Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1040
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, February 16 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1040

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

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:06:11 -0800
From: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace PeriodsforDeleted Names

At 01:35 AM 2/15/2002 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:

yet more comments further down...

>Well said - comments below.
>
><snip>
>
>> 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--
>
>Lets go back to WXWs' point.
>
>All commercial resellers and/or accredited ICANN registrars and registries 
>must use
>it or give it back.
>
>Give it back means to the public or to the deleted owner. Give it back
means at
>non-speculative prices.
>
>There you go, that ain't no pie in the sky, that there is brass tacks.
>
>The bottom line is warehousing and registrar/registry reselling = real bad
>practice.

I agree

>
>5 - 45 does not bother me at all.  - irrelevant.

I would like to see the 30 day hold occur concurrent with the 45 day grace
period, because this handles both issues of hoarding and "accidents"
together in the most efficient manner. No additional cost, no additional
registry administration, no additional layers. I would like to see 40 days
during that period that a domain does not resolve, this would be ample time
for any semi-conscious registrant to renew the name and provide the fastest
way for him/her to do that because it does not need to be "recovered" back
from the registry.  I found it interesting that ICANN cited the "recovery"
clause in the current contract for names in the 5 day "registry hold"
period we have currently as I have had many clients try to have NSI
"recover" thier own names during this very same period only to be told by
NSI that it was technically impossible to do.  I have doubts that it will
be any less "impossible" for them to do it with a different timeline!

>
>Consensus on stopping these cancerous processes of name hoarding by the 
>folks that control the spaces, that is the key.

Agreed, but adding more layers is not likely to exert more control, only
create more problems ultimately. more layers = more cost = more chances for
manipulation, etc.  Again, this is something we already have the mechanisms
in place for but are not using them efficiently and uniformly.

>
>We await in the next twenty four hours a response from Mr. Gomes on the very 
>issue which is core here.

Actually, this is adjunct to the WLS issue in that it deals with both
hoarding and TIMELY deletes.  I do not expect Chuck to offer up any comment
on either, considering he is supposedly "blind to what the Registrar side
of the Chinese Wall" is going to do.

<snip>

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: 15 Feb 2002 11:04:11 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

Harold and Assembly,

Harold, you come close. To many "forget" the thin line that reads: 
"Registrars would be able to redeem the name in the registry for the
original registrant by payment renewal fees, plus a service charge, to
the registry operator."

"plus a service charge" ....

The possibility is indeed laready there; during the 45 day period. make
that a "rule" and at no cost, a simple safeguard has been build in that
is already in place at f.i. Tucows registrar.

As i see it, this is politics, they are paving the path for WLS to even
more "filling the need" that at first is created.

No answer to anyone on the hoarding of domains by Verisign registrar,
obviously looking forward to implementing their registry's "test". 

Including the 45 day period, and in that period a 30 non-resolving of
the domain, owner is more then aptly warned, no more warnings are
needed, owners have to do something themselves to.

It is unholy preparation for moves on the part of the VGRS group,
nothing else, one that should be discarded ASAP.

abel

www.able-towers.com
www.grid9.net
www.url.org
www.telesave.net

+44 - 208 42 42 42 2
+44 - 78 12 14 19 16

- --
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 08:05:41 -0800
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

During the Redemption Grace Period, registrants could redeem their
registrations through registrars. Registrars would be able to redeem the
name in the registry for the original registrant by paying renewal fees,
PLUS A SERVICE CHARGE, to the registry operator. Any party requesting
redemption would be required to prove its identity as the original
registrant of the name.

"PLUS A SERVICE CHARGE, to the registry operator"

is one statement I would like explored, clarified, nailed down ...
Being that "the registry operator" is Verisign - call me paranoid - but
A SERVICE CHARGE could be $100 USD  and this whole document may be
yet another fox in a henhouse initiated by Verisign but this time presented
via ICANN to derive yet another lucrative revenue source

Genie Livingstone
Magi Inc
http://www.eyeondomain.com

> > ----- 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
>
>
>

- --
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 11:20:19 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

First, just some curiosity questions:
 1. Which individual, or individuals, authored this document?
 2. Whose work product is it, i.e. a work group, ICANN Staff, VGRS,
    or who?

