Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1212
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 22 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1212

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 10:48:32 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New Thread - Registrar Reform.

Tuesday, May 21, 2002, 10:13:51 AM, todd glassey wrote:

> William -
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
> To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "James Love" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Bret Fausett"
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Cade,Marilyn
> S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 10:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] New Thread - Registrar Reform.

>> Tuesday, May 21, 2002, 6:43:33 AM, todd glassey wrote:
>>
>> >     1)    WHOIS is not satisfactory as a statement of who owns what IP.
>>
>> But of course, the whois is not supposed to be a statement of who owns
>> intellectual property.
>>
>> The whois is about objects.

> I agree and using the current entry as placed their by the last registrar is
> no method of publicly stating who actually owns the IP.

Nor should it.  The whois is not an IP database.

>>
>>
>> >     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.
>>
>> You assume that because you own some intellection property, that you
>> have a sole right to the use of a string characters in a domain name.
>>
>> The law doesn't give you those rights, why should the dns?

> It doesnt and thats the point.

That's a good thing  :)

So, I guess I am trying to understand what point you were trying to
make.

- -- 
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 21:20:54 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Tr: [ga] DNSO.org web site and robots.txt

On 2002-05-21 09:54:05 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

>	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;

So do I.  

Philippe: Could you please open up the GA archives for indexing 
again?

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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 12:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS Conference Call

Hi folks,

It was nice to hear some of you today at the WLS conference call. My
own statement is at:

http://www.loffs.com/wls/

for anyone who might have missed the call (I gave the URL
www.intangibles.com during the call, but will take it down from there
in a few days), although I deviated from my statement a few times.
Transcripts were taken, so everyone can read those when they are ready.

In summary, Verisign saw absolutely *no* support from participants of
the call, and some extremely strong opposition. I was particularly
pleased to see that Dotster (who runs NameWinner) intends to take legal
action, in the unlikely scenario that WLS is approved, to block it. I
applaud them, and would support their effort. Nice to hear from Paul
Stahura, Thomas, the two Dans, Rick Wesson, Loren, Jeff, Danny,
Marilyn, and others too. :)

Near the end of the call, I asked Chuck Gomes the simple question
"Under what conditions would Verisign pull the proposal from the table,
given the huge opposition to it." He had no answer. Maybe Verisign
never imagines a scenario where they can't get their way. I look
forward to tomorrow's call, to see if he has an answer then.

My prediction is that given the overwhelming opposition displayed ICANN
will decide to invoke the formal consensus process for this proposal.
Hopefully other related issues, such as a Uniform Deletions Policy, and
better WHOIS information, will be addressed at that time. Assuming
Verisign doesn't sue ICANN, I figure that consensus process would take
3 to 6 months, and not come out in favour of WLS in any event.

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 21:34:59 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS call follow-up

Following up to today's WLS call, there are some questions with  
which I'd like to grill some of you folks; in particular Chuck  
Gomes and Dan Steinberg. ;)

1. Chuck: In the presentation you made to the task force and all  
those attending the call, you talked about registrars with a total  
market share of 57.5% supporting the proposal.  I already mentioned  
during the call that, after substracting Verisign's own market share 
of about 40%, we end up at a mere 17.5% of market share; this is  
comparable to the market share you mention as being opposed to WLS. 
I believe that it was Rick Wesson who asked how much of that  
remaining market share in favor of WLS actually belongs to  
registrars owned by or affiliated with Verisign.  Could you please  
provide some clarification of this on the GA list?  Thank you.

2. Dan: I may have misunderstood you due to the extremely poor  
sound quality of your contribution, but I seemed to understand that  
you were suggesting that the task force should leave IP and  
competition aspects out.  Could you please elaborate on the  
rationale for this?

Regards,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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 13:04:59 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Conference Call

George Kirikos wrote:
> In summary, Verisign saw absolutely *no* support from participants of
> the call, and some extremely strong opposition.

I was on the call. I support the WLS, and I thought my comment made that
clear. If not, this should.

