Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1214
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 22 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1214

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 08:24:31 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS call follow-up

Thanks Alexander.  You actually helped me find one error in our analysis.
The number of registrars not associated with the VeriSign Registrar should
have been 13, not 14, and the total should be 32, not 33.  I will
communicate the correction in my presentation today.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Svensson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 7:10 AM
> To: DNSO General Assembly
> Subject: Re: [ga] WLS call follow-up
> 
> 
> 
> At 21.05.2002 21:34, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >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.
> 
> 
> This is the presentation:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/ppt00002.ppt
> 
> Let's see -- the original claim was 18 registrars supporting WLS
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02170.html),
> but it seems that 2 have retracted their signatures
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02177.html).
> 
> Jim Archer writes in that posting that he has been told that
> VeriSign owned five of the signing registrars. It's easy to
> confirm each of these cases with Google's help.
> 
>  VeriSign Registrar, Herndon, VA, USA
> 
>  NameEngine, New York, NY, USA
>  (http://www.nameengine.com/about/press/ceo_verisign.html)
> 
>  NameSecure, Moravia, CA, USA
>  (http://www.icann.org/melbourne/verisign-submission-29mar01.htm)
> 
>  SRSPlus, Los Angeles, California, USA
>  
(http://www.srsplus.com/en-def-82b225ecaf3f/en/srsplus/about_srsplus.shtml)

 Registrars.com, Los Angeles, California USA
 (http://www.registrars.com/)

Furthermore, DomainSite.com (another signatory) is listed as
one of SnapName's "strategic partners".
(http://www.snapnames.com/partners_strategic.html)
NameScout is one of SnapNames' registrar partners
(http://www.snapnames.com/namescoutterms.html).

Who is left?
  SiteName, Rishon Lezion, Israel
  (seems identical with Galcomm.com, Rishon Lezion, Israel)
  BulkRegister.com, Baltimore, MD, USA
  ChinaDNS, Beijing, China
  DirectNic, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
  DomainMonger.com, Washington State, USA       
  Go Daddy, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
  Namebay, Monaco
  NameSystem, Bridgetown, Barbados
  Neteka, Toronto, Canada
  Register.it, Bergamo, Italy

So what is the percentage of registrations represented by these
registrars not affiliated with VeriSign or SnapNames AND 
supporting the WLS?

Using data from https://www.sotd.info/sotd/Content/Documents/sotdQ102.pdf
(which ironically is published by SnapNames...) I arrive at 
the following com/net/org market shares:

  ???? % SiteName
  0.00 % Galcomm.com
  5.39 % BulkRegister.com
  ???? % ChinaDNS (only listed for .biz)
  1.73 % DirectNic
  ???? % DomainMonger.com
  2.61 % Go Daddy
  0.09 % Namebay
  0.00 % NameSystem
  0.00 % Neteka/Namesbeyond
  ???? % Register.it

It doubt that this adds up to more than 10 percent; please
correct me if I'm wrong.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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: Wed, 22 May 2002 08:30:35 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: WLS call follow-up

Thomas,

The percentage of registrations represented by registrars owned by the
VeriSign Registrar above and beyond the VeriSign Registrar itself is 0.74%
(less than 1%).

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 3:35 PM
> To: [email-masked]; Gomes, Chuck; Dan Steinberg
> Subject: 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: Wed, 22 May 2002 08:40:42 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS call follow-up

Interesting numbers.  But given that you figure the remains add up to
maybe 10% and the original claim worked out to 17.5% we are not talking
much of a difference. 10% -17/5% is not a big spread. The large numbers
are still the 40% which belongs to the Verisign registrar.  No matter
how it's sliced, Verisign  Registry can technically claim market share
support in the registrar business for their WLS proposal.

Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 
> At 21.05.2002 21:34, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >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.
> 
> This is the presentation:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/ppt00002.ppt
> 
> Let's see -- the original claim was 18 registrars supporting WLS
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02170.html),
> but it seems that 2 have retracted their signatures
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02177.html).
> 
> Jim Archer writes in that posting that he has been told that
> VeriSign owned five of the signing registrars. It's easy to
> confirm each of these cases with Google's help.
> 
>  VeriSign Registrar, Herndon, VA, USA
> 
>  NameEngine, New York, NY, USA
>  (http://www.nameengine.com/about/press/ceo_verisign.html)
> 
>  NameSecure, Moravia, CA, USA
>  (http://www.icann.org/melbourne/verisign-submission-29mar01.htm)
> 
>  SRSPlus, Los Angeles, California, USA
>  (http://www.srsplus.com/en-def-82b225ecaf3f/en/srsplus/about_srsplus.shtml)
> 
>  Registrars.com, Los Angeles, California USA
>  (http://www.registrars.com/)
> 
> Furthermore, DomainSite.com (another signatory) is listed as
> one of SnapName's "strategic partners".
> (http://www.snapnames.com/partners_strategic.html)
> NameScout is one of SnapNames' registrar partners
> (http://www.snapnames.com/namescoutterms.html).
> 
> Who is left?
>   SiteName, Rishon Lezion, Israel
>   (seems identical with Galcomm.com, Rishon Lezion, Israel)
>   BulkRegister.com, Baltimore, MD, USA
>   ChinaDNS, Beijing, China
>   DirectNic, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
>   DomainMonger.com, Washington State, USA
>   Go Daddy, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
>   Namebay, Monaco
>   NameSystem, Bridgetown, Barbados
>   Neteka, Toronto, Canada
>   Register.it, Bergamo, Italy
> 
> So what is the percentage of registrations represented by these
> registrars not affiliated with VeriSign or SnapNames AND
> supporting the WLS?
> 
> Using data from https://www.sotd.info/sotd/Content/Documents/sotdQ102.pdf
> (which ironically is published by SnapNames...) I arrive at
> the following com/net/org market shares:
> 
>   ???? % SiteName
>   0.00 % Galcomm.com
>   5.39 % BulkRegister.com
>   ???? % ChinaDNS (only listed for .biz)
>   1.73 % DirectNic
>   ???? % DomainMonger.com
>   2.61 % Go Daddy
>   0.09 % Namebay
>   0.00 % NameSystem
>   0.00 % Neteka/Namesbeyond
>   ???? % Register.it
> 
> It doubt that this adds up to more than 10 percent; please
> correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
> 
> --
> 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

- -- 
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: Wed, 22 May 2002 09:06:09 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper

While these are cogent comments, they do illustrate the difficulty of
actually writing something called a "mission statement" that is both
something more than a listing of specific acts that are permissible (which
is certainly not a mission statement that would be useful on a going
forward basis) and writing something less specific that is not subject to
the kind of word-smithing that Thomas has done.  I renew the invitation
that ICANN has made for several months now:  If anyone thinks they can
write a better mission statement, please do so.  There seem to be a lot
more editors than authors in the ICANN population.

Joe Sims

- --
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 09:15:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper

It's been done many times: you just don't like to admit it.

Writing a mission statement is easy when the mission is small.  You want a
big client.  Your client wants to be big.  They ignore the contrary
voices, and you come along to shoot the wounded by saying they don't
exist.

On Wed, 22 May 2002, Joe Sims wrote:

> While these are cogent comments, they do illustrate the difficulty of
> actually writing something called a "mission statement" that is both
> something more than a listing of specific acts that are permissible (which
> is certainly not a mission statement that would be useful on a going
> forward basis) and writing something less specific that is not subject to
> the kind of word-smithing that Thomas has done.  I renew the invitation
> that ICANN has made for several months now:  If anyone thinks they can
> write a better mission statement, please do so.  There seem to be a lot
> more editors than authors in the ICANN population.
> 
> 
> Joe Sims
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Wed, 22 May 2002 09:20:04 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper

As usual, Michael, lots of talk and no action.  I await your draft.

