Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1126
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, April 13 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1126

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

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:23:06 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Questions on the draft BC Position Paper

Danny, I appreciate your questions, but I should clarify that the purpose of this document within the BC was to ensure that the BC had a document which outlined "agreed to concepts and principles." We certainly understand that we, as BC reps need to be able to respond to solutions, and to propose solutions, and since we can't predict every option which will be presented, we wanted to be guided by concepts and principles that are based on consultation with the BC membership. 

I hope that clarifies the purpose of the document.   At this point, any further details and answers would only be my personal thoughts.  

But, you are certainly right, the BC does hope to contribute some ideas/solutions for consideration which can also be part of the input considered by the GA and the NC.   

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 11:54 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Subject: Questions on the draft BC Position Paper

Marilyn,

I wanted to take a moment to thank you for producing the document "Toward a 
Business Constituency Position on ICANN Restructuring and Evolution" posted 
at http://www.bizconst.org/BCpositionevolution-final%20draft1.0.doc

I have some initial questions regarding your position paper (and please 
excuse me if these questions have already been asked... unfortunately your 
constituency does not appear to accept the concept of transparency and does 
not provide a publicly archived discussion list):

1.  You state that ICANN must <<Ensure that policy development remains a 
consensus, bottom up process, with all stakeholders represented>>  yet you 
don't outline a plan by which this may be accomplished.  Can you elaborate?
2.  You request that ICANN <<Provide staff support to all parts of the policy 
development process>>.  Currently Louis Touton sits in on most NC 
teleconferences, and the registrars, gTLDs and ccTLDs already have staff 
liaisons (several).  We have Board directors that have participated in open 
Working Groups (remember those?), and Board directors that communicate 
directly with constituencies (such as Alejandro with the NCDNHC, and Vint 
with the GA).  What exactly do you have in mind?
3.  You state that ICANN must <<Work to achieve effective and mutually 
agreeable, models for the RIRs, Root Server operators and technical 
community, to participate in ICANN>>.  By "models" do you mean "contracts"?  
These groups already do participate in ICANN through SOs and Standing 
Committees, so perhaps I don't understand your point.
4.  On the issue of funding, you support <<existing practice>>, and recommend 
that ICANN <<Maintain contributions from ccTLDs and RIRs>>  You also advise 
ICANN to <<not seek government funding>>.  Candidly, these statements do 
little to attend to the issues of funding... could you perhaps outline a real 
plan?  How exactly will ICANN maintain funding from the ccTLDs?
5.  Regarding the Independent Review Panel, you have proposed a <<committee 
which could include, the GAC chair, the IAB chair, two board members or past 
board members, and an appointed and paid ombudsman>>.    What do you see as 
the merits of a Panel with this particular composition?
6.  You state  <<Develop model for board size and composition which ensures 
the board can function while reflecting the establishment of the ccTLD as an 
entity separate from the gTLD entity>>.  The ccTLDs as a constituency are 
already an entity separate from the gTLDs as a constituency.  Are you seeking 
a higher degree of representation on the Board for the ccTLD and  gTLD 
constituencies?  Why?  Should registries have a greater degree of 
representation than registrars?  Should these groups have a higher degree of 
representation than other constituencies?  If so, why?
7.  You state  <<Provide a mechanism to include as ex-officio members the 
chairs of advisory bodies that are created in the restructuring. [GAC, 
etc.]>>  As all Supporting Organizations are advisory bodies, are you 
recommending that in addition to the Board Directors that these groups elect, 
we also create ex-officio positions on the Board for the Chairs of these 
groups?  What is the rationale behind such a suggestion?  Isn't the Board 
large enough already?  What do we gain by adding non-voting members to the 
Board?
8.  You indicate that ICANN should <<Examine whether the GA can support 
structured discussion forums on policy issues to ensure diversity of input>>. 
 What exactly do you mean by this?  The GA already provides a greater degree 
of discussion on topics than any other constituent or structured forum.  What 
is it that requires examination?
9.  With regard to the At-Large, you state <<Preserve the existing five at 
large seats either by 1) extending existing five elected members or 2) having 
an interim appointment process to fill those seats>>.   I don't think we need 
even more board-squatters (even if they are At-Large representatives).  
Please describe the interim appointment process that you propose.  Who will 
make these appointments?
10.  You have stated that the BC supports the principle of 
<<representation>>.  How do you propose to provide representation for domain 
name holders and others that are currently not represented in the process?

more questions will follow... I look forward to your elucidations.
- --
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, 12 Apr 2002 16:07:32 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Questions on the draft BC Position Paper

Marilyn,

Thank you for your response.  

