Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1039
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, February 15 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1039

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

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:38:42 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Council archives not posting

Dear secretariat and all assembly members,

  As noted earlier by Danny Younger there seems to be yet another
problem
with postings to the DNSO Council not being posted (Seemingly
selectively)
to the DNSO Council [email-masked] archives.  One such recent
post is one I made in response to Danny's query, see:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00964.html .  My response
was: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00967.html .  Nither of
these posts to the NC list were archived.  This seems to be an ongoing
and persistent problem.  Could the secretariat make the necessary
adjustments to correct this problem?

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, 14 Feb 2002 12:49:38 +0100
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Council archives not posting

Section C of the following  link sheds light on this question:
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.SECno-cross-posting-rules.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: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:43:29 +0100
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Ghana - call for sponsors for webcasting

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0211_01C1B55D.962556E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would like to issue a call for sponsors for the webcasting of the DNSO =
meetings (General Assembly and Names Council) in Ghana. Sponsors are =
acknowledged publicly and the costs of one day is approximately USD =
12,500.

Due to a change in arrangements I understand that the DNSO meetings will =
not be webcast if we fail to find sponsors. However, secretarial =
services, writing of minutes (and possibly an audio recording of the =
Names Council meeting) will be provided as a minimal service.

The deadline for sponsors to reply is February 24. Thank you for your =
help.=20

Philip Sheppard
Names Council Chair

- ------=_NextPart_000_0211_01C1B55D.962556E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I would like to issue a call for sponsors for the =
webcasting=20
of the DNSO meetings (General Assembly and Names Council)&nbsp;in Ghana. =

</FONT><FONT size=3D2>Sponsors are acknowledged publicly and the costs =
of one day=20
is approximately USD 12,500.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Due to a change in arrangements I understand that =
the DNSO=20
meetings will not be webcast if we fail to find sponsors. However, =
secretarial=20
services, writing of minutes (and possibly an audio recording of the =
Names=20
Council meeting) will be provided as a minimal service.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The deadline for sponsors to reply is =
<STRONG>February=20
24</STRONG>. Thank you for your help. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip Sheppard<BR>Names Council=20
Chair</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0211_01C1B55D.962556E0--

- --
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, 14 Feb 2002 06:50:09 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Council archives not posting

Phillip and all assembly members,

  Ok.  Than how come the Secretariats post that was supposedly
cross posted along with quite a number of other posts that
were cc'ed to the NC list posted to the archives and not
mine, Danny's, and Joannas amongst others Phillip?
Most recent examples as follows:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00004.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00006.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00140.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00154.html

  And these are just a few of the examples...

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Section C of the following  link sheds light on this question:
> http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.SECno-cross-posting-rules.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, 14 Feb 2002 14:23:43 +0100
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Council archives not posting

>   Ok.  Than how come the Secretariats post that was supposedly
> cross posted along with quite a number of other posts that
> were cc'ed to the NC list posted to the archives and not
> mine, Danny's, and Joannas amongst others Phillip?
> Most recent examples as follows:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00004.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00006.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00140.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00154.html

May be I don't understand what this speech is all about, but independantly from the cross posting issue, the council list is a restricted one to the 21 members of the NC. Archives just permit people outside the NC to see the exchanges but not to post anything.
That's the reason why your posts don't appear on the list while the examples you mention have all been posted by valid NC members.

DNSO Sec.
- --
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, 14 Feb 2002 14:32:03 +0100
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Council archives not posting

To be more explicit Section C paragraph 1 of the following link sheds light
on this question:
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.SECno-cross-posting-rules.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: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:55:49 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Council archives not posting

Dear Secretariat and all Assembly members,

DNSO Secretariat wrote:

> >   Ok.  Than how come the Secretariats post that was supposedly
> > cross posted along with quite a number of other posts that
> > were cc'ed to the NC list posted to the archives and not
> > mine, Danny's, and Joannas amongst others Phillip?
> > Most recent examples as follows:
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00004.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00006.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00140.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00154.html
>
> May be I don't understand what this speech is all about, but independantly from the cross posting issue, the council list is a restricted one to the 21 members of the NC. Archives just permit people outside the NC to see the exchanges but not to post anything.