With regard to the current system, it is my understanding that if a
Registrar retains a domain name past the expiration date, the
Registrar is required to pay VGRS $6. However, if the domain name is
deleted within the current 45 day period, then that the Registrar is
refunded that $6 by VGRS.  If the Registrar makes a mistake in timely
deletion, the Registrar owns the domain name for a year - their $6 fee
is non-refundable at that point.

Even though VGRS does not earn any revenue due to the current process,
think of the float it creates for VGRS. For instance, as Paul Stahura
of eNom points out ( see
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg01011.html ), the
current process ties up $270K of their capital. One might think of it
as a hidden tax imposed by VGRS, when the cost of money is considered.

Paul further makes the point that the Registrars have the discretion
to delete domain names within two days of expiration and the hardship
which that could cause for the previous Registrant.

Although I, personally, do not agree with charging the Registrant a
penalty for a post expiration renewal - unless it is uniformly imposed
in the same amount by all Registrars, I do comprehend the cost and
hardship the current process places squarely on the shoulders of the
Registrar. I also think that Paul has fairly well stated a reason
(although, there are probably other reasons, as well), why some
Registrars may be dropping domain names prior to the 45 day period and
the hardship which that creates for the prior Registrant.

As stated before, there is no uniform specification or policy for
domain name expirations as mentioned in 3.7.5 (and 3.7.11) of the
Registrar Accreditation Agreement ("RAA"), ( see
http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm ). It is
noteworthy that this "Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names"
document ("RGPDN") ( see
http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm )
specifically references 3.7.11 of the RAA, which speaks to the same,
absent specification or policy.

Reflecting on the absent specification or policy, the WLS proposal
and the current VGRS system problems, paragraph 10 of the RGPDN
document states, in part, the following:

"Also, the registry operator involved is forced to cope with
extraordinary re-registration demand from domain-name speculators for
the rights to domains that were mistakenly or unintentionally deleted.
Indeed, anecdotal evidence indicates that a significant portion of the
demand for registration of deleted domains involves domains that the
former registrant did not intend to have deleted. If the only names
that became available to the market for re-registering expired names
were ones that were truly no longer wanted by the original
registrants, the demand for expired names would be less intense, and
perhaps significantly so. The "add-storm" phenomenon of multiple
registrars simultaneously sending millions of requests in a race to
grab a few names being deleted from the registry is at least partly
fueled by speculators seeking names that the original registrant had
no intention of dropping. The public interest would be served by
reform of the current system, which operates to allow a few
well-informed and well-connected profiteers to prosper from others'
mistakes."

All things considered, I am in favor of the proposed solution
presented in the RGPDN document as a "policy and specification adopted
by ICANN pertinent to the RAA", with the following modifications:

1. The Deleted Name Redemption Grace Period ("Redemption Grace
Period") should be a "minimum" period for the domain name to be
on-hold by the Registry, so that the Registrant gets the intended time
benefit regardless of any error by any party.

2. Since non-resolution of the domain name is intended to be
notification to the Registrant, as I read the RGPDN document, the
Redemption Grace Period should probably be longer, perhaps still 45
days, when considering the affect that DNS cache expiration may have
on the domain name not resolving.

3. Instead of "During this 30-day period" stated in bullet point two,
under "Proposed Solution" of the RGPDN document, the domain name
should be placed on hold the day following expiration (or as soon as
practical, but subject to the "minimum" as stated in item 1 above), so
that it fails to resolve as soon as possible (it can take days for DNS
cache to expire).

4. When a domain name is on hold, it should be reflected as such in
the WHOIS along with the Registrar's and sponsoring Reseller's
information, so that the Registrant can determine who to contact in
order to initiate renewal.  They forget and many, perhaps most, are
not as computer savvy as most of us.

5. The WHOIS should also indicate the expiration date, the date it was
put on hold and the date it will be dropped/deleted from the Registry.
(The drop/deletion date may also lessen impact on the Registry, as
some have suggested in the past).

