Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1000
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, January 17 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1000

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:19:28 -0800
From: Ron Wiener <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: WLS Input

K, good question.

There appears to be some confusion between SnapBack - which is a monitoring
AND waiting list service, and the proposed WLS - which has no monitoring
component.  We have many IP clients including most major IP law firms,
government agencies and many major corporations who employ SnapBack
primarily for its monitoring capability and only secondarily as a double
safety net in case their name accidentally deletes due to clerical error or
registry/registrar error.  When we conduct CLE classes (continuing legal
education courses, for credits) we always educate attorneys that the best
strategy is to register for long periods of time.  Besides being far more
economical, it's far more sensible.  Some companies, however, have so much
at stake in a single domain name that they want the extra insurance of a
SnapBack.  One reason is that it provides "early warning" of tampering with
the domain record, e.g. when a webmaster changes the admin contact to his
yahoo account before leaving the company.  Another reason is that very often
the billing and admin contacts will have left the company in 5 or 10 years
when the registration renewal comes up again, and they do not want to take
the risk.  The protection against an illegal transfer (cyber-jacking) or
employee sabotage is far more important than accidental cancellation
protection, when common sense is practiced (i.e. important names are
registered for 5 to 10 years).

Frankly, K, protective use of SnapBack represents low single digits of the
sales of the product.  We have some resellers, e.g. NameEngine, that provide
domain name management services to very large corporations, and they have
some protection products in which they bundle SnapBack.  There have been
some very high-profile names that we've recovered for corporate clients
using SnapBack, like entertainmenttonight.com and americanexpress.net, as a
couple of examples that come to mind.

As for what we will do in the future to help trademark holders: We will
continue to offer some form of free monitoring service as we do today with
our SnapShot product, but we plan on introducing a low-cost security
monitoring product separate from SnapBack which will provide the same
security features, plus some new enhancements over the current SnapBack
product, but without the waiting list function.  This will be a product that
all registrars will be able to offer to their customers.  It should be ready
by Q2.

Hope that's helpful.  If you have any further questions about how we can
assist trademark holders please feel free to contact our Customer Support
department, and ask for one of the legal professionals on the staff.

Cheers,
Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:29 AM
> To: Ron Wiener
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: WLS Input
> 
> 
> ><snip>  And many of these customers are trademark owners re-acquiring
> >names in which they consider themselves to have intellectual property
> >rights.  See http://www.snapnames.com/corporate_clients.html.
> >
> >(All contents of SnapNames' website are protected from direct copying by
> >applicable copyright laws.)
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >
> >Cameron Powell
> >VP of Business Development and General Counsel
> >SnapNames
> >115 NW First Avenue
> >Suite 300
> >Portland, OR  97209
> >(503) 219-9990 x229    (503) 502-5030 cell    (503) 274-9749 fax
> >[email-masked]
> ><snip>
> 
> 
> What will you do to support the Trademark owners who already have the
> domains that match their trademarks and do not wish to discontinue use of
> them at any time?  None of your literature permits these folks to opt-out
> of your automated re-registration program.
> 
> :)
> 
> ~k
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:30:06 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS Comments by one of the previous "Silent Majority"

SnapNames had previously suggested that the Registrars constituency of
the DNSO that met for the conference call did not represent the
majority view, implicitly assuming that the "silent majority" must be
on their side. 

One of the previously silent registrars, Registration Technologies,
made one of the best posts I've seen *against* the WLS. It's an
excellent summary of all the prior arguments, with a few novel
arguments too (e.g. possible illegality as a unlicensed commodity
trading). I highly recommend it, and it's at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01852.html

If you scroll to the bottom, you can see it in PDF format (the ASCII
text version scrolls too far to the right).

