Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1024
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, January 31 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1024

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

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 06:04:17 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Sex.com Hijacker claims poverty after court took his stolen property from him

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,50104,00.html

The criminal who stole the Sex.com domain is appealing the judgement
against him, saying it would force him into "slavery" and is
unconstitutional.

He did the filing himself.

What a crock.

- -- 
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, 30 Jan 2002 19:06:43 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] American Internet Registrants Association Asks Court to Make VeriSign Liable for  Botching Internet Domain Names

All assembly members,

FYI

See: http://library.northernlight.com/FC20020129360000285.html

Summary:
WASHINGTON, Jan 29, 2002 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ --
The American Internet Registrants Association (AIRA) has filed a
court brief asking the court to rule that VeriSign, Inc. is liable for
mishandling Internet domain names. The brief, filed in the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, was filed in a case brought by
Gary Kremen, an entrepreneur who is seeking damages as a
result of the hijacking of his Internet domain name 'sex.com'
by an individual named Stephen Cohen.

The lower court recently ruled that Kremen is entitled to
$65 million in damages, but that VeriSign (formerly Network
Solutions, Inc.) is not liable despite Kremen's contention that
the company was grossly negligent in permitting Cohen to
hijack the Internet domain name. The AIRA filing follows
a similar filing this month by the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF), in which the San Francisco based
civil liberties group urged the Ninth Circuit Court to
hold VeriSign responsible for illegally transferring names.

Washington attorney William Bode, who filed the brief
on behalf of AIRA, said that the Association has received
countless complaints from Internet domain name registrants
who have lost their domain names because of VeriSign's negligence.

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, 30 Jan 2002 19:35:11 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Classic Spin Doctoring

"The domain name registrar revises its controversial
proposal to resell expiring Web addresses after registries
complain they won't make a profit off the service." 

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-826603.html

P.S. could someone at Verisign ensure that when they send
out this type of press release, that they take the time to
educate those publishing it on the difference between a
registry and a registrar.  But, then again, Verisign
doesn't seem to know the difference anyway...

- -- 
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, 30 Jan 2002 20:06:28 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Revised WLS Proposal

Chuck and all assembly members,

  Thank you Chuck for responding to my request here by providing
a .TXT version of this "Revised WLS Proposal".  I hope that
Verisign will consider in putting up an "Open" link in HTML and
.TXT format somewhere readily accessible on their Web site
as well.

  Again Thanks Chuck!  >:)

