Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1082
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, March 15 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1082

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

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 23:45:53 -0800
From: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal

<html>
The Registrar's Constituency's Formal response to the WLS is
missing.<br>
How convenient, for it does NOT support the WLS.<br>
<br>
Also very convenient is the absence of the the expanded discussion over
whether the registry was contractually allowed to roll out and charge for
this type of service.<br>
I do not see this type of service listed in the Registry contract's
appendix of &quot;allowed&quot; services that the registry could charge
for.&nbsp; Neither did anyone else.<br>
<br>
Chuck, if you are going to publish only the feedback that is favorable to
WLS, make it clear that that is what you are doing.&nbsp; As usual, this
is a blatantly biased posting by VeriSign.<br>
<br>
- --HJW--<br>
<br>
At 02:09 AM 3/15/2002 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote: <br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"><blockquote type=cite cite>FYI</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">Chuck</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="tahoma" size=2>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b>From:</b> Johnson, Terry <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'<br>
<b>Cc:</b> [email-masked]'; Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal<br>
<br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2>&nbsp;To all respondents:</font> <br>
<br>
On behalf of Chuck Gomes, thanks once again for taking time to share your
comments and feedback concerning the proposed Wait Listing Service
(WLS).&nbsp;&nbsp; As stated, it has been our goal to aggregate the
feedback that is collected and post this for public record to the
VeriSign website.&nbsp; To that end, we have posted to our website the
collective feedback that was submitted to VGRS, and received at
<a href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> as of 4:30P, March
14, 2002.&nbsp; The URL where these comments regarding the revised Wait
Listing Proposal may be viewed is at:&nbsp;&nbsp;
<a href="http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html">http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html</a>.
(under the title: &quot;Comments on Wait List Service
Proposal&quot;)<br>
<br>
&nbsp;<br>
<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>Terry Johnson<br>
</font>&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2><b>VeriSign Global Registry
Services</font></b><br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;</blockquote><br>
<br>
Harold Whiting
</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 Mar 2002 23:56:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal

Harold,

The registrars have not yet submitted their final comments to VGRS because
we had to vote on the commnets, check the vot, verify the ballot, sign the
names and cehcek everything again.

I expect that the registrars will release the response to VGRS some time
tomorrow.

best regards,

- -rick

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Harold Whiting wrote:

> The Registrar's Constituency's Formal response to the WLS is missing.
> How convenient, for it does NOT support the WLS.
>
> Also very convenient is the absence of the the expanded discussion over
> whether the registry was contractually allowed to roll out and charge for
> this type of service.
> I do not see this type of service listed in the Registry contract's
> appendix of "allowed" services that the registry could charge for. 
> Neither did anyone else.
>
> Chuck, if you are going to publish only the feedback that is favorable to
> WLS, make it clear that that is what you are doing.  As usual, this is a
> blatantly biased posting by VeriSign.
>
> --HJW--
>
> At 02:09 AM 3/15/2002 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>       FYI
>        
>       Chuck
>        
>       -----Original Message-----
>       From: Johnson, Terry
>       Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:29 PM
>       To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
>       [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
>       Cc: [email-masked]'; Gomes, Chuck;
>       [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
>       [email-masked]'
>       Subject: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal
>
>        To all respondents:
>
>       On behalf of Chuck Gomes, thanks once again for taking time
>       to share your comments and feedback concerning the proposed
>       Wait Listing Service (WLS).   As stated, it has been our goal
>       to aggregate the feedback that is collected and post this for
>       public record to the VeriSign website.  To that end, we have
>       posted to our website the collective feedback that was
>       submitted to VGRS, and received at [email-masked] as of
>       4:30P, March 14, 2002.  The URL where these comments
>       regarding the revised Wait Listing Proposal may be viewed is
>       at:   http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html. (under the title:
>       "Comments on Wait List Service Proposal")
>
>        
>
>       Terry Johnson
>        
>       VeriSign Global Registry Services
>        
>        
>
>
>
> 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
>

- --
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 Mar 2002 00:14:41 -0800
From: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal

Rick,
  I stand corrected on that. Thank you.