Conclusion: it's a bad assumption to make that the "silent majority" is
on your side.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:32:09 +1300
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefit s of the  Few

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------=_NextPartTM-000-48ff78dc-0a1c-11d6-ae10-0001028e3e7f
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19ECC.DEB4EA80"

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19ECC.DEB4EA80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Ron Wiener said: 
 
> Typo, obviously.  Meant to be 2002.  We weren't even on-line until Dec of
2000, which was fully disclosed in the pricing
> market research document.  Thanks for pointing out this confusing error,
Tom.

Ron,
 
Any other typos we should be aware of?
 
Perhaps you should have someone else read your documetns before converting
them to PDF and sending them, eh?
 
Also you slagged William Walsh off several times we he asked about your 2000
data being presented. Perhaps in future you should actually READ what people
are saying before hitting the 'send' button.
 
Steven Heath

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19ECC.DEB4EA80
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:o =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">

<META content=3DWord.Document name=3DProgId>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<META content=3D"Microsoft Word 10" name=3DOriginator><LINK=20
href=3D"cid:[email-masked]" rel=3DFile-List><!--[if gte =
mso 9]><xml>
 <o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
  <o:DoNotRelyOnCSS/>
 </o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <w:WordDocument>
  <w:Zoom>95</w:Zoom>
  <w:SpellingState>Clean</w:SpellingState>
  <w:DocumentKind>DocumentEmail</w:DocumentKind>
  <w:EnvelopeVis/>
  <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
 </w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<STYLE>@font-face {
	font-family: Tahoma;
}
@font-face {
	font-family: Verdana;
}
@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; =
mso-header-margin: .5in; mso-footer-margin: .5in; mso-paper-source: 0; =
}
P.MsoNormal {
	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; =
mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; =
mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; =
mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; =
mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; =
mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; =
mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single
}
A:visited {
	COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
	COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single
}
P {
	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: =
"Times New Roman"; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; =
mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; =
mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto
}
SPAN.EmailStyle18 {
	FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: blue; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: =
Verdana; TEXT-DECORATION: none; text-underline: none; mso-style-type: =
personal-reply; mso-style-noshow: yes; mso-ansi-font-size: 10.0pt; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; =
mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; text-line-through: none
}
DIV.Section1 {
	page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
 /* Style Definitions */=20
 table.MsoNormalTable
	{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
	mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-style-parent:"";
	mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
	mso-para-margin:0in;
	mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=3DEN-US style=3D"tab-interval: .5in" vLink=3Dpurple =
link=3Dblue>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Ron Wiener said: =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D955162520-16012002>&gt; </SPAN>Typo, obviously.&nbsp; Meant to =
be=20
2002.&nbsp; We weren't even on-line until Dec of 2000, which was fully =
disclosed=20
in the pricing</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D955162520-16012002>&gt;</SPAN>&nbsp;market&nbsp;research&nbsp;do=
cument.&nbsp;=20
Thanks for pointing out this confusing error, Tom.<![if =
!supportLineBreakNewLine]><![endif]></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT><=
/DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT =
size=3D2>&nbsp;<BR><SPAN=20
class=3D955162520-16012002><FONT=20
color=3D#000000>Ron,</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D955162520-16012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT><FONT size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D955162520-16012002>Any=20
other typos we should be aware of?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D955162520-16012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT><FONT size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D955162520-16012002>Perhaps=20
you should have someone else read your documetns before converting them =
to PDF=20
and sending them, eh?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D955162520-16012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT><FONT size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D955162520-16012002>Also you=20
slagged William Walsh off several times we he asked about your 2000 =
data being=20
presented. Perhaps in future you should actually READ what people are =
saying=20
before hitting the 'send' button.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D955162520-16012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT><FONT size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D955162520-16012002>Steven=20
Heath</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19ECC.DEB4EA80--

- ------=_NextPartTM-000-48ff78dc-0a1c-11d6-ae10-0001028e3e7f--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:48:46 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Task Forces captured? (Re: [ga] Thank you)

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, at 03:52 [=GMT+1100], Patrick Corliss wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:55:25 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> >  - We'll try to persuade the GA's representatives to the various task
> >    forces to send reports to the GA list on a half-regular basis.
> >    Look at David Farrar's report from the review task force, or at
> >    Marc Schneider's latest summary on dot-org for examples.
>
> The Task Forces are captured by the big business interests.

