Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1046
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST        Wednesday, February 20 2002        Volume 01 : Number 1046

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

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 21:24:36 -0800
From: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Poll: WLS -- definite no & a solution 

> ------begin poll-------------------------------
> Name: Harold Whiting
>
> As a member of the DNSO General Assembly, I:
>
>    Am in favour of the WLS   [ ]
>    Oppose the WLS            [xxx ]
>    Abstain from WLS vote     [ ]
>
> Brief Reasons:
Anti Competitive Racketeering Power Play by Abusive Monopoly
> ------end poll----------------------------------
>
> My own position is:

VGRS now claims that:
The "technical problem" regarding deletes was "solved" months ago.
The WLS is now "not a solution for the deletes issue".
The WLS is a separate "product".

If this is the case, and VGRS is so set on "testing" the "value" of WLS, I
propose that the following be mandated to ensure a REAL "test" of the WLS
"product" and not skewing the results with any "deletes" issue.  
1. No WLS subscription may be purchased for any domain name within 30 days
prior to expiration date.
2. No WLS subscription may be purchased for any domain name that has
already passed its expiration date.

Only if the above conditions apply, would the "WLS product" be tested
solely on the merrits of itself and not because of it being "the only game
in town".  This would eliminate speculative domination of the WLS system
and truly allow the mysterious "mainstream users" to show us all just how
much the WLS is "needed by the consumers".

>
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: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:36:41 -0500
From: "Dr. Daniel Carras" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Poll: WLS -- yes or no? 

- ------begin poll-------------------------------
Name: Dr. Daniel Carras

As a member of the DNSO General Assembly, I:

   Am in favour of the WLS   [X]
   Oppose the WLS            [ ]
   Abstain from WLS vote     [ ]

Brief Reasons: I, who have a small developing isp service, have had no problems with
Verisign or setting up a viable competition model. Any problems that have arisen have been
dealt with, usually within two business days.

George Kirikos wrote:

> As a constituency, there's only a couple of weeks to submit a response
> regarding the WLS. Given all that has been said, an informal (or
> formal) poll might be useful to gauge the stance of members of the GA.
>
> ------begin poll-------------------------------
> Name:
>
> As a member of the DNSO General Assembly, I:
>
>    Am in favour of the WLS   [ ]
>    Oppose the WLS            [ ]
>    Abstain from WLS vote     [ ]
>
> Brief Reasons:
>
> ------end poll----------------------------------
>
> My own position is:
>
> ------begin poll-------------------------------
> Name: George Kirikos
>
> As a member of the DNSO General Assembly, I:
>
>    Am in favour of the WLS   [ ]
>    Oppose the WLS            [X]
>    Abstain from WLS vote     [ ]
>
> Brief Reasons: It is an anti-competitive intervention in the deleted
> domains industry. VGRS is attempting to leverage its registry monopoly
> to enter a market that already exhibits competition and innovation, to
> the detriments of those market participants and to effect a cash grab.
> VGRS has now admitted that the "technical problems" that once existed
> have been completely solved, and thus this new self-serving product is
> not required. NB: Verisign states in answer B.2 at
> http://verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf that "registry load is no
> longer an issue. The multiple pools and rate limiting technology have
> SOLVED that problem".
> ------end poll----------------------------------
>
> I'll have a longer response in a later posting, but hope that this will
> gets the ball rolling.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/

- --
Thank You
Dr. Daniel Carras
Delta R&D, Inc.
http://www.deltard.org
mailto:[email-masked]
"Philosophy Incorporated: Our Product Is Thought"

- --------------------------------------------------
Dr.Dan Iam with Green Eggs and Ham [Ref Dr. Seuss]

- --
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: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 21:42:23 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Poll: WLS -- yes or no?

Tuesday, Tuesday, February 19, 2002, 9:36:41 PM, Dr. Daniel Carras wrote:

> ------begin poll-------------------------------
> Name: Dr. Daniel Carras

> As a member of the DNSO General Assembly, I:

>    Am in favour of the WLS   [X]
>    Oppose the WLS            [ ]
>    Abstain from WLS vote     [ ]

> Brief Reasons: I, who have a small developing isp service, have had no problems with
> Verisign or setting up a viable competition model. Any problems that have arisen have been
> dealt with, usually within two business days.

