Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1010
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, January 22 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1010

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:18:00 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 00:37:18 +1100, "Patrick Corliss"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Hi David
>
>On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 11:50:39 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00665.html
>
>> Noise is stuff which is off topic.  The GA list is designed exactly
>> for discussing proposals such as WLS.
>
>Very often, on this list, there is diversionary debate, such as this
>procedural stuff, which does not advance the discussion on topics such as the
>WLS proposal.

Indeed.  And can I with all due respect suggest you are one of the
worst offenders.  You have done little except attack the new Chair
since his election.  This will certainly be my last post to this
thread.

>In fact, I already proposed that procedural stuff be debated elsewhere.  This
>was well supported by the GA membership but ignored by the former Chair.

The sub-lists are a failed experiment.  One can debate why and whom to
blame but having been defunct for so long I can seen little chance of
them now being useful to the GA.

>[ . . . ]
>> I do support asking the NC to set up a WG on this issue.  If the NC
>> agrees then it will be a worthwhile exercise as it will be official.
>
>So we have yet another procedural debate.  And, as I remember, you were
>opposed to the idea of a straw poll.
>
>Perhaps you could advise how, in the absence of a straw poll, the GA members
>can ask our Chair, Thoms Roessler, to set up such a WG ?

Umm this is easy.  First you could e-mail him and Alex privately and
ask him/them.  Secondly if you really want a DNSO WG to be established
you need to do some homework and get key parties involved.  Get
Verisign,the Registrars President, the other constituency key figures
to agree.  If you get them all agreeing it is a good idea then the NC
is far more likely to set one up.

>> If the NC do not agree then anything the GA sets up is simply a
>> dedicated mailing list.
>
>Not at all.  Were the GA to set up a WG by its own mandate, it would be a WG
>set up by the GA for the purpose.  We could even elect our own WG Chair !!!

One could do whatever one wants but it will be ignored.  Not saying
this is far or good but I try to deal with reality.

>I really don't see the difference except that you are:
>
>(a)    creating an unnecessary obstacle to the GA's own self-determination,
>and
>(b)    setting a terrible precedent about how things *should* be done.

With all respect the major obstacle is those who attack the new GA
Chair within minutes almost of being elected.  And secondly I don't
set the rules or precedent about how things can or should be done.  I
can only offer a veiw on what path is most likely to lead to success.

>None of that suggests that a single Working Group, with clearly defined scope,
>would not succeed in co-ordinating interested persons to produce an effective
>outcome.

I have never claimed otherwise.  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 14:54:48 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Straw Poll on Working Group

All assembly members,

My vote is as follows:
In favor of an open working group set up by the GA on its own behalf   [ ]
In favor of an open working group set up by the NC at the Chair's request [x]
Opposed to any sort of working group however constituted  [  ]

>

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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 14:58:23 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Straw Poll on Working Group

My vote is below, although I don't know why we need to keep voting on
essentially the same issue. In fact, at this juncture, I'd rather
apologize later, than continuing (eternally, it seems) to ask for
permission.

With all of the personality attacks, bickering over the smallest of
minutia and the incredible capability of debating almost every case
for not getting something underway and accomplished, it is no small
wonder that nothing gets done here. Perhaps, that's a reason why I've
seen several posts which expressed a feeling that the this assembly is
not taken seriously, has no input, is not recognized, etc.

Sunday, January 20, 2002, 9:44:56 AM, Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]> wrote:

PC> In favor of an open working group set up by the GA on its own behalf   [X]
PC> In favor of an open working group set up by the NC at the Chair's request
PC>  ]
PC> Opposed to any sort of working group however constituted  [  ]

- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:01:55 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] Vint Cerf: registrars should not apply for names for themselves

Richard and all,

  You again pose some very good questions.  They have been ask before
without and a definitive answer.  I suspect, despite what Vint may have
indicated (See your comments below) that the answer will not be
forthcoming any time soon.  I hope I am proven wrong of that however.
I await a public announcement outlining the answers from Stuart, Vint,
and Louis...