This is too general a statement. I don't think the Task Force in which I
participated (on ORG) was captured by big business interests. All voices
were heard, even mine :-) The outcome was a compromise, naturally.

- -- 
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:24:34 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [registrars] RE: WLS comments from Registration Technologies, Inc.

> As we understand it, it is inappropriate for a monopoly to enter an
> existing market segment in which they currently do not participate if
their
> monopoly advantage can be leveraged to gain advantage.  Accrediting new
> registrars who are not all monopolies (and could not be by definition) is
> an unrelated issue and therefore your argument is specious.

Jim,

You touch on an important point here. Timely as well. I've just finished
reading an interesting interview with Lawrence Lessig, one of the better
contemporary thinkers (and do'ers) on the subject of the Internet,
technology and law. He made some very intriguing statements that I will pass
on to you here because of their relevance to our discussions concerning the
WLS. The entire interview can be read here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?
sid=02/01/15/2040217&mode=flat

- --
Lawrence Lessig: Innovation always and only happens when the new is
protected from the power of the old. The internet could take off only
because the telecoms were not allowed to kill the competition; cable TV
could thrive independent of the networks because copyright law was narrowed
to mean that broadcasters couldn't leverage their power in broadcasting into
control of cable.

PW: So it's not about monopolies or cartels as much as as the past and the
future.

LL: Yes, these examples are not so much about "trustbusting" legislation.
They are all about limitations on the power of the past to control the
future.

PW: But surely the people who worked so hard in the past must be given
something, if only to encourage new developers who want to have something
when today and tomorrow becomes the past?

LL: I'm all for making sure that the "people" who "worked so hard in the
past" be given "something." That's different from giving the companies of
"the past" the power to stifle new innovation. We didn't give the
horse-and-buggy industry the power to stop cars; or the railroads the power
to crush commercial trucking. Why should we give (through government granted
monopolies called "copyright") the labels the power to stop a new way to
produce and distribute content? Or cable television the power to tilt the
internet against new forms of video competition?

...

LL: Yes. What we have got to learn again is that ours is a system that
favors competition, not monopoly. The free market is all about inducing
competition, not about granting protections from competition. Sometimes,
small exceptions to this principle are needed. But they must be kept small
if they are to remain exceptions.

...

PW: Ah, sovietism. That's an excellent word. There really is that
committee-made feeling about the packaged quality of modern music. The music
industry likes to borrow many words and metaphors from the free market
people. They talk about efficiencies of scale, synergy and distribution
mechanisms, but in the end there's just a small committee deciding what we
hear. It 's not really a marketplace anymore.
LL: It is control by a relatively few, in a world which could allow much
greater freedom to the many. What possible justification could there be for
protecting the power of this few, when the technology could allow so much
more for the many?

I hope that *everyone* involved in this issue hears and understands what
Larry is attempting to get across with these statements. We have a lot to
lose and a lot to gain - lets make sure that we make the right choice for
the right reasons.

- -rwr

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:51:06 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Jeff Williams FAQ post

Below is the last message from Darrell Greenwood posting the JW Faq to
this list.  With his permission I am reposting it.  I have edited some
of the URLs in the list, namely the ones hosted at Bob Allisat's old
site, because they no longer existed, but were locatable via the
archive.org site.  I also note that there are two additional
personalities he posts as, and added those to the ones Darrell listed.

if others have information that should be added, please send it to me.

Here is the FAQ:

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff makes the rules in his fantasy world. He has created this INEG
'Role Playing Game' in which he is using various mail lists as
suppliers of other unsuspecting players :-)

Correspondents are simply unwittingly (or wittingly in some cases)
playing Jeff's game.