I still see a strangely biased choice of postings, though.
The most amusing was the one from the Registrar that claimed that current
SnapBack holders would be somehow "disadvantaged" should they not be
allowed to be rolled in to the WLS.  What "group" was this from? Why is it
one of the few "individual" statements to be published?  It does seem to
substantiate the idea that the WLS WILL disadvantage all but the most
technically inclined. Odd, how even the "supporters" of WLS see the
inequity of it too!

- --HJW--

At 11:56 PM 3/14/2002 -0800, Rick Wesson wrote:
>
>Harold,
>
>The registrars have not yet submitted their final comments to VGRS because
>we had to vote on the commnets, check the vot, verify the ballot, sign the
>names and cehcek everything again.
>
>I expect that the registrars will release the response to VGRS some time
>tomorrow.
>
>best regards,
>
>-rick
>
>
>On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Harold Whiting wrote:
>
>> The Registrar's Constituency's Formal response to the WLS is missing.
>> How convenient, for it does NOT support the WLS.
>>
>> Also very convenient is the absence of the the expanded discussion over
>> whether the registry was contractually allowed to roll out and charge for
>> this type of service.
>> I do not see this type of service listed in the Registry contract's
>> appendix of "allowed" services that the registry could charge for. 
>> Neither did anyone else.
>>
>> Chuck, if you are going to publish only the feedback that is favorable to
>> WLS, make it clear that that is what you are doing.  As usual, this is a
>> blatantly biased posting by VeriSign.
>>
>> --HJW--
>>
>> At 02:09 AM 3/15/2002 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>       FYI
>>        
>>       Chuck
>>        
>>       -----Original Message-----
>>       From: Johnson, Terry
>>       Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:29 PM
>>       To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
>>       [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
>>       Cc: [email-masked]'; Gomes, Chuck;
>>       [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
>>       [email-masked]'
>>       Subject: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal
>>
>>        To all respondents:
>>
>>       On behalf of Chuck Gomes, thanks once again for taking time
>>       to share your comments and feedback concerning the proposed
>>       Wait Listing Service (WLS).   As stated, it has been our goal
>>       to aggregate the feedback that is collected and post this for
>>       public record to the VeriSign website.  To that end, we have
>>       posted to our website the collective feedback that was
>>       submitted to VGRS, and received at [email-masked] as of
>>       4:30P, March 14, 2002.  The URL where these comments
>>       regarding the revised Wait Listing Proposal may be viewed is
>>       at:   http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html. (under the title:
>>       "Comments on Wait List Service Proposal")
>>
>>        
>>
>>       Terry Johnson
>>        
>>       VeriSign Global Registry Services
>>        
>>        
>>
>>
>>
>> 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

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:12:02 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] expired domain names

Occasionally, you get user complaints when your e-mail address is 
listed on the DNSO's home page.  I have invited this one to join the 
GA.  Should remind us that there is also some work to be done on 
hoarding.

From: <someone>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:12:32 -0500
Subject: expired domain names

   re: <three domains registered with NSI; expired in Nov 2001, Sep 
   2001, and June 2001>
   
   How can your organization allow for such arbitrary rules regarding
   domain name deletion? I have been attempting to register an expired
   domain name since JUNE?? It is a crime to allow this registar or any
   other to hold expired domain names for any period they choose? Why
   does my expired domain get deleted before someone else? Does it depend
   on "who you know"? Who is the governing body for this? If Icann cannot
   remedy this who do I contact from here? This isn't my first complaint.
   I want to be heard. How can this be ratified? Is there plans on
   changing the domain name purging rules? How long is this abuse going
   to continue? This is wrong. How do I gain access to the information
   prior to the release? There are several companies that are privy to
   this information. Why do they get advance notice? This is an area I
   have heard loud complaints about as I'm quite sure you have as well.
   Do we just keep crying on deaf ears? This is a very crooked system, Is
   your organization part of the problem or part of the solution??

