocratic . . . largely sounds the deathknell of our legitimacy. That is, what little of it is left in light of the identification of this organization with Iperdome and NSI.

I want a question put to a vote: that the membership disavow the ill-conceived attempt to exclude Dave Crocker and Kent Crispin from participation in our work.

KJC.2

As I said to Sri -- I love this idea. Thanks for bringing it up.

My one fear (being in the US) is preventing frivolous libel suits because of the 'public' nature of the postings. If there's a lawyer out there who could advise us, would we be wise to avoid names (of companies and company reps except in 1-1 emails)? Or is even the latter something to be avoided?

>Dennis

----------
> At 11:54 14/06/1999 -0400, Srikanth Narra wrote:
> >Joop
> >
> >Between Dennis, myself and couple of other members, may be can help other
> >individual domain name owners who face haressment with domain name vs.
> >trademark issue in our own little ways. (Beware :- We are not attorney's !)
> >
> >We have been thru it and it was hell to go thru - more so because we did not
> >know whom to turn to. I am pretty sure more will turn up at IDNO as we
> >ourselves did.
> >
> >If anyone wants to share experiences they had and want other members to
> >avoid some pitfalls they faced - lend a shoulder or need a shoulder to lean
> >on - feel free to drop me/Joop an e-mail. I will add an other section in
> >the volunteer list - Domain name disputes helplist.
> >
> >We can post summarise to the list once in a while to keep others on the list
> >posted on happenings - that way - we help as many as we can without
> >distracting from our main work.
> >
> >Will that be ok ?
> >
> More than O.K. This is a very good idea and , with permission I would
> like to devote a special section of our website to "horror stories", so
> that people who have been through it can make the best strategies know to
> others.
> I am sure the attorneys on this list , and Mikki Barry, who just joined us
> (3 cheers) will pay special attention to your cases.
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
> the Cyberspace Association,
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: "William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>, "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
Cc: <idno@radix.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:346] RE: List mechanics
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:12:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
In-Reply-To: <199906141644.EAA64857@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Importance: Normal
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <001801beb691$6ad63950$ecaf6cc7@hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 254c090b13dd22481e6f41094f2430dc

I tend to agree with William here. Openness is one thing and if Kent
were an unknown quantity I mught not be so vociferous. However, Kent is
a very well and understood quantity. There have been allusions made to
MacCarthyist behaviour. However, most American thinkers would never have
allowed Stalin, or any other sovreign, a voice in Congress. This is the
issue. It is not only a matter of an opposing view. Kent is of the firm
opinion that individual domain name owners are hobbyists, nothing more,
and deserve no voice in serious Internet policy making. Kent only
supports Organizations in this role, the larger the better.

Granted, the previous deductions were derived from having read his
opinions and observed his actions, on many lists, over a period of over
two years. Kent has never directly espoused these views. He might even
deny them. This is the main problem with Kent, he lies. He says whatever
is expedient, then does what he wants. His words do not match his
actions, he doesn't walk his talk. To allow him free reign here is
tantamount to having Mike Roberts on the IFWP steering committee. Many
of us sadly know the results of that. Mike subverted and killed the IFWP
movement. Allowing Kent in this assembly would beg a similar result for
this organization.

The issue of David Crocker is slightly different. He is not nearly as
overt as Kent. However, it is my experience that he will make us crazy,
by running us down endless rat-holes, until we wind up chasing our own
tails. Dave is quite good at it, he has had a lot of practice. However,
by itself, this is no reason to exclude him from our discussions. If we
can not recognize rat-holes when they are presented to us then we have
other problems.

As a group, what we need to learn is some self-discipline. We need to
not be emotional and we need to learn to focus our attentions to the
task at hand.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@dso.net]
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 9:41 AM
> To: Kent Crispin
> Cc: idno@radix.co.nz
> Subject: [IDNO:345] Re: List mechanics
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 07:51:28 -0700, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >You do need to define what is on-topic, then.
>
> And you still need to address the question about what your intentions
> are here, since you oppose the concepts and goals of the IDNO.
>
> Your silence on this question is perhaps the most telling thing. If
> your intentions were positive, there would be no hesitation in
> presenting an answer.
>
> That you have repeatedly refused to answer the question is turning
> into proof enough of your intentions.
>
>
>
> --
> William X. Walsh

From: Mikki Barry <ooblick@netpolicy.com>
Subject: [IDNO:350] Re: List mechanics
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <v04003a23b38b0b6c0e39@[207.87.121.71]>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 1c7408d764a464bee7749b5fde49e136

Most of us use filters, correct? Is there really a danger in letting
"contrarians" onto the list if you educate people to the judicious use of
filters? The very fact that so much time and bandwidth is being used on
whether or not they should be allowed to speak is keeping us from real work.

Just a thought...

To: Srikanth Narra <snarra@talus.net>, "'Karl Auerbach'" <karl@CaveBear.com>
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: RE: [IDNO:325] Money
Cc: "'Joop Teernstra'" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <5DDC98303A22D21180D800A0C9A92FEA83FB42@atlxchange.atl.talu
s.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <19990615002449.OJAI2926.mta2-rme@[210.55.150.252]>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: c6a95a63bd493752890528241f685da6

At 11:40 14/06/1999 -0400, Srikanth Narra wrote:
>Joop/Karl
>
>If we can decide on membership fees - I don;t mind paying for members from
>third world countries - for whom paying in dollar amounts is a substancial
>amount but an exchange rule burden as well.
>
>Sri
>

Very generous offer, Sri, that will save a lot of transfer-hassle as well.
Maybe you want to limit it to founding members.
We are still growing.;-)
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 05:21:33AM +0000, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> OK, Kent, then I demend to be added to the Registrar Constituency
> mailing lists as a non-member observer, and with no rules as to my
> participation.

