Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1034
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, February 9 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1034

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

Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:00:21 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some SnapNam es  stats

Dear Chuck,
everyone wander what the SnapName technology may be so Verisign may take 
advantage from it. Apart from being possibly a help to manage the VRSN 
database discrepancies, most of us feel they could imagine very quickly how 
to implement a WLS service. Could you please document this technology shortly?

I also believe there is an important impact on TM ownership and DN nature 
to include in the same registrant contract the WLS and UDRP, all the more 
by a Registry and a Panelist. I am sure that Versign has first ordered a 
legal analysis to its lawyers. It would be of great help to everyone to 
study that document or at least a significant abstract of it.

Thank you for responding on these two points.
Jefsey

On 19:17 07/01/02, Gomes, Chuck said:
>Wrong.  The fact that we entered into a license agreement simply means
>that we have rights to use the technology if the WLS is implemented.
>That allowed us to more accurately predict our costs in preparing a
>proposal but in no way does that mean it is a fait accompli.
>
>Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:45 PM
> > To: ga
> > Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some
> > SnapNames stats
> >
> >
> > "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > These kind of decisions would have to be made by our
> > business people.
> > > And as you probably already know, in order to be able to
> > most accurately
> > > provide a proposal with cost information, we already entered into an
> > > agreement with SnapNames.
> >
> > In other words, this registry WLS is not really a
> > "proposal" but a fait accompli?
> >
> > This appears to be an illegal _lottery_ schema.  What do
> > you have to say about that.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > --
> > 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: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:41:08 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] conquer and divide

Assembly,

there are currently 2 questionlists for VGRS circualting, who for the most 
part overlap.
Several individuals are posting more questions and in the end....... nothing 
gets off to any start and nothing gets done, nothing gets voted on.

The result is a no show for the GA in questions to VGRS
we have 20 hours to merge those lists, and get something of a vote going, if 
the chair is willing to.

Let us please not again raise issue about "seperate" lists, because that 
obviousy is a dogma 
anyway for those still interested in getting answers from VGRS:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00866.html

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00899.html

perhaps Thomas is willing to get either of this or better yet a combination 
of these going as GA majority questions.

Needless to point out that if we do not ask the question, ah well conclude 
for yourself :)

abel

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

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:45:46 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] conquer and divide

Abel,

Let me make clear that VGRS will try to respond to all questions that
reasonably can be answered within normal business constraints even if they
come from just a small subset of the GA.  In other words, we do not plan to
ignore questions from one or two GA members just because the full GA may not
take a position with regard to what questions to submit.

The purpose behind the request that questions be consolidated as a group was
to make the process more manageable.  That is still an objective of ours, so
efforts in this regard will be appreciated.  At the same time, if just you
and George have questions, please submit them.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abel Wisman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 5:41 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] conquer and divide
> 
> 
> Assembly,
> 
> there are currently 2 questionlists for VGRS circualting, who 
> for the most 
> part overlap.
> Several individuals are posting more questions and in the 
> end....... nothing 
> gets off to any start and nothing gets done, nothing gets voted on.
> 
> The result is a no show for the GA in questions to VGRS
> we have 20 hours to merge those lists, and get something of a 
> vote going, if 
> the chair is willing to.
> 
> Let us please not again raise issue about "seperate" lists, 
> because that 
> obviousy is a dogma 
> anyway for those still interested in getting answers from VGRS:
> 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00866.html
> 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00899.html
> 
> perhaps Thomas is willing to get either of this or better yet 
> a combination 
> of these going as GA majority questions.
> 
> Needless to point out that if we do not ask the question, ah 
> well conclude 
> for yourself :)
> 
> abel
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Abel Wisman
> office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
> mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16
> 
> www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at 
> affordable prices
> www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
> www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
> www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:08:05 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some SnapNam es  stats

Jefsey,

It is not possible to provide details of either SnapNames or VGRS technology
because they are proprietary.

