Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1101
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, March 24 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1101

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

Date: 23 Mar 2002 17:37:24 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

This email scares me by the narrow views it holds on who is to
participate and who not.
Imo it is simple, if choosen you have the job, no matter who or what you
are or where you come from or do for a living, your recommendations
would render 98% of the honest people on the GA non-electable which is
ridiculous.

abel

On Sat, 2002-03-23 at 02:07, Joanna Lane wrote:
> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Joanna,
> 
> Thank you for your long speech, but my question did not imply in any way
> that the election mechanism could not be improved. It was just meant to be
> an opportunity to clarify to the community if you would accept membership
> rules by which a "lobbyst of ATT", for instance, could become member and run
> for office (provided, of course, that he/she solves potential
> incompatibilities in the Bylaws, if this were the case).
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> Dear Roberto,
> 
> You think this is a simple question? Then let me ask you this one:- "when
> did you stop beating your wife?".
> 
> I have faith that the majority of people involved in the Internet Industry
> are essentially good, but they must ensure the interests of the general
> public and the interests of large multi-national corporations are not
> commingled in the process that is used to regulate them. It is not
> appropriate for paid political lobbyists to hold elected positions in the
> body selected to represent the general public interest, but of course they
> have a place in the overall scheme of things.
> 
> One key problem with the current structure lies in Bylaws that positively
> encourage individuals to seek out multiple platforms for their voice to be
> heard, namely in the DNSO Constituencies. This has resulted in a "one man,
> more than one vote" scenario, the same voice being voted repeatedly. It is
> simply unconscionable that the general public have no direct representation
> in the DNSO policy making process. The DNSO nonsense is ICANN's major
> failure, not the At Large.
> 
> The At Large must shape itself to clearly distinguish between groups of
> those who are paid to be there, and those who are not. Stick with the
> principal of "one man one vote", which the Eligibility section of ICANN's
> current Bylaws seeks to uphold, and it doesn't really matter which of the
> various platforms any particular individual chooses to take up, so long as
> they only have one.
> 
> Sorry for the length of the speech!
> 
> Regards,
> Joanna
> 
> >From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
> >To: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> >Subject: RE: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge
> >Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:37:21 -0500
> >
> >Roberto wrote:-
> >From my part, before providing an opinion, I would like to have her answer
> >to a simple question: "At Large membership and eligibility to office will
> >be
> >open to any individual, with no additional restriction versus the set of
> >rules given for the 2002 At Large elections. Agree/Disagree?"
> >
> >________________________________________________________
> >
> >I disagree to the extent that, as a practical matter, there is no point in
> >electing an individual that ICANN cannot accept for reason of its own
> >Bylaws, or those of a successor agency whichever is applicable. However,
> >all
> >things considered, I thought the 2000 elections were a success. I had never
> >heard of ICANN prior to those elections, yet I not only heard about them, I
> >was able to familiarize myself with candidates, learn about various issues,
> >candidate positions, given the ability to interact with them directly and
> >make an informed choice. I personally had no problems registering on the
> >site, obtaining my pin and voting. Would I vote for repeating the procedure
> >even if nothing was changed? Sure, I would. Would I change some things
> >given
> >the choice? Yes, that also, including but not limited to:-
> >
> >1) Citizenship/ Residency Anomaly - the internet community is full of
> >people
> >like myself and Joop, whose citizenship and residency fall into different
> >regions. Currently, I have started to co-ordinate the New York Working
> >Group
> >for the At Large, a practical effort that one would think might result in a
> >person sitting on a local Committee of some sort in due course, that in
> >turn, could lead to State, then Federal Committees and ultimately the top
> >job, an At Large Director for the North American region. (This is an
> >example, not a pitch for anything!)  However, as a British citizen and
> >permanent resident of the United States, under current election rules, I
> >can
> >only stand for election as representative of the European Union (which in
> >fact I did last year), where I cannot even have a photo opportunity at the
> >ballot box casting my own vote. Not only can I not stand for election in
> >the
> >same region in which I cast my vote, I cannot vote in the region in which I
> >have citizenship. This does not fit with normal voting rights in the real
> >world, is a barrier to entry, and all the more unacceptable when one
> >considers that the rule only came about for ICANN's convenience, (it was
> >deemed too difficult to verify residency of a candidate),
> >http://www.icann.org/committees/elcom/recs-07jul00.htm, My sense is that a
> >person who works tirelessly for a particular At large Region over a number
> >of years and understands the issues thoroughly is more than sufficiently
> >qualified and verified to climb the ladder as high as they would want to
> >go.
> >
> >2. At Large Directors must be able to communicate with their electorate:
> >This is vital, and would extend to candidates, who need access to the email
> >addresses of those who contact them with questions during the election
> >cycle. The structure of the message Boards last time denied that ability,
> >it
> >was a frustration on both sides and it showed.
> >
> >Finally, I am not avoiding Esther's question, but I'm still not sure
> >whether
> >I want anything more to do with ICANN. David Farrar makes some compelling
> >arguments for working towards a successor agency, and he is by no means a
> >radical. Can anybody convince me one way or the other?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Joanna
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
- -- 
Abel S.H. Wisman

