Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1026
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, February 2 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1026

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

Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:31:50 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Please stop this discussion. (Re: [ga] Re: Jumping Up Every Five Minutes)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:06 AM
Subject: Please stop this discussion. (Re: [ga] Re: Jumping Up Every Five
Minutes)

> Could we just stop this thread, please?
>
Are saying that discussion of this nature is banned on the list?

- --
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 13:48:30 -0600 
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] gTLD Comments on .org (PLEASE POST ON NC LIST)

The following are the public comments of the gTLD constituency (the
"Constituency" or "we") on the final report of the Task Force on the
divestiture of .org which was approved by the Names Council as a consensus
policy recommendation to the ICANN Board. We have no comments on the Final
Report itself that can be meaningfully expressed in a public comment,
however, we note that certain opinions have been voiced in the discussion of
the latest drafts and subsequent to the Final Report's issuance. The
Constituency is so concerned by these statements, that we are submitting the
following comments to establish our position on the same.

We are particularly concerned by the view expressed by the Business
Constituency and Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency that the
"market position of existing dominant providers are not entrenched nor
enhanced through participation in, taking an interest in, or contracting to
deliver critical services to, the new .org management organization."

Any such restriction or prohibition on the participation, interest or
contracting ability of certain "dominant" providers raises significant
concerns.  Defining "dominant" providers, actors or service providers is not
easily accomplished, and has not been done.  As a result, existing
registrars, registries, ISPs (i.e. AT&T, British Telecom, IBM, etc.) could
be arbitrarily excluded from providing contract services.

Such a prohibition is also fundamentally anti-competitive and may ultimately
add to the cost of services provided by the registry.  By restricting the
ability of the .org registry to choose its contractors or service providers
and creating an artificial exclusion of certain market players, there will
be less competition for services, and lower costs to the registry may well
be forgone if the excluded parties are indeed offering the most competitive
prices.  Moreover, the limitation may also exclude provision of services by
the most efficient and reliable parties, thereby hindering the performance
of the .org registry.

Forcing the registry to pay higher prices for whatever they procure results
in a higher cost structure for effected registries and this higher cost
structure is eventually passed along to registrants.  ICANN intervention
into the ability of the .org registry to sub-contract or otherwise work
with, seek participation from "dominant players" is not only outside of the
scope of ICANN's mandate and mission, it also imposes a tax on registrants
and eventually makes the registration service less interesting in the
market.

For each of the foregoing reasons, the Constituency strongly objects to the
view that there be any restriction upon the .org
registry's ability to freely seek participation or contracting services from
any players or actors that it deems capable of
ensuring the secure and reliable operation of the domain.

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: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:05:26 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] At-Large Supporting Organization

Establishing a proposed ICANN "At-Large Supporting Organization"
If you are interested in exploring a role for your organization in
establishing a proposed ICANN "At-Large Supporting Organization" to
provide an individual user view on technical coordination of the
Internet's domain name system, please send an email to
[email-masked] by February 15, 2002. Read on for more
details!

http://www.atlargestudy.org/solicitation.shtml

Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 23:10:17 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Registrar Domain Hoarding?

What should I think of the data below? When is this domain going to be
released? This century?

[email-masked]

[...]
   Domain Name: NUMBER9.ORG
   Registrar: REGISTER.COM, INC.
   Whois Server: whois.register.com
   Referral URL: http://www.register.com
   Name Server: DNS7.REGISTER.COM
   Name Server: DNS8.REGISTER.COM
   Updated Date: 04-jan-2002

>>> Last update of whois database: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:15:20 EST <<<

[...]

