Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1223
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, May 24 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1223

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:48:17 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Research: Which domains do the Fortune 1000 use?

From time to time, discussion on this list has turned to questions of
registrar choice (whether for personal or organizational registrations) and
of register financial viability going forwards.

One data source that can be brought to bear on both these questions is a
listing of registrars used by large corporations such as those on the
Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 lists.  This data -- answering the question
"Which registrars do the Fortune 1000 companies use?" -- is also arguably of
some academic interest among those who study the domain name business and
the positions of the various registrars.

With that motivation, I've prepared a list of the primary domain names
(according to Fortune Magazine) of each of the Fortune 1000 firms, along
with the registrar used by each.  I've also compared registrar market shares
among the Fortune firms with registrar shares more generally (thanks to SOTD
for data), and I've discussed in greater detail a few of the possible
implications of the results.

My work on this subject is available at:
  <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/fortune-registrars/>

As always, I welcome comments -- on-list or via email -- as to other helpful
and interesting research questions, and possible ways to go about addressing
them.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman

- --
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:53:29 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

This is good news.  The GA can actually do things that allow people to
register their views, and one imagines this will make it difficult for the
ICANN BOD to claim consensus for the Lynn proposal or its close substitutes.
Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 11:38 AM
Subject: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

: [ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
: [ To: [email-masked] ]
:
: [ cf. http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.results.html ]
:
: ICANN/DNSO
:
:   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
:                            DNSO General Assembly
:         RESULTS of vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002
:
: 23 May 2002
:
: RESULTS of vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002
:
:      Re: b12
:      http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-ICANN-Reform-motions.html
:
: Fundamentals - Two Rules for votes by the GA:
:
:   A. Voting Rules adopted by the GA on 6 July 2000:
:      http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html
:
:   B. Election Rules (Instant Runoff) adopted by the GA on 23 March 2001:
:      http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html
:
: Vote Tally:
:
:   1. Electorate: 586 persons in Voting Roster, when the ballot was
prepared
:      http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.rosterindex.html
:
:   2. Number of ballots received: 218 , Number of casted votes: 433
:
:   3. Participation: 37.2%
:
:   4. Vote results:
:
:      Numbers:
:
:                148 I FOR Motion 1 ("Request to US DoC")
:                 54 I vote AGAINST Motion 1
:                 15 I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 1
:
:                164 I vote FOR Motion 2 ("Reform principles")
:                 33 I vote AGAINST Motion 2
:                 19 I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 2
:
:                ---------------------------------------------
:                433   TOTAL casted votes
:
:      Percentages:
:
:             67.9% : I FOR Motion 1 ("Request to US DoC")
:             24.8% : I vote AGAINST Motion 1
:              6.9% : I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 1
:
:             75.2% : I vote FOR Motion 2 ("Reform principles")
:             15.1% : I vote AGAINST Motion 2
:              8.7% : I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 2
:
:   5. Vote records:
:
:      The calculations using Voting Rules are published in:
:      http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.fullrecord.html.
:
:   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
:                    Information from:  © 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
:
:
:

- --
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:58:54 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

Thursday, May 23, 2002, 2:53:29 PM, James Love wrote:

> This is good news.  The GA can actually do things that allow people to
> register their views, and one imagines this will make it difficult for the
> ICANN BOD to claim consensus for the Lynn proposal or its close substitutes.

No, all it has succeeded in doing is giving the BoD all the ammunition
it needs to completely disregard and ignore the GA.

Shame on you for abusing the GA in this fashion, and shame on the
Chair for acknowledging privately that the motion was in fact out of
scope of the GA, but not doing his job and putting a stop to this
stupidity.

