Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1031
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, February 6 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1031

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

Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 11:36:28 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] Kent Crispin Joins ICANN as Technical Systems Manager

I think the appointment of a controversial figure like Kent Crispin 
signifies an extraordinary self-confidence on the part of  the ICANN staff 
and a willingness to shake off and ignore a great deal of criticism.

"If my mere presence causes people to lose it, I can't do anything about it 
(though it gives me a strange and gloomy feeling of power)".
- --Kent Crispin, posting to the IDNO list in 1999--

... "-- lunatics like me, and paid
political operators like you."
(Kent Crispin on 8 aug.2001 addressing Jamie Love)

- --Joop-- 

- --
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 14:42:30 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Stop it. Kent

Tuesday, Tuesday, February 05, 2002, 1:17:42 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:

> 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.

Nor should he.  He did it once, to make a point, and immediately
fessed up to it.

Of course, you fail to mention any of that, since it doesn't serve
your purpose of furthering your personal attack, which you continue to
do here after being warned by the chair and the list monitor about it.

- -- 
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, 05 Feb 2002 17:49:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS: GA questions to Verisign

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 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.

  I for one, and I am sure I am not alone, appreciate Russ's frankness
and blunt comments.  Very refreshing for a change.  >:) I don't
give a hoot what his mail headers contain or do not contain..

>
>
> 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.

  Providing broad dispersion of a well reasoned opinion is always
a good idea.

>
>
> 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.

  That comments that Russ made here seem to be right on topic
IMHO.  Perhaps one may not agree with them, but that is a
completely different matter entirely..

>
>
> >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.

  Unfortunately the DNS World does not stand still.  However taking
a brief hold until the Transfer issue which WLS is directly related
to in some aspects, Russ's suggestion is one method or gaining
some stable approach to solving inter-related issues...

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

You surely mean that Verisign has suggested a deadline.  That's far
different from "We" have a deadline...

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

  As the transfer concerns or related to WLS and delete, I fail
to see the purpose for this being desirable and especially is not
needed...

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

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:12:48 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] Kent Crispin Joins ICANN as Technical Systems Manager

Kristy and all assembly members of other interested parties,

  Good thoughts and ideas/suggestions here Kristy.  And yes,
on a least one documented situation Kent Crispin tried to
post a E-Mail falsely representing himself as me.

Kristy McKee wrote:

> 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

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 21:13:48 -0800
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-05

Thomas,

thank you for the fine job and the extra effort that goes into these
summaries!   They are easy to read and quite appreciated by many of us.

Genie Livingstone

- --- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 2:57 AM
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
>
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 00:16:43 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stop it. Kent

Kristy McKee wrote:

> 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

Thanks for the URL, Kristy. That post is a good laugh, and I hadn't
seen it for a while.
 
>  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.

Nor should he. It was an obvious and amusing fake. No-one with more
than .05% of a clue was fooled by it, and that clearly was not the
intent.

Drop it. No-one with any sense finds it as shocking as you do, or
pretend to.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 00:27:26 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stop it. Kent

Sandy and all assembly members,

  From the tone and content of the comments made by one of our
fellow Assembly members, Sandy, it would seem that pretending to
be someone else in a fraudulent manner is not only expectable
but to be thought of mostly as a joking matter.  I personally find
that attitude to be inconsistent with the world sense 9/11.
Perhaps the FBI would be very interested in people taking
this sort of approach as to bare watching.

Sandy Harris wrote:

> Kristy McKee wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> Thanks for the URL, Kristy. That post is a good laugh, and I hadn't
> seen it for a while.
>
> >  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.
>
> Nor should he. It was an obvious and amusing fake. No-one with more
> than .05% of a clue was fooled by it, and that clearly was not the
> intent.
>
> Drop it. No-one with any sense finds it as shocking as you do, or
> pretend to.
> --
> 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: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 22:04:09 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [DNS] international domain news

Reposted from the Australian DNS mailing list.
Thanks David.

Domain Name News
ICANN At-Large Membership Survey
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is
considering how to structure participation and representation of
individuals from throughout the global Internet user community
("At-Large members") within ICANN.  To provide ICANN's Board with
additional information on the level of interest in a self-sustaining
At-Large membership, we are asking all interested individuals to
complete the survey posted on the At-Large Study Committee website at
<http://atlargestudy.org/survey.shtml> by February 28, 2002.  (The
survey is in English, but will soon be available in additional
languages.)

