Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1013
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, January 23 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1013

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:30:48 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Addendum: GA summary 2002-03 - With update...

Thomas and all assembly members,

  Thank you Thomas for this abbreviated summary.  It is very useful,
although limited.

  As the GA members know, the registries position is not in favor
of the WLS proposal from Versisign.  It is also known that
amongst the participating and active GA members that the
WLS proposal has no support what so ever.

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> (This was missing from yesterday's summary.)
>
> The registrar constituency's official response on the WLS proposal
> was submitted, and announced to the GA list by Ross Rader.
>
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00645.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01907.html>.
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:39:24 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] fwd: [INEGroup Announce] - WLS proposal poll results

All assembly members,

  The poll results for voluntary INEGroup members participating is
in:
In favor for the WLS proposal - 127
Not in favor of the WLS proposal - 51,297

  The proposal fails by a rather large margin...

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:34:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Supplementary report .ORG divestiture

Upon the suggestion of Thomas Roessler, I repost a revised version of
the report that I sent earlier, in order to develop consensus on this
in the GA.

The only change in the text is in the first paragraph, to make it more
clear that the GA supports that ORG continues as an unrestricted TLD.

Please, send any comments to this list before Friday 25th January. May
I ask not to bring up any 'new' matters, but to read the text below,
and comment upon it in the light of the report it supplements. This,
the NC-ORG Task Force report, may be read at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/msg00386.html

Thank you!

- -- 
[email-masked]

- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplementary report from the GA-rep in the ORG TF (revised version)

1. In general the topics that were important in discussions on the
divestiture of ORG on the GA-list, are dealt with in a satisfactory
way in the report. Important issues like the unrestricted character of
.ORG, both for new and old registrants, as well as some form of direct
influence of the registrants in the management of the registry are
given ample space in the text. This deserves our support. 

2. Concerns remain, however, such as the possibility of a price raise
in the registration fee for ORG names, as a result of the guidelines
regarding surplus funds (2c). A better idea would be, to lower prices,
if 'profit' would be made. Or to subsidize registrations in
third-world countries. Hopefully applicants will indicate more
specifically, how they intend to deal with surplus funds, so that they
cannot be used to finance unrelated activities. 

3. Unfortunately the report does not contain any indication, how the
operator of new ORG could and should deal with registrars that
frustrate the marketing policy, which is so important for
new ORG to succeed in the way the report proposes. Some form of
de-accreditation for ORG as far as new registrations are concerned,
if a registrar refuses to implement the marketing strategy of ORG, is
necessary. E.g., if a registrar insists on trying to sell the ORG
domain with every COM domain it sells, and refuses to change its
website, there should be a procedure to 'punish' this registrar. This
is not difficult to implement and control. Registrars will report each
other's transgressions to the ORG operator, no doubt.
It is quite clear, that it is not possible (and not even in any way
desirable) to take existing registrations away from registrars,
including the right to renew them. The above is only concerned with
new registrations.

4. The UDRP should apply to new ORG in a different manner than to e.g.
COM, given the different target users of the TLD. Common words or
acronyms (e.g. 'word' or 'att') should not necessarily be transferred
to the companies that have a trademark in these names, if there is no
actual trademark violation. 

5. Some sort of provision that makes it impossible that VeriSign adds
ORG again to its collection of TLDs is necessary.

Marc Schneiders ([email-masked])
GA-representative in the NC ORG task force

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

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:26:37 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Straw Poll on Working Group

All

"Registrars are trashing VeriSign's proposal to create a pricey waiting list
for registered domains, calling it too expensive and anti-competitive.  A
consortium of registrars summarized its concerns in a letter submitted to
VeriSign late in the day on Friday."

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,49756,00.html

Although there seems to be reasonable support for an open working group on the
subject of domain name expirations, it seems that the Chair has his own views.

