Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1014
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, January 24 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1014

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:01:08 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-03

On 2002-01-23 14:16:44 +0000, Abel Wisman wrote:

>Good job Thomas, 

I'm approaching my posting limit.  Anyway: This is NOT my merit, but 
the secretariat's.  I got their "look here" message, pointing to the 
link page, before I could even ask them.

Thanks!
- -- 
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 18:00:03 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Straw Poll on Working Group

Rick and all assembly members,

  Although your suggestion of after-the-fact WG or god forbid
Task Force for dealing with Delete is obviously in good faith
Rick, I think it is clear that the DNSO GA would prefer a WG,
first of all, and a WG for Delete that would come up with it's own
proposal that represents a broad range of stakeholders, including
Registrars, Registries, and most importantly Registrants. And the
GA members want it now, not later

  I would prefer that such a Delete WG be one that is in line with
the practice and procedure of the DNSO GA and requested
by the GA Chair, to the NC and secretariat.  However the voice
of the WG poll of this thread seems to be leaning in the direction
of such a WG that is determined BY the GA members.

  I also noticed Rick, that you have not voted in the Poll (See
below)...  Perhaps if you wish your position to be known
in an official way, you should consider doing so?

Rick H Wesson wrote:

> 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

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 20:34:22 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS done deal

From the Verisign/Netsol Registrar's page:

"Is the domain name you want already taken? If so, like
hundreds of thousands every month, it may soon expire and
become available again. You can now "back-order" your name
with SnapBack™

When you Back-Order a name:  SnapBack will monitor the
name around the clock, "24/7", so you don't have to. If it
becomes available during the next year, SnapBack will
attempt to acquire the name for you the millisecond it
becomes available. SnapBack is the best chance in the
industry to acquire the name automatically. The cost of a
successful registration is included in the $69 price. If
the original registrant renews, or we were otherwise not
able to register the name, you can transfer your
subscription to a new name without cost."

So, it seems the WLS has been implemented.

Question:  Who (if anyone) would be better informed about
the "millisecond" of domain availability than the
Registry?  

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:48:13 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS done deal

No, Sotiris, Netsol is an affiliate of Snapnames, and is offering
their backorder "snapback" service, as do many registrars.

It's not the WLS.  Snapnames is competing for the names at the
Registry drop with the others who offer these services.

Wednesday, Wednesday, January 23, 2002, 8:34:22 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

>>From the Verisign/Netsol Registrar's page:

> "Is the domain name you want already taken? If so, like
> hundreds of thousands every month, it may soon expire and
> become available again. You can now "back-order" your name
> with SnapBack™

> When you Back-Order a name:  SnapBack will monitor the
> name around the clock, "24/7", so you don't have to. If it
> becomes available during the next year, SnapBack will
> attempt to acquire the name for you the millisecond it
> becomes available. SnapBack is the best chance in the
> industry to acquire the name automatically. The cost of a
> successful registration is included in the $69 price. If
> the original registrant renews, or we were otherwise not
> able to register the name, you can transfer your
> subscription to a new name without cost."

> So, it seems the WLS has been implemented.

> Question:  Who (if anyone) would be better informed about
> the "millisecond" of domain availability than the
> Registry?  

- -- 
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: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:33:18 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS done deal

In a message dated 1/23/2002 7:54:37 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<< No, Sotiris, Netsol is an affiliate of Snapnames, and is offering
 their backorder "snapback" service, as do many registrars.
 
 It's not the WLS.  Snapnames is competing for the names at the
 Registry drop with the others who offer these services. >>

Netsol is Network Solutions , 100% owned subsidiary of Verisign and 
approximately 22% of the Netsol stock (common B)  is owned by SAIC (with 
voting rights in trust to Verisign).  Network Solutions was previously owned 
by SAIC and Verisign paid approximately 23 billion for Network Solutions.

The Network Solutions stock went from under $10 to $247.50 (apx).  If I 
remember right the IPO was at $18.   SAIC and SAIC venture capital dumped the 
stock at $247.50 and top executives pocketed millions. 

At one point, SAIC was facing an anti-trust case and to the best of my 
knowledge it was later dropped.

The Verisign stock went from $53 in Oct, 1999 to $253 in Feb 2000 and you can 
guess who made the big bucks.  

Enron should have taken a few lessons from them  :)   There are a lot of 
similarities.  Privatization of national resourses for one. 

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

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:39:03 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Posting limit

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:25:13 +0100, Alexander Svensson
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>The GA Chair continues the posting limit which has
>previously been in place: *FIVE* postings per person and
>calendar day, calculated according to the sender's
>local time.