By the way Marilyn, I've submitted several comments to the GA list and the
B&C constituency list over the last few months in support of the WLS. Should
I resubmit those comments to the committee or are they already part of the
record?

      -- Bret

- --
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 13:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Conference Call

Hi Bret,

- --- Bret Fausett <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I was on the call. I support the WLS, and I thought my comment made
> that
> clear. If not, this should.

Oops, sorry about that Bret. I thought when you were pointing out that
folks might feel pressure to get a WLS slot on names that wouldn't
expire for more than a year, you were in agreement with others that WLS
would be used for scaremongering, forcing people to get a slot on their
own name for added "protection". Lack of a uniform deletion policy and
a system of recovering "accidental" deletions were issues I thought
perhaps we were in agreement with -- I can't see WLS going forward
until those are addressed, not to mention all the other things against
it (i.e. positions of eNom, Rick Wesson, and Dotster on today's call,
for instance, with regards to competition).

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 16:24:22 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Conference Call

George writes:  "I figure that consensus process would take 3 to 6 months, 
and not come out in favour of WLS in any event."

If only that were true.  Sadly, what will pass for the "consensus process" 
will transpire within a few days.  

The Transfers TF will hold one more teleconference tomorrow, and will then 
undertake a "comprehensive review" that will last all of two days.  It will 
then post a recommendation this Friday 24 May.   The public will be given ten 
days (until June 4) to respond to this "recommendation".  The TF will then 
spend only part of one day analyzing the public response and will then submit 
its recommendation to the Names Council that same day.  Two days later the 
Council will meet and rubber-stamp the recommendation so that it can be 
submitted to the Board.  

This is not due diligence.  This is not a "fair" process.  This is shoddiness 
elevated to new heights, and this is flagrantly in violation of our own 
bylaws, which state:

Following the receipt of a report or recommendation from such a body, the NC 
may accept the report or recommendation for submission to the Constituencies 
for comment and consultation, or return the report or recommendation to the 
body from which it originated for further work. After the report or 
recommendation is submitted to the Constituencies and the comment period for 
the Constituencies has expired, the NC shall evaluate the comments to 
determine whether there is a basis for a consensus recommendation to the 
Board.

The NC is not supposed to be voting upon any recommendation put forth by any 
task force until after the "Constituency Comment Period" expires (which is 
not synonymous with the public comment period).  Instead what we will see 
will be a violation of the bylaws (again) in the rush to force through a 
recommendation in order to meet an arbitrary deadline.  

Our bylaws also state that:  The NC is responsible for ensuring that all 
responsible views have been heard and considered prior to a decision by the 
NC.  

Registrars are an affected party in this matter.  Has the task force 
solicited the views of all registrars, or only those that pay to be members 
of the registrars constituency?  Has the Task Force solicited the views of 
any registrant organizations?   Are registrants represented on the Task 
Force?  If so, who is their representative?  Have the views of all current 
WLS providers been heard?  If so, where are their comments posted?  Other 
registries will be impacted by whatever recommendation comes forth (as what 
affects .com and .net will eventually affect the other TLDs at a later date). 
 Where is the record of the responsible views of the other registries?  

I don't really care if everyone on this list (or on the TF) is a member of 
the I-Hate-VeriSign-Club.  We have an obligation to "fairness" which should 
take priority over our personal views, and "fairness" calls for proper 
procedures to be followed.  The Task Force timetable does not allow for due 
diligence, and the legitimacy of the entire process is called into question 
when certain members of the community are not represented in the 
policy-formulating bodies.  

Finally, all responsible views are not heard by the NC when Task Force 
representatives themselves fail to forward all relevant comments made by 
those that they represent to the Task Force for evaluation.  How many 
comments by George, Brett, William, myself or others have been forwarded to 
the TF by the GA rep?  None so far.
- --
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 16:36:41 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: WLS call follow-up

Sure. Sorry for the call quality. I'm not sure what was wrong cause I
had no trouble hearing myself.