Richard Henderson wrote:

>   I would like to ask the forum: What is the position on Registrars
> applying for names for themselves, especially at the new release of
> names by a Registry? My concern was alerted at the start of the .info
> roll-out.
>
> On 15th July I was already worried about the possibility of Registrars
> using their positions to buy domains for themselves, so I wrote to
> Vint Cerf:
> "At 04:55 PM 7/15/2001 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote: Please could
> you advise me on a concern I have about the administration of the
> .info domains during the "Start Up" period? As an ordinary member of
> the public, I have applied to a number of certified registrars to
> apply for certain .info domain names.
>
> My concern and question is this:
>
> What is there to stop a registrar applying for popular domains
> themselves even if I have paid them to apply on my behalf? (Almost all
> registrars charge a nominal sum, but it is not the sum that concerns
> me, rather the right and access of the general public to domain names
> in a transparent process)"
>
> VINT CERF REPLIED:
>
> "registrars are not supposed to "trade for their own account" so to
> speak. I copied stuart lynn, ceo, and louis touton, general counsel,
> in case they have additional specifics to offer."
>
> Questions for the Forum:
>
> What instances have there been, of Registrars applying for names for
> themselves, and has Vint Cerf intervened when this has happened?
>
> What is the position of Registries if they are informed that
> Registrars have applied for names for themselves, which may conflict
> with the right of the public to a fair and even-handed distribution of
> new names?
>
>
>
>
>

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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:14:52 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Concerning Workgroups

William,

With all due respect, I fail to see your point.

I don't see this as any different than you or I presenting a proposal
to the GA upon which the GA reaches a consensus.  If the GA reaches a
consensus and embraces the proposal, than it becomes the GA's
proposal.

I see the substance of the proposal and the consensus of the GA as
much more important than the mechanics of how the proposal was drafted
or by whom it was drafted. I don't think the latter two make a bit of
difference in the final analysis.

Thanks,

Sunday, January 20, 2002, 11:40:37 AM, William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
WXW> Sunday, Sunday, January 20, 2002, 9:26:54 AM, Abel Wisman wrote:

>> I agree wholeheartedly and like to point out further that in my original
>> proposal i made it very clear (i think) that the result of this WG would be a
>> draft that would be presented to the GA, redrawn and brought up for a vote in

WXW> But thats just it, unless the draft is drawn up with the direct input
WXW> of the GA, and completely based on the discussions that have occurred,
WXW> and continue to occur, on the GA list, which is the official
WXW> manifestation of the DNSO General Assembly under the bylaws, then it
WXW> really isn't and couldn't be presented as a consensus document of the
WXW> GA.

WXW> I understand that everyone thinks there are better ways to do things,
WXW> but the fact is that we have a framework we have to working within,
WXW> and if we do it outside that framework, we are inviting rejection.

WXW> Now, I know you are not in this group, Abel, because I know you from
WXW> other lists, and I know pretty much where you stand and where we agree
WXW> and disagree, but there are others on this list who would
WXW> intentionally try and push things outside the framework, knowing full
WXW> well that by doing so they are giving the Names Council and the board
WXW> all the reason in the world to ignore it.  They then would use that
WXW> failure to further their cases against ICANN and the way ICANN is
WXW> setup.

WXW> The thing is, the issues themselves are not that important to those
WXW> people, and this is an issue that IS important.  We need to not play
WXW> into those people's hands, and we need to develop whatever we develop
WXW> right here, inside the framework given to us under the charter of the
WXW> DNSO and by ICANN's bylaws.

WXW> Anything else, and we are setting ourselves up for failure, something
WXW> I know you do not want to see happen.  I know you have the best
WXW> intentions, Abel, but now is not the time to force a change in the
WXW> framework, not when the issue itself is as important and with such a
WXW> wide impact as this one.

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:16:43 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning Workgroups

In a message dated 1/20/2002 5:24:35 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<< While I make no claim that this will be more effective than
 your WG (once you finally make one) I will say it once again: "Just DO it"
 is not just a Shoe Commercial. >>

I agree 100%.   
- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:19:48 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Resellers or Individuals --- Which Sandpit to Play In ??

