Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1032
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, February 7 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1032

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

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 05:11:54 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] Kent Crispin Joins ICANN as  Technical Systems Manager

Wednesday, Wednesday, February 06, 2002, 2:36:50 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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.

Jefsey,

You are bordering on rules violations here, if you haven't already
passed them.

I suggest you stick to substantive issues.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

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

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

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:59:01 -0500
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] International? Was: [icann-announce] Kent Crispin ...

I work with lots of international organizations, and many have definite
limits on the number of persons hired from any one country, because,
they understand and everyone understands that this is a real issue in
giving different cultures, regions and interests a voice in the
organizations, where the staff plays an important role in developing and
carrying out policy.

  Jmaie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:58 AM
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
>

- --
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 10:56:08 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: [ga] GA Consensus Creation for the KC situation

Because I believe our opinion is valid and counts for something, I think we 
should agree to agree and disagree about this in a formal fashion; 
therefore from the posts:

DNSO GA consensus of Kent Crispin's appointment:

(1)  Majority Agree:

a)  A candidate should have been selected from outside the ICANN circle.

b)  A candidate should have been selected from outside the USA.

c)  Kent has the correct attitude and beliefs to fit in with the existing 
ICANNites.

(2)  Minority Agree:

a)  Kent is a poor choice because of his sense of humor.
	(see:  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01133.html)

b)  Kent should have to pass screening by the ECC, etc.

c)  Kent has the correct resume to fulfill the job requirements.

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

Please add to this list and send your thoughts directly to me or to the 
list as you see fit.  I think we need to begin getting involved in ICANN's 
decisions, more than we have in the past.

~k

  Kristy McKee 612.823.3958
  .W I D G I T A L.Espware.

- --
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 19:12:43 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] a suggestion to Stuart Lynn

On 14:11 06/02/02, William X Walsh said:
>Wednesday, Wednesday, February 06, 2002, 2:36:50 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>Jefsey,
>You are bordering on rules violations here, if you haven't already
>passed them.

Dear WXW, so you have some vapors?

>I suggest you stick to substantive issues.

Do you mean that the DNS under Kent is no more substantive? As you have 
certainly a good command of that domain being a TLD operator yourself and 
the developper of the alt.root - as you like naming yourselves - ".biz" 
registration system, I can only agree with that opinon of yours.

Now, let me be serious. Kent is on root galaxy orbit and the Root Server 
Operator MoU is under way with the right for the ICANN to expell Root 
Server operators. I suppose Stuart and Kent read the comments on Kent's 
hiring to taste the mood, so I have a suggestion.

The hiring of Kent shows that ICANN looks into its local community to find 
people (Theresa, Kent) and that Stuart was an exception being from the 
other side of the street. I dislike that but this is the way it is. I do 
not like either the ICP-3 worship these people committed the ICANN to, but 
consistency is of the essence in managing a network. I suppose many of us 
(supporters and adversaries alike) would agree that WXW is level with Kent 
in his understanding of the DNS. This is why I do suggest to Stuart and 
Kent, the day they have to staff an RSS online support Manager, they 
seriously consider talking to WXW. And that is not a joke even if I do 
consider that the ICANN is one, as an European Diplomat from the GAC 
substantiated it.
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: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 07:19:41 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Consensus Creation for the KC situation

On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 10:56:08 -0600, [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
wrote:

>Because I believe our opinion is valid and counts for something, I think we 
>should agree to agree and disagree about this in a formal fashion; 
>therefore from the posts:
>
>DNSO GA consensus of Kent Crispin's appointment:

I do not think it helps the GA's credibility to start taking straw
polls on whether or not we like a particular technical staff
appointment.

There are more important issues out there.  Only around three GA
members have commented on the Structure Taskforce drafts!!  Again only
around three GA members have commented on the proposal to change the
term or grant a waiver for the NC Chair.  These are issues where we do
have some influence and or even a vote.  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 14:26:14 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NC Chair elections

Up until today the Council had rules, and under them the Business 
Constituency had chaired the Council for its allotted period.  It was time to 
rotate.  Unfortunately for us, this did not sit well with the supporters of 
cronyism.  The Council has now changed the rules at the last minute to allow 
the BC to continue to chair.  This stinks.  It's reprehensible.  But it's 
what we have come to expect from the Council.

