Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1148
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 30 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1148

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

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:22:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannwatch.org for sell ?

Don't know what prompts the question, but the editors are listed online,
and have been since the early days of the project.

All you have to do is click the "about us" link in the left column of the
front page, which takes you to the explanation of our history.  This
includes a link to a list and short biographies of the current editors:
http://www.icannwatch.org/essays/editors.htm

There are other people involved in the project besides the named editors,
e.g. providing hosting and technical support, but they have no editorial
input whatsoever.

The domain name is not now and has never been for sale, despite the
boilerplate inserted by the registrar.  As stated in our FAQ, we neither
solicit funds nor pay any salaries - the project is entirely run on a
volunteer basis.  On occasion I or another editor donates expense money,
e.g. to keep the registration on domain names.

We welcome participation in all languages, and I personally would welcome 
any suggestions you might have as to how we could be clearer in our
disclosures so as to satisfy any concerns you may have.

On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> 
> 
> At first glimpse it is not clear at all who is behind icannwatch.org
> besides the very laconic word on start-up 
> "David Post, Michael Froomkin, and David Farber" - which does
> not help much to provide reliable information to someone
> asking you about it. Yes, yes, looking on ICANN for Begginers
> and references, it clarify much more, but still ... it is not
> for beginners to decode.
> 
> Anyway, a whois query of last ressort informs that this
> domain name is possibly for sell.
> My question is - are advertisements allowed in answers to whois
> queries ?
> 
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUESRY: whois -h whois.networksolutions.com icannwatch.org
> 
> The Data in the VeriSign Registrar WHOIS database is provided by VeriSign for
> information purposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining information about
> or related to a domain name registration record.  VeriSign does not guarantee
> its accuracy.  Additionally, the data may not reflect updates to billing contact
> information.  By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree to use this Data only
> for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this Data to:
> (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited,
> commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail, telephone, or facsimile; or
> (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that apply to VeriSign
> (or its computer systems).  The compilation, repackaging, dissemination or
> other use of this Data is expressly prohibited without the prior written
> consent of VeriSign.  VeriSign reserves the right to terminate your access to
> the VeriSign Registrar WHOIS database in its sole discretion, including
> without limitation, for excessive querying of the WHOIS database or for failure
> to otherwise abide by this policy.  VeriSign reserves the right to modify these
> terms at any time.  By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy.
> 
> 
> 
> The data in Register.com's WHOIS database is provided to you by
> Register.com for information purposes only, that is, to assist you in
> obtaining information about or related to a domain name registration
> record.  Register.com makes this information available "as is," and
> does not guarantee its accuracy.  By submitting a WHOIS query, you
> agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that,
> under no circumstances will you use this data to: (1) allow, enable,
> or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial
> advertising or solicitations via direct mail, electronic mail, or by
> telephone; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
> that apply to Register.com (or its systems).  The compilation,
> repackaging, dissemination or other use of this data is expressly
> prohibited without the prior written consent of Register.com. 
> Register.com reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.
> By submitting this query, you agree to abide by these terms.
> 
> You may be able to buy this domain name through http://www.afternic.com/offer
> 
> 
>    Organization:
>       Mindshare Internet Campaigns, LLC
>       Domain Administrator
>       1025 Vermont Ave NW Suite 1200
>       Washington, DC 20005
>       US
>       Phone: 202-656-0800
>       Fax..: 202-654-0839
>       Email: [email-masked]
> 
>    Registrar Name....: Register.com
>    Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
>    Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com
> 
>    Domain Name: ICANNWATCH.ORG
> 
>       Created on..............: Fri, May 28, 1999
>       Expires on..............: Fri, May 28, 2004
>       Record last updated on..: Wed, Apr 24, 2002
> 
>    Administrative Contact:
>       Mindshare Internet Campaigns, LLC
>       Host Master
>       1025 Vermont Ave NW Suite 1200
>       Washington, DC 20005
>       US
>       Phone: 202-656-0800
>       Fax..: 202-654-0839
>       Email: [email-masked]
> 
>    Technical Contact:
>       mindshare Internet Campaigns
>       Shabbir Safdar
>       1025 Vermont Ave NW Ste 1200
>       Washington, DC 20005
>       US
>       Phone: 202-654-0800
>       Fax..: 202-654-0839
>       Email: [email-masked]
> 
>    Zone Contact:
>       Mindshare Internet Campaigns, LLC
>       Host Master
>       1025 Vermont Ave NW Suite 1200
>       Washington, DC 20005
>       US
>       Phone: 202-656-0800
>       Fax..: 202-654-0839
>       Email: [email-masked]
> 
>    Domain servers in listed order:
> 
>    NS1.SECURE.NET                                    192.41.1.10       
>    NS2.SECURE.NET                                    161.58.9.10       
> 
> Register your domain name at http://www.register.com
> 
> You may be able to buy this domain name through http://www.afternic.com/offer
> 
> 
> The previous information has been obtained either directly from the
> registrant or a registrar of the domain name other than VeriSign.
> VeriSign, therefore, does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
> 
> --
> 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 hot 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: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:46:36 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] y0k bug at NSI?

