Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1210
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, May 21 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1210

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 17:07:26 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Registrants unrepresented

William Walsh writes:  "Did you have support from any organization that even 
purports to advocate on the behalf of those you were asking to be the voice 
for?"

When one is being screwed by the abusive transfer practices of certain major 
registrars, why does one need organizational "endorsement" to articulate that 
which is self-evidently wrong?  If the IDNO or other groups are not willing 
to step up to the plate and to advocate on behalf of registrants, then 
assuredly individuals have every right to come forward as advocates for the 
registrant community.  

This totally insane transfer TF process has been ongoing for six months so 
far, and what has been accomplished by those charged with handling the issue? 
 Where is the sense of urgency?  Where are the results?  Just how much time 
do they need to get the job done?  Instead of getting to the heart of the 
matter and coming up with a reasonable proposal to quickly deal with the 
problem, we are treated to yet another pointless "survey" by TF members, and 
now by the ongoing distraction of the VeriSign WLS proposal.

At issue is the ability of those affected by ICANN processes (or the lack 
thereof) to be represented within the bodies that are assembled to formulate 
policy.  Task forces have denied such representation to affected parties, and 
consequently these parties continue to be affected by delay after delay after 
delay with no end in sight.  

Denying representation to affected parties only makes a bad situation even 
worse, and the legitimacy of the entire process is called into question... 

VeriSign has already argued that if substantial decisions are going to be 
based on NC recommendations, and if that is done because the NC is supposed 
to be representative of most affected stakeholders, then it has to be shown 
that affected stakeholders are represented within the process.  Registrants 
are neither represented in the TF process nor in the NC by anyone or by any 
set of persons that can demonstrate that they have strenuously advocated on 
their behalf.  

Marilyn Cade can solve this problem by allowing registrant representatives 
onto the transfers TF.  That she chooses not to do so is indicative of 
ongoing efforts by her constituency and others to continue to deny full 
representation to registrants.  

- --
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, 20 May 2002 14:18:01 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrants unrepresented

Monday, May 20, 2002, 2:07:26 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Marilyn Cade can solve this problem by allowing registrant representatives 
> onto the transfers TF.

Again, the question remains, how do you identify them, validate that
they are in fact advocating the way that community would advocate?

Perhaps Joanna should start an association of internet users, who can
then validate her as their spokeswoman, then at least she would have a
credible claim to be representing a portion of that community.

- -- 
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: Mon, 20 May 2002 22:48:16 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Juliano vs. Lane

- --=======33BF7FF3=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-372AFDA; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 21:39 20/05/02, William X Walsh said:

>Monday, May 20, 2002, 12:32:17 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > Look William,
> > Advocating for a special interest group is not the same thing as 
> claiming to
> > represent them. I have never once claimed to represent anybody but myself,
> > and in fact, declined to sit on this Task Force as the GA Rep when invited
> > by Philip Shepard because I wanted to serve the user community exclusively,
> > which the GA Rep cannot do, since the GA also represents providers. The 
> fact
> > that the DNSO does not have an Individual Domain Name Registrants
> > Constituency should not prevent us from arguing our case by whatever means
> > possible. That's all I was doing, so cut it out.
>
>And to do that, you need some credible basis for your positions being
>representative of the community you CLAIM your views would be serving.
>
>Did you have support from any organization that even purports to
>advocate on the behalf of those you were asking to be the voice for?
>
>The problem is that the only thing you had was your own assertion that
>your views would be in support of that community.

Apart from your bitterness on the matter that I do not understand, what 
else had/have you to provide?

Would you have seated on that TF? Would you represent more than Joanna? 
Joanna is a pure registrant. You are a reseller. I am a DNS operator. Dan 
was a Registrars support. Jeff says he has no DN... I frankly do not 
understand your position...

jfc

- --=======33BF7FF3=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-372AFDA
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

- --=======33BF7FF3=======--

- --
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, 20 May 2002 19:13:11 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Juliano vs. Lane, Eric Direker, Jeff WIlliams

Danny and all assembly members,

  A very good questions as far as it goes that is.  As you surely recall
Eric and I were the only two that originally volunteered to replace
yourself on the TR TF....  None the less your point and concern is
well taken.  Can we all say, "Stacking the Deck, Again!