Second, it would not be appropriate according to VeriSign policy or commonly
accepted legal practices to publicly disclose legal analysis performed by
our staff.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 4:00 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some
> SnapNam es stats
> 
> 
> Dear Chuck,
> everyone wander what the SnapName technology may be so 
> Verisign may take 
> advantage from it. Apart from being possibly a help to manage 
> the VRSN 
> database discrepancies, most of us feel they could imagine 
> very quickly how 
> to implement a WLS service. Could you please document this 
> technology shortly?
> 
> I also believe there is an important impact on TM ownership 
> and DN nature 
> to include in the same registrant contract the WLS and UDRP, 
> all the more 
> by a Registry and a Panelist. I am sure that Versign has 
> first ordered a 
> legal analysis to its lawyers. It would be of great help to 
> everyone to 
> study that document or at least a significant abstract of it.
> 
> Thank you for responding on these two points.
> Jefsey
> 
> On 19:17 07/01/02, Gomes, Chuck said:
> >Wrong.  The fact that we entered into a license agreement 
> simply means
> >that we have rights to use the technology if the WLS is implemented.
> >That allowed us to more accurately predict our costs in preparing a
> >proposal but in no way does that mean it is a fait accompli.
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:45 PM
> > > To: ga
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some
> > > SnapNames stats
> > >
> > >
> > > "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > These kind of decisions would have to be made by our
> > > business people.
> > > > And as you probably already know, in order to be able to
> > > most accurately
> > > > provide a proposal with cost information, we already 
> entered into an
> > > > agreement with SnapNames.
> > >
> > > In other words, this registry WLS is not really a
> > > "proposal" but a fait accompli?
> > >
> > > This appears to be an illegal _lottery_ schema.  What do
> > > you have to say about that.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > > --
> > > 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: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:46:39 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] conquer and divide

Hi Abel,

- --- Abel Wisman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> there are currently 2 questionlists for VGRS circualting, who for the
> most 
> part overlap.

<skip>

> perhaps Thomas is willing to get either of this or better yet a
> combination 
> of these going as GA majority questions.

I think it's just a matter of Thomas doing a merge of all submitted
questions. Perhaps Chuck Gomes can let us know what time today he wants
all questions submitted (maybe by 6 pm Pacific, i.e. 9 pm Eastern?).

By the way, I tried submitting my questions to the other mailing list
at:

http://prometheus.able-nl.com/mailman/listinfo/draft-deletes

however none of my attempts to send messages work (and it shows me as
subscribed, and I've not received anything). I think that mailing list
may be broken, or something.

Given Thomas' post at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00846.html

I assume he's been collecting the questions, and will merge all
questions soon.

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: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 18:14:01 +0100 (MET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Linking Patent Goes to Court 

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,50283,00.html

Licence fee for this hyperlink is paid ;-)
- --
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 12:20:14 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] conquer and divide

George,

As long as we get them by midnight tonight (EST), that will be fine.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Kirikos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 10:47 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] conquer and divide
> 
> 
> Hi Abel,
> 
> --- Abel Wisman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > there are currently 2 questionlists for VGRS circualting, 
> who for the
> > most 
> > part overlap.
> 
> <skip>
> 
> > perhaps Thomas is willing to get either of this or better yet a
> > combination 
> > of these going as GA majority questions.
> 
> I think it's just a matter of Thomas doing a merge of all submitted
> questions. Perhaps Chuck Gomes can let us know what time 
> today he wants
> all questions submitted (maybe by 6 pm Pacific, i.e. 9 pm Eastern?).
> 
> By the way, I tried submitting my questions to the other mailing list
> at:
> 
> http://prometheus.able-nl.com/mailman/listinfo/draft-deletes
> 
> however none of my attempts to send messages work (and it shows me as
> subscribed, and I've not received anything). I think that mailing list
> may be broken, or something.
> 
> Given Thomas' post at:
> 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00846.html
> 
> I assume he's been collecting the questions, and will merge all
> questions soon.
> 
> 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: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 18:40:50 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] conquer and divide

We won't be able to finish the questions before midnight tonight - 
sorry.

Alexander will be able to send a compiled list of questions 
tomorrow.

On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 12:20:14PM -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
>To: "'George Kirikos'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
>	[email-masked]
>Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: RE: [ga] conquer and divide
>Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:20:14 -0500 
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
>
>George,
>
>As long as we get them by midnight tonight (EST), that will be fine.
>
>Chuck
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: George Kirikos [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 10:47 AM
>> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> Subject: Re: [ga] conquer and divide
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Abel,
>> 
>> --- Abel Wisman <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> > there are currently 2 questionlists for VGRS circualting, 
>> who for the
>> > most 
>> > part overlap.
>> 
>> <skip>
>> 
>> > perhaps Thomas is willing to get either of this or better yet a
>> > combination 
>> > of these going as GA majority questions.
>> 
>> I think it's just a matter of Thomas doing a merge of all submitted
>> questions. Perhaps Chuck Gomes can let us know what time 
>> today he wants
>> all questions submitted (maybe by 6 pm Pacific, i.e. 9 pm Eastern?).
>> 
>> By the way, I tried submitting my questions to the other mailing list
>> at:
>> 
>> http://prometheus.able-nl.com/mailman/listinfo/draft-deletes
>> 
>> however none of my attempts to send messages work (and it shows me as
>> subscribed, and I've not received anything). I think that mailing list
>> may be broken, or something.
>> 
>> Given Thomas' post at:
>> 
>> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00846.html
>> 
>> I assume he's been collecting the questions, and will merge all
>> questions soon.
>> 
>> 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

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                      <[email-masked]>
- --
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 09:47:37 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] conquer and divide

Hello,

- --- Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> We won't be able to finish the questions before midnight tonight - 
> sorry.
> 
> Alexander will be able to send a compiled list of questions 
> tomorrow.