In a message dated 1/20/2002 7:07:34 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<< hilst she did not follow the normal convention, she is not a technical 
person
 and her message is quite clear.  It would be a simple courtesy to explain 
that
 the favoured way to respond to another person's post is to set her email
 client to add a ">" in any reply. >>

Thanks Patrick ... Unfortunately I can't tell AOL how to run their e-mail and 
I really have no intention of changing isp's just to pacify some crank.   In 
fact, I marked and hit the reply ... assuming that it was adding the > or >> 

jess
- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:30:44 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] straw poll 

All assembly members,
 
 My vote is as follows:
 In favor of an open working group set up by the GA on its own behalf   [X ]
 In favor of an open working group set up by the NC at the Chair's request [ ]
 Opposed to any sort of working group however constituted  [  ] >>

[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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:35:35 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] Vint Cerf: registrars should not apply fo...

In a message dated 1/20/2002 3:06:28 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<< Richard Henderson wrote:
 
 >   I would like to ask the forum: What is the position on Registrars
 > applying for names for themselves, especially at the new release of
 > names by a Registry? My concern was alerted at the start of the .info
 > roll-out.
 >
 > On 15th July I was already worried about the possibility of Registrars
 > using their positions to buy domains for themselves, so I wrote to
 > Vint Cerf:
 > "At 04:55 PM 7/15/2001 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote: Please could
 > you advise me on a concern I have about the administration of the
 > .info domains during the "Start Up" period? As an ordinary member of
 > the public, I have applied to a number of certified registrars to
 > apply for certain .info domain names.
 >
 > My concern and question is this:
 >
 > What is there to stop a registrar applying for popular domains
 > themselves even if I have paid them to apply on my behalf? (Almost all
 > registrars charge a nominal sum, but it is not the sum that concerns
 > me, rather the right and access of the general public to domain names
 > in a transparent process)"
 >
 > VINT CERF REPLIED:
 >
 > "registrars are not supposed to "trade for their own account" so to
 > speak. I copied stuart lynn, ceo, and louis touton, general counsel,
 > in case they have additional specifics to offer."
 >
 > Questions for the Forum:
 >
 > What instances have there been, of Registrars applying for names for
 > themselves, and has Vint Cerf intervened when this has happened?
 >
 > What is the position of Registries if they are informed that
 > Registrars have applied for names for themselves, which may conflict
 > with the right of the public to a fair and even-handed distribution of
 > new names?
 > >>
 NEITHER SHOULD THE REGISTRY,  VERISIGN AND/OR IT'S CORPORATIONS, 
Subsidiaries nor employees ! 
- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 17:43:12 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] Vint Cerf: registrars should not apply for names for themselves

Richard and all,

  It's commonly called "Being purposefully ignorant" in business circles.
As such, one must also remember that ICANN can only make recommendations
to the NTIA before policy can be put into place and than enforced.  However
as this sort of problem has been known and understood even before
ICANN was formed, and articulated by many, it would seem that
the depth of the ignorance on the part of the ICANN BoD and staff
is very evident, yet again...

  I would also add, that much of this seems to now parallel the
Enron fiasco in a number of ways....

Richard Henderson wrote:

> Surely a clear definition is needed immediately?
>
> If industry insiders are able to apply for domain names, using their
> facilities, to procure names that are meant to be available to the general
> public (and especially at times like the release of new names from a new
> Registry) then this is really the same as "Insider Dealing/Trading".
>
> How can the public invest trust if Registrars procure good names for
> themselves?
>
> How can the consumer be protected?
>
> There is evidence of widespread Registrar activity in the procurement of
> names for themselves and their employees during the .info Start Up.
>
> Along with the way in which Registrar companies made money through breaking
> the rules (and submitting ineligible names) this creates huge cause for
> concern. Over 5000 ineligible Sunrise names were sponsored (for profit) by
> the companies of Afilias executives and directors. That is an overwhelming
> conflict of interest (particularly as it resulted in the defrauding of
> Landrush customers of in region of $3,000,000).
>
> If, as Vint says, registrars "are not supposed to trade for their own
> account", then why has no action been taken against Registrars who DID?
> Surely the consumer has to be protected, and there has to be action or ICANN
> is abdicating on its responsibilities.
>
> In the .info Roll-out, some Registrars inserted hundreds of fake TM numbers
> for their customers. THOSE REGISTRARS ARE STILL TRADING.
>
> In the .info Roll-out, some Registrars bought hundreds of names for
> themselves. THOSE REGISTRARS ARE STILL TRADING (even though some of their
> fakes have been successfully challenged).
>
> In the .info Roll-out, ICANN agreed a Sunrise checking procedure SO flimsy
> that even applications with "NONE" in all the data fields were accepted.
> Then Afilias granted the registrations. And ICANN didn't interven over the
> abuse of its own contract (even though the company of the Afilias CEO
> profited from sponsoring at leat 100 names against his own procedure with
> "NONE" in all the TM data fields).
>
> Where is the protection for the consumer?
>
> Where is the control of rogue individuals or companies?
>
> If Vint Cerf says Registrars may not apply for themselves, why does he allow
> it?
>
> Regards
>
> Richard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
> To: Richard Henderson <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; icann board address <[email-masked]>;
> vint Cerf <[email-masked]>; Louis (Toot Toot) Touton
> <[email-masked]>; Stuart Lynn <[email-masked]>; Don Evans
> <[email-masked]>; Karen Rose <[email-masked]>; General Assembly of the
> DNSO <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 11:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [GTLD Registries List] Vint Cerf: registrars should not apply
> for names for themselves
>
> > Richard and all,
> >
> >   You again pose some very good questions.  They have been ask before
> > without and a definitive answer.  I suspect, despite what Vint may have
> > indicated (See your comments below) that the answer will not be
> > forthcoming any time soon.  I hope I am proven wrong of that however.
> > I await a public announcement outlining the answers from Stuart, Vint,
> > and Louis...
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams

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: 21 Jan 2002 07:41:49 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Straw Poll on Working Group

> In favor of an open working group set up by the GA on its own behalf   [X]
> In favor of an open working group set up by the NC at the Chair's request[  ]
> Opposed to any sort of working group however constituted  [  ]

Genie Livingstone
Magi Inc

cheers
Genie Livingstone
Magi Inc
511 G 5th Street
San Fernando, CA 91340
818 365 0664
http://www.buildyoursiteonline.com
http://www.eyeondomain.com
http://www.magiinc.com

- --
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: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:04:55 +0000 (GMT)
From: Joe Gluza <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Straw Poll on Working Group (fwd)

> In favor of an open working group set up by the GA on its own behalf   [X]
> In favor of an open working group set up by the NC at the Chair's request[  ]
> Opposed to any sort of working group however constituted  [  ]

- --
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: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:28:13 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Working groups / drafting documents / straw polls

Please note that this is my final posting in the current working 
group thread, and on the issue of open, on-list straw polls.  (See 
below for details.)

First of all: Working groups.  All I can do is to re-iterate what I 
have said before numerous times: If and when I believe that 
something can be gained by moving discussions off the GA's main list 
onto some sublist (possibly a newly-created on), I'll support this.

Currently, I don't see any actual benefits, and don't support moving 
the discussion to a special-purpose list.  (The benefits which have 
been listed are mostly theoretical.)

Further procedural discussion of this is pointless.

However, please don't get me wrong: I do support the idea of 
producing a GA consensus document on the deletion issue.

For such a document to be produced, consensus must exist. Currently, 
I don't see it - beyond (as I wrote earlier) a general perception 
that the actual WLS proposal is "bad" (but even that's not shared by 
all - and no, I'm not talking about Snapnames and Verisign).

Now, unlike what Abel suggests, the chair is not the wizard with the 
magic consensus spell.  I can't produce consensus on the list: Only 
you can.  All of you - by discussion, and by persuading each other. 
You'll most likely have to give up some positions on the way.

Until we have such consensus, all which can reasonably be done is to 
document what kinds of arguments have been exchanged so far.  That's 
why I wrote in an earlier message that the best I can currently do 
on this topic is to continue writing summaries.