The rules for being a member of the registrar constituency are to be
a registrar. I don't meet that definition, so I can't participate in
the registrar constituency. Anyone who does meet that definition
can rightfully *demand* to participate, whether they think the
constituency is a good idea or not.

The rules for the individual domain name owners constituency, should
it be formed, are that the member have a registered individual
domain. I do meet that criteria, and therefore I can demand to
participate.

The requirement that a constituency allow admission to anyone who
meets the criteria for that constituency comes from ICANN; it's not
something that you have any choice about, if you want to be a
constituency.

> Put up or shut up. Your disruptive behavior is unacceptable.

*My* disruptive behavior? I note that people get very excited and
angry no matter what I say, but I am being very careful to be polite,
honest, straightforward, and cool. If my mere presence causes people
to lose it, I can't do anything about it (though it gives me a
strange and gloomy feeling of power). Nor is it reason to bar me
from participating.

> BTW, I tried to join. I was told Registrar members only were
> permitted.

Of course. You don't meet the membership criteria for the registrar
constituency. However, I *do* meet the criteria for membership in
IDNO. Agreeing with its goals is *not* one of the criteria for
membership; nor can it be. Let me rephrase that more accurately:
You can make the IDNO a private club, and blackball people you don't
like. But if you do, then you won't be a constituency of the DNSO.
You will just be a private club.

> So if you would like to join the IDNO and support its goals of
> recognition, you are more than welcome.

I can join the IDNO and *not* support its goals of recognition.
That's the nature of the game.

Furthermore, your attacks on me undermine the credibility of the
whole effort: regardless of whether I support the goals of the IDNO,
you, and others, are obviously doing everything possible to make it
extremely unpleasant for me to be here. That is hardly the mark of
an "open, transparent, democratic" body.

In other words, to quote Roeland (whose deliberate and direct
attempts to insult me are far worse than anything I have said -- but
I'm not complaining -- he's making my case far better than I can at
this point), "you've got to walk the talk".

> Otherwise, you have no leg to
> stand on with your argument below.

Whatever.

--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain

--

dear all:
many thanks to Srikanth, Dennis and Joop for bringing this (domain name
disputes) subject up as, being new to the list, and arriving in the
middle of a firestorm, i didn't want to be or seem impolite in
pressing one of my selfish concerns 'out of order'.... however... given
this opening, and given that this sort of thing could rain down on them
too, i'd like to inform the members of this list/ org about my
"dispute" w/ America Online that arrived like a very unwelcome guest via
email fax and registered letter (text included at end of this post) last
month (5.18.99) courtesy of their 'washington lawyers' Arent Fox (aren't
fox?)... i do this, apart from the obvious personal reason of hoping to
solicit badly needed help/support, because it brings up several perhaps
not completely obvious points concerning the 'WIPO process/document'
(which sad to say now i have read carefully, along w/ froomkin etc.),
ICANN, NSI etc... and some perhaps painfully obvious things about AOL...

first the very brief background: i am ceo, janitor etc. of a tiny/nano,
typically broke 'metasoftwetware' startup in oakland, ca usa -- named
"zeitgeist y2k01 ltd (zy2k01)"... and have been actively attempting to
develop a number of hideously ambitious projects over the last year or
so under the "ohmweb.com label" which as a part of their presentation
and reference have attempted to 'heavily leverage' use of the DNS
namespace in producing a 'dot com pipeline'... among other things...
this all framed w/in an 'open (net app) object model' architecture (as
an 'evolution' beyond 'open source') and w/ special focus on 'city' and
other local development projects using an IPTP (independent producer to
(independent) producer) approach...

all that being as it may i did indeed register the names
'opendigitalcity2k.com' , 'digitalcity2k.com',
'opendigitalcity2k01.com', and 'digitalcity2k01.com' as part of a
somewhat larger 'cluster' in an 'innocent'/calculated attempt at
generating a 'semantic reference field' w/in but also beyond the dns
namespace for some of my projects in 'city-related' areas.

the other relevant facts can be summarized quickly:

-AOL 'owns the mark DIGITAL CITY' and the mark/name DIGITALCITY.COM and
runs some kind of banner ad/ shopping sites for 'your city' under that
'mark'...
-but the names in question (my names) are not being used AT ALL! (and
have never been used!) --- as a quick web meta search will reveal
-these names could only have come to AOL 'attention' through filtering
the entire .com root zone db... not through random WHOIS
-AOL asserts registration alone of these names as 'infringing use'
-AOL asserts that ANY domain name string w/ 'digitalcity' as a
substring, merely by registration, (and perhaps even just by thought)
infringes/'dilutes' their 'famous mark'
-(finally... and i'm sure this is well known on this list) ICANN has
selected AOL as one of its 'testbed registrars'!!

this gives the AOL doctrine: take two completely generic words (and why
not just one? 'sidewalk' 'thestreet' etc..) and trademark these... then
you get to completely clear-cut/ carpet bomb the entire global namespace
that has ANY substring intersection w/ those words... no matter what the
use or even non-use... but while doing that... out the other side of
your mouth talk about 'opening up competition' ad nauseum in your photo
op w/ esther et. al...

so as far as the WIPO dispute policies and etc. are concerned... these
appear to always be inherently one-sided against individuals or small
businesses or orgs... no matter how constructed: if deep pockets can
benefit in one of these proceedings they will use them... and if not
that's irrelevant since deep pockets will always have the option of
filing suit in a jurisdiction of choice (and as perhaps no coincidence
AOL made their preference for the non-binding nature of these
'resolution' procedures a special concern in their WIPO RFC-3
comments)...