I'd therefore ask those who haven't responded to the straw poll to take a
moment to indicate their views 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[  ]
Opposed to any sort of working group however constituted  [  ]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 14:15:56 -0600, Don Brown wrote:

> The rudimentary issue identified, is the need for the development of a
> workable procedure for dropping domain names so that: (1) it resolves
> the Registry's capacity issue (2) so "everyone" is on a level playing
> field; Registrars, Resellers, Speculators, Registrants and all other
> interested parties (3) so that it neither stifles competition nor
> allows a monopolistic, or other unfair, advantage.

This makes a good start at a proposed Terms of Reference.

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: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:33:15 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Straw Poll on Working Group

Tuesday, Tuesday, January 22, 2002, 10:26:37 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> I'd therefore ask those who haven't responded to the straw poll to take a
> moment to indicate their views 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[  ]
> Opposed to any sort of working group however constituted  [  ]

Additional Option:
Opposed to wasting time with informal polls that waste time and bandwidth [x]

- -- 
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: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:55:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Straw Poll on Working Group

Patrick,

I'd suggest to take a wait-and-see approach. VGRS will work with the
registrars to get a proposal we all believe in. Once we have something to
worry about then a working group would be beneficial, but now it seems
that the WLS as proposed is a non-starer.

Once there is a proposal on the table for the DNSO as a whole to evaluate
then a working group/taskforce/et al would be appropriate.

- -rick

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> All
>
> "Registrars are trashing VeriSign's proposal to create a pricey waiting list
> for registered domains, calling it too expensive and anti-competitive.  A
> consortium of registrars summarized its concerns in a letter submitted to
> VeriSign late in the day on Friday."
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,49756,00.html
>
> Although there seems to be reasonable support for an open working group on the
> subject of domain name expirations, it seems that the Chair has his own views.
>
> I'd therefore ask those who haven't responded to the straw poll to take a
> moment to indicate their views 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[  ]
> Opposed to any sort of working group however constituted  [  ]
>
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 14:15:56 -0600, Don Brown wrote:
>
> > The rudimentary issue identified, is the need for the development of a
> > workable procedure for dropping domain names so that: (1) it resolves
> > the Registry's capacity issue (2) so "everyone" is on a level playing
> > field; Registrars, Resellers, Speculators, Registrants and all other
> > interested parties (3) so that it neither stifles competition nor
> > allows a monopolistic, or other unfair, advantage.
>
> This makes a good start at a proposed Terms of Reference.
>
> 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
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:40:23 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Straw Poll on Working Group

Hi Rick

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:55:27 -0800 (PST), Rick H. Wesson wrote:

> I'd suggest to take a wait-and-see approach. VGRS will work with the
> registrars to get a proposal we all believe in. Once we have something to
> worry about then a working group would be beneficial, but now it seems
> that the WLS as proposed is a non-starter.

Thanks for your input.  Personally I think we can get much more done using the
mechanism of working groups.  At present we seem to be floundering around.

As Eric Dierker put it "a chat room rather than a board room".

The truth is that we are a group of independent thinkers and this creates much
divergence of opinion.  I think this is a good thing.  The problem is that not
too many choose to partipate in the debate.

So it makes it very, very hard to reach consensus on anything.

> Once there is a proposal on the table for the DNSO as a whole to evaluate
> then a working group/taskforce/et al would be appropriate.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that the issue of expirations, deletions and
transfers is one that arches above the WLS proposal.

And I am not at all sure that we should be driven by VeriSign's agenda.

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: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:47:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Straw Poll on Working Group

Patrick,

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> > Once there is a proposal on the table for the DNSO as a whole to evaluate
> > then a working group/taskforce/et al would be appropriate.
>
> Nevertheless, it seems to me that the issue of expirations, deletions and
> transfers is one that arches above the WLS proposal.

true, but don't call the working group to order on WLS; besides Registrars
are also working on the issue of expirations, deletions and transfers and
would welcome a position paper drafted by a GA consensus process.

Do you think the GA can draft position papers? All constituencies would
appreciate if the GA could.

