Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1029
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, February 5 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1029

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:35:29 +0100 (MET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Has anybody seen some signs of life?

Domainisland (www.domainislanfd.com)
my mistake: --> www.domainisland.com
- --
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, 4 Feb 2002 17:20:12 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

Assembly,

It has come to my attention that Enom has found an alternative way of making 
money on "late" renewals.
Now I am not opposed to anyone making a decent profit but it seems to me that 
by doing the following:

Charging a customer a $ 20 surcharge for renewals after expiry date.

Enom creates a think layer between the intrest of the registrar to renew 
ontime and to renew to late.

Given the pro-rata same amount of work (or less if we "forget" a reminder or 
two) charging an amount this size can paint a picture from a client point of 
view that will add to the "weird" impression more and more clients get from 
the registrar community.

I wonder what the opinion of the GA is in this matter

abel

- -- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
- --
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, 4 Feb 2002 09:43:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

Abel,

most registrars (including alice's registry) contain a provision in their
registration agreements that reserve the right to charge a customer to
"revive" a registration that has expired.

there may be alot of work involved ro revive registrations hense the
proision for the charge.

- -rick

On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Abel Wisman wrote:

> Assembly,
>
> It has come to my attention that Enom has found an alternative way of making
> money on "late" renewals.
> Now I am not opposed to anyone making a decent profit but it seems to me that
> by doing the following:
>
> Charging a customer a $ 20 surcharge for renewals after expiry date.
>
> Enom creates a think layer between the intrest of the registrar to renew
> ontime and to renew to late.
>
> Given the pro-rata same amount of work (or less if we "forget" a reminder or
> two) charging an amount this size can paint a picture from a client point of
> view that will add to the "weird" impression more and more clients get from
> the registrar community.
>
> I wonder what the opinion of the GA is in this matter
>
> abel
>
> --
> Abel Wisman
> office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
> mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16
>
> www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
> www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
> www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
> www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:24:47 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

Abel and all assembly members,

  I see nothing wrong with charging a "Late Fee" for those whom are
somewhat late in renewing their Domain Name registrations.  But ONLY
by the original registrant.  Failing that, than the Domain Name should
be deleted.

Abel Wisman wrote:

> Assembly,
>
> It has come to my attention that Enom has found an alternative way of making
> money on "late" renewals.
> Now I am not opposed to anyone making a decent profit but it seems to me that
> by doing the following:
>
> Charging a customer a $ 20 surcharge for renewals after expiry date.
>
> Enom creates a think layer between the intrest of the registrar to renew
> ontime and to renew to late.
>
> Given the pro-rata same amount of work (or less if we "forget" a reminder or
> two) charging an amount this size can paint a picture from a client point of
> view that will add to the "weird" impression more and more clients get from
> the registrar community.
>
> I wonder what the opinion of the GA is in this matter
>
> abel
>
> --
> Abel Wisman
> office  +44-20 84 24 24 2 2
> mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16
>
> www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
> www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
> www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
> www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
> --
> 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, 4 Feb 2002 23:51:51 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS: GA questions to Verisign

- --8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw"
Content-Disposition: inline

- --GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

We have time until Friday to collect our questions on the revised=20
WLS proposal, and submit these to Verisign.

I'll collect anything you rise now, and try to summarize these in a=20
collective document.  The first three questions are included in the=20
attachment. ;-) New drafts will be posted as necessary.

Of course, if questions can be solved on this list before Friday, we=20
can still drop these from our paper.

- --=20
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- --GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="draft-ga-vsgn-wls-questions-00.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

DNSO General Assembly					February 04, 2001
draft-ga-vsgn-wls-questions-00.txt

	 GA Questions on The Revised Waiting Listing Service

1. Are existing SnapBack holders going to be WLS subscribers,=20
automatically? (George Kirikos)

2. Will the current bulk deletion process continue to be used?
(George Kirikos)

3. Can Verisign (registry) assure the community that registrars
offering this service on a world-wide basis are not going to face
legal problems?  In an earlier message (*) sent to the registrars'
list, Jim Archer raises some questions on this, arguing that
offering WLS subscriptions may be considered commodity trading.  If
such problems exist even in some (possibly obscure) jurisdictions,
this would introduce an unfair national bias into the system.
(Thomas Roessler)

(*) <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01852.html>

- --GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw--

- --8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

- --8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ--
- --
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, 4 Feb 2002 20:55:35 -0500
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

>most registrars (including alice's registry) contain a provision in
their
>registration agreements that reserve the right to charge a customer to
>"revive" a registration that has expired.