ICANN -- so this presents an obvious test case for ICANN and its
registrar 'accreditation' policies and (non)standards --
unfortunately... if you take the time to look into these agreements you
will find as expected NO reference to the possibility of
conflict-of-interest, anti-competitive/abusive behavior etc. by
registrars, as grounds for 'dismissal' or anything else, except in one
vague clause equivalent to 'behavior detrimental to whole internet' or
something like that... but if they accept this kind of behavior from
one of their chosen 'testbed registrars' before the bed is even made
then they can certainly have NO credibility w/ any fair minded person
except as the lackeys of megacorp interests they already appear to be...
i will in any case pursue some sort of complaint w/ them on this basis,
w/out any expectation of a fair hearing, as they are the only ones w/
leverage at this point... but note that this is a special case and a
special window of opportunity, w/ the reverse domain name hijacker
having the gall to simultaneously apply to be a registrar... in the
normal deep pockets hijacking case, if you don't (in the US) have the
money to contest a Federal trademark suit then forget it...
NSI/ AOL/ etc. -- this also brings up the tip of the iceberg, and NSI is
showing many ominous signs in this direction w/ its just announced 'dot
com directory' and other moves re: its 'customer list', as far as
central registry and registrar proprietary/ predatory/ anti-competitive
or merely unfair use of 'privileged access' to various forms of domain
name registration database info for 'business intelligence' , online
analytic processing (OLAP), (il)legal harassment etc.. the point being
to emphasize the importance, for the dis-enfranchised masses, of
focusing on and forcing transparency/ open-ness/ availability for
necessarily 'public' data and the option of strong privacy, individual
control, and/or anonymity for all the rest as 'private' data

so in any case... I have received my second 'bigfoot' letter w/ a new
'deadline' for capitulation of 6.18.99... i intend to resist this
absurd and outrageous pre-emptive strike against 'net free speech',
which is also an attack on my livelihood and insulting in its arrogance
and ignorance to boot, w/ whatever combination of lame web site, emails,
discussion lists, complaining, phone calls, and pro bono/contingency
lawyer representation i can bring to bear... i won't indulge myself by
wasting the time of those on this list again but i invite anyone who's
interested in following this matter to reply by email... i'll send links
to a site or discussion list when that gets setup as i see some kind of
public 'pressure' as my only option vs. AOL's 114B US$ 'market cap'

thanks for the information and implicit support i've already received
from the other 'individuals' on this list

mark weitzel, ceo
zeitgeist y2k01 ltd.
830 28th st.
oakland, ca 94608
510.451.0352
510.451.0353 f
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:
Unauthorized Use of Mark DIGITAL CITY
Date:
Tue, 18 May 1999 16:02:51 -0400
From:
Jim Davis <DavisR@arentfox.com>
To:
inic@zy2k01.com

We represent America Online, Inc., with respect to its intellectual
property matters. Our client is the owner of the mark DIGITAL CITY.
Our client has made extensive use of the mark DIGITAL CITY in interstate
commerce in connection with the advertising, promotion, and sale of its
Internet and computer-related goods and services. Due to our client*s
widespread use, advertising, and extensive marketing, the mark DIGITAL
CITY has become famous and many of our client*s customers and
prospective customers recognize the mark as a distinctive symbol of our
client*s goodwill.

Our client also uses the mark DIGITALCITY.COM in connection with
providing information via computer networks. As a result, consumers
associate the mark DIGITAL CITY, when used in a domain name, with our
client*s high quality products and services.

It has come to our attention that you have registered and are using
numerous domain names that use our client*s mark DIGITAL CITY,
including, but not limited to, *opendigitalcity2k.com,*
*opendigitalcity2k01.com,* *digitalcity2k01.com,* and
*digitalcity2k.com.* Your unauthorized use of our client*s mark is
likely to confuse consumers into believing falsely that our client
endorses or is affiliated with your goods or services. Any unauthorized
commercial use of our client*s mark will also dilute the distinctive
qualities of our client*s famous mark DIGITAL CITY. Accordingly, we
must insist that you immediately stop using all domain names that use
our client*s marks, or domain names that are confusingly similar to our
client*s marks. In addition, we request that you transfer these domain
names to our client.

Federal law provides for the imposition of severe penalties against
those who commit acts of unfair competition and who make unauthorized
use of the trademarks and service marks of others. Among other things,
the courts may require a defendant to pay for all damages caused by the
infringement, all profits derived from the unauthorized use of the
plaintiff*s mark, court costs, and attorney fees. The courts also have
the authority to increase the amount of these damage awards.

We trust you will understand the serious nature of this matter;
therefore, we ask that you respond to this letter by no later than MAY
28, 1999. While we prefer to resolve this matter amicably, we will have
no alternative but to pursue all of the remedies afforded by law if we
do not hear from you promptly.

Cordially,

James R. Davis, II

cc: Douglas R. Bush

Subject: [IDNO:364] Call for Volunteers
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 03:17:59 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <5DDC98303A22D21180D800A0C9A92FEA83FB5F@atlxchange.atl.talus.net>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: f5e748307fd88efaea8ad00e548ce16a

Dear Fellow members

In past and so far quite a few of us have dropped a note to volunteer and
pitched in quite graciously when called on. Getting all of us this far.

On behalf of all members - a humble thank you to every single one of you for
helping out.

I am formalizing the volunteer list. As we gear up together, to come up with
charter, member rules, finance and maybe some logo's, etc...

Please would your formally drop a note to me or Joop - so we can include you
in the volunteer list. Will make every effort to avoid taking too long of
any one person's time...

--- "Small drops of water make a mighty ocean" ----

Please pitch in...include

1. Name :-
2. e-mail. :-
3. Preference of work :- General / artwork / Drafting, etc
4. Amount of time avaliable to spare :- not too much / once in a while
5. Special skills :- Legal, web master, tech. specs, etc.
6. Location :-

Just a name and e-mail will do too.. (any answer is a right answer ! :)

Look forward to hearing from you. For those already on the volunteer list
will send a e-mail requesting your reconfirmation in next few days...

Together lets make the small guys (individual domain name owners) count !!