   <someone>
- --
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 Mar 2002 21:24:19 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: ALSC Press Release

At 01:27 15/03/02 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 1:18 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: ALSC Press Release
>
>
>Denise,
>You do realize, I suppose, that your banner headline "GO FORTH AND
>MULTIPLY!" http://www.atlargestudy.org/participation.shtml means one of two
>things on the streets of England, either "GO AND F*CK YOURSELF" or "F*UCK
>OFF". Where did it come from?

My problem is not so much with the exhortation to multiply as with what was 
omitted in the press release. The place where this multiplying is currently 
done: www.icannatlarge.com (now 565)

Why was this left out? Would a Press Release have helped it too much?

This looks too much like "we will support at large formation efforts, as 
long as they are not actually happening".

How sincere are the mouthings and pledges of support?

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 03:28:35 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1CBFB.663B32B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Harold,
 
All the comments that were sent to the [email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]>  address after VGRS' responses to the questions
were posted.
 
I can only assume you did not read the entire document.  There was no
filtering of comments. Please note that the GA comments (Abel's comments)
were included; in my opinion they were very negative; they were included in
spite of the fact that no evidence of representativeness was provided.
 
Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harold Whiting [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 2:46 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal

The Registrar's Constituency's Formal response to the WLS is missing.
How convenient, for it does NOT support the WLS.

Also very convenient is the absence of the the expanded discussion over
whether the registry was contractually allowed to roll out and charge for
this type of service.
I do not see this type of service listed in the Registry contract's appendix
of "allowed" services that the registry could charge for.  Neither did
anyone else.

Chuck, if you are going to publish only the feedback that is favorable to
WLS, make it clear that that is what you are doing.  As usual, this is a
blatantly biased posting by VeriSign.

- --HJW--

At 02:09 AM 3/15/2002 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote: 

FYI
 
Chuck
 
- -----Original Message-----
From: Johnson, Terry 
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:29 PM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'; Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal

 To all respondents: 

On behalf of Chuck Gomes, thanks once again for taking time to share your
comments and feedback concerning the proposed Wait Listing Service (WLS).
As stated, it has been our goal to aggregate the feedback that is collected
and post this for public record to the VeriSign website.  To that end, we
have posted to our website the collective feedback that was submitted to
VGRS, and received at [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>  as of
4:30P, March 14, 2002.  The URL where these comments regarding the revised
Wait Listing Proposal may be viewed is at:
http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html <http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html>
. (under the title: "Comments on Wait List Service Proposal")

Terry Johnson
 
VeriSign Global Registry Services

Harold Whiting 

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1CBFB.663B32B0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