- -- 
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 18:01:05 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

William, thanks for your gracious message.  I can see why the ICANN BoD or
staff doesn't like elections.   People aren't happy with the BoD or staff.
Is this important to know?   I think so.  Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

: Thursday, May 23, 2002, 2:53:29 PM, James Love wrote:
:
: > This is good news.  The GA can actually do things that allow people to
: > register their views, and one imagines this will make it difficult for
the
: > ICANN BOD to claim consensus for the Lynn proposal or its close
substitutes.
:
: No, all it has succeeded in doing is giving the BoD all the ammunition
: it needs to completely disregard and ignore the GA.
:
: Shame on you for abusing the GA in this fashion, and shame on the
: Chair for acknowledging privately that the motion was in fact out of
: scope of the GA, but not doing his job and putting a stop to this
: stupidity.
:
: --
: 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: Thu, 23 May 2002 18:01:05 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

William, thanks for your gracious message.  I can see why the ICANN BoD or
staff doesn't like elections.   People aren't happy with the BoD or staff.
Is this important to know?   I think so.  Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

: Thursday, May 23, 2002, 2:53:29 PM, James Love wrote:
:
: > This is good news.  The GA can actually do things that allow people to
: > register their views, and one imagines this will make it difficult for
the
: > ICANN BOD to claim consensus for the Lynn proposal or its close
substitutes.
:
: No, all it has succeeded in doing is giving the BoD all the ammunition
: it needs to completely disregard and ignore the GA.
:
: Shame on you for abusing the GA in this fashion, and shame on the
: Chair for acknowledging privately that the motion was in fact out of
: scope of the GA, but not doing his job and putting a stop to this
: stupidity.
:
: --
: 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: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:08:52 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

Thursday, May 23, 2002, 3:01:05 PM, James Love wrote:

> William, thanks for your gracious message.  I can see why the ICANN BoD or
> staff doesn't like elections.   People aren't happy with the BoD or staff.
> Is this important to know?   I think so.  Jamie

Yes it is important to know.  Too bad you choose a destructive and
counterproductive method for getting that message across, rather than
a constructive and productive method.

You used the GA for your own ends, Jamie, and made it abundantly clear
you did not care one iota for any damage that your effort may cause
since it would help you get more media attention for your position.

And the GA Chair should have put a stop to it, and failed to do so.
He also completely refused to make a SINGLE public statement on the
procedural objection that was raised, despite a private statement that
was clear in showing that he concurred.  The Chair let you run
roughshod over the GA and its procedures.  He is equally to blame
along side you.

- -- 
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: Fri, 24 May 2002 10:59:47 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

At 09:58 a.m. 23/05/2002 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:25:32PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> > A small but important part of the users, sure.
>
>Sorry, that is utter nonsense.
>
>*Most* domain names are registered for business purposes.  (Old
>estimates from NSI were on the order of 70% of registrations in
>.com/net/org combined.  These estimates are necessarily rough, but even
>a casual examination supports it.) If you count domains registered by
>speculators as a business use, the proportion would be even higher.  If
>you throw in all other organizational use, the porportion gets even
>greater.  Domains registered by individuals for purposes other than
>business are a *very* tiny minority of the domains registered, and in
>this regard the GA is completely non-representative.
>
>*Any* representation scheme that gave equal weight to the various users
>of the domain name system would end up with business getting an
>overwhelming majority of the votes.

What Marc Schneiders wrote is far from "utter nonsense".

*Many* Domain Names are registered by Individuals, for business purposes or 
for other  purposes.
If you want to add speculative registrations to the sample, again you will 
find many of these registered by Individuals.
Organizational registrations too, expecially new on-line organizations, are 
initiated  by Individuals and joined by Individuals.

Declaring Individual Domains a "very tiny minority" by subtracting their 
business or organizational interest is a cheap debating trick.
Individuals  have the right to determine for themselves if they want to be 
part of a Business, Non Commercial or Individual Domain Registrant 
constituency.
Only then  small and big business interests will get their respective fair 
weighting.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 01:19:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

On Thu, 23 May 2002, at 14:25 [=GMT-0700], Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 08:44:59PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> >  The small businesses have no vote
> > either.
>
> Once again, you need to deal with facts, rather than dogma.

