Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1004
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, January 18 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1004

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:45:17 -0600
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

comments below...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Paul
> Stahura
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:38 PM
> To: [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.

I'm not sure I get your statement...why would someone hit the registry if
the only names that would be available would be names that have no
(perceived) value?  Of course, in the interest of simplification, I left out
one other variable that would play in to all this (and perhaps this is what
you mean), cost.  The higher the cost of WLS, the less the delete/load
problem goes away.  IOW, if it costs $1,000 (I'm using an extreme figure
here for illustration purposes) to subscribe a name through WLS, then sure,
a lot of people would wait for the name to show up in the mass deletes.
OTOH, if a WLS subscription costs $1, then even names with low (perceived)
value will be subscribed and will therefore not be included in the mass
deletes.  So yes, cost does play a factor in whether or not a name will be
subscribed through WLS and ultimately whether the name will be available or
not in the mass deletes.  Again, the higher the cost of WLS, the less the
delete/load problem goes away.  Of course, the flip of that is, the lower
the cost of WLS, the more the delete/load problem goes away.

> Also, Verisign and SnapNames have both stated
> that WLS is not intended to solve this problem.

Yes, noted...but, I still believe the delete/load problem would vanish
whether that result was intended or not.  BTW, I mentioned in my original
email my comment was merely that, a comment, not an endorsement either for
or against WLS.  I support the decoupling of the delete/load problem and WLS
issues; they should, IMO, be treated as two completely separate issues.

Best,

Jeff (Field)

>
> 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
>
>

- --
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 20:54:32 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] MP3 recording of NC teleconf.2002 -01 -17

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

The full recording of the Names Council teleconference held Thursday 17
January 2002 14.00 UTC. may be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020117.NCteleconf.mp3

DNSO Secretariat

- --
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 11:57:12 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

Maybe that's the solution. I imagine if you charged registrars a nickel per
access attempt, the problem would disappear overnight.

Paul Stahura wrote:
> Yes, but only if you get it.
> It costs the registrar next to nothing to
> pound the registry to try to get it.

- --
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 22:08:44 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

Dear Sotiris,
The truly interesting point is the business squatting concept introduced 
via the DN once WLS has been contractually linked to UDRP. This implies the 
loss of ownership of the TM registered as domain names. I am really 
impatient to see how Joe Sims is going to word this out.

I note that there is another oddity in what you note: what you way is only 
true for DNs managed by VRSN, i.e. .com, .net, .tv (will they include it 
for .org before the transfer? ) This means that sotiris.com would be a 
property and sotiris.ca would be simple designation.  Hmmmm. Seems they 
forgot about the old issue of the Chilean Constitution.....

I will go and start a Coca proof "Cook'a Cola" business in Chile while they 
will mourn the loss of 48,6% of their capital (the value of the CocaCola 
TM) in Atlanta.

I do enjoy!

Chuck, are you really sure this is what you want? :-)

On 21:27 17/01/02, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
>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 19:26:11 -0800
From: Paul Stahura <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

I agree.
That is one solution to the loading problem.
There are a number of others.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:57 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few
> 
> 
> Maybe that's the solution. I imagine if you charged 
> registrars a nickel per
> access attempt, the problem would disappear overnight.
> 
> Paul Stahura wrote:
> > Yes, but only if you get it.
> > It costs the registrar next to nothing to
> > pound the registry to try to get it.
> 
> --
> 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 20:13:42 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

Thursday, Thursday, January 17, 2002, 10:09:10 AM, Jeff Field wrote:

> <--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.

The delete/load problem would vanish if Verisign would just do what it
takes to solve it, rather than trying to squash a new industry and
monopolize and use this problem that has relatively simple technical
solutions as the justification for this drastic action.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
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 23:37:32 -0500
From: "Eric Schneider" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

I wish to provide recommendations during the comment period ending January
18, 2002 as requested by VeriSign, Inc. regarding their paper describing the
proposed Domain Name Wait Listing Service (WLS) published on December 30,
2001.  The WLS proposal can be accessed from the following link:
http://www.icann-registrars.org/pdfs/verisign_wls.pdf

Registrars are concerned about how they can make money from WLS without
having flashbacks of the cut throat thin margins of providing domain name
registration services.  The burning question is how can registrars and for
that matter all constituencies get paid fairly from this newly proposed
service?

