Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1215
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 22 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1215

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:54:03 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

[email-masked] (Wed 05/22/02 at 10:31 AM +0000):

> I remember another case, the selection of a DNSO-elected ICANN Director.

let's not forget marilyn cade's organizational efforts on behalf of
rick white for an ICANN board seat:

  <http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9910/msg00035.html>

cheers,
t
- --
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 11:11:54 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper

[email-masked] (Wed 05/22/02 at 09:06 AM -0400):

> 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.

and, conversely, there seem to be a lot more authors than editors 
in the ICANN staff. that in itself is a problem, because you have
a dedicated staff that's paid (well) to produce what in effect is
a denial of services attack on the volunteers who are critical of
ICANN.

really, if i may say so, your message is a bit bratty. basically,
you're saying that ICANN will do whatever it wants unless someone
puts an alternative program in front of their collective face. we
know how that works, though: if we did what you insist on, staff
would (a) ignore it, (b) kibbitz it to death, (c) mangle it into 
something entirely different and call it 'consensus,' (d) accept
it, go off on a frolic if its own, and then subject all challenges
to absurdly litigious readings, and/or (e) some or (*amazingly*) 
all of the above on an ad hoc basis.

alternatively, if ICANN would like to hire me to edit their new
mission statement, i'm all ears. now there's a proposition. :)

cheers,
t
- --
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 09:28:05 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS call follow-up

At 08:40 AM 22/05/02 -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>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.

So, *because* ICANN has to date largely failed at
fostering competition for Veri$ign, that is given
as a rationale for why ICANN should OK a proposal
that further lessens competition for Veri$ign? -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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 12:19:20 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Joop, thank you for your comments. Are you saying that 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".
>
>  
>
> In other words such individuals are typically unincorporated 
> businesses (profit or not for profit), sharing a lot of common 
> interest with the business constituency or non-comms, but are today 
> unable to join the BC or non-coms because they choose to trade as 
> individuals rather than be incorporated as SMEs or organisations ?
>
>  
>
> If yes this perspective, and therefore the way we incorporate these 
> stakeholders, is important. What helps is to differentiate the 
> interests of individuals as providers from individuals as users.
>

I believe the possibility of registering .pro and .name domains are 
perfect examples of how individuals _are_ stakeholders in their own 
right, irrespective of their activities (producers or users).  

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 12:39:26 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS call follow-up

Gary,

I fail to see how you draw those conclusions from my post. I'm pretty
sure that I was quite explicit in commenting on the the market share
claims. nothing more.

Gary Osbourne wrote:
> 
> At 08:40 AM 22/05/02 -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> >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.
> 
> So, *because* ICANN has to date largely failed at
> fostering competition for Veri$ign, that is given
> as a rationale for why ICANN should OK a proposal
> that further lessens competition for Veri$ign? -g

- -- 
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 11:43:55 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: CENTR on ICANN reform

Alexander and all assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Jim Fleming alerted me to the fact that CENTR has posted
> "ccTLD Requirements for International Coordination of the
> Domain Name System (A response to the Lynn Proposal for ICANN Reform)",
> by CENTRs General Manager Marianne Wolfsgruber:
> http://www.centr.org/news/ICANN-response.html

  Yes I got this several days ago now.  I noticed the Marianne
only posted in that URL a general E-Mail address.

>
>
> Quote from the conclusions:
> >The current operation of the IANA function by ICANN does not guarantee
> >stable and secure management of the ccTLD registry functions, therefore
> >we propose to return to the proven system that empowers the local
> >communities, national law and service to the local internet communities.
>
> Unfortunately, the structure diagram in attachment 1
> is located in the closed section of the CENTR site, so
> I'm not sure whether it differs from her previous
> presentation called "ICANN 2 and the ccTLD Community"
> http://www.centr.org/docs/presentations/ICANN-reform.pdf

  It does differ somewhat..  The closed section can be
accessed if you use a little thought...

>
>
> 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

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: Wed, 22 May 2002 11:49:47 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Congress Whois hearing today

Alexander and all assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> U.S. House of Representatives
> Committee on the Judiciary
> Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
>
> Oversight hearing on the accuracy and integrity
> of the Whois Database

  Yes we have two or our people attending as I understand it...

>
>
> Starting 10:00 EDT (= 7:00 L.A., 14:00 UTC, 16:00 Paris, 23:00 Tokyo)
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=22&month=5&year=2002&hour=10&min=0&sec=0&p1=263
>
> Streaming audio at the time of the hearing:
> http://judaudio5.house.gov/2141b (Windows Media ASF file)
>
> Unfortunately, the link to the current witness list from
> http://www.house.gov/judiciary/courts.htm is broken,

  No, this page is no broken, but this page,
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/crime052202.htm
is broken...