whois pcextremes.com

Record expires on 30-Nov-0002.
Record created on 06-Mar-2000.

NSI's calculator needs new batteries.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:06:56 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Reseller hiding WHOIS info

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of [email-masked]
|> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:41 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Reseller hiding WHOIS info
|> 
<snip>
|> In its recommendations that are being prepared to be submitted to the
House 
|> Judiciary's subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual
Property, 
|> the following are included:
|> 
|> 8.  Give ICANN a litigation budget for contract enforcement
|> 9.  Insert teeth into ICANN's agreements
|> 
|> I am not alone in seeking enforcement mechanisms (as this industry
report 
|> well notes) and my comments on "sanctions" should not be interpreted
by you 
|> as indicative of an anti-registrar crusade.  Of what value are
contracts if 
|> we lack the means to provide enforcement?  
|> 
|> The State of the Domain report is available at 
|> http://www.sotd.info/sotd/Content/Documents/sotdQ102.pdf
|> --

Might be a bit soon for ICANN to try and put muscle behind the
contracts.  They are still attempting to get contracts signed and there
is some resistance to moving into a contract with a body that only had
tenacious agreement to start with, from what I see.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

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

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

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:52:22 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN's Bid for Independence from the US

I don't know about anybody else, but I missed this one.
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=666

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

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

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 22:56:33 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] did you know?

More people on this earth live in or akin to dumps than surf the
internet.  they live there for a living.
A homeless man in the US crawls into a dumpster on a cold night because
he knows that the decay and process creates a warmth that he can survive
in.

Is this internet to be used for good or self aggrandizement?

My young 13 yr old daughter helped a friend suffering from bolemia today
based on what she learned off the internet.  We transferred some water
purification data today to a developing country.

Go ahead and take this lightly or make mockery of those of us who care.
But we will by force of will make this thing work.  Mr. Jim and Mr. Joe
and Mr. Jeff we applaud your efforts and are ready for your social and
technical protocol.  ICANN is ready to collapse, Mr. lynn is a beacon of
doom.

Ms. Rony and Ms. Oppenheimer and Ms. Lane it is your turn to take back
the moral high road, please do it.

In this great year of the horse let us go for the ride and make a
difference.

Eric

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

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

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 23:56:32 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign stock price falls off a cliff

Just in case anyone still cares, VRSN was down another -1.82, -18.40%
from last week's close.

Poor Verisign  ;)

http://yahoo.smartmoney.com/onedaywonder/index.cfm?story=20020426&afl=yahoo

From the above article:

"We believe the company's core business could shrink for the next two
years," wrote Bear Stearns analyst Chris Kwak in a Friday research
note in which he cut his rating on the stock to Unattractive from
Attractive and his price target to $10 from $37. "We fear that 2002
and 2003 could be extraordinarily tough years for VeriSign, especially
since shrinkage in deferred revenue has already begun, hampering
visibility…. In our view, the company can no longer be categorized as
a growth story." Kwak doesn't own shares of VeriSign; Bear Stearns has
an investment-banking releationship with the company.

Saturday, April 27, 2002, 11:39:52 PM, Andy Gardner wrote:

> 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!

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

- --
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: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:28:37 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign stock price falls off a cliff

Saturday, April 27, 2002, 6:13:16 AM, Dan Steinberg wrote:

> This message is just in reply to the thread not directed personally at
> George or anyone else.

> I  watched a few posts about the versign stock price and
> thought...hmmmmmm what is everyone so x-cited about ?

> It strikes me as a very restricted world view.
> We think of VGRS (the network solutions that Verisign acquired) as big.
> But Verisign...is waaaaay bigger.  And their core business is not DNS. 