Scottish Provident House 
76-80 College Road
Harrow Middlesex
HA1 1BQ 
UK
+44 20 8424 2422
+44 78 1214 1916

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

- --
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: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 17:53:06 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] what IF

On 21:49 22/03/02, Esther Dyson said:
>The Internet would continue to operate, but there could be no changes in 
>policy/evolution.

Good: there is no policy in the technical functions the ICANN manages.

>As for what would happen politically/economically, that is an entirely 
>different question.  What would happen to, say, VeriSign's contracts?

I understand that the main concern of VRSN when dealing with ICANN is not 
to conflict with their cooperative agreement with the USG. Would it not 
simplifiy the issue?

>They would probably revert to the US Department of Commerce. Likewise all 
>the other legal infrastructure...Technical infrastructure is in good shape.

Legal infrastructure means Louis Touton and Joe Sims and their aftermath?
Who would have a problem? A lot of money saving?
Or am I wrong?

I just try to undestand the odds at stake.
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: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:34:06 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Restructuring Proposal

I have prepared a restructuring proposal for consideration by the Evolution 
and Reform Committee.  The document is posted at 
http://www.icannworld.org/evolution.htm

Best regards,
Danny Younger
- --
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: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 15:03:30 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [Fwd: A WARNING TO OUR CUSTOMERS]

The VeriSign Registry has no involvement in issues like this nor does it
have any authority with regard to competitive practices of registrars.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 8:31 PM
To: ga
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: A WARNING TO OUR CUSTOMERS]

I wonder if Chuck Gomes or someone else from Verisign
could comment on the following...

- --
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: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 15:34:49 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign proceeds with WLS, despite opposition

Hello,

As most know, the DNSO GA and the RC (registrars) were overwhelmingly
against the WLS proposal. 

Not surprisingly given Verisign's history, they've ignored this
opposition, and have proceeded to request pricing approval from ICANN.
See:

http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_comment_analysis.pdf

for their "spin" on things. Their conclusion:

"VGRS has submitted a request to ICANN for an amendment to Appendix G
of the .com and .net registry agreements to add pricing for the WLS for
a 12-month trial period."

Prior documents are at: http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html

The official registrar community's position is at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02213.html

It's quite an exercise in faulty logic to read Verisign's attempts to
massage the numbers. I don't know how they can, with a straight face,
conclude that "consumers are better off". I never knew VGRS dealt with
consumers -- I thought the Chinese wall meant VGRS only dealt with
registrars... The only parties better off are Verisign and its
partners, to the detriment of consumers and competing registrars. No
attempt to quantify consumers' demands are made, yet all the visible
opposition is dismissed as being "unrepresentative". 

