Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1087
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, March 18 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1087

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

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:07:37 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: RE: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

I don't understand why anyone who is already a member of the At Large & has 
already voted and has had representation in ICANN should be required to 
sign up a second time.

ICANN's At Large, as I understood, has several thousand members, not 
several hundred.

Can anyone explain this to me, if yes, please do.

Thanks

~k

At 04:15 PM 3/17/2002 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>On 18:22 16/03/02 -0500, Esther Dyson said:
>>My pledge is (was) indeed intended towards something that I think has a 
>>chance of working (such as this proposal). And  I would indeed welcome 
>>its consideration by the 550 signed-up members of the New At-Large and 
>>anyone else willing to discuss it ...and ideally, I hope that a critical 
>>mass will also support it with funding.
>
>The best way to proceed would be to ask all 573 signups of "the New ICANN 
>at large" to vote as soon as there is a proposal to vote on.
>
>If Alexander, fortified with your donation and Denise's co-operation, 
>creates a separate At Large from the ALSC's database, then all individuals 
>will simply have to choose which one they want to join and which one they 
>trust to give them the best representational framework.
>
>If Alexander wants to integrate your/his work with what has been done 
>already, he will have to have his plans approved by  vote of the 573 
>individuals.
>
>We have to wait for Alexander to formulate his position in the light of 
>your offer to him and the withdrawal of your pledge to icannatlage.com.
>
>Then the vote can proceed.
>A commercially run vote by a neutral outsider would be best.
>
>--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

- --
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:22:17 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

At 19:07 17/03/02 -0600, Kristy McKee wrote:
>I don't understand why anyone who is already a member of the At Large & 
>has already voted and has had representation in ICANN should be required 
>to sign up a second time.

Kristy,

ICANN does not want anyone to use the "old" members' list for outreach. In 
ICANN's view, these members were disposable members, good only for a single 
election.

Nothing of this list is public, not even the names. We only know for 
ourselves that once we were verified members with PIN numbers and all.

Therefore, the only option left was to start afresh, transparently and from 
the bottom up and create a place where the At large members can communicate 
with each other, and, hopefully<g>, with ICANN.
That is what www.icannatlarge.com is about.

- --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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 01:49:23 +0000
From: GA List Monitor <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [admin] Posting rights of Jeff Williams temporarily suspended

This is to inform you that the posting rights of Jeff
Williams <[email-masked]> have been suspended
for eight weeks because of repeated violation of the list 
rules. The list monitor notes that Jeff Williams' posting 
rights have already been suspended six times for list rule
violations. The list monitor also notes that Jeff Williams 
has received warnings after breaking the posting limit --
this is the third occasion in a row. There is no indication 
to the list monitor that the latest warnings have led to a 
different posting behaviour. 

The rules for the GA mailing list have been established
by a vote of the General Assembly:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
The posting limit has been set at *FIVE* postings per
person and calendar day, calculated according to the
sender's local time.

This action may be appealed to the GA Chair. More information 
about the list monitoring can be found at 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/GA.list-monitoring.html

Best regards,
/// Alexander (wearing his list monitor hat)

Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:43:39 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00967.html
Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:38:42 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00968.html
Thu, 14 Feb 2002 06:50:09 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00971.html
Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:55:49 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00974.html
Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:03:18 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00975.html
Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:23:55 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00978.html   
Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:19:11 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01162.html
Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:10:26 -0800
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01170.html
Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:26:54 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01171.html
Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:14:07 -0800
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01174.html
Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:00:41 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01178.html
Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:14:24 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01179.html
Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:52:58 -0800
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01185.html
Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:46:17 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01523.html
Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:33:47 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01525.html   
Sat, 16 Mar 2002 04:38:34 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01527.html
Sat, 16 Mar 2002 17:41:34 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01534.html
Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:03:36 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01537.html
Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:20:37 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01540.html
Sat, 16 Mar 2002 20:31:00 -0800 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01545.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: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 21:17:41 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