You are certainly free to disagree with my interpretation of the 
current discussion.  You are also free (and encouraged!) to write 
down what you believe should be the consensus of this general 
assembly - maybe others agree and give up some of their positions. 
That's why I asked Abel to write down what he considers consensus 
points, and that's why I highly welcome Ross Rader's forward of the 
registrars' requirement list on deleted domain handling.  I'd also 
welcome similar input from other constituencies.

Please note that such drafting is not automatically the chair's job: 
In fact, on a working group, a very small set of individuals (two or 
three, not necessarily including the chair) would be the drafting 
group, and would be responsible for actually developping documents.

The same can be done on this list, and I'd really like to see some 
of those as a drafting group who are currently demanding a working 
group so loudly.

To put it into different words: What I've been proposing, and 
continue to propose, is that, for the time being, the GA itself goes 
into working group mode.

Now, a word on straw polls: In their current form, they are a waste 
of the list readers' bandwidth and of your own posting quota. They 
are certainly _not_ binding votes of the GA.  They are, for these 
reasons, a very bad idea.

Please stop them.

If you absolutely have to do a straw poll (which will ALWAYS be 
non-binding, as opposed to a formal GA vote), do it like this:

 - Make sure that the topic under discussion is appropriate for a 
   straw poll.  In particular, anything for which, traditionally, the 
   GA voting registry is used, is not appropriate.

 - Make sure that the choices you give are appropriate, precise, and 
   non-manipulative.  For the purpose of a straw poll on creating a 
   FUBAR working group, the opposite of "I want this working group 
   now" should certainly NOT be: "Opposed to any sort of working 
   group however constituted", but "I don't want that this working 
   group is created now".

   Give people an opportunity to comment on the questions before you 
   start taking votes.  Make sure that your straw-poll is the only 
   one on the particular subject running at a time.

   Note that manipulative straw polls always bear the risk of being 
   ignored.

 - Give a time frame for the straw poll.

 - Collect answers via private, off-list e-mail.  (This one's 
   particularly important.)

 - Publish a short and readable summary after the time frame set for 
   the straw poll is over.  In this summary, include a full record of 
   who (include e-mail addresses!) voted how, so participants can 
   verify that their votes were counted correctly, and others can 
   challenge individual votes when they don't believe that someone 
   really participated.

 - Make sure that the conditions under which the straw poll happens 
   are known to participants.

That way, you avoid straw poll posting clutter on the list.

If you have a straw poll which follows the above guidelines, and is 
not just abuse of everyone's time and bandwidth, you can also send 
it to me so I post it with a "GA chair" rubber stamp.

(And, no, I'm not going to post a "ga-wg-deletes" straw poll.)

- -- 
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: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:19:17 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA summary 2002-03

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's discussions during 
the third week of 2002.  List archives are available online at 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/maillist.html>.

				Votes

There were no ongoing votes.

			  NC teleconference

A names council teleconference was held on January 17; an MP3 
recording is available at 
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020117.NCteleconf.mp3>.

During that teleconference, Thomas Roessler and Alexander Svensson 
were confirmed as the GA's chair and alternative chair.

				Topics

(i) The structure task force.  David P. Farrar provded another great 
update on the structure task force's work.  Some bullet points: 
Draft 4 of the task force's report is out now.  The new version of 
the report leaves the question open how many members the ALSO must 
have before it may elect for board members (suggested numbers range 
 from 1,000 to 30,000).  The gTLDs, the non-commercials, and the 
intellectual property communities have published positions.  In the 
thread following his excellent initial summary, David reports that 
there is no consensus in the task force on the number of at large 
directors the board should have.  Bret Fausett commented that he 
"was under the impression that the task force's work was to center 
on possible restructuring of the DNSO", to which David replied that 
he "always saw the review taskforce more looking at DNSO 
restructuring and structure at wider ICANN structure".  Also, 
according to DPF, "most of the focus has been on how having an ALSO 
would affect the DNSO as the DNSO at present is meant to be the sole 
policy advisory body to the Board on domain name issues". 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00585.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00589.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00592.html>

In the same thread, Patrick Greenwell strongly argued against any 
quorums in the context of votes of members.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00594.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00597.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00598.html>.

