Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1144
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, April 28 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1144

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

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 16:25:27 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign stock price falls off a cliff

On 15:13 27/04/02, Dan Steinberg said:
>Why were the earnings below expectations?  dunno and personally, dont care.

What an help :-) !!!

May I suggest their earnings are lower because the market buys less than 
the expected?
May I suggest that since they are in a defacto monopolistic worldwide 
situation over necessary products, it means that the market find their 
products (including certificates and DNs) :

[ ] a) inapproriate to their needs
[ ] b) too complex
[ ] c) too expensive
[ ] d) poorly supported
[ ] e) non fitting the legal intended purpose
[ ] f) others, please detail ...........................

Thank you to cross mark one or several box(es) and to reply back in order 
to help VRSN understanding better why their earnings are below expectations.
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, 27 Apr 2002 13:54:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [icann-europe] ICANN, VRSN, ORG: please, let get real. 

Hey Jefsey - I've been warning about it for some time.  But the internet
is in a delicate state of crisis.  The people who understand how it works
are in the alt.root communities, and the twits who are running the show
are playing with icann - i speak of course of the beuracracies, lawyers,
and large corps who have made a dogs breakfast of the dns.

I shall refer to these people as twits - which in internet parlance means
a user who is not an internet newbie (first timer) - so they know their
way around the internet - but the problem is they have no idea what it is
they are doing - however they don't know any better and have a false sense
of security - etc. etc.

An example of a twit is ester dyson, and the press who claim she is a
guru.  as well as people like chris wilkinson who is willing to play cards
with simms - icanns man in charge of putting out fires.

This of course does not include the fact that as the internet has grown to
massive proportions the infrastruture has become increasingly vulnerable -
as per my recent warning -

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200204/msg00123.html

Have the chinese gotten a clue yet?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020425/wr_nm/china_usa_hackers_dc_1

But the bigger issue in the story is the cia making false claims the
chinese don't have the capability to attack cyberspace - i.e.

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A CIA analysis says the Chinese government may
have the goal of using cyber attacks to disrupt Taiwanese and U.S.
military systems, but it does not currently have the capability, a U.S.
official said on Thursday."

This claim is nonsense.  The CIA as usual has no clue.  All it takes is an
attack on the root servers to call it lights out.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Gentlemen,
> I feel I am in the Titanic kitchen discussing tomorrows menu. Why not to
> get real? Do we want to be remembered as the French dancing aristocrats of
> 1789. Let face it, for months some disregard what I say as being wild. But
> here we are:

Well Jefsey it feels like the Titanic to me too.  But look at the comedy -
when it blows up it won't affect us.  But it will affect the europeans.

And the continued use of the USG root system violates most of europes
privacy laws.  I wonder if Christopher Wilkinson can figure out why that
is?  http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=554

If I was Christopher Wilkinson i'd be careful who i sold myself too.  The
members of the EU are going to demand answers and Wilkinson better be
prepaired to respond.

> Point 2. The only solution we have IMHO is :
>
> 1. to accept that we are in a general critical situation, so we stop
> babbling and we think very clearly.

no let it crash.  ICANN is irrelevant to the big picture.  Just sit back
and watch the worlds bureacrats scramble when the irrelevant non existent
icann monopoly blows up.  and the result is a very broken and vulnerable
intranet called icann/doc/ntia.  i won't be affected.  most of europe
will.

> structures, etc... This should be made clear though a GAC declaration (as
> the only existing structure for Govs). The preparation of the world submits
> on the information society would be a good occasion. So we have a social
> frame and a time frame.

its not going to happen in law.  it will happen by necessity.  the law is
incapable of codefying technical and human communication needs.  for that
matter few here really understand the dns.  and what little they do know
amounts to alot of jibberish.

the dns as you know is a collection of objects which reference resources -
a master index which can be used by many authors to archive and reference
information resources independently and in associated communities.

the commercialization of the usg internet has been it's death.

> 4. within that time frame we can only make it with existing structures. The
> only existing structure is the ITU/T.

well - lets not go out and create another comedy and dogs breakfast.  i
like theatre and i know itu well.  So I have no doubt they can provide us
with a few more years of excellent theatre - however - they are first
class twits and to a large extent responsible for this dogs breakfast we
call icann.