Which is a horrible reason to support the WLS.

The WLS has nothing to do with liking Versign or not, or whether you
have had a good experience with their Registrar unit.

- -- 
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: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 22:06:33 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Poll: WLS -- definite no & a solution 

Hello,

- --- Harold Whiting <[email-masked]> wrote:
> If this is the case, and VGRS is so set on "testing" the "value" of
> WLS, I
> propose that the following be mandated to ensure a REAL "test" of the
> WLS
> "product" and not skewing the results with any "deletes" issue.  

I'd have to add that their proposed procedure for the transition
period, i.e. the treatment of existing Snapbacks instead of having a
real landrush/Sunrise starting from scratch is a complete and utter
joke. The same techniques used to shift names between registrars in the
first 5 days of a registration would be used to shift Snapbacks into
WLS, by sophisticated players (there's some level of risk, as its
spread over 48 hours, but the reward is worth the gamble -- VGRS is
basically allowing insider information on the availability of WLS slots
to be held by certain parties, which doesn't make things a level
playing field).

Let's give a numerical example, to give folks a feel for how the
players utilize the inside information. There are two groups of people
the Uninformed, and the Insiders. The Uninformed have a list of say
10,000 names that they are monitoring for changes in WLS availability,
and cycle their resources amongst those 10,000 names equally (1/10000th
of their resources), or in a ratio reflective of the value of the name.
The Insiders, though, know that say 4 specific names have a change in
WLS status in the next 48 hours. So, they cycle their resources on only
those 4 names (1/4th of their resources). Assuming the number of
"Uninformed" isn't too large (and since there are only 96 registrars,
the number is relatively low), the Informed have a very high
probability of capturing the WLS slot on those 4 names. Certainly VGRS
and SnapNames are sophisticated enough to know this would happen, which
makes me wonder why they left this gaping hole in their proposal? 

Having a REAL Sunrise/Landrush, starting from scratch would be a big
improvement, in conjunction with Harold's suggestions, to create a
level playing field.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:16:26 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS landrush / SnapBacks / q. B 18 a

On 2002-02-19 22:06:33 -0800, George Kirikos wrote:

>I'd have to add that their proposed procedure for the transition 
>period, i.e. the treatment of existing Snapbacks instead of having 
>a real landrush/Sunrise starting from scratch is a complete and 
>utter joke.

I'd be curious to know if Verisign plans similar grandfathering 
mechanisms as the one described in the answer to questin B 18 a for 
other SnpNames-like services.  From the answer in the document 
distributed, the _only_ names which will be excluded from the WLS 
will, in the beginning, be the ones with SnapBack subscriptions. 

Chuck?
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:02:45 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Poll: WLS -- yes or no?

> ------begin poll-------------------------------
> Name: Marc Schneiders
>
> As a member of the DNSO General Assembly, I:
>
>    Am in favour of the WLS   [ ]
>    Oppose the WLS            [x]
>    Abstain from WLS vote     [ ]
>
> Brief Reasons:
>
>
> ------end poll----------------------------------

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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:10:40 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Poll: WLS -- yes or no?

On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:09:51 -0800 (PST), George Kirikos wrote:

> As a constituency, there's only a couple of weeks to submit a response
> regarding the WLS. Given all that has been said, an informal (or
> formal) poll might be useful to gauge the stance of members of the GA.

Thank you, George.

- ------begin poll-------------------------------
Name:  Patrick Corliss

As a member of the DNSO General Assembly, I:

   Am in favour of the WLS  [  ]
   Oppose the WLS                [X]
   Abstain from WLS vote    [  ]

Brief Reasons:  All to obviously VeriSign is abusing their market position.
The WLS proposal is in no way favourable to the domain name holders as a
class.