<META content="MSHTML 5.00.3315.2870" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=133232208-15032002>Harold,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=133232208-15032002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=133232208-15032002>All 
the comments that were sent to the <A 
href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> address after VGRS' 
responses to the questions were posted.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=133232208-15032002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=133232208-15032002>I can 
only assume you did not read the entire document.&nbsp; There was no filtering 
of comments. Please note that the GA comments (Abel's comments) were included; 
in my opinion they were very negative; they were included in spite of the fact 
that no evidence of representativeness was provided.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=133232208-15032002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=133232208-15032002>Chuck</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Harold Whiting 
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 15, 2002 2:46 
  AM<BR><B>To:</B> Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]'<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ga] FW: 
  Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>The 
  Registrar's Constituency's Formal response to the WLS is missing.<BR>How 
  convenient, for it does NOT support the WLS.<BR><BR>Also very convenient is 
  the absence of the the expanded discussion over whether the registry was 
  contractually allowed to roll out and charge for this type of service.<BR>I do 
  not see this type of service listed in the Registry contract's appendix of 
  "allowed" services that the registry could charge for.&nbsp; Neither did 
  anyone else.<BR><BR>Chuck, if you are going to publish only the feedback that 
  is favorable to WLS, make it clear that that is what you are doing.&nbsp; As 
  usual, this is a blatantly biased posting by 
  VeriSign.<BR><BR>--HJW--<BR><BR>At 02:09 AM 3/15/2002 -0500, Gomes, Chuck 
  wrote: <BR><FONT color=#0000ff face=arial size=2>
  <BLOCKQUOTE cite type="cite">FYI</FONT><BR>&nbsp;<BR><FONT color=#0000ff 
    face=arial size=2>Chuck</FONT><BR>&nbsp;<BR><FONT face=tahoma 
    size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Johnson, Terry 
    <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:29 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 
    [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
    [email-masked]'<BR><B>Cc:</B> [email-masked]'; Gomes, Chuck; 
    [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
    [email-masked]'<BR><B>Subject:</B> Comments Received Regarding 
    Revised WLS Proposal<BR><BR></FONT><FONT face=arial size=2>&nbsp;To all 
    respondents:</FONT> <BR><BR>On behalf of Chuck Gomes, thanks once again for 
    taking time to share your comments and feedback concerning the proposed Wait 
    Listing Service (WLS).&nbsp;&nbsp; As stated, it has been our goal to 
    aggregate the feedback that is collected and post this for public record to 
    the VeriSign website.&nbsp; To that end, we have posted to our website the 
    collective feedback that was submitted to VGRS, and received at <A 
    href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> as of 4:30P, March 14, 
    2002.&nbsp; The URL where these comments regarding the revised Wait Listing 
    Proposal may be viewed is at:&nbsp;&nbsp; <A 
    href="http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html">http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html</A>. 
    (under the title: "Comments on Wait List Service 
    Proposal")<BR><BR>&nbsp;<BR><BR><FONT face=arial size=2>Terry 
    Johnson<BR></FONT>&nbsp;<BR><FONT face=arial size=2><B>VeriSign Global 
    Registry Services</FONT></B><BR>&nbsp;<BR>&nbsp;</BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Harold 
  Whiting </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1CBFB.663B32B0--
- --
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 Mar 2002 03:36:58 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal

Like I said.  We posted everything we received at [email-masked].  I am
not sure how that could be biased.  With the exception of the registrars
comments, we will not be posting anymore comments considering the deadline
was 7 March.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harold Whiting [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 3:15 AM
To: Rick Wesson
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal

Rick,
  I stand corrected on that. Thank you.

I still see a strangely biased choice of postings, though.
The most amusing was the one from the Registrar that claimed that current
SnapBack holders would be somehow "disadvantaged" should they not be
allowed to be rolled in to the WLS.  What "group" was this from? Why is it
one of the few "individual" statements to be published?  It does seem to
substantiate the idea that the WLS WILL disadvantage all but the most
technically inclined. Odd, how even the "supporters" of WLS see the
inequity of it too!