Once more you provide rhetorics and not facts. Small business are just
part of the BC. The whole BC sends some people to the NC. Those are just a
small part of the NC. The NC elects some (3?) people to the ICANN Board of
19.  So small businesses vote for 5% of one of the 19 directors? I guess
you have the exact figures.

Look again at those figures from Verisign you quoted earlier about % of
domains registered to businesses. You'll see that there is a high % of
small businesses. Compare that % with the % above. Conclusion?

- --
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: Fri, 24 May 2002 01:27:31 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

- --=======48CA1448=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7FA437E8; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 23:58 23/05/02, William X Walsh said:
>Shame on you for abusing the GA in this fashion, and shame on the
>Chair for acknowledging privately that the motion was in fact out of
>scope of the GA, but not doing his job and putting a stop to this
>stupidity.

I see that you agree at least on one hing: that ICANN waste its money with 
Joe Sims. He came in here, most probably on the pay-roll, to tell all of us 
that this ad nauseam repetitam argument of yours was wrong. May be you 
missed that point?
jfc

- --=======48CA1448=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7FA437E8
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

- --=======48CA1448=======--

- --
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

On Thu, 23 May 2002, William X Walsh wrote:

> Thursday, May 23, 2002, 2:53:29 PM, James Love wrote:
>
> > This is good news.  The GA can actually do things that allow people to
> > register their views, and one imagines this will make it difficult for the
> > ICANN BOD to claim consensus for the Lynn proposal or its close substitutes.
>
> No, all it has succeeded in doing is giving the BoD all the ammunition
> it needs to completely disregard and ignore the GA.
>
> Shame on you for abusing the GA in this fashion, and shame on the
> Chair for acknowledging privately that the motion was in fact out of
> scope of the GA, but not doing his job and putting a stop to this
> stupidity.

Shame on you for castigating the members of the GA from voicing their
opinions.

The results of the vote illustrate clearly that there is no consensus
among the GA for the ICANN BoD party line.

If that results in the current BoD disregarding the GA, then it is just
further proof that the claim that ICANN is some sort of consensus-based
organization is laughable.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
         Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 18:52:11 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Small Business Constituency needed

Danny and all assembly members,

  Thank you Danny for reminding all of us here in the GA again
regarding the treatment of the small business interests by the BC
and ICANN in general...  The BC's history, and as you point
out clearly and accurately, their charter is not conducive or
beneficial to small business interests within the BC.  Eric Menge
on the phone on two separate occasions was quite clear with
me on this issue some time ago now, as well as the SBA's
disenchantment with ICANN overall...

  Basically our members see the BC's charter as a "Loyalty Oath"
that is particularly egregious to many of our small business members.
Hence to my knowledge, none have applied to be members of the
BC...

  So in conclusion, I support your interest in a small business
constituency and I hope that the SBA will also.  I shall put
the matter before our board and to our members for their
feedback and comment tomorrow...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Bret,
>
> As you might know, I twice submitted my application in person for membership
> to the BC and had my firm babybows.com listed as a member on the website for
> quite a period of time.  The Secretariat never forwarded an invoice (after
> numerous requests) and ultimately removed my company name from the membership
> list without notification.  In response to my complaint, I was advised by the
> Secretariat that I would need to reapply and to have my membership reexamined
> by the credentials committee.  This is not what I would describe as
> "preferential" treatment.
>
> Another small business, run by Bruce James, questioned the fact that the BC
> was in violation of its own Charter and challenged their election practices.
> In response to his actions, the BC modified their Charter not to correct the
> problem (two representatives of the TELCOs were standing for election to the
> Council in violation of charter sectoral diversity requirements), but rather
> to crush the voice of the small business community dissidents -- the charter
> now contains new language:
>
> "At the request of at-least two paid-up members and following a thorough
> review by the Officers and the Credentials Committee, a member, who over a
> sustained period of time acts in conflict to this Charter, or who engages in
> acts which appear to be inappropriate for the stability, functionality or
> bona fide reputation of the Constituency, or who is or threatens to be a
> vexatious litigant, may have its membership terminated at the discretion of
> the Officers and the Credentials Committee.
>
> How often have we heard the mantra that the BC will engage in "outreach"?  Do
> you honestly believe that the BC will do anything to bring in the small
> business folks?  On what basis are you making that claim?  It certainly can't
> be based on past practice.  Ask Jefsey Morphin what he thinks about BC
> attitudes toward small business...
>
> A new constituency wherein small business is not routinely outvoted by large
> corporate interests is a much better concept that pretending that the BC will
> ever do anything to aggregate the small business community.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 20:03:11 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