>there may be alot of work involved ro revive registrations hense the
>proision for the charge.

I have never heard of such a thing.  I use Tucows to register my domains
and the cost is exactly the same whether I renewal before or after the
expiration date.  Why would this cost be different for other regisrars?
What exactly is this "be alot of work involved" referring to?

Russ Smith

- --
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, 4 Feb 2002 20:57:19 -0500
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS: GA questions to Verisign

>We have time until Friday to collect our questions on the revised 
>WLS proposal, and submit these to Verisign.

I suggest all VeriSign proposals be placed "on hold" until the issues
concerning locking domains being transferred to other registrars is
resoved.

Russ Smith

- --
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, 4 Feb 2002 21:08:19 -0500
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: [ga] VeriSign engaging in Trademark fraud to obtain domains

VeriSign (formerly Network Solutions) has obtained both "cctld.info" and
"cctlds.inf"  [1 Global Place is owned by VeriSign (formerly Network
Solutions)] during the Sunrise Period using the trademark name "Example
Trademark" with trademark number "4567123" obtained on 9/3/2000.  

All VeriSign proposals should be placed on hold while this fraud is
investigated.

Russ Smith

Domain ID:  D64695-LRMS  
Domain Name:  CCTLD.INFO  
Created On:  16-Aug-2001 00:12:06 UTC  
Expiration Date:  16-Aug-2006 00:12:06 UTC  
Trademark Name:  Example Trademark  
Trademark Date:  2000-09-03  
Trademark Country:  US  
Trademark Number:  4567123  
Sponsoring Registrar:  Melbourne IT Limited dba Internet Names WorldWide
(R141-LRMS)  
Status:  ACTIVE  
Status:  LOCKED  
Status:  OK  
Registrant ID:  C165386-LRMS  
Registrant Name:  1GP Administration  
Registrant Organization:  1GlobalPlace, Inc.  
Registrant Street1:  2629 Manhattan Avenue, PMB 292  
Registrant City:  Hermosa Beach  
Registrant State/Province:  CA  
Registrant Postal Code:  90254  
Registrant Country:  US  
Registrant Email:  [email-masked]  
Admin ID:  C165385-LRMS  
Admin Name:  1GP Administration  
Admin Street1:  2629 Manhattan Avenue, PMB 292  
Admin City:  Hermosa Beach  
Admin State/Province:  CA  
Admin Postal Code:  90254  
Admin Country:  US  
Admin Phone:  +1.13105676329  
Admin Email:  [email-masked]  
Billing ID:  C165387-LRMS  
Billing Name:  1GP Billing  
Billing Street1:  2629 Manhattan Avenue, PMB 292  
Billing City:  Hermosa Beach  
Billing State/Province:  CA  
Billing Postal Code:  90254  
Billing Country:  US  
Billing Phone:  +1.13105676329  
Billing Email:  [email-masked]  
Tech ID:  C165388-LRMS  
Tech Name:  1GP Technical  
Tech Street1:  2629 Manhattan Avenue, PMB 292  
Tech City:  Hermosa Beach  
Tech State/Province:  CA  
Tech Postal Code:  90254  
Tech Country:  US  
Tech Phone:  +1.13105676329  
Tech Email:  [email-masked]  
Name Server:  NS1.1GLOBALPLACE.NET  
Name Server:  NS2.1GLOBALPLACE.NET  