Oh well, we knew this was going to happen -- it's Verisign, remember.
The arrogance of this monopoly makes Microsoft pale in comparison.

What's the appropriate procedure to submit comments now that ICANN is
officially being made this request?

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.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: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:41:08 -0800
From: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Verisign proceeds with WLS, despite opposition

*synopsis:

1. Verisign was never looking for consensus, only how marketable WLS would
be once it became "the only way to get a used domain name".

2. Verisign believes it is not required to submit to ICANN consensus process.

3. Verisign assumes that everyone who has not spoken out against WLS
(especially those that have never even heard of it) are stron supporters of
WLS.

4. Since the "official" RC position was staunchly against this, Verisign
uses thier own registrar holdings, and Snap Names' partners too, combined
with the most tortured math and logic concievable, to declare "overwhelming
support" byt the Registrars for WLS.

5. Verisign still firmly maintains that no existing businesses will be
adversely affected by WLS and the resulting monopoly on the "used domain"
market.  After all, now they can simply buy the "new product"! 

*The above is strictly my own opinion, based upon the written documents
publicly posted by VGRS. No warranty is made for its accuracy. Your milage
may vary.

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

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 19:17:24 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign proceeds with WLS, despite opposition

Hi again,

For the registrars out there following the WLS issue, and not willing
to let Verisign or ICANN trample over you, here's a section of your
contracts that will help. From:

http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm

"2.3 General Obligations of ICANN. With respect to all matters that
impact the rights, obligations, or role of Registrar, ICANN shall
during the Term of this Agreement:

2.3.1 exercise its responsibilities in an open and transparent manner;

2.3.2 not unreasonably restrain competition and, to the extent
feasible, promote and encourage robust competition;

2.3.3 not apply standards, policies, procedures or practices
arbitrarily, unjustifiably, or inequitably and not single out Registrar
for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable
cause; and

2.3.4 ensure, through its reconsideration and independent review
policies, adequate appeal procedures for Registrar, to the extent it is
adversely affected by ICANN standards, policies, procedures or
practices"

Section 2.3.2 is of obvious use in blocking ICANN from rubber stamping
this monopolistic and anti-competitive WLS proposal from Verisign.
Section 2.3.4 should keep an open forum for months as an independent
review is forced to take place.

You have signed contracts with ICANN, listing their contractual
obligations -- hold them to the letter of those agreements that you
signed in good faith, and go to court if need be to enforce them,
otherwise you willingly diminish the value of your own businesses.
Don't be a lemming, like some of the registrars have been! 

Here's a little theory for you. Verisign is buying out registrars left
and right, to stem their market share losses as folks transfer away
from them. Do you think the price Verisign will pay for you will be
higher with WLS approved?? I don't think so, as they won't need you as
much, having stolen your revenue sources and your ability to innovate
and differentiate.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.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: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:42:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign proceeds with WLS, despite opposition

And if ICANN does impose WLS, you have a cause of action for the failure
to create the indepenent review panel.  Hence ICANN won't dare?

[cc's trimmmed]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, George Kirikos wrote:

> Hi again,
> 
> For the registrars out there following the WLS issue, and not willing
> to let Verisign or ICANN trample over you, here's a section of your
> contracts that will help. From:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm
> 
> "2.3 General Obligations of ICANN. With respect to all matters that
> impact the rights, obligations, or role of Registrar, ICANN shall
> during the Term of this Agreement:
> 
> 2.3.1 exercise its responsibilities in an open and transparent manner;
> 
> 2.3.2 not unreasonably restrain competition and, to the extent
> feasible, promote and encourage robust competition;
> 
> 2.3.3 not apply standards, policies, procedures or practices
> arbitrarily, unjustifiably, or inequitably and not single out Registrar
> for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable
> cause; and
> 
> 2.3.4 ensure, through its reconsideration and independent review
> policies, adequate appeal procedures for Registrar, to the extent it is
> adversely affected by ICANN standards, policies, procedures or
> practices"
> 
> Section 2.3.2 is of obvious use in blocking ICANN from rubber stamping
> this monopolistic and anti-competitive WLS proposal from Verisign.
> Section 2.3.4 should keep an open forum for months as an independent
> review is forced to take place.
> 
> You have signed contracts with ICANN, listing their contractual
> obligations -- hold them to the letter of those agreements that you
> signed in good faith, and go to court if need be to enforce them,
> otherwise you willingly diminish the value of your own businesses.
> Don't be a lemming, like some of the registrars have been! 
> 
> Here's a little theory for you. Verisign is buying out registrars left
> and right, to stem their market share losses as folks transfer away
> from them. Do you think the price Verisign will pay for you will be
> higher with WLS approved?? I don't think so, as they won't need you as
> much, having stolen your revenue sources and your ability to innovate
> and differentiate.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
> http://movies.yahoo.com/
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
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: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 20:28:50 -0800
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] VERISIGN predatory Domain Expiration Notices

I belive most of our customers who registered domains under Tucows
Registrar  are receiving  "Domain Expiration Notice" from Verisign.

Domain Expiration Notice is dominant on this piece of mail.  Verisign
Logo is muted and inconspicuous, the whole notice is designed to mislead
unsuspecting consumer to thinking they are renewing their domain (the
back of the Domain Expiration notice carries disclaimer to the fact that
consumer is signing off on domain Transfer along with domain
registration).  Verisign Logo can be associated with trust in Verisign
central Registry.

Many of your customers may  get slammed into paying this invoice
thinking they are renewing their domain, unaware they are transferring
it to Verisign.

We have posted Verisign SCAM Warning on our home page
http://www.eyeondomain.com and are preparing to email our customer base
about this.  Our home page presents scanned copy of Domain Expiration
Notice (one of thousands received on domains originally registered and
currently maintained in Tucows Registrar)

GoDaddy already warned their Customer base in their recent anouncement:
http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/private_vsrn.asp?isc=&se=%2B&from%5Fapp=&r
hl=gd+hdr

Additional Copies of these documents can be viewed at
http://www.domainscams.com

I would like to call attention to the 7/16/2001 letter from Roger
Cochetti, VP Policy, Verisign Inc to ICANN
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cochetti-to-lynn-16jul01.htm
where among other things Mr. Cochetti occuses his competitors of:
QUOTE
This failure to obtain express authorization may have resulted from what
is known in the telecommunications industry as "slamming"-transferring
customers to their registrar without any notification whatsoever.
UNQUOTE

Genie Livingstone
eyeondomain.com

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Anderson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 6:32 PM
Subject: verisign - rip off

> Got a letter in the mail today from Verisign...
>
> "Amount due: $29.00
> Pay before April 15 to avoid losing your domain name.
> Pay your registration fees now."
>
> Small print on the back of the bill notes that this will transfer my
> domain to network solutions, and add a year to the registration..
> Needless to say, I scribbled some not-so-nice things on the bill, and
> stuffed it back in the postage paid envelope, which I will send back
to
> the jerks.
> Unbelievable. We have customers call all the time about similar
things.
> Isn't this mail fraud????
> Ken
>
>

- --
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: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 20:33:55 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Verisign proceeds with WLS, despite opposition

Hello,

- --- Joseph McDonald <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I'm a pretty easy-going sorta guy, but this really makes my blood
> boil.  This is such a blatant abuse of monopoly power it's not even
> funny.