- ------end poll----------------------------------

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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:16:49 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Joe Sims

I have informed you recently of the Registrants Constituency preparation 
efforts started at European initiatives. The visit of Joe Sims and other 
elements confirm that EEC, European Industry and Participants are accepted 
as a serious possible threat to the Majors' (ATT/IBM/SAIC/MS) attempts to 
take over the naming plan, as enlighted by former IBM Stuart Lynn's ICP-3 
document, supported by IAB ATT engineers, enacted by Verisign a partner of 
MS in Realnames, surprisingly added to the Accra Agenda. Why no Berkman 
institute in Accra: not to show the reason why Marilyn Cade opposes so 
vehemently New.net or/and the closing of the GA?

In this stary the GA, the ALSC, the IDNO, the gTLD mailing lists are 
important focal points where all of us may consider the best common 
interest of the Internet Participants and show the BoD where reality lies.

IMHO Joe Sims fails to understand the very architecture of the network and 
of the XXIth century society. They want it legally centralised with GAC 
Members being the ICANN "cops" to impose his  contracting strategy to the 
TLD Managers. The nets are not centralized and directed, they are not even 
meshed and managed as the NIC+GAC could propose: they are distributed and 
consensually simultaneously used and provided. They are not a block to 
carve with a few names, they are not  stones to build with, they are just 
sand flowing around blocking points of failure.

What ATT/IBM/SAIC/MS are proposing may look nice, may look sensible but it 
so conceptually outdated than it will not survive. While it survives and 
develops, it will block network innovation by the largest number. It will 
create permanent operation unrest, unstability and lack of security until 
the day it collapses under the market tide, probably at great cost, as a 
faded technology.

If we could organize as structured @large : industries, business, content 
providers, registrants, users, IP owners, in a smooth organization, just 
liberalizing and opening the ICANN existing structure we could cut a common 
Internet Participant deal in the best interest of everyone.

Otherwise it will be a competition unfortunately understood by most around 
the world as "US vs the rest of the world" because the leading opponents to 
people privacy, independance, free naming, technical autonomy happens to be 
seated both in the USA and in their lack of vision.

As a European, as a partner with American, Chinese, Japanese, Australian, 
Brazilean, African, Indian, Pacific, French and European developpers, I do 
not want to be engaged in a so stupid fight into such a waste of energies, 
into such an uncessary dispute of magnitude.

Even if we - all of us except the dinosaurs - will obviously win at the end 
of the day.
Jefsey

   

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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:53:34 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf minutes 14 Feb 2002

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

The DNSO Names Council Teleconference minutes are online at the following:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020214.NCteleconf-minutes.html
This is found in the index section:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2002calendardnso.html
on the main page under "Archives of DNSO events".

DNSO Names Council Teleconference 14th February 2002 - minutes
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
21 February 2002.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020214.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Peter de Blanc                 ccTLD
Elisabeth Porteneuve           ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay             ccTLD
Philip Sheppard                Business
Marilyn Cade                   Business
Grant Forsyth                  Business
Greg Ruth                      ISPCP
Antonio Harris                 ISPCP  [absent, apologies, proxy to Tony
Holmes]
Tony Holmes                    ISPCP  proxy for Tony Harris
Philipp Grabensee              Registrars [absent, apologies, proxy to Ken
Stubbs]
Ken Stubbs                     Registrars  proxy for Philipp Grabensee
Bruce Tonkin                   Registrars
Roger Cochetti                 gTLD
Richard Tindal                 gTLD
Cary Karp                      gTLD
Ellen Shankman                 IP
Laurence Djolakian             IP
J. Scott Evans                 IP
Milton Mueller                 NCDNH
Youn Jung Park                 NCDNH       proxy for Vany Martinez
Vany Martinez                  NCDNH       [absent, apologies, proxy to YJ
Park]
Louis Touton                   ICANN staff

Glen de Saint Géry             NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut                MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat

MP3 Recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020214.NCteleconf.mp3

Quorum present at 15:05 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +1:00
during the winter in the Northern hemisphere)

Ph. Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference. Philip Sheppard welcomed the
two new Names Council members to the call, Ellen Shankman and J. Scott Evans
from the IP Constituency.