[email-masked] wrote:

> Marilyn,
>
> When did Marie M. Juliano become a member of the Transfers Task Force?  This
> person does not appear to be the appointed representative of any
> constituency, and yet she is tasked with distributing materials to the group,
> handling scheduling and confirmations, and facilitating posts for Dan
> Halloran and Louis Touton.
>
> How do you excuse putting your own personal executive assistant onto the TF,
> while denying Joanna Lane the right to participate on the Transfers Task
> Force as a representative of the registrant community?
> --
> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 21 May 2002 12:41:39 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrants unrepresented

On 02:18 p.m. 20/05/2002 -0700, William X Walsh said:
>Monday, May 20, 2002, 2:07:26 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Marilyn Cade can solve this problem by allowing registrant representatives
> > onto the transfers TF.
>
>Again, the question remains, how do you identify them, validate that
>they are in fact advocating the way that community would advocate?

That is what a ratified Charter with election rules is for.
http://www.idno.org/organiz.htm

>Perhaps Joanna should start an association of internet users, who can
>then validate her as their spokeswoman, then at least she would have a
>credible claim to be representing a portion of that community.

There is no need to start another Registrant association. All that is 
needed is to stop the demolition of the existing one.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 22:31:20 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrants unrepresented

I was recently added to the Transfers TK by the NCC (more or less against my
will).  I have asked for some background on what has been going on, and have
been given the standard pointers.   I certainly think it would be useful to
have members of the transfers task force that can address practical programs
of abusive registration practices.    It took us between 3 and 4 months to
transfer our domains from Verisgin to one that was far cheaper, and it was a
real ordeal, indeed, would have been hardly worth the effort given how much
staff time went into this, for people that only have a few domains.  What
would it take to add Joanna Lane to the task force?    Is this something the
Chair decides, or the NC?   jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 5:07 PM
Subject: [ga] Registrants unrepresented

: William Walsh writes:  "Did you have support from any organization that
even
: purports to advocate on the behalf of those you were asking to be the
voice
: for?"
:
: When one is being screwed by the abusive transfer practices of certain
major
: registrars, why does one need organizational "endorsement" to articulate
that
: which is self-evidently wrong?  If the IDNO or other groups are not
willing
: to step up to the plate and to advocate on behalf of registrants, then
: assuredly individuals have every right to come forward as advocates for
the
: registrant community.
:
: This totally insane transfer TF process has been ongoing for six months so
: far, and what has been accomplished by those charged with handling the
issue?
:  Where is the sense of urgency?  Where are the results?  Just how much
time
: do they need to get the job done?  Instead of getting to the heart of the
: matter and coming up with a reasonable proposal to quickly deal with the
: problem, we are treated to yet another pointless "survey" by TF members,
and
: now by the ongoing distraction of the VeriSign WLS proposal.
:
: At issue is the ability of those affected by ICANN processes (or the lack
: thereof) to be represented within the bodies that are assembled to
formulate
: policy.  Task forces have denied such representation to affected parties,
and
: consequently these parties continue to be affected by delay after delay
after
: delay with no end in sight.
:
: Denying representation to affected parties only makes a bad situation even
: worse, and the legitimacy of the entire process is called into question...
:
: VeriSign has already argued that if substantial decisions are going to be
: based on NC recommendations, and if that is done because the NC is
supposed
: to be representative of most affected stakeholders, then it has to be
shown
: that affected stakeholders are represented within the process.
Registrants
: are neither represented in the TF process nor in the NC by anyone or by
any
: set of persons that can demonstrate that they have strenuously advocated
on
: their behalf.
:
: Marilyn Cade can solve this problem by allowing registrant representatives
: onto the transfers TF.  That she chooses not to do so is indicative of
: ongoing efforts by her constituency and others to continue to deny full
: representation to registrants.
:
:
:
: --
: This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
: Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
: ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
: Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
:
:
:

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

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 19:47:09 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] registrant represenative

Simply being someone that fits into a membership allows that person to
argue on behalf of like people

As long as like people are given the opportunity to object.

In fact they now have us arguing what they would like instead of against
the principal of a TF versus a WG.

There is no good reason against the GA having a WG on the WLS concept.

I believe WXW would be best to put forth a motion for our own WG.