6. The Redemption Grace Period should no longer be conditioned upon
payment of the fee to VGRS by the Registrars. In fact, bullet point
three, under "Proposed Solution" of the RGPDN document, speaks to the
payment of the renewal fee at the time it is renewed (if it is renewed
by the Registrant). This will cost VGRS some money and, I'm sure that
some math major can calculate the number of monthly drops, the
resulting float and the cost thereof at, say, Prime +1%. However,
fundamentally, VGRS is suppose to be charging based upon its costs
and, consequently, the profit from the float would seem to be gravy,
anyway -- making it a moot point.

7. With respect to the "service charge" as stated in bullet point
three, under "Proposed Solution" of the RGPDN document, I fail to see
how this procedure will adversely impact the costs of VGRS in a
substantial nature. It seems they will be providing essentially the
same functionality, although some system modifications may be
required. Even so, it is difficult to determine, at this time anyway,
the justification for an additional fee to be paid to VGRS. After all,
their fee is suppose to be based upon cost. On the other hand, if a
"service charge" is determined to be warranted and justified, then I
believe it should be passed through to the Registrant without markup
by the Registrars and Resellers. The alternative, and a more consumer
friendly one, is to amortize the cost of this process (which I think
should be negligible) in the fee (currently $6/yr) paid to VGRS by the
Registrars; what could it cost by amortizing it over new/renewed
domain name registration years -- a penny? Again, VGRS is suppose to
be basing their pricing on their cost.

8. Bullet point three, under "Proposed Solution" of the RGPDN
document, suggests that ONLY the ORIGINAL REGISTRANT is permitted to
renew the domain name during the Redemption Grace Period. I think that
language needs to be more specific and that is should specify
prohibitions, as well.

9. Further, to the RGPDN document, the policy or specification adopted
by ICANN, should also prohibit other potential abuses, such as, but
not limited to "Inappropriate Lending of Registry Access" ( See
http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-12feb02.htm ).

10. Also, in addition to the RGPDN document, there should be included
a set procedure or policy for the timely deletion of domain names to
prevent the current hoarding by certain Registrars.

11. Furthermore, there should be some type of mechanism incorporated
into this policy or specification adopted by ICANN (or incorporated
into the RAA in general) which allows the levy of a fine or some other
monetary penalty (notwithstanding the right to cancel the RAA) for an
infraction. There is at least one Registrar which has been hoarding
domain names for a very long time and there needs to be a better
mechanism to address these types of flagrant abuses, short of contract
cancellation.

WLS Proposal:
With respect to the WLS proposal now before us and reflecting upon the
substance of paragraph 10 of the RGPDN document (which was quoted in
part above), we should now turn our attention to ICANN's proposal for
reform, as represented by the RGPDN document.  Consequently, we should
now put on hold any further consider of, and activity pertinent to,
WLS.  Furthermore, if anything should be tested to prove its value, it
should be the product of this ICANN initiative before that of any
vendor.

FWIW

Thursday, February 14, 2002, 11:57:36 PM, Ross Wm. Rader <[email-masked]> wrote:
RWR> ----- Original Message ----- 
RWR> From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
RWR> To: <[email-masked]>
RWR> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 12:52 AM
RWR> Subject: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names 
RWR>
RWR> Interesting read.
RWR>
RWR> http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm
RWR>
RWR> -rwr

- ----
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: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:52:30 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

Abel and all assembly members,

  Very good and well thought out analysis here Abel.  Well done!

  "Mapping-in" of WLS seems to be the approach that Verisign
is wanting to take without regard to it's contractual agreements
and promises to the stakeholder community.