> And I am not at all sure that we should be driven by VeriSign's agenda.

I have not suggested  such, but I do wish the GA had an agenda...

- -rick

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

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:06:53 -0500
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: idea lab

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C1A3E4.EB788660
Content-Type: multipart/related;
	type="multipart/alternative";
	boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0020_01C1A3E4.EB788660"

- ------=_NextPart_001_0020_01C1A3E4.EB788660
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_002_0021_01C1A3E4.EB788660"

- ------=_NextPart_002_0021_01C1A3E4.EB788660
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

fyi ...i believe  this company  is the "new.net" parent

    =20
      Investors Sue Idealab for $1 Billion and Call for Liquidation   =20
    =20

      by Ben Fritz

      Some of idealab's biggest investors, including Dell USA, T. Rowe =
Price Science and Technology Fund and entertainment mogul Jeff Berg have =
filed a lawsuit against the Pasadena-based incubator and its top =
executives and board members, claiming mismanagement is cheating them =
out of the approximately $1 billion they poured into it.

      Specifically, this high-profile group of investors from idealab's =
series B, which took place just six months before the company had =
planned for an IPO, are alleging "abuse of authority and self-dealing" =
and asking for $1 billion in damages, as well as for idealab's =
court-ordered dissolution.

      The suit claims that idealab's "'incubator' business is, for all =
practical purposes, non-existent" and alleges that founder and CEO bill =
gross and his fianc=E9e, company President Marcia Goodstein, are keeping =
the operation intact only to benefit financially from salaries and =
perks. The best course of action for idealab's minority shareholders, it =
claims, would be for the company to dissolve and distribute the =
approximately $500 million it has remaining to shareholders.

      "They have told us they plan on taking the cash proceeds from =
idealab and simply operating for the next few years," said Skip Miller =
of law firm Christensen, Miller, et al, which is representing the =
plaintiffs. "The whole company has really run its course. It's time to =
fold."

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -
      "The whole company has really run its course. It's time to fold."=20
      -Skip Miller, Attorney for Plaintiffs

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -

      In a statement, idealab called the allegations "baseless" and =
blamed the decline in value of idealab shares on the overall market, =
saying, "These sophisticated investors made an investment two years ago, =
and now, after a market collapse that has affected millions of =
Americans, they are attempting to use litigation to rewrite the terms of =
their private investment."=20

      idealab spokesperson Teresa Bridwell also responded to a number of =
allegations, including that Gross used the company to collateralize =
personal loans and the firm did not fully disclose its financial status =
to investors. She noted that Gross invested most of the personal loan =
into idealab's series B on the same terms as the plaintiffs and =
vigorously disputed the claims of non-disclosure, stating, "We take our =
fiduciary responsibilities very seriously and have sent out quarterly =
mailings with financial statements as well as having meetings last march =
in L.A. and April in New York with preferred shareholders."

      Miller described the information provided as "a little bit" and =
"very vague."

      Angry investors, including many of the plaintiffs, had previously =
asked idealab for a portion of their cash back and the incubator =
recently offered 10 cents on the dollar to those who participated in the =
series B. Bridwell said approximately 10 percent of investors took =
advantage of the offer, which closed last week.=20

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -
      "These sophisticated investors ... are attempting to use =
litigation to rewrite the terms of their private investment."=20
      -idealab statement

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -

      Once the poster child for quick Internet riches, idealab has =
unsurprisingly suffered in the past year, seeing many of its =
high-profile companies, like eToys and eMachines, falter. Unlike some of =
its competitors, however, idealab has had one huge hit, Overture =
(Nasdaq: OVER), with a few other companies still in operation, including =
CarsDirect, the Vendare Group, and NetZero (now United Online).