You may be able to buy this domain name through http://www.afternic.com/offer

   Organization:
      register.com
      Unpaid Names Department-R
      575 Eighth Avenue
      New York, NY 10018
      US
      Phone: 212-798-9200
      Fax..: 212-594-9876
      Email: [email-masked]

   Registrar Name....: Register.com
   Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
   Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com

   Domain Name: NUMBER9.ORG

      Created on..............: Mon, Feb 21, 2000
      Expires on..............: Wed, Feb 21, 2001
      Record last updated on..: Sat, Jan 05, 2002

   Administrative Contact:
      register.com
      Unpaid Names Department-R
      575 Eighth Avenue
      New York, NY 10018
      US
      Phone: 212-798-9200
      Fax..: 212-594-9876
      Email: [email-masked]

   Technical Contact:
      register.com
      Unpaid Names Department-R
      575 Eighth Avenue
      New York, NY 10018
      US
      Phone: 212-798-9200
      Fax..: 212-594-9876
      Email: [email-masked]

   Zone Contact:
      register.com
      Unpaid Names Department-R
      575 Eighth Avenue
      New York, NY 10018
      US
      Phone: 212-798-9200
      Fax..: 212-594-9876
      Email: [email-masked]

   Domain servers in listed order:

   DNS7.REGISTER.COM                                 216.21.234.74
   DNS8.REGISTER.COM                                 209.67.50.34

Register your domain name at http://www.register.com

You may be able to buy this domain name through http://www.afternic.com/offer

- --
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 19:39:38 -0500
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: [ga] VeriSign still locking domains 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_009F_01C1AB58.2FA0BEA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

VeriSign still locking domains in violation of the ICANN contracts.
ICANN still won't anything and just keeps diverting complaints.  The
e-mail address at VeriSign where they handled manual processing of the
domains they locked in violation of the rules is not being answered.
The VeriSign registry says they cannot do anything.
 
I feel that all proposals by VeriSign . registrar or registry . should
be put on hold until this issue, that was supposed to be handled last
summer, is resolved.
 
Russ Smith

 
- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 6:09 PM
To: [email-masked]'

I am seeking a reconsideration request for the actions, or more
appropriately, inaction by a member of the ICANN staff Dam Halloran as
well as general ICANN policy for handling complaints from individual
domain registrants.  I am a reseller and provide domain registration
services at http://TheNIC.com <http://thenic.com/> .  The actions (and
inactions) by the ICANN have served to allowed both the VeriSign
Registrar and Registry (formerly Network Solutions) to disrupt
competitors of the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions)
including my business as well as domain holders.
 
The issue concerning Dan Halloran is his refusal to enforce the
registrar transfer procedures described in the letter from Louis Touton
to Ms. Russo of the VeriSign Registry:
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/touton-to-russo-27aug01.htm 
 
Mr. Halloran has received hundreds of complaints and has verified that
the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) has not followed the
procedures outlined in the ICANN agreement and the letter above.
Specifically, the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) denies
all transfers if they, as the losing registrar, claim they did not
receive a properly processed authorization request.  
 
This placed a tremendous burden on registrars competing with the
VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) since the administrative
work was substantially more in these cases.  While this situation has
lasted many months, in the past the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network
Solutions) has provided a contact of someone who processed requests
manually.    Now the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) has
provided a new contact for such manual submissions ([email-masked]).
However, requests to process the transfers manually are not completed
and e-mail sent to this address is not answered.  According to a
telephone conversation with Christine Russo, Manager, Contracts and
Compliance VeriSign Global Registry Services, she stated she was unable
to take any action against the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network
Solutions) and could probably not find out who at the VeriSign Registrar
(formerly Network Solutions) who could manually transfer locked domains
that should have been transferred to another registrar under the rules. 
 
The second issue concerns the overall ICANN policy at 
http://www.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi
 
The policy states:
"If you cannot resolve your complaint with the registrar, you should
address it to private-sector agencies involved in addressing customer
complaints or governmental consumer-protection agencies. (The
appropriate agency will vary depending on the jurisdiction of the
registrar and the customer.) .. ICANN does not resolve individual
customer complaints. ICANN is a technical-coordination body. Its primary
objective is to coordinate the Internet's system of assigned names and
numbers to promote stable operation."
Diverting domain name consumers to "other" private or governmental
agencies is not practicable or reasonable in most cases.  The majority
of complaints involve issues that solely relate to domain names and few,
if any, other agencies or organization would be able to help with, or
even understand, the issues involved.  Further, if action is to be
taken, it is ICANN or the VeriSign registry who would take such action
in almost all cases.  Since the majority of complaints involve the
VeriSign Registrar if is not reasonable to expect the VeriSign registry
to take any action against their sister company.  Therefore, ICANN is
the only possible agency or organization who can assist with these
matters and is the only party who can enforce the contracts ICANN has
with the registrars and registry.   This task falls well within
"coordinate[ion] the Internet's system of assigned names and numbers to
promote stable operation."
I am requesting that ICANN require the VeriSign Registrar (formerly
Network Solutions) to comply with the register transfers rules.   I am
also requesting ICANN to provide reasonable information to domain
registrations who wish to file a complaint and set up system within
ICANN to process and resolve such complaints as well as taking
enforcement action when the complaints involve enforcing the ICANN
contracts.
Russ Smith
http://consumer.net <http://consumer.net/> 