Abel Wisman wrote:

> Harold and Assembly,
>
> Harold, you come close. To many "forget" the thin line that reads:
> "Registrars would be able to redeem the name in the registry for the
> original registrant by payment renewal fees, plus a service charge, to
> the registry operator."
>
> "plus a service charge" ....
>
> The possibility is indeed laready there; during the 45 day period. make
> that a "rule" and at no cost, a simple safeguard has been build in that
> is already in place at f.i. Tucows registrar.
>
> As i see it, this is politics, they are paving the path for WLS to even
> more "filling the need" that at first is created.
>
> No answer to anyone on the hoarding of domains by Verisign registrar,
> obviously looking forward to implementing their registry's "test".
>
> Including the 45 day period, and in that period a 30 non-resolving of
> the domain, owner is more then aptly warned, no more warnings are
> needed, owners have to do something themselves to.
>
> It is unholy preparation for moves on the part of the VGRS group,
> nothing else, one that should be discarded ASAP.
>
> abel
>
> www.able-towers.com
> www.grid9.net
> www.url.org
> www.telesave.net
>
> +44 - 208 42 42 42 2
> +44 - 78 12 14 19 16
>
> --
> 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, 15 Feb 2002 15:20:28 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] VGRS Answers to WLS Questions

VGRS' responses to questions received regarding the revised Wait Listing
Proposal have been posted at:

	http://verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf

Chuck Gomes
Vice President, Policy & Compliance
VeriSign Global Registry Services

- --
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 15:43:59 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ISPs and the ALM

An idea is being floated in the ALSC public forum to involve ISPs in support 
of the At-Large membership.  As we have not witnessed any participation by 
our ISP representatives in that Forum to date, I am sure that they would 
welcome the opportunity to discuss their views...

excerpts are cited below:

I am not sure how or why ICANN has slowly shifted the question from "how to 
implement an at-large organization?" to "is there interest in an at-large 
organization and will users pay for it?"  I belong to the camp that will not 
pay a "membership fee".  I would (cautiously) support an at-large fee 
PROVIDED it applied to ALL Internet users (this would be similar to the 
"property tax" idea) and provided that voting rights were meaningful.  
Perhaps there should be a fee of a penny per IP address which the ISPs would 
pay - and they would pass this charge along to their users.  This would not 
be difficult for the ISPs - mine seems to have no trouble at all regularly 
increasing the fees for vague regulatory reasons. A similar idea was already 
floated, but aimed at charging an extra penny per domain name. I personally 
think that the charge ought to be collected via ISPs rather than domain 
registrars because those who use the Internet (at-large members) all must 
have Internet access (! provided by their ISP), but not all must have a 
domain name. Furthermore, domain name holders are already represented by the 
DNSO, while at-large users are not.

Ideally, when you sign up for Internet Service, you would also get 
information about how to vote for at-large reps for ICANN.  The "how-to" 
should be along the lines of "Go to this website, enter your password (or 
click on the faces, whatever)" and ta-da, here are links to the 
representatives pages, here's information on ICANN and here's where you can 
vote.  The representatives would be responsible for their own material (no 
charge to ICANN or the users). ICANN would be responsible for keeping a list 
of rep pages (ought to be trivial), posting material about what they are up 
to in all applicable languages (they ought to do this regardless of whether 
there is an at-large or not!) and the voting capability.

The real question is how to authenticate users - and I think that the mail 
solution is unsustainable.  Again, I think that the easiest solution lies 
through the ISPs.  Most (if not all?) already provide their users with a 
username and password.  I would ideally like to link to ICANN At-Large 
through the website I get to when I log in this with username and password. 
ICANN would not need to authenticate the users - they would already be 
authenticated through the ISP. Then the main issue would be to ensure that 
users can't bypass this process. This would require a little more persuasion 
for the ISPs, because they would need to add the link from the site, but if 
ICANN has any authority at all they should be able to pull it off.
- --
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 21:58:08 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

Those registrars that I have checked (in alphabetical order: Dotster,
Enom, OpenSRS, Register.com) have an Auto Renew option. This fully takes
care of the problem discussed in this ICANN document. There is no need for
anything else. Registrars can profile themselves by offering the auto
renew service, or even other services that avoid losing a domain (e.g.
snail mail or telephone notification).

The ICANN document states:

"Indeed, anecdotal evidence indicates that a significant portion of the
demand for registration of deleted domains involves domains that the
former registrant did not intend to have deleted. If the only names
that became available to the market for re-registering expired names
were ones that were truly no longer wanted by the original
registrants, the demand for expired names would be less intense, and
perhaps significantly so."

