Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1030
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, February 5 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1030

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

Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 02:57:46 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS: GA questions to Verisign

Don, Russ and all assembly members,

admin wrote:

> >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 is a Transfer TF recently formed.  But the attempt and
seemingly consensus opinion of forming a WG for "Delete/WLS"
was blocked by our newly elected chair, Thomas Rossler and the
Secretariat.

>
>
> 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.

  I agree with you here Russ that in order to get something actually
done that putting all other Verisign or other registry related issues
on hold until the WLS/Delete issue is determined...

>
>
> >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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:14:57 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

On Tuesday 05 February 2002 2:44 am, Rick H Wesson wrote:

> > 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.

According to "rules" the domain should have been deleted by then, so this is 
a moot point.

> > 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.

And what I wanted to point out is that once we start with such a thing the 
intrest in renewing for the normal rate instead of have the chance of a levy 
of $ xx becomes a conflict of intrest.
Also there is no extra work involved so there is no justification, but then 
again, justification is not what is needed here.

> -rick

- -- 
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: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:57:35 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA summary 2002-05

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's (and related) 
discussions and news during the 5th week of 2002.  GA list archives 
are available online at 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/maillist.html>.  Please 
feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate.

			Names Council Changes

Caroline Chicoine and Guilermo Carey are stepping down from the 
Names Council.  The IPC is now represented on the Council by Ellen 
Shankman (Asia), J. Scott Evans (North America), and Laurence 
Djolakian (Europe). 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00108.html>

		Dot-Org Divestiture Comments Process

The GA members' statement on the .org task force's report has been
submitted to comments-dotorg last Friday, with a list of those who
signed for and against the statement.  GA members support the
unrestricted character of .org for current and future registrations,
emphasize the need for a complete divestiture, and thank Marc
Schneiders for his work.
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-dotorg/Arc02/msg00005.html>

The NCDNHC statement mainly supports the task force's draft, with an
emphasis on a noncommercial management organization for .org.  Also,
the NCDNHC members "oppose any attempt to restrict registrations in
.org", and "urge the board to increase competition and diversity",
"by ensuring that the market position of existing dominant actors
are not entrenched nor enhanced through participation in, taking an
interest in, or contracting to deliver critical services to the new
.org management organization."
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-dotorg/Arc02/msg00001.html>

The business constituency's comments agree on that particular point
(pretty much verbatim), but support restricted access which is to be
"applied in the least interventionist manner by way of ex-post
challenge to future new registrations" , and the "sponsored" model
for future management of .org.
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-dotorg/Arc02/msg00012.html>

The gTLD constituency has no comments on the final report itself
"that can be meaningfully expressed in a public comment" - whatever
the latter part of the sentence actually means.  However they are
"concerned" by the business and non-commercial constituencies' notes
quoted above, and call a prohibition like the one suggested
"fundamentally anti-competitive".  Also, the gTLD constituency says,
excluding certain players could increase prices and hinder the
performance of the .org registry because "the limitation may also
exclude provision of services by the most efficient and reliable
parties."
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-dotorg/Arc02/msg00006.html>

Milton Mueller replies to this that "if we were concerned
exclusively with who was the low-cost provider we might not need to
divest .org at all."
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-dotorg/Arc02/msg00007.html>

				Topics

(i) WLS.  Chuck Gomes of Verisign submitted a revised proposal for 
WLS, and a document titled "Justification for a registry-based Wait 
Listing Service".  In these documents, Verisign proposes the 
following process: Questions about the revised proposal should be 
provided until February 8 (this Friday).  Verisign will respond 
until February 15.  Final feedback should be submitted to Verisign 
until March 1st. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00773.html>

In a follow-up to Chuck's announcement, George Kirikos asks whether 
existing SnapBack holders are going to be grandfathered into the WLS 
system, and whether Verisign is continuing the current bulk deletion 
process.  According to George, there have been no such deletions for 
weeks.  There doesn't seem to be any answer on these questions, and 
no rebuttal of George's claim concerning current bulk deletion 
practices. <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00781.html>

In another note, Kristy McKee argues that WLS "simply adds another 
layer and increases the amount of money spent".  According to her, 
"those individuals and businesses currently 'pounding' on the whois 
database will continue to do so".  Instead of opening up new 
business opportunities, she argues, Verisign should improve their 
current registry system. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00778.html>