I attach the latest version of the Jeff William's FAQ for archival purposes.

Cheers,

Darrell

- --------

 Jeff Williams' FAQ. (00/02)

- --

1. Who is Jeff Williams?

Jeffrey A. Williams, <[email-masked]>, has claimed in postings
to various lists:

- -- to be the Chief Executive Officer and the Co-Founder of the 4.8
billion dollar privately held employee owned INEG. INC

- -- to be the Director of Internet Network Engineering and Senior
Java/CORBA Engineer for the Information Network Engineering Group, INEG
INC.

- -- to be an ex-IBM Fellow,

- -- to have to have graduated from UTD and to have a law degree from SMU
Law School

- -- to have three degrees, MBA, Masters in Computer Science and
Engineering, and Law

- -- to have served as a judge for 7 years

- -- to be a member of the IETF

- -- to serve on several medium sized business boards and on the boards
of several banks

- -- to be the author of two books and is working on a third

- -- to own 3 ISPs, including Frisco net, Deltanet and Wiltel, with 1.6
million users

- -- to own 8% of eBay

- -- to have been a fighter pilot with USMC, flying missions in Chile and
for the DEA, as a reserve pilot in the USMC, stationed out of Grand
Prairie air station just south of Dallas

- -- to have been acting squadron commander of the Marine combat F4
squadron VMF214 (Black Sheep) at Tan Son Nhut during the Viet Nam war

- -- to have spent several years in NIS (Naval Investigative Service)

- -- Graduate of Naval Staff & War College

- -- Retired Colonel, United States Marine Corps

However,

- -- Jeff's 'INEG. INC' does not exist except as a fantasy in Jeff
Williams' mind.

- -- Jeff changed the name of the company in his .sig, in Jan 1998, from
'Information Eng. Group' to Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.,
when the real Information Engineering Group
<http://www.ieg-america.com/>, became aware of Jeff's use of their name.

- -- SMU Law School Registrar's office, (214) 768-2618, disclaims all
knowledge of Jeff.

Jeffrey A. Williams is a fake and an imposter.

- --

2. Is there other material available on Jeff Williams?

http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05347.html -- a
posting regarding Jeff's non-relationship with IEG. He changed the name
of his 'company' on his .sig from IEG to INEG shortly afterwards.

http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05398.html -- a
posting by Frederic Wilf regarding Jeff's claim to have attended SMU.

http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05525.html -- a
posting by Kent Crispin commenting on Jeff's claims.

http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08000.html -- a list
of Jeff's claims to 1998 by Alex Kamantauskas.

http://web.archive.org/web/20000707224140/http://robin.fcn.net/mr99jeff.html
an account of Bob Allisat's hour long phone call with Jeff and
subsequent events.

http://web.archive.org/web/20000616115116/http://robin.fcn.net/mr99ronydebunk.html
an account of Ellen Rony's attempt to attend  Jeff's INEG Dallas
conference.

http://www.fichtner.net/outlook/1999-01.html -- a German reporter's
article on Jeff... written in German, use
http://babelfish.altavista.com/ if you don't read German.

Note, Jeff also posts under the following personas and email addresses;
David "Dude" Jenson <[email-masked]> and James Touton
<[email-masked]>. [Added by WXW, he also posts as Brian
Hollingsworth and Bob Davis]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:24:50 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Task Forces captured? (Re: [ga] Thank you)

Marc and all assembly members,

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, at 03:52 [=GMT+1100], Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:55:25 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > >  - We'll try to persuade the GA's representatives to the various task
> > >    forces to send reports to the GA list on a half-regular basis.
> > >    Look at David Farrar's report from the review task force, or at
> > >    Marc Schneider's latest summary on dot-org for examples.
> >
> > The Task Forces are captured by the big business interests.
>
> This is too general a statement. I don't think the Task Force in which I
> participated (on ORG) was captured by big business interests. All voices
> were heard, even mine :-) The outcome was a compromise, naturally.