(Yes, I've linked almost the entire thread, but most of it is really 
worth reading.)

(ii) WLS and deleted domains.  This (almost) was another week's 
dominant topic, with a short break in the beginning of the week.

Please note that there was extensive discussion on this.  I'm giving 
a necessarily incomplete excerpt from what has been said.  I'm 
pretty certain that many among you will point out something they 
believe to be important that I've dropped.  If you are really 
interested in this discussion's details, I'd strongly suggest you 
have a look at the threaded archive, and just use the postings I'm 
pointing to as starting points.

Probably, I should first mention Patrick Corliss' follow-up to the 
last summary, in which he asserts that "most of this discussion was 
led by OpenSRS staff supported by a number of OpenSRS resellers". To 
this, George Kirikos replied that while he's an OpenSRS reseller, he 
hopes "that the arguments I made stand on their own, regardless of 
some 'label' folks want to place on my forehead". 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00499.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00501.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00516.html>.

Rick Wesson, speaking on behalf of his employer, posted "Alice's 
Registry Response to VGRS Registrar Wait List Proposal".  In this 
message, Rick briefly reviews the developments which lead to the WLS 
proposal, the tragedy of the commons, and Speculation, "A 
Non-Constant Sume Game".  He then analyzes the proposal, 
specifically elaborating on the price, on transparency, and 
monopolies.  He then proposes four "required" changes: "Set the 
wholesale price of a WLS subscription to $4.50".  "Require the 
registry to display the registrar that places a WLS subscription on 
a domain in the registry whois". Enable registrants to opt out of 
WLS.  Fix the overflow pool problem by enforcing contracts.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00492.html>

However, the WLS discussion was really brought back to life by Ron 
Wiener of SnapNames, who posted a file named "Greatest Good vs. 
Benefits of the Few.pdf".  In this document, Wiener produces some 
numbers on his customer base, some of them presented in a pie-chart 
which was erroneously (as he later corrected) labeled "as of January 
2000".  While you are looking at the numbers and (in particular) the 
pie chart, I'd strongly suggest that you do the maths in your head 
and always use some estimate of revenue per client group as the 
basis for any comparisons you do (or, at least, do that kind of 
comparison in addition).

The bottom line of the paper seems to be that "unlike some 
commentators, who concede without embarrassment that they cater 
primarily to speculators, SnapNames' focus has always been the 
mainstream customer: the 'little guy.' Because a number of postings 
have criticized SnapNames and WLS as either catering to, or unfairly 
benefiting professional speculators, we feel compelled to 
demonstrate [...] that precisely the reverse is true".  In line with 
this, the headline of that particular paragraph claims that "WLS 
Offers the Greatest Good to Greatest Number - Primarily Mainstream 
Users".  In the next part, Wiener tries to back these claims with 
the numbers and pie chart mentions above, and also elaborates how 
retail pricing and the structure of the customer base are related.

The paper also criticizes, under the headline "What's Wrong with 
the Consensus Process Today?", the registrars' constituency's 
January 9 teleconference.  Wiener urges "the broader community not 
to let these special interests [those represented in the registrars' 
constituency - ed.] hijack the decision-making process to the 
detriment of the other registrars, and the mainstream consumer". In 
the last part of the document, Wiener covers some more specific 
arguments, such as "defensive WLS subscriptions", "WLS will not 
solve the system load problems", "The WLS will be gamed by 
speculators", and "Differentiation between registrars will 
decrease".
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00511.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00573.html>.