Kristy McKee wrote:
> 
> I don't understand why anyone who is already a member of the At Large & has
> already voted and has had representation in ICANN should be required to
> sign up a second time.
> 
> ICANN's At Large, as I understood, has several thousand members, not
> several hundred.
> 
> Can anyone explain this to me, if yes, please do.
> 
> Thanks

Just under the rather comely original ICANN AtLarge
Membership Logo on the header of the Vote PIN Notification
Letter on the corkboard over my desk, it reads:

"PLEASE SAVE THIS LETTER"

So, I did.  Now, I'm left wondering why the Sender even
bothered to include that line at all?  So, I'm with Kristy
here, and that makes two of us so far who are waiting for
an answer.  Perhaps Dr. Cerf , or Mz. Dyson can provide
one?  Or someone else even... anyone at all.

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
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: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:20:11 -0800
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign removing expiration dates from WHOIS Data?

Isn't  publishing domain expiration date =  direct violation of ICANN
Registrar Accreditation Agreement??  ((But since when did Verisign care
about some ICANN rules))

(see Paragraph F-1-f )

http://www.icann.org/nsi/icann-raa-04nov99.htm#IIF1a

F. Public Access to Data on SLD Registrations. During the term of this
Agreement:

1. At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page and a
port 43 Whois service providing free public query-based access to
up-to-date (i.e. updated at least daily) data concerning all active SLD
registrations sponsored by Registrar in the registry for the .com, .net,
and .org TLDs. The data accessible shall consist of elements that are
designated from time to time according to an ICANN-adopted policy. Until
ICANN otherwise specifies by means of an ICANN-adopted policy, this data
shall consist of the following elements as contained in Registrar's
database:

a. The name of the SLD being registered and the TLD for which
registration is being requested;

b. The IP addresses of the primary nameserver and secondary
nameserver(s) for the SLD;

c. The corresponding names of those nameservers;

d. The identity of Registrar (which may be provided through Registrar's
website);

e. The original creation date of the registration;

f. The expiration date of the registration;

g. The name and postal address of the SLD holder;

h. The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and
(where available) fax number of the technical contact for the SLD; and

i. The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and
(where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the SLD.

Genie Livingstone
eyeondomain.com

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Brown" <[email-masked]>
To: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign removing expiration dates from WHOIS Data?

> Moreover, if WLS becomes reality, it is a serious ICANN issue, since
> there is no bottoms-up consensus to support it.
>
> There are those in favor, of course, but how many of them are
> potential benefactors of new, found income from it? I'd guess that to
> be the majority.
>
> It is interesting that VeriSign presents WLS as a way for it to help
> grow business for the Registrars (per the press release/quote below),
> but the Registrars who represent the majority of registrations have
> taken a position in opposition to WLS. Could it be that those
> Registrar's have noses that know the difference between chicken salad
> and chicken S*&%? I'd guess it is so, as well.
>
> If WLS becomes reality, the expiration date is really a minor
> consideration in the total scope of things.  There will be much bigger
> fish to fry.
>
>
> A quote from NewsBytes - http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/173564.html
>
>   But VeriSign spokeswoman Cheryl Regan contends that the demand for
>   "recycled" domains is high enough that the service could provide a
>   real boon to registrars.
>
>   "We're doing this as a way to help grow new business for
>   registrars," Regan said.
>
> roflmao :-)
>
>
> Saturday, March 16, 2002, 5:11:52 PM, George Kirikos
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> GK> Hello,
>
> GK> Take a look at the WHOIS for the domain name "auction-barn.com"
>
> GK>
http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=auction-barn.com&Search
Type=do
>
> GK> In particular:
>
> GK>    Record last updated on 15-Mar-2002.
> GK>    Record created on 26-Jan-2000.
> GK>    Database last updated on 16-Mar-2002 04:35:00 EST.
>
> GK> The "Record Expires" date is missing.
>
> GK> If VGRS goes ahead with WLS, this is a potentially serious issue,
as
> GK> consumers might be misled into purchasing WLS slots on names that
> GK> expire years in the future, as they'd have no way of knowing when
the
> GK> name truly expires (let alone when it is released, even if it
should be
> GK> past expiry). Existing customers and domain owners would also not
be
> GK> able to check for sure when a name is due to expire, if they can't
> GK> check the WHOIS on their own names.
>
> GK> Furthermore, aren't registrars required to show certain data
elements
> GK> in their WHOIS, as part of their accreditation contracts??
>
> GK> Sincerely,
>
> GK> George Kirikos
> GK> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
>
> GK> __________________________________________________
> GK> Do You Yahoo!?
> GK> Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
> GK> http://sports.yahoo.com/
> GK> --
> GK> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> GK> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> GK> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> GK> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>
> ----
> 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
>
>
>