- --
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 11:37:34 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC Chair elections

Are you sure the provision passed? The vote was 10 in favor, 9 against, 1
abstention, and 1 person failed to vote. That's not a majority of the NC,
only a majority of quorum. What is required to actually pass a change to the
NC's internal rules? (I don't know.)

[email-masked] wrote:

> Up until today the Council had rules, and under them the Business
> Constituency had chaired the Council for its allotted period.  It was time to
> rotate.  Unfortunately for us, this did not sit well with the supporters of
> cronyism.  The Council has now changed the rules at the last minute to allow
> the BC to continue to chair.  This stinks.  It's reprehensible.  But it's
> what we have come to expect from the Council.
> 
> --
> 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, 6 Feb 2002 15:03:42 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NC Chair elections

Mr. Fausett is most likely correct.  Even though the Secretariat has declared 
that the motion is passed, the NC Rules of Procedure at 
http://www.dnso.org/council/Arc05/doc00017.doc state:

2.2 Voting 
In compliance with by-law VI-B 2(h), voting will be simple majority vote. To 
pass a motion must attain a majority of the votes cast.

There were 20 votes cast.  10 is not a majority.  This vote motion should not 
have been declared as adopted.
- --
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 16:05:07 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Structure TF comments

David writes:  "Only around three GA members have commented on the Structure 
Taskforce drafts!!"

The most recent TF draft (v5) was posted on January 17th.  Mr. Sheppard 
proposed that this draft be comprehensively commented upon until January 31. 
After that he would draft v6 based on those comments.  Between 1-17 and 1-31 
there were absolutely no comments posted by anyone in the DNSO.  On the 31st 
the IPC added a comment.  There have been no comments since, and we still 
have not seen the publication of v6.

This is surely demonstrative of the continued failure of the Task Force 
approach.  

We are looking for reform and restructuring of the DNSO.  Frankly, none of us 
care much about the BC's and IPC's opinion about the future ALM.  

Should the owners of a house that is damaged and sadly in need of repair be 
focusing their thoughts on the future home of others, or should they be 
concentrating on fixing their own problems first?  

Perhaps our representative can persuade the TF to get on with their primary 
task.  The GA has already put forth a restructuring proposal.  Isn't it high 
time that the proposal is seriously discussed within the TF?

- --
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 17:41:42 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NC Transfers TF

Thanks to Ross Rader for publishing the NC Transfers TF Discussion Notes:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02001.html

The meeting focused on "apparent authority" considerations and received the 
benefit of commentary from our Corporate Counsel.

- --
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 14:47:19 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Twenty Questions for Verisign about the WLS

Hello,

I've gone through the discussions of the past month carefully and tried
to come up with a set of questions for Verisign. Feel free to consider
adding them to the DNSO GA, Registrars, or other constituency questions
(I think the more a question is repeated, the greater difficult
Verisign will face in refusing to provide answers). Many will recognize
these questions from before, although there are a few new ones that
I've not seen posted elsewhere. Apologies if you receive this email
more than once.

Let's play 20 questions:

1. CIRA, the registry for dot-ca, was able to manage 100-times
scalability when it released expired names recently for re-registration
(see http://www.cira.ca/news-releases/63.html ). Given that this
non-profit registry did not require a wait-list system, nor a
surcharge, what are the technical flaws in Verisign systems that
prevent a similar system as CIRA?

2. a) What are the success criteria that Verisign/ICANN intend to use
at the end of the 1-year WLS testing period (these should be specified
ex-ante, not ex-post)? 
   b) Do those criteria take into account the existing competitive
landscape that exists in the market?
   c) If so, what market measurements has Verisign/ICANN made of the
current competitive landscape (NameWinner, eNom, AWRegistry,
ExpireFish, SnapNames, NicGenie, IARegistry, Signature Domains, and
other competitors), to serve as the basis for a comparison?
   d) Under what metrics will the WLS test be considered a failure?