  Phillip indicated that the reason was due to cross posting.  My examples
I took from the NC archives were cross posted posts.  As such the indication
that Phillip was espousing doesn't seem to apply or only applies in individual
instances.  Secondly, as far as I know Dave Crocker is not an NC member,
yet he can post to the NC list and his posts appear in the NC archives.
See http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00003.html
for example.  Hence  you contention regarding that ONLY NC members
can post to the NC list also doesn't seem to ring exactly accurate either..
Also as far I can ascertain Thomas Rossler is not an NC member either
yet he is able to post to the NC list as well See:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00059.html
for example.  Another example is Gary Carp.  As far as I
can ascertain he is not a NC member either yet he can post to
the NC list as well, see:
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00085.html
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00098.html
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00100.html
Also as far as I can ascertain Guillermo Carey C.  is not a NC member
either yet he can post to the NC list see:
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00110.html

  The existing NC members are listed here I believe:
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html

>
> That's the reason why your posts don't appear on the list while the examples you mention have all been posted by valid NC members.
>
> DNSO Sec.

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, 14 Feb 2002 08:03:18 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Council archives not posting

Philip and all assembly members,

  So than are you saying that the posting rules are currently being adapted
to allow for certain individuals to post to the NC list and not others?
Are you sure you are not really meaning to be citing  Section C paragraph 4?
Please advise.  If so, than is there any criterion established to make
such allowneces?  If not, what part of  Section C paragraph 1
are you referring to specifically as it would seem that  Section C paragraph 1
does not apply in that a number of other individual participants that
do not meet the criterion of  Section C paragraph 1 have been
able to post to the NC list.

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> To be more explicit Section C paragraph 1 of the following link sheds light
> on this question:
> http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.SECno-cross-posting-rules.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, 14 Feb 2002 18:28:06 +0100
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Council archives not posting

> instances.  Secondly, as far as I know Dave Crocker is not an NC member,
> yet he can post to the NC list and his posts appear in the NC archives.
> See http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00003.html
> for example.  Hence  you contention regarding that ONLY NC members
> can post to the NC list also doesn't seem to ring exactly accurate either..
> Also as far I can ascertain Thomas Rossler is not an NC member either
> yet he is able to post to the NC list as well See:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00059.html
> for example.  Another example is Gary Carp.  As far as I
> can ascertain he is not a NC member either yet he can post to
> the NC list as well, see:
>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00085.html
>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00098.html
>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00100.html
> Also as far as I can ascertain Guillermo Carey C.  is not a NC member
> either yet he can post to the NC list see:
>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00110.html
> 
>   The existing NC members are listed here I believe:
> http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html

People allowed to post on these list are : NC members, ICANN board, DSNO Sec staff, GA chair.

To take your examples one by one
Dave Crocker was a bouncing error from the DNSO Sec which has been signaled later on.
Thomas Roessler is the GA chair
Gary Carp is in the list ncmembers.html you are mentionning
Guillermo Carey was NC member till few days ago where he was replaced after election by J Scott Evans which is now on the list.

Thanks.

DNSO Sec.
- --
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, 14 Feb 2002 19:14:54 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf MP3 recording - 14 Feb. 2002

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

The recording of the Names Council teleconference held on February 14 at
15:00 CET  (14:00 UTC) is now on line at the following url:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020214.NCteleconf.mp3

DNSO Secretariat

- --
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, 14 Feb 2002 13:23:55 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Council archives not posting

Dear secretariat and all assembly members,

  Thank you for the few clarifications.  And yes BTW I was aware of
the Posting restrictions, hence my query.  However my point being here
is that other individuals have posted to the NC list such as Dave Crocker
on two occasions which you describe as "Bounces"?  How do you account
for Bret Fausett <[email-masked]> see:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00141.html
Was this another odd "Bounce"?