Sri

At 16:26 14/06/1999 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>You are certainly welcome. However, there are some serious flaws in
>those rules.
>
>First, in rule 2:
>
> The moderation is intended to be light and tolerant, and it does
> not mean pre-vetting of messages by the moderator(s). In cases of
> abuse, it can mean a call for partial or total ostracism, delivered
> by democratic majority vote by the IDNO members on this list.
>
>This rule is a perfect setup for the "tyranny of the majority". It
>means that 51% of the list members can throw out the other 49%, and
>it further means that there is no individual right of free expression
>or minority dissent. This rule is great for a fraternity house, but
>not acceptable for a democratic organization. Democracy is far more
>than just votes -- it also requires guaranteed rights for individuals
>that cannot simply be overturned by a majority vote.

Kent, this is the last time that we discuss your peculiar notions of
democracy as applied to others than your own group. We have gone over this
before.
ICANN in its wisdom decided to divvy up the stakeholders in the DNS into
constituencies.
The consequence is indeed that each constituency has to use majority vote
to protect its interest, especially during the formation stage. Tyranny of
the majority, as you call it, is a lesser evil than tyranny of 2 or 3 rogue
list invaders, who claim the right to violate list rules as they please,
and who can sabotage a constituency formation.
Does ISOC gives rights to "observers"? Does the POC list? PAB?

A simple
>majority vote, structure this way, is an invitation for abuse. I
>note, interestingly enough, that you are calling for a vote to
>ratify these rules, a vote by that same 51%.
>
>Second, in rule 3:
>
> This means: absolutely no reposting of private messages. It also
> means: no reposting of list messages elsewhere without permission
> of the author.
>
You leave something essential out, Kent.
It says: Observe normal netiquette. This means, absolutely no reposting of
private messages.

>Rules about private messages are completely irrelevant for a mailing
>list.
>
Netiquette is far from irrelevant. Posting private mail in public is rude
and upsets people.

About the rest of your comments:

The rule about crossposting list messages says not to crosspost *without
permission of the author* .
If the list message was deemed so important that you feel the dnso or ifwp
could'nt do without it, all you had to do to comply with the rules is *ask
the author's permission*.

Yes, the rules are posted to the website, following your own suggestion to
prevent people like yourself to claim they didn't know them.
Yes, they will be voted on and if the majority wants changes, they will be
changed.

What a waste of time to argue about totally normal list rules. Most lists
don't have the voting option and the participants simply abide by the
listowners' reasonable wishes.
You could also question the list rules of the dnso list. Why only the IDNO?

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

--

On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 11:34:25PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > At 22:07 13/06/1999 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > >There is no information concerning what is meant by "civil
> > >discourse", nor is there any indication of where I might find out
> > >anything about it.
> > >
> > Among civilised people there is not much need to spell out what civil
> > discourse is. It gets noted when it is absent.
>
> I beg to differ. Standards of behavior vary widely across the
> civilized world.

Right. I've had enough. I joined the IDNO (and the list) to hear what was
going to be done about giving key stakeholders in the DNS (name holders
such as myself) a voice among everyone else who claims to have a stake.

However, it's been nothing but dribble and semantics, and my lurking has
come to the conclusion that you, Kent, seem hell bent on ranting on about
a whole lot of things that have very little to do with the IDNO and a lot
to do with beating your chest. So Kent, welcome to my procmail filter.

Someone bring us back to the ICANN bashing, at least _that_ was vaguely on
topic :)

.------.-----------------------------------------------------.
| (__) | David Zanetti <dave2@earthling.net> |
| ( oo | Unix Systems Administrator, Wellington City Council |
| /\_| | Moderator, nz.politics.announce |
`------'-----------------------------------------------------'

From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>
To: <idno@radix.co.nz>, <kent@songbird.com>
Subject: [IDNO:370] [discuss] Re: a democracy can defend itself
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tardis.patho.gen.nz id BAA98886
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <s7662059.036@gw1.rspab.com>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 833afca71f30d4b4e8c3959069588d2d

It really is an exercise in Newspeak to suggest that that IDNO's activities are consistent with democracy. Here we have the spectre of an inside group who launch votes at a whim and refuse access to the voting mechanism to other members of the group.

The success or failure of any group in the domain name wars turns on the extent to which it is perceived as following the princples of openness and transparency. This group appears to be moving in a different direction. It is acting in a manner consistent with what it perceives to be that of ICANN and for which it has castigated that group.

Instead of permitting a vote of the membership to be taken to determine whether there is support or not for squelching Dave Crocker and Kent Crispin, a SECOND vote is launched to squelch them. Kent Crispin has as much right to be here as I do. He has more right to be here than some of the members, whose link as individuals to domains is so tenuous as to make the IDNO group meaningless.

Hmmm, and is it coincidental that the results of the first squelchvote have been suppressed?

So far as deciding that something is or is not the "last time" something will be discussed: when did we elect a supreme poo-bah to decide what will or will not be discussed here?

KJC.2

From: Mikki Barry <ooblick@netpolicy.com>
Subject: [IDNO:369] Re: Domain name disputes victims selfhelp group.
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <v04003a03b38c044ab5e8@[207.87.121.71]>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 4234e0c54c81be6575b3c5e7a4775d1f

Mark Weitzel has found what many of us have been fighting since 1995 and
the inception of the NSI dispute policy. Individuals and small business
interests are being stomped by trademark holders who feel that ANY use of a
character string resembling their trademark is criminal and must be
stopped. The WIPO policy memorializes this, and ICANN's wish to expand the
WIPO policies from "just" cybersquatting to include ALL commercial domain
name disputes is VERY telling of their motivations. Of course, I'm
assuming here that "commercial" means that one party is a commercial
entity. This would serve to bring the vast majority of domain name
disputes under the mandatory WIPO policy, which serves both larger business
interests AND WIPO.