- --
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: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:26:44 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

At 11:50 PM 3/17/2002 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>At 20:26 17/03/02, vint cerf wrote:
>>the proposal that stuart made would not put government employees
>>on the board but would offer governments an opportunity to choose
>>among a slate of candidates developed by a nominating committee.
>>
>>The idea is to find the best candidates filling a variety of
>>criteria - geographic dispersion, board experience, Internet
>>awareness, fund raising ability, appreciation for the wide
>>range of interests and opinions among the Internet's constituents,
>>etc.
>
>
>These candidates are supposed to represent every area of the globe in proportion of 300.000.000 people each,

we know it is impossible to have direct representation for 500M users of the Internet. Similarly it is
impossible to directly represent every country in the world. The board is supposed to be composed of
people who can think about the needs of the Internet and its users, providers, etc as members of a
team: the board of trustees of ICANN. Every director is in fact responsible to ICANN to do the best
he or she can to think about the Internet as a whole in making policy determinations for ICANN.

> 
>
>Don't you think that selecting every three years 6 @large directors will be as much complex and costly as choosing every 12 years an UN General Secretary?

Assuming staggered terms the selection process would be annual wouldn't it?

>>Looking at various funding possibilities including endowments as adjunct or alternative.
>
>Why not just a cost based upon the rendered services - if any - with a cross subsidization among the TLDs charging their users and the ones not charging them? 

this is certainly an approach worth pursuing with the various funding constituencies.

>When will we see the ICANN rates?

when the proposed budget emerges probably at or before Bucharest.

>jfc
>
>
>
>

- --
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: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:28:11 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

you needed the contents of the letter to vote last time as I recall.

vint

At 09:17 PM 3/17/2002 -0800, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>"PLEASE SAVE THIS LETTER"
>
>So, I did.  Now, I'm left wondering why the Sender even
>bothered to include that line at all?  So, I'm with Kristy
>here, and that makes two of us so far who are waiting for
>an answer.  Perhaps Dr. Cerf , or Mz. Dyson can provide
>one?  Or someone else even... anyone at all.

- --
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: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:35:32 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

Thank you for your prompt response Dr. Cerf.  I wonder if
you might have any insight as to why Kristy McKee, myself,
and thousands of others, are being asked to "rejoin" when
we're already voting Members of the Corporation? 

vint cerf wrote:
> 
> you needed the contents of the letter to vote last time as I recall.
> 
> vint
> 
> At 09:17 PM 3/17/2002 -0800, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >"PLEASE SAVE THIS LETTER"
> >
> >So, I did.  Now, I'm left wondering why the Sender even
> >bothered to include that line at all?  So, I'm with Kristy
> >here, and that makes two of us so far who are waiting for
> >an answer.  Perhaps Dr. Cerf , or Mz. Dyson can provide
> >one?  Or someone else even... anyone at all.
> 
> --
> 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

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
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: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 21:41:44 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

At 10:26 PM -0500 3/17/02, vint cerf wrote:
>Every director is in fact responsible to ICANN to do the best
>he or she can to think about the Internet as a whole in making policy
>determinations for ICANN.