This is too easy. Facts and figures are needed. Why change things, and
give VeriSign a new profitable monopoly, if all we have is "anecdotal
evidence" and speculation based upon that? Come on.

- --
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 13:04:31 -0800
From: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VGRS Answers to WLS Questions

Responses? Yes.
Answers?  very few.

Are we really supposed to believe that VGRS "has no knowledge of other
businesses that will be unable to compete if WLS is implemented"?  And also
that this "promotes innovation" by registrars?

It seems to me that all of this "Q&A" period is just a ruse by VGRS to
"appear" to be sensitive to comment/feedback on this.  Not once in this
document do I find any anything but denial and dismissal by VGRS of any
concerns raised by the constituencies.  The position of VGRS seems to be
that it needs no approval by anyone, including ICANN for any of this with
the exception of "price".  I find this entire document and its lack of
substance entirely unsatisfactory.

- --HJW--

At 03:20 PM 2/15/2002 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>VGRS' responses to questions received regarding the revised Wait Listing
>Proposal have been posted at:
>
>	http://verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf
>
>Chuck Gomes
>Vice President, Policy & Compliance
>VeriSign Global Registry Services
>
>--
>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: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:03:45 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

Friday, Friday, February 15, 2002, 3:04:11 AM, Abel Wisman wrote:

> Harold and Assembly,

> Harold, you come close. To many "forget" the thin line that reads: 
> "Registrars would be able to redeem the name in the registry for the
> original registrant by payment renewal fees, plus a service charge, to
> the registry operator."

> "plus a service charge" ....

Good catch, Abel.

This should definitely be removed, or specified to be no more than $1
for instance if it must be in at all.

I Strongly urge that line be completely removed.

- -- 
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: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:07:15 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] VGRS Avoids Answers to WLS Questions

I just got done reading it myself, and agree it is an excellent
exercise in answering by not answering.

Friday, Friday, February 15, 2002, 1:04:31 PM, Harold Whiting wrote:

> Responses? Yes.
> Answers?  very few.

> Are we really supposed to believe that VGRS "has no knowledge of other
> businesses that will be unable to compete if WLS is implemented"?  And also
> that this "promotes innovation" by registrars?

> It seems to me that all of this "Q&A" period is just a ruse by VGRS to
> "appear" to be sensitive to comment/feedback on this.  Not once in this
> document do I find any anything but denial and dismissal by VGRS of any
> concerns raised by the constituencies.  The position of VGRS seems to be
> that it needs no approval by anyone, including ICANN for any of this with
> the exception of "price".  I find this entire document and its lack of
> substance entirely unsatisfactory.

> --HJW--

> At 03:20 PM 2/15/2002 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>VGRS' responses to questions received regarding the revised Wait Listing
>>Proposal have been posted at:
>>
>>       http://verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf
>>
>>Chuck Gomes
>>Vice President, Policy & Compliance
>>VeriSign Global Registry Services
>>
>>--
>>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-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: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:19:32 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Questions from OPENSRS RSPs Group regarding the WLS proposal

Hi again,

- --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Thanks George.

I forgot to ask earlier, is there an ASCII text or HTML version of the
document that can be posted? It's hard (impossible?) to cut/paste from
the PDFs.

By the way, I believe the phase-in procedure with regards to the odd
position of names that already have SnapBacks on them is going to ripe
for abuse, so Verisign might want to rethink that. In particular,
here's what could happen:

1) I own a SnapBack on xyz.com currently, and so in theory no one can
buy a WLS on it.

2) In the middle of the night, when no one is watching, I remove the
SnapBack (using the 'exchange' feature, to switch it to a different
name, or just removing it entirely), and instantaneously (using
scripts, or whatever) register the WLS on the same name. From what I
can tell, the WLS would be properly processed, thus allowing a "secret"
grandfathering of existing names to those "in the know".