      idealab has had only one high profile launch in the past year: =
New.net. Contrary to claims in the suit that the company has few =
remaining ventures in development and they require little of its =
remaining cash, Bridwell said idealab has been focused on incubating =
technology companies not related to the Internet recently, and plans to =
launch a number in the coming months. "They will have qualities our =
earlier companies didn't, like patentable technologies and higher =
margins," she stated. "But those take longer to develop. We acknowledge =
that the days of creating companies in a few months are over."=20
    =20

- ------=_NextPart_002_0021_01C1A3E4.EB788660
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
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=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2712.300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>fyi ...i believe &nbsp;this company &nbsp;is the =
"new.net"=20
parent</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D"100%" border=3D0>
  <TBODY>
  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=3Dtop align=3Dleft colSpan=3D3 height=3D7></TD></TR>
  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=3Dcenter align=3Dmiddle width=3D30 bgColor=3D#efefef =
height=3D22><A=20
      href=3D"mhtml:mid://00000247/#top"><IMG height=3D7 alt=3D"previous =
article"=20
      hspace=3D9 =
src=3D"http://www.digitalcoastweekly.com/images/arrow_up.gif"=20
      width=3D11 align=3DabsMiddle border=3D0></A></TD>
    <TD vAlign=3Dcenter align=3Dleft width=3D"100%" bgColor=3D#efefef =
height=3D22><FONT=20
      face=3D"verdana, arial,&#13;&#10;helvetica" size=3D+1>&nbsp;<A=20
      name=3DHeadline5579><B>Investors Sue Idealab for $1 Billion and =
Call for=20
      Liquidation</B></A></FONT></TD>
    <TD vAlign=3Dcenter align=3Dright bgColor=3D#efefef =
height=3D22><FONT=20
      face=3D"verdana, arial, helvetica" color=3D#ffffff=20
    size=3D-2>&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D"100%" border=3D0>
  <TBODY>
  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=3Dcenter align=3Dmiddle width=3D30><IMG height=3D4 =
hspace=3D0=20
      src=3D"http://www.digitalcoastweekly.com/images/null.gif" =
width=3D30=20
    border=3D0></TD>
    <TD vAlign=3Dtop align=3Dleft width=3D"100%"><BR><FONT=20
      face=3D"verdana, arial, helvetica" size=3D-1>
      <P>by <A href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">Ben=20
Fritz</A></P>
      <P>Some&nbsp;of <A href=3D"http://www.idealab.com/">idealab</A>'s =
biggest=20
      investors, including Dell USA, T. Rowe Price Science and =
Technology Fund=20
      and entertainment mogul Jeff Berg have filed a lawsuit against the =

      Pasadena-based incubator and its top executives and board members, =

      claiming mismanagement is cheating them out of the approximately =
$1=20
      billion they poured into it.</P>
      <P>Specifically, this high-profile group of investors from =
idealab's=20
      series B, which took place just six months before the company had =
planned=20
      for an IPO, are alleging "abuse of authority and self-dealing" and =
asking=20
      for $1 billion in damages, as well as for idealab's court-ordered=20
      dissolution.</P>
      <P>The suit claims that idealab's "'incubator' business is, for =
all=20
      practical purposes, non-existent" and alleges that founder and CEO =
bill=20
      gross and his fianc=E9e, company President Marcia Goodstein, are =
keeping the=20
      operation intact only to benefit financially from salaries and =
perks. The=20
      best course of action for idealab's minority shareholders, it =
claims,=20
      would be for the company to dissolve and distribute the =
approximately $500=20
      million it has remaining to shareholders.</P>
      <P>"They have told us they plan on taking the cash proceeds from =
idealab=20
      and simply operating for the next few years," said Skip Miller of =
law firm=20
      Christensen, Miller, et al, which is representing the plaintiffs. =
"The=20
      whole company has really run its course. It's time to =
fold."</P><!--pullquote 5-->
      <HR noShade SIZE=3D1>
      <FONT face=3D"verdana, arial, helvetica" color=3D#006600 =
size=3D+1><B><I>"The=20
      whole company has really run its course. It's time to=20
      fold."</I></B></FONT>=20
      <DIV align=3Dright><FONT face=3D"verdana, arial, helvetica" =
color=3D#006600=20
      size=3D-1>-Skip Miller, Attorney for Plaintiffs</FONT></DIV>
      <HR noShade SIZE=3D1>
      <BR>
      <P>In a statement, idealab called the allegations "baseless" and =
blamed=20
      the decline in value of idealab shares on the overall market, =
saying,=20
      "These sophisticated investors made an investment two years ago, =
and now,=20
      after a market collapse that has affected millions of Americans, =
they are=20
      attempting to use litigation to rewrite the terms of their private =