3. At: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00081.html Chuck
Gomes wrote "The value to the Internet community therefore seems rather
obvious to me. But, if there is none as you suggest, then the service
will be a failure.  On the other hand, if there is demand and hence
value, it will succeed.  The level of success will depend on how much
demand and value there is.  The best way to test it is to let the
market prove it one way or other."

There currently exists a competitive market in the automotive industry
(as there is for the expired domain names industry). If it was replaced
by a single monopolistic seller for a 1-year test period, cars would
undoubtedly still be bought, as there is a intrinsic demand for cars
themselves. How does Verisign/ICANN intend to differentiate the demand
for WLS from the demand for the expired names themselves, when there
would be no alternative mechanism for securing those expired names for
which there is a basic demand already that is being satisfied in the
market?

4. If the WLS is deemed to be illegal (due to anti-trust law, and/or
relevant Commodity Futures law), will Verisign/ICANN indemnify affected
resellers, registrants and other market participants from all
liability, legal costs, and implementation costs associated with the
1-year test?

5. a) How much is Snapnames being paid per reservation? Why?
   b) What are the relevant patent-pending registration numbers for any
intellectual property that is involved in the creation of the WLS, in
particular the "Parallel Registry" technology?

6. What is the definition of "abusive speculation"? In particular, do
any of the 55 examples from the SnapNames Hot 100 referenced at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00085.html

constitute "abusive speculation"? (I will note that as of this writing,
the Hot 100 list on SnapNames' website is apparently no longer
available, although the mirror is available)

7. Why has Verisign refused to implement various technical fixes to
reduce registry load issues, including "rate-limiting" technology and
"extended response codes"?

8. a) What is Verisign's proposed wholesale price for a variant of WLS
with zero (0) exchanges?
   b) What are Verisign's proposed wholesale prices for a variant of
WLS with a two-stage  mechanism, where the WLS holder is charged $X for
their place in queue, and then and additional $Y if and only if the
domain is deleted, with no exchanges? (i.e. tell us X and Y)

9. a) Verisign has highlighted that there are 80-100 million domain
"checks" per day. What is the number of checks per day on average,
broken down by each of the accredited registrars?
   b) Which of the above registrars are performing these checks on
behalf of SnapNames?

10. Has Verisign considered implementing a 1-year test on the dot-TV
and dot-CC TLDs, instead of on dot-COM and dot-NET? Why wouldn't a test
on those two TLDs suffice, if it's merely a "test"? (rationale: a test
on dot-TV and dot-CC would not impact the existing competitive deleted
domains industry, and would also provide the further advantage of
comparison between the two alternative markets on the same time-scale)

11. a) Will existing holders of SnapNames SnapBacks be grandfathered
into the WLS? 
    b) If not, what are the proposed Sunrise and Landrush mechanisms
for the WLS?

12. Since WLS subscriptions purchased in the final month of the "test"
will continue be honoured, doesn't this mean that the impact of this
"test" on the deleted domains market will be for 2 years and not merely
1 year?

13. a) Under what metrics does Verisign plan to decide that there is a
stakeholders "consensus" for bringing forth this proposal to ICANN? In
particular, what level and nature of opposition must exist to abandon
the proposal?
    b) Under what conditions do counter-proposals by other stakeholders
receive attention as viable alternatives to WLS?
    c) Why is the "Status Quo" proposal not an option? (it seems to
have greater support and consensus at this time than the WLS) If it has
greater support than the WLS, why is the "Status Quo" not the best
option?

14. Verisign has not had a batch deletion in about 4 weeks. Have batch
deletions been suspended pending the resolution of the WLS proposal?

15. a) Will the WHOIS information for the WLS subscription holder be
made public?
    b) If not, why not?

16. a) If a name is deleted "in error", does it go back to the original
registrant?
    b) What are the exact conditions that constitute a deletion "in
error"?