Actually, their core business IS DNS.

40% of their earnings are from their domain business.

And just about EVERY industry analyst is reporting that their problems
are directly tied to issues in their domain divisions.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

- --
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: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 09:15:03 +0100
From: "Jon Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Reseller hiding WHOIS info

ICANN have been attempting to enforce the clause in the RAA that requires
registrants to be given a copy of the registration agreement from the registrar
of record for some time.

In my previous position I personally received communications from ICANN
regarding resellers that were not in compliance with these requirements,
requested that we rectify the situation (which of course we did).

I presume that ICANN does not have the resources required to effectively
enforce this requirement however they certainly appear to have the inclination
to do so...

rgds
jon

>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
>From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: RE: [ga] Reseller hiding WHOIS info
>Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:06:56 +1000
>
>
>|> -----Original Message-----
>|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>|> On Behalf Of [email-masked]
>|> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:41 AM
>|> To: [email-masked]
>|> Subject: Re: [ga] Reseller hiding WHOIS info
>|> 
><snip>
>|> In its recommendations that are being prepared to be submitted to the
>House 
>|> Judiciary's subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual
>Property, 
>|> the following are included:
>|> 
>|> 8.  Give ICANN a litigation budget for contract enforcement
>|> 9.  Insert teeth into ICANN's agreements
>|> 
>|> I am not alone in seeking enforcement mechanisms (as this industry
>report 
>|> well notes) and my comments on "sanctions" should not be interpreted
>by you 
>|> as indicative of an anti-registrar crusade.  Of what value are
>contracts if 
>|> we lack the means to provide enforcement?  
>|> 
>|> The State of the Domain report is available at 
>|> http://www.sotd.info/sotd/Content/Documents/sotdQ102.pdf
>|> --
>
>
>Might be a bit soon for ICANN to try and put muscle behind the
>contracts.  They are still attempting to get contracts signed and there
>is some resistance to moving into a contract with a body that only had
>tenacious agreement to start with, from what I see.
>
>Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 02:01:25 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Reseller hiding WHOIS info

Dear Jon,

This little piece fits in with my earlier regarding notification from Versign
regarding more info for a dotUS registration.

It just shows a general pattern of really schlocky lousy business practice.  What
the hell ever happened to alpha and beta testing and making things click and run at
a billion per second before letting them lose on the public.

We are just about ready to transfer primary users of the net over to inclusive
roots - if we even need them. Because these guys are truly toy companies dealing
with a toy monopoly on a toy system where they do not have to worry about doing
something right the first time.

Get real and recognize that these guys suck raw eggs and bite the heads of
chickens.
Enforcement?  ICANN cannot enforce its' own bylaws upon itself.  They lie and they
cheat, and spend millions of dollars on lawyers to get away with it.  Your previous
position sounds like????? I hope you at least got tips.

Sincerely,
Eric

Jon Lawrence wrote:

> ICANN have been attempting to enforce the clause in the RAA that requires
> registrants to be given a copy of the registration agreement from the registrar
> of record for some time.
>
> In my previous position I personally received communications from ICANN
> regarding resellers that were not in compliance with these requirements,
> requested that we rectify the situation (which of course we did).
>
> I presume that ICANN does not have the resources required to effectively
> enforce this requirement however they certainly appear to have the inclination
> to do so...
>
> rgds
> jon
>
> >-- Original Message --
> >Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> >From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
> >To: <[email-masked]>
> >Subject: RE: [ga] Reseller hiding WHOIS info
> >Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:06:56 +1000
> >
> >
> >|> -----Original Message-----
> >|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >|> On Behalf Of [email-masked]
> >|> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:41 AM
> >|> To: [email-masked]
> >|> Subject: Re: [ga] Reseller hiding WHOIS info
> >|>
> ><snip>
> >|> In its recommendations that are being prepared to be submitted to the
> >House
> >|> Judiciary's subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual
> >Property,
> >|> the following are included:
> >|>
> >|> 8.  Give ICANN a litigation budget for contract enforcement
> >|> 9.  Insert teeth into ICANN's agreements
> >|>
> >|> I am not alone in seeking enforcement mechanisms (as this industry
> >report
> >|> well notes) and my comments on "sanctions" should not be interpreted
> >by you
> >|> as indicative of an anti-registrar crusade.  Of what value are
> >contracts if
> >|> we lack the means to provide enforcement?
> >|>
> >|> The State of the Domain report is available at
> >|> http://www.sotd.info/sotd/Content/Documents/sotdQ102.pdf
> >|> --
> >
> >
> >Might be a bit soon for ICANN to try and put muscle behind the
> >contracts.  They are still attempting to get contracts signed and there
> >is some resistance to moving into a contract with a body that only had
> >tenacious agreement to start with, from what I see.
> >
> >Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
> >
> >--
> >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

- --
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: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 02:32:38 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Who what why and where?