- --HJW--

At 11:56 PM 3/14/2002 -0800, Rick Wesson wrote:
>
>Harold,
>
>The registrars have not yet submitted their final comments to VGRS because
>we had to vote on the commnets, check the vot, verify the ballot, sign the
>names and cehcek everything again.
>
>I expect that the registrars will release the response to VGRS some time
>tomorrow.
>
>best regards,
>
>-rick
>
>
>On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Harold Whiting wrote:
>
>> The Registrar's Constituency's Formal response to the WLS is missing.
>> How convenient, for it does NOT support the WLS.
>>
>> Also very convenient is the absence of the the expanded discussion over
>> whether the registry was contractually allowed to roll out and charge for
>> this type of service.
>> I do not see this type of service listed in the Registry contract's
>> appendix of "allowed" services that the registry could charge for. 
>> Neither did anyone else.
>>
>> Chuck, if you are going to publish only the feedback that is favorable to
>> WLS, make it clear that that is what you are doing.  As usual, this is a
>> blatantly biased posting by VeriSign.
>>
>> --HJW--
>>
>> At 02:09 AM 3/15/2002 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>       FYI
>>        
>>       Chuck
>>        
>>       -----Original Message-----
>>       From: Johnson, Terry
>>       Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:29 PM
>>       To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
>>       [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
>>       Cc: [email-masked]'; Gomes, Chuck;
>>       [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
>>       [email-masked]'
>>       Subject: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal
>>
>>        To all respondents:
>>
>>       On behalf of Chuck Gomes, thanks once again for taking time
>>       to share your comments and feedback concerning the proposed
>>       Wait Listing Service (WLS).   As stated, it has been our goal
>>       to aggregate the feedback that is collected and post this for
>>       public record to the VeriSign website.  To that end, we have
>>       posted to our website the collective feedback that was
>>       submitted to VGRS, and received at [email-masked] as of
>>       4:30P, March 14, 2002.  The URL where these comments
>>       regarding the revised Wait Listing Proposal may be viewed is
>>       at:   http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html. (under the title:
>>       "Comments on Wait List Service Proposal")
>>
>>        
>>
>>       Terry Johnson
>>        
>>       VeriSign Global Registry Services
>>        
>>        
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
- --
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 Mar 2002 02:41:45 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal

Harold and all assembly members,

  I don't think it is all that odd that even the WLS supporters
see the design flaw in WLS.  Rather I think that some of them
are beginning to get worried worried as to where their position
at the troff will be when push come to shove.  As we all know
registrars by in large are not making money right now for a
number of reasons.  Hence WLS could become more important
to some than to others in the mid term should it be implemented.

Harold Whiting wrote:

> Rick,
>   I stand corrected on that. Thank you.
>
> I still see a strangely biased choice of postings, though.
> The most amusing was the one from the Registrar that claimed that current
> SnapBack holders would be somehow "disadvantaged" should they not be
> allowed to be rolled in to the WLS.  What "group" was this from? Why is it
> one of the few "individual" statements to be published?  It does seem to
> substantiate the idea that the WLS WILL disadvantage all but the most
> technically inclined. Odd, how even the "supporters" of WLS see the
> inequity of it too!
>
> --HJW--
>
> At 11:56 PM 3/14/2002 -0800, Rick Wesson wrote:
> >
> >Harold,
> >
> >The registrars have not yet submitted their final comments to VGRS because
> >we had to vote on the commnets, check the vot, verify the ballot, sign the
> >names and cehcek everything again.
> >
> >I expect that the registrars will release the response to VGRS some time
> >tomorrow.
> >
> >best regards,
> >
> >-rick
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Harold Whiting wrote:
> >
> >> The Registrar's Constituency's Formal response to the WLS is missing.
> >> How convenient, for it does NOT support the WLS.
> >>
> >> Also very convenient is the absence of the the expanded discussion over
> >> whether the registry was contractually allowed to roll out and charge for
> >> this type of service.
> >> I do not see this type of service listed in the Registry contract's
> >> appendix of "allowed" services that the registry could charge for.
> >> Neither did anyone else.
> >>
> >> Chuck, if you are going to publish only the feedback that is favorable to
> >> WLS, make it clear that that is what you are doing.  As usual, this is a
> >> blatantly biased posting by VeriSign.
> >>
> >> --HJW--
> >>
> >> At 02:09 AM 3/15/2002 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >>       FYI
> >>
> >>       Chuck
> >>
> >>       -----Original Message-----
> >>       From: Johnson, Terry
> >>       Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:29 PM
> >>       To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
> >>       [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
> >>       Cc: [email-masked]'; Gomes, Chuck;
> >>       [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
> >>       [email-masked]'
> >>       Subject: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal
> >>
> >>        To all respondents:
> >>
> >>       On behalf of Chuck Gomes, thanks once again for taking time
> >>       to share your comments and feedback concerning the proposed
> >>       Wait Listing Service (WLS).   As stated, it has been our goal
> >>       to aggregate the feedback that is collected and post this for
> >>       public record to the VeriSign website.  To that end, we have
> >>       posted to our website the collective feedback that was
> >>       submitted to VGRS, and received at [email-masked] as of
> >>       4:30P, March 14, 2002.  The URL where these comments
> >>       regarding the revised Wait Listing Proposal may be viewed is
> >>       at:   http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html. (under the title:
> >>       "Comments on Wait List Service Proposal")
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>       Terry Johnson
> >>
> >>       VeriSign Global Registry Services
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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