Dot-Pro Deal Expected Before March - ICANN (Newsbytes)
Internet addressing authorities hope to finalize a contract
authorizing the creation of the "dot-pro" Internet domain before the
end of February, a spokeswoman for the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) said 
 http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/174205.html

Ford appeals court ruling on domain name spoof (Computer User)
Ford Motor Company intends to appeal a federal judge's ruling that an
ongoing Internet prank involving Ford's main Web site does not
violate trademark law.
 http://www.computeruser.com/news/02/02/04/news8.html

Register.com Makes a Bid for Virtual Internet 
Register.com, Inc. and Virtual Internet plc announced a recommended
cash offer by a wholly-owned Register.com subsidiary for Virtual
Internet. The offer values Virtual Internet at approximately
(pound)11.99 million. The offer is subject to a number of conditions,
including acceptance by holders of not less than 90 per cent of
Virtual Internet shares. 
 http://www.datacenterwire.com/wmview.php?ArtID=146

>From BNA Internet Law News...
INDIAN COURT RULES MAN CAN'T USE OWN NAME FOR DOMAIN NAME
A Delhi High Court has barred entrepreneur Vijay Bharti from
using the domain names Bharti.com and Bharti.net after a
suit was launched by Indian company Bharti Televentures.
The court did say the man can use his full name -- Vijay
Kumar Bharti - for a domain name if he likes.
<http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=1010636431>

FEBRUARY THE MONTH TO SPEAK OUT ON ICANN ISSUES
This would appear to be the month to speak out on ICANN
related issues with several public solicitations for comment
currently underway.  These include a survey on at-large
membership, a solicitation on roles for organizations in an
at-large supporting organization, and comments on the ICANN
UDRP. Survey on At-large membership at
http://atlargestudy.org/survey.shtml
Role for organizations in a proposed ICANN At-Large
Supporting Organization at
http://atlargestudy.org/solicitation.shtml
UDRP survey, with the deadline for submission tomorrow, at
http://www.icann.org/dnso/udrp-survey-en-06jan02.htm

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

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

Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 11:36:50 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] Kent Crispin Joins ICANN as Technical Systems Manager

On 22:09 05/02/02, Anupam Chander said:
>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
>eeply in the rich abilities of all the world's people.

Dear Anupam,
this is what ICANN did. Found someone from the outer world. A total 
stranger to the *real* DNS.

> > 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 is very hurting for Kent. This would mean that after having 
disregarded the candidacy of Kent as a neighbor they had to accept it 
finding no alternative elsewhere. I suppose that the prerequisite was to 
understand, like and support Kent's ICP-3 so Stuart would be relieved from 
criticisms. From now on positions will be straight from the horse's mouth.

We may all note that the ICANN team does not find people to expand and that 
on thousands of competent people on the matter they found no one new to 
agree and to work with them. Theresa was not really an outsider no more 
than Kent. How many spares left? Just to know how long Staff may survive... 
I just hope JDRP has a replacement for Louis Touton otherwise the cards 
castle may fundle the day he takes over as .ORG-Registry Chair.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 12:54:16 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

Dear Paul,
I am not excited about this ICANN role of creating the Registrars industry 
to fake competition instead of creating real competition among TLD 
Registries in respecting commerce and Internet rules (RFC 920) and IANA 
mission. But now you Registrars are here and you have to survive and we 
have to survive [with] you.

What I do object to your position is this:
- - the Registrars consistuency has not come with an united position on the 
way to solve your problems so we the Registrants may understand the rules 
of your game.
- - you are far too dependent from VeriSign solutions while some competition 
to VeriSIgn Registries develops. This makes you too economically weak - you 
shows it - for us to feel at ease.
- - you have not  proposed common adapted tools for the markets (plural) you 
interface. This is true too for NetSol as a Registrar.

As a Registrant I have been transferred from Registrars Inc. to NetSol 
after their purchase of Registrars Inc. The information I received (?) or 
did not receive as a large DN holder and a reseller is not adapted to what 
I do and the way I worked with Registrars. I understand NetSol problem's in 
interfacing with different types of operations. But I also observe they 
mostly spend their mails and phone in "we thank you for your 
patience/someone is going to respond" and delays. This makes us very 
uncertain about their rules - I have 300 overdue DNs because I do not know 
how to renew them and pay (we also are used to test their new database 
system). I got these names rerouted to a Registrars Inc. add page during 3 
days by mistake and another customer got 13,000. It was nigthmare and big, 
big money loss.

I feel this is a general need. We suffer the lack of a Registrant 
constituency with Individual, Bulk, Reseller, Corporate working groups. 
When I am proposed nice looking HTML pages with 20 DNs to click per page to 
manage bulk renewals or changes for 2000 DNs, there is a problem. I need 
plain ASCII reports and mail registrations as I had with NSI and 
Registrars. IMHO the procedures and protocols should be discussed and 
agreed upon between Registrars and Registrants constituencies.

May I suggest something: the gTLD have created a mailing list now quite 
active. Why the Registrars would not do the same - may be at the initiative 
of VRSN (Chuck?). We could discuss these kind of things, find patches, work 
out solutions, save and make money. I suppose ccTLDs could also help and 
benefit from this. We have to accept that more and more Registrars will 
interface many different Registries. Since they are here, they will be the 
core of the DN sales. So the protocols and procedures must come from them 
and they must interface their market to know it. Otherwise it is cacophony, 
instability, money loss.

