Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1017
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, January 28 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1017

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

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 00:27:26 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Special treatment at NSI?

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, at 20:32 [=GMT-0500], John Berryhill wrote:

> > > I think UltSearch was simply transferring names INTO Network Solutions
> > > from other registrars
> >
> > No, that was not the case. It was already in NetSol. Another name, with
> > another registrant, with which the same happened, same funny dates:
> >
> > excuses.net.
> >
> > Maybe someone from VeriSign could explain this?
>
>
> Nobody from Verisign or anyone else needs to explain why a domain name
> remained with its registrant.
>
> I have observed lately that this situation often happens when domain names
> are transferred inbound to NSI, and as Chuck will verify, I have
> corresponded with him about it at considerable length.  The usual pattern is
> that the registry picks up the change, and points to NSI, but NSI provides
> no WHOIS data for the name.  This causes no shortage of headaches when the
> transfer is pursuant to a registrant transfer at the same time, and the
> transferee watches the whois data disappear.

But the examples I gave, were not transfers to Verisign, but names that
remained at Verisign, but with a _new_ first registered date, and an
expiration date related to the original first registration. Also they do
have the whois data.

You are talking about somthing else.

> Annoying, but nothing sinister at all.
>
>
>

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

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

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 23:47:44 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reminder: Pulic comment on dot Org report

I'm confused about the announcement below and the current comment period. As
most of you know, typically the public comment period takes place before the
NC vote. After the NC vote but before the ICANN Board deliberation and vote,
we also typically have another ICANN-wide (as opposed to SO-specific) public
comment period. So this post-NC vote, DNSO-sponsored comment period is new.

What exactly is the posture of the current .org report. Wasn't it adopted?
What will the NC do with the comments received? Will the NC vote again? Will
there still be another comment period before the Board vote, or is this the
last opportunity? 

Many thanks for any clarifications,

   Bret

DNSO Secretariat wrote:

> [To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
> [[email-masked]; [email-masked]]
> 
> This is reminder that the .ORG Task Force report endorsed by the Names
> Council is now open for public comment.
> The public comment period closes on Friday 1 February.
> 
> 1. The attached report of the .ORG Task Force on policy advice to the ICANN
> Board of Directors has recently be endorsed by the Names Council of the
> DNSO.
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00031.html
> 
> 2. Public comment on the report is invited for a period of 14 days starting
> on 18th January ending on 1st February.
> E-mail address for public comments [email-masked] .
> Posted comments will be forwarded to the ICANN BoD
> 
> 3. Minority views are invited from DNSO Constituencies for a period of 14
> days which will be forwarded to the ICANN BoD along with the report.
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> DNSO Secretariat
> 
> 
> 
> DNSO Secretariat
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
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, 27 Jan 2002 02:37:53 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reminder: Pulic comment on dot Org report

Bret and all assembly members or other interested parties,

  I also share in Bret's concern and/or confusion here.  I would
add that will not the At-Large, the DNSO GA, and the constituencies
have a opportunity to vote on this report or offer their own comments,
revisions or separate documents/reports for consideration BEFORE
a ICANN BoD and NC vote?

  We [INEGroup] would require some clarification and direct
answers to these questions...

Bret Fausett wrote:

> I'm confused about the announcement below and the current comment period. As
> most of you know, typically the public comment period takes place before the
> NC vote. After the NC vote but before the ICANN Board deliberation and vote,
> we also typically have another ICANN-wide (as opposed to SO-specific) public
> comment period. So this post-NC vote, DNSO-sponsored comment period is new.
>
> What exactly is the posture of the current .org report. Wasn't it adopted?
> What will the NC do with the comments received? Will the NC vote again? Will
> there still be another comment period before the Board vote, or is this the
> last opportunity?
>
> Many thanks for any clarifications,
>
>    Bret
>
> DNSO Secretariat wrote:
>
> > [To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
> > [[email-masked]; [email-masked]]
> >
> > This is reminder that the .ORG Task Force report endorsed by the Names
> > Council is now open for public comment.
> > The public comment period closes on Friday 1 February.
> >
> > 1. The attached report of the .ORG Task Force on policy advice to the ICANN
> > Board of Directors has recently be endorsed by the Names Council of the
> > DNSO.
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00031.html
> >
> > 2. Public comment on the report is invited for a period of 14 days starting
> > on 18th January ending on 1st February.
> > E-mail address for public comments [email-masked] .
> > Posted comments will be forwarded to the ICANN BoD
> >
> > 3. Minority views are invited from DNSO Constituencies for a period of 14
> > days which will be forwarded to the ICANN BoD along with the report.
> >
> > Thank you for your cooperation,
> > DNSO Secretariat
> >
> >
> >
> > DNSO Secretariat
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 13:12:19 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA members' comments on dot-org: please sign now.

