Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1003
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, January 17 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1003

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 21:59:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Structure Taskforce Update No 3 

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, DPF wrote:

> >I would suggest that the minimum level be however many people vote.
> >All of these "minimum participation levels" are a distraction perpetrated
> >by entrenched interests with the aim of preventing representation.
>
> What is proposed is not an actual minimum voting level but a minimum
> membership level before one holds a vote.

Which is exactly what I am arguing against. Given the questionable
benefits that any individual receives from participation within the ICANN
structure, such individual participation should be encouraged, not
discouraged by implementation of arbitrary hurdles to representation.

> >Apologies to those that might view this as American-centric(insert your
> >country of origin if it makes you feel better) but does the U.S. decide
> >that it can't elect officials unless a set number of individuals or
> >percentage of the populace vote?
>
> Yet many organisations do have quorums.  Would be good to have more
> feedback on this issue though.

I'm more familiar with quorums in the context of board meetings as opposed
to votes of members.

Further, many organizations provide direct benefits to their "members"(which
ICANN "leadership" has gone to great lengths to avoid any responsibilities
related to.) What pray tell are the direct benefits that an individual
acting as an individual gains from participation within ICANN?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                     Stealthgeeks,LLC. Operations Consulting
                          http://www.stealthgeeks.net
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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 22:30:15 -0800
From: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: WLS Input

At 09:59 PM 1/16/2002 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Ron and all assembly members,
>
>  Interesting here Ron.  Your comments earlier see:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00583.html
>In which I quote in part seem to be in direct conflict to what you are
saying below to wit you stated:
>"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."

Why the SnapBACK rather than a SnapSHOT, which is much less expensive and
seems to alert to the same changes?

>And also in your post:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00574.html
>You seem to be contradicting your comments below also in which you stated
to wit:
>"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."

Same puzzle as above.  The only explanation I can see is that the SnapBack
had the "extra value" to actually aquire the name at deletion.  That is the
feature of the WLS that could be touted as a "Security Measure", although I
still find it difficult to believe that if a name is truly erroniously
deleted that it would actually end up with whomever holds the WLS position,
rather than the original registrant, if different.  Much opportunity for
FUD marketing of the WLS in this area though, sadly.

>
>Ron Wiener wrote:
>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> To my knowledge neither SnapNames nor VeriSign has *ever* touted WLS as a
>> security product.  To the contrary.  Some of the proposal's opponents, in
>> seeking to blemish the WLS concept, continue to espouse the notion - rather
>> ridiculously - that the existence of WLS would compel current registrants to
>> take subscriptions out on their own names.  This preposterous allegation has
>> been spread, like folk lore, to the far corners of these boards, and now
>> apparently being deemed as fact by innocent bystanders.  If you scan every
>> document or e-mail put out by VGRS or SnapNames on the WLS you will not
>> find, I assure you, any hint of the idea that WLS should be viewed as a
>> security product.
>>
>> To be clear: SnapBack and WLS are two entirely different product.  WLS is a
>> subset of the SnapBack functionality and includes NO security monitoring.
>>
>> Thanks for the courtesy allowing me to clear the air on this.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 8:15 PM
>> > To: Ron Wiener
>> > Cc: [email-masked]'; Cameron Powell; [email-masked]
>> > Subject: Re: [ga] RE: WLS Input
>> >
>> >
>> > Ron and all assembly members,
>> >
>> > Ron Wiener wrote:
>> >
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> >   Security is one of my areas of expertise.  WLS however is
>> > being touted as is your product, Snapback as in part, an
>> > attempt to address the security related existing problems, as
>> > you stated above in your comments, to RRP/SRS.  Hence I am a
>> > bit confused as to the context and tone of this response in
>> > general, and in specific to those known security
>> > problems/concerns.  Hence my statements to address the
>> > central problem instead of address that central problem
>> > (Security) as it is directly also related to the Delete issue
>> > through a more concerted effort to develop a solution that
>> > encompasses these directly corresponding or related issues...
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 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
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>
>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

Harold Whiting
- --
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 01:20:52 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: WLS Input

Ron and all assembly members,

Ron Wiener wrote:

> I'm sorry Jeff, I honestly don't see the conflict in these two very
> consistent statements.