> a) the ITU/T, as an international structure, is nation oriented, while the
> TCP/IP distributed networks are multinational by essence.
> b) the ITU/T is operators oriented: the TCP/IP distributed architecture
> makes every participant to be technically an operator. We would overwhelm
> the ITU/T with thousands of small members.

exactly.  and the culture at the ITU is all wrong.  the itu like most
bureacratic organizations works on the principles of paranoia.  if they
can't control the process they would rather have nothing to do with it.

a good example is robert shaw.  you might remember that he claimed planet
communications & computing facility - one of our divisions - was
conducting covert operations against icann on behalf of network solutions
(nsi).  this claim of course made us all laugh and the event clearly
showed the dns community that robert shaw fits the internet definition of
twit perfectly.

if mr. shaw is a good working model of the level of intellegence at the
itu then your proposal is unacceptable.

so i'm sure you can understand why i'm hesitant in bringing in the ITU as
a white knite.  years ago rukowski tried to get the ITU to become involved
in internet operations and they turned it down.  The ITU was a joke then
as they are a joke now.

> A DN is NOT anything else than a mnemonic pointer to the IP address of a
> network privately owned resource (a "cyber domain": site, equipment,
> etc..). The only duty of a DN is to correctly and stably point to that IP.

It's just a bit more then that.  It represents a means of indexing uRL's -
information - across the internet.  In the old days domain names were not
up for grabs (commercialized) and the links between resources were much
more stable then they are today.

> This is why we have to stop these chit chat about .org and new TLDs, and
> WLS. We have to openly discuss with Stratton Sclavos and the DoC about how
> to clean the mess and if, when and how .org is to be divested, and how to
> subsidize Verisign while it reconverts itself into one or several profit
> making registries, the way we may dwindle the "Registrars Industry" into
> something survivable, etc. The probably necessay Internet Act should also
> address the organization (ICANN?) and the budget of the ARPA inherited
> Internet/Govnet systems, of their relations with the other TCP/IP networks
> system managers and the fair redistrubution of the IP Blocks (if the US do
> not want the IP allocation to be a major negative issue in Geneva 2003 and
> Tunis 2005).

No no - Jefsey - much better to just let it die and collapse.  Less energy
involved.

regards
joe

www.dot-god.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, 27 Apr 2002 18:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [icann-europe] ICANN, VRSN, ORG: please, let get real.

Dear Dr. Joe and Professor Jefsey,

I happen to be keenly aware of these variable truths.  And I have the 
luxury to dwell in them and advise and cajole and write policy regarding 
them.

But most importantly with all of this known and some progress and failure 
being made regarding such truths this is also true;

Billions of USD are being made regardless.  That is ok for those who care.

But we are using this experimental tool to change lives, for the better.

Ester and her ilk are great cocktail entertainment but not serious players.
As our work here and elswhere like it are passtimes.
You two have a lot of work to do and little dumbies like me have a Job to 
do getting access, reliability and security to the masses.  ICANN is a fine 
forum for a possible future representative body which is worth some of our 
time.  but we all must realize that our work is important and these 
politics are a sideline.  If ICANN crashes and burns tommorrow who will 
care My Internet will continue to grow and positvely effect lives, thanks 
to you two and many like you.

My one legged shoe shine boy sends his thanks and asks if you would like 
his new email address.