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Here's the revised proposal:
>
> Domain Name
> Wait Listing Service
>
> Revised by VeriSign Global Registry Services
>
> January 28, 2002
>
>
>
> Preface to the Revised Version
> This document is a revision to VeriSign Global Registry Services (VGRS)
> Wait Listing Service (WLS) proposal sent to the DNSO Registrars
> Constituency on December 30, 2001.  In this revision VGRS has tried to
> respond as much as possible to feedback received from registrars and
> other interested parties.  To make it easier for registrars and others
> to identify where changes were made, the Word version that accompanies
> the text proposal shows major content changes in italic font.
>
> With the submission of the initial proposal on December 30, VGRS
> suggested that discussion of the proposal first occur with registrars
> because they would be one of the most significantly impacted parties if
> the WLS was implemented.  The plan at the time was to open up the
> discussion to other gTLD registries and other DNSO constituencies after
> time was allowed for discussion between VGRS and registrars.  Our intent
> was not to limit input by others but rather to make the feedback process
> more manageable.  Some good feedback has already been received from
> other constituencies and individuals interested in this issue and it is
> appreciated.
>
> With the changes made in this document, VGRS is again requesting
> feedback from the Registrars Constituency, in particular regarding the
> revisions made in this document.  VGRS is also formally asking for
> feedback from any other DNSO constituencies, the DNSO General Assembly,
> and other interested parties, including other registries.  The purpose
> of the requests for feedback is to assist VGRS in making an informed
> decisionabout whether and how to proceed with its proposal for the WLS.
>
> Procedures for Asking Questions and Providing Feedback
> VGRS recognizes that processes and procedures for fostering discussion
> and obtaining feedback from members of the Internet community are still
> relatively undeveloped in the DNSO and the community at-large.  With
> that in mind, we would like to attempt to add some structure to the WLS
> discussion that we believe will make it easier to answer questions, to
> organize feedback received and to quantify that feedback in a way that
> leads to results that are based on objective analysis rather than
> subjective, unfairly biased or unsubstantiated opinions.  We believe
> that the guidelines below will facilitate these objectives and make the
> process more manageable for all parties.
>
> As a registry business, we are of course concerned that our business
> needs be met and that the concerns of our customers (registrars) be
> heard and addressed as possible.  At the same time, we believe that the
> needs of end-users (registrants and prospective registrants) are of the
> utmost importance with regard to domain name services.  Consequently, we
> suggest that, in the end, after the feedback is received, that the
> highest priority should be to objectively evaluate the WLS in light of
> the ultimate beneficiary, domain name consumers.  It is our hope that
> the guidelines below will allow that to happen.
>
> Procedural Guidelines
>
> 1.      Questions and feedback should be  consolidated by each
> organization wishing to ask questions and/or provide feedback.
> Organizations may include DNSO Constituencies, the DNSO General
> Assembly, or other groups of interested parties that are formally or
> informally organized.  For individuals who wish to contribute who are
> not part of a larger group, it is requested that they provide their
> input through one of the DNSO Constituencies or the DNSO General
> Assembly.
> 2.      In the case of groups of people not associated with DNSO
> organizations, please provide the following information with your
> initial input:
> o       A brief explanation of what your interest is in the proposed WLS
> offering
> o       Objective data regarding the size of your group
> o       A brief characterization of the members of your group (e.g.,
> domain name registrants, intellectual property owners, intellectual
> property associations, etc.)
> o       A statement of the general purpose or mission of your group.
> 3.      Every group submitting questions and/or feedback must provide a
> point of contact and email address that VGRS may use for communicating
> with the group.
> 4.      Deadline for questions:  February 8, 2002
> o       Questions consolidated as requested in item 1 above and
> applicable information requested in item 2 above should be sent to Chuck
> Gomes, VP of Policy and Compliance for VGRS at [email-masked]..
> 5.      Deadline for VGRS responses to questions:  February 15, 2002 .
> 6.      Deadline for final feedback:  March 1, 2002
> o       Final feedback consolidated as requested in item 1 above and
> applicable information as requested in item 2 above should be sent to
> Chuck Gomes, VP of Policy and Compliance for VGRS at
> [email-masked].
> o       To assist VGRS in evaluating feedback, please provide the
> following objective data:
> §       What is the nature of the members of your group (e.g.,
> individuals, registrars, registries, trade organizations, etc.)?
> §       What is the total size of your membership?[chuck—INEGroup has
> 114k members!]
> §       How many members of your group participated in the WLS feedback
> process leading up to the final feedback provided?
> §       How many members who contributed to the WLS feedback you
> provided to VGRS are involved or planning to be involved in the process
> of directly or indirectly using the VGRS batch delete system for
> registering just-deleted names?
> §       What efforts did your group make to reach out to members of your
> group who did not participate in the WLS discussion process?
> o       In preparing feedback    to the revised proposal, it is