Thus, I think any transition period/landrush/sunrise really needs to be
re-thought. {I'll reserve further comments until I've read things in
more detail]

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Got something to say? Say it better with Yahoo! Video Mail 
http://mail.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, 15 Feb 2002 22:43:49 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ISPs and the ALM

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, at 15:43 [=GMT-0500], [email-masked] wrote:

> An idea is being floated in the ALSC public forum to involve ISPs in support
> of the At-Large membership.  As we have not witnessed any participation by
> our ISP representatives in that Forum to date, I am sure that they would
> welcome the opportunity to discuss their views...

[...]

> The real question is how to authenticate users - and I think that the mail
> solution is unsustainable.  Again, I think that the easiest solution lies
> through the ISPs.  Most (if not all?) already provide their users with a
> username and password.  I would ideally like to link to ICANN At-Large
> through the website I get to when I log in this with username and password.
> ICANN would not need to authenticate the users - they would already be
> authenticated through the ISP. Then the main issue would be to ensure that
> users can't bypass this process. This would require a little more persuasion
> for the ISPs, because they would need to add the link from the site, but if
> ICANN has any authority at all they should be able to pull it off.

This assumes that no ISP will try to create multiple votes. Why would they
not?

- --
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 16:47:19 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Questions from OPENSRS RSPs Group regarding the WLS proposal

An HTML version will be posted next week.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Kirikos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 4:20 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Questions from OPENSRS RSPs Group regarding the WLS
> proposal
> 
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Thanks George.
> 
> I forgot to ask earlier, is there an ASCII text or HTML version of the
> document that can be posted? It's hard (impossible?) to cut/paste from
> the PDFs.
> 
> By the way, I believe the phase-in procedure with regards to the odd
> position of names that already have SnapBacks on them is going to ripe
> for abuse, so Verisign might want to rethink that. In particular,
> here's what could happen:
> 
> 1) I own a SnapBack on xyz.com currently, and so in theory no one can
> buy a WLS on it.
> 
> 2) In the middle of the night, when no one is watching, I remove the
> SnapBack (using the 'exchange' feature, to switch it to a different
> name, or just removing it entirely), and instantaneously (using
> scripts, or whatever) register the WLS on the same name. From what I
> can tell, the WLS would be properly processed, thus allowing 
> a "secret"
> grandfathering of existing names to those "in the know".
> 
> Thus, I think any transition period/landrush/sunrise really 
> needs to be
> re-thought. {I'll reserve further comments until I've read things in
> more detail]
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Got something to say? Say it better with Yahoo! Video Mail 
> http://mail.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, 15 Feb 2002 14:57:04 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC teleconf MP3 recording - 14 Feb. 2002

DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> 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

The file does not appear to include the last part of the meeting. It cuts
out during a vote. Is anyone else having the same problem?

    Bret

- --
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 17:03:34 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VGRS Answers to WLS Questions

Harold and all assembly members,

  You hit the nail right on the head Harold.  VGRS is going to implement
WLS whether the stakeholders want/like it or not.  It's really just that
simple.
The only real question remaining is when...  And BTW, the ICANN BoD
and staff will likely either endorse WLS or turn a blind eye...

Harold Whiting wrote:

> Responses? Yes.
> Answers?  very few.
>
> Are we really supposed to believe that VGRS "has no knowledge of other
> businesses that will be unable to compete if WLS is implemented"?  And also
> that this "promotes innovation" by registrars?
>
> It seems to me that all of this "Q&A" period is just a ruse by VGRS to
> "appear" to be sensitive to comment/feedback on this.  Not once in this
> document do I find any anything but denial and dismissal by VGRS of any
> concerns raised by the constituencies.  The position of VGRS seems to be
> that it needs no approval by anyone, including ICANN for any of this with
> the exception of "price".  I find this entire document and its lack of
> substance entirely unsatisfactory.
>
> --HJW--
>
> At 03:20 PM 2/15/2002 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >VGRS' responses to questions received regarding the revised Wait Listing
> >Proposal have been posted at:
> >
> >       http://verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf
> >
> >Chuck Gomes
> >Vice President, Policy & Compliance
> >VeriSign Global Registry Services
> >
> >--
> >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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1040
*************************