We still have 11 hours left -- lots of time, I think, as most of the
questions are in 5 or 6 postings (with the bulk in 2 of them). I can
help to merge them, if you need assistance (TGIF!). Although, perhaps
Chuck will allow a few additional hours of grace, to allow Alexander
the time to send the compilation on Saturday -- I expect that Verisign
employees like to relax on weekends, just like the rest of us, so the
work of answering questions wouldn't begin until Monday, anyhow.
 
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: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:56:43 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] WLS questions

Some additional questions about WLS have been posted on the registrars list:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02018.html

More questions are expected to be posted later in the day by the registrar 
WLS team.
- --
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 10:16:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS questions

Danny,

when the registrars finish their final draft of the document I'll post a
copy to the GA list, and we'll have one on our website at
www.icann-registrars.org

- -rick

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Some additional questions about WLS have been posted on the registrars list:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02018.html
>
> More questions are expected to be posted later in the day by the registrar
> WLS team.
> --
> 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: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 18:27:51 -0000
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS questions

I am gratefull for the sharing, however imo the GA should contribute it'sown
list, despite of duplication or not with the Registrar list
Afaik there will also be a list from the opensrs resellers, but i believe
that each constituency or gathering should send in it's own

abel

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 5:56 PM
Subject: [ga] WLS questions

> Some additional questions about WLS have been posted on the registrars
list:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02018.html
>
> More questions are expected to be posted later in the day by the registrar
> WLS team.
> --
> 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
>

- --
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 19:03:46 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS questions

Hello,

- --- Abel Wisman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I am gratefull for the sharing, however imo the GA should contribute
> it'sown
> list, despite of duplication or not with the Registrar list
> Afaik there will also be a list from the opensrs resellers, but i
> believe
> that each constituency or gathering should send in it's own

Just for the record, the OpenSRS RSPs Group questions that were
submitted today are at:

http://www.opensrs.org/archives/discuss-list/0202/0204.html

The DNSO Registrars questions are at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02023.html

Hopefully everyone will post public links to the answers once Verisign
responds.

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: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 10:11:19 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Compiled WLS Questions

[The list has been sent to VeriSign Global Registry Services]

Compilation of questions from the DNSO General Assembly
about the proposed Waiting List Service for domain names
- --------------------------------------------------------

Registry load issues

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

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

4. 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?

Legal issues

5. Can Verisign (registry) assure the community that registrars
    offering this service on a world-wide basis are not going to face
    legal problems?  In an earlier message (*) sent to the registrars'
    list, Jim Archer raises some questions on this, arguing that
    offering WLS subscriptions may be considered commodity trading.  If
    such problems exist even in some (possibly obscure) jurisdictions,
    this would introduce an unfair national bias into the system.
    (*) <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01852.html>

6. 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?

7. On what (contractual) grounds does VGRS propose the WLS, instead of
    letting this part of the markt be a free operating system?
    Where does VGRS base the sale of WLS upon, considering that it is her
    contractual duty to return domains to the pool after 45 days, in which 
case
    there would be nothing to sell

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

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

Prices, payment and costs

10.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)

11.What besides "willingness of the market" is the base for the extremely
    high price of WLS? When will VGRS deliver a cost-based analyses to all
    constituencies to determine a "fair" price for such services, if they
    should be started?

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

13.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?

Test success criteria

14.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?

15.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?

16.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)

Abusive speculation

17. 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"? (As of this writing,
    the Hot 100 list on SnapNames' website is apparently no longer
    available, although the mirror is available)

Grandfathering

18.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?

19.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?

Consensus process

20.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?

WLS implementation

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

22.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"?

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

Secondary market

24.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?

25.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?

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

Bulk deletions

27.Will the process of BULK deletion remain in place?

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

- --------------------------------------------------------
This list has been compiled from questions asked by members of the
DNSO General Assembly list.

- --
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: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 21:17:15 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] For The Record

For the record, I approve of the list and support its submission.

On Sat, 09 Feb 2002 10:11:19 +0100, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> [The list has been sent to VeriSign Global Registry Services]
> 
> Compilation of questions from the DNSO General Assembly
> about the proposed Waiting List Service for domain names
> --------------------------------------------------------

[snip]

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1034
*************************