> important to remember that the proposal is not submitted as a permanent
> offering but rather a 12-month trial.  Although based on the information
> it has seen to date VGRS believes that there is more than enough
> evidence to support consumer demand for such a service and that the best
> way to offer such a service from a consumer point of view is to offer it
> at the registry level, we also recognize that there is still
> considerable debate about some issues.  A 12-month trial period will
> allow time to get empirical answers to questions that have been raised.
> o       Constructive suggestions for improving the proposed WLS offering
> are encouraged and welcomed.  Statements of opposition are also welcome
> but should be accompanied with briefly stated reasons.
> 7.      Target for VGRS decision regarding the WLS proposal:  March 8,
> 2001
> o       VGRS will attempt to evaluate the feedback received not later
> than March 8, 2002 and, if it is decided to consider proceeding with the
> offering, will submit a final pricing proposal to ICANN for its approval
> per the requirements of Appendix G of the ICANN-VeriSign registry
> agreements
>
> Complementary Paper
> Please note that a complementary paper was prepared by VGRS titled
> ‘Justification for a Registry-based Wait Listing Service.’  The purpose
> of the paper is four-fold:
> 1.      To provide a brief overview of the VGRS proposed WLS for .com
> and .net second-level domain names.
> 2.      To provide members of the Internet community a high level
> overview of the current situation with regard to registering previously
> registered .com, .net and .org second-level domain names
> 3.      To highlight what VGRS sees as the advantages of the WLS
> 4.      To provide responses to some of the criticism that has been
> presented to date in opposition to a Registry-based Wait Listing
> Service.
>
> Summary of Major Revisions
>
> Here is a summary of the major changes made with this revision:
> §       An introductory explanation was added at the beginning of the
> proposal.
> §       The maximum number of times a subscriber would be allowed to
> transfer a subscription to a different name was changed from three to
> five (see Section 2.a.vii).
> §       The proposed 15-day Registry Hold period has been omitted from
> this document.  Although the proposal has merit in addressing several
> problems that have arisen, including inadvertently deleted names, it is
> a distinct idea and VGRS believes that it is best considered separately.
> §       Specific key milestone dates were changed to TBD in Section 3.
> §       Possible terms were suggested for the Signed Service Agreement
> in Section 4.a based on feedback received from the DNSO Intellectual
> Property Constituency.
> §       The original billing and fee structure was replaced with a new
> one in Section 5.
> §       A companion paper titled ‘Justification for a Registry-based
> Wait Listing Service’ was issued at the same time as this revised
> proposal.
>
> 1.      Introduction
>
> In response to a formal request by Rick Wesson on behalf of the
> Registrar Constituency, VeriSign, Inc. is providing this paper to
> describe its proposed Domain Name Wait Listing Service (WLS).
> Specifically, the proposed WLS is intended to provide both (1) a new,
> streamlined business opportunity for the entire registrar community, and
> (2) some measure of relief in dealing with the “deleted domains” issue.
> VeriSign believes that introduction of WLS will benefit all interested
> constituencies (e.g., registries, registrars, resellers, intellectual
> property owners and domain name registrants).  To that end, we address
> the following topics in this paper:
>
> ·       High-level mechanics of how the WLS will be delivered and
> distributed;
> ·       WLS implementation milestones and go-live requirements for
> registrars;
> ·       Billing model;
> ·       Effects on interested parties; and,
> ·       Market potential and rationale.
>
> Pursuant to a license from SnapNames of its Parallel RegistryTM
> technology, VeriSign, Inc., through its VeriSign Global Registry
> Services (“VGRS”) division, is prepared to offer the WLS to VGRS’s
> ICANN-accredited registrar channel.    VGRS anticipates that it would
> offer WLS for a one-year test, beginning at a date to be determined.
> Results would be compiled during the last two months of the test and
> provided to ICANN.
>
> Accordingly, VeriSign solicits constructive feedback from all members of
> the Registrar Constituency as well as other DNSO constituencies, the
> DNSO General Assembly and other interested parties in the Internet
> community.  We have reserved time with our engineering and operations
> staff during the February and March timeframe to move this project
> forward.  Due to this time schedule, we request that feedback regarding
> the revised proposal be received by March 1, 2002, so that we will have
> time to compile, evaluate, and respond to comments.  Questions and
> comments should be consolidated as requested at the beginning of this
> document and directed to Chuck Gomes ([email-masked]).
>
> 2.      Service Overview and Mechanics
>
> WLS is a service whereby potential registrants (hereinafter referred to
> as “subscriber(s)”), through their selected, participating registrar,
> may purchase a subscription tied to a domain name currently registered.
> Only ICANN-accredited registrars would be able to offer the subscription
> service for .com and .net domain name registrations.  WLS subscriptions
> for the .org TLD would not be available during the one-year test period.
> Registrars would have the opportunity to decide whether or not to allow
> their resellers to offer the service.  Registrars would perform all
> subscription transactions directly with VGRS, using an interface
> separate from the Shared Registration System (SRS).  The VeriSign
> Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) would not be used in the
> implementation of WLS.  All current processes would remain unchanged
> with one exception.  A domain name registration that is subscribed to on
> WLS will be registered to the subscriber when the current domain name
> registration is deleted through normal operational procedures.
> Initially, a domain name registration could only have one (1)
> subscription pending at a time.  If demand exists, a deeper subscription
> queue could be considered for a future phase of WLS.  The processes for
> placing and fulfilling subscription(s) would be as follows:
>
> a.      Process for subscribing to WLS:
>
> ·       Only in the event that a domain name is already registered
> within the SRS, the registrar checks the WLS to see if a subscription
> already exists for that domain name.
> 1.      Note:  Only two scenarios will prevent a registrar in good
> standing from being able to submit a subscription.  The first is if a
> subscription already exists for a specific domain name.  The second is
> if the selected domain name registration does not already exist within
> the SRS database.
> ·       If the domain name is not already subscribed to in WLS, then the
> registrar submits a subscription for that name to WLS.
> ·       NOTE:  The subscription submitted to WLS by the registrar is the
> same data (minus nameserver information) that registrars currently
> submit to "ADD" new .com and .net domain names.  WLS collects no
> subscriber data and, as today, VGRS will have no direct contact with a
> subscriber.  The subscriber stays the registrar’s customer.  The
> subscription registrar will add nameserver data after the selected
> domain name is actually registered in the registry for the registrar on
> behalf of the subscriber.
> ·       WLS notifies the SRS that the domain name is on the subscription
> list.  The SRS identifies the name in the SRS database as being a
> subscribed name.
> ·       WLS notifies the registrar of the successful subscription.
> ·       The subscription registrar notifies the subscriber of the
> successful subscription.
> ·       NOTE:  The subscription is tied to a single domain name at any
> point in time.  However, over the life of the one-year subscription
> period, the subscriber can change the domain name tied to the
> subscription up to a maximum of five times.
> ·       After the last day of each calendar month, VGRS will send each
> registrar an invoice for all subscriptions successfully submitted during
> the previous month.  For further information on the billing model and
> specific pricing, see Section 5 of this paper.
>
> b.      Process for subscription fulfillment:
> ·       A domain name is deleted through the normal course of operation
> (e.g., registrar submits a delete request).
> ·       NOTE:  Any deletion grace period, as applicable, will still
> apply.
> ·       The SRS processes the deletion and checks to see if the deleted
> name is on WLS.
> ·       If the name is on WLS, the name is automatically "added" to the
> SRS database using the registration data supplied by the subscription
> registrar at the time the subscription was made.
> ·       At this time, the registrar’s VGRS account is debited $6 for the
> domain name registration fee.  All other regular business rules
> affecting registration of domain names will apply at this time.
> ·       VGRS then notifies the subscription registrar of the
> subscription fulfillment.
> ·       The subscription registrar modifies the registration record to
> include nameserver data and updates its WHOIS database in accordance
> with the registrar’s responsibilities under the current
> Registry-Registrar Agreement and ICANN Accreditation Agreement.
> ·       The subscription registrar notifies the subscriber of the
> successful registration.  The “subscriber” is now a registrant.
> ·       The subscription will be cleared from WLS and a new subscription
> can be placed for the domain name by any registrar.
>
> c.      Subscription Renewals:  At the time a subscriber submits an
> application for a subscription, it can choose whether or not to have the
> subscription auto-renew at the end of its term.  If the subscriber does
> not choose auto-renewal at the initial subscription period, then it may
> still choose that feature at any time during its term.  If it never
> chooses auto-renewal, the subscription will automatically terminate (be
> deleted) when the one-year term expires.  All renewal terms are for one
> year.
>
> d.      Subscription Transfers:  In an effort to keep the one-year test
> as simple as possible, VGRS does not plan to allow subscribers to
> transfer subscriptions from one registrar to another registrar, as can
> be done with domain name registrations today.
>
> e.      Subscription Cancellations:  A subscriber may cancel a
> subscription at any time by submitting, through its registrar of record,
> a “delete” request through the WLS.  Please note that subscription fees
> are non-refundable.
>
> f.      Subscription Disputes:  The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy
> (“UDRP”) would not apply to subscriptions within the WLS, as the domain
> names associated with subscriptions would not actually be registered.
> As the UDRP only applies to registered domain names, a party wishing to
> dispute a domain name associated with a subscription would wait until
> after the domain name is actually registered to employ the provisions of
> the UDRP.
>
> g.      Conclusion of 12-Month Trial:  VGRS assumes the following:
>
> ·       Subscriptions continuing beyond the end of the trial period
> would continue to be serviced by VGRS and registrars.
> ·       Registrars, ICANN and VGRS will mutually develop evaluation
> criteria for the 12-month trial.
>
> 3.      Key Milestones (for ramping and going live)
>
> As stated earlier, VeriSign will remain poised to move the WLS project
> forward to implementation.
>