>
> but according to Bret's Blog, it will remain largely
> as planned: Howard Beales, FTC; Steven Metalitz,
> Copyright Coalition on Domain Names; Michael Palage,
> registrars; Cameron Powell, Snapnames.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
>

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: Wed, 22 May 2002 12:03:03 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Conference Call

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-05-21 16:24:22 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >If only that were true.  Sadly, what will pass for the "consensus
> >process" will transpire within a few days.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> The transfer task force is, at this point, at the very first steps
> of its comprehensive review of deleted domain name issues, with a
> focus on WLS.  If you want to put it like that, what we have been
> participating in yesterday is a "problem-finding" mission:
> Identifying the problems, and identifying possible solutions.  (With
> an emphasis on _possible_.)

  Agreed to a point here Thomas.  However Danny's concern
is still justified given the history of TF's that have been recently
concluded such as the one for .ORG...  The WhoIs Task Force
was yet another example to which Danny may be thinking of
as well...

>
>
> Despite the possibly unfortunate wording in the terms of reference
> (for which I may have to take some blame), what emanates from this
> is certainly not a policy recommendation, or even a consensus
> policy.  (The latter is already impossible by definition.)

  True.  Hence one may ask why are we discussing anything
related to WLS is the known consensus is that it is
not a good idea?

>
>
> Rather, what we'll hopefully end up with after this week is a
> somewhat clearer understanding of the implications of the WLS
> proposal, and of the side-effects it would have on competition
> between registrars, on intellectual property (think about the UDRP
> clause in the revised proposal - that part is not a red herring!),
> on other existing businesses, and whatever else people will come up
> with.  We'll, I hope, also have a clearer understanding of what
> policy-making should be undertaken next in order to mitigate some of
> the (of course unintended - after all, WLS is supposed to foster
> competition according to its proponent!) ill side-effects.
>
> That policy-making would then have to be handled by whatever body is
> appropriate; currently, that's of course the DNSO.

  As far as WLS goes yes the DNSO would be the appropriate
body.  But there are also serious implications as pointed out
by a number of the Teleconference participants today to
users that are not yet Domain Name holders...

>
>
> Examples include (1) the interaction with the UDRP which may or may
> not have been handled sufficiently in the proposal, (2) the
> interaction with a uniform deletion policy.

  The UDRP as we see it plays not real role with WLS.
As the UDRP was not and still is not a consensus based
policy instrument for handling disputes on Domain Names,
and the court systems are again getting flooded with
Domain Name disputes, I cannot see it as relevant
to WLS or any other delete related issue...

>
>
> --
> 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

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: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:06:00 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Some remarks on WLS/deleted domain handling.

- --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline

Please find attached a couple of messages I just sent to the  
transfer task force, summarizing what were the key points according  
to my recollection of today's and yesterday's telephone conferences. 
If I missed anything, it would be most helpful if you could follow  
up to this.

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

- --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 18:48:28 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: Transfer TF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WLS/deletes: Hoarding
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

On 2002-05-22 18:41:56 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>There is currently no policy which determines when registrars must 
>delete a domain name from the SRS.  This leads to the effect of  
>"hoarding", i.e., registrars continuing to control domain names 
>for an arbitrary amount of time after their expiration date.
>
>This effect contributes to consumer dissatisfaction, since 
>consumers are not able to get such domains by regular means. 
>(Various contributors.)
>
>It also badly interacts with the WLS proposal as it currently  
>stands: Registrars may design their deletion process in a way 
>which leads to a deletion of an expired domain name considered 
>interesting only in the event that a WLS subscription is placed 
>through the same, original registrar.  Thus, if WLS was 
>implemented in the way it is currently on the table, competition 
>between registrars for WLS subscriptions would be skewed in favor 
>of those registrars who have large pools of expired, but undeleted 
>names under their control.

(Sorry, I forgot half of the letter.)

The proposed remedy for this problem is a uniform policy concerning  
the point of time at which registrars are required to actually  
delete expired domain names from the SRS.

It was argued that this would also lessen the cost Verisign registry 
is currently experiencing due to the attempts of various services to 
register expired domain names, since these services' systems would  
not have to continuously hammer the registry's systems.

Creation of such a policy would require a formal consensus process.

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

- --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 18:51:21 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: Transfer TF <[email-masked]>
Subject: WLS/deletes: Redemption / inadvertent loss
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

The inadvertent loss of domain names is one issue which occurred  
frequently throughout the discussions.