I tend to take the view that position papers that are written at a very high 
level of generality do not serve the organization well.   Merely stating that 
a constituency has agreed in principle that there are "things" wrong with 
ICANN, and that ICANN should do "something" about these problems doesn't 
really help that much, does it?

We have less than three weeks to articulate "specific" recommendations to the 
Reform Committee.  If you don't wish to speak on behalf of the BC, I would 
appreciate hearing details and answers to these questions even if they would 
only be your own personal thoughts.  

Perhaps such an exchange of views will stimulate discussion on this forum 
regarding the best way forward on restructuring.

Best regards,
Danny
- --
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, 12 Apr 2002 17:15:37 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Questions on the draft BC Position Paper

thanks for asking, Danny. I'll read the questions again that you asked,  and see if I think I can add any value on any of them. I do have some thoughts on the "staffing" and support item and what my experience is in other organizational settings. Perhaps I can start there .. It will be over the week end. I'm headed off for now...

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 4:08 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Subject: Re: Questions on the draft BC Position Paper

Marilyn,

Thank you for your response.  

I tend to take the view that position papers that are written at a very high 
level of generality do not serve the organization well.   Merely stating that 
a constituency has agreed in principle that there are "things" wrong with 
ICANN, and that ICANN should do "something" about these problems doesn't 
really help that much, does it?

We have less than three weeks to articulate "specific" recommendations to the 
Reform Committee.  If you don't wish to speak on behalf of the BC, I would 
appreciate hearing details and answers to these questions even if they would 
only be your own personal thoughts.  

Perhaps such an exchange of views will stimulate discussion on this forum 
regarding the best way forward on restructuring.

Best regards,
Danny
- --
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, 12 Apr 2002 22:24:31 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [ecdiscuss] DNS independence

Jefsey, I offer one comment to your "misportrayal"  of the announcement of a new chair for the IAB. 

The IAB members and the chair step above their company affiliations and work for the good of the Internet community. That was true BEFORE John Klensin was IAB chair; WHILE he was chair, and WILL BE true with Leslie Daigle as chair.

Companies do not chair the IAB; respected technologists and engineers of the Internet community do....elected by their peers.

While AT&T was honored that the previous IAB chair worked for us in his "day job", we also understood and supported his role and independence on behalf of the Internet Community. And counted on it. :-)

We trust that continues with Leslie's role as chair. 

You should reconsider your "headline". It totally misportrays the integrity of this fine group of Internet leaders.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:06 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ecdiscuss] DNS independence

For information. ATT steps down and Verisign takes over as IAB Chair.
http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2002/pr_20020402.html
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: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 13:37:47 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [ecdiscuss] DNS independence

Dear John,
I thank you for your response which clarifies a total misunderstanding.

I quoted a private and very serious letter for a reason you will most 
probably support. I did not realize that out of its context one could read 
the line that wrong. I do apologize for this.

At 05:56 13/04/02, John C Klensin wrote:
>Since I have some claim on knowing the situation firsthand, let me 
>reinforce Marilyn's point, and use clearer language.  Your description of 
>the handoff falls somewhere on the scale between "silly" and 
>"offensive".  It is also, independent of your or anyone else's opinions, false.

Obviously true: this is the whole point.
<snip>

>As Marilyn says, IAB members, and _especially_ the chair, function as 
>individual experts, independent of the strategies and policies of their 
>companies.  When I was chair, what I brought to the IAB was whatever 
>technical judgement I had on the subjects at hand.