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, 30 Jan 2002 18:49:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign: ".com/net not a necessity" replying to anti-trust concerns of WLS

WXW and all assembly members,

  Other Root and registry systems that are not "ICANN Accredited" ARE
part of the DNS currently and have been for over 5 years now.  You know
and have known that.  So for anyone or organization to make a statement
that discussion or debate as part of or inclusive of the USG/Legacy
Root structure or Registry's as "Spam" is to deny reality.  Four of the
"Big 8" ISP recognize Inclusive and Competitive registries and root
structures currently.

William X Walsh wrote:

> It doesn't belong on the ICANN DNSO mailing lists, that is why it is
> spam.
>
> This is not the forum for him to be promoting alt.root systems.
>
> Tuesday, Tuesday, January 29, 2002, 6:12:15 PM, Don Brown wrote:
>
> > I don't think this is spam, at all.  I think it is an opinion and, although
> > you and I may not agree with it, he does, never-the-less, have some
> > elementary right to share his thoughts.  This list is suppose to be
> > open and not bigoted - at least I thought so, going in.
>
> > I may even agree with some, or all, of what he said, although I am not
> > stating that is my position, at this time. Please be sure to recognize
> > that I am not writing this in support of what was said, because that
> > is not the purpose of this post. I'm also not saying that I totally
> > disagree with what was said. My position on this matter is not the
> > point.
>
> > The point is that, even if we may loath hearing the message for the
> > upteenth time or we may be diametrically opposed to the view
> > expressed, it is not appropriate to criticize the message just because
> > of its topic or the person posting it. The content, in my view, is
> > what needs to be challenged and discussed - not the person who posts
> > and not the topic.  IOW, I don't think it is appropriate to call it
> > "spam" just because you don't like the subject matter, poster or the
> > content.  Let's challenge the ideas presented -- that's healthy.
>
> > The value of a list, in MHO (George, I am humble, sometimes) is that
> > we have the opportunity to hear different points of view and differing
> > ideas. Sometimes, it opens our eyes to a bigger picture or a different
> > take on the subject matter, sometimes we may think the person posting
> > it is an idiot.  Regardless, the value of people posting their
> > thoughts is what makes a list valuable and a means of helping build
> > the all important consensus.  I wouldn't like to see anything which
> > discourages anyone from expressing their views openly and liberally.
>
> > FWIW.
>
> > p.s. I even like you, William, and I think you do well at cutting
> > through the fat to the core issue, most of the time. I just don't
> > agree with the method, this time.  Humbly and respectfully, that's my
> > take FWIW.
>
> > Tuesday, January 29, 2002, 5:14:45 PM, William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> WXW>> Can we keep the alt.root spam to a minimum please?
>
> WXW>> Tuesday, Tuesday, January 29, 2002, 2:53:16 PM, John Palmer wrote:
>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
> >>> To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> >>> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 4:18 PM
> >>> Subject: [ga] Verisign: ".com/net not a necessity" replying to anti-trust
> >>> concerns of WLS
> >>> [...]
>
> >>> You know, the inclusive namespace is still out there. We haven't gone
> >>> anywhere. When
> >>> you guys are tired of "working within the process" (which is rigged since
> >>> the ICANN
> >>> board is basically VSGN, Neustar/Neulevel and Afilias) - You can come on