Can I suggest that we have a number of standing exceptions to this to
save debate when and if it arises.

1) The DNSO Secretariat (can't imagine they'll ever have more than
five announcements a day but ridiculous to limit it if there are)
2) The GA Chair and Alt Chair in their official capacities.  To do
their role properly they have to respond in a timely manner to
requests, suggestions, feedback and while I am sure they will try and
do this within five posts a day I don't think it will be productive to
have complaints against them if they ever go over this.  The fact they
can't judge themselves makes it even more sense to list them as
exceptions.  If they are mis behaving we have the power of recall
anyway.
3) Candidates for election.  During the period between closing of
nominations and closing of voting candidates should be able to exceed
the limit, as has normally been done on an ad hoc basis in the past
anyway

Note I do not suggest any of the above be exempt from the rules about
being on topic, no personal attacks etc.

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: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:22:49 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WLS done deal

Since NetSol has most of the expired domain names to be deleted, and
since SNAP appears to be a bedfellow of NetSol/Registry, and since
SNAP and NetSol/Registry are intent upon the WLS proposal, and since
there is not a policy or procedure as mentioned in 3.7.5 of the RAA,
and since no one monitors NetSol/Registry, can we at least "dream"
about the "possibility" of some hanky-pank?

There is certainly a profit motive, but there are a lot of other
things wrong with this picture, as well. The most glaring "wrong
thing" is that this Assembly does not have the leadership, purpose,
mission or agenda to do anything.

Even when the majority favors a work group, the Chair dictatorially
kills it on the basis of procedure. If people want to work on a
proposal to submit to the Assembly for consensus, what could possibly
be wrong with letting them pursue that mission? The Assembly doesn't
have to accept it, but, on the other hand, it may be a product which
the Assembly can support. Of course, we will never know, when those
efforts are thwarted/prevented.  Is this an Assembly of peers with
common interests or is this a Dictatorship?

I joined this Assembly at the suggestion of WXW, primarily to oppose
the WLS proposal, but also in an effort to do something for the common
good. It is disappointing to find that this Assembly is an Assembly in
name only and that a lot of the traffic on this list is aimed at
character assignations, personality conflicts and flame wars, as
opposed to what I expected -- an Assembly aimed at getting things
accomplished in the best interest of all of us and the Registrants.

For those incumbents reading this message and thinking about how we
can kill this kid who threatens our sand pile, don't fret. I have my
plate piled full most all of the time -- I am writing this, in fact,
after 9 p.m. and I'm still at work. Therefore, y'all "sand pile
threatened" don't have to worry about me being a participant so very
much longer.  I just don't have the time for nonsense and noise.

When I was Div VP for CSC, I never told anyone what to do.
Conversely, I always asked them what they thought we should do.  We
made a lot of money and there wasn't one year when I didn't get the
max of my bonus.  I wasn't me - it was the people who had a vested
interest and a "want to."  Nuff said.

Thanks,

Wednesday, January 23, 2002, 7:48:13 PM, William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
WXW> No, Sotiris, Netsol is an affiliate of Snapnames, and is offering
WXW> their backorder "snapback" service, as do many registrars.

WXW> It's not the WLS.  Snapnames is competing for the names at the
WXW> Registry drop with the others who offer these services.

WXW> Wednesday, Wednesday, January 23, 2002, 8:34:22 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

>>>From the Verisign/Netsol Registrar's page:

>> "Is the domain name you want already taken? If so, like
>> hundreds of thousands every month, it may soon expire and
>> become available again. You can now "back-order" your name
>> with SnapBack™

>> When you Back-Order a name:  SnapBack will monitor the
>> name around the clock, "24/7", so you don't have to. If it
>> becomes available during the next year, SnapBack will
>> attempt to acquire the name for you the millisecond it
>> becomes available. SnapBack is the best chance in the
>> industry to acquire the name automatically. The cost of a
>> successful registration is included in the $69 price. If
>> the original registrant renews, or we were otherwise not
>> able to register the name, you can transfer your
>> subscription to a new name without cost."

>> So, it seems the WLS has been implemented.

>> Question:  Who (if anyone) would be better informed about
>> the "millisecond" of domain availability than the
>> Registry?  

- ----
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: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:57:45 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS done deal

Don and all assembly members,

Don Brown wrote:

> Since NetSol has most of the expired domain names to be deleted, and
> since SNAP appears to be a bedfellow of NetSol/Registry, and since
> SNAP and NetSol/Registry are intent upon the WLS proposal, and since
> there is not a policy or procedure as mentioned in 3.7.5 of the RAA,
> and since no one monitors NetSol/Registry, can we at least "dream"
> about the "possibility" of some hanky-pank?