<snip>

BTW, John, I want to take advantage from this misunderstanding which will 
probably make some reading, to publish my respect to your Chairmanship. We 
do not necessarily agree on everything, but I certainly admire the way you 
have known to introduce innovative thinking as a Chair and I thank you for 
that. As you know I certainly look forwards continuing keeping in touch on 
these issues.

<snip>

What you say about ATT and Leslie *is* the basis of the point. The point is 
that ATT played it low key and Versign not. This is the important 
information everyone can read and have an opinion on.

Everyone will fully accept that and you cannot be elected without the IAB 
members first making sure "you/she would have the necessary resources and 
backing to do the job" and that the company paying for that should get some 
return. "ATT steps down" was only retained to acknowledge ATT's support and 
style (I had to carry a Copernic search to know who you worked for).

Now, read the Verisign PR: 
http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2002/pr_20020402.html !

<quote>
VeriSign's Leslie Daigle Named Chair of the Internet Architecture Board

Mountain View, CA, April 2, 2002—VeriSign, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSN), the leading 
provider of digital trust services, announced today that Leslie Daigle, 
Director of Directory Research at VeriSign, was selected as the Internet 
Engineering Task Force's (IETF) Chair of the Internet Architecture Board 
(IAB).

</quote>

I do not feel that this wording fits what you and me, and I suppose most, 
agree upon about the independence of the job. I know PRs are pretty 
standard forms, so the title makes it all.

Jefsey Morfin

- --
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, 13 Apr 2002 13:47:58 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [ecdiscuss] DNS independence

At 04:24 13/04/02, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>Jefsey, I offer one comment to your "misportrayal"  of the announcement of 
>a new chair for the IAB.
>
>The IAB members and the chair step above their company affiliations and 
>work for the good of the Internet community. That was true BEFORE John 
>Klensin was IAB chair; WHILE he was chair, and WILL BE true with Leslie 
>Daigle as chair.
>
>Companies do not chair the IAB; respected technologists and engineers of 
>the Internet community do....elected by their peers.
>
>While AT&T was honored that the previous IAB chair worked for us in his 
>"day job", we also understood and supported his role and independence on 
>behalf of the Internet Community. And counted on it. :-)
>
>We trust that continues with Leslie's role as chair.
>
>You should reconsider your "headline". It totally misportrays the 
>integrity of this fine group of Internet leaders.

Dear Marilyn,
Allways teasing each other :-) I am afraid you focussed on ATT and totally 
misread what was a small tribute to ATT's style and a call to read and 
judge by oneself the seemingly different ways of Verisign. Please read my 
response to John.

BTW I was interested in studying who you cc'ed and who you did not.
Take care and have a great week-end.
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: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:34:08 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [ecdiscuss] DNS independence

thanks for your response to me on this, Jefsey. I did read your response to John Klensin.  I appreciate your clarification of your intent.

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 7:48 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]
Cc: DNSO Listadmin; Stuart Lynn; Alejandro Pisanty; Joe Sims; John
Klensin; General Assembly of ICANN
Subject: RE: [ecdiscuss] DNS independence

At 04:24 13/04/02, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>Jefsey, I offer one comment to your "misportrayal"  of the announcement of 
>a new chair for the IAB.
>
>The IAB members and the chair step above their company affiliations and 
>work for the good of the Internet community. That was true BEFORE John 
>Klensin was IAB chair; WHILE he was chair, and WILL BE true with Leslie 
>Daigle as chair.
>
>Companies do not chair the IAB; respected technologists and engineers of 
>the Internet community do....elected by their peers.
>
>While AT&T was honored that the previous IAB chair worked for us in his 
>"day job", we also understood and supported his role and independence on 
>behalf of the Internet Community. And counted on it. :-)
>
>We trust that continues with Leslie's role as chair.
>
>You should reconsider your "headline". It totally misportrays the 
>integrity of this fine group of Internet leaders.

Dear Marilyn,
Allways teasing each other :-) I am afraid you focussed on ATT and totally 
misread what was a small tribute to ATT's style and a call to read and 
judge by oneself the seemingly different ways of Verisign. Please read my 
response to John.