      investment." </P>
      <P>idealab spokesperson Teresa Bridwell also responded to a number =
of=20
      allegations, including that Gross used the company to =
collateralize=20
      personal loans and the firm did not fully disclose its financial =
status to=20
      investors. She noted that Gross invested most of the personal loan =
into=20
      idealab's series B on the same terms as the plaintiffs and =
vigorously=20
      disputed the claims of non-disclosure, stating, "We take our =
fiduciary=20
      responsibilities very seriously and have sent out quarterly =
mailings with=20
      financial statements as well as having meetings last march in L.A. =
and=20
      April in New York with preferred shareholders."</P>
      <P>Miller described the information provided as "a little bit" and =
"very=20
      vague."</P>
      <P>Angry investors, including many of the plaintiffs, had =
previously asked=20
      idealab for a portion of their cash back and the incubator =
recently <A=20
      =
href=3D"http://www.digitalcoastdaily.com/issues/dcw01082002.html#Headline=
5506">offered=20
      10 cents on the dollar to those who participated in the series =
B</A>.=20
      Bridwell said approximately 10 percent of investors took advantage =
of the=20
      offer, which closed last week. </P><!--pullquote 9-->
      <HR noShade SIZE=3D1>
      <FONT face=3D"verdana, arial, helvetica" color=3D#006600 =
size=3D+1><B><I>"These=20
      sophisticated investors ... are attempting to use litigation to =
rewrite=20
      the terms of their private investment."</I></B></FONT>=20
      <DIV align=3Dright><FONT face=3D"verdana, arial, helvetica" =
color=3D#006600=20
      size=3D-1>-idealab statement</FONT></DIV>
      <HR noShade SIZE=3D1>
      <BR>
      <P>Once the poster child for quick Internet riches, idealab has=20
      unsurprisingly suffered in the past year, seeing many of its =
high-profile=20
      companies, like eToys and eMachines, falter. Unlike some of its=20
      competitors, however, idealab has had one huge hit, Overture =
(Nasdaq:=20
      OVER), with a few other companies still in operation, including=20
      CarsDirect, the Vendare Group, and NetZero (now United =
Online).</P>
      <P>idealab has had only one high profile launch in the past year: =
New.net.=20
      Contrary to claims in the suit that the company has few remaining =
ventures=20
      in development and they require little of its remaining cash, =
Bridwell=20
      said idealab has been focused on incubating technology companies =
not=20
      related to the Internet recently, and plans to launch a number in =
the=20
      coming months. "They will have qualities our earlier companies =
didn't,=20
      like patentable technologies and higher margins," she stated. "But =
those=20
      take longer to develop. We acknowledge that the days of creating =
companies=20
      in a few months are over."=20
</P></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_002_0021_01C1A3E4.EB788660--

- ------=_NextPart_001_0020_01C1A3E4.EB788660
Content-Type: image/gif;
	name="arrow_up.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://www.digitalcoastweekly.com/images/arrow_up.gif

R0lGODlhCwAHAJEAAJmZme/v7wAAAAAAACH5BAEAAAEALAAAAAALAAcAAAINjI8ZoAffnkyyumob
KgA7

- ------=_NextPart_001_0020_01C1A3E4.EB788660
Content-Type: image/gif;
	name="null.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://www.digitalcoastweekly.com/images/null.gif