Basically the way I see things is that the WLS proposal is essentially
IP neutral. I fail to see how it helps anyone with respect to IP unless
you insert some tribunal or UDRP or other 'judge' in the process when
selecting someone to be in the queue for a particular domain.

I think that there are enough issues with WLS as is without introducing
irrelevancies and things we are not qualified to deal with.

I both reject Chuck's argument that its better for the IP constituency
as well as the argument that a domain holder could lose out or feel
compelled because of IP issues.  

Were it true that WLS helps IP holders, snapnames would already have had
everyone in existence as a client.  The simple solution to concerns
about losing your intellectual property, which were always
around before WLS (which only makes it easier for someone to grab it
*once* you have lost it)

...is....to....
...remember to renew! This is not rocket science.

And...as a fall back...to use a hypothetical example, should Dan
Steinberg use WLS to get att.com when
someone at ATT falls asleep...ATT (as they always did) has recourse
under UDRP, lanham act, etc. If the hypothetical "Allied Telesyn
Technologies" grabs that name...using WLS or any other existing means... 
then...too bad for the people who forgot to re-register.  I do not see
this as an issue in the context of WLS. Any risks that exist already
existed before WLS. WLS is merely a way to find out in advance who would
get it, no more.  It just gets someone potential preferential treatment
in the event of a deletion, nothing more i.e. if ATT makes a
mistake...it just decides who gets *lucky*, and does nothing to enhance
the possibility of ATT making a mistake in the first place.

pure and simple I think it is as irrelevant to WLS as today's weather in
idaho.

I was disturbed by people making all sorts of claims that this is an IP
issue when it isnt, especially people who obviously are not experts on
intellectual property at all.

Does this help?

Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
> Following up to today's WLS call, there are some questions with
> which I'd like to grill some of you folks; in particular Chuck
> Gomes and Dan Steinberg. ;)
> 
> 1. Chuck: In the presentation you made to the task force and all
> those attending the call, you talked about registrars with a total
> market share of 57.5% supporting the proposal.  I already mentioned
> during the call that, after substracting Verisign's own market share
> of about 40%, we end up at a mere 17.5% of market share; this is
> comparable to the market share you mention as being opposed to WLS.
> I believe that it was Rick Wesson who asked how much of that
> remaining market share in favor of WLS actually belongs to
> registrars owned by or affiliated with Verisign.  Could you please
> provide some clarification of this on the GA list?  Thank you.
> 
> 2. Dan: I may have misunderstood you due to the extremely poor
> sound quality of your contribution, but I seemed to understand that
> you were suggesting that the task force should leave IP and
> competition aspects out.  Could you please elaborate on the
> rationale for this?
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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 14:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WLS call follow-up

Hi Dan,

- --- Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I was disturbed by people making all sorts of claims that this is an
> IP
> issue when it isnt, especially people who obviously are not experts
> on
> intellectual property at all.

I agree with you. The only reason opponents of WLS had to discuss it
(e.g. with counter-examples of names caught by SnapNames that would
seem to be trademark violations) was that Verisign brought it up as a
possible advantage of WLS.

Hopefully the employees of Verisign who are still beating this dead
horse have the good sense to give WLS a proper burial, so that we can
move on to more substantive issues that can be "win-win" for everyone,
instead of a proposal which is "win" for Verisign and "lose" for most
everyone else. Although, perhaps Verisign's bosses force them to toe
the company line (I'd hate to be working there, and be forced to push
this idea -- I felt sorry for Chuck Gomes today, as he seemed like a
decent fellow!).

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 17:35:56 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: WLS Conference Call

The remit of the Names Council and its task forces is to manage the consensus 
process as it pertains to policy matters regarding domain names.  
Consequently, one should begin by asking:  What are the policy issues 
implicated by the WLS proposal?

On today's call, it was argued that the WLS proposal would favor those that 
have engaged in the hoarding of domain names.  While this may be true, we 
currently have no policy regarding domain name hoarding, and as such no 
current policies are implicated by this proposal.  