Don Brown is not the only one to remark that the new proposal isn't 
too different from the old one.  As he sees it, "the only difference 
[...] is the marketing spin on the objections".  In particular, he 
disputes Verisign's claims that "offering the WLS at the registry 
level is the only way to maximize consumer value for such a 
service", and that "the purchaser is free to decide how much it is 
worth and to act accordingly": "When there is only one source of 
supply, [...] the consumer will pay the tax man, because they have 
no choice." <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00806.html>

(ii) Domain hoarding (this is also a deleted domains handling issue, 
and may be something you want to think about when discussing WLS). 
Marc Schneiders posted whois output concerning a domain registered 
with register.com.  The domain expired on Feb 21 2001 (two thousand 
and one).  Marc asks in what century the domain is going to be 
released. <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00832.html>

(iii) Names Council Elections.  The discussion on Names Council 
elections continued mainly on the council's own mailing list.

However, there were some notes on the GA list, including two replies 
(by David Farrar and Don Brown) on the gTLD statement on the 
elections.  Both seem to agree with the gTLD constituency that the 
motion under debate should be deferred. As David puts it, "terms of 
office and term limits should not be changed in such a way which 
affect(s) an incumbent." 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00779.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00802.html>.

In a different part of the discussion, David also argues against 
Caroline Chicoine's revised motion to waive the provision of the 
Rules of Procedure for the DNSO, which prohibits a retiring chair 
 from running for re-election. He notes that waivers generally are 
used in exceptional circumstances, and expresses his hope that there 
is more than one member of the names council which would be suitable 
for the job.  He also suggests a rotating chairmanship, like it is 
known from the European Union's Presidency. (This message was also 
forwarded to the council list.) 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00793.html>,

To this, Jeff Neuman of Neustar replies that the gTLD response is 
advocating precisely such a rotating chairmanship. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00794.html>

A Names Council vote on the revised motion is about to be closed on 
February 5, 2002; results are due on Wednesday, February 6.  On the 
same day, the nomination period for the GA chair begins. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00093.html>

(iv) Renewal after expiry.  Abel Wisman asks about Enom charging 
customers USD 20 surcharge for renewals after expiry date.  To this, 
Rick Wesson replies that "most registrars contain a provision in 
their registration agreements that reserve(s) the right to charge a 
customer to 'revive'" such a registration.  According to Rick, there 
"may" be a lot of work involved with this, which justifies the 
surcharge. <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00843.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00844.html>.

(v) Russ Smith on Verisign.  Russ Smith of consumer.net sent four
messages complaining about Verisign's business practices.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00838.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00833.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00839.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00840.html>.

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:58:35 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:32:35 -0500, Russ Simith wrote:

> 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?

Hi Russ

That's news to me, thank you.

In a way I am pleased that Kent got the job as that puts paid to his phoney
pretence of impartiality and unbiased reporting.

Best 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: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:45:01 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS: GA questions to Verisign

Russ,

may I, first of all, suggest that you get yourself a decent real 
name in your message headers?  This would certainly increase 
readability, and would let you look a bit more polite.  Thank you.

On 2002-02-04 20:57:19 -0500, admin wrote:

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

On 2002-02-04 22:06:59 -0500, admin wrote:

>All VeriSign proposals should be tabled until the locking issue is 
>resolved.  

This suggestion of yours is well-known by now.  I'd strongly suggest 
that you don't waste your posting quota on this list (5 per day) by 
repeating this all over the place.

Also, disrupting discussions on other topics this way is anything 
but helpful.  It also won't help you to get an audience for the 
valid issues you are rising.

>Those working on the proposal should redirect their efforts to the 
>registrar transfer committee until the issue is resolved.

I _strongly_ disagree.  

Of course, assuming that the DNS world stands still until the 
transfer issue (or whatever else you consider important) is 
resolved, you're right.  However, that assumption fails miserably.

For instance, we have a deadline to meet concerning WLS questions.

May I, for this reason, ask that this thread returns to its original 
subject - questions to Verisign concerning WLS?