Indeed. My background is in finance and economics, and I wouldn't
loosely toss around words like "anti-competitive", unless it was
blatant and fit a strict definition. Verisign's definition, where
registrars are free to compete for razor-thin margins reelling its
monopoly service, while it takes 99% of the pie, doesn't fit my
definition. The Status Quo proposal, which I backed and "named" way
back when is far more competitive -- it's so competitive that it
strikes fear into Verisign's heart, as they haven't found a way to
corner that market and make enough money from it, while their
competitors have innovated and prospered. Only by leveraging its
monopoly can it hope to wipe out competitors, which is by definition an
abusive and anti-competitive action. Verisign's WLS is as "competitive"
as the "Let's Make George Kirikos a Multi-Millionaire" proposal,
although I think I'd be able to spin the numbers more favourably on the
latter than Verisign has on the former. I'd love to see the RC vote
straight up, WLS vs. Let's Make George Kirikos a Multi-Millionaire! ;)
 
> What this means is that VRSN is going to dip into registrants wallets
> for *hundreds of millions* of dollars.  They are going to *kill* at
> least a dozen businesses, they are going to cripple hundreds more and
> in the end, the people paying the bills are going to get service that
> is lousier than they ever could have imagined.  VRSN will laugh all

Exactly. Notice how SnapNames took down their "Hot 100" list, for
example? I'm sure the Intellectual Property Constituency would have
voiced more opposition when they saw that names like
volkswagonparts.com (forwards to an "abortion is murder" website) were
acclaimed as great "catches" for people using Snapbacks, and that those
same Snapback holders are being given extra privileges compared to
clients of other domain drop services. Yet, they have the gall to
suggest that WLS is a great thing for the IP community. HA! Verisign
doesn't want a WHOIS for WLS slots, as that would reveal up front
exactly the type of people who are going after certain names, and those
aren't the pals of the IP community. I wonder if anyone on the IP
constituency even reads these lists (maybe someone should forward
these, so they can get up to speed on some things). Not that Verisign
wants consensus (that part of their 4 page commentary was simply
incredible).

> What can we do to stop this?  It is so not right that the word
> "wrong"
> doesn't even scratch the surface.

I expect that some legal action is going to be required, should ICANN
be foolish enough to tempt registrars to sue them by actually
rubber-stamping this cash grab. I'll go on record as ponying up USD
$500 towards the cause, should someone file the appropriate suit (I
expect it'll end up being a group of registrars that files). If a bunch
of other customers helps to spread the costs around, it might help.
With ICANN embroiled in a suit with Karl/EFF, they might want to watch
that they don't get into a multi-front war...

Ultimately, it's the registrars who have the best "cause of action" in
this matter, as the WLS hurts their businesses and they have contracts
that can be enforced. Individual registrants have less of a cause of
action, except in the context of protest, and/or complaints to the
FTC/DoJ, etc. Mike Mann posted a list of links/emails, if one searches
the archives.

Long-term, taking more and more power away from Verisign will help.
Undermining its revenue base, by winning away customers, can bring it
to its knees (all the accounting games in the world won't hide the fact
that GM.com, EDS.com, and other large companies have moved their
domains to OpenSRS, for example, and away from Verisign). In this
internet age, trends can be amplified quickly. Having Verisign lose a
few million more customers might do the trick. Their desperate actions
sending out misleading physical mails to clients of their competitors
shows how low they're prepared to go. It's time to get into the
trenches, and do what needs to be done now, rather than suffer later.
 
Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.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: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:54:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign proceeds with WLS, despite opposition

George,

On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> As most know, the DNSO GA and the RC (registrars) were overwhelmingly
> against the WLS proposal.

I had posted a PDF of the registrars response to the WLS, below is the
response reformatted in text.