The entire whois data base system sucks.

What in the hell are people thinking;

for the sake of the trademark industry we are violating literally
millions of individual people the right to privacy.

the only requirement should be the name of the holder and then the
professionals that handle the name.

I would like to see the entire system destroyed.

The system is so corrupt the Froomkin did not even know his name was
offered for sale.  Is he a dummy or is the system corrupt.  (well he may
be a dummy but the system is still corrupt)

It is so far off right that I am blown away that you people who have
been around since its' inception have allowed it to exist.  You are all
responsible and should be ashamed!

You know it is time some of you oldies start taking responsibility for
your abject failures and then deal with it.

Eric

- --
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: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 10:49:03 +0100
From: "Jon Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reseller hiding WHOIS info

Hey Eric

You should note that I was simply stating that ICANN have made some attempts
to enforce some of the clauses of the RAA.

Unlike yourself, I do not carry a predefined agenda that colours my view
of the world, so please stop making assumptions about the way I think.

I am not defending ICANN, simply stating a fact that I thought might be
of interest to the list.

As for Verisign and their .us application processes, I don't know why they
did what they did and I'm not going to defend them.

rgds
jon

>-- Original Message --
>From: [email-masked]
>Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 02:01:25 -0700
>To: [email-masked]
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] Reseller hiding WHOIS info
>
>
>Dear Jon,
>
>This little piece fits in with my earlier regarding notification from Versign
>regarding more info for a dotUS registration.
>
>It just shows a general pattern of really schlocky lousy business practice.
> What
>the hell ever happened to alpha and beta testing and making things click
>and run at
>a billion per second before letting them lose on the public.
>
>We are just about ready to transfer primary users of the net over to inclusive
>roots - if we even need them. Because these guys are truly toy companies
>dealing
>with a toy monopoly on a toy system where they do not have to worry about
>doing
>something right the first time.
>
>Get real and recognize that these guys suck raw eggs and bite the heads
of
>chickens.
>Enforcement?  ICANN cannot enforce its' own bylaws upon itself.  They lie
>and they
>cheat, and spend millions of dollars on lawyers to get away with it.  Your
>previous
>position sounds like????? I hope you at least got tips.
>
>Sincerely,
>Eric
>
>Jon Lawrence wrote:
>
>> ICANN have been attempting to enforce the clause in the RAA that requires
>> registrants to be given a copy of the registration agreement from the
registrar
>> of record for some time.
>>
>> In my previous position I personally received communications from ICANN
>> regarding resellers that were not in compliance with these requirements,
>> requested that we rectify the situation (which of course we did).
>>
>> I presume that ICANN does not have the resources required to effectively
>> enforce this requirement however they certainly appear to have the inclination
>> to do so...
>>
>> rgds
>> jon
>>
>> >-- Original Message --
>> >Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
>> >From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
>> >To: <[email-masked]>
>> >Subject: RE: [ga] Reseller hiding WHOIS info
>> >Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:06:56 +1000
>> >
>> >
>> >|> -----Original Message-----
>> >|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> >|> On Behalf Of [email-masked]
>> >|> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:41 AM
>> >|> To: [email-masked]
>> >|> Subject: Re: [ga] Reseller hiding WHOIS info
>> >|>
>> ><snip>
>> >|> In its recommendations that are being prepared to be submitted to
the
>> >House
>> >|> Judiciary's subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual
>> >Property,
>> >|> the following are included:
>> >|>
>> >|> 8.  Give ICANN a litigation budget for contract enforcement
>> >|> 9.  Insert teeth into ICANN's agreements
>> >|>
>> >|> I am not alone in seeking enforcement mechanisms (as this industry
>> >report
>> >|> well notes) and my comments on "sanctions" should not be interpreted
>> >by you
>> >|> as indicative of an anti-registrar crusade.  Of what value are
>> >contracts if
>> >|> we lack the means to provide enforcement?
>> >|>
>> >|> The State of the Domain report is available at
>> >|> http://www.sotd.info/sotd/Content/Documents/sotdQ102.pdf
>> >|> --
>> >
>> >
>> >Might be a bit soon for ICANN to try and put muscle behind the
>> >contracts.  They are still attempting to get contracts signed and there
>> >is some resistance to moving into a contract with a body that only had
>> >tenacious agreement to start with, from what I see.
>> >
>> >Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>> >
>> >--
>> >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
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 03:00:24 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Womens movement

I start only with you fine ladies because you are familiar with my North
American culture.