Agenda item 1: Approval of the Agenda

Ken Stubbs asked about the recording of the Ghana meeting and suggested a
MP3 recording.
Philip Sheppard mentioned that he had sent out a request for sponsorship.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020214.NCteleconf-agenda.html

The agenda was approved

Agenda item 2: Approval of last summary
Approval of summary of the last teleconference, 17 January 2002
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020117.NCteleconf-minutes.html

Ken Stubbs moved a motion to adopt  the summary, seconded by J. Scott Evans

Decision D1: The agenda and minutes of January 17th meeting were approved
unanimously.
Agenda item 3: Names Council Chair
Philip Sheppard proposed discussion of the rules vote with regard to NC
chair for which he would hand over the chair. He proposed that issues to do
with any subsequent rule change or  e-mail voting could be handled later.

Tony Holmes was handed the chair for the vote on Caroline Chicoine's motion
to waive one part of the NC rules of procedure to allow the current chair to
re-stand for election for a further term of six months. In recapping, he
mentioned the e-mail vote outcome, 10 in favour, 9 against and 1 abstention,
confirmed by the secretariat. He said that his own vote had been sent but
not received by the secretariat.  He reminded the NC that under the by-laws
an e-mail vote has to be ratified or re-voted by a physical or telephone
meeting .

The usual procedure for NC votes for election to the ICANN Board votes is an
e-mail vote ratified by a teleconference or physical meeting. In this case
the Secretariat checks by telephone if someone has not voted and takes the
vote by phone.

Discussion followed on three options:
- - to ratify the e-mail vote as received,  thus disenfranchising the vote
sent but not received,
- - to ask the NC to confirm on the call the actual votes sent,
- - to take a new vote on the call.

It was suggested that taking another vote would establish a new procedure as
it would effectively make null the point of an e-mail vote. Nevertheless in
view of a discussion that was becoming clouded by procedural dialogue, and
in view of the exceptional circumstance of a vote sent but not received,
Marilyn Cade proposed, seconded by J. Scott Evans:

To take a new vote on the call.

Decision D2: 13 in favour, 6 against, 2 abstentions. The motion is carried.

Now that it was agreed to hold a fresh vote, there was discussion on the
motion itself. Some members felt it is bad practice to change rules and that
a new chairman should be elected according to the old rules. Other members
said that the NC was a young body, had only recently established its own
internal guidelines and that it was a sign of vitality and flexibility to
adapt guidelines to changing circumstances.

Marilyn Cade proposed, that separately from the election of a chair, after
the said election, that the NC should have an extensive discussion about:
1 term of office
2 succession
3 rotation as a concept versus qualifications
4 removal of chair
5 whether a vice chair is a good idea and any other related issues.

The NC then voted on the motion as originally proposed by Caroline Chicoine,
and seconded by Marilyn Cade: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010220.
NCprocedures-v4.0.html
Solely for the purposes of the NC Chair election taking place on February
14, 2002, the NC moves to waive the provision of Section 1.1 of the Rules of
Procedure for the DNSO which prohibits a retiring NC Chair from running for
re-election for a period of one year.

Decision D3: 12 in favour, 7 against, 2 abstentions. The motion is carried.

However, as this original motion referred to a earlier aspiration to hold
the election itself on 14 February, the NC took a third vote to amend the
timescale:
J. Scott Evans proposes, seconded by Ken Stubbs:
That the motion that has just carried as proposed by Caroline Chicoine of
the IP Constituency and voted on be amended to read that the waiver will
apply to any election of the Names Council held on or before March 1, 2002.

Decision D4: All in favour. The motion is carried.

Ken Stubbs then proposed the following motion to call for nominations,
seconded by J. Scott Evans:

The nomination period for the Names Council Chair for the next 6 month
period be opened today, 14 February 2002, and that the nominations remain
open until 24:00 UTC on 20 February 2002. Instruct the current Names Council
Chair to call for a teleconference for a formal vote by the NC on the
candidate to be held no later than March 1st.
Decision D5: All in favour. The motion carried.