Can you give us some sort of timeline as to when this will start happening?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 21:52:36 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [admin] Posting rights of Jeff Williams temporarily suspended

Two months, really? I think that's stronger than nickle whiskey.

I think this is well beyond the spirit of the rules, too.

I don't even know Williams and I don't agree with what he posts much
of the time, but I do respect his individual right to be heard.

Consensus and censorship don't seem to compute, either.

This is a time when the GA needs to be pulling together, in light of
Accura and the indiscriminate and self-serving actions of ICANN.

Now is not the time to be implementing censorship or anything else to
divide the GA.

Don't kill the troops.  Lead them . . .

Thanks,

p.s.  This is #5 for me, today.  It will be better in the morning, as
they say . . .

Sunday, March 17, 2002, 7:49:23 PM, GA List Monitor <[email-masked]> wrote:

GLM> This is to inform you that the posting rights of Jeff
GLM> Williams <[email-masked]> have been suspended
GLM> for eight weeks because of repeated violation of the list 
GLM> rules. The list monitor notes that Jeff Williams' posting 
GLM> rights have already been suspended six times for list rule
GLM> violations. The list monitor also notes that Jeff Williams 
GLM> has received warnings after breaking the posting limit --
GLM> this is the third occasion in a row. There is no indication 
GLM> to the list monitor that the latest warnings have led to a 
GLM> different posting behaviour. 

GLM> The rules for the GA mailing list have been established
GLM> by a vote of the General Assembly:
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
GLM> The posting limit has been set at *FIVE* postings per
GLM> person and calendar day, calculated according to the
GLM> sender's local time.

GLM> This action may be appealed to the GA Chair. More information 
GLM> about the list monitoring can be found at 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/GA.list-monitoring.html

GLM> Best regards,
GLM> /// Alexander (wearing his list monitor hat)

GLM> Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:43:39 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00967.html
GLM> Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:38:42 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00968.html
GLM> Thu, 14 Feb 2002 06:50:09 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00971.html
GLM> Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:55:49 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00974.html
GLM> Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:03:18 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00975.html
GLM> Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:23:55 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00978.html   
GLM> Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:19:11 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01162.html
GLM> Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:10:26 -0800
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01170.html
GLM> Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:26:54 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01171.html
GLM> Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:14:07 -0800
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01174.html
GLM> Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:00:41 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01178.html
GLM> Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:14:24 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01179.html
GLM> Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:52:58 -0800
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01185.html
GLM> Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:46:17 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01523.html
GLM> Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:33:47 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01525.html   
GLM> Sat, 16 Mar 2002 04:38:34 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01527.html
GLM> Sat, 16 Mar 2002 17:41:34 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01534.html
GLM> Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:03:36 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01537.html
GLM> Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:20:37 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01540.html
GLM> Sat, 16 Mar 2002 20:31:00 -0800 
GLM> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01545.html

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

- ----
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: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:56:04 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign removing expiration dates from WHOIS Data?

Why hasn't the Verisign rep in the DNSO responded to this
thread as yet?