- -rick

                    Registrar Constituency (RC)
                         Position Paper
                      Regarding the proposed
                     Wait Listing Service (WLS)
                          March 16, 2002

The RC opposes the revised WLS proposal in its current form.  The
concerns are as follows:

  1) Price.

    a. The price has not been justified on a cost plus a reasonable
       profit, or any other, basis.

    b.	The proposed WLS subscription price combined with the $6
        registration price continues to be too high.  It effectively
        multiplies the total registry price on the most attractive
        deleted names about 6-fold.  The effect is to undermine
        competitive registrars and raise the cost of registration for
        consumers

  2) Competition
     a.	WLS reduces competition by substituting a single model for the
        many and varied current registrar business models for
        re-registering deleted names for consumers.  WLS pre-empts all
        other models.  The current system imposes nearly no
        restriction as to business model offered to consumers.

  3) Equal Access

     a.	The existing system allows each registrar equal access to
        re-registering deleted names.  The WLS system limits
        re-registration to the holder of the WLS subscription. (THIS
        IS NOT A STRONG POINT SINCE WLS IS SIMPLY FIRST COME, FIRST
        SERVED)

     b.	With WLS, registrars with larger databanks of deleted names
    	(e.g., the VeriSign registrar, which has a large legacy of
    	expiring names) would have an advantage over smaller
    	registrars due to the fact that the larger registrars would be
    	able to offer many more WLS subscriptions with a guaranteed
    	chance of "ripening" (because only the registrar-of-record
    	would know that it is about to issue a delete on a particular
    	name).  In contrast, other registrars would have to offer the
    	same WLS subscription at a much higher risk.  This fact
    	effectively unbalances the equal access to re-registering any
    	deleted name that exists today.

   4) Transparency
      a. VeriSign runs the primary registry, the largest registrar,
         and the subscription service. As long as the same company is
         operating this vertically powerful chain of companies, it may
         be possible for it to shift domain names from the $6.00
         registry to the $41.00 WLS.  In fact, only the registry would
         know all of the WLS subscriptions and the timing for deleting
         names.  Such information could beabused by its registrar.
         Considering that there is a history "some of it still
         unresolved" of VeriSign not deleting expired names, and the
         fact that a WLS subscription will be allowed for names that
         are past expiration, the RC is doubly concerned that
         VeriSign's operating the WLS provides new opportunities for
         domain name hoarding.  The current system provides sufficient
         transparency to ensure that one registrar is not advantaged
         relative to another.  The current system provides less
         incentive for a registrar to not delete names that are more
         than 45 days past expiration.  The expectation of a pending
         WLS system release provides incentive for registrars to hold
         names past expiration.  VeriSign effectively bears no cost,
         and has the most to gain in extra WLS fees, for it's holding
         of expired names.  VeriSign registrar has dramatically
         decreased the number of names it would routinely delete and
         increased the number of names it holds more than 45 days
         passed expiration.

   5) Grandfathering of Current Subscriptions

      a. The WLS proposal states that current Snapbacks would be
         grandfathered into the system.  In other words, the registry
         would respect and effectively make whole those consumers that
         had used a SnapNames approach to obtaining a registered
         domain name.  It is unfair to favor one secondary market
         provider above others.  A number of entities, including
         domain name auction brokers and registrars, have offered
         consumers the opportunity to place orders on registered
         names.  All of these should receive equal treatment – meaning
         a grandfathering into any WLS system.

  While the RC continues to oppose the WLS in its current form, and
  believes that denying its introduction would be reasonable, it
  recognizes the need for a permanent solution to the apparent problem
  of deleted names not being released or being released in a manner
  that undermines other registry functions.  Therefore, the RC
  welcomes the Names Council's consideration of alternate ideas for
  addressing these issues, many of which have been discussed by the RC

  By a vote in the Registrars constituency the following registrars
  are Signatories of this document.

   Dotster           CORE*                      DotRegistrar
   Intercosmos       Total Registrations*       007Names
   InterDomain       Registry at Info Avenue*   All West*
   Emarkmonitor*     Enom                       000Domains.com
   Gandi             Registration Technologies  Interdomain
   Nominalia*        000Domains                 TuCows
   Active ISP

   * Previous RC members with non-paid memberships as of 3/8/02

The following resolution was passed by the ICANN-DNSO Registrars
Constituency on March 10th 2002.