Thanks,
Eric

> Hey Jefsey - I've been warning about it for some time.  But the
> internet is in a delicate state of crisis.  The people who understand
> how it works are in the alt.root communities, and the twits who are
> running the show are playing with icann - i speak of course of the
> beuracracies, lawyers, and large corps who have made a dogs breakfast
> of the dns.
> 
> I shall refer to these people as twits - which in internet parlance
> means a user who is not an internet newbie (first timer) - so they know
> their way around the internet - but the problem is they have no idea
> what it is they are doing - however they don't know any better and have
> a false sense of security - etc. etc.
> 
> An example of a twit is ester dyson, and the press who claim she is a
> guru.  as well as people like chris wilkinson who is willing to play
> cards with simms - icanns man in charge of putting out fires.
> 
> This of course does not include the fact that as the internet has grown
> to massive proportions the infrastruture has become increasingly
> vulnerable - as per my recent warning -
> 
> http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/200204/msg00123.html
> 
> Have the chinese gotten a clue yet?
> 
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020425/wr_nm/china_usa_hackers_dc_1
> 
> But the bigger issue in the story is the cia making false claims the
> chinese don't have the capability to attack cyberspace - i.e.
> 
> "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A CIA analysis says the Chinese government may
> have the goal of using cyber attacks to disrupt Taiwanese and U.S.
> military systems, but it does not currently have the capability, a U.S.
> official said on Thursday."
> 
> This claim is nonsense.  The CIA as usual has no clue.  All it takes is
> an attack on the root servers to call it lights out.
> 
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> 
>> Gentlemen,
>> I feel I am in the Titanic kitchen discussing tomorrows menu. Why not
>> to get real? Do we want to be remembered as the French dancing
>> aristocrats of 1789. Let face it, for months some disregard what I say
>> as being wild. But here we are:
> 
> Well Jefsey it feels like the Titanic to me too.  But look at the
> comedy - when it blows up it won't affect us.  But it will affect the
> europeans.
> 
> And the continued use of the USG root system violates most of europes
> privacy laws.  I wonder if Christopher Wilkinson can figure out why
> that is?  http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=554
> 
> If I was Christopher Wilkinson i'd be careful who i sold myself too. 
> The members of the EU are going to demand answers and Wilkinson better
> be prepaired to respond.
> 
>> Point 2. The only solution we have IMHO is :
>>
>> 1. to accept that we are in a general critical situation, so we stop
>> babbling and we think very clearly.
> 
> no let it crash.  ICANN is irrelevant to the big picture.  Just sit
> back and watch the worlds bureacrats scramble when the irrelevant non
> existent icann monopoly blows up.  and the result is a very broken and
> vulnerable intranet called icann/doc/ntia.  i won't be affected.  most
> of europe will.
> 
>> structures, etc... This should be made clear though a GAC declaration
>> (as the only existing structure for Govs). The preparation of the
>> world submits on the information society would be a good occasion. So
>> we have a social frame and a time frame.
> 
> its not going to happen in law.  it will happen by necessity.  the law
> is incapable of codefying technical and human communication needs.  for
> that matter few here really understand the dns.  and what little they
> do know amounts to alot of jibberish.
> 
> the dns as you know is a collection of objects which reference
> resources - a master index which can be used by many authors to archive
> and reference information resources independently and in associated
> communities.
> 
> the commercialization of the usg internet has been it's death.
> 
>> 4. within that time frame we can only make it with existing
>> structures. The only existing structure is the ITU/T.
> 
> well - lets not go out and create another comedy and dogs breakfast.  i
> like theatre and i know itu well.  So I have no doubt they can provide
> us with a few more years of excellent theatre - however - they are
> first class twits and to a large extent responsible for this dogs
> breakfast we call icann.
> 
>> a) the ITU/T, as an international structure, is nation oriented, while
>> the TCP/IP distributed networks are multinational by essence.
>> b) the ITU/T is operators oriented: the TCP/IP distributed
>> architecture makes every participant to be technically an operator. We
>> would overwhelm the ITU/T with thousands of small members.
> 
> exactly.  and the culture at the ITU is all wrong.  the itu like most
> bureacratic organizations works on the principles of paranoia.  if they
> can't control the process they would rather have nothing to do with it.
> 
> a good example is robert shaw.  you might remember that he claimed
> planet communications & computing facility - one of our divisions - was
> conducting covert operations against icann on behalf of network
> solutions (nsi).  this claim of course made us all laugh and the event
> clearly showed the dns community that robert shaw fits the internet
> definition of twit perfectly.
> 
> if mr. shaw is a good working model of the level of intellegence at the
> itu then your proposal is unacceptable.
> 
>so i'm sure you can understand why i'm hesitant in bringing in the ITU
>as a white knite.  years ago rukowski tried to get the ITU to become
>involved in internet operations and they turned it down.  The ITU was a
>joke then as they are a joke now.
> 
>> A DN is NOT anything else than a mnemonic pointer to the IP address of
>> a network privately owned resource (a "cyber domain": site, equipment,
>> etc..). The only duty of a DN is to correctly and stably point to that
>> IP.
> 
> It's just a bit more then that.  It represents a means of indexing
> uRL's - information - across the internet.  In the old days domain
> names were not up for grabs (commercialized) and the links between
> resources were much more stable then they are today.
> 
>> This is why we have to stop these chit chat about .org and new TLDs,
>> and WLS. We have to openly discuss with Stratton Sclavos and the DoC
>> about how to clean the mess and if, when and how .org is to be
>> divested, and how to subsidize Verisign while it reconverts itself
>> into one or several profit making registries, the way we may dwindle
>> the "Registrars Industry" into something survivable, etc. The probably
>> necessay Internet Act should also address the organization (ICANN?)
>> and the budget of the ARPA inherited Internet/Govnet systems, of their
>> relations with the other TCP/IP networks system managers and the fair
>> redistrubution of the IP Blocks (if the US do not want the IP
>> allocation to be a major negative issue in Geneva 2003 and Tunis
>> 2005).
> 
> No no - Jefsey - much better to just let it die and collapse.  Less
> energy involved.
> 
> regards
> joe
> 
> www.dot-god.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