17. Will WLS subscriptions be refused on names that expire after the
end of the WLS subscription?

18. How does the WLS system handle credit-card chargebacks by
registrants (and the associated chargeback fees) who fail to acquire a
name?

19. How will WLS enhance competition and innovation in the deleted
domain industry, when it will reduce the number of available business
models that presently exist in the marketplace?

20. Which of the existing business models that are active in the
deleted domains market (eNom, SnapNames, NameWinner, NicGenie,
Signature Domains, IARegistry, AWRegistry, ExpireFish, and others) are
inappropriate and/or violations of their respective registrar
agreements?

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.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: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 18:02:18 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Consensus Creation for the KC situation

Kristy and all assembly members,

  I agree.  mark my vote as YES.   Kent was a poor choice.  His antics,
divisiveness in policy tactics and unabashed telling of false hoods
on a number of well documented occasions as well as perpetrating
someone he is not, smells rather rank.  It shows that the ICANN
BOD and staff's hiring practices are tainted if not colluded.

Kristy McKee wrote:

> Because I believe our opinion is valid and counts for something, I think we
> should agree to agree and disagree about this in a formal fashion;
> therefore from the posts:
>
> DNSO GA consensus of Kent Crispin's appointment:
>
> (1)  Majority Agree:
>
> a)  A candidate should have been selected from outside the ICANN circle.
>
> b)  A candidate should have been selected from outside the USA.
>
> c)  Kent has the correct attitude and beliefs to fit in with the existing
> ICANNites.
>
> (2)  Minority Agree:
>
> a)  Kent is a poor choice because of his sense of humor.
>         (see:  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01133.html)
>
> b)  Kent should have to pass screening by the ECC, etc.
>
> c)  Kent has the correct resume to fulfill the job requirements.
>
> -----------------
>
> Please add to this list and send your thoughts directly to me or to the
> list as you see fit.  I think we need to begin getting involved in ICANN's
> decisions, more than we have in the past.
>
> ~k
>
>   Kristy McKee 612.823.3958
>   .W I D G I T A L.Espware.
>
> --
> 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 20:48:50 -0500
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] NC Transfers TF

"Louis Touton: The way this comes up in practice is that ICANN gets
dozens, if not hundreds of complaints per day. We don't view it as our
job to adjust individual transactions. This is the responsibility of the
Registrar. We do however monitor the situation; discern trends and then
act on systemic problems."

However, Dan Halloran and ICANN have failed to "act on systemic
Problems" long after sufficient information was provided in order to
"discern trends" of the registrar transfer problem.  ICANN has done
nothing to ensure VeriSign (formerly Network Solutions) follows the
stated policy.

Russ Smith

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 5:42 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NC Transfers TF

Thanks to Ross Rader for publishing the NC Transfers TF Discussion
Notes:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02001.html

The meeting focused on "apparent authority" considerations and received
the 
benefit of commentary from our Corporate Counsel.

- --
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, 6 Feb 2002 22:23:48 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Twenty Questions for Verisign about the WLS

I think George has done an excellent job. I think that his questions
should be submitted by the GA to VGRS for a response. Personally, I
would like to see VGRS's answer to each one of them.

AFIC, George, thanks for spending the time and having the patience to
wade through a lot of the issues pertaining to WLS and formulating a
lot of excellent and pointed questions.  Good job!!

Thanks,

p.s.  Although, I did notice that you forgot your profit motive, i.e.
about making George Kirikos a millionaire. :-)  That's not a problem
with me, though. :-)

Wednesday, February 06, 2002, 4:47:19 PM, George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote:
GK> Hello,

GK> I've gone through the discussions of the past month carefully and tried
GK> to come up with a set of questions for Verisign. Feel free to consider
GK> adding them to the DNSO GA, Registrars, or other constituency questions
GK> (I think the more a question is repeated, the greater difficult
GK> Verisign will face in refusing to provide answers). Many will recognize
GK> these questions from before, although there are a few new ones that
GK> I've not seen posted elsewhere. Apologies if you receive this email
GK> more than once.