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:28:07 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [Draft-deletes] Draft of response to WLS Proposal - Ver. 2

As a preliminary result from draft-deletes we submit this document to the GA:

This document represents feedback from the DNSO General Assembly (GA)
to VeriSign Global Registry Services (VGRS), with respect to the VGRS
proposed Domain Name Wait Listing Service (WLS). More specifically,
this document is responsive to, and consistent with the Procedural
Guidelines contained in, VGRS's revised WLS proposal, dated January
 28, 2002.

Background
On December 30, 2001, VGRS submitted to the Registrar Constituency its
WLS proposal (http://www.icann-registrars.org/pdfs/VeriSign_wls.pdf).

On January 18, 2002, the Registrar Constituency submitted its timely
response to the VGRS proposal
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01907.html).

On January 28, 2002, VGRS posted to the GA list, its revised WLS
proposal along with the "Justification for a Registry-based Wait
Listing Service" document. This proposal requests feedback and
questions from the GA by February 8, 2001, pursuant to the "procedural
guidelines" presented in it.

This leads to the following questions the GA puts forward to VGRS:

1. Why is VGRS concentrating on "new" business proposals before solving 
problems with her current tasks

2. On what (contractual) grounds does VGRS propose the WLS, instead of 
letting this part of the markt be a free operating system.

3. What are the reasons for letting go of the principle of 1st come 1st 
serve

4. When does VGRS propose to settle with ICANN on a delete agreement pursuant 
to 3.7.5 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA).

5. It seems to be generally accepted that all Registrars will  drop/deleted 
domain names within 45 days following expiration. When does VGRS propose to 
force her affiliates among whom Versigin Registrar to adher to these rules

6. How does VGRS respond to the fact that WLS will put a number of operators 
in a likewise service based on free market principles out of business.

7. When does VGRS plan to solve her problems; the increased load on VGRS 
systems, as mentioned in Montevideo, Uraguay in September 2001.

8.  How does VGRS intent to solve consumer "unhappines" upon not getting the 
domain, f.i. due to renewal, and subsequent "chargeback" to the registrars

9. What besides "willingness of the market" is the base for the extremely 
high price of WLS

10. When will VGRS deliver a cost-based analyses to all constituencies to 
determine a "fair" price for such services, if they should be started

11. How, under current ICANN regulations, does VGRS propose to drop the "fair 
price" system forced upon her in the original agreement with ICANN

12. Does this WLS not constitute a seperate contract between ICANN and VGRS 
and as such, should an open "bid" period to allow other to "bid" for a 
likewise system not be entertained 

13. Where does VGRS base the sale of WLS upon, considering that it is her 
contractual duty to return domains to the pool after 45 days, in which case 
there would be nothing to sell

14. Will current Snapback/Snapname holders be "grandfathered" under the WLS

15. Will the process of BULK deletion remain in place

16 Will VGRS assume responsibility for the community that registrars
offering this service on a world-wide basis are not going to face legal 
problems? (f.i. if this is viewed as commodity trading )

We, the GA respectfully await VGRS's answer to this quesion in a timely 
manner as set forth by VGRS so that the GA will be in a position to ascertain 
her final position on this proposal in due and timely  manner.

With regards

The General Assembly

- -- 
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: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 07:47:00 -0700
From: "Michael F. McNulty" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

Messrs. Corliss and Smith:
If Mr. Crispin's advocacy of his position is to be called phoney,
pretentious, impartial and biased, then your rantings are what?
Chalk me off as one further bored and exhausted _former_
ga member. Over and out!
Michael McNulty

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:32:35 -0500, Russ Simith wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> Hi Russ
>
> That's news to me, thank you.
>
> In a way I am pleased that Kent got the job as that puts paid to his phoney
> pretence of impartiality and unbiased reporting.
>
> Best 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

- --
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 09:54:26 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] Kent Crispin Joins ICANN as Technical Systems Manager

I expect with Kent in place, nothing will happen to improve the 
situation.  This maneuver, which will obviously create security issues for 
ICANN, may also create further instability.

I suggest this will help increase the numbers of people relying on the 
Inclusive Roots for dependable service.

Any email sent from ICANN.org should be scrutinized, especially if it is 
noted to be from Karl or Andy.  Kent Crispin has a habit of falsifying 
posts and is comfortable doing this publicly.  I recommend we pay special 
attention to Kent's behavior - we may watch him go to court for falsifying 
documents, etc.