It has also been argued that the WLS proposal could impact those businesses 
that now provide Wait-List services.  As a matter of policy, ICANN has 
already demonstrated that it has the right under certain conditions to damage 
the business of others (and I'm sure that Leah Gallegos can confirm this 
fact), and the implementation of WLS would not be a departure from this 
policy.  Again, no change in policy is contemplated by the WLS.

Dan Steinberg has argued that there are no new IP policy issues at stake, and 
I currently find his arguments to be reasonable.

It is not our job to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on the "merits" of the 
WLS proposal, but rather to evaluate whether any current policies are 
affected by the proposal.  I would appreciate it someone could detail the 
current ICANN policies that are called into question by the WLS proposal, so 
that we can stay within the scope of our limited mission.
- --
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 17:57:56 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] WLS:  Fair Warning

Remember the VeriSign contract renegotiations?  The DNSO has already once 
recently been jerked around by the ICANN Board with regard to VeriSign 
proposals.  Stuart Lynn had argued to the Department of Commerce that no 
"policy" matters were implicated in the contract revisions, stating:

"As this recitation indicates, the ultimate Names Council recommendations to 
ICANN are, in general, not focused on "policy" issues, but rather are 
suggestions about how the proposed new agreements could be modified, by 
changing contractual dates and the like, to make them better agreements in 
the view of those supporting the resolutions. These expressions are certainly 
important, but they can hardly be described as representing the kinds of 
policy issues that are, pursuant to ICANN's bylaws, the initial 
responsibility of the DNSO within the ICANN structure. The only issue that 
has been prominently mentioned in this discussion that could even arguably be 
termed a "policy" matter is the issue of common ownership of registry and 
registrar businesses. Thus, it is useful to focus on that point to illustrate 
why the ICANN Board and management concluded that the proposed new agreements 
were operational, not policy, matters."  
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-rose-16apr01.htm

If anyone is opposed to the VeriSign WLS proposal, I would recommend that all 
arguments be framed in terms of "policy".  Otherwise, this contract revision 
will proceed on schedule just like the last contract revision.  Don't be 
stupid twice.  If there are policy implications, make them clear.
- --
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: Wed, 22 May 2002 00:14:48 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WLS call follow-up

Dan wrote:
>
> ...is....to....
> ...remember to renew! This is not rocket science.
>

You are exactly correct.

The point is to:
 1. periodically pay on time for domain name renewal
(cf my yestrday message to the NC Transfer)

Therefore one need a mechanism for automated payments.

It seems impossible to me that what is such an elementary 
bank service in France, used by sixty million population, 
does not existe elswhere.

When I sign a contract for water supply, electricity supply,
telephone (land or cellular), renting flat, private school, etc,
I have an option to indicate to the service provider 
my bank account number and autorise him for permanent,
periodical, payment settled in contract.

There is an advantage to both parties in good faith, 
the service provider is granted to get paid periodically 
and automaticaly from my bank to his bank, I am granted 
to have peace and not forget a deadline. Such bank 
autorisation remain under my control - at any
time I may ask my bank to stop it, should problems arise.

Last not the least, banks are using universal system
for accounts, it is called IBAN - International Bank 
Account Number.  It fits into the Internet quite well 
- - IBANs start with ISO 3166-1 code.