The DNRC web site has a few tips on it for those fighting a US trademark
holder, including asking for re-examination of the trademark due to the
trademark holder's misuse of the mark. The law is clear. Registration
alone is NOT infringement. The lawyers who write the cease and desist
letters well know that. Use in a class that is not trademarked is ALSO not
infringement. The lawyers know that as well. In many cases, they are
deliberately attempting to expand trademark rights where they know they do
not apply. This, at least to me (and hopefully to the USPTO) is abuse of
the trademark.

Unfortunately, it costs $200.00 to bring a petition for re-examination.
However, I believe it is money well spent.

Mikki Barry
DNRC
http://www.domain-name.org

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Mikki Barry wrote:

> Mark Weitzel has found what many of us have been fighting since 1995 and
> the inception of the NSI dispute policy. Individuals and small business
> interests are being stomped by trademark holders who feel that ANY use of a
> character string resembling their trademark is criminal and must be
> stopped. The WIPO policy memorializes this, and ICANN's wish to expand the

Please cite evidence for this statement. I do not believe it correctly
characterizes the WIPO final report (it may correctly characterize RFC 3,
but that is a different issue). On the contrary, while there are major
flaws in the Final Report, one of its strengths is that it recognizes that
there are many legitimate interests that must be protected other than
trademarks. This is a substantial difference from its predecessor.

See generally http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf

> WIPO policies from "just" cybersquatting to include ALL commercial domain
> name disputes is VERY telling of their motivations. Of course, I'm

Here we agree. But this is my point. We must not confuse the Final
Report, which minus the Famous Names (ch. 4) and with a few tweaks here
and there may become a deal one can live with, with this other idea to
"expand" it -- there is a big difference between the two.

> assuming here that "commercial" means that one party is a commercial
> entity. This would serve to bring the vast majority of domain name
> disputes under the mandatory WIPO policy, which serves both larger business
> interests AND WIPO.
>

It would depend what the terms of the ADR were, but one should certainly
approach this proposed broadening with great suspicion.

> The DNRC web site has a few tips on it for those fighting a US trademark
> holder, including asking for re-examination of the trademark due to the
> trademark holder's misuse of the mark. The law is clear. Registration
> alone is NOT infringement. The lawyers who write the cease and desist

This is true in the US. Whether it is true abroad is disputed.

> letters well know that. Use in a class that is not trademarked is ALSO not
> infringement. The lawyers know that as well. In many cases, they are

[....]
--
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
--> It's hot here. <--

Subject: [IDNO:373] Re: Domain name disputes victims selfhelp group.
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:33:49 GMT
X-Mailer: Endymion MailMan Standard Edition v3.0.8
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <199906151534.LAA27337@mail.travel-net.com>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 18ffe467aa69fb83e3d21d209c471f4f

For two people who both claim to not be lawyers, there's an awful lot of what
might be construed as legal advice floating around. Not a good idea.

The foregoing is not legal advice. It's barely advice at all.

> Can't do it. It'll get you in deeper trouble. Don't do the link. I would
> also NOT do the disclaimer. It legitimizes their complaint.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Gardner [mailto:andy@navigator.co.nz]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 5:42 AM
> > To: idno@radix.co.nz
> > Subject: [IDNO:367] Re: Domain name disputes victims selfhelp group.
> >
> >
> > > It has come to our attention that you have registered and are using
> > >numerous domain names that use our client*s mark DIGITAL CITY,
> > >including, but not limited to, *opendigitalcity2k.com,*
> > >*opendigitalcity2k01.com,* *digitalcity2k01.com,* and
> > >*digitalcity2k.com.* Your unauthorized use of our client*s mark is
> > >likely to confuse consumers into believing falsely that our client
> > >endorses or is affiliated with your goods or services. Any
> > unauthorized
> > >commercial use of our client*s mark will also dilute the distinctive
> > >qualities of our client*s famous mark DIGITAL CITY. Accordingly, we
> > >must insist that you immediately stop using all domain names that use
> > >our client*s marks, or domain names that are confusingly
> > similar to our
> > >client*s marks. In addition, we request that you transfer
> > these domain
> > >names to our client.
> >
> > Hmmm. I'm no lawyer, but I'd be inclined to get the sites
> > running, and put
> > a disclaimer "This site is in no way affiliated blah blah
> > blah to AOL's
> > digitalcity blah blah." with a link to their site.
> >
> > That way, you're stating up front to any visitors that you
> > aren';t anything
> > to do with them, and you're putting a free link to their
> > site, qwhich is
> > certainly not diluting their distinctive qwuality, it's
> > actually improving
> > it (IMHO).
> >
> >
> > Andrew P. Gardner ZL2VOA 176.E 41.1S
> > Wairarapa, New Zealand http://navigator.co.nz/andy
> > Mediumwave DXer - Drake R8A
> > http://radio.net.nz - NZ's Broadcast Radio directory
> >
> >

From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>
To: <karl@CaveBear.com>, <idno@radix.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:377] [discuss] Re: a democracy can defend itself
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tardis.patho.gen.nz id EAA03011
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <s76640b1.050@gw1.rspab.com>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 2313d0a18cc3012d4785af0c5af0e02a

>>> Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com> 06/15/99 11:55AM >>>

>> ... I do meet that criteria, and therefore I can demand to participate.
^^^^^^

>"Demand" No. "Ask" Yes.

> --karl--

Ahah! So some criterion other than holding, as an individual, a SLD name within com/net/org or a functionally-equivalent (third- or higher-level) domain name within other TLDs is required for membersip in the IDNO constituency? When was that discussed here? When was that little bit of sophistry worked into the tapestry? Do, tell, because the existence of barriers to membership spoeaks volumes about our legitimacy and/or whether those of us who are serious about this process should look elsewhere to find the crystallization matric for the individuals' constituency.

KJC.2

To: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>
cc: idno@radix.co.nz
Subject: [IDNO:379] Re: [discuss] Re: a democracy can defend itself
In-Reply-To: <199906151344.BAA98890@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906150913190.9194-100000@npax.cavebear.com>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 26ee88f2db21452e3812dbca8dabf6ba

> ... He has more right to be here than some of the members, whose link
> as individuals to domains is so tenuous as to make the IDNO group
> meaningless.

