Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1005
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, January 18 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1005

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 01:38:08 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [icann-delete] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

Hello,

- --- Eric Schneider <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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?

When you start talking about "getting paid fairly", you're opening the
anti-trust door. There's a fixed amount of value due to the intrinsic
value of the names themselves. WLS isn't providing a valuable service
- -- the value, as others have also pointed out, is in the name itself.
Competition as we have now amongst registrars and different business
models ensures that consumers and registrars alike are getting a fair
price.
 
> 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.

Sure, I'll do it for less than the $180 million per year that Verisign
charges. How about it, Chuck? :) This is simply a ploy by Verisign to
enter a new market where there already exists competition, and take it
over.
 
> 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

Competition is stifled. All that happens is that existing competitors
get the privilege of being resellers of Verisign services, instead of
being allowed to innovate as they are now.

> 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.

It's been admitted that there exist no issues of reusability. The WLS
proposal and the pounding of the registry have been de-coupled, since
VRSN can easily fix the problem of load by implementing the technical
fixes that they've refused to do so.
 
> 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. 

SnapNames has suggested that folks can innovate on the basis of colour
schemes and jazzy graphics on a website. I know when I'm shopping for
domain services, having a fancy graphic makes me willing to pay 60%
margins! :) [sarcasm, for the humour-impaired]

> 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.

A cleaner argument could not be made AGAINST the WLS, by those words.
Verisign can and should have no problem continuing to make $6 per name,
regardless of whether or not it was previously registered. Any WLS or
other proposal is making it more valuable to lose a subscribership
rather than get a renewal.
 
> 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.

You leave out the "registrant". Basically, your pricing scheme is a
centrally-planned model, similar to what central-planners did under
communism. They'd set a price based on what they thought was "fair",
rather than allowing the market to set the price and mechanism through
competition. To be blunt, if you want to be a central planner and want
a price that is "fair", you should not be in the domain business, which
is run on free-market principles. I'll rely on a competitive
marketplace to determine prices and valid business models, rather than
a single individual (you), monopolist (Verisign), or cartel (all
registrars co-ordinating to price-fix). 

Since that competitive market exists now, you'd better provide a darn
good reason why you want to interfere in it. Saying that "system load
is too high" obviously isn't one of those good reasons (problem is
fixed easily, and Verisign/SnapNames have backed off the suggestion
that WLS solves system load). Saying that "I'm not making enough money
in this existing competitive market, thus I want to corner it" is not a
good reason either.

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: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:00:05 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS input

I only add that we also have the request into the NC.

And that outside groups that would welcome all GA members
and keep the GA posted may also have at least a diminimus result.

Actually at this point it is about who is the best show in town.

Sincerely,
Eric

Abel Wisman wrote:

> 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

- --
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 22:49:51 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

On 21:15 17/01/02 -0800, William X Walsh said:

>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.

and the Individual Domain Name Holders  Constituency is not the right place 
either...
I support the call for a separate resellers constituency, ideally as a 
sub-constituency of the Registrars.

- --Joop

- --
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 12:29:47 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS input

On 2002-01-18 05:58:20 +0000, Abel Wisman wrote:

>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.

There was no vote which could have disappeared.  Also, I still do 
not see what benefite a discussion on a separate list would have 
over a discussion on this list.

However, may I suggest that you just go into document production 
mode yourself over the week-end, and try to write down a brief (one 
page) summary of what you believe to be the consensus of the GA on 
the WLS and secondary market topics?

You could submit this to the GA as a draft which can then go through 
some iterations of debate and consensus-finding.

I wish you much luck with this, and I'm really looking forward for 
your results.

(I tried last week and gave up - I was not able to find any 
substantial consensus beyond an apparently wide-spread perception 
that WLS is somehow "bad", and beyond some points about which 
consensus even included Chuck Gomes. In particular, I was not able 
to isolate a consistent set of requirements for a possible new 
process, which is what Rick Wesson requested. I then ended up with 
the conclusion that the best thing I could do would be to continue 
my general ga-summary series.)
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
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 05:39:44 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

Joop and all assembly members,

  Why should the resellers or for that matter the Registrars need
to join any constituency what so ever when the ICANN BoD, staff
and even the DOC/NTIA have no effective sway to make them
do anything with respect to technical innovations or products such
as WLS or Snapback.  Don't you think the Registrars, Registries,
and resellers already know this?  They do.