The Chair was handed back to Philip Sheppard. The teleconference to vote on
the candidates nominated for NC Chair will be on Thursday 28 February at
15:00 CET, (14:00 UTC). Other points on the agenda around the item of NC
Chair were deferred. ACTION: The Secretariat will send out a formal call for
nominations.

Agenda Item 4: Waiting list and deletes
Philip Sheppard invited the BC and IPC to remind Council of their recent
postings. Marilyn Cade speaking for the Business Constituency said that
issues related to deletion and service offering had an impact on all users.
A broad understanding of these issues is required so that the NC can better
examine solutions. J. Scott Evans, IPC, agreed.

Louis Touton explained that a variety of issues arose towards the middle of
last year regarding the way in which deletions of domain names were handled.
What occurred had to do with technical issues at Verisign Registry. Since
then, a number of temporary solutions have been implemented, and there has
been a robust discussion among the Registrars about how to address in
particular:
- - the technical challenge raised by deletions and high demand,
- - the services proposed or implemented by Registrars or Verisign.

Roger Cochetti pointed out that the Council should be mindful that their
mandate is to address policy. Council agreed that part of the purpose of a
briefing session would be to extract the policy issues arising from this
subject.

Action: It was proposed that ICANN staff work with Marilyn Cade for the NC
plus any other NC volunteers to plan an briefing of the key issues in Ghana.

Agenda item 5: WHOIS referral from ICANN
Louis Touton reminded Council of a request from Verio Inc. regarding a
change in the Registrar's Accreditation agreement about bulk WHOIS data
obtained from registrars and the marketing uses for it.
The ICANN reconsideration committee recommended referring the issue to the
DNSO.

Philip Sheppard asked if it could be referred to the existing Task Force or
would it require a new group.
The WHOIS TF Chair said it was an issue that could be taken up by the WHOIS
task force if the Council requested it.

Philip Sheppard proposed:
To refer the issue to the existing WHOIS TF and for the TF to report back by
e-mail to the NC within 14 days how they intend to deal with it.
Decision 6: The proposal was adopted. There was one abstention.

Agenda Item 6: Ghana Meetings
Alexander Svensson, alternate GA Chair, was welcomed by Philip Sheppard. The
idea was to coordinate information meetings with the GA meeting. The usual
ICANN meeting format is a Constituency day, a DNSO day and two Board days.
Alexander Svensson stated that the GA was planning sessions on:
- - Dot ORG
- - At Large/DNSO
- - Wait List Service
and then an Open Forum.

The following framework was proposed:
Monday 11 February 2002
Constituency meetings
Tuesday 12 February 2002
8:30 to 11:00 GA session
11:00 to 1:30 ICANN higher-layer naming session
15:00 to 17:00 Names Council

Marilyn Cade as interim chair on the Transfer TF agrees to liaise with
Alexander Svensson on an information session on deletions. Louis Touton
offered the help of ICANN staff.

Philip Sheppard went over the attendees list and there will be a quorum.
DNSO webcasting will depend on sponsorship and a MP3 recording will be made
subject to establishing a teleconference connection.

Agenda Item 7: UDRP Chairmanship
Caroline Chicoine and Milton Meuller are both retiring from the NC thus the
succession as UDRP Chair needs to be decided upon. For the sake of
continuity in the first phase of the task force's work, both co-chairs had
volunteered  to stay on for a short period.

J. Scott Evans proposed, seconded by Elisabeth Porteneuve:
The Names Council allow the current co-chairs to continue in the positions
until such time as the responses to the surveys have been sent out to Task
Force members for evaluation.
Decision 7: Motion is carried, all in favour

Amended version proposed by Milton
That after that period of distributing the surveys, the Task Force would
elect its own Chairman.
Decision 8: Amendment is carried, all in favour.

Agenda Item 8: Posting rules to the NC list - secretariats
Only NC members, the Board, and ICANN/DNSO staff can post to the NC list. A
constituency secretariat has asked to be given posting rights following a
case when they were unable to contact all three of their NC reps.