DNSO Secretariat wrote:

> > instances.  Secondly, as far as I know Dave Crocker is not an NC member,
> > yet he can post to the NC list and his posts appear in the NC archives.
> > See http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00003.html
> > for example.  Hence  you contention regarding that ONLY NC members
> > can post to the NC list also doesn't seem to ring exactly accurate either..
> > Also as far I can ascertain Thomas Rossler is not an NC member either
> > yet he is able to post to the NC list as well See:
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00059.html
> > for example.  Another example is Gary Carp.  As far as I
> > can ascertain he is not a NC member either yet he can post to
> > the NC list as well, see:
> >  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00085.html
> >  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00098.html
> >  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00100.html
> > Also as far as I can ascertain Guillermo Carey C.  is not a NC member
> > either yet he can post to the NC list see:
> >  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00110.html
> >
> >   The existing NC members are listed here I believe:
> > http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html
>
> People allowed to post on these list are : NC members, ICANN board, DSNO Sec staff, GA chair.
>
> To take your examples one by one
> Dave Crocker was a bouncing error from the DNSO Sec which has been signaled later on.
> Thomas Roessler is the GA chair
> Gary Carp is in the list ncmembers.html you are mentionning
> Guillermo Carey was NC member till few days ago where he was replaced after election by J Scott Evans which is now on the list.
>
> Thanks.
>
> DNSO Sec.

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, 14 Feb 2002 21:44:24 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Read-only e-mail access to the Names Council list

At 14.02.2002 11:05, DNSO Secretariat wrote:
>On 13 Feb, [email-masked] wrote :
>> On 8 January Alexander Svensson reiterated his request to the Council for 
>> read-only e-mail access to the Names Council list.  Mr. Sheppard advised that 
>> he has already asked our new technical support at the DNSO secretariat to 
>> look into the problem and noted that the tech support unit has been asked to 
>> report back on the options/costs for a solution.
>> 
>> I am not yet aware of such a report from the Secretariat.  Has it been 
>> released or is it expected to soon be forthcoming?
>> 
>
>Read-only e-mail access to the Names Council list is already done through
>a transparent access to archives.
>(sent mail to the list appears on the archives five minutes later).

There must be a misunderstanding here: What I have proposed
and reiterated and what Danny re-reiterated is that read-only 
*E-MAIL* access is unavailable. Transparent access to archives
presumably means *WEB* access. 

Cf. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/agenda/Arc00/msg00055.html

(One of the (rather few ;)) privileges of being GA Alt.Chair is
that you get the NC list delivered to your mailbox. This is
obviously much more convenient than permanently looking for 
updates in the web archives. )

So I'll re-re-reiterate my request at the next regular NC meeting!

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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, 14 Feb 2002 20:33:56 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] WHOIS TF

To our WHOIS Task Force representatives:

The Task Force has been reviewing raw survey data during the course of the 
last four months (it was first made available the week of 15 October).  At 
this point in time I am given to understand that the TF has still not 
finished evaluating a random set of 300 responses (which is perhaps only 10% 
of the total number of all survey submissions).

My concern is that NC Task Forces have typically set aside only 10 days to 2 
weeks for public comments.  How can the public evaluate all the raw data 
within 2 weeks (and the corresponding TF recommendations) if the TF can't 
even finish a review of one-tenth of the surveys in two months?

I would appreciate it if you could again raise this issue within the TF.  I 
would favor publishing all the raw data to the web immediately so that other 
interested parties may also begin the evaluation process.
- --
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, 15 Feb 2002 00:57:36 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names 

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 12:52 AM
Subject: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names 

> 
> Interesting read.
> 
> http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm
> 
> -rwr
> 

- --
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, 14 Feb 2002 22:13:36 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

I don't have a real problem with this, actually.  My only comment is
that it should be stated that the registrar can ONLY redeem the
registration for the original registrant, and not for any other
customer or prospective customer of the registrar.  I know this may be
implied, but it should be specific in this restriction.

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 12:52 AM
> Subject: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names 

>> 
>> Interesting read.
>> 
>> http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm
>> 
>> -rwr
>> 

> --
> 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

- -- 
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, 14 Feb 2002 22:56:46 -0800
From: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

At 10:13 PM 2/14/2002 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
>
>I don't have a real problem with this, actually.  My only comment is
>that it should be stated that the registrar can ONLY redeem the
>registration for the original registrant, and not for any other
>customer or prospective customer of the registrar.  I know this may be
>implied, but it should be specific in this restriction.

Actually, I have quite a few concerns about this.  
Isn't this what the 45 day "Grace Period" after the renewal date is for?
Don't most registrars pull the name from resolving shortly after the
expiration date anyway if the renewal fees are unpaid?

What this effectively does is give VGRS COMPLETE control over deletions
from ALL registrars.  They cannot seem to actually delete names in a timely
manner from thier own registrar, are we to believe that with the additional
load that names will now be released on schedule?  This proposal seems to
create more opportunities for mischief than the current system, both from
registrars and the registry, not to mention the obvious opportunity for
fraudulent "retrievals".