Elisabeth
- --

> From [email-masked] Tue May 21 22:38 MET 2002
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 16:36:41 -0400
> From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
> X-Sender: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]> (Unverified)
> X-Accept-Language: en,fr-CA
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
> CC: [email-masked], "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: [ga] Re: WLS call follow-up
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> Sure. Sorry for the call quality. I'm not sure what was wrong cause I
> had no trouble hearing myself.
> 
> Basically the way I see things is that the WLS proposal is essentially
> IP neutral. I fail to see how it helps anyone with respect to IP unless
> you insert some tribunal or UDRP or other 'judge' in the process when
> selecting someone to be in the queue for a particular domain.
> 
> I think that there are enough issues with WLS as is without introducing
> irrelevancies and things we are not qualified to deal with.
> 
> I both reject Chuck's argument that its better for the IP constituency
> as well as the argument that a domain holder could lose out or feel
> compelled because of IP issues.  
> 
> Were it true that WLS helps IP holders, snapnames would already have had
> everyone in existence as a client.  The simple solution to concerns
> about losing your intellectual property, which were always
> around before WLS (which only makes it easier for someone to grab it
> *once* you have lost it)
> 
> ...is....to....
> ...remember to renew! This is not rocket science.
> 
> And...as a fall back...to use a hypothetical example, should Dan
> Steinberg use WLS to get att.com when
> someone at ATT falls asleep...ATT (as they always did) has recourse
> under UDRP, lanham act, etc. If the hypothetical "Allied Telesyn
> Technologies" grabs that name...using WLS or any other existing means... 
> then...too bad for the people who forgot to re-register.  I do not see
> this as an issue in the context of WLS. Any risks that exist already
> existed before WLS. WLS is merely a way to find out in advance who would
> get it, no more.  It just gets someone potential preferential treatment
> in the event of a deletion, nothing more i.e. if ATT makes a
> mistake...it just decides who gets *lucky*, and does nothing to enhance
> the possibility of ATT making a mistake in the first place.
> 
> 
> pure and simple I think it is as irrelevant to WLS as today's weather in
> idaho.
> 
> I was disturbed by people making all sorts of claims that this is an IP
> issue when it isnt, especially people who obviously are not experts on
> intellectual property at all.
> 
> Does this help?
> 
> Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > 
> > Following up to today's WLS call, there are some questions with
> > which I'd like to grill some of you folks; in particular Chuck
> > Gomes and Dan Steinberg. ;)
> > 
> > 1. Chuck: In the presentation you made to the task force and all
> > those attending the call, you talked about registrars with a total
> > market share of 57.5% supporting the proposal.  I already mentioned
> > during the call that, after substracting Verisign's own market share
> > of about 40%, we end up at a mere 17.5% of market share; this is
> > comparable to the market share you mention as being opposed to WLS.
> > I believe that it was Rick Wesson who asked how much of that
> > remaining market share in favor of WLS actually belongs to
> > registrars owned by or affiliated with Verisign.  Could you please
> > provide some clarification of this on the GA list?  Thank you.
> > 
> > 2. Dan: I may have misunderstood you due to the extremely poor
> > sound quality of your contribution, but I seemed to understand that
> > you were suggesting that the task force should leave IP and
> > competition aspects out.  Could you please elaborate on the
> > rationale for this?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> 
> -- 
> Dan Steinberg
> 
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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
> 
> 
- --
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 17:21:05 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA vote on two motions about ICANN - votes received thus far

Dear secretariat and all assembly members,

  Is there some significance regarding the percentage of those
registered in the GA to vote on these motions?  Please advise.

DNSO Secretariat wrote:

> [To: [email-masked]]
>
> FYI.
>
> To the General Assembly
>
> Status of the DNSO  GA vote on two motions about ICANN
> 21 May 2002, 15:00 UTC
>
> 22 hours before closure,
>
> 210 ballots have been received.
> Total voting electorate: 586
> That is 36%
>
> DNSO Secretariat
>
> --
> 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 18:28:19 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WLS Conference Call

There is an addition issue for us.  Verisign is earning monopoly rents from
domain owners now. If this is more bucks for Verisign, it should be used to
lower the registry fees, or do something else that benefits the doamin
owners, if it goes forward.

Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 5:35 PM
Subject: [ga] Re: WLS Conference Call

: The remit of the Names Council and its task forces is to manage the
consensus
: process as it pertains to policy matters regarding domain names.
: Consequently, one should begin by asking:  What are the policy issues
: implicated by the WLS proposal?
:
: On today's call, it was argued that the WLS proposal would favor those
that
: have engaged in the hoarding of domain names.  While this may be true, we
: currently have no policy regarding domain name hoarding, and as such no
: current policies are implicated by this proposal.
:
: It has also been argued that the WLS proposal could impact those
businesses
: that now provide Wait-List services.  As a matter of policy, ICANN has
: already demonstrated that it has the right under certain conditions to
damage
: the business of others (and I'm sure that Leah Gallegos can confirm this
: fact), and the implementation of WLS would not be a departure from this
: policy.  Again, no change in policy is contemplated by the WLS.
:
: Dan Steinberg has argued that there are no new IP policy issues at stake,
and
: I currently find his arguments to be reasonable.
:
: It is not our job to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on the "merits" of
the
: WLS proposal, but rather to evaluate whether any current policies are
: affected by the proposal.  I would appreciate it someone could detail the
: current ICANN policies that are called into question by the WLS proposal,
so
: that we can stay within the scope of our limited mission.
: --
: 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 17:52:46 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Tr: [ga] DNSO.org web site and robots.txt

George and all assembly members,

George Kirikos wrote:

> 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)

  I agree.  This is totally silly in the extreme.  Besides that
it is all to easily routed around...  To me it just shows the
level of paranoia that seems prevalent within the ICANN
BOD and staff...:(

>
>
> 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

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 18:00:08 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] WLS/Policy

The following is the definition of Policy by my good friends M-W;

  1 a : prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs b : management
or procedure based primarily on material interest
  2 a : a definite course or method of action selected from among
alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine
present and future decisions b : a high-level overall plan embracing the
general goals and acceptable procedures especially
of a governmental body.

Certainly the WLS is all about management of affairs and any bafoon that
suggests otherwise is illiterate.  It is about what is allowable or not
allowable
by an ICANN accredited registrar.  It is not technical.

The question is "should" ICANN allow them to implement the WLS POLICY.
There is absolutely nothing about this that is not policy.

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: Tue, 21 May 2002 18:42:30 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS:  Fair Warning

Thank you Danny for finally bringing up a very valid point.

But I think there is less to worry about with regard to the WLS issue,
because despite the Names Council report, there was still quite a bit
of support for the new Verisign contract inside of the DNSO, and not
just from Verisign or Verisign controlled entities.  I know I got
emails from several registrars who supported it despite my imploring
them not to.

There is no support for the WLS outside of Verisign and Verisign
controlled entities, except for a couple individuals (whose concerns
in my opinion would still be FAR better addressed without the WLS).

And ICANN itself, through Louis Touton, has been showing a leaning
against the WLS.

I think it is unlikely ICANN will pull an end run around the DNSO on
this one, but I do agree that it ALWAYS bears watching, because we
have seen them do it before.

Tuesday, May 21, 2002, 2:57:56 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Remember the VeriSign contract renegotiations?  The DNSO has already once 
> recently been jerked around by the ICANN Board with regard to VeriSign 
> proposals.  Stuart Lynn had argued to the Department of Commerce that no 
> "policy" matters were implicated in the contract revisions, stating:

> "As this recitation indicates, the ultimate Names Council recommendations to 
> ICANN are, in general, not focused on "policy" issues, but rather are 
> suggestions about how the proposed new agreements could be modified, by 
> changing contractual dates and the like, to make them better agreements in 
> the view of those supporting the resolutions. These expressions are certainly 
> important, but they can hardly be described as representing the kinds of 
> policy issues that are, pursuant to ICANN's bylaws, the initial 
> responsibility of the DNSO within the ICANN structure. The only issue that 
> has been prominently mentioned in this discussion that could even arguably be 
> termed a "policy" matter is the issue of common ownership of registry and 
> registrar businesses. Thus, it is useful to focus on that point to illustrate 
> why the ICANN Board and management concluded that the proposed new agreements 
> were operational, not policy, matters."  
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-rose-16apr01.htm

> If anyone is opposed to the VeriSign WLS proposal, I would recommend that all 
> arguments be framed in terms of "policy".  Otherwise, this contract revision 
> will proceed on schedule just like the last contract revision.  Don't be 
> stupid twice.  If there are policy implications, make them clear.
> --
> 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

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1212
*************************