  I think Patrick's point was or is that only TF members could participate
in the discussion ML's for those task forces therefore being captured
in that sense.  I have to agree with Patrick if that is what his meaning
is.  ????   I also agree with Patrick that WG's for DNSO GA interested
issues is a better forum as they are more open and transparent if any
DNSO GA members is allowed to actively participate.

  You point is also well taken regarding that the conclusion was a
compromise. Naturally.  >;)  However if any and all interested
parties or otherwise stakeholders were allowed to participate,
perhaps the compromise would have been quite different.

>
>
> --
> [email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:35:51 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

Don and all assembly members,

  I have to agree with Don here.  Neither Snapnames nor Verisign have
a solution of the table that solves the delete problem in it's entirety.
In fact WLS does not even solve the load problem as it is touted
to do.

  What is more important to the DNSO GA members here though is
that we must have a vote on; 1.) the two proposals on the table thus
far, 2.) A vote on is a WG desired and/or needed to come up with
a approach for addressing the Delete problem/concern.

Don Brown wrote:

> >From page 5 of Ron Wiener's attached pdf document:
>
>      2. “WLS will not solve the system load problems.” This point is
>      another red herring meant to divert attention toward VeriSign and
>      away from the real issue – equality of customer access. It’s also
>      a textbook example of inventing a theoretically perfect/complete
>      solution to set up as the enemy of an actual good one. As Chuck
>      Gomes has repeatedly made clear, yet others continue to pretend
>      he never said it, the WLS was not intended to solve the load
>      problem.
>
> >From Paragraph 1 of the WLS proposal dated 12/31/01:
>
>      1. Introduction
>
>      In response to a formal request by Rick Wesson on behalf of the
>      Registrar Constituency, VeriSign, Inc. is providing this paper to
>      describe its proposed Domain Name Wait Listing Service (WLS).
>      Specifically, the proposed WLS is intended to provide both (1) a
>      new, streamlined business opportunity for the entire registrar
>      community, and (2) some measure of relief in dealing with the
>      “deleted domains” issue.
>
> Addressing the load problem was, indeed, one of the fundamental
> predicates of the proposal. Although, "some measure of relief" is
> vague, at best.
>
> I do agree with the Ron Wiener, however, in that the intention of the
> proposal is clearly not to "solve" the load problem or the other
> troubling aspects concerning the handling of deleted names.
> Conversely, this proposal is nothing more than two companies trying to
> sell their product to a group.
>
> It is not unusual for a sales person to paint their product or
> proposal in the most favorable light. Hence, there have been many
> theories advanced about the potential benefits of the WLS. Many are
> nothing more than speculation, conjecture and marketing "eye wash."
>
> Ron is right, however. Neither Snap or VeriSign have a proposal on the
> table which will solve the problems related to deleted names.
>
> It is, IMHO, incumbent upon the stakeholders to focus on a resolution
> to the problems associated with deleted names. The WLS proposal, by
> Ron's own assertion, was not intended to, and does not, solve those
> problems.  Therefore, I suggest we move on to some meaningful work.
>
> Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 10:23:42 AM, Ron Wiener <[email-masked]> wrote:
> RW> Rather than respond to individual response documents and e-mail posts,
> RW> please find attached a concise document, in PDF format.
>
> RW> Cheers,
> RW> Ron
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> [email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
>

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:44:50 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: WLS Input

Ron and all assembly members,

  Ron, I think that one of the things or central area of concern here
that you are missing is that the problem is really deeper than you
seem to be articulating.  The RRP, SRS and Whois DB's are
not secure or secure enough to thwart simple circumvention
in the case of the RRP.  Hence, the delete problem has legs
for hackers (And not ever really slick ones) to circumvent
or otherwise compound the delete issue, not to mention
make record changes as to ownership of Domain names
in the RRP DB.  Same is true for SRS, but to a lesser degree,
and Whois as well.  GIve me a monkey and enough bananas
and I can do just about anything I want with RRP data if a very
short period of time.  Hence a more complete solution
for the delete problem is needed.