~k

At 02:40 AM 2/5/2002 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
>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

- --
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 19:24:59 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] Kent Crispin Joins ICANN as Technical Systems Manager

Kristy McKee wrote:

>
>I suggest this will help increase the numbers of people relying on the
>Inclusive Roots for dependable service.

I like your sense of humour! ;>)

>
>Any email sent from ICANN.org should be scrutinized, especially if it is
>noted to be from Karl or Andy.  Kent Crispin has a habit of falsifying
>posts and is comfortable doing this publicly.  I recommend we pay special
>attention to Kent's behavior - we may watch him go to court for falsifying
>documents, etc.

UHmmmm! The original announcement was itself coming from icann.org.
Are you suggesting it might be false? ;>)

Although I may well understand that some people might be upset about Kent's 
appointment, I find that the reaction is going well over the top.
Incidentally, from the technical point of view the choice is very good. In 
spite of what has been alleged here, Kent has an extremely wide knowledge of 
security issues, as this was one of his key fields at LLNL.
As for ICANN choosing for this job somebody that shares the basic values of 
the corporation, this is just normal business practice.

Nevertheless, if I may give my personal view on the subject, it is 
astonishing how ICANN invariably ends the "long international search" with 
the selection of individuals with a US passport.

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 20:08:10 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Stop it.  (was: [icann-announce] Kent Crispin Joins ICANN as Technical Systems Manager)

On 2002-02-05 19:24:59 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>Although I may well understand that some people might be upset 
>about Kent's appointment, I find that the reaction is going well 
>over the top.

Indeed.  

Claiming that Kent "has a habit of falsifying posts", and suggesting 
that he may produce fake postings from Andy and Karl is, quite 
frankly, beyond the line which separates polemics from slander. Such 
behaviour is _not_ tolerable in this General Assembly.

Other than that, I have nothing to add to what Roberto wrote, and 
I'd strongly suggest that this part of the discussion be stopped 
_immediately_.
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 11:28:55 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] Kent Crispin Joins ICANN as Technical Systems Manager

Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Nevertheless, if I may give my personal view on the subject, it is
> astonishing how ICANN invariably ends the "long international search" with
> the selection of individuals with a US passport.

Roberto, 

I suspect that has more to do with ICANN's location than anything else. This
particular job appears to require someone who will work at the physical
location of ICANN's network infrastructure in Marina del Rey. There are also
a number of benefits of having staff in one location, regardless of their
job functions. Had ICANN been based in Geneva, I suspect the nationality of
its employees would be predominately European if not specifically Swiss. I
don't see a way around the practical problem that ICANN has to have physical
offices someplace and that its employees will be drawn primarily from the
pool who can go to those offices each day to work.

     Bret

- --
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 11:42:04 -0800 
From: Paul Stahura <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

There are multiple reasons we state in our contract that
we charge $20 per name to "re-activate" an expired domain,
but the main reason is:

Even though eNom is one of the largest net gaining registrars
(in terms of number of domains) in recent months, we delete about
1,000 names per day.  This costs us $6x1000x45days=$270K per month
in cash that is tied up for the period.  If we were not compensated
for that, then registrants would have no chance to renew
an expired name because we would delete them about 2 days
after expiration, and they would then have to go to the guy
who re-registered their deleted name and pay that guy, or re-register
themselves it if it was still in the pool.  About 100 names "re-activated"
per month at $20 each pays for this carrying cost.  And
we probably do not "re-activate" that many names each month, so we are
actually losing money on it, so we could either raise the price or
cancel the program and delete all names on day 1 after expiration.
We choose to charge for it.  Tucows, who I understand, does not
charge for this service probably makes up for the cost of performing
the service by charging their registrants in other ways, possibly by
charging more for the actual registration.  
We choose to charge a fee to those who 
do not renew before deletion and not penalize those who do
renew their names on-time.

Also, It provides an incentive for registrants to renew their names
on-time, before they expire.
We make exceptions in charging this "re-activate"  fee in special cases too.