Given the seriousness of that allegation, I would appreciate it if
you would substantiate it with specific facts.

We have published a very rough first cut at membership requirements --
amounting essentially to control of a domain name.

By my reading of the whois records both Kent Crispin and Dave Crocker
clearly could be members if they chose to join.

I believe my own control of cavebear.com and other domains makes me
elegible as well.

By-the-way, what domain name are you planning to use to support your
own membership?

--karl--

From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>
To: <karl@CaveBear.com>
Cc: <idno@radix.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:381] [discuss] Re: a democracy can defend itself

>>> Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com> 06/15/99 12:24PM >>>

>> ... He has more right to be here than some of the members, whose link
>> as individuals to domains is so tenuous as to make the IDNO group
>> meaningless.

>Given the seriousness of that allegation, I would appreciate it if
>you would substantiate it with specific facts.

Well, let's see . . .

We have Jay Fenello, whose domain (iperdome.com) is registered to a corporation.

We have a number of people on this list who have suggested that nothing more than being the admin/tech/zone contact for a domain should be required . . . because their domains are all held in the names of corporate entities. Golly, you *have* been reading the list, right?

>We have published a very rough first cut at membership requirements --
>amounting essentially to control of a domain name.

Awfully tenuous. Try whois on ibm.com, for instance. Guess what: the admin contact is a real person. In fact, I'd venture to say (from my own experience with whois queries) that a substantial minority (at least 35%) of the admin contacts for major trademark holders/Fortune 1000 companies are individual accounts, not role accounts. So how does the rubric "control of a domain name" mean anything? Now, "ownership" of a domain name is a meaningful filter.

>By my reading of the whois records both Kent Crispin and Dave Crocker
>clearly could be members if they chose to join.

>I believe my own control of cavebear.com and other domains makes me
>elegible as well.

Assuming that "Cavebear" is your nom de commerce, that's of course true. If course, you might be a bit put out to show a paper trail that validates that assumption, but I'm not about to challenge it (for reasons made clear below).

As I have said before, if the REGISTRANT of the domain is not an individual, then we've established a criterion for membership that includes many of the Fortune 1000 companies. Which in turn means that there are other, less patent, selection criteria at work.

>By-the-way, what domain name are you planning to use to support your
>own membership?

As I told y'all when I joined up: cybersharque.com. I am the registrant. I am also the Admin and billing contact. But I don't consider that relevant. I've served as the admin, billing and or zone contact for a slough of domains in the past, but I never would have thought that doing so gave me "control" of the domain. One might as well think that a quartermaster's mate has "control" over a capital ship which he's piloting. (Hint: the responsibility for what the QM does rests with whichever officer has the conn; it's he or she who has control of the ship; and the conn of a domain name rests with the registrant, not with the contact persons named in the template. Don't take my word for it: ask David Graves about, f'rinstance, the FINY.com domain name dispute.)

Of course, what's really bizarre here is that (without any sort of notice to me or a vote or anything else) I have been purged from membership in the Cyberspace Association :-S

Go ahead. Look at the website. Yesterday, I was listed among the founders of the Association. Today, I have been ostracized, and nobody even bothered to smash up the pottery before doing so.

And you guys have the nerve to suggest that you're a legitimate voice of individual domain name holders? This is some kind of joke! The funny thing is, I've been pushing away the players in the domain name war who believe that I should organize an individuals' constituency as a counterweight to IDNO. I believed (up until I found myself purged, about half an hour ago) that while I had differences with some of the members here, it was in the best interest of the Internet that we work together to advance the empowerment of individuals with respect to the internet.

And then you guys decided to go ahead and purge me :-)

Golly gosh gee willickers, but you've simplified my life :-)

<As always, please disregard the silly trailer, which I did not write and which I cannot disable while using this client>

KJC.2

From: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
To: idno@radix.co.nz
cc: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>
Subject: [IDNO:382] Re: [discuss] Re: a democracy can defend itself

> >> ... He has more right to be here than some of the members, whose link
> >> as individuals to domains is so tenuous as to make the IDNO group
> >> meaningless.
>
> >Given the seriousness of that allegation, I would appreciate it if
> >you would substantiate it with specific facts.
>
> Well, let's see . . .

> We have Jay Fenello, whose domain (iperdome.com) is registered to a
> corporation.

If you read our membership criteria we allow as a member any individual
who controls a domain name to a degree that it essentially constitutes
ownership, even if that domain name happens to be that of a corporation.
Even IBM.com can get one individual into the IDNO, assuming that IBM could
find a single individual who has real and full control of the domain name.

(As I mention later, it is very unlikely that IBM or other large
corporations could come up with such a person.)

> We have a number of people on this list who have suggested that
> nothing more than being the admin/tech/zone contact for a domain
> should be required . . . because their domains are all held in the
> names of corporate entities. Golly, you *have* been reading the list,
> right?

I wrote the first cut at the membership requirements. And yes, being in
the contact record is pretty strong material to support a membership.

> >We have published a very rough first cut at membership requirements --
> >amounting essentially to control of a domain name.

> Awfully tenuous. Try whois on ibm.com, for instance. Guess what:
> the admin contact is a real person.

And as we have discussed, we would admit that real person if that person
could demonstrate enough evidence to indicate that he/she really control
the domain name to a sufficient degree such that one could believe that it
is essentially "ownerership". I have a suspicion, however, that the IBM
person wouldn't be able to demonstrate adequate discretionary power to
meet that test.

> >I believe my own control of cavebear.com and other domains makes me
> >elegible as well.

> Assuming that "Cavebear" is your nom de commerce, that's of course
> true. If course, you might be a bit put out to show a paper trail
> that validates that assumption, but I'm not about to challenge it (for
> reasons made clear below).