Ron Wiener wrote:

> K, good question.
>
> There appears to be some confusion between SnapBack - which is a monitoring
> AND waiting list service, and the proposed WLS - which has no monitoring
> component.  We have many IP clients including most major IP law firms,
> government agencies and many major corporations who employ SnapBack
> primarily for its monitoring capability and only secondarily as a double
> safety net in case their name accidentally deletes due to clerical error or
> registry/registrar error.  When we conduct CLE classes (continuing legal
> education courses, for credits) we always educate attorneys that the best
> strategy is to register for long periods of time.  Besides being far more
> economical, it's far more sensible.  Some companies, however, have so much
> at stake in a single domain name that they want the extra insurance of a
> SnapBack.  One reason is that it provides "early warning" of tampering with
> the domain record, e.g. when a webmaster changes the admin contact to his
> yahoo account before leaving the company.  Another reason is that very often
> the billing and admin contacts will have left the company in 5 or 10 years
> when the registration renewal comes up again, and they do not want to take
> the risk.  The protection against an illegal transfer (cyber-jacking) or
> employee sabotage is far more important than accidental cancellation
> protection, when common sense is practiced (i.e. important names are
> registered for 5 to 10 years).
>
> Frankly, K, protective use of SnapBack represents low single digits of the
> sales of the product.  We have some resellers, e.g. NameEngine, that provide
> domain name management services to very large corporations, and they have
> some protection products in which they bundle SnapBack.  There have been
> some very high-profile names that we've recovered for corporate clients
> using SnapBack, like entertainmenttonight.com and americanexpress.net, as a
> couple of examples that come to mind.
>
> As for what we will do in the future to help trademark holders: We will
> continue to offer some form of free monitoring service as we do today with
> our SnapShot product, but we plan on introducing a low-cost security
> monitoring product separate from SnapBack which will provide the same
> security features, plus some new enhancements over the current SnapBack
> product, but without the waiting list function.  This will be a product that
> all registrars will be able to offer to their customers.  It should be ready
> by Q2.
>
> Hope that's helpful.  If you have any further questions about how we can
> assist trademark holders please feel free to contact our Customer Support
> department, and ask for one of the legal professionals on the staff.
>
> Cheers,
> Ron
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:29 AM
> > To: Ron Wiener
> > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: WLS Input
> >
> >
> > ><snip>  And many of these customers are trademark owners re-acquiring
> > >names in which they consider themselves to have intellectual property
> > >rights.  See http://www.snapnames.com/corporate_clients.html.
> > >
> > >(All contents of SnapNames' website are protected from direct copying by
> > >applicable copyright laws.)
> > >
> - snip -
>
> >
> >
> > What will you do to support the Trademark owners who already have the
> > domains that match their trademarks and do not wish to discontinue use of
> > them at any time?  None of your literature permits these folks to opt-out
> > of your automated re-registration program.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > ~k
>

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:49:33 -0800
From: Ron Wiener <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: WLS Input

Jeff,

Of course I'm in agreement that there is a significant security gap.  That's
why we introduced SnapBack 13 months ago as a safety countermeasure for
those who are concerned about such security risks.  While it's not my area
of expertise (we have other people here who are much more knowledgable than
I on the RRP/EPP/SRS et al) I'm pretty sure this issue is entirely outside
of the scope of the WLS.  