  Not just "Dream" but count on Hanky-Panky.  However many of us
that have been here for some time and involved in the ICANN process
and before, know that Hanky-Panky is more the rule, rather than the
exception.  The press as well as a number of other groups of interested
parties, senators, congressmen, judges, legal professionals, and individual
stakeholders.  And this is just in the US.

>
>
> There is certainly a profit motive, but there are a lot of other
> things wrong with this picture, as well. The most glaring "wrong
> thing" is that this Assembly does not have the leadership, purpose,
> mission or agenda to do anything.

  There is leadership of a sort.  We just had a Chair election after all.
There is purpose and mission, but the current new leadership seems
to wish to thwart to some degree that purpose and mission with respect
to the delete and WLS issue's.  You are quite correct that there is
no agenda that is one of the GA members determination.

>
>
> Even when the majority favors a work group, the Chair dictatorially
> kills it on the basis of procedure. If people want to work on a
> proposal to submit to the Assembly for consensus, what could possibly
> be wrong with letting them pursue that mission?

  A very good question.  One that would seem to be that the Chair
should answer directly, completely and very clearly.  Thomas?

> The Assembly doesn't
> have to accept it, but, on the other hand, it may be a product which
> the Assembly can support. Of course, we will never know, when those
> efforts are thwarted/prevented.  Is this an Assembly of peers with
> common interests or is this a Dictatorship?

  Another good question.  And each of the GA members must answer
this one for themselves individually I am afraid...

>
>
> I joined this Assembly at the suggestion of WXW, primarily to oppose
> the WLS proposal, but also in an effort to do something for the common
> good. It is disappointing to find that this Assembly is an Assembly in
> name only and that a lot of the traffic on this list is aimed at
> character assignations, personality conflicts and flame wars, as
> opposed to what I expected -- an Assembly aimed at getting things
> accomplished in the best interest of all of us and the Registrants.

  Sadly much of what you say here is true.

>
>
> For those incumbents reading this message and thinking about how we
> can kill this kid who threatens our sand pile, don't fret. I have my
> plate piled full most all of the time -- I am writing this, in fact,
> after 9 p.m. and I'm still at work. Therefore, y'all "sand pile
> threatened" don't have to worry about me being a participant so very
> much longer.  I just don't have the time for nonsense and noise.

I hope you will reconsider here Don.  Your participation here
 is needed and has been very frank, and above board.  I for one
appreciate it.

>

>
>
> When I was Div VP for CSC, I never told anyone what to do.
> Conversely, I always asked them what they thought we should do.  We
> made a lot of money and there wasn't one year when I didn't get the
> max of my bonus.  I wasn't me - it was the people who had a vested
> interest and a "want to."  Nuff said.

  Yes, and this is a trait of good and responsible leadership.  There are
some here that do not understand this However.

>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wednesday, January 23, 2002, 7:48:13 PM, William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
> WXW> No, Sotiris, Netsol is an affiliate of Snapnames, and is offering
> WXW> their backorder "snapback" service, as do many registrars.
>
> WXW> It's not the WLS.  Snapnames is competing for the names at the
> WXW> Registry drop with the others who offer these services.
>
> WXW> Wednesday, Wednesday, January 23, 2002, 8:34:22 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> >>>From the Verisign/Netsol Registrar's page:
>
> >> "Is the domain name you want already taken? If so, like
> >> hundreds of thousands every month, it may soon expire and
> >> become available again. You can now "back-order" your name
> >> with SnapBack™
>
> >> When you Back-Order a name:  SnapBack will monitor the
> >> name around the clock, "24/7", so you don't have to. If it
> >> becomes available during the next year, SnapBack will
> >> attempt to acquire the name for you the millisecond it
> >> becomes available. SnapBack is the best chance in the
> >> industry to acquire the name automatically. The cost of a
> >> successful registration is included in the $69 price. If
> >> the original registrant renews, or we were otherwise not
> >> able to register the name, you can transfer your
> >> subscription to a new name without cost."
>
> >> So, it seems the WLS has been implemented.
>
> >> Question:  Who (if anyone) would be better informed about
> >> the "millisecond" of domain availability than the
> >> Registry?
>
> ----
> 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

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 21:22:28 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] WLS done deal

Wednesday, Wednesday, January 23, 2002, 7:22:49 PM, Don Brown wrote:

> Even when the majority favors a work group, the Chair dictatorially
> kills it on the basis of procedure. If people want to work on a

No, the majority of those who elected to participate in an informal
privately run poll.  Most participants ignored that poll, so it is not
fair to say that the majority supports a work group, when there has
been no formal measure of that.  When we vote on issues, we get a LOT
more participation that was given on that informal private poll
Patrick was running, and its measure should not be considered to be
reflective of the Assembly's wishes.