  There is not real conflict in these two posts with the included
statements with respect to security and WLS or Snapback:
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00583.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00574.html

But there IS a conflict with your two statements in this
post with the archived post just above:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00588.html

>
>
> I also don't see why any of this is relevant to the WLS Proposal - which,
> again, has absolutely nothing to do with security products.  If you want to
> start a new thread on security products, feel free.
>
> -RW
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 10:00 PM
> > To: Ron Wiener
> > Cc: [email-masked]'; Cameron Powell; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] RE: WLS Input
> >
> >
> > Ron and all assembly members,
> >
> >   Interesting here Ron.  Your comments earlier see:
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00583.html
> > In which I quote in part seem to be in direct conflict to
> > what you are saying below to wit you stated:
> > "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." And also in your post:
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00574.html
> > You seem to be contradicting your comments below also in
> > which you stated to wit: "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."
> >
> > Ron Wiener wrote:
> >
> > > Jeff,
> > >
> > > To my knowledge neither SnapNames nor VeriSign has *ever*
> > touted WLS
> > > as a security product.  To the contrary.  Some of the proposal's
> > > opponents, in seeking to blemish the WLS concept, continue
> > to espouse
> > > the notion - rather ridiculously - that the existence of WLS would
> > > compel current registrants to take subscriptions out on their own
> > > names.  This preposterous allegation has been spread, like
> > folk lore,
> > > to the far corners of these boards, and now apparently
> > being deemed as
> > > fact by innocent bystanders.  If you scan every document or
> > e-mail put
> > > out by VGRS or SnapNames on the WLS you will not find, I
> > assure you,
> > > any hint of the idea that WLS should be viewed as a
> > security product.
> > >
> > > To be clear: SnapBack and WLS are two entirely different
> > product.  WLS
> > > is a subset of the SnapBack functionality and includes NO security
> > > monitoring.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the courtesy allowing me to clear the air on this.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Ron
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 8:15 PM
> > > > To: Ron Wiener
> > > > Cc: [email-masked]'; Cameron Powell; [email-masked]
> > > > Subject: Re: [ga] RE: WLS Input
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ron and all assembly members,
> > > >
> > > > Ron Wiener wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >   Security is one of my areas of expertise.  WLS however is being
> > > > touted as is your product, Snapback as in part, an attempt to
> > > > address the security related existing problems, as you
> > stated above
> > > > in your comments, to RRP/SRS.  Hence I am a bit confused
> > as to the
> > > > context and tone of this response in general, and in specific to
> > > > those known security problems/concerns.  Hence my statements to
> > > > address the central problem instead of address that
> > central problem
> > > > (Security) as it is directly also related to the Delete issue
> > > > through a more concerted effort to develop a solution that
> > > > encompasses these directly corresponding or related issues...
> > > >
>

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: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:07:27 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Structure Taskforce Update No 3 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C19F2E.6FFC9220
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I confess that I haven't stayed real close to the task force work, but I
had understood that the task force was focusing on the broader issue of
ICANN restructuring, a part of which might involve DNSO restructuring.
The DNSO Review task force dealt specifically with the DNSO.  It seems
to me that the ALSC's recommendation for an ALSO requires some
restructuring of ICANN as as whole.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Structure Taskforce Update No 3 
> 
> 
> David, 
> 
> Perhaps I've been out of the loop on the work of the 
> structure task force,
> but I was under the impression that the task force's work was 
> to center on
> possible restructuring of the DNSO. Much of the work so far 
> seem pretty far
> afield of that. Can you give us a quick run down on the 
> charter of the task
> force and where things are headed and why? Many thanks for 
> your good work,
> 
>       Bret
> 
> David Farrar wrote:
> > DRAFT 4 OUT
> > 
> > Draft No 4 is now at 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00010.doc
> > 
> > QUORUM FOR ALSO
> > 
> > Draft 3 proposed a minimum 30,000 people have to join the 
> ALSO befoe it could
> > elect Board members etc.
> 
> --
> 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
> 

- ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C19F2E.6FFC9220
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature;
	name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="smime.p7s"

- ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C19F2E.6FFC9220--

- --
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: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 01:59:30 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [DNS] thread.119

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:07:46 +0800, Kim Davies wrote:

> The fact is, many people think they are valuable. If anyone here wants
> to convince them that they are not then I think you are probably wasting
> your time. Let them find out for themselves.

Hi Kim

Sometimes this thread gets complicated so excuse me if I am repeating someone
else or, indeed, if you or others don't get what I am saying.

Logically,

IF "many people *think* they are valuable" (and are prepared to pay good
money) THEN they *are* valuable.  That's just supply and demand.