http://www.Hi-Tek.com
Reality in a Digital World

The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission or other use of, or
taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If
you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete
this material from any system.  Thank you!

- --
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, 27 Apr 2002 18:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Verisign stock price falls off a cliff

Now this type of conversation is very real and excellent.

This is how we truly influence people and make bitter enemies (a good thing 
when there are bad people out there)

I will support any such endeavor and believe it to be a good direction.

Eric

> Hi,
> 	Sorry I've not been active for quite a while.  Been busy.
> 
> 	With 1000 members and each member acquire a 10 unit stake, it will
> 	come to
> just 90 lots.  A grain of sand in the total # of common shares floating
> in the market.
> 
> 	However, I think that this is a very interesting idea: if
> 	icannatlarge.com
> is able to acquire enough stake in some company to exert influence over
> it. However, one will argue that verisign does not control icann.  It
> will only work if icann@large has a huge member-base.  Alternatively,
> someone/party is willing to "pledge" their votes (proxy) to
> icann@large.  On the reverse, since the [email-masked] needs more
> "say"/interest revenue from the undertaking, it might indirectly
> suggests it's members to do business with it.
> 
> 	I can also see a lot of down-side, like clash of interest.  However,
> 	it is
>still an interesting idea, something worth building on?  Care to add
>value (+ve or -ve) to this?  cheers.
> 
> 
> regards,
> - Joseph LEE Fook Heng
> =========================
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joop
> Teernstra
> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 9:39 AM
> To: George Kirikos
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign stock price falls off a cliff
> 
> 
> At 07:14 26/04/02 -0700, George Kirikos wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>As I type this, Verisign (stock symbol: VRSN on Nasdaq) is down 37%.
>>See:
> 
> went to -45%.
> 
> This seems to disprove Sotiris' theory.
> ICANN and VRSN's fortunes are moving in tandem.
> 
> At 9.50 a share  atlarge members can now  afford to have a say in
> Domain policy via the VRSN general meeting.
> It would be win-win for both.
> 
> 
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
>    interim webmaster
> www.icannatlarge.com
> Sign up and spread the word.
> 
> 
> --
> 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

http://www.Hi-Tek.com
Reality in a Digital World

The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission or other use of, or
taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If
you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete
this material from any system.  Thank you!

- --
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, 27 Apr 2002 21:35:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re: [ga] Re: [icann-europe] ICANN, VRSN, ORG: please, let get real.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Dear Dr. Joe and Professor Jefsey,
>
> I happen to be keenly aware of these variable truths.  And I have the
> luxury to dwell in them and advise and cajole and write policy regarding
> them.
>
> But most importantly with all of this known and some progress and failure
> being made regarding such truths this is also true;
>
> Billions of USD are being made regardless.  That is ok for those who care.
>
> But we are using this experimental tool to change lives, for the better.
>
> Ester and her ilk are great cocktail entertainment but not serious players.
> As our work here and elswhere like it are passtimes.
> You two have a lot of work to do and little dumbies like me have a Job to
> do getting access, reliability and security to the masses.  ICANN is a fine
> forum for a possible future representative body which is worth some of our
> time.  but we all must realize that our work is important and these
> politics are a sideline.  If ICANN crashes and burns tommorrow who will
> care My Internet will continue to grow and positvely effect lives, thanks
> to you two and many like you.