Joe Sims
Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
51 Louisiana Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963

                                                                                                                   
                    "Michael                                                                                       
                    Froomkin -           To:     Joe Sims <[email-masked]>                                     
                    U.Miami School       cc:     [email-masked]                                                       
                    of Law"              Subject:     Re: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper                  
                    <[email-masked]                                                                               
                    ami.edu>                                                                                       

                    05/22/02 09:15                                                                                 
                    AM                                                                                             

It's been done many times: you just don't like to admit it.

Writing a mission statement is easy when the mission is small.  You want a
big client.  Your client wants to be big.  They ignore the contrary
voices, and you come along to shoot the wounded by saying they don't
exist.

On Wed, 22 May 2002, Joe Sims wrote:

> While these are cogent comments, they do illustrate the difficulty of
> actually writing something called a "mission statement" that is both
> something more than a listing of specific acts that are permissible
(which
> is certainly not a mission statement that would be useful on a going
> forward basis) and writing something less specific that is not subject to
> the kind of word-smithing that Thomas has done.  I renew the invitation
> that ICANN has made for several months now:  If anyone thinks they can
> write a better mission statement, please do so.  There seem to be a lot
> more editors than authors in the ICANN population.
>
>
> Joe Sims
>
>
>
> --
> 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.<--

==========
The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you are
not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
==========

- --
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 06:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS call follow-up

Hello,

- --- Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> how it's sliced, Verisign  Registry can technically claim market
> share
> support in the registrar business for their WLS proposal.

Market share support has never been an accepted "standard" for
acceptance of proposals. Verisign only attempted to invent that as a
criteria when the accepted standards for acceptance showed that WLS was
soundly defeated.

If Verisign wants to make it a new standard, I think we could see some
very interesting "votes" in the future. How about a vote that insists
that Verisign divest itself of either its registry business or
registrar business? I'm pretty sure we could find a majority by market
share support in favour of that one, amongst others.

The notion of 'consensus' was discussed eloquently by Michael Palage,
here:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02075.html

"When the constituency was first formed, the concept of one
registrar-one vote was deeply entrenched into our discussion for
obvious reasons, at that time NSI had a 100% of the market. Over the
years the one vote per registrar regardless of size has remained a
founding principle of the constituency."

One can read followups here:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/mail35.html

Thus, it's entirely inappropriate to consider market-share numbers used
to advance this proposal (plus, even if a majority of registrars is in
favour of proposal X, it doesn't mean that it's LEGAL, or doesn't
affect other parties negatively).

For instance, registrars might decide that minimum registration prices
should be set at $12 (anti-trust, price-fixing). Or, on a proposal like
WLS, the supporters of a proposal might be *slightly* in favour of it
(i.e. maybe they benefit by a few thousand dollars from it), whereas
the opponents of a proposal could be *seriously* damaged from it (to
the extent of millions of dollars, like an eNom or Dotster).

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: Wed, 22 May 2002 06:40:35 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS:  Fair Warning

Why is there not a Domain Customer's bill of rights? And where is there not
a uniform set of rules regarding the operations of the Registrars
themselves. This puts the customer on the short end of the stick. Isn't the
FTC supposed to protect us from things like this?

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 2:57 PM
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
>

- --
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 07:00:20 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WLS Conference Call

Wait List Services are probably inherently illegal at some level (or should
be)  since there is no way that a DNS entry alone conveys the IP rights
around a TM or SM. This is a real sore point since I as an individual may
let a registration lapse on a marque that I already own and one that is
still in use in the public eye, either in written or other public form. The
problem is that once IP herein is issued, Unless someone is willing to
negotiate my rights against this IP, I still own it.

This WLS proposal as I see it essentially breaks trademark law, but I could
be mistaken.