 

- ------=_NextPart_000_009F_01C1AB58.2FA0BEA0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">

<meta name=3DProgId content=3DWord.Document>
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10">
<meta name=3DOriginator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10">
<link rel=3DFile-List href=3D"cid:[email-masked]">
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"time"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"PersonName"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"date"/>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
  <o:DoNotRelyOnCSS/>
 </o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <w:WordDocument>
  <w:SpellingState>Clean</w:SpellingState>
  <w:DocumentKind>DocumentEmail</w:DocumentKind>
  <w:EnvelopeVis/>
  <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
 </w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
	mso-font-charset:0;
	mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
	mso-font-pitch:variable;
	mso-font-signature:553679495 -2147483648 8 0 66047 0;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{mso-style-parent:"";
	margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";
	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;
	text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;
	text-underline:single;}
p
	{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0in;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0in;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:Arial;
	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
	{mso-style-type:personal;
	mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
	mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:Arial;
	mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
	mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
	mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
	color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
	mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:Arial;
	mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
	mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
	mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
	color:navy;}
@page Section1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
	mso-header-margin:.5in;
	mso-footer-margin:.5in;
	mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
- -->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
 /* Style Definitions */=20
 table.MsoNormalTable
	{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
	mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-style-parent:"";
	mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
	mso-para-margin:0in;
	mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
</head>