This is all nonsense.  Look - how dense can you people be.  If the roots
crash and burn tommorrow I won't notice.  You'll notice because you won't
be able to surf the net - but i'm on a different root system - i have all
the benefits without the pain.  OK - and switching is as easy as changing
a few settings.

If it crashes and burns people will need service and they will go
somewhere else.

In fact this is a perfect time for europe to setup it's own roots - not
only could europe gurantee their operation in complience with european law
- - but in case of a crash europeans citizens would have an option to deal
with such an emergency.

The damage to the roots by icann has been done.  There's no going back.

And the last thing icann needs right now is an outage of the legacy roots.
I think we all can appreciate the fact that the legacy roots have never
represented a monopoly in fact - maybe a monopoly in ignorance and most of
you have happily gone down the road of ignorance on these issues.  An
outage and the quick fix - i.e. a massive abandoning of icann - would be a
disaster.

regards
joe

www.dot-god.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, 28 Apr 2002 13:36:14 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign stock price falls off a cliff

At 09:13 27/04/02 -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>  And their core business is not DNS.
>They do other *stuff* mostly.  Listmemebers who have cycles to spare can
>check out what businesses Verisign is in, what other companies they
>acquired, and what business these acquisitions are in. Here's a
>statememnt from their website:

That other *stuff* is indeed a bigger contributor to revenue, but it is 
business based on trust and reputation.
Any hint of a stuff-up with the .com registry business and that other 
*stuff* will get hurt too.

>"VeriSign, Inc. (Nasdaq:VRSN) is the leading provider of digital trust
>                       services that enable businesses and consumers to
>engage in
>                       commerce and communications with confidence."

See the point? Verisign cannot afford a debacle with its 20 Bln. Network 
Solutions division.

>What does this have to do with the GA? As someone pointed out a few
>years ago, less than a thousand people in the world (or on mars) know
>how to spell DNS *and* care enough about it to sign up for the various
>lists (like the GA).
>
>Face it, we may be as a group be able to effect change within (or
>without) ICANN.  But to suggest that we are at all significant at the
>level of Verisign stock price, or that it is somehow linked to
>ICANN....is ludicrous!

A strong word.  Why?
The suggestion was that a large organized group of Domain Name registrants 
benefit from Wall Streets' momentary disgust with their registry and take a 
very small, but politically significant stake that they will use for public 
input at Verisign's General Meeting and private conversations with 
Verisign's management to achieve a Registrant-friendly image based on 
actual improved Policy for the largest Registry of Domain Names.

What is so ludicrous about that? It's in the best traditions of free 
enterprise. Surely someone at Verisign will see merit in it. :)
And surely some organized Domain Name holders will.   It will have a bigger 
overall effect  on Net presence security than talking to to Tucows or 
Register.com

ICANN has been functioning as a "consensus manufacturing" middleman.
A supposed "governance buffer". Its own CEO admits that it has failed in 
this role.
The GA of the DNSO is not changing anything.

We have now reached the hour of truth.
Time for thinking outside the box.

- --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, 27 Apr 2002 19:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re: [ga] Re: [icann-europe] ICANN, VRSN, ORG: please, let get real.

What are you arguing with me about here?

Yes absolutely, we are only playing with this configuration.

All countries should be preparing and beta and alphaizing seperate roots.

The up NICS are dinosaurs and we only use them through convenience as still 
most use dotCOM.

I do not care and I assume you do not care.

ICANN and any failure they may cause is just not that important.  We have 
absolutely no loyalty to this system anymore than we have loyalty to 
McDonalds hamburgers.  Hey it sucks and/but it is working right now.
I do not care which system we use as long as I can get connectivity to a 
Mekong Doctor fixing a childs disease and/or sell things on the Internet.

For the folks that rely on me - {god save them} - We are up and ready with 
routes around the ICANN problem.  In fact when and if they crash and burn 
we will do better because we follow yours and Jims' advice.

Any idiot that is basing their future on ICANN and this lame experimental 
system deserves whatever disaster befalls them.

With that said, hey! for right now they sell the cheapest, quickest most 
disgusting but popular burger in town.