Genie Livingstone wrote:
> 
> Isn't  publishing domain expiration date =  direct violation of ICANN
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement??  ((But since when did Verisign care
> about some ICANN rules))
> 
> (see Paragraph F-1-f )
> 
> http://www.icann.org/nsi/icann-raa-04nov99.htm#IIF1a
> 
> F. Public Access to Data on SLD Registrations. During the term of this
> Agreement:
> 
> 1. At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page and a
> port 43 Whois service providing free public query-based access to
> up-to-date (i.e. updated at least daily) data concerning all active SLD
> registrations sponsored by Registrar in the registry for the .com, .net,
> and .org TLDs. The data accessible shall consist of elements that are
> designated from time to time according to an ICANN-adopted policy. Until
> ICANN otherwise specifies by means of an ICANN-adopted policy, this data
> shall consist of the following elements as contained in Registrar's
> database:
> 
> a. The name of the SLD being registered and the TLD for which
> registration is being requested;
> 
> b. The IP addresses of the primary nameserver and secondary
> nameserver(s) for the SLD;
> 
> c. The corresponding names of those nameservers;
> 
> d. The identity of Registrar (which may be provided through Registrar's
> website);
> 
> e. The original creation date of the registration;
> 
> f. The expiration date of the registration;
> 
> g. The name and postal address of the SLD holder;
> 
> h. The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and
> (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the SLD; and
> 
> i. The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and
> (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the SLD.
> 
> Genie Livingstone
> eyeondomain.com
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Brown" <[email-masked]>
> To: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 5:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign removing expiration dates from WHOIS Data?
> 
> > Moreover, if WLS becomes reality, it is a serious ICANN issue, since
> > there is no bottoms-up consensus to support it.
> >
> > There are those in favor, of course, but how many of them are
> > potential benefactors of new, found income from it? I'd guess that to
> > be the majority.
> >
> > It is interesting that VeriSign presents WLS as a way for it to help
> > grow business for the Registrars (per the press release/quote below),
> > but the Registrars who represent the majority of registrations have
> > taken a position in opposition to WLS. Could it be that those
> > Registrar's have noses that know the difference between chicken salad
> > and chicken S*&%? I'd guess it is so, as well.
> >
> > If WLS becomes reality, the expiration date is really a minor
> > consideration in the total scope of things.  There will be much bigger
> > fish to fry.
> >
> >
> > A quote from NewsBytes - http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/173564.html
> >
> >   But VeriSign spokeswoman Cheryl Regan contends that the demand for
> >   "recycled" domains is high enough that the service could provide a
> >   real boon to registrars.
> >
> >   "We're doing this as a way to help grow new business for
> >   registrars," Regan said.
> >
> > roflmao :-)
> >
> >
> > Saturday, March 16, 2002, 5:11:52 PM, George Kirikos
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > GK> Hello,
> >
> > GK> Take a look at the WHOIS for the domain name "auction-barn.com"
> >
> > GK>
> http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=auction-barn.com&Search
> Type=do
> >
> > GK> In particular:
> >
> > GK>    Record last updated on 15-Mar-2002.
> > GK>    Record created on 26-Jan-2000.
> > GK>    Database last updated on 16-Mar-2002 04:35:00 EST.
> >
> > GK> The "Record Expires" date is missing.
> >
> > GK> If VGRS goes ahead with WLS, this is a potentially serious issue,
> as
> > GK> consumers might be misled into purchasing WLS slots on names that
> > GK> expire years in the future, as they'd have no way of knowing when
> the
> > GK> name truly expires (let alone when it is released, even if it
> should be
> > GK> past expiry). Existing customers and domain owners would also not
> be
> > GK> able to check for sure when a name is due to expire, if they can't
> > GK> check the WHOIS on their own names.
> >
> > GK> Furthermore, aren't registrars required to show certain data
> elements
> > GK> in their WHOIS, as part of their accreditation contracts??
> >
> > GK> Sincerely,
> >
> > GK> George Kirikos
> > GK> http://www.kirikos.com/
> >
> >
> > GK> __________________________________________________
> > GK> Do You Yahoo!?
> > GK> Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
> > GK> http://sports.yahoo.com/
> > GK> --
> > GK> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > GK> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > GK> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > GK> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 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

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
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: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:28:44 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Verisign removing expiration dates from WHOIS Data?

Maybe because Verisign doesn't pay it's ICANN reps to work at 11.30pm on a
Sunday night?

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sotiris
Sotiropoulos
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:56 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign removing expiration dates from WHOIS Data?

Why hasn't the Verisign rep in the DNSO responded to this
thread as yet?