- ------=_NextPart_001_0020_01C1A3E4.EB788660--

- ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C1A3E4.EB788660
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature;
	name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="smime.p7s"

- ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C1A3E4.EB788660--

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

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:33:24 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-03

Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
>I have a script which produces HTML versions of these.  I make them
>available in my web log at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/>.
>

HTML is OK, however I still agree with David that:
>>
>>I wonder if the DNSO Secretariat would be willing to place the
>>summaries in an appropriate place on the DNSO website.  They could be
>>a very useful resource to new GA members etc wanting to come up to
>>speed plus for those of us wanting to look back at stuff without going
>>into the full archive.
>>

Those are official summaries by the GA Chairperson, and should be public 
record of the DNSO, not stored in a private place, for two reasons:
- - they will be easier for newcomers to find
- - this will establish good practice for the future

And no, I am neither asking for a straw poll on the subject, nor proposing a 
working group.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

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

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:08:39 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-03

On 2002-01-23 14:33:24 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>And no, I am neither asking for a straw poll on the subject, nor 
>proposing a working group.

Neither of these would be necessary - I'd suggest all of you just 
have a look at the dnso.org site. ,-)

- -- 
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: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:16:44 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-03

Good job Thomas, 

abel

On Wednesday 23 January 2002 2:08 pm, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2002-01-23 14:33:24 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >And no, I am neither asking for a straw poll on the subject, nor
> >proposing a working group.
>
> Neither of these would be necessary - I'd suggest all of you just
> have a look at the dnso.org site. ,-)

- -- 
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: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:33:20 +0100 (MET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: idea lab

"fyi ...i believe  this company  is the "new.net" parent"
- --> Idealab! is one investor of new.net. New.net could exist without Idealab. It would find some other investors like .tv (another Idealab investment) did it eith Verisign....but

...Idealab Investors May Have Tough Time in Court

Lawsuit: Group seeking to dissolve 'incubator' and recoup some money represents less than 10% of shareholders. 

By KAREN KAPLAN, TIMES STAFF WRITER 

The disgruntled investors who sued Idealab Inc. on Friday seeking to liquidate its assets and recoup at least some of their money are unlikely to win in court, according to legal experts. 

Dell USA, T. Rowe Price Science & Technology Fund and others were part of a $1-billion investment group that bought 10% of the Pasadena-based Internet "incubator" at the height of the dot-com frenzy. 

Now that the bubble has burst, the investors accuse Idealab founder Bill Gross and other executives at the once highflying company of keeping it alive solely for their personal gain, and they want it dissolved before the remaining assets are frittered away. But legal experts say that these preferred shareholders should not get their money back simply because they made a bad bet on the future of Internet stocks. 

"Corporations are meant to be permanent economic organizations, not ones in which the minority investors can demand their money back because market conditions have turned sour," said John Coffee, a Columbia University law professor who specializes in corporate governance and securities law. "They knew the risks." 

The key argument in the lawsuit is that Idealab's executives treated the investors unfairly by using the money to "feather their nests" instead of returning it once it became clear the market for new Internet companies had dissipated, said Skip Miller, the attorney representing the investors in their lawsuit, which was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. 

It has been clear for more than a year that the dot-com boom is over, and yet privately held Idealab continued to pour millions of dollars into new start-ups that have little hope of success, Miller said. If Gross and his cohorts really had the best interests of the investors at heart, they would wind down the incubator and return the remaining cash, he said. 

"It comes down to inherent fairness," said Miller, a partner at the Los Angeles firm Christensen, Miller. 

But fairness is not a legitimate basis for this kind of shareholder lawsuit, legal experts said. The investors are entitled only to the protections specifically laid out in their shareholder agreements and nothing more. 

"As a general matter, judges tend to be reluctant to give preferred stockholders rights beyond the contractual terms they agreed to," said Henry Hu, a corporate law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who has not read the complaint. "The preferred shareholders want to just cut their losses and take their money, but that's not the deal they negotiated. The judge is going to be reluctant to in effect renegotiate the deal." 