GK> Let's play 20 questions:

GK> 1. CIRA, the registry for dot-ca, was able to manage 100-times
GK> scalability when it released expired names recently for re-registration
GK> (see http://www.cira.ca/news-releases/63.html ). Given that this
GK> non-profit registry did not require a wait-list system, nor a
GK> surcharge, what are the technical flaws in Verisign systems that
GK> prevent a similar system as CIRA?

GK> 2. a) What are the success criteria that Verisign/ICANN intend to use
GK> at the end of the 1-year WLS testing period (these should be specified
GK> ex-ante, not ex-post)? 
GK>    b) Do those criteria take into account the existing competitive
GK> landscape that exists in the market?
GK>    c) If so, what market measurements has Verisign/ICANN made of the
GK> current competitive landscape (NameWinner, eNom, AWRegistry,
GK> ExpireFish, SnapNames, NicGenie, IARegistry, Signature Domains, and
GK> other competitors), to serve as the basis for a comparison?
GK>    d) Under what metrics will the WLS test be considered a failure?

GK> 3. At: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00081.html Chuck
GK> Gomes wrote "The value to the Internet community therefore seems rather
GK> obvious to me. But, if there is none as you suggest, then the service
GK> will be a failure.  On the other hand, if there is demand and hence
GK> value, it will succeed.  The level of success will depend on how much
GK> demand and value there is.  The best way to test it is to let the
GK> market prove it one way or other."

GK> There currently exists a competitive market in the automotive industry
GK> (as there is for the expired domain names industry). If it was replaced
GK> by a single monopolistic seller for a 1-year test period, cars would
GK> undoubtedly still be bought, as there is a intrinsic demand for cars
GK> themselves. How does Verisign/ICANN intend to differentiate the demand
GK> for WLS from the demand for the expired names themselves, when there
GK> would be no alternative mechanism for securing those expired names for
GK> which there is a basic demand already that is being satisfied in the
GK> market?

GK> 4. If the WLS is deemed to be illegal (due to anti-trust law, and/or
GK> relevant Commodity Futures law), will Verisign/ICANN indemnify affected
GK> resellers, registrants and other market participants from all
GK> liability, legal costs, and implementation costs associated with the
GK> 1-year test?

GK> 5. a) How much is Snapnames being paid per reservation? Why?
GK>    b) What are the relevant patent-pending registration numbers for any
GK> intellectual property that is involved in the creation of the WLS, in
GK> particular the "Parallel Registry" technology?

GK> 6. What is the definition of "abusive speculation"? In particular, do
GK> any of the 55 examples from the SnapNames Hot 100 referenced at:

GK> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00085.html

GK> constitute "abusive speculation"? (I will note that as of this writing,
GK> the Hot 100 list on SnapNames' website is apparently no longer
GK> available, although the mirror is available)

GK> 7. Why has Verisign refused to implement various technical fixes to
GK> reduce registry load issues, including "rate-limiting" technology and
GK> "extended response codes"?

GK> 8. a) What is Verisign's proposed wholesale price for a variant of WLS
GK> with zero (0) exchanges?
GK>    b) What are Verisign's proposed wholesale prices for a variant of
GK> WLS with a two-stage  mechanism, where the WLS holder is charged $X for
GK> their place in queue, and then and additional $Y if and only if the
GK> domain is deleted, with no exchanges? (i.e. tell us X and Y)

GK> 9. a) Verisign has highlighted that there are 80-100 million domain
GK> "checks" per day. What is the number of checks per day on average,
GK> broken down by each of the accredited registrars?
GK>    b) Which of the above registrars are performing these checks on
GK> behalf of SnapNames?