<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple =
style=3D'tab-interval:.5in'>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>VeriSign still locking domains in
violation of the ICANN contracts.<span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp;
</span>ICANN still won&#8217;t anything and just keeps diverting
complaints.<span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp; </span>The e-mail =
address at
VeriSign where they handled manual processing of the domains they locked =
in
violation of the rules is not being answered.<span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp; </span>The VeriSign registry says they =
cannot
do anything.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I feel that all proposals by =
VeriSign &#8230;
registrar or registry &#8230; should be put on hold until this issue, =
that was
supposed to be handled last summer, is =
resolved.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Russ =
Smith<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] <br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> =
</span></font><st1:date
Month=3D"2" Day=3D"1" Year=3D"2002"><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:
 10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>Friday, February 01, =
2002</span></font></st1:date><font
size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> </span></font><st1:time
Hour=3D"18" Minute=3D"9"><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
 font-family:Tahoma'>6:09 PM</span></font></st1:time><font size=3D2 =
face=3DTahoma><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'><br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> =
[email-masked]'<br
style=3D'mso-special-character:line-break'>
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]><br =
style=3D'mso-special-character:line-break'>
<![endif]></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>I am seeking a reconsideration request for the =
actions, or
more appropriately, inaction by a member of the ICANN staff Dam Halloran =
as
well as general ICANN policy for handling complaints from individual =
domain
registrants.<span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp; </span>I am a =
reseller and
provide domain registration services at <a =
href=3D"http://thenic.com/">http://TheNIC.com</a>.<span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp; </span>The actions (and inactions) by =
the ICANN
have served to allowed both the VeriSign Registrar and Registry =
(formerly Network
Solutions) to disrupt competitors of the VeriSign Registrar (formerly =
Network
Solutions) including my business as well as domain =
holders.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>The issue concerning Dan Halloran is his refusal to =
enforce the
registrar transfer procedures described in the letter from Louis Touton =
to Ms.
Russo of the VeriSign Registry:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><a
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/correspondence/touton-to-russo-27aug01.htm">=
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/touton-to-russo-27aug01.htm</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Mr. Halloran has received hundreds of complaints and =
has
verified that the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) has =
not
followed the procedures outlined in the ICANN agreement and the letter
above.<span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp; =
</span>Sp</span></font><st1:PersonName><font
 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-family:Arial'>ec</span></font></st1:PersonName><font
face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-family:Arial'>ifically, the VeriSign =
Registrar
(formerly Network Solutions) </span></font><st1:PersonName><font =
face=3DArial><span
 style=3D'font-family:Arial'>den</span></font></st1:PersonName><font =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-family:Arial'>ies all transfers if they, as the losing =
registrar,
claim they did not r</span></font><st1:PersonName><font =
face=3DArial><span
 style=3D'font-family:Arial'>ec</span></font></st1:PersonName><font =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-family:Arial'>eive a properly processed authorization =
request.<span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp; </span><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>This placed a tremendous =
bur</span></font><st1:PersonName><font
 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-family:Arial'>den</span></font></st1:PersonName><font
face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-family:Arial'> on registrars competing =
with the
VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) since the administrative =
work
was substantially more in these cases.<span =
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp;
</span>While this situation has lasted many months, in the past the =
VeriSign
Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) has provided a contact of someone =
who
processed requests manually.<span =
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
</span>Now the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) has =
provided a
new contact for such manual submissions (<a =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a>).<span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp; </span>However, requests to process =
the
transfers manually are not completed and e-mail sent to this address is =
not
answered.<span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp; </span>According to a =
telephone
conversation with Christine Russo, Manager, Contracts and Compliance =
VeriSign
Global Registry Services, she stated she was unable to take any action =
against
the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) and could probably =
not find
out who at the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) who could
manually transfer locked domains that should have been transferred to =
another
registrar under the rules. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>The s</span></font><st1:PersonName><font =
face=3DArial><span
 style=3D'font-family:Arial'>ec</span></font></st1:PersonName><font =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-family:Arial'>ond issue concerns the overall ICANN policy =
at <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><a
href=3D"http://www.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi">http:/=
/www.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi</a><o:p></o:p></span>=
</font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>The policy states:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&#8220;If you cannot
resolve your complaint with the registrar, you should address it to =
private-s</span></font><st1:PersonName>ec</st1:PersonName>tor
agencies involved in addressing customer complaints or =
go<st1:PersonName>vern</st1:PersonName>mental
consumer-prot<st1:PersonName>ec</st1:PersonName>tion agencies. (The =
appropriate
agency will vary depending on the jurisdiction of the registrar and the
customer.) &#8230;.<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'> ICANN does not =
resolve
individual customer complaints.</span></b> ICANN is a =
t<st1:PersonName>ec</st1:PersonName>hnical-coordination
body. Its primary obj<st1:PersonName>ec</st1:PersonName>tive is to =
coordinate
the Internet's system of assigned names and numbers to promote stable
operation.&#8221;<o:p></o:p></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Diverting domain name
consumers to &#8220;other&#8221; private or =
go</span></font><st1:PersonName>vern</st1:PersonName>mental
agencies is not practicable or reasonable in most cases.<span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp; </span>The majority of complaints =
involve
issues that solely relate to domain names and few, if any, other =
agencies or
organization would be able to help with, or even understand, the issues
involved.<span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp; </span>Further, if =
action is to
be taken, it is ICANN or the VeriSign registry who would take such =
action in
almost all cases.<span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp; </span>Since =
the
majority of complaints involve the VeriSign Registrar if is not =
reasonable to
exp<st1:PersonName>ec</st1:PersonName>t the VeriSign registry to take =
any
action against their sister company.<span =
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp;
</span>Therefore, ICANN is the only possible agency or organization who =
can
assist with these matters and is the only party who can enforce the =
contracts
ICANN has with the registrars and registry.<span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>This task falls well =
within
&#8220;coordinate[ion] the Internet's system of assigned names and =
numbers to
promote stable operation.&#8221;<o:p></o:p></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>I am =
requesting that
ICANN require the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) to =
comply
with the register transfers rules.<span =
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp;&nbsp;
</span>I am also requesting ICANN to provide reasonable =
</span></font><st1:PersonName>info</st1:PersonName>rmation
to domain registrations who wish to file a complaint and set up system =
within
ICANN to process and resolve such complaints as well as taking =
enforcement
action when the complaints involve enforcing the ICANN =
contracts.<o:p></o:p></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Russ =
Smith<br>
<a =
href=3D"http://consumer.net/">http://consumer.net</a><o:p></o:p></span></=
font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>

- ------=_NextPart_000_009F_01C1AB58.2FA0BEA0--

- --
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 20:39:13 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Playboy loses infringement case

Thought you might find this interesting.