The purpose of my response is to propose a pricing model to demonstrate how
the above requirement can be met.  It is my hope that registrars will find
merit in this proposed model and come to the table to get more serious about
evaluating the WLS proposal.

A CASE STUDY
There are two kinds of registrants.  There are those registrants who have
secured their ideal dotcom name of choice and there are those registrants
who have settled for a dotcom name close enough to their ideal name of
choice.

Take the case of the fictitious corporation, Amazon Music Company, who has
settled with registering "amazonmusiccompany.com", but would have preferred
to have registered "amazon.com" instead.  Though the addition of gTLDs might
provide consolation, Amazon Music Company has no interest in registering
"amazon.biz" and would rather back-order "amazon.com" for $69 from
Snapnames.

Snapnames has proven over the last year that there is a viable niche market
for back-ordering domain names, however back-order renewal data does not
exist as of yet and it will remain unclear for at least the next 6-12 months
whether back-order registrants are willing to continue paying a hefty
premium on renewals.

WLS PROPOSAL
It's common for anything new to get bashed by an existing system that
perceives the new as threatening or disruptive.  This seems to be the case
for the WLS proposal.  It is my opinion that the community is over reacting
to this proposal.  Though, I as 'Joe Consumer', have less at stake than most
of the other comments and postings that are representative of competing
registrars, I do have respect for those who have voiced opposition to the
proposal by default, but yet remain open minded that there may be further
serious consideration if the WLS proposal is tweaked or fine tuned.

REUSABILITY
A domain name can be considered an object having the properties of
resolvability, availability, and reusability.  To date, all registries have
managed the functions of resolvability (TLD zone files) and availability
(WHOIS database) only.

We are at a unique point in history.  No registry has ever managed the
reusability (Parallel Registry) aspect of a domain name.  Like a mobius
strip or ouroboros, I believe it is not only the obligation, duty, and
responsibility but also the time for a Registry to come full circle and
provide reusability services.  If you disagree that it is not the Registry's
responsibility to manage such services then I encourage you to run your own
Registry and elect not to.

COMPETITION
Just because WLS, if implemented, may stifle other secondary market models
does not mean in the slightest that WLS stifles competition amongst
registrars.  Currently, secondary market models and proposals other than WLS
seem only interested in solving the problem of recycling domain names upon
or after the domain name expiry date.  By nature, there is little
flexibility of any model that manages domain name reusability before the
expiry date.  The bottom line is that there are only so many ways to
roll-out a WLS type service and I challenge anyone to propose new models
that solve the issues of reusability before expiration.

Face it, registering a domain name or registering a back-order is a vanilla
process where the dimension of competition is limited only to price.  True
creative competition in this high volume thin margin game comes from
marketing, distribution, partnering, and providing bundled and/or value
added services during and/or after the point of registration/renewal.

Personally speaking, I am in disgust over the devolved science of the insane
free-for-all hoarding of dropped domain names like a gold rush in the wild
west while being patronized by the propaganda of registrars claiming that
they are doing this on my behalf, for my benefit, the consumer.  Grow up and
stop belittling the consumer by assuming that the only substantial market
group is that of a speculator.  Keep your eye on the ball stupid and
remember that you are in the subscription business, the first rule of which
is to retain subscribership.

SUBSCRIBERSHIP
For example, when registrants become educated to the introduction of a WLS
type service, there will be a significant decrease in domain name
expirations.  Registrants that truly want to keep their names will recognize
the cost benefit of purchasing longer term subscriptions at a comparatively
lower price, providing opportunity for registrars to keep customers and
retain subscribership.

