Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1018
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, January 29 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1018

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:13:33 -0600
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] gtld Statement on NC Election (Please Post)

All,

The gTLD Constituency is concerned by the recent suggestion that the NC
Rules of Procedure should be amended to (a) extend the six-month period that
each NC Chair is in office, and (b) allow the Chair in office to continue to
serve until a successor is appointed -- apparently only to be removed by a
two-thirds vote of the Council.  This motion mandates that more
comprehensive consideration be given to its potentially long-ranging impact
as well as the new policy's inconsistency with previous discussions by the
Names Council on this issue.  Therefore, the Names Council should not
proceed at this time on this expeditious timeframe.
The motion is being presented at the very moment that an election should be
held for a new NC Chair under the current rules.  The current election
should and must proceed, regardless of the action the NC decides to take in
connection with the motion.  Changes to the election rules can be
contemplated at some other time (and, in any event, with enough time for
stakeholders to provide comments after more complete consideration.   Even
"Legislatures" do not generally create term limit (or term extension)
initiatives that have retroactive effect.  
As just one illustration of the importance of non-retroactivity (albeit, not
related to term limits), the United States Constitution, a document only
amended 27 times in the last 215 years, was amended in the 1990s to state
the following:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and 
Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives 
shall have intervened.

In addition, while the motion's author feels that a six month term is too
short and that she "is not aware of any elected position at least in the
U.S. which carries such a short term," we believe the NC's role as
facilitator of consensus-building may, in fact, be best served by having a
short-term NC Chair from rotating constituencies.  This allows different
constituencies to lead the process.  This was acknowledged during the last
Names Council call by those members that were in place when the NC
originally passed its procedural rule allowing for only one six month term
and one six month renewal. 

The issue of ICANN's restructuring is very much on the minds of the ICANN
board, staff and the Internet community as a whole.  The primary role of the
Names Council is to facilitate the consensus-generating process within the
DNSO.  However, it has been criticized by many as being more of a
representative legislature, empowered to make rules, than a consensus
facilitator.  Although we believe that the Names Council is doing the best
job that it can given the diversity of its membership, we believe that
passing this motion would lend further support for the criticisms the DNSO
has received in the past.  At a time when some are calling into question
procedural and substantive actions by the NC, and even suggesting that the
NC should not be part of a restructured ICANN, we fear that taking such an
action, with no notice to or discussion by the GA and larger ICANN
community, would play right into the hands of NC critics and hasten the
demise of the NC.

This is in not a comment on the current chair. We recognize that the current
chair has worked very hard to organize and focus the work of the NC.
However, at a time when many in the Internet community question the
credibility of the DNSO, no action should be taken by the DNSO which could
signal to the rest of the world that the DNSO is not interested in consensus
and diversity.

We urge the NC to reject the motion and hold an immediate election for its
chair in accordance with the Rules of Procedure that are currently in
effect.  If it turns out that this motion is desirable by the Internet
community, the motion can be voted on at some point in the future (after
enough time for feedback from the ICANN community) and apply to subsequent
elections.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
e-mail: [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: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:15:04 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] PLEASE SIGN - GA comments on dot-org

This is to remind you that I am collecting signatures in favor (or 
opposition) of the GA members' comments on dot-org drafted and 
posted by Alexander on Sunday. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00765.html>

Since these comments are the closest approximation of an official GA 
minority opinion we can produce within the short time frame, I'd 
like to urge you to send me your notes in favor or opposition of 
these comments until Friday 15:00 CET, off-list.  Please mention the 
type of your GA membership (GA subscriber, GA voting registry 
member, DNSO constituency member [which constintuency?]).

For your convenience, I'm reproducing the text below.

=============================================================
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.

- -- 
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: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:26:27 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Volunteers needed - WLS drafting group.

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

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

  Indeed!  >;)

>
>
> 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.

  This is ok, but not as good of an idea as to have a GA WG
for this issue which has been called for by most of the "Actively
Participating GA Members"....