Sincerely,
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, 20 May 2002 23:15:31 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] commenting on WLS

Marilyn, if the WLS was approved, would there be separate accounting
regarding the revenues from this service, and would it be possible to have
this revenue re-directed to some public service, given the fact that
Verisign is already receiving monopoly rents from its gTLD assignments?
Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Thomas Roessler (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>;
"Alexander Svensson (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 4:42 PM
Subject: [ga] commenting on WLS

: FYI:  The ICANN staff has created a comment site for WLS, and that was
posted by your chair, Thomas Roessler, earlier today.
:
: Can I ask that you rename your thread, should you continue to discuss
this, so that it is relevant to the topic?
: -----Original Message-----
: From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
: Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 1:47 PM
: To: [email-masked]
: Cc: [email-masked]; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
: Subject: Re: [ga] Juliano vs. Lane
:
:
: Dan,
:
: The real crime is not having registrants represented on a task force.  You
: are dealing with the issue of transfers that affects millions of
registrants
: and yet Marilyn Cade won't allow a single registrant representative onto a
: group studying the problem.  There are many that will be affected by the
WLS
: proposal, but none of these affected parties will be allowed anything more
: than a short comment in a hastily announced teleconference, and none will
be
: able to participate as representatives of an affected community on the
: transfers TF.
:
: Marilyn's exclusionary policies deny posting rights to those that should
be
: involved in a study of the problem while granting posting rights to her
: immediate personal staff.  If Secretariat functions are needed, these
should
: be handled by the DNSO Secretariat that is already being paid to do the
job.
:
: --
: This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
: Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
: ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
: Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
:
:
:

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

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 20:19:14 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrants unrepresented

Jamie, 

I'd be curious to know more about why it took so long. I recently
transferred two domain names myself. One from Verisign, one from another
registrar. Both were complete in less than five days. I don't think I had
any special skill that was brought to bear in accomplishing this. Was my
case unusual or was yours?

       -- Bret

James Love wrote:
> It took us between 3 and 4 months to transfer our domains from Verisgin to one
> that was far cheaper, and it was a real ordeal, indeed, would have been hardly
> worth the effort given how much staff time went into this, for people that
> only have a few domains.

- --
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, 20 May 2002 21:04:09 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrants unrepresented

Monday, May 20, 2002, 8:19:14 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:

> Jamie, 

> I'd be curious to know more about why it took so long. I recently
> transferred two domain names myself. One from Verisign, one from another
> registrar. Both were complete in less than five days. I don't think I had
> any special skill that was brought to bear in accomplishing this. Was my
> case unusual or was yours?

I wouldn't say that either are unusual, both are pretty normal right
now actually.

While many transfers happen flawlessly, many also end up getting
complicated, either by design or happenstance, I can't say, but it
happens often enough that I can't help but lay some blame at
Verisign's feet.

Verisign's requiring an extra step for outbound transfers to
registrars who won't sell their souls and sign a confidential
agreement with Verisign that I can't see any registrar feeling
comfortable signing, requires that the registrant also confirm their
intention with Versign, within the 5 day period given to registrars to
block a transfer to another registrar.

The problem is that many times this message is not sent in a timely
fashion, despite Verisign's assurances otherwise.  I have seen far to
many cases of those emails being sent in the last hours of the window,
or even after the window, or, because Verisign is still using a
backwards email only method (which again, I think is an intentional
design flaw to make transfers more difficult), the email ACKs end up
in a queue that may result in the ACK not being processed until after
the window has closed.

And then there are cases where the emails are never received by the
registrant, and not because their email addresses are bad or not
working.

Now, Verisign could eliminate this and do things like nearly EVERY
other registrar, and in the email asking for approval or denial of the
transfer include a URL where the registrant goes to enter in their
acceptance or denial of the transfer, and thus eliminate the issues
inherent in any queued email processing system, which has always been
a real bane in the Network Solutions/Verisign registrar system.

- -- 
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, 21 May 2002 03:45:34 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrants unrepresented

I've asked the person who struggled with out transfers to provide some
details.  In the meantime, this is a note I received yesterday from someone
I have known for a long time, outside of the ICANN context.    Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From:  "XXXXXXXXXXXXX"
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 4:43 PM
Subject: Verisign Crooks
Hi Jamie

What scammers and crooks these guys are.
I finally divorced myself from these guys a few months ago and transferrred
all my domain registrations from them.
Now then send me a very clever notice telling me that the names are
expiring, but burying the fact that they are not longer the registration
agent.