BTW I was interested in studying who you cc'ed and who you did not.
Take care and have a great week-end.
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: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:14:44 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ICANN Reform: New Proposal for At-Large elections

The Board has expressed concerns about the validity, fairness, 
representativeness, affordability and practicality of global online 
elections.  

An alternative to global online elections:  

1.  I take it as axiomatic that those who participate in ICANN activities 
constitute a well-defined and informed electorate.  ICANN Supporting 
Organizations have membership rosters.  We are also aware of the names and 
email addresses of everyone that has participated in ICANN plenary sessions, 
working groups, task forces, committees and forums over the course of the 
last four years.   This small identifiable group of informed participants (at 
most a few thousand) constitutes the immediate body that represents the 
greater At-Large.

2.  Emails may be sent to all such current and former ICANN participants with 
the request that they identify themselves as part of a specific geographic 
region and provide their current address.  

3.  A list of voters for each region is thereby established, and from such a 
list candidates will emerge for each region.

4.  Paper ballots are mailed to the physical addresses of the voters. 

5.  This approach is affordable, practical, sufficiently representative, 
fair, and avoids the potential for fraud and/or capture.
- --
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, 13 Apr 2002 13:36:57 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Help with research into domain reregistration - submit examples of unrelated reregistrations

Discussion on this list has occasionally considered the topic of domains
that, after expiration, are renewed by other registrants for the
distribution of unrelated content.

In general, these transfers are a helpful feature of DNS -- allowing the
reallocation of underused portions of the name space to those who wish to
put those spaces to active use.  But when reregistrations use existing
domains to offer unrelated content (most troublingly, some have suggested,
sexually explicit content), the practice may come into question.  This
problem no doubt becomes especially serious in the context of domains that
expire due to administrative error or oversight rather than the conscious
decision of existing registrants.

To date, I believe little hard data has been collected or made available
regarding the scope of the reregistrations at issue.  I'm currently
attempting to document their scope by preparing a comprehensive list of
reregistered domains.  With a variety of automated means for examining web
pages as they stand and as they may have been some months or years ago, I
hope to produce a list of some hundreds of thousands of domains that have
been reregistered -- but to do so, I first need some examples to "prime the
pump."

Hence my request to members of this list: If you know of examples of domains
that have been reregistered after expiration, and subsequently used to
distribute content unrelated to the most obvious implications of their
respective domain name, I'd much appreciate your help via submissions to the
form at <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/renewals/submit/>.  You
need not be "certain" of the status or history of any given domain name in
order to helpfully submit it; my subsequent work will verify that each
domain ultimately reported in my results is in fact an example of the
behavior at issue.

When my research is "complete" -- or when I otherwise have available a
substantial body of results -- I'll certainly share it with this list for
the benefit of anyone interested.

Many thanks to those who can help.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

- --
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, 13 Apr 2002 13:48:16 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Help with research into domain reregistration - submit examples of unrelated reregistrations

I received a couple questions off-list from folks who wanted to help but
didn't fully understand what I'm after here.  Rather than use the
theoretical language of my prior message, perhaps I can clarify with some
specifics:

Last week, I found myself in need of a new bicycle for sale in or around
Cambridge, Massachusetts.  A search engine referred me to Bicycle Bill's
bicycle store, <http://www.bicyclebills.com> (warning: sexually-explicit
content).  The "wayback machine" at archive.org reflects that this domain
was previously the web site of a well-regarded retailer in Massachusetts --
but as is clear from visiting the page as it stands now, it's now used to
distribute sexually-explicit content called "Tina's Free Live Cam."

As it turns out, a large number of other domains distribute this same
sexually-explicit content -- <http://www.pbsbusinesschannel.com>,
<http://www.savannah-bbb.org>, <http://www.sacramentomusic.com>,
<http://www.fraudindex.com>, and on and on.  (Warning: each link yields
sexually-explicit content.)  Thanks to some work by my automated systems, I
already have some hundreds of other examples of domains that redirect to
this same "Tina's Free Live Cam" page, and if I leave the systems
operational for an extended period, I'm confident that they'll find hundreds
or thousands of additional domains also pointing to this same page.