Whether or not they work as a search mechanism is not relevant.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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 12:27:51 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

jeff field wrote:

> IMHO, the delete/load problem will absolutely vanish if WLS is implemented.
> Why?  Because all names of any substantial value will always have
> subscriptions, all names of lesser value that get near or go past their
> expiration date will soon get subscribed (on a rolling basis), and names
> that have no value at all will just go away.  IOW, any name in the registry
> worth anything to a speculator or otherwise will be registered by utilizing
> WLS, not by snagging it at mass delete time.  The only names that will be
> mass deleted will be names that have no value.  And, if the names being
> deleted have no value, it would naturally follow that no one will be hitting
> the registry to register those names.  And, if no one is hitting the
> registry at mass delete time, well, there goes the load on the registry and,
> there also goes the delete problem.

The truly interesting point in all of this is the
ascription of *intrinsic value* to domain names.  This
notion is tantamount to declaring a domain name as a
commodity and not simply a designation akin to a telephone
number.  Commodities have value and are generally
considered a class of property.

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
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 12:09:10 -0600
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

<--snip-->
>   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.
<--snip-->

Just a quick comment from the lurker's gallery...

IMHO, the delete/load problem will absolutely vanish if WLS is implemented.
Why?  Because all names of any substantial value will always have
subscriptions, all names of lesser value that get near or go past their
expiration date will soon get subscribed (on a rolling basis), and names
that have no value at all will just go away.  IOW, any name in the registry
worth anything to a speculator or otherwise will be registered by utilizing
WLS, not by snagging it at mass delete time.  The only names that will be
mass deleted will be names that have no value.  And, if the names being
deleted have no value, it would naturally follow that no one will be hitting
the registry to register those names.  And, if no one is hitting the
registry at mass delete time, well, there goes the load on the registry and,
there also goes the delete problem.

Am I missing something here?  BTW, the above is simply a comment, not an
endorsement either for or against WLS.

Best regards,

Jeff

- --
jeff field
952-848-7626
952-848-7627 fax
[email-masked] <mailto:[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: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:38:11 -0800
From: Paul Stahura <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

Jeff Field,

You forget that it *costs* nothing to
hit the registry, even for "low value" names,
plus as the WLS proposal states, 95% of the
names will not have subscriptions.  Since hitting
the registry costs the hitter nothing there is no disincentive
to do it, even for low value names.
Also, Verisign and SnapNames have both stated
that WLS is not intended to solve this problem.

Paul
eNom, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:28 PM
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few
> 
> 
> jeff field wrote:
> 
> > IMHO, the delete/load problem will absolutely vanish if WLS 
> is implemented.
> > Why?  Because all names of any substantial value will always have
> > subscriptions, all names of lesser value that get near or 
> go past their
> > expiration date will soon get subscribed (on a rolling 
> basis), and names
> > that have no value at all will just go away.  IOW, any name 
> in the registry
> > worth anything to a speculator or otherwise will be 
> registered by utilizing
> > WLS, not by snagging it at mass delete time.  The only 
> names that will be
> > mass deleted will be names that have no value.  And, if the 
> names being
> > deleted have no value, it would naturally follow that no 
> one will be hitting
> > the registry to register those names.  And, if no one is hitting the
> > registry at mass delete time, well, there goes the load on 
> the registry and,
> > there also goes the delete problem.
> 
> The truly interesting point in all of this is the
> ascription of *intrinsic value* to domain names.  This
> notion is tantamount to declaring a domain name as a
> commodity and not simply a designation akin to a telephone
> number.  Commodities have value and are generally
> considered a class of property.
> 
> -- 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 	Hermes Network Inc.
> 	Toronto, Canada
> 
> ----
> direct: 416.422.1034
> 
> icq: 34564103
> --
> 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
> 
- --
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 10:37:30 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

Doesn't it cost $6.00 if you get the name?

Paul Stahura wrote:
> You forget that it *costs* nothing to
> hit the registry, even for "low value" names,
> plus as the WLS proposal states, 95% of the
> names will not have subscriptions. 

- --
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 11:37:47 -0800
From: Paul Stahura <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

Yes, but only if you get it.
It costs the registrar next to nothing to 
pound the registry to try to get it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:38 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few
> 
> 
> Doesn't it cost $6.00 if you get the name?
> 
> Paul Stahura wrote:
> > You forget that it *costs* nothing to
> > hit the registry, even for "low value" names,
> > plus as the WLS proposal states, 95% of the
> > names will not have subscriptions. 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
- --
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 13:45:23 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] FW: .BIZ Transfer Policy

Jeff and all,

  I am afraid that I would have to disagree with Richards contention
here with respect to Transfer of Domain names.  His long winded
explanation after stating his and it seems Nuelevels position on this
issue is also a bit suspicious in and of itself to boot.  In that Richard
is a sales person and therefore is predisposed to "Sell" this position
whether of not it has merit, also looks very suspicious.