Thanks,
Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 6:45 PM
> To: Ron Wiener
> Cc: [email-masked]'; Cameron Powell; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] RE: WLS Input
> 
> 
> Ron and all assembly members,
> 
>   Ron, I think that one of the things or central area of 
> concern here that you are missing is that the problem is 
> really deeper than you seem to be articulating.  The RRP, SRS 
> and Whois DB's are not secure or secure enough to thwart 
> simple circumvention in the case of the RRP.  Hence, the 
> delete problem has legs for hackers (And not ever really 
> slick ones) to circumvent or otherwise compound the delete 
> issue, not to mention make record changes as to ownership of 
> Domain names in the RRP DB.  Same is true for SRS, but to a 
> lesser degree, and Whois as well.  GIve me a monkey and 
> enough bananas and I can do just about anything I want with 
> RRP data if a very short period of time.  Hence a more 
> complete solution for the delete problem is needed.
> 
> Ron Wiener wrote:
> 
> > K, good question.
> >
> > There appears to be some confusion between SnapBack - which is a 
> > monitoring AND waiting list service, and the proposed WLS - 
> which has 
> > no monitoring component.  We have many IP clients including 
> most major 
> > IP law firms, government agencies and many major corporations who 
> > employ SnapBack primarily for its monitoring capability and only 
> > secondarily as a double safety net in case their name accidentally 
> > deletes due to clerical error or registry/registrar error.  When we 
> > conduct CLE classes (continuing legal education courses, 
> for credits) 
> > we always educate attorneys that the best strategy is to 
> register for 
> > long periods of time.  Besides being far more economical, it's far 
> > more sensible.  Some companies, however, have so much at stake in a 
> > single domain name that they want the extra insurance of a 
> SnapBack.  
> > One reason is that it provides "early warning" of tampering 
> with the 
> > domain record, e.g. when a webmaster changes the admin 
> contact to his 
> > yahoo account before leaving the company.  Another reason 
> is that very 
> > often the billing and admin contacts will have left the 
> company in 5 
> > or 10 years when the registration renewal comes up again, 
> and they do 
> > not want to take the risk.  The protection against an 
> illegal transfer 
> > (cyber-jacking) or employee sabotage is far more important than 
> > accidental cancellation protection, when common sense is practiced 
> > (i.e. important names are registered for 5 to 10 years).
> >
> > Frankly, K, protective use of SnapBack represents low 
> single digits of 
> > the sales of the product.  We have some resellers, e.g. NameEngine, 
> > that provide domain name management services to very large 
> > corporations, and they have some protection products in which they 
> > bundle SnapBack.  There have been some very high-profile names that 
> > we've recovered for corporate clients using SnapBack, like 
> > entertainmenttonight.com and americanexpress.net, as a couple of 
> > examples that come to mind.
> >
> > As for what we will do in the future to help trademark holders: We 
> > will continue to offer some form of free monitoring service 
> as we do 
> > today with our SnapShot product, but we plan on introducing 
> a low-cost 
> > security monitoring product separate from SnapBack which 
> will provide 
> > the same security features, plus some new enhancements over the 
> > current SnapBack product, but without the waiting list 
> function.  This 
> > will be a product that all registrars will be able to offer 
> to their 
> > customers.  It should be ready by Q2.
> >
> > Hope that's helpful.  If you have any further questions 
> about how we 
> > can assist trademark holders please feel free to contact 
> our Customer 
> > Support department, and ask for one of the legal 
> professionals on the 
> > staff.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ron
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:29 AM
> > > To: Ron Wiener
> > > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: RE: WLS Input
> > >
> > >
> > > ><snip>  And many of these customers are trademark owners 
> > > >re-acquiring names in which they consider themselves to have 
> > > >intellectual property rights.  See 
> > > >http://www.snapnames.com/corporate_clients.html.
> > > >
> > > >(All contents of SnapNames' website are protected from direct 
> > > >copying by applicable copyright laws.)
> > > >
> > - snip -
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > What will you do to support the Trademark owners who already have 
> > > the domains that match their trademarks and do not wish to 
> > > discontinue use of them at any time?  None of your literature 
> > > permits these folks to opt-out of your automated re-registration 
> > > program.
> > >
> > > :)
> > >
> > > ~k
> >
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 
> strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA 
> Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. 
> E-Mail [email-masked] Contact Number:  972-244-3801 
> or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> 
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1000
*************************