Eric

> 
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
>> Dear Dr. Joe and Professor Jefsey,
>>
>> I happen to be keenly aware of these variable truths.  And I have the
>> luxury to dwell in them and advise and cajole and write policy
>> regarding them.
>>
>> But most importantly with all of this known and some progress and
>> failure being made regarding such truths this is also true;
>>
>> Billions of USD are being made regardless.  That is ok for those who
>> care.
>>
>> But we are using this experimental tool to change lives, for the
>> better.
>>
>> Ester and her ilk are great cocktail entertainment but not serious
>> players. As our work here and elswhere like it are passtimes.
>> You two have a lot of work to do and little dumbies like me have a Job
>> to do getting access, reliability and security to the masses.  ICANN
>> is a fine forum for a possible future representative body which is
>> worth some of our time.  but we all must realize that our work is
>> important and these politics are a sideline.  If ICANN crashes and
>> burns tommorrow who will care My Internet will continue to grow and
>> positvely effect lives, thanks to you two and many like you.
> 
> This is all nonsense.  Look - how dense can you people be.  If the
> roots crash and burn tommorrow I won't notice.  You'll notice because
> you won't be able to surf the net - but i'm on a different root system
> - i have all the benefits without the pain.  OK - and switching is as
> easy as changing a few settings.
> 
> If it crashes and burns people will need service and they will go
>somewhere else.
> 
> In fact this is a perfect time for europe to setup it's own roots - not
> only could europe gurantee their operation in complience with european
> law - but in case of a crash europeans citizens would have an option to
> deal with such an emergency.
> 
> The damage to the roots by icann has been done.  There's no going back.
> 
> And the last thing icann needs right now is an outage of the legacy
> roots. I think we all can appreciate the fact that the legacy roots
> have never represented a monopoly in fact - maybe a monopoly in
> ignorance and most of you have happily gone down the road of ignorance
> on these issues.  An outage and the quick fix - i.e. a massive
> abandoning of icann - would be a disaster.
> 
> regards
> joe
> 
> 
> www.dot-god.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

http://www.Hi-Tek.com
Reality in a Digital World

The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission or other use of, or
taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If
you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete
this material from any system.  Thank you!

- --
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, 27 Apr 2002 19:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign stock price falls off a cliff

What you guys don't get about stock, any freshman business student could 
write two books about.

> At 09:13 27/04/02 -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>>  And their core business is not DNS.
>>They do other *stuff* mostly.  Listmemebers who have cycles to spare
>>can check out what businesses Verisign is in, what other companies they
>>acquired, and what business these acquisitions are in. Here's a
>>statememnt from their website:
> 
> That other *stuff* is indeed a bigger contributor to revenue, but it is
>  business based on trust and reputation.
> Any hint of a stuff-up with the .com registry business and that other 
> *stuff* will get hurt too.
> 
> 
> 
>>"VeriSign, Inc. (Nasdaq:VRSN) is the leading provider of digital trust
>>                       services that enable businesses and consumers to
>>engage in
>>                       commerce and communications with confidence."
> 
> See the point? Verisign cannot afford a debacle with its 20 Bln.
> Network  Solutions division.
> 
> 
>>What does this have to do with the GA? As someone pointed out a few
>>years ago, less than a thousand people in the world (or on mars) know
>>how to spell DNS *and* care enough about it to sign up for the various
>>lists (like the GA).
>>
>>Face it, we may be as a group be able to effect change within (or
>>without) ICANN.  But to suggest that we are at all significant at the
>>level of Verisign stock price, or that it is somehow linked to
>>ICANN....is ludicrous!
> 
> A strong word.  Why?
> The suggestion was that a large organized group of Domain Name
> registrants  benefit from Wall Streets' momentary disgust with their
> registry and take a  very small, but politically significant stake that
> they will use for public  input at Verisign's General Meeting and
> private conversations with  Verisign's management to achieve a
> Registrant-friendly image based on  actual improved Policy for the
> largest Registry of Domain Names.
> 
> What is so ludicrous about that? It's in the best traditions of free 
> enterprise. Surely someone at Verisign will see merit in it. :)
> And surely some organized Domain Name holders will.   It will have a
> bigger  overall effect  on Net presence security than talking to to
> Tucows or  Register.com
> 
> ICANN has been functioning as a "consensus manufacturing" middleman. A
> supposed "governance buffer". Its own CEO admits that it has failed in 
> this role.
> The GA of the DNSO is not changing anything.
> 
> We have now reached the hour of truth.
> Time for thinking outside the box.
> 
> --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

http://www.Hi-Tek.com
Reality in a Digital World

The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission or other use of, or
taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If
you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete
this material from any system.  Thank you!