Why not invoke a mandatory "on hold" status period during the 45 day grace
period and set a uniform deletion process/cycle for ALL registrars to
follow uniformly using this 45 day window?  There is already an option to
include this standard in the RAA agreement, why not use that rather than
add yet another layer of  useless process?  If ALL registrars were required
to place a name on hold for AT LEAST 30 days during the 45 day window and
to delete at the end of that period, we would have all of the "benefits" of
this proposal and also solve the hoarding problem that we are facing today.

- -HJW-

>
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
>> To: <[email-masked]>
>> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 12:52 AM
>> Subject: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names 
>
>
>>> 
>>> Interesting read.
>>> 
>>> http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm
>>> 
>>> -rwr
>>> 
>
>> --
>> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>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

Harold Whiting
- --
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, 14 Feb 2002 23:00:23 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for  Deleted Names

Thursday, Thursday, February 14, 2002, 10:56:46 PM, Harold Whiting wrote:

> At 10:13 PM 2/14/2002 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
>>
>>I don't have a real problem with this, actually.  My only comment is
>>that it should be stated that the registrar can ONLY redeem the
>>registration for the original registrant, and not for any other
>>customer or prospective customer of the registrar.  I know this may be
>>implied, but it should be specific in this restriction.

> Actually, I have quite a few concerns about this.  
> Isn't this what the 45 day "Grace Period" after the renewal date is for?

That is optional per registrar.  There are registrars who delete names
much sooner after expiration.

> Don't most registrars pull the name from resolving shortly after the
> expiration date anyway if the renewal fees are unpaid?

No, not all of them do.

> What this effectively does is give VGRS COMPLETE control over deletions
> from ALL registrars.

No more so than now, really, except instead of 5 days, they wait 45.

This is nothing but a change from 5 to 45.

- -- 
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, 14 Feb 2002 23:16:10 -0800
From: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

At 11:00 PM 2/14/2002 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
>Thursday, Thursday, February 14, 2002, 10:56:46 PM, Harold Whiting wrote:
>
>> At 10:13 PM 2/14/2002 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
>>>
>>>I don't have a real problem with this, actually.  My only comment is
>>>that it should be stated that the registrar can ONLY redeem the
>>>registration for the original registrant, and not for any other
>>>customer or prospective customer of the registrar.  I know this may be
>>>implied, but it should be specific in this restriction.
>
>> Actually, I have quite a few concerns about this.  
>> Isn't this what the 45 day "Grace Period" after the renewal date is for?
>
>That is optional per registrar.  There are registrars who delete names
>much sooner after expiration.

My suggestion is that THIS is where there should be uniformity.  If all
registrars are mandated to follow the same procedure during the 45 day
window and delete names uniformly, we solve not only the "mistakes" but
also the hoarding issue.  This makes far more sense than to add yet another
layer of opportunity to manipulate the system by numerous parties
>
>> Don't most registrars pull the name from resolving shortly after the
>> expiration date anyway if the renewal fees are unpaid?
>
>No, not all of them do.

See above.  I suggest the 30 day hold period be mandated during the 45 day
window.  This plan also makes it far easier for the Registrar to "recover"
the name for thier registrant since it is still under thier control and
eliminates any extra burden on the registry to administrate this and also
any need to "charge an extra fee" to the registrar for "recovering" the name.
>
>> What this effectively does is give VGRS COMPLETE control over deletions
>> from ALL registrars.
>
>No more so than now, really, except instead of 5 days, they wait 45.
>
>This is nothing but a change from 5 to 45.

you mean 35, right?

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

- --HJW--
Harold Whiting
- --
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, 15 Feb 2002 00:55:04 -0800
From: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods forDeleted Names

At 12:01 AM 2/15/2002 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
>Your proposal here seems sound.
>
>I wonder though, being a hater of warehousing and hoarding, whether there 
>should
>not be some level of vigilance or use required of a domain name holder.  This
>accomplishes many ends.
>I am all for speculation in any market but I have also seen the horrible 
>effects
>of letting the condition of a property deteriorate simply because the owner is
>betting on increase in values do to inflation artificial demand et al.
>
>While a use it or lose it concept is very unpopular I would love to see it
>implemented against our large corporate resellers.
>
>I guess I will soon see just how unpopular this idea is.
>
>Eric

There IS a "level of vigilance" required of the registrant, that is that
he/she pay the registration fees in a timely manner!