CYBERSPACE LAW, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, TRADEMARK

    PLAYBOY ENTER., INC. v. WELLES, No. 00-55009, 00-55229, 00-55537,
    00-55538 (9th Cir. February 01, 2002)
    Defendant's use of "Playboy" and "Playmate of the Year" on her
    personal website's headlines, banner ads and metatags was correctly
    determined to be nominative use of plaintiff's marks, primarily
    because defendant was in fact a former playmate of the year.

    To read the full text of this opinion, go to:

    [PDF File]
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0055009p.pdf

[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: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 16:45:33 -0500
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reply comments to the gTLD Comments on .org

Reply comments of Milton Mueller
to the gTLD comments on the .org Task Force.

Please note that the entirety of the gTLDs' comments are aimed 
at the additional positions of two DNSO constituencies and not at 
the Task Force Report itself. 

The Task Force as a whole deliberately refrained from taking a position 
on the competition policy issue for two reasons: 
   First, because it did not seem to command a complete consensus
among the constituencies;
   Second, because we did not want the policymaking process to 
become bogged down in questions of defining "dominance" or in 
debate over phrasings that might be construed to include or exclude
specific applicants. 

That being said, when the Board makes its final selection among
applicants, it seems to me to be impossible for the Board to ignore
questions of competition policy. The whole process of removing
control of dot org from Verisign was motivated by a desire
to increase the number of players in the market and to reduce
Verisign's dominance of the registry marketplace. If we were
concerned exclusively with who was the low-cost provider
we might not need to divest .org at all.

Obviously the pro-competition policy proposed by NCDNHC and
B&C does not enjoy the same unanimous support enjoyed
by the Task Force report as a whole. That fact should not, 
however, prevent the Board from using simple common 
sense and taking competition, dominance and diversity into account 
when faced with a set of qualified applicants that differ significantly
in those dimensions. Consensus policies are binding on the 
Board, but while the consensus we are forwarding does not
REQUIRE the Board to exclude dominant providers, neither does it 
PREVENT it from doing so.

The economic reasoning behind Mr. Neumann's comments is
weak. Virtually any new registry is bound to have higher initial
costs than a dominant incumbent because of economies of
scale. However, it is well known in economics that in the long term
competition encourages DYNAMIC efficiencies that are far
more important to society than the static efficiencies that can
be measured by looking at current cost structures. For example,
the unit costs of new entrants in long distance telecommunications
were often higher than the incumbent in the 1980s; but their
competition led to investment in new transmission technolgoies,
notably fiber, that improved overall efficiency. 

Also, I would note that by Jeff's reasoning, ANY exclusion "reduces 
competition" and therefore we should not even exclude Verisign itself 
from applying for administration of the .org domain. Which seems
a bit absurd given the purpose of the .org divestiture.

It is not surprising that the gTLD constituency, which represents
incumbent registries who either collectively or individually 
account for a dominant share of the gTLD registry market, would
oppose a call for attentiveness to dominance in the final selection 
process. I am sure that the Board will be wise enough to take this 
into account in weighing the comments.

- --
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 23:25:21 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Reply comments to the gTLD Comments on .org

I fully support Milton's position. The registry market is a regulated
market. In such a market, you cannot apply free market principles
completely. The regulation diminishes competition by definition. It has to
counter that effect as well to avoid the evils of monopolies and cartels.
(This is even true when you start deregulating, which ICANN does not
really seem to be doing very well so far.) New players on the market have
to get a chance against the (former) monopolist or cartel.

Given the revenue of current registrations in ORG (slightly under 3
million), I doubt any new company would have to charge higher registry
fees than the $6 VeriSign now takes.

[email-masked]
GA rep on the ORG Task Force

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

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

Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 14:21:37 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] gTLD Comments on .org (PLEASE POST ON NC LIST)

Dear Jeff,
We would certainly prefer that the text spells out that VRSN and ICANN 
should not take advantage from the .org divestiture. When you divest it is 
not to take back. When you foster competition it is not to compete with 
yourself to your own benefit.