It is exactly to avoid such useless nit picking that we have picked the
notion of control amounting to ownership rather than trying to find some
formal property interest.

> As I have said before, if the REGISTRANT of the domain is not an
> individual, then we've established a criterion for membership that
> includes many of the Fortune 1000 companies. Which in turn means that
> there are other, less patent, selection criteria at work.

And we are happy to admit those individuals from Fortune 1000 companies.
But they have to be an individual in the company who has discretionary
power that amounts to ownership. I suggest that in a corporate structure
that would only be very senior executives. And given the nature of
today's corporations and the value of a company's domain name, they'd
possibly have to demonstrate that they have sufficient votes on the board
to dispose of such a major corporate asset.

We will probably use the power to dispose of the domain name as an
significant indicator of whether one has discretionary power amounting to
ownership.

To move that notion to your example of the ship, strong evidence of who is
the "owner" would be whether the candidate has the unquestioned right to
destroy the ship for any reason (or no reason) that he/she might have.

As you can see, that rough guideline will filter out most candidates from
large corporations.

If the filter leaks, no real harm is done, especially when a determined
person can acquire an undisputed domain name for only a few bucks.

> I am the registrant. I am also the Admin and billing contact. But I
> don't consider that relevant.

We would consider it relevant but not necessarily determinative. If you
control the domain name enough so that it looks and smells like what a man
on the street calls ownership, then you have a valid base for membership.
If not, then you don't.

And a single domain name can support at most one membership. So if you
get into a disagreement then the two of you can fight it out between
yourselves.

> And you guys have the nerve to suggest that you're a legitimate voice
> of individual domain name holders? This is some kind of joke!

No. It is serious. And we do represent the individual domain name
owners. And we are growing.

You are welcome to help.

> I've been pushing away the players in the domain name
> war who believe that I should organize an individuals' constituency as
> a counterweight to IDNO.

Please organize them. We need all the voices for individuals we can get.

However, remember, an entity that claims to represent individuals only if
they are members of organizations is something that I will work against.

> And then you guys decided to go ahead and purge me :-)

I no not whether that statement is true or not.

> <As always, please disregard the silly trailer, which I did not write
> and which I cannot disable while using this client>

I understand, but you may want to pass onto whoever at your firm is in
fact in control that such a notice is ineffectual and only serves to
polorize.

For example, no automated list handler should forward such an e-mail.

--karl--

To: IDNO <idno@radix.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:383] CEASEFIRE and REGROUP called for!!!

To one and all concerned in or about the continuing melee:

While I can not profess to be expert or an old-timer in these
matters of Internet governance, I am a domain name owner of an operating
domain and protection of the rights of myself and like people is my ONLY
interest in joining this list. Due to a constant sniping and retorting
of procedural issues and things that would not need to even be addressed
if we were all here to simply further the goals of the IDNO, virtually
nothing is being accomplished. People on all sides or angles of this
melee persist in saying they are here to advance the goals of IDNO and
believe they are doing so in some way. The objective viewer can easily
see this is not being effected, whatever the intent.
I would like to openly challenge ALL participants on this list,
members or not, to limit public commentary on the list to positive and
constructive comments and suggestions. The sniping and retorting is best
done privately as NO-ONE cares about, nor benefits from, this activity
other than the participants. (And all of them quickly lose everyone
else's respect the longer they continue, however eloquent they believe
their speeches to be.) They write for their own motives and serve only
their own egos and these people can and should form their own little
group for this melee with and gain the great appreciation of all those
who joined for the protection of our rights as individual domain name
holders.
Membership criteria is foolish to fight about with thousands of
people ready to take a few dollars and register your own domain name at
any time. This group should be comprised of those who care about the
furtherance of this issue, not those who can prove they spent $75 last
week for something they may not even use.
If this kind of abuse of the reader's rights persists, I would
recommend the creation of an invitation only list or group for the
creation of a platform and rules of engagement and operation. With this
established, as perhaps it should have been before starting the public
list, people can then know exactly what they are joining and where it is
going and not inadvertently get dragged into an endless exercise in
futility.
Once again, I challenge everyone to abstain from public displays of
embarrassing rage and concentrate on the purposes of the group's
formation. If that is not of sincere interest, then this is not the
right group for you, no matter how many domain names you may own. These
people should start a parallel list to accomplish their own goals and
let all who wish, follow them.
I welcome private rebuttal to these ideas but will not respond
publicly on this note in the future. I want no part in furthering a
useless exchange of words.

Very sincerely yours,
Karl E. Peters
karl.peters@bridgecompanies.com
http://www.bridgecompanies.com

To: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:393] Re: [discuss] Re: a democracy can defend itself
Cc: idno@radix.co.nz

At 12:51 15/06/1999 -0400, Kevin Connolly wrote:

>And you guys have the nerve to suggest that you're a legitimate voice of
individual domain name holders? This is some kind of joke! The funny
thing is, I've been pushing away the players in the domain name war who
believe that I should organize an individuals' constituency as a
counterweight to IDNO. I believed (up until I found myself purged, about
half an hour ago) that while I had differences with some of the members
here, it was in the best interest of the Internet that we work together to
advance the empowerment of individuals with respect to the internet.
>
>And then you guys decided to go ahead and purge me :-)
>
I take responsibility for taking your name down from the website, Kevin.
I did so after your posting to dnso.org where you stated that in your view
our IDNO had almost no legitimacy left.
You also stated that we identified ourselves with Iperdome (?) and NSI.
Extremely damaging and unsupported statements.
(Indeed it looked like you were positioning yourself to organize a
constituency as a "counterweight to IDNO".)
I presumed that you were giving up your membership of our illegitimate
organization.
Are you?

If not, I will put your name back on forthwith, and with apologies for
misreading your intentions.

>Golly gosh gee willickers, but you've simplified my life :-)
>
Do I read that correctly then, that you no longer want to be a member.
Please clarify.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:394] Re: Domain name disputes victims selfhelp group.