GK> 10. Has Verisign considered implementing a 1-year test on the dot-TV
GK> and dot-CC TLDs, instead of on dot-COM and dot-NET? Why wouldn't a test
GK> on those two TLDs suffice, if it's merely a "test"? (rationale: a test
GK> on dot-TV and dot-CC would not impact the existing competitive deleted
GK> domains industry, and would also provide the further advantage of
GK> comparison between the two alternative markets on the same time-scale)

GK> 11. a) Will existing holders of SnapNames SnapBacks be grandfathered
GK> into the WLS? 
GK>     b) If not, what are the proposed Sunrise and Landrush mechanisms
GK> for the WLS?

GK> 12. Since WLS subscriptions purchased in the final month of the "test"
GK> will continue be honoured, doesn't this mean that the impact of this
GK> "test" on the deleted domains market will be for 2 years and not merely
GK> 1 year?

GK> 13. a) Under what metrics does Verisign plan to decide that there is a
GK> stakeholders "consensus" for bringing forth this proposal to ICANN? In
GK> particular, what level and nature of opposition must exist to abandon
GK> the proposal?
GK>     b) Under what conditions do counter-proposals by other stakeholders
GK> receive attention as viable alternatives to WLS?
GK>     c) Why is the "Status Quo" proposal not an option? (it seems to
GK> have greater support and consensus at this time than the WLS) If it has
GK> greater support than the WLS, why is the "Status Quo" not the best
GK> option?

GK> 14. Verisign has not had a batch deletion in about 4 weeks. Have batch
GK> deletions been suspended pending the resolution of the WLS proposal?

GK> 15. a) Will the WHOIS information for the WLS subscription holder be
GK> made public?
GK>     b) If not, why not?

GK> 16. a) If a name is deleted "in error", does it go back to the original
GK> registrant?
GK>     b) What are the exact conditions that constitute a deletion "in
GK> error"?

GK> 17. Will WLS subscriptions be refused on names that expire after the
GK> end of the WLS subscription?

GK> 18. How does the WLS system handle credit-card chargebacks by
GK> registrants (and the associated chargeback fees) who fail to acquire a
GK> name?

GK> 19. How will WLS enhance competition and innovation in the deleted
GK> domain industry, when it will reduce the number of available business
GK> models that presently exist in the marketplace?

GK> 20. Which of the existing business models that are active in the
GK> deleted domains market (eNom, SnapNames, NameWinner, NicGenie,
GK> Signature Domains, IARegistry, AWRegistry, ExpireFish, and others) are
GK> inappropriate and/or violations of their respective registrar
GK> agreements?

GK> Sincerely,

GK> George Kirikos
GK> http://www.kirikos.com/

GK> __________________________________________________
GK> Do You Yahoo!?
GK> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
GK> http://greetings.yahoo.com
GK> --
GK> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
GK> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
GK> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
GK> 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: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:27:31 -0500 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [gad] GA Consensus Creation for the KC situation

Has anyone on the GA who is raising a concern about Kent stopped to ask what
his job is, and whom it impacts?  IF it is interfacing with the technical
community, what is the objection which is being raised? Has the technical
community objected to his technical credentials? If his job is something
else, who is most impacted? what is that sector's thoughts.

Just a thought. My own thought is: "Oh, good; thanks for the update. Now,
back to work."

:-)

- -----Original Message-----
From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 1:20 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Consensus Creation for the KC situation

On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 10:56:08 -0600, [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
wrote:

>Because I believe our opinion is valid and counts for something, I think we

>should agree to agree and disagree about this in a formal fashion; 
>therefore from the posts:
>
>DNSO GA consensus of Kent Crispin's appointment:

I do not think it helps the GA's credibility to start taking straw
polls on whether or not we like a particular technical staff
appointment.

There are more important issues out there.  Only around three GA
members have commented on the Structure Taskforce drafts!!  Again only
around three GA members have commented on the proposal to change the
term or grant a waiver for the NC Chair.  These are issues where we do
have some influence and or even a vote.  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 23:26:03 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Twenty Questions for Verisign about the WLS

Here here!  Good work George!  I'm for submitting the
questions as a GA submission as well.