Domain ID:  D64696-LRMS  
Domain Name:  CCTLDS.INFO  
Created On:  16-Aug-2001 00:12:22 UTC  
Expiration Date:  16-Aug-2006 00:12:22 UTC  
Trademark Name:  Example Trademark  
Trademark Date:  2000-09-04  
Trademark Country:  US  
Trademark Number:  5671234  
Sponsoring Registrar:  Melbourne IT Limited dba Internet Names WorldWide
(R141-LRMS)  
Status:  ACTIVE  
Status:  LOCKED  
Status:  OK  
Registrant ID:  C165390-LRMS  
Registrant Name:  1GP Administration  
Registrant Organization:  1GlobalPlace, Inc.  
Registrant Street1:  2629 Manhattan Avenue, PMB 292  
Registrant City:  Hermosa Beach  
Registrant State/Province:  CA  
Registrant Postal Code:  90254  
Registrant Country:  US  
Registrant Email:  [email-masked]  
Admin ID:  C165389-LRMS  
Admin Name:  1GP Administration  
Admin Street1:  2629 Manhattan Avenue, PMB 292  
Admin City:  Hermosa Beach  
Admin State/Province:  CA  
Admin Postal Code:  90254  
Admin Country:  US  
Admin Phone:  +1.13105676329  
Admin Email:  [email-masked]  
Billing ID:  C165391-LRMS  
Billing Name:  1GP Billing  
Billing Street1:  2629 Manhattan Avenue, PMB 292  
Billing City:  Hermosa Beach  
Billing State/Province:  CA  
Billing Postal Code:  90254  
Billing Country:  US  
Billing Phone:  +1.13105676329  
Billing Email:  [email-masked]  
Tech ID:  C165392-LRMS  
Tech Name:  1GP Technical  
Tech Street1:  2629 Manhattan Avenue, PMB 292  
Tech City:  Hermosa Beach  
Tech State/Province:  CA  
Tech Postal Code:  90254  
Tech Country:  US  
Tech Phone:  +1.13105676329  
Tech Email:  [email-masked]  
Name Server:  NS1.1GLOBALPLACE.NET  
Name Server:  NS2.1GLOBALPLACE.NET  

- --
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, 4 Feb 2002 18:44:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, admin wrote:

> >most registrars (including alice's registry) contain a provision in
> their
> >registration agreements that reserve the right to charge a customer to
> >"revive" a registration that has expired.
>
> >there may be alot of work involved ro revive registrations hense the
> >proision for the charge.
>
> I have never heard of such a thing.

ok.

> I use Tucows to register my domains and the cost is exactly the same
> whether I renewal before or after the expiration date.

that all depends on how long after the expiration date you renew, wait 60
days after the expiration date and see if you can renew that domain.

> Why would this cost be different for other regisrars? What exactly is
> this "be alot of work involved" referring to?

because its up to registrars how to write their registration agreements
and how to implement their technology.

understand that alice's registry has never charged a fee for re-instating
a deleted domain; however the provision exists and this is what i wanted
to point out.

- -rick

- --
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, 4 Feb 2002 20:54:32 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WLS: GA questions to Verisign

I think we can all identify and agree that what you have encountered
is an abuse, which needs to be corrected.

However, there is a task force (work group or whatever the correct nom
de plume may be) which is working on this very issue. Further, the
problem you cite is with the Registrar -- not the Registry. It is the
Registry (VGRS), which has requested the questions and then, at a
later date, the feedback, from the GA. I, for only one, think we
should be responsive. It is an important matter, IMHO.

Yes, but it is the same company, you say. Of course it is, but they
say they have this Chinese wall which prevents the left hand from
knowing anything about what the right hand is doing.

There may very well be a Chinese wall, but, then again, many of the
executives, on either side, may very well speak the language.
Regardless, this issue is with the Registry, not the Registrar
responsible for the abuse you cite.

Monday, February 04, 2002, 7:57:19 PM, admin <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>We have time until Friday to collect our questions on the revised 
>>WLS proposal, and submit these to Verisign.

a> I suggest all VeriSign proposals be placed "on hold" until the issues
a> concerning locking domains being transferred to other registrars is
a> resoved.

a> Russ Smith

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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:00:05 -0500
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

>> I use Tucows to register my domains and the cost is exactly the same
>> whether I renewal before or after the expiration date.

>that all depends on how long after the expiration date you renew, wait
60
>days after the expiration date and see if you can renew that domain.

==

By 60 days the domain is expired and placed back into the pool of
available domains.  If it is still available it can be reregistered.  If
this happens the end user would *save* money because that 2 month period
in the expiratory state is not paid for.  If it has been re-registered
you cannot get it back without an ownership transfer so a set fee does
not make sense.  