Comments:
- - some members said it is important to keep the list limited essentially to
the elected representatives especially as what appears in the archives is
public
- - a permanent Secretariat could be asked to post in an emergency.
- - this problem had happened once only.

It was agreed that in exceptional cases when their was timely information
relevant to the Council from a constituency and that constituency's NC
representatives could not be contacted, a constituency secretariat or chair
could contact the DNSO  Secretariat who would make a decision as to whether
it should be posted and then do so with an explanatory cover note.

Agenda Item: AOB

No other business was recorded.

MEETING CLOSURE

Ph. Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked Alexander Svensson for his
participation.

17.28 end of call.

Next NC teleconference, which will be an special meeting for the purposes of
electing the Council chair, will take place on 28th February 2002 at 15:00
CET.

 Information from:
 © DNSO Names Council

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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 07:58:05 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS landrush / SnapBacks / q. B 18 a

The VGRS responses actually indicate that SnapNames will be given an
advantage over other after-market participants, with respect to any
existing after-market business.

Any special consideration WRT the existing after-market business
should be applied equally to all after-market participants and not
solely to SnapNames.

Wednesday, February 20, 2002, 3:16:26 AM, Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> wrote:
TR> On 2002-02-19 22:06:33 -0800, George Kirikos wrote:

>>I'd have to add that their proposed procedure for the transition 
>>period, i.e. the treatment of existing Snapbacks instead of having 
>>a real landrush/Sunrise starting from scratch is a complete and 
>>utter joke.

TR> I'd be curious to know if Verisign plans similar grandfathering 
TR> mechanisms as the one described in the answer to questin B 18 a for 
TR> other SnpNames-like services.  From the answer in the document 
TR> distributed, the _only_ names which will be excluded from the WLS 
TR> will, in the beginning, be the ones with SnapBack subscriptions. 

TR> Chuck?

- ----
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: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 02:07:46 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Domain Name News

Reposted from the Australian [dns] mailing list.  Thanks David.

ICANN Proposes 'Grace Period' For Deleted Addresses (BizReport)
Internet addressing authorities this week proposed establishing a
uniform one-month "grace period" during which domain-name holders
could reregister Internet addresses that inadvertently lapse, either
due to malicious hijacking or simple oversight.

http://www.bizreport.com/article.php?art_id=2997&PHPSESSID=40a6f8d6635b96daa6c
36a4054b18306
 http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/174557.html

Web .info names available in May-consortium (CNET)
Internet users will get a chance in May to reserve domain names like
hawaii.info and science.info, after domain manager Afilias finishes
rousting thousands of cybersquatting speculators from the new Web
marketplace, Afilias said Monday.

http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-8834642-0.html
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t278-s2104524,00.html

Addressing Companies Question Lapsed Name 'Grace Period' (Newsbytes)
Officials for some Internet addressing companies are questioning the
workability and timing of a proposal that would establish a uniform
one-month "grace period" during which domain-name holders could
reregister Internet addresses that inadvertently lapse.
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/174564.html
http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm

Afilias Unveils Dot-Info Redistribution Plan (Newsbytes)
Afilias - the company that manages the recently christened dot-info
Internet domain - today announced its plans for redistributing
dot-info addresses seized from fraudulent registrants.
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/174567.html

http://www.netimperative.com/media/newsarticle.asp?ArticleID=14430&ChannelID=2
&ArticleType=1

Sex.tv Sues The .tv Corporation (AVN Online)
Sex.tv disappeared from the Web on Monday, hours after its parent
company, Sex.tv Ltd., filed suit against registrar The .tv
Corporation in U.S. District Court. The lawsuit alleges fraud,
cybersquatting, and deceptive business practices under California and
federal statutes. It also seeks to have the court place the domain
Sex.tv and the $688,000 paid by Sex.tv Ltd. to The .tv Corporation
for domain registration fees in a 'constructive trust' pending
further action.
http://www.avnonline.com/issues/200202/newsarchive/021202_lead.shtml