But to complete this work -- to make it truly helpful in evaluating the
scope of the reregistration activity here -- I need to quantify not only the
many redirects to Tina's Live Cam but also many redirects to others offering
content in a similar way (i.e. through many domains seemingly obtained after
expiration).  It is for precisely this question that I seek help from this
list -- help in finding other examples, other than Tina, of content
distributed in this way.

If you know of such content, please consider submitting it at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/renewals/submit/>.  And if
you're still confused, or if you think you have a better way to describe
this phenomenon, feel free to jump in on or off-list!

Thanks again.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 1:37 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Help with research into domain reregistration - submit examples
> of unrelated reregistrations
>
>
> Discussion on this list has occasionally considered the topic of
> domains that, after expiration, are renewed by other registrants
> for the distribution of unrelated content.
>
> In general, these transfers are a helpful feature of DNS --
> allowing the reallocation of underused portions of the name space
> to those who wish to put those spaces to active use.  But when
> reregistrations use existing domains to offer unrelated content
> (most troublingly, some have suggested, sexually explicit
> content), the practice may come into question.  This problem no
> doubt becomes especially serious in the context of domains that
> expire due to administrative error or oversight rather than the
> conscious decision of existing registrants.
>
> To date, I believe little hard data has been collected or made
> available regarding the scope of the reregistrations at issue.
> I'm currently attempting to document their scope by preparing a
> comprehensive list of reregistered domains.  With a variety of
> automated means for examining web pages as they stand and as they
> may have been some months or years ago, I hope to produce a list
> of some hundreds of thousands of domains that have been
> reregistered -- but to do so, I first need some examples to
> "prime the pump."
>
> Hence my request to members of this list: If you know of examples
> of domains that have been reregistered after expiration, and
> subsequently used to distribute content unrelated to the most
> obvious implications of their respective domain name, I'd much
> appreciate your help via submissions to the form at
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/renewals/submit/>.
> You need not be "certain" of the status or history of any given
> domain name in order to helpfully submit it; my subsequent work
> will verify that each domain ultimately reported in my results is
> in fact an example of the behavior at issue.
>
> When my research is "complete" -- or when I otherwise have
> available a substantial body of results -- I'll certainly share
> it with this list for the benefit of anyone interested.
>
>
> Many thanks to those who can help.
>
>
> Ben Edelman
> Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> Harvard Law School

- --
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, 13 Apr 2002 11:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Help with research into domain reregistration - submit examples of unrelated reregistrations

Hello,

- --- Ben Edelman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hence my request to members of this list: If you know of examples of
> domains
> that have been reregistered after expiration, and subsequently used

Not all of the domains fit your requirements, but you can get a list to
start with from the SnapNames.com list of successful SnapBacks. They
removed it from their website once debate over WLS began (too many
examples of domains that didn't fit the Verisign propaganda that "WLS
is a good thing"), however you can get an older copy from:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011007192350/www.snapnames.com/success.html

Others might have archived more recent copies of the "Success" list,
and I'd encourage them to forward them for the research. 

A more recent list of the "Hot 100" was previously discussed in the
post at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00085.html

(and subsequent posts in the DNSO GA mailing list) and links to that
list of 100 names were provided there for just these kinds of academic
reasons.

Using tools like Alexa's "Wayback Machine" at www.archive.org you
should be able to check how the domain names were before and after the
names were re-registered.

In the response to question B.17 of the WLS questions at:

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

Verisign refused to provide much help in defining what is "abusive
speculation", but did seem to suggest that "porn-napping" is one such
example. I think a stronger definition would involve cases that would
lose in a UDRP case (i.e. involving trademark abuse) -- some cases
might have gone through the UDRP process, and one can use the search
tools at:

http://www.icann.org/udrp/

to find them. I'd be curious to know how many of the names on the
SnapNames list fit either definition, or your own definition. I'd
suspect that it's a higher percentage than that of professional domain
developers who use competing expired name services such as eNom's drop
club or NameWinner, as they tend to shy away from names that involve
trademarks. As you can see from NameWinner's high profile names at:

http://www.namewinner.com/winners_circle.php

most of them do not involve trademarks. The same for NicGenie's public
list at:

http://www.nicgenie.com/winners.asp

I think your research results and those of others, once available
(perhaps in a few months?) will be useful inputs once ICANN opens up
the WLS proposal for public comment. Then, after an appropriate period
of debate within ICANN and its constituencies (I don't believe much has
been heard from the IP and Business constituencies yet), we can attempt
to arrive at a consensus solution to the problem that builds upon and
modifies/adapts the WLS proposal into something everyone would be happy
with. Given the many current problems that make WLS inadvisable (e.g.
no firm policies on the release of expired names by registrars; Network
Solutions' failure to publish expiration dates for many domain names;
anti-trust aspects of the proposal, total lack of consensus, etc.),
having it sent back to the DNSO for further review and comment is
likely to be ICANN's best response to Verisign's proposal.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.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, 13 Apr 2002 12:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Help with research into domain reregistration - submit examples of unrelated reregistrations

Hello again,

- --- Ben Edelman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> expiration).  It is for precisely this question that I seek help from
> this
> list -- help in finding other examples, other than Tina, of content
> distributed in this way.

Another method to generate target domains for further analysis is to
search the Zone Files for domains with "interesting" name servers (i.e.
nameservers that are often used by abusive registrants). This has an
inherent selection bias, though.

An even better approach would be to compare two snapshots of zone data
that are say 1 year apart (e.g. April 13, 2001 and April 13, 2002). By
removing all names where the nameservers stayed the same, one can
generate a new list of "interesting" domains that can be further
filtered using your other tools. Perhaps using automated WHOIS tools to
determine if the registrar changed would allow one to filter this list
even further (and also looking for typical abusive registrant
information, such as missing addresses, etc.).

One can get access to the Zone File by making a request at:

http://www.verisign-grs.com/tld/

Perhaps someone at Verisign can provide an archived zone file to you
for research, to allow for that "snapshot" of the past for comparison.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.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, 13 Apr 2002 15:59:51 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Help with research into domain reregistration - submit examples  of unrelated reregistrations

ummmmm Ben, could you give us a defintion of "content unrelated to the
most obvious implications of their respective domain name," please?

Ben Edelman wrote:
> 
> Discussion on this list has occasionally considered the topic of domains
> that, after expiration, are renewed by other registrants for the
> distribution of unrelated content.
> 
> In general, these transfers are a helpful feature of DNS -- allowing the
> reallocation of underused portions of the name space to those who wish to
> put those spaces to active use.  But when reregistrations use existing
> domains to offer unrelated content (most troublingly, some have suggested,
> sexually explicit content), the practice may come into question.  This
> problem no doubt becomes especially serious in the context of domains that
> expire due to administrative error or oversight rather than the conscious
> decision of existing registrants.
> 
> To date, I believe little hard data has been collected or made available
> regarding the scope of the reregistrations at issue.  I'm currently
> attempting to document their scope by preparing a comprehensive list of
> reregistered domains.  With a variety of automated means for examining web
> pages as they stand and as they may have been some months or years ago, I
> hope to produce a list of some hundreds of thousands of domains that have
> been reregistered -- but to do so, I first need some examples to "prime the
> pump."
> 
> Hence my request to members of this list: If you know of examples of domains
> that have been reregistered after expiration, and subsequently used to
> distribute content unrelated to the most obvious implications of their
> respective domain name, I'd much appreciate your help via submissions to the
> form at <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/renewals/submit/>.  You
> need not be "certain" of the status or history of any given domain name in
> order to helpfully submit it; my subsequent work will verify that each
> domain ultimately reported in my results is in fact an example of the
> behavior at issue.
> 
> When my research is "complete" -- or when I otherwise have available a
> substantial body of results -- I'll certainly share it with this list for
> the benefit of anyone interested.
> 
> Many thanks to those who can help.
> 
> Ben Edelman
> Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> Harvard Law School
> 
> --
> 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 #1126
*************************