And, the envelope is directed to their "Expiration Department"

Just like AOL is discovering that once a user becomes savvy they leave AOL,
Verisign is learning the same thing.

  [snip]

Attached Verisign Domain Name Expiration Notice
.............

- --
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, 21 May 2002 03:45:34 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrants unrepresented

I've asked the person who struggled with out transfers to provide some
details.  In the meantime, this is a note I received yesterday from someone
I have known for a long time, outside of the ICANN context.    Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From:  "XXXXXXXXXXXXX"
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 4:43 PM
Subject: Verisign Crooks
Hi Jamie

What scammers and crooks these guys are.
I finally divorced myself from these guys a few months ago and transferrred
all my domain registrations from them.
Now then send me a very clever notice telling me that the names are
expiring, but burying the fact that they are not longer the registration
agent.

And, the envelope is directed to their "Expiration Department"

Just like AOL is discovering that once a user becomes savvy they leave AOL,
Verisign is learning the same thing.

  [snip]

Attached Verisign Domain Name Expiration Notice
.............

- --
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, 21 May 2002 08:48:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Tr: [ga] DNSO.org web site and robots.txt

I would appreciate a change in the robots.txt file.  It is useful for
researchers, especially students, who may not be that sophisticated, to
have easy access to the material via common tools such as google.

Sophisticated researchers may know that they need to go to a DNSO-only
search tool, but most people will not be aware of this, as the ordinary
practice is increasingly to allow indexing.

Thus, I very strongly request you make this change in the interests of
allowing better quality research on Internet domain name issues.  Thank
you.

On Tue, 21 May 2002, Philippe Renaut wrote:

> I am very happy to see how a simple robots.txt file, a pretty old technology as some have pointed out, can produce some pretty insultive allusions by some presumably highly skilled technicians.
> To consider things with a drop of intelligence, we can say that :
> 
> the web site is lacking a search engine. This is a good point and the secretariat is always open to intelligent proposals. If this is a global ask (asked by the chair), we will do it. Remember we could develop hundreds of services but some people are paying for it and may be they want us to do the services they ask for and not what we secretariat staff are deciding is good for them.
> 
> the robots.txt is pretty restrictive. This is to avoid putting ten thousands of pages of mails on google like tools. I personnaly think it is a much more wise approach to have a good index place for www.dnso.org, and then a fluent navigation inside the web site, more than to index every pages...Once again if there is a global ask to change this, it can be done.
> 
> accusations saying we don't know how to handle mailing lists and how to have a web site up. I am sure the very wise person in charge of the accusation can tell us every minutes where the web site was down, but I am also sure it would not be very convincing for his cause. By the way the secretariat was an open call for proposal so why are you not here instead of us doing the job ?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Philippe RENAUT
> DNSO sec.
> --
> 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: Tue, 21 May 2002 06:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Tr: [ga] DNSO.org web site and robots.txt

Hello,

- --- "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
wrote:
> I would appreciate a change in the robots.txt file.  It is useful for
> researchers, especially students, who may not be that sophisticated,
> to
> have easy access to the material via common tools such as google.

Ditto. We should also remove the robots.txt file from:

http://forum.icann.org/robots.txt (totally restrictive)

www.ICANN.org itself has no robots.txt file, allowing its entire site
to be indexed.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.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: Tue, 21 May 2002 06:43:33 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New Thread - Registrar Reform.

All-
I am also one of those people that is struggling with moving domains. And I
personally own 50 or 60 of them spread out across a half dozen Registrar's.
With that said, there are several issues that MUST be attended to here with
the operations of the Registrars or it is my belief that lawsuits WILL
ensue...  and that the first candidate's ICANN for setting  this menagerie
up. In fact the ICANN operations model so strongly favors the Registrar that
there is considerable damage that this process allows the Registrar to do to
the client in the process of taking their money.

With that said let me put out there that the whole registrant process is
flawed. ICANN screwed up royally on this one.  The current Registrar
Operations Model under ICANN's watchful eyes does not take into account IP
rights of the customer or the general rights of the customer as the
contractual client of the Registrar. Lets not even get to the Dispute
Resolution Process which is equally flawed.  They  (ICANN) also fail the
privacy issues and that to is a problem, just one that we are not addressing
herein.