> >>> board
> >>> the inclusive bus right now.
>
> >>> If you are an ISP - see http://www.open-rsc.org or http://www.pacroot.com to
> >>> find
> >>> out how to make ICANN irrelevant to your company and customers right now. If
> >>> your ISP wont, you can do it yourself (and then get an ISP that respects
> >>> your right
> >>> to see all of the internet, not just websites whose operators are cowering
> >>> in the corner
> >>> afraid that VSGN/ICANN/USG will pull the plug on them using one of the
> >>> myriad of
> >>> increasingly burdensome contract provisions that are FORCED on people before
> >>> they are allowed to get a .COM/NET/ORG).
>
> >>> The Inclusive Namespace has none of that.
>
> >>> No UDRP, in other words, no binding  mechansim that allows rich concerns to
> >>> steal
> >>> domains from poor people.
>
> >>> No rigged Board that claims it is "a consensus based, open, community
> >>> process"
> >>> (gag)
>
> >>> No USG "big stick" lending authority to the aforementioned corrupt and
> >>> rotten
> >>> situation.
>
> >>> We've been here all along. Don't you understand? If enough people leave
> >>> ICANN's root
> >>> networks, they will be irrelevant.  Right now, 7-12% of the internet looks
> >>> away from ICANN,
> >>> and this number is growing.
>
> >>> There are some pretty powerful figures lurking here. If everyone would only
> >>> get up and move,
> >>> we could hasten ICANN's demise (a GOOD thing) as a 900lb gorilla. Without
> >>> your help it
> >>> will take a bit longer, but it will happen.
>
> >>>> As for dot-com and dot-net not being a necessity, that's true in the
> >>>> sense that they're not like food, water or shelter. However, if
> >>>> Verisign truly believed their own argument then the "one year test"
> >>>> could be conducted with equal efficacy using the dot-TV or dot-CC TLDs,
> >>>> and not dot-com/net. If it's true, I'm willing to trade Verisign
> >>>> gs34jkhgds-jkhg.org for the NSI.com domain name. I believe someone
> >>>> forgot to tell GreatDomains (a Verisign company) that other TLDs are
> >>>> now pervasive:
> >>>>
>
> >>> How about domains like mydom.USA, mydom.AMERICA, mydom.EARTH,
> >>> mydom.WEB?? How about 8,000 - 9,000 TLDs to choose from??? They exist
> >>> now, and most without any nasty UDRP, USG or WIPO.
>
> >>> Thats what we have now in the Big World out there.
>
> >>> There is a solution, its right under everyone's nose. When are you all going
> >>> to
> >>> get the picture that ICANN ignores all of you and keeps you busy bickering
> >>> amongst each other on these lists. Name one thing, ONE SUBSTANTIAL THING
> >>> that you have accomplished in the past 2 years (apart from running
> >>> elections, polls
> >>> suspending people for getting a bit too hot under the collar).
>
> >>> They (ICANN) are playing you for fools. Either get up, leave and go make a
> >>> real difference or else let progress pass you by. The game is rigged. You
> >>> are
> >>> ignored. Face it. Move on to progress or give up.
>
> >>>> Sincerely,
> >>>>
> >>>> George Kirikos
> >>>> http://www.kirikos.com/
> >>>>
>
> >>> John Palmer
>
> >>> --
> >>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >>> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> >>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> > ----
> > 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-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> 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

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: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:10:16 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] International Domain Name News

Reposted extract from the Australian DNS mailing list.