  Unless or until the Registrar, and Registry contracts have specific
provisions to require Registries and Registrars to follow a best
practices doctrine and technical standards for these sorts of
areas, there will be no stopping Registrars, Registries or even
resellers from using their own technical approaches to issues
such as Domain Name transfers, Deletes, and original registrations.
We are seeing this now, we shall continue to see it unless ICANN,
the DOC/NTIA mandates such contract restrictions.  And even
if such restrictions are put into the Registrar and Registry contracts,
the existing contracts in force are not likely to be amended to
include such provisions.  And also even when the existing contracts
in force are up for renewal, the haggling from the lawyers will
be quite intense, if not down right nasty to the extent of huge
legal filings and court cases.

  It is for these reasons that we [INEGroup] argued some time
ago that ramming through those Registrar and registry contracts
before stakeholder review and approval was a huge mistake.
Now the stakeholder is reaping the negative effect of this
lack of oversight that the ICANN BoD and especially
the ICANN staff bypassed.  And it is for these sorts of
judgment errors and poor process, that we foresaw
the lack of "Clue" that the ICANN Staff had than and
for the most part still has.

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> On 21:15 17/01/02 -0800, William X Walsh said:
>
> >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.
>
> and the Individual Domain Name Holders  Constituency is not the right place
> either...
> I support the call for a separate resellers constituency, ideally as a
> sub-constituency of the Registrars.
>
> --Joop
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 06:02:44 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [icann-delete] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

George and all assembly members,

  George, you make some really good points here from a
financial strategy point of view.  But in reality or the real world,
those aspects of the WLS proposal are only partly the problem
with the proposal.

  I have to agree with Jeff Feld in his comments to a great degree
see: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00604.html
When he said, "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."
====End quote=====

  I would not have gone quite as far as Jeff Feld did
ins saying that Price, if low, would absolutely eliminate
the load problem however.  But that is another issue
entirely in and of itself.  But it is at least likely that
the lower the price for a WLS position the more
DN's of little value will be re-registered, thereby
aiding in the reduction of load in the delete process.
But the law of diminishing returns will come into play
at some point even here.

  So this this extent "Price" is a big issue.  Now
the other area that you touched upon with respect to
price, George is a different matter entirely.  I can't
see WLS if implemented would put anyone out of business.
Even if it had a huge effect, that is how the business world
in small areas such as this sometimes work.  But they rarely
remain static in terms of competition.

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Eric Schneider <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> When you start talking about "getting paid fairly", you're opening the
> anti-trust door. There's a fixed amount of value due to the intrinsic
> value of the names themselves. WLS isn't providing a valuable service
> -- the value, as others have also pointed out, is in the name itself.
> Competition as we have now amongst registrars and different business
> models ensures that consumers and registrars alike are getting a fair
> price.
>
> > 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.
>
> Sure, I'll do it for less than the $180 million per year that Verisign
> charges. How about it, Chuck? :) This is simply a ploy by Verisign to
> enter a new market where there already exists competition, and take it
> over.
>
> > 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
>
> Competition is stifled. All that happens is that existing competitors
> get the privilege of being resellers of Verisign services, instead of
> being allowed to innovate as they are now.
>
> > 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.
>
> It's been admitted that there exist no issues of reusability. The WLS
> proposal and the pounding of the registry have been de-coupled, since
> VRSN can easily fix the problem of load by implementing the technical
> fixes that they've refused to do so.
>
> > 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.
>
> SnapNames has suggested that folks can innovate on the basis of colour
> schemes and jazzy graphics on a website. I know when I'm shopping for
> domain services, having a fancy graphic makes me willing to pay 60%
> margins! :) [sarcasm, for the humour-impaired]
>
> > 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.
>
> A cleaner argument could not be made AGAINST the WLS, by those words.
> Verisign can and should have no problem continuing to make $6 per name,
> regardless of whether or not it was previously registered. Any WLS or
> other proposal is making it more valuable to lose a subscribership
> rather than get a renewal.
>
> > 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.
>
> You leave out the "registrant". Basically, your pricing scheme is a
> centrally-planned model, similar to what central-planners did under
> communism. They'd set a price based on what they thought was "fair",
> rather than allowing the market to set the price and mechanism through
> competition. To be blunt, if you want to be a central planner and want
> a price that is "fair", you should not be in the domain business, which
> is run on free-market principles. I'll rely on a competitive
> marketplace to determine prices and valid business models, rather than
> a single individual (you), monopolist (Verisign), or cartel (all
> registrars co-ordinating to price-fix).
>
> Since that competitive market exists now, you'd better provide a darn
> good reason why you want to interfere in it. Saying that "system load
> is too high" obviously isn't one of those good reasons (problem is
> fixed easily, and Verisign/SnapNames have backed off the suggestion
> that WLS solves system load). Saying that "I'm not making enough money
> in this existing competitive market, thus I want to corner it" is not a
> good reason either.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
>