The key concept to remember here is that the Registrar is the publication
agent for an "e-Marque", i.e. a domain name and that's it.
 Because of the specific failings listed below, I say that ICANN needs to
see a Surgeon very soon:

    1)    WHOIS is not satisfactory as a statement of who owns what IP. Read
on and you will understand. What WHOIS is about is "who registered the
"Domain Name" or "other Entity/Object" the last time" and the points of
contact to them, and that is all. This is the inherent problem with whois.
The only way to address this might be the stateful addition of a past tense
to WHOIS DB's, creating essentially WHOWAS <some_domain>... and some new
interpretation rules. This is essentially a problem with not ordering a
custom WHOIS from the IETF to run the Internet by.

Oh and the comment that the current WHOIS is totally functional is only
going to be made by people that are technical in nature since anyone that
comes up 50,000 feet and looks at it then will realize that it is not
functional and why. This is what happens when you rely on the IETF and its
Management to build you a global solution... They do at ground level and
never see the forest for the trees. So sad.

Anyway -

    2)    As mentioned above, the current ICANN philosophy makes the
Registrar essentially a Publications Agent for the client and as such the
registrars have several problems with how they operate now.
    o-    Ones that have purchased organizations that also sell domains just
went to war with their customers and that is an unavoidable conflict of
interest. So my claim here is that registrars MUST not own their own  pool
of domains for sale, because by doing this they compete with their customers
and there is no way to provably separate these two activates. As publication
agents, they (the Registrars) retain no inherent claim against the IP they
publish... so the current Registrar must release a Domain upon ***any***
written demand from the domain owner or its care takers.
    o-    There is no inherent right to force the domain owners to pay an
additional two months penalty for switching a domain. This constitutes
essentially ICANN put in place extortion of domain owners and has caused
significant financial damage already. This needs to be changed immediately.
    o-    In addition to the 60 pre-expiry "change lockout periods", the 60
day waiting period to be able to move a domain after it has expired is also
ludicrous.  When I want to move a domain and have a new contractual
relationship with a new Registrar, then damn it I will move that name as its
my IP, and not that of the Registrar.
    o-    There is another issue here and that is that registrars now keep
portions of the registrants moneys for whatever periods of service that the
customer chooses not to stay for. This is also a problem since it means that
you are paying something for nothing and the only one profiting from this is
the registrars. There is no refund for services not rendered currently and
this also is a mistake.

    3)    Further there a  number of domains that I personally own the IP
under that I have intentionally expired. And this does not mean that I am
abandoning them, just that I chose not to reregister them with this
Registrar again.
    o-    It is the Registrar's responsibility to release these domains
immediately.
    o-    The concept that you could "stand in line for a name's
availability" is ludicrous as well. Just because I do not renew a domain
that was filed at one time with a certain registrar does not mean I am
abandoning that specific IP. Just that my relationship on that domain is not
being renewed with that Publications Agent, and that's all it means.
Anything more is a different issue. This is why the incorporation of a
WhoWas concept might make this easier to deal with.

    4)    And finally there is no plan in place from ICANN for what to do
when a Registrar fails and takes their whole customer base down. The victims
being the customers here. So what is the scenario for recovering from
Registrar failure then?

- ----

Remember Internet-Internauts. The Internet is a bunch of agreements and
treaties not the NSFNet or the previous ARPANet so it is not a Federally
Funded communications system. What needs to happen here is that some
consumer protection needs to be put in place to address the problems with
the current operations models, and in no short order.

Oh ,and placing these issues into the contract between the Consumer and the
Registrar may make it feasible to claim that these issues are part of the
Registrar's Business Models, i.e as part of a contractual structure between
the client and the supplier, but it also doesn't make it right either that
ICANN is not looking out for the individual here.