Dear GA members,

there has been little GA discussion on the Final Report
of the .org Task Force and Marc Schneiders' valuable
additional comments -- it seems that there is some
agreement on this matter? If so, it may be good to
document our position and our concerns in a comment
to the Names Council and the ICANN Board. My draft
is mainly based on Marc's issues of concern. Obviously,
the DNSO constituencies are also preparing additional
statements.

Time is admittedly very short (the deadline is
the 1st of February), too short for a ballot vote on a
GA motion. Instead, you can state your agreement or
disagreement with the text and it will be forwarded
as comments by GA members, including the names of
people agreeing and disagreeing. Here is how:

   Please simply send an email to Thomas Roessler
   <[email-masked]>

   until Friday, 1st of February, 15:00 CET
   (6:00 L.A., 9:00 N.Y., 11:00 Montevideo,
   14:00 London/Accra, 17:00 Moscow, 23:00 Tokyo)

   stating "I agree" or "I don't agree". Please also give
   - your full name,
   - your type of GA membership:
     GA subscriber, GA voting registry member, DNSO
     Constituency member (if so, which)

   Please also make sure you don't send the mail
   accidentally to the GA list.

Whether you agree or not, you are of couse encouraged to
send your own additional comments to [email-masked].
Currently, there is not a single comment!

Best regards,
/// Alexander

=============================================================
Proposal for GA members' comments on dot-org:
=============================================================

The undersigned members of the DNSO General Assembly

1. endorse the criteria and guidelines for applicants
    for operation of the .org registry contained
    in the Final Report of the .org Task Force
    (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00031.html)

2. support the unrestricted character of .ORG, both for
    new and old registrants, and the absence of new
    eviction mechanisms for domain name holders.

3. emphasize the need for a complete divestiture
    of the .org TLD and urge the DNSO Names Council and
    the ICANN Board to ensure that the divestiture
    increases competition. The applicant organizations
    must submit proposals which are consistent with
    the goal of divestiture.

4. are concerned about the possibility of a price raise
    in the .org registration fee and emphasize that the
    registry fee should be "as low as feasible consistent
    with the maintenance of good quality service" (TF Final
    Report, 4). The ICANN Board's decision about the
    applicant organization should not be deflected by
    excessive attention to proposals for spending a
    possible surplus.

5. encourage applicant organizations to propose ways
    of ensuring that the "differentiation of the domain",
    which is "a key objective in the transition" (TF Final
    Report, 2e), is also communicated to dispute resolution
    providers and panelists. A simplistic, undifferentiated
    approach to domain disputes in the .org TLD puts the
    potential benefits at risk.

6. urge applicant organizations to consider incentives and
    deterrents to ensure that all registrars market .org
    domains in a way which does not run counter to the goal
    of differentiation enabling end-user choice.

7. thank the GA representative on the .org Task Force,
    Marc Schneiders, for his work.

=============================================================

Agree:
    John Doe <[email-masked]>,
      GA subscriber, GA voting registry member
    Juan Doe <[email-masked]>,
      GA subscriber, NCDNHC
    Jane Doe <[email-masked]>,
      GA subscriber, GA voting registry member, ISP/CP

Disagree:
    Joe Doe <[email-masked]>
      GA subscriber, GA voting registry member

- --
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, 28 Jan 2002 12:51:49 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Volunteers needed - WLS drafting group.

Abel Wisman has volunteered to set up and lead a drafting group on 
the WLS and deleted domain name handling topics. (Thanks for that!)

The group's mission will be to identify points of consensus from the 
GA discussions on the WLS proposal and deleted domain handling of 
the past weeks, and to produce a paper which summarizes these. 
Should the group come up with new ideas or arguments, these should 
immediately be presented to the main GA list for discussion.

The group is expected to produce a first draft (to be presented to 
the main GA list) within a week.  Failure to produce such a draft 
most likely indicates that further substantial discussion is needed 
(and, currently, no consensus exists), and is no reason to despair.

The draft, if and when presented, can then be discussed on the main 
GA list.  The drafting group is then expected to revise it according 
to this discussion.  The process can be iterated several times, if 
needed. Ultimately, it is hoped that a vote can be held on a final 
paper.

In order to participate in the drafting group, please go to 
<http://prometheus.able-nl.com/mailman/listinfo/draft-deletes>, and 
subscribe yourself as soon as possible.  The group will take up work 
on Tuesday.

Please note that, on the drafting group list, there is no limit on 
the number of postings per day, but mails over 40 kB will bounce. 
Members of the drafting group should also pay attention NOT to 
crosspost to the GA list, since the drafting group's discussion 
results will be presented to and discussed on the GA list anyhow.

- --
Thomas Roessler                        <[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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1017
*************************