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: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 06:11:41 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS input

Thomas and all assembly members,

  ALthough you "Summary" is very nice, it has been pointed out
by Patrick to be somewhat incomplete and also does not address
the process issue as the GA members requested, posted two polls
on, and have shown a great deal of interest in.  Hence it would
seem that a need for a WG for Delete, than debate, and discussion,
as you very rightly suggest below, and then a Report from those
debates and discussions be put before the GA members in the
form of a ballot to vote upon as we have done in the past.

  Anything less, Thomas will be milk toast and may not boad
well for you tenure as Chair...  At least have an open mind about it...

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-01-18 05:58:20 +0000, Abel Wisman wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> There was no vote which could have disappeared.  Also, I still do
> not see what benefite a discussion on a separate list would have
> over a discussion on this list.
>
> However, may I suggest that you just go into document production
> mode yourself over the week-end, and try to write down a brief (one
> page) summary of what you believe to be the consensus of the GA on
> the WLS and secondary market topics?
>
> You could submit this to the GA as a draft which can then go through
> some iterations of debate and consensus-finding.
>
> I wish you much luck with this, and I'm really looking forward for
> your results.
>
> (I tried last week and gave up - I was not able to find any
> substantial consensus beyond an apparently wide-spread perception
> that WLS is somehow "bad", and beyond some points about which
> consensus even included Chuck Gomes. In particular, I was not able
> to isolate a consistent set of requirements for a possible new
> process, which is what Rick Wesson requested. I then ended up with
> the conclusion that the best thing I could do would be to continue
> my general ga-summary series.)
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> 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: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:39:09 +0100
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Congratulations

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_013B_01C1A02D.E3DD7B00
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thomas and Alexander,
yesterday's (Jan 17) Names Council confirmed your election as GA chair =
and alternate respectively. Congratulations. We look forward to working =
together.

Philip Sheppard
NC chair

- ------=_NextPart_000_013B_01C1A02D.E3DD7B00
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thomas and Alexander,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>yesterday's (Jan 17) Names Council confirmed your =
election as=20
GA chair and alternate respectively. Congratulations. We look forward to =
working=20
together.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip Sheppard<BR>NC =
chair</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_013B_01C1A02D.E3DD7B00--

- --
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 08:58:09 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS input

Thomas,

In Montevideo last year, Verisign invited a few members of the community to
a consultation in order to gather input as to how they could best solve the
expiration of domain name problems that they were facing. A number of
proposals were tabled as a result of this process - but were rejected by
Verisign with the exception of the SnapNames proposal, which they endorsed.

A large part of the consultation centered around the basic principles that
should be fulfilled by any proposal put forward. I have reproduced them
below with the hope that they will assist the efforts of the GA as you
describe below. Further information on these proposals can be found at
http://www.byte.org/rc-deletes/

If there are any questions concerning the status of these principles or the
intent behind them, please feel free to drop me a line and I will do what I
can to clarify.

Thanks,

- -rwr

Principles

The process of deleting registered names and making them available for
re-registration must be conducted in accordance with a set of operating
principles. These recommendations that follow are offered in accordance with
the following principles;

  1.. Verisign Global Registry Services must operate within the obligations
of its operating agreement with ICANN.

  2.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes must not accrue undue
advantage to any individual, registrar or registry.

  3.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes must be conducted in
accordance with established ICANN policy.

  4.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes should be determined by
VGRS in consultation with ICANN and the community.

  5.. The determination by VGRS of any new deletion and re-registration
processes must include an analysis of the root cause of the problems faced
by the registry.

  6.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes must allow Registrars
to continue to operate in a competitive manner. This specifically refers to
the capability of Registrars to determine their business model, pricing and
technical environment.

  7.. Registrars must be able to continue to use the existing RRP protocol
for the normal shared registration system processes.

  8.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes must not impact on the
performance of the normal shared registration system processes. Normal SRS
processes can be defined as the creation of "new" domains, modification of
existing domain name records, inter-registrar domain name transfers and
deletion of domain names.   Not normal is defined as the land rush for
deleted domains the instant they become available. The interim procedures
currently employed by VGRS as a temporary solution to this issue are also
not defined as normal processes[i].