WILL WLS WORK?
Hell yeah it can work.  I think the model is sound, except for the concept
of fixed rate.  Here are my comments and suggestions to fine tune the WLS
proposal.

Currently the risk of a back-order purchase is time dependent.  Risk
gradually reduces over time, but as the expiry date approaches and occurs,
the risk of purchase becomes exponentially reduced.  For example, there is a
greater likelihood that a back-order would be purchased for say $100 after
the expiry date than before the expiry date.

The solution to this is to PROVIDE A FIXED RISK RATHER THAN A FIXED RATE.
By so doing, a purchase becomes time independent enabling anyone to feel
free to purchase a back-order at any time regardless of the expiry date.
Simply put, price should be event based rather than time based.  There are
two event types; a renewal event and an expiration event.

For instance, a $100 back-order price should be the same regardless whether
a domain name expires in three weeks, three months, or three years.  By so
doing, the registrant's risk is constant and if they truly wanted to pay
such a substantial price, they would not hesitate in the slightest as to
when to purchase it.  This will allow the back-order registry to populate
more quickly, more evenly spread the distribution of purchases over time,
significantly reduce the possible free-for-all of first purchasing a
back-order registration when an expiration event occurs.  When a back-order
is not registered upon the occurrence of an expiration event, the purchase
price may be set to say $150 to offset the reduced risk as a result of such
expiration.

If there is a renewal event, then the back-order registrant may then pay $80
to keep their subscription.  For the next renewal event the price may be $65
with the price scaled down per each renewal event to some minimum of say
$20.  Again in this case price is not fixed because a renewal event can
occur each year or every three years depending upon the registrant of the
domain name.

Personally, I think that the first-time purchase of a back-order should be
treated as a fixed expense of sorts.  There should be no price competition
between registrars for the initial purchase with the price set at $100 for
anyone, anytime, and anywhere.  By so doing all constituencies including
ICANN, Registry, and Registrar get paid fairly.  Price competition can occur
by scaling back price on back-orders after each renewal event or such
competition can occur by paying a minimum annual maintenance fee between
$15-$30 per year before the occurrence of a renewal event (e.g., registrant
back-orders "example.com" which can potentially expire in three years --
registrant pays $100 up front and pays an additional $15-$30 minimum
maintenance fee as set by a given registrar).  The maintenance fee can be
waived upon the occurrence of a renewal event.

A fixed price does not in this case mean price fixing.  I am not a cost
accountant but I do not see issues of monopoly or antitrust, simply because
it remains unknown for how long the fixed price will keep the back-order
protection in place and it remains unknown when the back-order registrant
decides to purchase the back-order product.

IN SUMMARY: THE END GAME TO MAKE WLS WORK IS TO PROVIDE A FIXED RISK RATHER
THAN A FIXED RATE.

Kind Regards,
Eric Schneider

- --
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 22:38:02 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Net name registrars contest ICANN fees

All assembly members,

  ICANN in to soup again?
See:http://news.com.com/2100-1023-817911.html?legacy=cnet&tag=mn_hd
Excerpt:
A fight has broken out between a key Net standards body and Web address
     administrators in Europe. European domain name registries including
    Nominet, which runs the popular .uk address system, are refusing to
    pay fees to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
    saying the group has not done enough to guarantee the stability of
    the ervers that link domains.

     "We don't know what (ICANN) is there for," said Nominet Managing
    Director William Black, who is also chairman of the general assembly 
    for the Council of European National Top-Level Domain Registries
    (CENTR), an association of European registries.

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 20:41:22 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

Thursday, Thursday, January 17, 2002, 8:37:32 PM, Eric Schneider wrote:
> Personally speaking, I am in disgust over the devolved science of the insane
> free-for-all hoarding of dropped domain names like a gold rush in the wild
> west while being patronized by the propaganda of registrars claiming that
> they are doing this on my behalf, for my benefit, the consumer.  Grow up and
> stop belittling the consumer by assuming that the only substantial market
> group is that of a speculator.  Keep your eye on the ball stupid and
> remember that you are in the subscription business, the first rule of which
> is to retain subscribership.