Since they represent less than 10% of Idealab's shareholders, a judge is even less likely to be sympathetic. 

"It's very hard for minority shareholders owning only 10% of the company to convince the court that it should overrule the majority and the board of directors," Coffee said. "This is a fairly weak argument." 

The investors have tried to assert in private negotiations with Gross that they are entitled to a majority of the company. They argue that Idealab is worth little more than the $1 billion they invested in March 2000. 

They first approached Gross in November 2000 with a proposal to take over 80% of the incubator and leave him with some of Idealab's start-ups. Gross refused. 

They returned last Wednesday demanding a 90% stake in the company "or else," said Marcia Goodstein, Idealab's president and chief operating officer. After they were rebuffed again, they filed their lawsuit. 

The best that Idealab has offered is to return 10 cents on the dollar, a deal that several investors accepted in recent weeks. 

Gross' main strategy has been to appeal for patience. Despite the freefall in Internet stocks and demise of Idealab fledglings such as online toy seller EToys Inc., Gross insists the incubator is still viable. "The climate is picking up," he said. 

Idealab has pared its operations in the last two years. Three of the four satellite offices have closed, and its work force has been cut from 230 in October 2000 to 93 today. The prospect of IPO riches, once tantalizingly close, is now years away at best. 

Idealab has $360 million in liquid assets and is incubating nine start-ups, including a broadband venture and a robotics firm. With annual operating costs of $24 million and a $12-million investment budget, the company has the resources to stay in business for five to 10 years, Gross said. 

Goodstein said the company's assets, although far smaller than before, are growing, and that the investors have benefited from that growth since the time of their first divestiture demand. 

"At the time, if we had given them all of the cash and assets, they would've gotten 6 cents on the dollar," said Goodstein, who is engaged to Gross. "Now what we have is 36 cents on the dollar in cash. If you include the other assets, it's 50 to 60 cents on the dollar." 

Indeed, Idealab has fared well compared with the two biggest publicly traded incubators. CMGI Inc. of Andover, Mass., has seen its stock plummet from a high of $147 in March 2000 to $1.83 on Friday. Shares of Wayne, Pa.-based Internet Capital Group Inc. have fared even worse, sinking from a high of $200 in January 2000 to $1.18 on Friday. 

Idealab's recent financial performance is almost entirely due to the soaring stock price of Overture Services Inc., said Miller, the investors' attorney. The Idealab hatchling, originally called Goto.com, operates a pay-for-placement Web search engine and has seen its stock more than triple from $12 in September to $37.67 on Friday. 

The fact that Idealab's balance sheet is relatively healthy now underscores the need to liquidate while there are still assets left, said Miller. 

* 

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX) 

Some Ideas Stuck, Some Shriveled 

Since 1996, Idealab Inc. has spawned about 50 companies, some of its best-known creations ultimately folding. Calculating the value of Idealab is difficult because it has investments in so many young companies whose worth is unclear. But the value of Idealab's stakes in its publicly traded offspring alone is nearly $178 million. 

Some of Idealab's companies: 

DEFUNCT: 

EToys Inc.--Online toy retailer 

Eve.com--Online retailer of beauty products 

ALIVE: 

CarsDirect.com Inc.--Online car retailer 

Tickets.com Inc.--Online ticket seller 

SOLD: 

Centra Software Inc.--Makes software for businesses to collaborate on the Net 

Free-PC.com--Provider of free computers to customers willing to share personal information 

HOLDINGS: 

Overture Services Inc. (formerly Goto.com)--Pay-for-placement Web search engine; $154 million 

Ticketmaster--Online ticket seller; $17.8 million 

United Online--Advertising-supported Internet service provider; $5.3 million 

http://latimes.com/business/la-000005325jan21.story
- --
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 #1013
*************************