- --
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, 28 Apr 2002 01:36:39 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign stock price falls off a cliff

Dan Steinberg wrote:

><snip>
>What happened to verisign?  Its simple. 
>three words: 
>unexpected
>earnings
>drop
>
>stock price is based on expectations. you dont perform as
>expected...people get worried.
>you have unexepcted drop in earnings...and your stock price goes through
>the floor.
>
>Why were the earnings below expectations?  dunno and personally, dont
>care.  But if people want to engage in conspiracy theories and search
>for hidden meanings, net.detectives might want to check out stories of
>bugs in some of Verisigns other products to see if they can figure out a
>plausible rationale for the unexepected earnings drop that resulted in
>the stock tanking. Me? I stay away from the stock market 'cause I dont
>claim to have a clue and dont trust anyone who claims to have one.  
>
Well, Dan, here's what Stratton Sclavos had to say:

"The sustained technology downturn definitely caught up with us," Chief 
Executive Stratton Sclavos told analysts in a conference call after the 
markets closed Thursday, citing a contraction in its domain name 
business <http://news.com.com/2100-1023-826603.html> which provides 
addresses for Internet sites."

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-893064.html

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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, 28 Apr 2002 01:39:52 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign stock price falls off a cliff

At 1:36 AM -0400 4/28/02, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>Well, Dan, here's what Stratton Sclavos had to say:
>
>"The sustained technology downturn definitely caught up with us," Chief
>Executive Stratton Sclavos told analysts in a conference call after the
>markets closed Thursday, citing a contraction in its domain name
>business <http://news.com.com/2100-1023-826603.html> which provides
>addresses for Internet sites."

It's not the technology down turn that caught up with them - the base
"technology" sector still requires pretty much the same number of domains
as before.

What caught up with them was:

1. Giving away net/org domains under a "protect your name" scam, putting
them on the books as sales, and having to delete the lot when the
registrants see through the scam and don't bother renewing at their
inflating registration fees.

2. Giving speculators  credit to register speculative names, only to find
said speculators couldn't unload the names, didn't want to renew them and
couldn't pay their account at NSI. Just one speculator unearthed involved
more than 1 million dollars worth of unpaid credit (a Belgian doctor), and
saw NSI attempting to recover their costs by selling the names through a
special account at their "Great Domains" auction site. Very few sold at the
"special price" would required a 2 year registration through NSI. Other
cases were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. And there were probably
thousands of smaller cases that added up to a fair amount as well. I wonder
if the shareholders ever got to read about that little cock-up in the
financial statements?

3. Then there's their latest little game to try and take the seam out of
.biz by offering the near-equivalent .bz (belize). After buying the rights
to that ccTLD, I think the dollar signs in Verisign's eyes disappeared when
the results of their big domain sale via eBay came in:
http://www.stores.ebay.com/store=47260199  computers/bz and gay.bz for only
$10,000. WHAT A BARGAIN. All those expensive names and no bids. One must
wonder how much they paid for the rights to .bz? Another profit centre that
looks like it's going to be debt item for Verisign. And do the shareholders
know about it? Not bloody likely!

Note that Verisign has zero user feedback becuase so far it's failed to
make a sale (all those names are now onto their second auction attempt).
$10000 to register a name - is Verisign trying to be like idealabs?

4. Then there's their recent postal-fraud attempt at sending out disguised
invoices with domain transfer terms hidden in the small print.

5. And there's all the sideline ideas the registry is trying to run to try
and keep their finger in all the pies - keywords, IDN, webnumbers, phone
registries. Pulllease.

6. And the continued attempts to block transfers out of their registrar.

7. And the continued ineptness that sees people lose their domains on a
daily basis due to NSI's billing database mess.

When the shareholder finally see these guys for what they really are and it
turns into a penny stock, is ICANN ready to rescue the registry system and
assign it to a company that is happy to be the C/N registry, do it well,
and not get sidetracked into the other bullshit? THAT should be a security
requirement for the largest registry on the planet.

Wkae up ICANN! All your corporate funders are going down the toilet! TIme
to actually start doing something, rather than just feathering your nest
with your projected revenues!

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1144
*************************