With respect to WLS, it was argued by many participants that the  
very existence of that kind of service would compel current domain  
name holders into trying to purchase a WLS subscription for their  
own domain names, thus leading to increased cost to current domain  
name holders, and to intellectual property owners.  There were  
basically two WLS-centric solution approaches for this: (1)  
Registrants could be allowed to forbid the placement of WLS  
subscriptions on their domain names (Rick Wesson), (2) WLS  
subscriptions could be restricted to domain names which are about to 
expire within less than 1 year (Bret Fausett).

More generally, it was pointed out that valuable domain names would  
be lost even with the current system, where various services compete 
for expired/deleted domain names.  Generic solutions to the problem  
of inverted domain name loss include the redemption grace period  
currently under discussion (which would be a registry-based  
approach), and alternative billing models on the registrars' side,  
as suggested by Elisabeth Porteneuve in her recent posting.

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

- --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 18:59:33 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: Transfer TF <[email-masked]>
Subject: WLS/deletes: Harm to existing registrar-based services
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

It was argued by many participants in the discussions that an  
establishment of WLS as currently proposed would be harmful to  
existing registrar-based services, and that the suggested  
grandfathering for SnapBack holders would put SnapNames into an  
inappropriately advantageous position.

As far as the preferential grandfathering for SnapBack holders is  
concerned, Chuck Gomes of Verisign suggested that any providers of  
SnapBack-like services should contact Verisign in order to negotiate 
similar solutions for the domain names they are currently trying to  
get for their customers.

Other than that, Chuck Gomes argued that all this would only prove  
that the WLS proposal would provide customers with service superior  
to the one currently offered in the marketplace, and that, for this 
reason, WLS should be given a try.

Ultimately, this may indeed not be a policy question, but one better 
deferred to offline competition and anti-trust regulations.

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

- --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:03:45 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: Transfer TF <[email-masked]>
Subject: WLS/deletes: Procedure for the addition of new registry services
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

Another question which was touched at several points is the overall  
procedure for the addition of new services at the registry level.   
As is well-known, Verisign has been arguing that no policy is  
involved with WLS.  

Differing from this, the ICANN board has, so far, been following the 
procedure outlined by Mr. Touton in his analysis of the Verisign 
proposal.  This procedure has been described by George Kirikos in 
the following way: If the new service leads to a win-win situation, 
approve it expeditiously.  If the new service leads to a win-lose 
situation (like, as he said, WLS does), chose the more difficult 
avenue of a formal consensus process.

I do not seem to remember any alternative proposals.

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

- --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs--
- --
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 10:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper

On Wed, 22 May 2002, Joe Sims turgidly 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.

A mission statement ought to fit onto a low denomination postage stamp,
not fill a book.

But I take the Dilbert view of mission statements - that they are
meaningless.  If ICANN needs a mission statement, it ought to try one of
the mission statement generators such as
http://web.mit.edu/rlgarcia/www/missionstatement.html

Perhaps what ICANN needs more than a "mission statement" is a "not its
mission" statement.  More on that point will be found further on in this
note.

On the "mission statement" half of the what-to-do vs what-not-to-do 
equation, I wrote the following in a couple of minutes:
 
  ICANN's mission is to make technical policy decisions on certain limited
  technical matters concerning DNS and IP addresses upon proper and full
  consultation with the Internet community including Internet users,
  allowing all parties an equal right to state their views and have those
  views heard and considered, and reaching decisions using clearly defined
  processes and with a full written record of how each decision was 
  reached, what criteria were applied, and what balances were struck.

If you want an actual list of jobs to be done, I suggest that there are
many such lists written by many people.  The largest of these lists is, of 
course, the self-justification written by ICANN's own "staff".

Examples of a rather more concise and less self-serving lists may be found
at:

	http://www.alvestrand.no/icann/icann_reform.html
	(This is from the chairman of the IETF)

	http://www.proper.com/ICANN-notes/dns-root-admin-reform.html

	http://www.cavebear.com/rw/apfi.htm

Getting to the "not its mission" side of the equation:

One could build a list that begins something like this:

  - ICANN's decision making processes shall not inquire into
non-technical matters except as those matters are demonstrably essential
to the making of the decision.

		--karl--

- --
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 19:42:29 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] deletion policy - what should it look like?

One of the things which have come out of the TF calls is that there  
have been quite a few people calling for a uniform domain name  
deletion policy (which I hereby baptise UDNDP).  What should this  
policy look like?