All the WLS does is move the process up a level, and lets the Registry
profit from it.

Everyone who claims the WLS will the only way consumers can get a
chance at names is sorely mistaken.  All this will do is make it that
much easier for the speculators, and many of them are all for it,
since the higher cost will keep the riff raff, meaning the
individuals, out of their game.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
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 23:32:56 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] European domain name registries are refusing to pay fees to the ICANN

From the very interesting article @
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-817911.html : 

"We don't know what (ICANN) is there for," said Nominet
Managing Director William Black <snip>

Hmm.  Is there really any question?

ICANN have been most assiduous in paying attention to
matters of internet policy and IPC concerns to date, if
nothing else.  I wonder whatever happened to the technical
coordination agenda that ICANN was purportedly established
to conduct?  
 
- -- 
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 20:59:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Eric Schneider wrote:

> WLS PROPOSAL
> It's common for anything new to get bashed by an existing system that
> perceives the new as threatening or disruptive.  This seems to be the case
> for the WLS proposal.  It is my opinion that the community is over reacting
> to this proposal.  Though, I as 'Joe Consumer', have less at stake than most
> of the other comments and postings that are representative of competing
> registrars, I do have respect for those who have voiced opposition to the
> proposal by default, but yet remain open minded that there may be further
> serious consideration if the WLS proposal is tweaked or fine tuned.

Eric, one question: if you are a consumer then why is the domain name
associated with your email address that of a registrar?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:15:27 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

Thursday, Thursday, January 17, 2002, 8:59:22 PM, Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Eric Schneider wrote:

>> WLS PROPOSAL
>> It's common for anything new to get bashed by an existing system that
>> perceives the new as threatening or disruptive.  This seems to be the case
>> for the WLS proposal.  It is my opinion that the community is over reacting
>> to this proposal.  Though, I as 'Joe Consumer', have less at stake than most
>> of the other comments and postings that are representative of competing
>> registrars, I do have respect for those who have voiced opposition to the
>> proposal by default, but yet remain open minded that there may be further
>> serious consideration if the WLS proposal is tweaked or fine tuned.

> Eric, one question: if you are a consumer then why is the domain name
> associated with your email address that of a registrar?

More accurately, a reseller of a registrar  :)

I'm sure you will understand why I make a point of noting the
distinction.  Unlike Registrars, resellers of registrar services have
no voice inside ICANN.  The registrars constituency won't have us, the
business constituency wants rules to bar us from there, and there just
isn't any other place for us to be heard.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
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 21:20:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, William X Walsh wrote:

> > Eric, one question: if you are a consumer then why is the domain name
> > associated with your email address that of a registrar?
>
> More accurately, a reseller of a registrar  :)
>
> I'm sure you will understand why I make a point of noting the
> distinction.  Unlike Registrars, resellers of registrar services have
> no voice inside ICANN.

>  The registrars constituency won't have us,

Shouldn't you be taking this up with the registrars then, since you are
making them money?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:28:28 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

Thursday, Thursday, January 17, 2002, 9:20:48 PM, Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, William X Walsh wrote:

>> > Eric, one question: if you are a consumer then why is the domain name
>> > associated with your email address that of a registrar?
>>
>> More accurately, a reseller of a registrar  :)
>>
>> I'm sure you will understand why I make a point of noting the
>> distinction.  Unlike Registrars, resellers of registrar services have
>> no voice inside ICANN.

>>  The registrars constituency won't have us,

> Shouldn't you be taking this up with the registrars then, since you are
> making them money?

Quite frankly, we are not registrars.  And with so much of what is
going in the domain policy arena effecting us as directly as it is, I
think it is time the non-registrar registration service providers have
some say and input in the process.  Particularly because many of the
things that may be acceptable to the registrars, may have a deep
impact on our businesses and on the service provided to our customers.