>
>
> 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.

  Indeed if a draft proposal is produced as a result of this non-GA
group, further discussion will be necessary, had further delay
shall be this unnecessary result.  I would disagree that no
consensus exists on the WLS issue although there has been
no vote by the GA members because the Chair and the
Secretariat have yet again refused to request a ballot
for the WLS issue even though I requested one.

>
>
> 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.

  Hopefully.

>
>
> 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

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: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:35:08 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] gtld Statement on NC Election (Please Post)

Jeff and all assembly members or other stakeholders,

  Looks and smells allot like another "Moving of the Goal Posts"
political move.  Basically it stinks so bad this moves smell would
knock a buzzard off a @%$# wagon!  Sheesh!

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> All,
>
> The gTLD Constituency is concerned by the recent suggestion that the NC
> Rules of Procedure should be amended to (a) extend the six-month period that
> each NC Chair is in office, and (b) allow the Chair in office to continue to
> serve until a successor is appointed -- apparently only to be removed by a
> two-thirds vote of the Council.  This motion mandates that more
> comprehensive consideration be given to its potentially long-ranging impact
> as well as the new policy's inconsistency with previous discussions by the
> Names Council on this issue.  Therefore, the Names Council should not
> proceed at this time on this expeditious timeframe.
> The motion is being presented at the very moment that an election should be
> held for a new NC Chair under the current rules.  The current election
> should and must proceed, regardless of the action the NC decides to take in
> connection with the motion.  Changes to the election rules can be
> contemplated at some other time (and, in any event, with enough time for
> stakeholders to provide comments after more complete consideration.   Even
> "Legislatures" do not generally create term limit (or term extension)
> initiatives that have retroactive effect.
> As just one illustration of the importance of non-retroactivity (albeit, not
> related to term limits), the United States Constitution, a document only
> amended 27 times in the last 215 years, was amended in the 1990s to state
> the following:
> No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and
> Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives
> shall have intervened.
>
> In addition, while the motion's author feels that a six month term is too
> short and that she "is not aware of any elected position at least in the
> U.S. which carries such a short term," we believe the NC's role as
> facilitator of consensus-building may, in fact, be best served by having a
> short-term NC Chair from rotating constituencies.  This allows different
> constituencies to lead the process.  This was acknowledged during the last
> Names Council call by those members that were in place when the NC
> originally passed its procedural rule allowing for only one six month term
> and one six month renewal.
>
> The issue of ICANN's restructuring is very much on the minds of the ICANN
> board, staff and the Internet community as a whole.  The primary role of the
> Names Council is to facilitate the consensus-generating process within the
> DNSO.  However, it has been criticized by many as being more of a
> representative legislature, empowered to make rules, than a consensus
> facilitator.  Although we believe that the Names Council is doing the best
> job that it can given the diversity of its membership, we believe that
> passing this motion would lend further support for the criticisms the DNSO
> has received in the past.  At a time when some are calling into question
> procedural and substantive actions by the NC, and even suggesting that the
> NC should not be part of a restructured ICANN, we fear that taking such an
> action, with no notice to or discussion by the GA and larger ICANN
> community, would play right into the hands of NC critics and hasten the
> demise of the NC.
>
> This is in not a comment on the current chair. We recognize that the current
> chair has worked very hard to organize and focus the work of the NC.
> However, at a time when many in the Internet community question the
> credibility of the DNSO, no action should be taken by the DNSO which could
> signal to the rest of the world that the DNSO is not interested in consensus
> and diversity.
>
> We urge the NC to reject the motion and hold an immediate election for its
> chair in accordance with the Rules of Procedure that are currently in
> effect.  If it turns out that this motion is desirable by the Internet
> community, the motion can be voted on at some point in the future (after
> enough time for feedback from the ICANN community) and apply to subsequent
> elections.
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
> e-mail: [email-masked]
>
> ---------
> Participants on the gTLD Registry Constituency public mailing list are requested to not cross-post messages.