Genie Livingstone wrote:
>
> Isn't  publishing domain expiration date =  direct violation of ICANN
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement??  ((But since when did Verisign care
> about some ICANN rules))
>
> (see Paragraph F-1-f )
>
> http://www.icann.org/nsi/icann-raa-04nov99.htm#IIF1a
>
> F. Public Access to Data on SLD Registrations. During the term of this
> Agreement:
>
> 1. At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page and a
> port 43 Whois service providing free public query-based access to
> up-to-date (i.e. updated at least daily) data concerning all active SLD
> registrations sponsored by Registrar in the registry for the .com, .net,
> and .org TLDs. The data accessible shall consist of elements that are
> designated from time to time according to an ICANN-adopted policy. Until
> ICANN otherwise specifies by means of an ICANN-adopted policy, this data
> shall consist of the following elements as contained in Registrar's
> database:
>
> a. The name of the SLD being registered and the TLD for which
> registration is being requested;
>
> b. The IP addresses of the primary nameserver and secondary
> nameserver(s) for the SLD;
>
> c. The corresponding names of those nameservers;
>
> d. The identity of Registrar (which may be provided through Registrar's
> website);
>
> e. The original creation date of the registration;
>
> f. The expiration date of the registration;
>
> g. The name and postal address of the SLD holder;
>
> h. The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and
> (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the SLD; and
>
> i. The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and
> (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the SLD.
>
> Genie Livingstone
> eyeondomain.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Brown" <[email-masked]>
> To: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 5:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign removing expiration dates from WHOIS Data?
>
> > Moreover, if WLS becomes reality, it is a serious ICANN issue, since
> > there is no bottoms-up consensus to support it.
> >
> > There are those in favor, of course, but how many of them are
> > potential benefactors of new, found income from it? I'd guess that to
> > be the majority.
> >
> > It is interesting that VeriSign presents WLS as a way for it to help
> > grow business for the Registrars (per the press release/quote below),
> > but the Registrars who represent the majority of registrations have
> > taken a position in opposition to WLS. Could it be that those
> > Registrar's have noses that know the difference between chicken salad
> > and chicken S*&%? I'd guess it is so, as well.
> >
> > If WLS becomes reality, the expiration date is really a minor
> > consideration in the total scope of things.  There will be much bigger
> > fish to fry.
> >
> >
> > A quote from NewsBytes - http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/173564.html
> >
> >   But VeriSign spokeswoman Cheryl Regan contends that the demand for
> >   "recycled" domains is high enough that the service could provide a
> >   real boon to registrars.
> >
> >   "We're doing this as a way to help grow new business for
> >   registrars," Regan said.
> >
> > roflmao :-)
> >
> >
> > Saturday, March 16, 2002, 5:11:52 PM, George Kirikos
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > GK> Hello,
> >
> > GK> Take a look at the WHOIS for the domain name "auction-barn.com"
> >
> > GK>
> http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=auction-barn.com&Search
> Type=do
> >
> > GK> In particular:
> >
> > GK>    Record last updated on 15-Mar-2002.
> > GK>    Record created on 26-Jan-2000.
> > GK>    Database last updated on 16-Mar-2002 04:35:00 EST.
> >
> > GK> The "Record Expires" date is missing.
> >
> > GK> If VGRS goes ahead with WLS, this is a potentially serious issue,
> as
> > GK> consumers might be misled into purchasing WLS slots on names that
> > GK> expire years in the future, as they'd have no way of knowing when
> the
> > GK> name truly expires (let alone when it is released, even if it
> should be
> > GK> past expiry). Existing customers and domain owners would also not
> be
> > GK> able to check for sure when a name is due to expire, if they can't
> > GK> check the WHOIS on their own names.
> >
> > GK> Furthermore, aren't registrars required to show certain data
> elements
> > GK> in their WHOIS, as part of their accreditation contracts??
> >
> > GK> Sincerely,
> >
> > GK> George Kirikos
> > GK> http://www.kirikos.com/
> >
> >
> > GK> __________________________________________________
> > GK> Do You Yahoo!?
> > GK> Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
> > GK> http://sports.yahoo.com/
> > GK> --
> > GK> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > GK> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > GK> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > GK> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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

- --
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1087
*************************