Like it or not, it is not up to us to determine what constitutes
"acceptable use" of a name.  Does pointing it to a search page constitute
use? Does redirecting to an affiliate program constitute use?  Does
building a controversial website, or any website for that matter,
constitute fair use?  Does registering your child's name for future use
constitute acceptable use?  Does registering a name and pointing it towards
adult material that some would find objectionable acceptable use?  Does
registering a name sounding like a US State Lottery and using that name to
sell tickets to said Lottery constitute fair use?  Does registering a name
for email use only constitute acceptable use?  Does simply registering a
name in hopes of profiting from possible resale later on constitute
acceptable use? 

I am free to decide what is acceptable to me, but not to force my values on
the rest of the world - and that is what I would have to be doing to
promote any kind of "use it or lose it" plan.  In case you are curious, I
personally would not do several of the examples aforementioned but accept
the fact that others do and I believe it is within thier rights to do so.

While we all may have our personal preferences and may find a few of the
above examples objectionable, in my opinion they all are reasonable "uses"
of domains.  Yes, even the "dirty speculators" are using the names.  You
would be surprised to see how many of those "speculators" actually are
"using" the names; be it for driving traffic to affiliate programs, driving
traffic to one of thier own sites, actually building an individual site
(dare we venture to judge which sites are of "acceptable content and
message" too?).  

This is not the road we want to go down, IMO.
The point is this: 

You cannot force content to the internet.  If it is going to be published,
it WILL get published.  "I can't publish my wonderful content because my
'perfect' name is gone" - nonsense, if somebody wants to build it they can
and they will. 

You may not dictate what is acceptable to the world by what is only
acceptable to you.

The market is slaughtering those that registered every name under the sun
thinking that they would all sell for millions, this is where a large
percentage of the deletions actually come from!

But all of this is a sidetrack from the primary issue at hand.  A proposal
has been made, by ICANN even!  I strongly suggest that the focus be on that
rather than the utopian ideals that this particular dialog is skirting.

- --HJW--

>
>Harold Whiting wrote:
>
>> At 11:00 PM 2/14/2002 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
>> >Thursday, Thursday, February 14, 2002, 10:56:46 PM, Harold Whiting wrote:
>> >
>> >> At 10:13 PM 2/14/2002 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>I don't have a real problem with this, actually.  My only comment is
>> >>>that it should be stated that the registrar can ONLY redeem the
>> >>>registration for the original registrant, and not for any other
>> >>>customer or prospective customer of the registrar.  I know this may be
>> >>>implied, but it should be specific in this restriction.
>> >
>> >> Actually, I have quite a few concerns about this.
>> >> Isn't this what the 45 day "Grace Period" after the renewal date is for?
>> >
>> >That is optional per registrar.  There are registrars who delete names
>> >much sooner after expiration.
>>
>> My suggestion is that THIS is where there should be uniformity.  If all
>> registrars are mandated to follow the same procedure during the 45 day
>> window and delete names uniformly, we solve not only the "mistakes" but
>> also the hoarding issue.  This makes far more sense than to add yet another
>> layer of opportunity to manipulate the system by numerous parties
>> >
>> >> Don't most registrars pull the name from resolving shortly after the
>> >> expiration date anyway if the renewal fees are unpaid?
>> >
>> >No, not all of them do.
>>
>> See above.  I suggest the 30 day hold period be mandated during the 45 day
>> window.  This plan also makes it far easier for the Registrar to "recover"
>> the name for thier registrant since it is still under thier control and
>> eliminates any extra burden on the registry to administrate this and also
>> any need to "charge an extra fee" to the registrar for "recovering" the
name.
>> >
>> >> What this effectively does is give VGRS COMPLETE control over deletions
>> >> from ALL registrars.
>> >
>> >No more so than now, really, except instead of 5 days, they wait 45.
>> >
>> >This is nothing but a change from 5 to 45.
>>
>> you mean 35, right?
>>
>> >
>> >--
>> >Best regards,
>> >William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
>> >--
>>
>> --HJW--
>> Harold Whiting
>> --
>> 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

Harold Whiting
- --
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 #1039
*************************