Sue dot TV
On Monday 11th February 2001 Sex.tv launched their court case against
the .tv corporation. Citing cybersquatting as one of the main
allegations against .tv. Charles Carreon, the lawyer which won the
infamous Sex.com case, will be bringing the .tv corporation to task
over their lack of support and investment into building an extension
which is worth the exorbotant amount of money that they have been
charging for their 'premium' domains.
http://www.suedottv.com

Afilias Unveils Dot-Info Redistribution Plan (Newsbytes)
Afilias - the company that manages the recently christened dot-info
Internet domain - today announced its plans for redistributing
dot-info addresses seized from fraudulent registrants.
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/174567.html

Domain Police Finger NY Rescue-Worker Collectible Sellers (Newsbytes)
New York City police and firefighters have used an international
dispute resolution system rooted in trademark law to shut down a Web
site that was selling trinkets commemorating rescue workers killed in
the Sept. 11 Word Trade Center disaster.
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/174588.html

From BNA Internet Law News
WIPO Issues Report On Internationalized Domain Names
WIPO has issued a briefing paper on its views of the IP implications
of internationalized domain names. The report canvasses the impact on
the ICANN UDRP including issues related to confusing similarity and
sucks cases. Report at:
http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/international/index.html

From BNA Internet Law News
ICANN IDN Committee Warns Of The Dangers Of Dots
The ICANN Internationalized Domain Name Committee has warned against
the introduction of keyword services that utilize a dot between
different name segments. It argues that its use would cause
great.consumer.confusion. Warning and briefing paper at:
http://www.icann.org/committees/idn/idn-keyword-paper.htm
http://www.icann.org/committees/idn/idn-keyword-statement.htm
Reaction at http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=550

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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:33:50 -0600
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW:  Nomination of Cary Karp for NC Chair

All,

The gTLD Registry Constituency has nominated Cary Karp for Chair of the
Names Council.  Despite last week's vote to waive the rules to allow Philip
to run for a third term as Chair of the Constituency, the gTLD Constituency
believes that the only way to ensure representativeness on the NC is to have
rotation among the constituencies for the Chair position.  

We believe that before Cary's nomination, some members of the NC may have
voted for the waiver motion because they did not know if there would be
another qualified candidate running.  Well, now there is an extremely
qualified candidate and we would urge that the Names Council vote keeping in
mind that the original rule was put into place to ensure rotation.

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
e-mail: [email-masked]

[council] Nomination for NC Chair
*	To: "Names Council (E-mail)" <[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]>> 
*	Subject: [council] Nomination for NC Chair 
*	From: "Tindal, Richard" <[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]>> 
*	Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:10:54 -0600 
*	Sender: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 

Dear Colleagues, 
I would like to nominate Cary Karp for Chairman of the Names Council. Cary
has been active in the ICANN 
for many years and is a well respected and knowledgeable member of this
Council. 
The gTLD Registry Constituency continues to believe in the importance of
Chair rotation each 12 month period 
as a means of balancing the representation of views within the global
internet community. We believe Cary has 
the skills and character to well manage this representation, as well as the
knowledge and dedication 
to ensure continuity in the important business before the Council. 
I appreciate your time in considering this nomination. 
Best Regards 
Richard Tindal 

.

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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:53:36 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Petition to the Chair

Dear Mr. Roessler,

I continue to be disturbed by the persistent refusal of the Chair of the NC 
Structure TF to discuss the restructuring proposal voted upon by the GA.  Mr. 
Sheppard once more writes:  "The task force will consider proposals made to 
the Board before 31 January 2002. To date the only proposal formally made to 
the Board is the ALSC."  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00093.html

The GA tendered its proposal long before the date cited, and the Chair of 
this TF still refuses to acknowledge this proposal.

In your capacity as Chair, may I ask you to convey to the Council the 
sentiment that members of the GA are equally members of the DNSO and 
accordingly have the right to have their issues considered.  
- --
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, 21 Feb 2002 10:30:07 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW:  Nomination of Cary Karp for NC Chair

At 10:33 20/02/02 -0600, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>All,
>
>The gTLD Registry Constituency has nominated Cary Karp for Chair of the
>Names Council.

Jeff,

Which company/organization does Cary Karp work for?

- --Joop

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1046
*************************