The divestiture should come with M$ 5 from Verisign to the new operator and 
with the transfer of the renewals fees for the 10 years to come that 
Verisign has collected as part of it s normal business. We certainly 
understand it would help the ICANN to keep a part of that amount 
and  Verisign not to pay the other part. Would that be fair to the other 
gTLDs? we may doubt it. Would that be innovative for .org? we may doubt it. 
Would that be good business administration? we may doubt it.

We may regret that the final text uses "provider" instead of "actor" as 
adopted at the NonCom. We may also regret that you miscontrue this as a 
position against IBM, BT, ATT who are parts of the BC. Actually for that 
very reason we may be surprised you could (Marilyn fighting the interests 
of AT&T???). Actually this list of yours makes plain that you did not quote 
the actual names you were concerned about.

The concern we may all share is that .org would look divested as part of 
the Plan B negotiation. There would be calls for an anti-trust 
investigation/action. This would be detrimental to the .org registrants and 
to the Global Internet Community, and to Verisign and to the ICANN 
themselves. Every other proposition is certainly worth to consider. 
Including the registration by the IANA of a few hundreds other TLDs in 
compliance with the RFC 920 which documented .org, lowering the importance 
of that divestiture.

Jefsey

PS. Jeff, may I ask you a stupid question? How does that come you belong to 
the gTLD constituency? Is not your ".biz" a chartered/specialized TLD for 
business? Or did you buy Lea's true ".biz" which has not such a limitation? 
Or would that mean that Joe Sims/Louis Touton are iinterested in the 
concept of sponsored TLDs only for ".org"?  And why one TLD is at the BC?

On 20:48 01/02/02, Neuman, Jeff said:

>The following are the public comments of the gTLD constituency (the
>"Constituency" or "we") on the final report of the Task Force on the
>divestiture of .org which was approved by the Names Council as a consensus
>policy recommendation to the ICANN Board. We have no comments on the Final
>Report itself that can be meaningfully expressed in a public comment,
>however, we note that certain opinions have been voiced in the discussion of
>the latest drafts and subsequent to the Final Report's issuance. The
>Constituency is so concerned by these statements, that we are submitting the
>following comments to establish our position on the same.
>
>We are particularly concerned by the view expressed by the Business
>Constituency and Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency that the
>"market position of existing dominant providers are not entrenched nor
>enhanced through participation in, taking an interest in, or contracting to
>deliver critical services to, the new .org management organization."
>
>Any such restriction or prohibition on the participation, interest or
>contracting ability of certain "dominant" providers raises significant
>concerns.  Defining "dominant" providers, actors or service providers is not
>easily accomplished, and has not been done.  As a result, existing
>registrars, registries, ISPs (i.e. AT&T, British Telecom, IBM, etc.) could
>be arbitrarily excluded from providing contract services.
>
>Such a prohibition is also fundamentally anti-competitive and may ultimately
>add to the cost of services provided by the registry.  By restricting the
>ability of the .org registry to choose its contractors or service providers
>and creating an artificial exclusion of certain market players, there will
>be less competition for services, and lower costs to the registry may well
>be forgone if the excluded parties are indeed offering the most competitive
>prices.  Moreover, the limitation may also exclude provision of services by
>the most efficient and reliable parties, thereby hindering the performance
>of the .org registry.
>
>Forcing the registry to pay higher prices for whatever they procure results
>in a higher cost structure for effected registries and this higher cost
>structure is eventually passed along to registrants.  ICANN intervention
>into the ability of the .org registry to sub-contract or otherwise work
>with, seek participation from "dominant players" is not only outside of the
>scope of ICANN's mandate and mission, it also imposes a tax on registrants
>and eventually makes the registration service less interesting in the
>market.
>
>For each of the foregoing reasons, the Constituency strongly objects to the
>view that there be any restriction upon the .org
>registry's ability to freely seek participation or contracting services from
>any players or actors that it deems capable of
>ensuring the secure and reliable operation of the domain.
>
>
>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.

- --
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 #1026
*************************