Please start a consortium of Women Internet Activists.

It would be a good contribution.

While I generally see no lines in the sand, regarding gender I am not so
lame as to not notice the difference and the all too often difference in
treatment.

I respect all of your opinions and would like to see a block of voters
dedicated to what you feel is important.

It would be well and good for you to throw your diminutive weight around
in one group, we would all benefit from your cumulative wisdom as Women.

I am at your service should such a lowly man ever be of help to such
royalty.

Eric

- --
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: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:13:47 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DRAFT: input for transfers task force on WLS

- --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline

Please find attached a draft of what GA input to the Transfers Task  
Force's deliberations on the WLS could look like.  I have  
(obviously) not tried to achieve completeness, but tried to isolate  
the arguments I believe to be strongest.  Note that this is input  
for the task force's _short-term_ considerations, which will result  
in an interim report before the end of May.  For this reason, I  
believe that it would be a good idea to focus on few points where we 
believe to be able to make a strong argument.

Comments are welcome, but should be submitted ASAP - I'm planning to 
submit this to the task force no later than May 3.

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

- --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="wls-020430.txt"

Subject: GA input on WLS
To: [email-masked]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched
Content-Disposition: inline

To the Transfer TF: On behalf of the GA, I'd like to ask the Task 
Force to pay particular attention to the aspects of deleted domain 
handling and the WLS proposal described below.  Most of these 
concerns have been raised elsewhere before.

Regards, Thomas Roessler

(Chairman, DNSO GA)

<bold>1. Impact on competition between registrars.</bold> (See also:
<italic>RC position paper regarding the proposed Wait Listing Service; GA
feedback submitted to Verisign.</italic>)

<indent>

Consider any registrar who has hoarded expired domain names.  Such a
registrar could wait for WLS subscriptions being made through it.
Once a WLS subscription for a hoarded domain name is there, the
domain could be relased - and immediately re-registered through the
same registrar, due to the WLS subscription.  If a WLS subscription
is made through a different registrar, nothing happens.

Rumor of this could be expected to quickly spread in the community:
If you want to back-order a domain name which has expired, but is
not available, go to the old registrar for your WLS subscription.

Ultimately, this approach to selling off hoarded domain names (which
would be economically quite attractive at least to Verisign, and -
at sufficiently high WLS prices - possibly also for other
registrars) could lead to a _significant_ increase in the cost for
registering an expired domain.  It would also skew competition
between registrars as far as registrations of these domains are
concerned - effectively, potential registrants would be forced to go
to the "old" registrar.

The conclusion from this scenario would be to hold up WLS until the
hoarding problem has been solved (1) on the policy, and (2) on the
implementation side, i.e., until the currently-hoarded domain names
have been released to the public.

</indent>

<bold>2. Grandfathering current subscriptions.</bold> (See also:
<italic>RC position paper; GA feedback submitted to Verisign; VGRS
response to General Counsel's Analysis.</italic>)

<indent>

The earlier GA response, and the Registrar Constituency's position,
there are concerns on the impact an implementation of the WLS
proposal may have with respect to those who are currently offering
special services aimed at registering deleted domain names.  In
particular, it is noted that only current SnapNames subscriptions
are grandfathered.

In its response to General Counsel's analysis, VGRS writes:
<italic>"Regarding the possible exclusions of names associated with
other deleted name registration services, VGRS only proposed
excluding SnapNames names because VGRS is not aware of any other
paid-up contracts on specific, identifiable names providing for
reasonable customer expectations and thereby opening up the door to
potential lawsuits."</italic>

The GA's members are not convinced by this argument, and ask the
Task Force to investigate the impact an implementation of the WLS
proposal may have on legitimate interests of existing deleted name
registration services.

</indent>

- --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR--
- --
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 #1148
*************************