   Whereas, VeriSign GRS has presented a proposal to create a "Wait
   Listing Service" (hereinafter referred to as "WLS"), and

   Whereas the Registrars Constituency has both the right and the
   responsibility to adopt and express its position on proposals by
   registries to introduce new services, and

   Whereas many members of the Constituency have a variety of
   significant concerns about this proposal as currently drafted, and

   Whereas the Constituency as a body through the adoption of this
   resolution wishes to oppose the implementation of WLS, and

   Whereas the Constituency believes that the denial of permission by
   ICANN for the introduction of WLS would be reasonable, and

   Whereas ICANN, through its contract with VeriSign GRS, may withhold
   permission for the introduction of a new registry services provided
   that this permission is not withheld unreasonably, be it therefore

   Resolved that the DNSO Registrars Constituency opposes the
   implementation of WLS, and be it further

   Resolved that this opposition be the official position of this
   Constituency until such time as this position is revised by vote of
   the Constituency, and be it further

   Resolved that the DNSO Registrars Constituency urges ICANN to
   withhold permission for the implementation of WLS, and be it
   further

   Resolved that the Executive Committee of the Registrar Constituency
   is directed to communicate this position to VeriSign GRS, to ICANN
   and to any other interested parties.

- --
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, 24 Mar 2002 19:10:47 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Restructuring Proposal

At 14:34 23/03/02 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
 >I have prepared a restructuring proposal for consideration by the Evolution
 >and Reform Committee.  The document is posted at
 >http://www.icannworld.org/evolution.htm

A solid piece of work, Danny and for many with little time, a hard act to 
follow.

I particularly like the equal division between providers and users SO's.
Other proposals, such as a TLD auction are more controversial, but 
certainly worth debating.

Would you not be willing to post it in the icannatlarge Forum and see if it 
could be developed as a consensus document?

- --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: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:26:12 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Verisign proceeds with WLS, despite opposition

Hello,

- --- Joseph McDonald <[email-masked]> wrote:
> If WLS goes through, it spells demise for competing registrars.  vrsn
> will own the namespace.
> 
> George, set up a paypal site for the legal fund, I will contribute. 
> I
> think many others will as well.  It's so sad that it has to come to
> this.

I'm not a lawyer, so it'd probably be inappropriate for myself to hold
funds in trust, or solicit funds. However, if one of the bolder
registrars would like to take the lead, I'll put in my share, as will
many in that "invisible opposition" that Verisign likes to pretend
doesn't exist. I doubt anyone can be found that will fund a pro-WLS
fund, besides the usual suspects. I don't think actual funds need to be
spent unless ICANN rubber-stamps the deal, which might be a few months
away given the paragraphs in the Registrar contracts pointed out
earlier, as to the independent reviews, etc. Sorry if that ruins your
Q1 launch and Q2 earnings, VRSN. ;)

If one does rough calculations, eNom's drop club would lose $25,000+
per month (say $250,000/yr). NameWinner/Dotster's probably doing at
least that much, if not more, given some of the stats on their catches.
Other registrars would lose similar scale revenues right away, or the
opportunity costs of future entry into those markets. Even some of the
SnapNames registration partners would lose big time, as there's no need
to pay them for rental of their registry connections once WLS goes
through -- instead they'd get their $2/slot margin, etc. based on
whatever they could sell (instead of a share of SnapNames' total
volume, based on maybe $15 to $20/name). Spending the legal costs just
to delay WLS for a year or two in the courts would probably be more
than returned in continuing revenue under the Status Quo in the
meantime, especially as many of the registrars have in-house counsel,
and don't necessarily have to spend the big bucks on outside help.

The first registrar (or group of registrars) to setup a trust has my
cash. Who shall have the first-mover advantage, and benefit from all
the positive press by being a leader, the David against the mighty
Goliath?

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1101
*************************