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "Bret Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Cade,Marilyn S -
LGA" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrants unrepresented

> I've asked the person who struggled with out transfers to provide some
> details.  In the meantime, this is a note I received yesterday from
someone
> I have known for a long time, outside of the ICANN context.    Jamie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:  "XXXXXXXXXXXXX"
> To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 4:43 PM
> Subject: Verisign Crooks
> Hi Jamie
>
> What scammers and crooks these guys are.
> I finally divorced myself from these guys a few months ago and
transferrred
> all my domain registrations from them.
> Now then send me a very clever notice telling me that the names are
> expiring, but burying the fact that they are not longer the registration
> agent.
>
> And, the envelope is directed to their "Expiration Department"
>
> Just like AOL is discovering that once a user becomes savvy they leave
AOL,
> Verisign is learning the same thing.
>
>   [snip]
>
> Attached Verisign Domain Name Expiration Notice
> .............
>
>
> --
> 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, 21 May 2002 09:54:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Tr: [ga] DNSO.org web site and robots.txt

	As M. Renaut points out, this is a matter best addressed to
Thomas, as GA chair.  (Don't you wish *other* parts of this organization
were served by staff who left decisions to the elected leadership?)  
FWIW, Thomas, I agree with Michael; allowing the DNSO pages to be indexed
on google would be a big help to folks seeking information.  At the
moment, there is no DNSO-only search tool, so the pages are not searchable
at all; allowing access via google would be both easy and useful.

Jon

On Tue, 21 May 2002, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> I would appreciate a change in the robots.txt file.  It is useful for
> researchers, especially students, who may not be that sophisticated, to
> have easy access to the material via common tools such as google.
> 
> Sophisticated researchers may know that they need to go to a DNSO-only
> search tool, but most people will not be aware of this, as the ordinary
> practice is increasingly to allow indexing.
> 
> Thus, I very strongly request you make this change in the interests of
> allowing better quality research on Internet domain name issues.  Thank
> you.
> 
> On Tue, 21 May 2002, Philippe Renaut wrote:
> 
> > I am very happy to see how a simple robots.txt file, a pretty old
> technology as some have pointed out, can produce some pretty insultive
> allusions by some presumably highly skilled technicians. > To consider
> things with a drop of intelligence, we can say that : > > the web site
> is lacking a search engine. This is a good point and the secretariat
> is always open to intelligent proposals. If this is a global ask
> (asked by the chair), we will do it. Remember we could develop
> hundreds of services but some people are paying for it and may be they
> want us to do the services they ask for and not what we secretariat
> staff are deciding is good for them. > > the robots.txt is pretty
> restrictive. This is to avoid putting ten thousands of pages of mails
> on google like tools. I personnaly think it is a much more wise
> approach to have a good index place for www.dnso.org, and then a
> fluent navigation inside the web site, more than to index every
> pages...Once again if there is a global ask to change this, it can be
> done. > > accusations saying we don't know how to handle mailing lists
> and how to have a web site up. I am sure the very wise person in
> charge of the accusation can tell us every minutes where the web site
> was down, but I am also sure it would not be very convincing for his
> cause. By the way the secretariat was an open call for proposal so why
> are you not here instead of us doing the job ? > > Regards, > >
> Philippe RENAUT > DNSO sec. > -- > 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
> 

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

- --
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, 21 May 2002 15:57:56 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC BS

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_030B_01C200E0.461EE7A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Joop,
you say that in:
"my experience with the people who have seriously participated" ..the.. =
"majority of individuals currently wishing to be engaged in ICANN and =
outside of the constituency structure are not consumers but producers of =
content, directly related to their Domain" ...with a subsequent "highly =
personal interest in a NAME, an identifier of themselves or their =
on-line business".

But you reject the business constituency (BC) as not being able to =
represent their interests because it is "captured by big corporates".

Forgive me if you have explained this before but I would like to know =
which values of the BC and positions adopted to date by the BC are not =
shared by such content-producing individuals who run businesses.

Mission/values of the BC
The core of the BC mission is to ensure that:
  - ICANN policy positions are consistent with the development of =
business via an Internet that is stable, secure and reliable while =
promoting consumer confidence,
  - ICANN policy positions derive from broad stakeholder participation =
in a common forum for suppliers and users.=20

Is this mission NOT shared by individuals who run businesses ?