Options:

 - Delete precisely N days after the date of expiry, at HH:00 UTC.
 - Delete between M and N days after date of expiry.  (N - M = 7)
 - others?

Comments welcome.  While I don't believe that a deletion WG could  
actually get a full consensus policy done until Bucharest (as Danny  
suggested), producing a suggestion may still be worth the effort.

- -- 
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 11:17:51 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS call follow-up

At 12:39 PM 22/05/02 -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote:

>I fail to see how you draw those conclusions from my post.
>I'm pretty sure that I was quite explicit in commenting on
>the the market share claims. nothing more.

I am drawing the conclusion that Veri$ign's claim that
they have [x] support is irrelevant, regardless of [x].
If they had brought forward the WLS prior to their having
any competition, they could have argued that they had
100% support, which would have been accurate, and equally
meaningless. I don't why you seem to be even considering,
let alone accepting, the market share argument. -g

>Gary Osbourne wrote:
> >
> > At 08:40 AM 22/05/02 -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> > >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.
> >
> > So, *because* ICANN has to date largely failed at
> > fostering competition for Veri$ign, that is given
> > as a rationale for why ICANN should OK a proposal
> > that further lessens competition for Veri$ign? -g
>
>--
>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: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:12:46 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] deletion policy - what should it look like?

>- Delete between M and N days after date of expiry.  (N - M = 7)

Thomas, the above in conjunction with an ACK from the TC or AC that the 
deletion is indeed intentional.

:)

~k

- --
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 14:28:50 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] deletion policy - what should it look like?

perhaps we could begin by defining exactly what is meant by 'delete'?

* delete from the registry? 
* delete from the registrar?
* be unable to renew the domain anymore even tho something might still
be temporarily 'live'?

Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
> One of the things which have come out of the TF calls is that there
> have been quite a few people calling for a uniform domain name
> deletion policy (which I hereby baptise UDNDP).  What should this
> policy look like?
> 
> Options:
> 
>  - Delete precisely N days after the date of expiry, at HH:00 UTC.
>  - Delete between M and N days after date of expiry.  (N - M = 7)
>  - others?
> 
> Comments welcome.  While I don't believe that a deletion WG could
> actually get a full consensus policy done until Bucharest (as Danny
> suggested), producing a suggestion may still be worth the effort.
> 
> --
> 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

- -- 
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 11:49:17 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Congress Whois hearing today

Alexander Svensson wrote:
> Oversight hearing on the accuracy and integrity
> of the Whois Database

An archive is here for anyone who missed it:
http://icann.blog.us/stories/2002/05/22/hearingOnWhoisAccuracy.html

     -- 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: Wed, 22 May 2002 20:44:17 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Transfer TF teleconf MP3 recording , May 22

To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]]

The Names Council Transfer Task Force teleconference, May 22, 2002,  MP3
recording is available at:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020522.TF-Transfer.mp3

Happy listening!

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 11:54:12 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] deletion policy - what should it look like?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:42 AM
Subject: [ga] deletion policy - what should it look like?

> One of the things which have come out of the TF calls is that there
> have been quite a few people calling for a uniform domain name
> deletion policy (which I hereby baptise UDNDP).  What should this
> policy look like?

One of the things that the records will need to keep in them then is who the
previous IP user was and what they registered it for. Otherwise this system
will invalidate IP ownership under current US Law I believe. For instance.
I register "Embedded-Machines.com" which odlly enough is one of my domains
and run a computer company from it that builds a greenhouse controller that
is a pci board.

Now suppose I let is lapse, but continue to operate the company
"Embedded-Machines.com". So the marque is regualrly in use under the
trademark statutes and as such clearly not abandoned. Now someone else wants
to start a computer company that builds a rbotoics unit and controller for
it. Would the PTO issue them a TM agsinst the same moniker? I think not, and
that is the problem...

As to letting domains lapse, the real issue is the lockout and that it is
unreasonable. No Registrar can prevent anyone of its customers for
exercising whatever rights they chose against their IP's being published by
the Registrar. Lets be real clear on what a Registrat is all about. They are
a "Publications Agent for the public dissemination of an Internet Marque."

Todd

>
> Options:
>
>  - Delete precisely N days after the date of expiry, at HH:00 UTC.
>  - Delete between M and N days after date of expiry.  (N - M = 7)
>  - others?
>
> Comments welcome.  While I don't believe that a deletion WG could
> actually get a full consensus policy done until Bucharest (as Danny
> suggested), producing a suggestion may still be worth the effort.
>
> --
> 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
>

- --
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 #1215
*************************