What's the matter with leaving Small Business to worry about Small Business
and Big Business to worry about Big Business and the members of the Business
Constituency to worry about whether or not they are showing up at the right
meetings?

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
To: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World

> On Thu, 23 May 2002, at 14:25 [=GMT-0700], Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 08:44:59PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> > >  The small businesses have no vote
> > > either.
> >
> > Once again, you need to deal with facts, rather than dogma.
>
> Once more you provide rhetorics and not facts. Small business are just
> part of the BC. The whole BC sends some people to the NC. Those are just a
> small part of the NC. The NC elects some (3?) people to the ICANN Board of
> 19.  So small businesses vote for 5% of one of the 19 directors? I guess
> you have the exact figures.
>
> Look again at those figures from Verisign you quoted earlier about % of
> domains registered to businesses. You'll see that there is a high % of
> small businesses. Compare that % with the % above. Conclusion?
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:13:47 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

Thursday, May 23, 2002, 4:36:20 PM, Patrick wrote:

> Shame on you for castigating the members of the GA from voicing their
> opinions.

I did no such thing, Patrick.  Do not put words into my mouth.

The members of the GA, and Jamie's organization, should have used
APPROPRIATE mechanisms for voicing their opinions.

That their opinion is prevalent in this flawed GA setup does not
justify misuse of the forum.

- -- 
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

On Thu, 23 May 2002, William X Walsh wrote:

> Thursday, May 23, 2002, 4:36:20 PM, Patrick wrote:
>
> > Shame on you for castigating the members of the GA from voicing their
> > opinions.
>
> I did no such thing, Patrick.  Do not put words into my mouth.
>
> The members of the GA, and Jamie's organization, should have used
> APPROPRIATE mechanisms for voicing their opinions.

They did. You just didn't like it.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
         Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Fri, 24 May 2002 02:37:48 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Research: Which domains do the Fortune 1000 use?

Very interesting. I do not, however, understand, why you limit your
research to US companies. Domain names are a global industry... So I had a
quick look at the first 10 companies in the Global 500 of Fortune. 5 of
them are not US (Daimler Chrysler, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Mitsubishi,
Toyota). Of these 5, just 2 have their main domain with NSI/VeriSign. The
other 3 are with Register.com. Interesting that this differs so much from
the major US companies.

- -- 
[email-masked]

http://www.bijt.net/

On Thu, 23 May 2002, at 17:48 [=GMT-0400], Ben Edelman wrote:

> >From time to time, discussion on this list has turned to questions of
> registrar choice (whether for personal or organizational registrations) and
> of register financial viability going forwards.
>
> One data source that can be brought to bear on both these questions is a
> listing of registrars used by large corporations such as those on the
> Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 lists.  This data -- answering the question
> "Which registrars do the Fortune 1000 companies use?" -- is also arguably of
> some academic interest among those who study the domain name business and
> the positions of the various registrars.
>
> With that motivation, I've prepared a list of the primary domain names
> (according to Fortune Magazine) of each of the Fortune 1000 firms, along
> with the registrar used by each.  I've also compared registrar market shares
> among the Fortune firms with registrar shares more generally (thanks to SOTD
> for data), and I've discussed in greater detail a few of the possible
> implications of the results.
>
> My work on this subject is available at:
>   <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/fortune-registrars/>
>
> As always, I welcome comments -- on-list or via email -- as to other helpful
> and interesting research questions, and possible ways to go about addressing
> them.
>
>
> Ben Edelman
> Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> Harvard Law School
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman
>
> --
> 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
>