I would suggest another response to your problem fo renewal. You permit 
people to register indefinitly and to pay yearly. So you know they reniew. 
You make that service paid an extra 50 cent per DN and present these DNs as 
SafeDNs with a permanant holdership insurance included - and you drop the 
other DNs which are not renewed (the Registrant has the choice). Obviously 
the day the people pay the renewal date is the inital registration 
birthday. You just make them to pay an extra .50 the day they renew for 
them not to make it too often.

The Registrars which permits Registrants to transfer anytime for .50 extra 
or free over a certain number of DNs, will for sure soon get the patronage 
of every bulk Registrants - or keep them. Our problem is not to renew and 
pay, our problem is we have a very small structure trying to keep an eye on 
endangered precious yet cheap entries lists by machines with no real 
support. I have 2000 DNs renewing at any date and I want for ever because 
they are real sites in operations. The $.50 would warranty you and me. You 
would just send me a monthly report with the status of every DNs with an 
ASCII copy I can feed into my programs, the money amount to transfer and a 
printed reminder (for my customers and banker) that keeping these domain 
names renewed is your responsbility and that your are inslured by the 
LLoyds or any oher international respected Insurrance company. Please 
consider you curstomers, not only the cybersquatters.

My two eurocents.
Jefsey

On 20:42 05/02/02, Paul Stahura said:
>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

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

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

Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 12:05:47 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] Kent Crispin Joins ICANN as Technical Systems Manager

On 22:03 05/02/02, William X Walsh said:
>If only it was that easy, Marc.  It really isn't.  Not in the US anyway.

Marc, they have a problem with languages. If you do not speak Californian 
ICP-3 slang Immigration will not accept it. Stuart had to become a citizen, 
Theresa had to born half-Austrian. BTW we might let them now about the 
Internet? Today you do not need to be a resident or to have a green card to 
work closely with US people. They could have picked a Canadian or a Mexican 
anyway. By plane it is nearer from them than Boston?

Seriously, Marc.

Do you really think that to become the ICANN Security Officer you must not 
be screened by several USG Agencies? And this seems normal.

What really concerns me is to know - and we will officially file a petition 
to the European Parliament on the matter - if he has been also screened by 
the EEC as the matters he will address are strategic to us. I suppose that 
other Members of the GAC will most probably consider the same as it is also 
of strategic concern to them.

The real 9/11/2001 related Internet Incident was the closing of the 
Internet and Telephone access to a third country: this has been noted by 
many developpng countries and may weight a lot in the coming years 
negatively or positively depending on Kent's attitude.

I explain. Everyone has noted that the ICANN has not coworked out an 
immediate satellite based alternative path with its root update, leaving an 
economy to destabilize and people starving. If this experience made clear 
that a person of some magnitude with good practical skills should attend it 
under some political supervision, this will be a positive move and Kent is 
a good choice - except he is another American, apparently does not speak 
fluently other languages and is controverted. (I certainly object to most 
of Kent's conclusions, but I also praised many times his good analysis).
If Ken is hired only to enforce his concepts this is bad news for the ICANN 
and VeriSign as he will stiff objections to the ICANN on the DNS current 
key matter and will protect the interests of the VeriSign's competitor he 
works with (unless he resigned).

May be can we also wait for Kent's communicate. He is a Staff Member now, 
we cannot change that. A new one whose we do not like much the positions. 
EIther he disregards the DNSO or only the DNSO/GA or works with us. It is 
up to him to decide. Coopetition, competion, cooperation: your choice Kent. 
Whatever what you want, with, aside or against you, be sure we will watch 
and act to the best interests of the Internet Participants we are and 
represent.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 13:58:10 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] International? Was: [icann-announce] Kent Crispin ...

William X Walsh wrote:
>
>If only it was that easy, Marc.  It really isn't.  Not in the US
>anyway.
>

The question is not whether it is easy or not easy, the question is whether 
ICANN wants to claim to be "international" or not.

As observed already by others, there might be many qualified people willing 
to relocate to California. The problem hinted by WXW might be related to the 
work permit in the US.
Well, I can't imagine that the problem can't be solved, if willingness 
exists, given also the many contacts ICANN has with USG officials: it is 
solved all the time for many immigrants (hint: I have worked myself for many 
years in California, and I know many others in a similar situation).

IMHO, there is no substance to the claim that it is very difficult to obtain 
green cards for few people to be hired by a wannabe "international" 
organization: either nobody in ICANN is willing to put the small effort in 
this, or there is a definite decision (coming from inside or outside ICANN?) 
of preferring US citizens even for normal employees (this being already the 
case for the two CEOs and the two Chairmen of the Board).
Whatever the reason, the result is that ICANN appears to be less and less 
"international" and more and more "US-centric": to the best of my knowledge, 
the only non-US staff is Herbert Vitzhum (who is not based in MdR anyhow).

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1031
*************************