Don Brown wrote:
> 
> I think George has done an excellent job. I think that his questions
> should be submitted by the GA to VGRS for a response. Personally, I
> would like to see VGRS's answer to each one of them.
> 
> AFIC, George, thanks for spending the time and having the patience to
> wade through a lot of the issues pertaining to WLS and formulating a
> lot of excellent and pointed questions.  Good job!!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> p.s.  Although, I did notice that you forgot your profit motive, i.e.
> about making George Kirikos a millionaire. :-)  That's not a problem
> with me, though. :-)
> 
> Wednesday, February 06, 2002, 4:47:19 PM, George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote:
> GK> Hello,
> 
> GK> I've gone through the discussions of the past month carefully and tried
> GK> to come up with a set of questions for Verisign. Feel free to consider
> GK> adding them to the DNSO GA, Registrars, or other constituency questions
> GK> (I think the more a question is repeated, the greater difficult
> GK> Verisign will face in refusing to provide answers). Many will recognize
> GK> these questions from before, although there are a few new ones that
> GK> I've not seen posted elsewhere. Apologies if you receive this email
> GK> more than once.
> 
> GK> Let's play 20 questions:
> 
> GK> 1. CIRA, the registry for dot-ca, was able to manage 100-times
> GK> scalability when it released expired names recently for re-registration
> GK> (see http://www.cira.ca/news-releases/63.html ). Given that this
> GK> non-profit registry did not require a wait-list system, nor a
> GK> surcharge, what are the technical flaws in Verisign systems that
> GK> prevent a similar system as CIRA?
> 
> GK> 2. a) What are the success criteria that Verisign/ICANN intend to use
> GK> at the end of the 1-year WLS testing period (these should be specified
> GK> ex-ante, not ex-post)?
> GK>    b) Do those criteria take into account the existing competitive
> GK> landscape that exists in the market?
> GK>    c) If so, what market measurements has Verisign/ICANN made of the
> GK> current competitive landscape (NameWinner, eNom, AWRegistry,
> GK> ExpireFish, SnapNames, NicGenie, IARegistry, Signature Domains, and
> GK> other competitors), to serve as the basis for a comparison?
> GK>    d) Under what metrics will the WLS test be considered a failure?
> 
> GK> 3. At: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00081.html Chuck
> GK> Gomes wrote "The value to the Internet community therefore seems rather
> GK> obvious to me. But, if there is none as you suggest, then the service
> GK> will be a failure.  On the other hand, if there is demand and hence
> GK> value, it will succeed.  The level of success will depend on how much
> GK> demand and value there is.  The best way to test it is to let the
> GK> market prove it one way or other."
> 
> GK> There currently exists a competitive market in the automotive industry
> GK> (as there is for the expired domain names industry). If it was replaced
> GK> by a single monopolistic seller for a 1-year test period, cars would
> GK> undoubtedly still be bought, as there is a intrinsic demand for cars
> GK> themselves. How does Verisign/ICANN intend to differentiate the demand
> GK> for WLS from the demand for the expired names themselves, when there
> GK> would be no alternative mechanism for securing those expired names for
> GK> which there is a basic demand already that is being satisfied in the
> GK> market?
> 
> GK> 4. If the WLS is deemed to be illegal (due to anti-trust law, and/or
> GK> relevant Commodity Futures law), will Verisign/ICANN indemnify affected
> GK> resellers, registrants and other market participants from all
> GK> liability, legal costs, and implementation costs associated with the
> GK> 1-year test?
> 
> GK> 5. a) How much is Snapnames being paid per reservation? Why?
> GK>    b) What are the relevant patent-pending registration numbers for any
> GK> intellectual property that is involved in the creation of the WLS, in
> GK> particular the "Parallel Registry" technology?
> 
> GK> 6. What is the definition of "abusive speculation"? In particular, do
> GK> any of the 55 examples from the SnapNames Hot 100 referenced at:
> 
> GK> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00085.html
> 
> GK> constitute "abusive speculation"? (I will note that as of this writing,