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

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 20:21:36 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Posting limit

At 15:39 24/01/02 +1300, DPF wrote:

>1) The DNSO Secretariat (can't imagine they'll ever have more than
>five announcements a day but ridiculous to limit it if there are)
>2) The GA Chair and Alt Chair in their official capacities.  To do
>their role properly they have to respond in a timely manner to
>requests, suggestions, feedback and while I am sure they will try and
>do this within five posts a day I don't think it will be productive to
>have complaints against them if they ever go over this.  The fact they
>can't judge themselves makes it even more sense to list them as
>exceptions.  If they are mis behaving we have the power of recall
>anyway.
>3) Candidates for election.  During the period between closing of
>nominations and closing of voting candidates should be able to exceed
>the limit, as has normally been done on an ad hoc basis in the past
>anyway
>
>Note I do not suggest any of the above be exempt from the rules about
>being on topic, no personal attacks etc.

Very sensible exceptions.

- --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: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 21:49:18 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS done deal

At 21:33 23/01/02 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

>The Verisign stock went from $53 in Oct, 1999 to $253 in Feb 2000 and you can
>guess who made the big bucks.

And who lost them. The stock is now below $37, and the company is 
repurchasing its shares as long as they are under $50.

Thanks for the overview , Jess. A illuminating set of data.
Not sure if there is a direct relevance to the WLS..

- --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: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:03:06 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Special treatment at NSI?

Recently I noticed that two interesting domains (popular.net and
toolate.com) were due to be relased around January 10. They showed the
customary "Domain not found locally, but Registry points back to local DB.
Local whois DB must be out of date." With a last change date of January 4.
Unfortunately I did not save those records to prove it, but only made a
note. The domains were not released, it seems. But the present whois
information shows that there is something weird with them. They have been
reregistered and not renewed by the old registrant, Ultsearch. The
registration periods (01-18-2002 to 06-30-2003 and 01-20-2002 to
12-13-2003) are, however, suggesting that something strange happened here.
They are shorter than usual. I am guessing that this is because they were
in fact renewed after more than 45 days.

Did Ultsearch get some special chance to keep the names?

- -- 
[email-masked]

+31 30 699 28 25
+31 6 55 81 82 16 (mobile)
+31 30 699 01 51 (fax)

Whois Server Version 1.3

Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

   Domain Name: POPULAR.NET
   Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
   Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
   Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
   Name Server: NS1.ULTSEARCH.COM
   Name Server: NS2.ULTSEARCH.COM
   Updated Date: 18-jan-2002

>>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 05:15:14 EST <<<

The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and
Registrars.

The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network
Solutions for information purposes, and to assist persons in obtaining
information about or related to a domain name registration record.
Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy.  By submitting a
WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this Data only for lawful
purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this Data to:
(1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail
(spam); or  (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems).  Network Solutions
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.  By submitting
this query, you agree to abide by this policy.

Registrant:
Ultimate Search (DATKYIJRZD)
   GPO Box 7862
   Central, Central
   HK

   Domain Name: POPULAR.NET

   Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
      Ultimate Search  (YTYVZXVPXO)  [email-masked]
      Ultimate Search
      GPO Box 7862
      Central
      HK
      852 2537 9677
   Billing Contact:
      DOMAINSYSTEMS, INC.  (Q2044-OR)  [email-masked]
      DOMAINSYSTEMS, INC.
      20 SW 27th Avenue, 2nd Floor
      POMPANO BEACH, FL 33069
      US
      954 984 8445
      Fax- - 954 969 9155

   Record last updated on 18-Jan-2002.
   Record expires on 30-Jun-2003.
   Record created on 18-Jan-2002.
   Database last updated on 23-Jan-2002 17:55:00 EST.

   Domain servers in listed order:

   NS1.ULTSEARCH.COM		202.84.198.59
   NS2.ULTSEARCH.COM		212.100.224.102

Whois Server Version 1.3

Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

   Domain Name: TOOLATE.COM
   Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
   Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
   Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
   Name Server: NS1.ULTSEARCH.COM
   Name Server: NS2.ULTSEARCH.COM
   Updated Date: 20-jan-2002

>>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 05:15:14 EST <<<

The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and
Registrars.