Positions of the BC (edits from some published papers)
1. New names and trademarks

The BC support an expansion in the gtLD name space. Do individuals not =
support this ?
The BC seeks a way : "to meet the global desire for more names and =
reduce the potential for consumer fraud and confusion as a result of bad =
faith use of trademarks"...  "Verify that applications for domain names =
do not infringe the rights of holders of intellectual property, trade =
marks or brand names of existing entities, whether commercial, =
non-commercial or individual."  Do individuals want bad faith use of the =
names they use to trade ?

The BC supports the UDRP and an efficient WhoIs?  Are these uniquely the =
concern of big business ?
=20
2. Dot org
The BC "believes that an entity independent of VeriSign and free of all =
current and future contractual relations with VeriSign should become the =
dot org registry".=20
"Dot org should remain an unrestricted domain but be marketed as a space =
for organisations."
"Since the dot org registry will be a monopoly, consideration should be =
given to the advantages of a not-for-profit model."
Are we so divergent here ?
=20
3. At-large
The BC supports the concept.  Are we divergent here ?

If there is divergence, lets identify it, and rationalise it.=20

Is divergence anything more than an untested question over bad faith use =
of trademarks and business names ? If so, which individual producer =
wants bad faith use of their own business name on the internet?

Philip

- ------=_NextPart_000_030B_01C200E0.461EE7A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2715.400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D"">
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Joop,<BR>you say that in:<BR><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff>"my=20
experience with the people who have seriously participated" ..the.. =
"majority of=20
individuals currently wishing to be engaged in ICANN and outside of the=20
constituency structure are not consumers but producers of content, =
directly=20
related to their Domain" <FONT color=3D#000000>...with a =
subsequent</FONT> "highly=20
personal interest in a NAME, an identifier of themselves or their =
on-line=20
business".<BR></FONT><BR>But you reject the business constituency (BC) =
as not=20
being able to represent their interests because it is <FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff>"captured by big corporates".<BR></FONT><BR>Forgive me =
if you have=20
explained this before but I would like to know which values of the BC =
and=20
positions adopted to date by the BC are not shared by such =
content-producing=20
individuals who run businesses.<BR><BR><STRONG>Mission/values of the=20
BC</STRONG><BR>The core of the BC mission is to ensure that:<BR>&nbsp; - =
ICANN=20
policy positions are consistent with the development of business via an =
Internet=20
that is stable, secure and reliable while promoting consumer=20
confidence,<BR>&nbsp; - ICANN policy positions derive from broad =
stakeholder=20
participation in a common forum for suppliers and users. <BR><BR>Is this =
mission=20
NOT shared by individuals who run businesses ?<BR><BR><STRONG>Positions =
of the=20
BC (edits from some published papers)</STRONG><BR><STRONG>1. New names =
and=20
trademarks</STRONG><BR><BR>The BC support an expansion in the gtLD name =
space.=20
Do individuals not support this ?<BR>The BC seeks a way : "to meet the =
global=20
desire for more names and reduce the potential for consumer fraud and =
confusion=20
as a result of bad faith use of trademarks"...&nbsp; "Verify that =
applications=20
for domain names do not infringe the rights of holders of intellectual =
property,=20
trade marks or brand names of existing entities, whether commercial,=20
non-commercial or individual."&nbsp; Do individuals want bad faith use =
of the=20
names they use to trade ?<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The BC supports the UDRP and an efficient =
WhoIs?&nbsp; Are=20
these uniquely the concern of big business=20
?<BR><STRONG>&nbsp;</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><STRONG>2. Dot org</STRONG><BR>The BC "believes that =
an entity=20
independent of VeriSign and free of all current and future contractual =
relations=20
with VeriSign should become the dot org registry". <BR>"Dot org should =
remain an=20
unrestricted domain but be marketed as a space for =
organisations."<BR>"Since the=20
dot org registry will be a monopoly, consideration should be given to =
the=20
advantages of a not-for-profit model."<BR>Are we so divergent here=20
?<BR>&nbsp;<BR><STRONG>3. At-large<BR></STRONG>The BC supports the=20
concept.&nbsp; Are we divergent here ?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>If there is divergence, lets identify it, and =
rationalise it.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Is&nbsp;divergence anything more than&nbsp;an=20
untested&nbsp;question over bad faith use of trademarks and business =
names ? If=20
so, which individual producer wants bad faith use of their own business =
name on=20
the internet?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_030B_01C200E0.461EE7A0--

- --
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 #1210
*************************