At 11:56 15/06/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>Joop
>
>>Kevin :-
>>Also, I recommend that anyone who is being pressure to give up a domain
>>contact The Domain Defense Advocate at http://www.ajax.org/ajax/dda/.
>>They can provide advice based on experience.
>
>Please can we invite them and Ellen Rony, too to our list as honorary
>members if not as real members. That way we can serve as one stop place for
>aiding fellow members ?
>
I have asked Ellen already. She is quite principled against this whole
constituency thing, but of course she is welcome to the list, as is
everybody who contributes value.

Mikki, do you know the DDA people personally? Could you ask them?
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

William X. Walsh wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:01:58 -0700, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jun 16, 1999 at 09:35:21AM -0400, Karl E. Peters wrote:
> >> Sirs,
> >> Perhaps it would be worthwhile to note the different levels of
> >> activity within a democratic society, using the US system, not as an
> >> ideal, but as a model of realistic democracy in today's world. While
> >> opposition to ideas is more prevalent than the proponents of the
> >> ideas themselves on almost every issue, whatever the source of the
> >> idea, it is generally assumed that the Republican leadership will not
> >> sit in on the Democratic convention and try to disrupt it by
> >> interjecting their own wishes for the Democratic party.
> >
> >The analogy is not apt. The criteria for participation in a
> >Republican Convention is membership in the Republican party; the
> >criteria for participation in the IDNO is (or should be) ownership of
> >an individual domain. I am not, therefore, a member of an "opposing
> >party", and, if you review my postings, they have *not* been
> >disruptive, abusive, or insulting. Furthermore, if this list has any
> >charter at all, it is to discuss the political structure of the IDNO,
> >and therefore, my posts are exactly on topic.
>
> Actually we are still fleshing out the criteria for the participation
> in the IDNO, Kent. And one of the criteria very well may be that you
> support the concept and goals of an individual domain name holders
> constituency within the DNSO.
>
> You have opposed such an effort. It makes little sense to have
> someone who doesn't support that individuals should have a
> constituency in a constituency that is created for that purpose.
>
> So having a domain is one condition, but supporting that those domain
> name holders should be represented by the constituency very well may
> be another.
>
> In that event, I don't think you would qualify, and this makes the
> above analogy VERY apt.
>

Let's follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion. If it would
be appropriate to limit membership in the individual domain holders'
constituency to those who favor its existence, wouldn't it also be
appropriate for ICANN to restrict its membership and that of its subsidiary
groups to those who agree to support ICANN? If ICANN were to adopt such a
policy, it would be (quite properly, IMO) denounced as undemocratic and
exclusionary, as was the gTLD-MoU. The same rules apply to the IDNO - if
you wish to be recognized as the representative of individual domain
holders, you must admit all of them without requiring a loyalty oath.

John and all,

First of all, I am very sorry to see you go, especially because you are
basing your departure on wrong conclusions.
I am not IDNO's chair, I'm just the guy who has called IDNO into life and
is trying to nurse it to a proper democratic existence.
It is not yet democratic, because it has no officers yet of any sort to
share the responsibility of keeping it alive. When I am faced with treason,
I have to act on my own. When I don't pay the bill for the website hosting,
the website dies. I am still the owner, in other words, not (unfortunately)
IDNO.
I am justs as impatient to change this situation for the better as you are.
I am herewith calling for nominations for
1.election committee officers
2.membership committee officers
3. a steering committee

I have proposed a charter that has attracted a hundred or so very different
people, but all people who want to see Individual DN owners represented in
ICANN.
You can not compare us with ICANN itself. We are supposed to be a
constituency of special interests. Our members represent those interests
collectively.
I have always maintained that creating a DNSO with special -interest
coinstituencies was a recipe for division and strife.
We witness it now in IDNO.
The constituency structure forces each constituency to be exclusive of the
voices of representatives of "competing" constituencies, who may try to
take over and thus increase the strength of their voice on the names council.
In other words, it is a war game, not a peace game.
I had hopes for an all inclusive DN owners' constituency, where we would be
somehow isolated from the DN wars.
Maybe that was naive.
Anyway, it is not yet IDNO who is making the mistakes, it is me.
Please replace me as soon as possible with properly elected officers.
Please replace my proposed charter as soon as possible with a properly
approved charter.
I will still help to facilitate this transition.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

--

On Wed, Jun 16, 1999 at 10:39:40PM +0000, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?

I certainly hope so, since there is no contradiction.

> Kent supports individual participation, but in a fashion that he knows
> the ICANN would not approve and would pass off as a general assembly.

What makes the current GA weak is that it has no position on the NC.
Seats on the NC are the primary source of "power" in the DNSO. What
I proposed was making the GA stronger, and essentially giving an
avenue by which *anyone* 1) could participate in the "power" structure
of the DNSO; and 2) could have a path through which new concerns
could be brought to attention of the NC.

I don't know what ICANN would think about the idea of a GA with more
power -- it might actually solve some significant problems for them.

I use "power" in quotes, above, because one of the main problems
here is the fixation many participants have with "power".

--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain

On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:19:38 -0700, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, Jun 16, 1999 at 10:39:40PM +0000, William X. Walsh wrote:
>>
>> Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?
>
>I certainly hope so, since there is no contradiction.

The contradiction is clear Kent.

Non-domain name holder individuals have an interest that is far and
different than domain name holder individuals and should be
represented differently.

Under your argument, ISPs shouldn't have their own consituency, since
they are businesses and there is a business constituency.

Spare us.

Again, I say you have shown you clearly do not support the IDNO
constituency. Please let the rest of us get on to the work then.

There are forums where your criticism of the creation of such a
constituency is on topic (discuss@dnso.org for instance), and your
comments belong there. They really do not belong here.

--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services

 

Provisional Archive Material ends June 16, 1999