  9.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes MUST be fair to all
ICANN Accredited Registrars

  10.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes SHOULD work within the
current registries protocol such as RRP or EPP.

  11.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes SHOULD NOT encourage
the use of the CHECK DOMAIN command to discover available names in the pool
of names to be deleted.

  12.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes SHOULD NOT give a
greater benefit to a registrar that uses more RRP Connections over a
registrar with a single RRP connection.

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 6:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS input

> On 2002-01-18 05:58:20 +0000, Abel Wisman wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> There was no vote which could have disappeared.  Also, I still do
> not see what benefite a discussion on a separate list would have
> over a discussion on this list.
>
> However, may I suggest that you just go into document production
> mode yourself over the week-end, and try to write down a brief (one
> page) summary of what you believe to be the consensus of the GA on
> the WLS and secondary market topics?
>
> You could submit this to the GA as a draft which can then go through
> some iterations of debate and consensus-finding.
>
> I wish you much luck with this, and I'm really looking forward for
> your results.
>
> (I tried last week and gave up - I was not able to find any
> substantial consensus beyond an apparently wide-spread perception
> that WLS is somehow "bad", and beyond some points about which
> consensus even included Chuck Gomes. In particular, I was not able
> to isolate a consistent set of requirements for a possible new
> process, which is what Rick Wesson requested. I then ended up with
> the conclusion that the best thing I could do would be to continue
> my general ga-summary series.)
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> 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: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:59:10 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Resellers Without A Constituency

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:15:27 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
Re: Re[2]: [ga] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

> 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.

Hi William

I'm sure you will remember that I have discussed that very issue in previous
emails where I argued that the proper split should be between "supply" and
"demand".

On the "supply" side should be registries, registrars and resellers.

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: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:20:46 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The GA Process & Clarification

Hi Jeff

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 06:11:41 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:

>   ALthough you "Summary" is very nice, it has been pointed out
> by Patrick to be somewhat incomplete and also does not address
> the process issue as the GA members requested, posted two polls
> on, and have shown a great deal of interest in.

I'm not sure I said that.  However, now that you mention it, I would like
to clarify one point that I did make as follows:

> > > (i) domain-policy archives.  According to a message from Chuck
> > > Gomes, in reply to a question from Patrick Corliss, the
> > > domain-policy mailing list was shut down by Verisign for legal
> > > reasons in May 2001.
> > > <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00212.html>
> >
> > That's not accurate.

When I say "that's not accurate" I meant that Thomas is not accurately
reporting the thread in that he has not even mentioned the archives.  This
aspect was a significant part of the discussion (at least as far as I was
concerned).  My meaning should be clear in the context of the rest of the
paragraph (below).

> > Apart from VeriSign's misleading communications,

I clearly stated who made the misleading communication.  I don't have the
names to hand but the guy who posted the closing down message said to
contact some corporate PR man.  When I did, he ignored my request.

The closing down message can therefore be seen as misleading.

> > a significant part of the discussion related to their removal
> > of the list archives.  I requested that they be restored except for the
> > offending articles.  They are an important historical record.

I am keeping my 5,000 odd emails on the offchance that I will one day
be in a position to restore the archives myself.  I believe they may be
available as the Vpop archive at http://dompolicy.vpop.net but haven't
had time to check it out yet.  Apparently this dates back to 1998

My apologies if my wording implied any reflection on Chuck Gomes for
whom I have the greatest respect.  Sorry, Chuck !!

> Hence it would
> seem that a need for a WG for Delete, than debate, and discussion,
> as you very rightly suggest below, and then a Report from those
> debates and discussions be put before the GA members in the
> form of a ballot to vote upon as we have done in the past.

Quite a few people seem to support a working group.
 
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: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:49:15 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN Contracts & Best Practices

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 05:39:44 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
Re: [ga] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

> Unless or until the Registrar, and Registry contracts have specific
> provisions to require Registries and Registrars to follow a best
> practices doctrine and technical standards for these sorts of
> areas, there will be no stopping Registrars, Registries or even
> resellers from using their own technical approaches to issues
> such as Domain Name transfers, Deletes, and original registrations.

Hi Jeff

Good point here.  However, it doesn't really matter what is written in the
contracts or Code of Best Practice if ICANN has not got the will and the
determination to enforce their provisions.

Which makes me wonder why Registrars, for example, even bother to
participate in the constituency structure !!

As long as they pay their ICANN fees, they will be looked after.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1005
*************************