==

>> Why would this cost be different for other regisrars? What exactly is
>> this "be alot of work involved" referring to?

>because its up to registrars how to write their registration agreements
>and how to implement their technology.

==

How they write their registration agreement has nothing to do with it.
The issue is any extra costs they would incur if they renewed a domain
after the expiratory date. 

==

>understand that alice's registry has never charged a fee for
re-instating
>a deleted domain; however the provision exists and this is what i
wanted
>to point out.

I don't know who "alice" is or if she is in "wonderland" but I think we
can conclude that there is no extra fee for the registrars when they
renew a domain after the expiratory date.  It is simply a way for
registrars to charge extra fees to users who let their domain expire.
By then the domain can be locked and the registrar can force the user to
pay this extra (for nothing) if they want their domain back.

Russ Smith

- --
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, 4 Feb 2002 22:06:59 -0500
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] WLS: GA questions to Verisign

>However, there is a task force (work group or whatever the correct nom
>de plume may be) which is working on this very issue. 

There has been a task force on this issue forever.  Nothing has been
done.  Therefore, this issue should be handled before any further issues
involving VeriSign is discussed.

>Further, the
>roblem you cite is with the Registrar -- not the Registry...

>this issue is with the Registry, not the Registrar
>responsible for the abuse you cite.

I am unwilling to accept this distinction (more correctly described a s
"fantasy").  It is VeriSign, plain and simple.

All VeriSign proposals should be tabled until the locking issue is
resolved.  Those working on the proposal should redirect their efforts
to the registrar transfer committee until the issue is resolved.

Russ Smith   

- --
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, 4 Feb 2002 19:27:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

Russ,

On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, admin wrote:

> It is simply a way for registrars to charge extra fees to users who
> let their domain expire. By then the domain can be locked and the
> registrar can force the user to pay this extra (for nothing) if they
> want their domain back.

If a domain is deleted outside the grace period it goes on registry-hold
(a function automatticly applied by the registry) which a registrar can
work with the registry to undo, this is a service and isn't done often.

I'd tried to explain some of these issues to you; i don't know if i
getting through and since this will be my third post for the day on the ga
list I'll call it quits.

- -rick

p.s.

  :0 H:
  * admin <[email-masked]>
  ${NULL}

- --
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, 4 Feb 2002 22:35:02 -0500
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

>If a domain is deleted outside the grace period it goes on
registry-hold
>(a function automatticly applied by the registry) which a registrar can
>work with the registry to undo, this is a service and isn't done often.

This is the 5-day registry hold.  This does not happen after expiratory.
It is extremely rare that the person would ask for the domain back
during this 5-day period and is not the issue being discussed.

>I'd tried to explain some of these issues to you; 

you have done a poor job.

>p.s.

 > :0 H:
 > * admin <[email-masked]>
 > ${NULL}

OK, so you are arrogant as well as being incapable of explaining your
issue.  Who cares?

Russ Smith

- --
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, 4 Feb 2002 21:37:47 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

Monday, February 04, 2002, 8:44:07 PM, Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]> wrote:
RHW> On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, admin wrote:

>> >most registrars (including alice's registry) contain a provision in
>> their
>> >registration agreements that reserve the right to charge a customer to
>> >"revive" a registration that has expired.
>>
>> >there may be alot of work involved ro revive registrations hense the
>> >proision for the charge.
>>
>> I have never heard of such a thing.

RHW> ok.

>> I use Tucows to register my domains and the cost is exactly the same
>> whether I renewal before or after the expiration date.

RHW> that all depends on how long after the expiration date you renew, wait 60
RHW> days after the expiration date and see if you can renew that domain.

>> Why would this cost be different for other regisrars? What exactly is
>> this "be alot of work involved" referring to?

RHW> because its up to registrars how to write their registration agreements
RHW> and how to implement their technology.

RHW> understand that alice's registry has never charged a fee for re-instating
RHW> a deleted domain; however the provision exists and this is what i wanted
RHW> to point out.
RHW> -rick

I think that's great that they have never imposed the additional fee.

The post-expiration grace period is (I believe) meant to protect the
interests of the Registrant (maybe other things, as well). For the
sake of argument, let's assume that it doesn't cost the Registrar
anything more to renew at post-expiration as it does to renew prior to
expiration.