- -- 
[email-masked]

http://www.bijt.net/

- --
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:46:46 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

Thursday, May 23, 2002, 5:19:26 PM, Patrick wrote:

> On Thu, 23 May 2002, William X Walsh wrote:

>> Thursday, May 23, 2002, 4:36:20 PM, Patrick wrote:
>>
>> > Shame on you for castigating the members of the GA from voicing their
>> > opinions.
>>
>> I did no such thing, Patrick.  Do not put words into my mouth.
>>
>> The members of the GA, and Jamie's organization, should have used
>> APPROPRIATE mechanisms for voicing their opinions.

> They did. You just didn't like it.

Only someone who can't read the charter, and who is already
predisposed to think that anything that embarrasses ICANN is
appropriate, regardless of the other consequences, would possibly say
that.

Still with New.net Patrick?

- -- 
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: Fri, 24 May 2002 03:18:30 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

Is this a reply to the message below??

On Thu, 23 May 2002, at 20:03 [=GMT-0400], Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> What's the matter with leaving Small Business to worry about Small Business
> and Big Business to worry about Big Business and the members of the Business
> Constituency to worry about whether or not they are showing up at the right
> meetings?
>
> -rwr
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 7:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World
>
>
> > On Thu, 23 May 2002, at 14:25 [=GMT-0700], Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 08:44:59PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >
> > > >  The small businesses have no vote
> > > > either.
> > >
> > > Once again, you need to deal with facts, rather than dogma.
> >
> > Once more you provide rhetorics and not facts. Small business are just
> > part of the BC. The whole BC sends some people to the NC. Those are just a
> > small part of the NC. The NC elects some (3?) people to the ICANN Board of
> > 19.  So small businesses vote for 5% of one of the 19 directors? I guess
> > you have the exact figures.
> >
> > Look again at those figures from Verisign you quoted earlier about % of
> > domains registered to businesses. You'll see that there is a high % of
> > small businesses. Compare that % with the % above. Conclusion?

- --
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 19:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

On Thu, 23 May 2002, William X Walsh wrote:

> > On Thu, 23 May 2002, William X Walsh wrote:
>
> >> Thursday, May 23, 2002, 4:36:20 PM, Patrick wrote:
> >>
> >> > Shame on you for castigating the members of the GA from voicing their
> >> > opinions.
> >>
> >> I did no such thing, Patrick.  Do not put words into my mouth.
> >>
> >> The members of the GA, and Jamie's organization, should have used
> >> APPROPRIATE mechanisms for voicing their opinions.
>
> > They did. You just didn't like it.
>
> Only someone who can't read the charter, and who is already
> predisposed to think that anything that embarrasses ICANN is
> appropriate, regardless of the other consequences, would possibly say
> that.

Failing to substantiate your claim, you're now relegated to personal
attacks. *shrug*

> Still with New.net Patrick?

Not for quite some time, and I fail to see the relevance.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
         Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:20:40 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of Richard Henderson
|> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 3:58 PM
|> To: DNSO Secretariat; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions 
|> about ICANN Reform, May 2002
|> 
|> 
|> So - a clear majority of voters (67%) want the DoC to 
|> initiate a rebid for
|> the role currently carried out by ICANN.
|> 
|> And - if you soften the criticism a little, you can raise 
|> that to 75%.

This can not be assumed.
 
|> But you don't actually need Motion 2, because a majority of 
|> nearly 7 out of
|> 10 want ICANN's position to be radically challenged by DoC.

Totally false.  The higher level of support for Motion 2 raises the
question as to Motion 1 being appropriate.

|> Good vote. Thanks to everyone who cared enough to vote.
|> 
|> Will the leadership of ICANN please respond? (Or preferably, 
|> just GO!)

Not a helpful comment.

<snip>

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1223
*************************