Fm.ly Launches Family Network in SA (allAfrica.com)
A new online service has been established in SA, guaranteeing users
their own surnames as permanent domains.
The service, Fm.ly, launched in SA last week and expects to roll-out
internationally early this year.
LY is the country code for Libya and the Fm.ly Web site is a
second-level domain registered in that country.
 http://allafrica.com/stories/200201230858.html

Number of Internet domain names drops in second half of 2001 (Nando
Times)
Growth in Internet domain names slowed considerably last year as
speculators who hoped to make a fortune off easy-to-remember Web
addresses dropped names they couldn't unload.
 http://www.nandotimes.com/technology/story/230436p-2212452c.html

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display
.jsp?vnu_content_id=1280199

COURT RULES SETTLEMENT BARRED UDRP ACTION
A NY federal court has potentially put the dispute over the cello.com
domain to rest.  In the late 1990s, the cello.com owner and Cello
Holdings settled a dispute over the domain, only to have Cello
Holdings launch a UDRP action which it surprisingly won.  The UDRP
decision resulted in further lawsuits with the NY court now ruling
that the settlement barred bringing the UDRP action.  In fact, the
judge was so annoyed with Cello Holdings that he ordered sanctions
against the company.  Case name is Storey v. Cello Holdings (SDNY).
 From BNA Internet Law News

auDA takes .org.au from Elz (Australian IT)
The Australian domain industry self-regulatory body has seized
control of .org.au and .id.au from Robert Elz.
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,3677772%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00
.html

It's all go for AusRegistry (Fairfax IT)
The establishment of Australia's new domain name information
infrastructure is running to plan, even as the registry anointed to
run it embarks on a reverse takeover of a Sydney IT company.
 http://it.mycareer.com.au/news/2002/01/29/FFXR7TGK0XC.html

NeuLevel re-releases .biz domain names (netimperative.com)
Companies have been given a second opportunity to register the .biz
domain name for their website after top level domain operator
NeuLevel was forced to scrap some applications.

http://www.netimperative.com/media/newsarticle.asp?ArticleID=14154&ChannelID=2
&ArticleType=1

Judge's Rebuke Could Be Final Note In Cello.com Dispute (Newsbytes)
A federal judge in New York may have finally put an end to a
five-year battle over the Internet domain Cello.com, ruling last week
that a company headed by former UUNet founder Rick Adams had used
U.S. courts and an international arbitration process to improperly
wrest the address from a California man.
 http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/174012.html

EP Committee wants to amend '.EU' Regulation (Euractiv.com)
The European Parliament's Industry Committee adopted a recommendation
for the EP plenary to amend the draft Regulation on the
implementation of the .EU top level domain name.
 http://www.euractiv.com/cgi-bin/cgint.exe/?1100=1&204&OIDN=1502879
 http://www.euractiv.com/ndbtext/infosoc/doteu25jan2002.rtf

Neverflysaa.com: Does SAA Have a Case? (allAfrica.com)
South African Internet attorneys report that South African Airways'
threat to take a disgruntled passenger to court could result in a
complex legal wrangle.
The case arises from an annoyed SAA passenger, Vernon E Six of Texas,
who has built a Web site (www.neverflySAA.com) to air his views on
the alleged poor service of the airline.
 http://allafrica.com/stories/200201290528.html

VeriSign Revamps Choice Dot-Com Names Sale Plan (Newsbytes)
Internet addressing giant VeriSign Global Registry Services has
unveiled a revamped version of its controversial plan to redistribute
some of the most appealing dot-com domain names as they expire.
 http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/174040.html

WIPO arbitration on neo-nazi use of domain names (ICANNWatch)
Der Spiegel reports (in German) that WIPO has handed over the domain
names bundesinnenministerium.com, verfassungschutz.org to the German
government.
 http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=531

US-Neonazi muss Web-Adressen abtreten (Der Spiegel)
Gerhard Lauck, selbst ernannter Oberführer der "NSDAP/AO", wurde von
der Wipo abgewatscht: Irreführende Adressen wie
"bundesinnenministerium.com" wird es bald nicht mehr geben. Mit
Geschick gelang es Otto Schily, eine US-Adresse stillzulegen.
 http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/politik/0,1518,179467,00.html

Sex.com Loser Claims Poverty (Wired)
The man who took credit for turning the domain name Sex.com into a
multimillion-dollar porn empire now says he is too poor to afford
toilet paper.
In a motion filed in federal court this week, Stephen Michael Cohen,
the former operator of the website Sex.com, asked a judge to set
aside a ruling requiring him to pay $65 million in damages to the
site's current owner.
 http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,50104,00.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1024
*************************