In a follow-up to Ron's message, Ross Wm. Rader points out that the
teleconference mentioned "was a constituency conference call, not an
accredited registrar conference call". "The DNSO process only
accounts for those that have self-selected to participate in the
process," he continues.  He then goes on to address various claims
made in Wiener's message, including the number of registrars to
oppose the WLS during said conference call. Finally, Ross points out
that he is "deeply disappointed with this obvious attempt to
distract the participants in this discussion [...]."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00503.html>

Ron Wiener replied to this message, stressing the accuracy of his
facts concerning registrars' participation in the conference call.
According to him, the number of (constituency) members represented
in the conference call "is of no relevance whatsoever".  He then
also disputes what "opposition" to the proposal actually means,
since only a few registrars were opposed to the proposal
"unconditionally", while others would be interested in offereing WLS
if it was modified.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00512.html>

Rick Wesson's comment on this message was that "over 90% of all
domains registered by registrars were represented.  Another way to
look at this is that over 90% of the RRP transations generated by
registrars were in attendance on the call." He then asked Ron and
Ross to "get back to dealing with substantive arguments".
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00521.html>

Donny Simonton pointed out that he "was the one registrar who said
'when Verisign goes live with the WLS, we would offer it.'" After
discussing the impact the WLS could (in his opinion) have on
SnapNames, and quoting a speculator according to whom a high price
for WLS would be good for speculators, Donny came back to the
conference call: "Trust me nobody on the conference call had
anything good to say about the WLS sysem except for myself.  [...] I
like the concept of the WLS, but not the current implementation!"
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00556.html>

To this, Ron replied that "if the WLS does not get through this
process, please do not worry about the health of SnapNames".  Also,
according to him, "everyone seems to underestimate the complexity of
building a system like this".  Concerning economic theories on what
kind of price would be preferable for what kind of customer, Wiener
responds that the only way to actually check these would be to try
things on the market, and that his firm can only offer their own
experiences and historical data.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00520.html>

Another set of comments on the WLS proposal was posted by Jim Archer 
to the registrars list on behalf of Registration Technologies; a 
link to this was posted by George Kirikos.  He points out that this 
is one of the previously silent registrars talking.  According to 
George "they made one of the best posts I've seen *against* the 
WLS".  Points of criticism include (from the Executive Summary): 
"Verisign's stated desire to enter the secondary domain marketplace 
[...] in which they currently have no presence [...] with a stated 
objective to eliminate existing participants in that margket 
segment."; "We question why Verisign is permitted to control this 
comment process."; material received was incomplete (a service 
agreement to which registrars would be subject was missing); 
"additionally, the time frame for preparing comments was very 
short".  The detailed comments are then organized into "ethical 
issues", "potential legal issues" (divided into "monopoly and 
antitrust", "unlicensed commodity trading" [does trading "domain 
futures" require a license?], and "contract terms"), "practical 
issues", and "practical and administrative issues".

It's a five-page PDF, read it yourself for details.

<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00575.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01852.html>.

Eric Schneider of unames.com posted a "recommendation" under the 
subject "WLS - Better Margins for Registrars".  The purpose of his 
response is, he says, "to propose a pricing model to demonstrate how 
the above requirement can be met".  According to Eric, "it is not 
only the obligation, duty, and responsibility but also the time for 
a registry to come full circle and provide reusability services." 
He then suggests a different pricing model for the WLS, which I'll 
leave for the list archive to explain.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg00706.html>

Finally, there was quite a bit of discussion on forming a working 
group to create input on the WLS proposal.  My suggestion on this is 
that the GA itself should go into "working group mode", with some 
participants in the discussion operating as a drafting committee.

Some helpful input was already provided by Ross Rader, who posted a 
list prepared by the registrars in Montevideo last year, containing 
"basic principles that should be fulfilled by any proposal put 
forward".  Similar input from other constituencies would be most 
welcome!

<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00624.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00630.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00635.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00702.html>.

(iii) Reseller representation in the DNSO process.  The fact that 
Eric Schneider is posting from the domain of a reseller of a 
registrar triggered a brief discussion on representing resellers in 
the DNSO process.  According to William Walsh, "it is time the 
non-registrar regtistration service providers have some say and 
input in the process." Ross Rader agrees that "there really is no 
appropriate home for the Intermediate Supplier Stakeholders." He 
suggests that it may be "worthwhile that someone investigate whether 
or not the interests of the ISS's and tose of the [ISP constituency] 
are compatible," or whether the ISPC could "accommodate an extended 
membership consisting of firms that don't necessarily qualify under 
their current bylaws."  He then gives a link to some of criteria for 
a new constituency.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg00712.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg00732.html>.

Good night,
- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1010
*************************