> GK> the Hot 100 list on SnapNames' website is apparently no longer
> GK> available, although the mirror is available)
> 
> GK> 7. Why has Verisign refused to implement various technical fixes to
> GK> reduce registry load issues, including "rate-limiting" technology and
> GK> "extended response codes"?
> 
> GK> 8. a) What is Verisign's proposed wholesale price for a variant of WLS
> GK> with zero (0) exchanges?
> GK>    b) What are Verisign's proposed wholesale prices for a variant of
> GK> WLS with a two-stage  mechanism, where the WLS holder is charged $X for
> GK> their place in queue, and then and additional $Y if and only if the
> GK> domain is deleted, with no exchanges? (i.e. tell us X and Y)
> 
> GK> 9. a) Verisign has highlighted that there are 80-100 million domain
> GK> "checks" per day. What is the number of checks per day on average,
> GK> broken down by each of the accredited registrars?
> GK>    b) Which of the above registrars are performing these checks on
> GK> behalf of SnapNames?
> 
> GK> 10. Has Verisign considered implementing a 1-year test on the dot-TV
> GK> and dot-CC TLDs, instead of on dot-COM and dot-NET? Why wouldn't a test
> GK> on those two TLDs suffice, if it's merely a "test"? (rationale: a test
> GK> on dot-TV and dot-CC would not impact the existing competitive deleted
> GK> domains industry, and would also provide the further advantage of
> GK> comparison between the two alternative markets on the same time-scale)
> 
> GK> 11. a) Will existing holders of SnapNames SnapBacks be grandfathered
> GK> into the WLS?
> GK>     b) If not, what are the proposed Sunrise and Landrush mechanisms
> GK> for the WLS?
> 
> GK> 12. Since WLS subscriptions purchased in the final month of the "test"
> GK> will continue be honoured, doesn't this mean that the impact of this
> GK> "test" on the deleted domains market will be for 2 years and not merely
> GK> 1 year?
> 
> GK> 13. a) Under what metrics does Verisign plan to decide that there is a
> GK> stakeholders "consensus" for bringing forth this proposal to ICANN? In
> GK> particular, what level and nature of opposition must exist to abandon
> GK> the proposal?
> GK>     b) Under what conditions do counter-proposals by other stakeholders
> GK> receive attention as viable alternatives to WLS?
> GK>     c) Why is the "Status Quo" proposal not an option? (it seems to
> GK> have greater support and consensus at this time than the WLS) If it has
> GK> greater support than the WLS, why is the "Status Quo" not the best
> GK> option?
> 
> GK> 14. Verisign has not had a batch deletion in about 4 weeks. Have batch
> GK> deletions been suspended pending the resolution of the WLS proposal?
> 
> GK> 15. a) Will the WHOIS information for the WLS subscription holder be
> GK> made public?
> GK>     b) If not, why not?
> 
> GK> 16. a) If a name is deleted "in error", does it go back to the original
> GK> registrant?
> GK>     b) What are the exact conditions that constitute a deletion "in
> GK> error"?
> 
> GK> 17. Will WLS subscriptions be refused on names that expire after the
> GK> end of the WLS subscription?
> 
> GK> 18. How does the WLS system handle credit-card chargebacks by
> GK> registrants (and the associated chargeback fees) who fail to acquire a
> GK> name?
> 
> GK> 19. How will WLS enhance competition and innovation in the deleted
> GK> domain industry, when it will reduce the number of available business
> GK> models that presently exist in the marketplace?
> 
> GK> 20. Which of the existing business models that are active in the
> GK> deleted domains market (eNom, SnapNames, NameWinner, NicGenie,
> GK> Signature Domains, IARegistry, AWRegistry, ExpireFish, and others) are
> GK> inappropriate and/or violations of their respective registrar
> GK> agreements?
> 
> GK> Sincerely,
> 
> GK> George Kirikos
> GK> http://www.kirikos.com/
> 
> GK> __________________________________________________
> GK> Do You Yahoo!?
> GK> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
> GK> http://greetings.yahoo.com
> GK> --
> GK> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> GK> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> GK> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> GK> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> [email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1032
*************************