The problem is that several of the proposals I have seen infer that I could
register to snatch a domain name and when the registrar released it, it
would become available. there is no accounting for the original registrant,
and so this is a method to force the availability of more domains such that
their businesses can survive at the original IP owners expense.

The gating issue below this all  is the simple question - "Is a Domain Name
the same thing a Trademark?" and if so then it is protected by trademark
law... And that means that there is no difference in a Trademark whether it
is used on the Internet or in print elsewhere. And just because I choose to
let a domain name lapse does not mean that I still do not actively own and
protect my marques.

If you want to address the issues then address those that register thousands
of domains and then offer them for sale.  The only thing that will make
there be more names available is to outlaw list brokers and make the
relationship between the DNS process and the End User one of a 1:1 nature.
And to clean up the release process so that there are no IP issues lingering
in the operational policy of the Internet.

The problem is that this MUST conform to each of the country's IP laws that
this Internet terminates within and that's not possible with these uniform
rules since the laws change from place to place...

Todd

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Manon Ress" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 3:28 PM
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
>

- --
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 16:16:19 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper

- --=======22FF5846=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3ADB7947; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Joe,
thank you for your posts. I am impressed: it means that the GA becomes 
worth participating, for you and for us.

What about sticking to the mission statement of the USG? Usually missions 
are decided by the one giving it, not by the one receiving it. If you are 
not satisfied by it: let vote and support Jamie's motion so the USG has to 
commit with a better and new text.

The key issue is that ICANN needs legitimacy and to be controled. 
Legitimacy can only come from:
- - a government delegating it
- - members sharing it
- - the market accepting it
- - necessity

You do not want to have Members, you do not want @large, you call on Govs 
but do not want to hear from them...  This leaves you only necessity. With 
the bonus of no control ... as long as it lasts.

This means the need to make you necessary, ie as Kent put it well, mainly 
to make believe you are necessary. You were succesfull up to now. But is 
that stable? will it last? will Govs (you called upon them) accept it for a 
long?

You know better. IMHO it may probably go for another patch.
But to want to run the root server system was most probably an error.
jfc

On 15:06 22/05/02, Joe Sims said:
>While these are cogent comments, they do illustrate the difficulty of
>actually writing something called a "mission statement" that is both
>something more than a listing of specific acts that are permissible (which
>is certainly not a mission statement that would be useful on a going
>forward basis) and writing something less specific that is not subject to
>the kind of word-smithing that Thomas has done.  I renew the invitation
>that ICANN has made for several months now:  If anyone thinks they can
>write a better mission statement, please do so.  There seem to be a lot
>more editors than authors in the ICANN population.
>
>
>Joe Sims
>
>
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02

- --=======22FF5846=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3ADB7947
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02

- --=======22FF5846=======--

- --
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 07:14:10 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WLS call follow-up

The WLS proposal would take something else to implement and that would be a
board of some type that assured ICANN, the registrars and the "Fair Play for
Fernando Poo Committee"  and the other components of this menagerie "that
this instance of registering this domain name did not violate the previous
IP rights of its last registrar..." and with the current system this is
impossible. Not to mention the privacy issues to contend with to meet Safe
Harbor requirements and the ensuing global privacy laws.

No WLS is a system to address mass registrations and that people let Domains
expire... For what ever reason.

Todd

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Osbourne" <[email-masked]>
To: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WLS call follow-up