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 Mar 2002 01:08:46 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal

Hello,

> 4:30P, March 14, 2002.  The URL where these comments regarding the
> revised
> Wait Listing Proposal may be viewed is at:
> http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html

Any plans to make those comments available in HTML? PDF format makes it
difficult to cut/paste from. We were promised HTML versions of the
prior documents, too. See:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01000.html

for example.

This will prove useful when VGRS releases its complete proposal, and
ICANN's comment period begins.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 03:58:44 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: ALSC Press Release

Joop and all assembly members,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 01:27 15/03/02 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 1:18 AM
> >To: [email-masked]
> >Subject: ALSC Press Release
> >
> >
> >Denise,
> >You do realize, I suppose, that your banner headline "GO FORTH AND
> >MULTIPLY!" http://www.atlargestudy.org/participation.shtml means one of two
> >things on the streets of England, either "GO AND F*CK YOURSELF" or "F*UCK
> >OFF". Where did it come from?
>
> My problem is not so much with the exhortation to multiply as with what was
> omitted in the press release. The place where this multiplying is currently
> done: www.icannatlarge.com (now 565)

  Well hardly multiplying Joop.  And I don't think anything was
omitted either...

>
>
> Why was this left out? Would a Press Release have helped it too much?

  I think the stain of ICANNATLARGE.COM was something that
ICANN didn't want and won't want in the future either.  Similar
to the IDNO, if you recall...

>
>
> This looks too much like "we will support at large formation efforts, as
> long as they are not actually happening".

  That's right!

>
>
> How sincere are the mouthings and pledges of support?

  Well you were warned about that some weeks ago.  *Pledges*
are fine, but $$ are real.  Without an account and the proper
legal filings *Pledges* are almost worthless, and ICANNATLARGE.COM
doesn't have either of those basic tasks even started as far can be
seen or known...  Yet the offer of help has been offered to get those
tasks complete.  Again shades of the IDNO all over again... :(

>
>
> --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

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 Mar 2002 11:58:52 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge (from: [email-masked])

For your information. Also, my congratulations to Alexander.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- ----- Forwarded message from Esther Dyson <[email-masked]> -----

From: Esther Dyson <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
	<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
	<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
	<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
	<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
	[email-masked], Mikael Pawlo <[email-masked]>,
	[email-masked], "Moore, James" <[email-masked]>,
	Dave Farber <[email-masked]>,
	"Juliana Gruenwald" <[email-masked]>,
	Andy Mueller-Maguhn <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
	"Keith Teare" <[email-masked]>,
	"Elliot Noss" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
	"Johnson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 05:30:04 -0500
Subject: [icann-alsg] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

[sorry for any double-postings]

Substance over Rhetoric:

A constructive challenge to the ICANN board, staff and other involved 
parties.

Yesterday the board of ICANN approved continued work on an At-Large 
membership “mechanism” and stated that it “wishes to move forward with 
energy and enthusiasm to build a meaningful structure for informed 
participation by the full range of Internet users, and seeks avenues to 
achieve these objectives that are bottom-up, self-organized, and 
self-sustaining.”

I would like to take these words at their face value and, before leaving 
Accra, make some concrete suggestions for moving forward. It’s obvious that 
ICANN itself has few resources (whatever its intentions) to move the ALM 
forward, and indeed the major activity needs to come bottom-up, from the 
community itself.  There is no staff person with spare time to dedicate to 
this effort, and from the community side, there are feelings ranging from 
betrayal and hostility to indifference.  How can we mend this situation?