The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network
Solutions for information purposes, and to assist persons in obtaining
information about or related to a domain name registration record.
Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy.  By submitting a
WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this Data only for lawful
purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this Data to:
(1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail
(spam); or  (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems).  Network Solutions
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.  By submitting
this query, you agree to abide by this policy.

Registrant:
Ultimate Search (CADZCADLDD)
   GPO Box 7862
   Central, Central
   HK

   Domain Name: TOOLATE.COM

   Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
      Ultimate Search  (SUOHKLLYUO)  [email-masked]
      Ultimate Search
      GPO Box 7862
      Central
      HK
      852 2537 9677
   Billing Contact:
      DOMAINSYSTEMS, INC.  (Q2044-OR)  [email-masked]
      DOMAINSYSTEMS, INC.
      20 SW 27th Avenue, 2nd Floor
      POMPANO BEACH, FL 33069
      US
      954 984 8445
      Fax- - 954 969 9155

   Record last updated on 20-Jan-2002.
   Record expires on 13-Dec-2003.
   Record created on 20-Jan-2002.
   Database last updated on 23-Jan-2002 17:55:00 EST.

   Domain servers in listed order:

   NS1.ULTSEARCH.COM		202.84.198.59
   NS2.ULTSEARCH.COM		212.100.224.102

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

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 08:02:54 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] WLS done deal

I am not sure I totally agree with the first two sentences of your
response below, but I will accept them. I take it, then, that the
recommended or sanctioned method is for the Chair to call for a vote.

Regardless, however, it still begs the question: "If people want to
work on a proposal to submit to the Assembly for consensus, what could
possibly be wrong with letting them pursue that mission?"

Wednesday, January 23, 2002, 11:22:28 PM, William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
WXW> Wednesday, Wednesday, January 23, 2002, 7:22:49 PM, Don Brown wrote:

>> Even when the majority favors a work group, the Chair dictatorially
>> kills it on the basis of procedure. If people want to work on a

WXW> No, the majority of those who elected to participate in an informal
WXW> privately run poll.  Most participants ignored that poll, so it is not
WXW> fair to say that the majority supports a work group, when there has
WXW> been no formal measure of that.  When we vote on issues, we get a LOT
WXW> more participation that was given on that informal private poll
WXW> Patrick was running, and its measure should not be considered to be
WXW> reflective of the Assembly's wishes.

- ----
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: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 06:09:30 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[5]: [ga] WLS done deal

Thursday, Thursday, January 24, 2002, 6:02:54 AM, Don Brown wrote:

> I am not sure I totally agree with the first two sentences of your
> response below, but I will accept them. I take it, then, that the
> recommended or sanctioned method is for the Chair to call for a vote.

> Regardless, however, it still begs the question: "If people want to
> work on a proposal to submit to the Assembly for consensus, what could
> possibly be wrong with letting them pursue that mission?"

Nothing, but the appropriate place to float that is here on the GA
list.

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

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 06:13:41 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Special treatment at NSI?

NSI doesn't always display the expiration date that exists at the
registry.  This happens many many times.

The expiration dates listed in whois are served from the Registrar's
systems, and unlike ethical registrars like OpenSRS and Dotster, for
example, who display the dates that the domains will expire at the
registry and use that as the domains registration dates, some
registrars, including NSI, use a different date for whatever reason,
even if the registry expiration date is different (Sometimes the
registry date is sooner and sometimes it is later).  I've also seen
domain years paid for to the Registrar and not added to the Registry,
since there was no pressing need to.  Presumably this is so the
registrar can benefit from the "float."

Thursday, Thursday, January 24, 2002, 6:03:06 AM, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Recently I noticed that two interesting domains (popular.net and
> toolate.com) were due to be relased around January 10. They showed the
> customary "Domain not found locally, but Registry points back to local DB.
> Local whois DB must be out of date." With a last change date of January 4.
> Unfortunately I did not save those records to prove it, but only made a
> note. The domains were not released, it seems. But the present whois
> information shows that there is something weird with them. They have been
> reregistered and not renewed by the old registrant, Ultsearch. The
> registration periods (01-18-2002 to 06-30-2003 and 01-20-2002 to
> 12-13-2003) are, however, suggesting that something strange happened here.
> They are shorter than usual. I am guessing that this is because they were
> in fact renewed after more than 45 days.

> Did Ultsearch get some special chance to keep the names?

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1014
*************************