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: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:38:56 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] PLEASE SIGN - GA comments on dot-org

Thomas and all assembly members,

  Put me down as NOT in support for this draft of .ORG.

  INEGroup members are currently still in the process of voting
on it, so I cannot at present report where they stand on this
Draft.

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> This is to remind you that I am collecting signatures in favor (or
> opposition) of the GA members' comments on dot-org drafted and
> posted by Alexander on Sunday.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00765.html>
>
> Since these comments are the closest approximation of an official GA
> minority opinion we can produce within the short time frame, I'd
> like to urge you to send me your notes in favor or opposition of
> these comments until Friday 15:00 CET, off-list.  Please mention the
> type of your GA membership (GA subscriber, GA voting registry
> member, DNSO constituency member [which constintuency?]).
>
> For your convenience, I'm reproducing the text below.
>
> =============================================================
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> 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, 29 Jan 2002 10:57:02 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA summary 2002-04

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's discussions during 
the 4th week of 2002.  List archives are available online at 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/maillist.html>.  Please 
feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate. 

				Votes

No formal votes are going on.  However, signatures are being 
collected for (and against) a possible GA minority position to the 
.org task force's report.  See below for details.

			   Task Force News

In a private message sent last Tuesday, the former chair of the GA, 
Danny Younger, indicated that he would not continue to participate 
in any task forces where he was representing the GA in his property 
as the GA chair.

As a consequence of that, Alexander Svensson will represent the GA 
on the IDN task force (in his capacity as the GA's alternative 
chair), and Thomas Roessler will represent the GA on the WHOIS task 
force (in his capacity as the GA's chair).  For the whois task 
force, Abel Wisman and Kristy McKee have offered their valuable 
help (this task force has to wade through a lot of questionnaires). 
Thomas and Kristy both participated in a WHOIS task force telephone 
conference held on January 28.

				Topics

(i) WLS and deleted domain handling.  This topic lost a lot of
momentum last week.  The most notable posting on this came from Ron 
Wiener of Snapnames, who posted a "speculator-specific pricing 
analysis" of the WLS proposal.  According to this paper's 
conclusion, "the evidence shows that, like all rational actors, 
speculators do pay the market rate for secondary domain names, for 
subscriptions to the WLS-like SnapBack service, and for preferential 
access to registrars' connections - on average, about $40-$80.  The 
WLS will have little impact on the price speculators pay". 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00718.html>

Abel Wisman has volunteered to set up and lead a drafting group to 
try to formulate a GA consensus position on this topic. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00766.html>

(ii) dot-org.  The dot-org task force's report has been accepted by 
the names council, and a public comment period starting January 18, 
and ending on February 1, was announced.  Comments are to be sent to 
<[email-masked]>.  Also, minority views on the report are 
invited from DNSO constituencies during the same period.  Comments 
will be forwarded to the ICANN board along with the report. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00761.html>

Bret Fausett asked whether this is the last opportunity to comment 
on the report before the ICANN board decides on dot-org, replacing 
the normal ICANN-wide comment period, or whether it augments that 
opportunity for comment.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00763.html>

Marc Schneiders, who represented the GA on the dot-org task force, 
posted a slightly revised version of his supplementary report, which 
emphasizes that the task force's decision of making .org 
unrestricted for new and old registrants alike is supported.  There 
were no follow-ups to this message. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00724.html>

Based on this, Alexander Svensson produced a proposal for GA 
members' comments on dot-org, which can be signed until Friday, 
15:00 CET.  Please send statements of support (or opposition) to 
Thomas. <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00765.html>

(iii) The GA representative on the transfer task force, Dan 
Steinberg, sent out a call for input (and, if needed, participation) 
for a telephone conference with Louis Touton.  The teleconference 
will deal with the problem of "apparent authority": Who has 
"apparent authority" to bind a registrant when registrant's domain 
is to be transferred?  Questions and wishes for participation were 
to be submitted until midnight Eastern time, Sunday, January 27th. 
The actual telephone conference will happen on Friday, February 1, 
noon EST.