> At 04:36 PM 21/05/02 -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> So I register qwertyadsfjsdfjsf.com (it's just an example,
> and still unregistered through some fluke of fate, and/or
> oversight of the speculators). I put a couple of years of
> work into it, submitting it to search engines, getting my
> online buddies to link to it, printing it on my business
> card, putting it in the yellow pages, and just for good
> measure I put the answer to everything on there (which is
> 43 as it happens, but let's keep that between us for now),
> yet it isn't my intellectual property, right?
>
> >I think that there are enough issues with WLS as is
> >without introducing irrelevancies and things we are
> >not qualified to deal with.
>
> Perhaps you could list the necessary qualifications
> before I take the trouble to post again. I'm travelling
> and am on a slow motion pay by the hour dailup and must
> couch my words accordingly.
>
> >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.
>
> I can't speak for those other weasels, but if someone
> snatches qwertyadsfjsdfjsf.com out from under me, I'll
> just have to register (so to speak):
> www.geocities.com/qwertyadsfjsdfjsf/
> and I'll be so pissed at this loss of face I'll sue:
> 1. my original registrar for screwing up
> 2. ICANN, for their policies, or lack of same
> 3. anyone else I can find an address for
> Hey, lookie here: [email-masked]
> and in my bailiwick too.
>
> >Were it true that WLS helps IP holders,
> >snapnames would already have had everyone
> >in existence as a client.
>
> Sorry, I don't get out much. How does one
> existential entity find this snapnames? Is it:
> http://www.snapnames.cc/
> my TLD of choice? Apparently not. Is it at
> RealName "snapnames"? Nope, that feeds me
> popunder ads, but only till the end of June,
> then who knows? Erm, what was the question?
>
> >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.
>
> Oh sorry, I registered it using an ISP addy that folded,
> or I registered it using a web-based email client that
> died, so I never got the notification. So, I'll sue
> them too, but seeing as they aren't around any more,
> perhaps *you* still have some money. Ka-chingggg!
>
> I didn't know that this concept was around before
> the WLS, that one lost trademark protection (even
> north of the border) because of a choice of email
> providers. Will...wonders...never...cease?
>
> >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 didn't forget. I had a contract with an ICANN
> accredited registrar, and they screwed up. Hence my
> proclivity, if not propensity, for suing all and sundry.
> And BTW, where exactly in Canadian legislation does one
> find this lanham act thingie?
>
> >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.
>
> It does, however, enhance the possibility of Ver$ign
> making a mistake as, if I renew my name with my
> existing registrar it costs somewhat less than $35
> (actually considerably less than $35), but hey, I'm
> just the registrant, that forgotten factor in the
> ICANN (and apparently the GA rep's) equation. Whereas
> if I am someone attempting to leech off someone else's
> work (one might even call it one's intellectual property
> if one could get a definition of that term), I am only
> too happy to pay that $35 because Veri$ign's dog ate
> someone else's homework. So the leech, who could just
> as easily use:
> 1qwertyadsfjsdfjsf.com
> or
> qwertyadsfjsdfjs.com
> as
> qwertyadsfjsdfjsf.com
> except for *my* intellectual property (awaiting definition)
> and Veri$ign, for screwing up my re-registration
> and ICANN, via its tithe
> and you, if you're into brownie points
> get lucky, and I, even if I have the answer to everything,
> lose my connection to others who have seen me in a search
> engine, or read my business card, or yellow page listing...
> and, don't tell me, you wonder why the internet bubble
> burst, right?
>
> >pure and simple I think it is as irrelevant to WLS
> >as today's weather in idaho.
>
> Well, I've got my own private Idaho here, I am known
> in trade as qwertyadsfjsdfjsf.com and now you are
> sullying my good name by putting up a protozoa pr0n
> site at that pointer due to Veri$ign not understanding
> the specification for https. Okay, I'll sue you all.
>
> >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.
>
> Like me, apparently. Here I thought it was the property
> of my intellect. Now I learn it is a protection racket
> run by some offshoot of the USG and its apparently endless
> army of lackeys. So I'll sue everyone involved, but seeing
> as you're the only one within reach...
>
> >Does this help?
>
> Absolutely. I didn't much care for those IP numbers.
> When Paul Mockapetris brought in intuitive domain
> names it made internet navigation much easier. When
> dropsquatters made the DHS couter-intuitive I became
> somewhat confused. I can again sleep well at night
> knowing that you have ruled it, on balance, as a
> Very Good Thing (TM) for Veri$ign and ICANN. -g
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1214
*************************