  Therefore I can only read this Nuelevel position as one that
strongly indicates that Nuelevel is not interested in looking or
assisting in finding a workable solution to the many Transfer
problems and poor practices that have been broadly reported
and have become a concern of fairly large proportions.  In addition
this Nuelevel position seems to be one of protecting your own
.BIZ registrations and registrants whether or not they would like
to move to a different registrar.

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> FYI - This is the note that NeuLevel sent out to the Registrars earlier
> today regarding transfers in the .BIZ domain.
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
> NeuLevel, Inc.
> Loudoun Tech Center
> 46000 Center Oak Plaza
> Building X
> Sterling, VA 20166
> e-mail: [email-masked]
>
> ****************************************************************************
> *****************************************
>
> Dear Registrar Partner,
>
> We have recently received numerous questions and comments from registrars on
> the issue of domain transfers between registrars, and we want to begin a
> dialogue with you on the transfer-related challenges facing our industry.
>
> It is NeuLevel's belief that there is currently no acceptable method for
> transferring domain names in the existing gTLD space that accomplishes the
> goal of portability of domain names while at the same time preventing abuses
> such as "slamming."  As most of you are aware, and as has been extensively
> documented, there are significant problems in the .com, .net and .org TLD
> space with how transfers of domain names occur, not the least of which is
> the challenge of establishing apparent authority.  The current situation is
> not only confusing for registrars, but also to the ultimate consumer.
>
> We also understand that many registrars are just now becoming familiar with
> the capabilities and functionality of the "auth-info" tokens provided by the
> so-called "thick registries" including .biz and .info.  However, overall
> knowledge of the thick registry transfer process, particularly at the
> Registrant level, is still minimal or non-existent.
>
> Some of the problems that have come to our attention include (a) that some
> Registrars are generating blanket (common) tokens for all domain name
> registrants; (b) other registrars are not providing tokens to their
> customers at all; (c) registrants are neither requesting tokens nor do they
> have an adequate understanding about the need or use for tokens.  Finally,
> there do not yet exist secure and efficient systems for token retrieval
> (re-issuance) in cases where a token is lost or stolen.
>
> The net result is that few unique, secure and valid tokens are getting into
> the hands of registrants, and hence to potential gaining Registrars.  While
> this is not the result of bad faith or bad practice by Registrars, it is
> currently causing a gap in the education of the Registrar community and with
> our ultimate consumers, the Registrants.  The industry and end-user
> population have simply not been educated in the proper use of "auth-info"
> tokens.   This is the fault and responsibility of NeuLevel as much as
> anyone.  We feel that it is both our responsibility and obligation to ensure
> that systems for the proper issue, storage and processing of tokens are
> institutionalized within the industry.
>
> We do not believe there is currently a working transfer model in the gTLD
> industry.  If we implement .BIZ transfers now we expect we would contribute
> to industry problems rather than fixing them.  Therefore, we intend to
> freeze .BIZ transfers for a period of 30 to 60 days and engage in a program
> of channel/user education regarding transfers with tokens. In this program
> we will work with you to create systems and awareness for the issue, storage
> and processing of secure, unique, valid tokens.  We do not believe this is
> an insurmountable task.  We are at fault for not initiating it sooner, and
> we want to advance this dialogue with you for the betterment of our industry
> practices and for the enhancement of the end-user experience.
>
> In addition, during this period, we also intend to discuss with each of you
> the merits and flaws of a system that recognizes a five (5) day ACK/NACK in
> a system that already provides for reliable, authorized transfers by using a
> valid token.  With your collaboration we will look to stimulating industry
> debate on the merits of instantaneous transfer (in the presence of a valid
> token).  We believe this is an achievable and desirable position, when we
> have all institutionalized the proper management of tokens.
>
> I will be available to discuss this as will your Registrar Relations Account
> Executive.  Thank you in advance for your cooperation and contribution to
> this dialogue.  If you have any immediate reactions, please feel free to
> respond to this email and we'll begin collecting and reviewing your
> feedback.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Richard Tindal
> Vice President, Sales and Channel Relationships
> NeuLevel, Inc.
> 46000 Center Oak Plaza
> Sterling, VA 20166 USA
> [email-masked]
>
> ---------
> Participants on the gTLD Registry Constituency public mailing list are requested to not cross-post messages.

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 #1003
*************************