You surely see where I am going with this.  I think a new constituency
is required where non-ICANN Accredited domain registrars and
registration providers are represented.  I've been thinking about this
for some time now, especially during the whole "domain transfer"
controversy that Verisign started.

I've decided that its time to do more than think about it and have
started exploring the subject more.  Anyone interested in this, and
who is a qualified registration provider, should contact me off list.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
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 21:54:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, William X Walsh wrote:

> > Shouldn't you be taking this up with the registrars then, since you are
> > making them money?
>
> Quite frankly, we are not registrars.

Right, that costs a non-refundable $2500 application fee, 4k for the first
TLD and $500 for each additional per annum in addition to all the other
requirements.

> And with so much of what is going in the domain policy arena effecting
> us as directly as it is, I think it is time the non-registrar
> registration service providers have some say and input in the process.

I imagine you will get much further once you are able to describe how much
money you will be able to feed into the coffers. ;-)

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 05:58:20 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS input 

Assembly,

Today is the day the registrars will put in their well formulated opinion on 
the proposed WLS.
Despite some "puppets" pushed forward, we have heard nothing that is in favor 
of WLS, and it is clear what the registrars are gonna write to VGRS about 
their proposal.
As Chuck Gomes announced they will then be looking for comment from other 
constituencies. 
Though I seriously doubt they were planning that, since they wanted the next 
14 days to "iron out the difficulties" he did make this statement in public 
and therefore will be held to it.
He welcomed feedback from a proposed workgroup, though the voting on that 
dissapeared for smoe reason, nontheless itis in my opinion a chance to at 
least be heard in this case, whether they will use our opinion is ofcourse a 
totally different matter.

I kindly submit to the chair that within the next 24 hours a decision is 
sought after in order to comply with this chance of being part of this for 
real or that we will again succumb in bitter personal flame wars.
If the maillinglists with DNSO are a problem then I offer standing this 
assembly maillinglists galore, for every workgroup  that wants to form itself 
or with approval.

Let us try to create in short term an open workgroup in which we try to come 
as close as possible to a consensus on this topic and draft a proposal for 
the full GA to vote on and with support from the GA and the chair we might 
accomplish a rare fact.

Let us temporarily forget longterm solutions and fix this job before we again 
start a long discussion on the legitimacy of workgroups without support from 
the NC, who obviously have not even bothered to react to a request for such.
Time given to us obviously is not sufficient to walk the walk, so lets jump 
the jump

abel
- -- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
- --
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 00:03:32 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: WLS Input

Kristy McKee wrote:

> ><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.)

What a laugh that is! I'll refrain from giving any legal advice here.
(I don't much give a rip about SnapNames, but this booboo was
to egregious not to note.)

Bill Lovell

>
> >
> >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

- --

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:47:01 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

Patrick and all assembly members,

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, William X Walsh wrote:
>
> > > Shouldn't you be taking this up with the registrars then, since you are
> > > making them money?
> >
> > Quite frankly, we are not registrars.
>
> Right, that costs a non-refundable $2500 application fee, 4k for the first
> TLD and $500 for each additional per annum in addition to all the other
> requirements.

  Pocket change!  I would think that as hared as New.net has attempted
to be included into the ICANN process, as only god know why, than
this fee/tax should not be a hindrance...

>
>
> > And with so much of what is going in the domain policy arena effecting
> > us as directly as it is, I think it is time the non-registrar
> > registration service providers have some say and input in the process.
>
> I imagine you will get much further once you are able to describe how much
> money you will be able to feed into the coffers. ;-)

 That's right Patrick!  >;)  And maybe New.net should just offer
a premium if they are really interested in being included in the
Registrars club of ICANN...  I am sure if New.net made some
behind the scenes $$ offers, say a cool $1m all of the non inclusive
problems that New.net has would vaporize, with the appropriate
politically correct speak of course coming from Stuart Lynn...  >;)

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

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 #1004
*************************