<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00751.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00756.html>.

(iv) Chuck Gomes sent in a thoughtful article on working groups vs. 
task forces as tools in the DNSO consensus process.  Recommended 
reading.  <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00713.html>

(v) Andy Duff (of new.net) pointed to some Business Constituency 
charter revisions.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00714.html>

(vi) NC chair period of office.  In a posting to the GA and others, 
the Jeff Neuman (acting on behalf of the gTLD constituency) 
expressed concern on the "recent suggestion that the NC rules of 
procedure should be amended to (a) extend the six-month period that 
each NC chair is in office, and (b) allow the chair in office to 
continue to serve until a successor is appointed".  The gTLD 
constituency demands that "the Names Council should not proceed at 
this time on this expeditious time frame.  [...] The current election 
should and must proceed, regardless of the action the NC decides to 
take in connection with th emotion." Jeff also argues, it seems, 
that any new rules should not be applied to the NC chair who is 
currently being elected.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00044.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00058.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00767.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

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:48:35 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Revised WLS Proposal

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01C1A8BB.DDCD1400
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00E4_01C1A8BB.DDCD1400"

- ------=_NextPart_001_00E4_01C1A8BB.DDCD1400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_002_00E5_01C1A8BB.DDCD1400"

- ------=_NextPart_002_00E5_01C1A8BB.DDCD1400
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I have attached two documents related to the wait listing service
proposal submitted by VGRS to the Registrars Constituency on December
30, 2001: (1) a revised proposal based on feedback received from
registrars and other interested parties; (2) a document titled,
'Justification for a Registry-based Wait Listing Service.' I would like
to call your attention to the recommended procedures and guidelines for
questions and feedback that are contained toward the beginning of the
revised proposal. I would also like to note that the second document
contains responses to the four points made by the Registrars
Constituency in the official feedback provided to the initial proposal.
It also contains responses to some of the other major issues raised with
regard to the proposed service.

Chuck Gomes
Vice President, Policy & Compliance
VeriSign Global Registry Services

- ------=_NextPart_002_00E5_01C1A8BB.DDCD1400
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2788.0">
<TITLE></TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">I have attached two documents related =
to the wait listing service proposal submitted by VGRS to the Registrars =
Constituency on December 30, 2001: (1) a revised proposal based on =
feedback received from registrars and other interested parties; (2) a =
document titled, 'Justification for a Registry-based Wait Listing =
Service.' I would like to call your attention to the recommended =
procedures and guidelines for questions and feedback that are contained =
toward the beginning of the revised proposal. I would also like to note =
that the second document contains responses to the four points made by =
the Registrars Constituency in the official feedback provided to the =
initial proposal. It also contains responses to some of the other major =
issues raised with regard to the proposed service.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Chuck Gomes</FONT>

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Vice President, Policy &amp; =
Compliance</FONT>

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">VeriSign Global Registry =
Services</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">  </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_002_00E5_01C1A8BB.DDCD1400--

- ------=_NextPart_001_00E4_01C1A8BB.DDCD1400
Content-Type: application/pdf;
	name="Registrar Wait Listing Proposal - FINAL 1-28-02.pdf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Registrar Wait Listing Proposal - FINAL 1-28-02.pdf"

- ------=_NextPart_001_00E4_01C1A8BB.DDCD1400
Content-Type: application/pdf;
	name="Justification for WLS  1-28-02 FINAL.pdf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Justification for WLS  1-28-02 FINAL.pdf"

- ------=_NextPart_001_00E4_01C1A8BB.DDCD1400--

- ------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01C1A8BB.DDCD1400
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature;
	name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="smime.p7s"

- ------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01C1A8BB.DDCD1400--

- --
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 #1018
*************************