For starters, this message is an attempt at transparency and 
concreteness.  Other than noncommittal discussions with Alexander Svensson 
(more below) and a couple of the ALSC members, I have not lined up support 
for these proposals. So these ideas are fresh and unvetted: I hope that 
those of you I am addressing directly will respond in kind, with ccs to all…

The basic idea is to move forward in tangible ways with the formation of a 
coherent, tangible At-Large membership, supported by a fulltime, committed, 
paid individual staffer as well as volunteer efforts.

It will require funding from a variety of parties (we cannot depend on 
ICANN alone) and some concrete actions.  This does not require broad 
consensus, but rather the actions of a few parties who I hope can 
ultimately gather broad support for their efforts. The Board on its 
side  is lukewarm/negative on elections, but willing for the most part to 
respond to evidence of a committed, transparent, issue-focused At-Large 
that could provide constructive input representing the public interest in 
ICANN policies (aside from its own role).

I’d like to suggest the following:

ICANN hires Alexander Svensson to manage At-Large outreach for the next 
year.  This position will be funded (here’s the challenge!) by my $10,000 
pledge, matched by institutions such as Harvard’s Berkman Center (which 
spent at least that much to send its own team to Ghana to observe the 
recent meeting), Markle, Bertelsmann, and the like, and a variety of 
interested companies who at least in principle have supported the notion of 
an At-large membership.  And perhaps even ICANN can allocate a small sum 
with “energy and enthusiasm.”

I have talked with Alexander. He is a PhD student from Hamburg, Germany, 
who is studying ICANN and is currently chairman of the DNSO  General 
Assembly. With some encouragement from a few more people, I think he would 
be willing to serve.  So far, he has demonstrated himself to be impartial 
and sensible and  has the calm, unassuming personality that should enable 
him to do this job effectively.  His first task would be to take over from 
Denise Michel (the executive director of the ALSC) all the communications, 
databases, lists of interested parties and other connections that will 
enable the transformation of the ALSC  At-Large Study Committee  into an 
At-Large Organizing effort.  Denise has agreed to help with the transition.

Once settled in, he should get in touch with all the individuals and 
organizations interested in furthering the At-Large and help them to 
self-organize. In addition, he will manage the online discussion (my 
suggestion is for one reference list, completely uncensored except for 
spam) and one or two moderated lists that ideally will focus on ICANN 
substance  things such as name-registration policies and international 
domain names  as well as on the role of the At-Large.

Ideally, the At-Large discussion should be focused on ICANN policies rather 
than just winning a seat at the table. Alexander may choose to present a 
variety of topics, offering substance and questions for discussion (for 
example, how should new TLDs be chosen, if at all?), making the At-Large a 
forum for learning as well as expression of opinions.

Alexander should also act as a liaison/staff to those ICANN Board members 
who wish to work with him, so that the At-Large can have an additional, 
active channel/advocate with the Board.

What happens after that?  A lot is still up in the air, with the board 
meeting in a private retreat in the next month or two, followed by the 
Bucharest board meeting at the end of June.  At the same time, there will 
be actions and statements by a variety of other parties, including various 
governments, and responses to the Lynn “reform” proposal.

An incipient At-Large membership should be part of that mix.  The 
discussions moderated by Alexander should help determine where it all goes.

So, I challenge all of you to support such an effort…or to come up with 
better or additional activities.  Thank you for your attention.

Please reply with any questions or constructive comments.

Esther Dyson

BACK TO THE FRONTIER - this year's PC FORUM with
Craig Barrett, Rick Belluzzo, Eric Schmidt... and you!
www.pcforum2002.com/pcforum/speakers.cfm
March 24 to 26

Esther Dyson			Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
[email-masked]
1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
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 #1082
*************************