If the foregoing is true, then, where is the justification for
penalizing the Registrant for renewing post-expiration? I don't see
one, but I have weary eyes and wear glasses :-). Maybe someone knows
the secret, which doesn't translate to "abuse," "profiteering," or an
"indiscretion of power."

The consumer, in my experience, has a "very, very long memory" and I
don't think that it is in the best interest of any player in this
market, to deposit a "bad taste" in their mouth. Moreover, I submit
that we'll lose the additional surcharge, or penalty, in the round off
errors, but the consumer takes those round-off errors to the bank!

There is a difference in prospective.  Prospective is, more often than
not, considered reality.

FWIW.

Thanks,

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:47:05 -0500
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

>The consumer, in my experience, has a "very, very long memory" and I
>don't think that it is in the best interest of any player in this
>market, to deposit a "bad taste" in their mouth. Moreover, I submit
>that we'll lose the additional surcharge, or penalty, in the round off
>errors, but the consumer takes those round-off errors to the bank!

I am getting tired this argument as an excuse for not resolving these
issues.  ICANN uses it for doing nothing ... VeriSign uses it ... and
now everybody is getting used to using it.  The issue is companies
locking domains after the expiratory.  By then it is too late for the
registrant to do research on the different registrars.  In the case of
VeriSign locking people trying to leave most users registered during the
monopoly period so ignoring the issue to depend on "market forces"
doesn't solve the immediate problem.

Russ Smith

- --
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, 4 Feb 2002 23:03:25 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

Monday, February 04, 2002, 9:47:05 PM, admin <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>The consumer, in my experience, has a "very, very long memory" and I
>>don't think that it is in the best interest of any player in this
>>market, to deposit a "bad taste" in their mouth. Moreover, I submit
>>that we'll lose the additional surcharge, or penalty, in the round off
>>errors, but the consumer takes those round-off errors to the bank!

a> I am getting tired this argument as an excuse for not resolving these
a> issues.  ICANN uses it for doing nothing ... VeriSign uses it ... and
a> now everybody is getting used to using it.  The issue is companies
a> locking domains after the expiratory.  By then it is too late for the
a> registrant to do research on the different registrars.  In the case of
a> VeriSign locking people trying to leave most users registered during the
a> monopoly period so ignoring the issue to depend on "market forces"
a> doesn't solve the immediate problem.
a> Russ Smith

What's the beef?  My statements were on the side of the consumer.

Has this eaten you up, to the extend that you can't recognize friend
foe?  If so, you need a walk in the park.  A bunch of ice cubes with
which to chill and bunches of drinks . . .

It would be good if you drank this subject matter, objective. :-)

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

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

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:32:35 -0500
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

> What's the beef?  My statements were on the side of the consumer.

The beef is that everybody sits on these lists, regardless of their
position, and spouts out the same excuses not to do anything.  The
Registry is separate, "market forces" will fix the problem, there is a
committee looking at that, ICANN doesn't look at that issue .... 

and now they say they searched the world and could only find Crispin as
the ICANN technical manager.  Is anyone going to seriously argue that is
nothing more than a payoff for repeating all the excuses above over and
over and over until people actually think they are legitimate excuses?

Russ Smith

- --
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, 05 Feb 2002 02:40:29 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] Kent Crispin Joins ICANN as Technical Systems Manager

All assembly members,

  This recently came from ICANN Announce.

  This decision although not all that surprising, is a HUGE mistake
IOHO!  :(

  Kent Crispin has shown beyond any shadow of a doubt that his
knowledge base as it especially relates to Security matters is
terribly lacking....  This is well documented on various forums...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Marina del Rey, California, USA (5 February 2001) -- Following a long
> international search, ICANN is pleased to announce the appointment of
> Kent Crispin as Technical Systems Manager of ICANN effective
> immediately. Kent's long experience as a technical manager and project
> leader at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory makes him ideally
> suited for this role. He has considerable experience with high-security
> network environments.
>
> As Technical Systems Manager, Kent is responsible to the President and
> CEO for the technical architecture and operational functions of ICANN.
>
> ======================================================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, send an e-mail to <[email-masked]>
> with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1029
*************************