Paul
eNom, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:33 PM
> To: 'Don Brown'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> 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
> 
- --
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 21:28:13 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] Kent Crispin Joins ICANN as Technical Systems Manager

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, at 11:28 [=GMT-0800], Bret Fausett wrote:

> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > Nevertheless, if I may give my personal view on the subject, it is
> > astonishing how ICANN invariably ends the "long international search" with
> > the selection of individuals with a US passport.
>
> Roberto,
>
> I suspect that has more to do with ICANN's location than anything else. This
> particular job appears to require someone who will work at the physical
> location of ICANN's network infrastructure in Marina del Rey. There are also
> a number of benefits of having staff in one location, regardless of their
> job functions. Had ICANN been based in Geneva, I suspect the nationality of
> its employees would be predominately European if not specifically Swiss.

If I am not very mistaken Geneva based (UN) organizations take particular
care to employ people from all over the world. I doubt that it would have
been impossible to find a suitable candidate from, e.g. Australia, who
would be willing to relocate to California.

Marc Schneiders

> I
> don't see a way around the practical problem that ICANN has to have physical
> offices someplace and that its employees will be drawn primarily from the
> pool who can go to those offices each day to work.
>
>      Bret
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:03:57 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] Kent Crispin Joins ICANN as Technical Systems Manager

Tuesday, Tuesday, February 05, 2002, 12:28:13 PM, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> If I am not very mistaken Geneva based (UN) organizations take particular
> care to employ people from all over the world. I doubt that it would have
> been impossible to find a suitable candidate from, e.g. Australia, who
> would be willing to relocate to California.

If only it was that easy, Marc.  It really isn't.  Not in the US
anyway.

- -- 
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: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:09:35 -0800
From: "Anupam Chander" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] Kent Crispin Joins ICANN as Technical Systems Manager

And not just Australians--one can easily see technically superb people
coming from Mexico, Nigeria, India, Vietnam, or Bangladesh to relocate to
wonderful California.  A strong international institution has to be believe
deeply in the rich abilities of all the world's people.

(I take no position on Mr. Crispin's appointment.)
Anupam Chander

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Marc
Schneiders
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 12:28 PM
To: Bret Fausett
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] Kent Crispin Joins ICANN as
Technical Systems Manager

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, at 11:28 [=GMT-0800], Bret Fausett wrote:

> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > Nevertheless, if I may give my personal view on the subject, it is
> > astonishing how ICANN invariably ends the "long international search"
with
> > the selection of individuals with a US passport.
>
> Roberto,
>
> I suspect that has more to do with ICANN's location than anything else.
This
> particular job appears to require someone who will work at the physical
> location of ICANN's network infrastructure in Marina del Rey. There are
also
> a number of benefits of having staff in one location, regardless of their
> job functions. Had ICANN been based in Geneva, I suspect the nationality
of
> its employees would be predominately European if not specifically Swiss.

If I am not very mistaken Geneva based (UN) organizations take particular
care to employ people from all over the world. I doubt that it would have
been impossible to find a suitable candidate from, e.g. Australia, who
would be willing to relocate to California.

Marc Schneiders

> I
> don't see a way around the practical problem that ICANN has to have
physical
> offices someplace and that its employees will be drawn primarily from the
> pool who can go to those offices each day to work.
>
>      Bret
>
> --
> 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

- --
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 15:17:42 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Stop it. Kent

At 08:08 PM 2/5/2002 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>On 2002-02-05 19:24:59 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
>>Although I may well understand that some people might be upset about 
>>Kent's appointment, I find that the reaction is going well over the top.
>
>Indeed.
>
>Claiming that Kent "has a habit of falsifying posts", and suggesting that 
>he may produce fake postings from Andy and Karl is, quite frankly, beyond 
>the line which separates polemics from slander. Such behaviour is _not_ 
>tolerable in this General Assembly.
>
>Other than that, I have nothing to add to what Roberto wrote, and I'd 
>strongly suggest that this part of the discussion be stopped _immediately_.
>--
>Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/

Yes, Thomas, this is rather shocking:

Kent Crispin impersonated Jeff Williams on the monitored GA list while Kent 
was a member of the Watch Dog committee.  The post is available via the 
GA's public archive.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01133.html

 From our list monitor documentation:  04/23/2001 - Kent Crispin received a 
warning from Harald Alvestrand for impersonating Jeff Williams online.

He did not apologize to the list or Jeff Williams.

~k

- --
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 #1030
*************************