Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1033
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, February 8 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1033

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

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 22:51:56 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Accounting irregularities at Verisign?

http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020206/n063934_2.html

- -- 
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 22:55:50 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Accounting irregularities at Verisign?

Wednesday, Wednesday, February 06, 2002, 10:51:56 PM, William X Walsh wrote:

> http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020206/n063934_2.html

More from morningstar.com:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ms/020206/13157.html
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
E-commerce services company VeriSign VRSN tumbled 9.5% to $23.93 after
investors reportedly fretted over the company's accounting habits. In
its recent 10-K filing, VeriSign said it invested in a number of
``related parties'' that buy its products and services. Revenue
generated from each related party accounts for less than 1% of annual
sales. VeriSign shareholders have to wonder, though, how many
``related parties'' exist, said Morningstar's Trigg. ``Whatever the
exact number, the quality of any of this revenue should be
questioned,'' he said.
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

- -- 
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: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 01:08:01 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: [gad] GA Consensus Creation for the KC situation

Marylyn and all assembly members,

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Has anyone on the GA who is raising a concern about Kent stopped to ask what
> his job is, and whom it impacts?

  Yes.  And the Announcement seemed pretty clear as well...

> IF it is interfacing with the technical
> community, what is the objection which is being raised?

  Kent has a long history of not working and playing well with others...
This is well documented of course...

> Has the technical
> community objected to his technical credentials?

  Yes on a number of occasions.  Also well documented.

> 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."

  Not surprising that a lobbyist for the failing AT&T, would have this
reaction...  The work now has been somewhat changed as a result of
this Announcement of Kents "Appointment".  As I understand it from
one BoD member, Karl, the BoD was not even consulted on this
appointment/hiring.  Given Kent's controversial history ( IAHC/gTLD-MoU,
POC, PAB, BC membership, Impersonations ect, ect) it would seem
that they will now need to look into this more closely.  More "Make 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

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: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 12:19:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Accounting irregularities at Verisign? - No

WXW and all assembly members,

William X Walsh wrote:

> http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020206/n063934_2.html
>

  To answer the question in the subject heading, No.
From the above article:
"But analysts said the concerns appeared to be unfounded in VeriSign's
  case."
and:
"Gene Munster of USBancorp Piper Jaffray said on Wednesday he
did not think there has been any accounting fraud."

``There is clearly a witch hunt going on,'' Munster said. ``VeriSign
has done more acquisitions than the average company. Therefore,
they're a target.''

=============  End of quotes from referenced article =======

  So the apparent casting of false aspersions in the subject line
would seem unwarranted..

>
> --
> 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
>
>

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: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 06:46:27 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] international domain news

Reposted from the Australian DNS mailing list.

VeriSign and TrustAsia Get Unwired with WebNum (ASP News)
Catering to the burgeoning number of wireless subscribers in
Southeast Asia, which at last count came in at 55 million according
to the Strategis Group , VeriSign (NASDAQ: VRSN) and affiliate
TrustAsia have taken steps to simplify the process of searching for
Web sites from handheld devices with WebNum, a service intended to
provide wireless users with an easier and quicker way to browse the
Internet without all those pesky URLs.
 http://www.internetnews.com/asp-news/article/0,,3411_969841,00.html

From BNA Internet Law News
The Clash Between Free Speech And Domain Names
My regular Globe and Mail cyberlaw examines the growing clash between
free speech and domain names, highlighting the different approaches
to protest and controversial speech sites under the ICANN UDRP and
the dot-ca CDRP.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/gam/20020207/T
WGEIS7

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

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

Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 11:06:23 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Accounting irregularities at Verisign? - No

>
>``There is clearly a witch hunt going on,'' Munster said. ``VeriSign
>has done more acquisitions than the average company. Therefore,
>they're a target.''

A witch hunt? Cui bono?
Doesn't  the company now have the opportunity to buy its own shares  at 
very low prices?
(volume yesterday 17.39 million shares)

Sorry if this is off-topic for the GA, but I didn't start this thread.

- --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: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:45:46 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Twenty Questions for Verisign about the WLS

George and all assembly members,

  These are very good questions that need to be answered by
Verisign as well as the ICANN BoD and staff.  Well done George! >:)

George Kirikos wrote:

> 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

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: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:33:20 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Agenda - NC teleconf 14 Feb. 2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 14 February 2002 - Agenda

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

7 February 2002.

This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the DNSO
Names Council http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010711.NCprocedures-v4.0.html

Date, time, phone numbers

The Names Council teleconference will be held on 14 February 2002 at the
following time:

(6:00 LA, 9:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, 23:00 Japan/Korea, 01:00 (next day)
Melbourne)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Local time between November and end March, WINTER in the NORTHERN
hemisphere
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         14:00
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Auckland, New Zealand                      UTC+12+1DST 03:OO Friday
    Jerusalem, Israel                          UTC+2+ODST  16:00
    California, USA                            UTC-8+0DST   6:00
    Missouri, USA                              UTC-6+0DST   8:00
    Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+0DST   8:00
    Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+0DST   9:00
    St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST  10:00
    Santiago, Chile                            UTC-4+1DST  11:00
    Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST  11:00
    London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+0DST  14:00
    Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+0DST  15:00
    Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+0DST  15:00
    Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+0DST  15:00
    Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+0DST  15:00
    Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  23:00
    Tokyo,Japan                                UTC+9+0DST  23:00
    Melbourne, Australia                       UTC+10+1DST 01:00 Friday
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    The DST ends/starts on last Sunday of March (with some exceptions)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

The Conference telebridge will be through WorldCom Conferencing

USA Toll Number: +1-610-769-9240

For your convenience, please note this number will remain the same for all
the scheduled 2002 teleconferences.

PASSCODE: Names Council
LEADER: Philip Sheppard

The full participants are the 21 NC members as listed in
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html, DNSO Secretariat, ICANN
Officers: Louis Touton, Theresa Swinehart

The secretary, Glen de St. Gery, will take notes

The conference MPEG3 recording will be provided by Philippe Renaut

Agenda and related documents

Philip Sheppard will be chairing the NC teleconference.

Running time for meeting -120 mins.
15.00 to 17.00 Paris time
Allocated time - 80 mins.

1. Adoption of Agenda - 5 mins

2. Approval of last summary - 5 mins
Summary of teleconference 17 January 2002
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020117.NCteleconf-minutes.html

3. Names Council Chair
- - status
- - review of future procedures (Marilyn Cade) 20 mins
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020203.NCchair-elec-cade.html

4. Waiting list and deletes
- - report on issue (ICANN staff) - 10 mins.
- - Next steps

5. WHOIS referral from ICANN - 10 mins.
See Louis Touton's letter :
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020122.ICANN-board-referral-whois.html

6. Ghana meetings - (20 mins.)

7. UDRP Chairmanship (Milton Mueller) - 5 mins.

8. Posting rules to the NC list - secretariats - 5 mins.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010430.NClists-over-time.html

9. AOB

Next NC meeting will be held in March 2002, see information about the Ghana
meetings in:http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21jan02.htm

Information from:
 © DNSO Names 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1033
*************************