Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1262
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, June 6 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1262

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

Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 00:38:27 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redelegation issues

- --=======4FFC4DFD=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-B2A614B; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

At 19:47 05/06/02, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > If ICANN specified a root server for the ZA zone that was not run by
> > Mike Lawrie's organization, the above secondary servers would *not*
> > appear in the government-run root DNS server for ZA. In other words,
> > what the owners of the above servers do will have no incidence on the
> > ZA domain. At most, there will be a period of a few hours, a couple
> > of days at most, when the network's DNS will be unstable, but that's
> > all.
>
>What is the average time ICANN needs to change ccTLD nameservers in the
>root zone? Not hours, not days, not weeks...

years by .pt or .tf standard

- --=======4FFC4DFD=======--

- --
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, 5 Jun 2002 19:03:31 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C20CC3.AF516BA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

looks like film88.com went bye bye !!
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Bret Fausett=20
  To: DNSO General Assembly=20
  Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 6:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

  Marc Schneiders wrote:
  > Or worse? Hang them? I think this is a lot adoo about nothing.

  Here's worse for you...they could find the intellectual property
  constituency on their tail. Remember the folks at Movie88.com who =
streamed
  thousands of unlicensed movies over the Internet for $1.00 each? The =
MPAA
  shut it down. So the folks behind it moved to Iran. And registered
  "film88.com" ...with Verisign Registrar. Today's featured streaming =
movie is
  "Harry Potter."=20

  More at: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=3D02/06/05/2037201

    -- Bret=20

  Registrant:
  Hami, Hali (QSFENHTSUD)
     216 Ostad Nejatollahi Ave.
     Tehran, Iran 1598751314
     IR

     Domain Name: FILM88.COM

     Administrative Contact:
        Hami, Hali  (ZARYJOHMEI)        [email-masked]
        Hami,Hali
        216 Ostad Nejatollahi Ave.
        Tehran, Iran  15987?=04=01?`?51314
        IR
        98218903252 123 123 1234
     Technical Contact:
        VeriSign, Inc.  (HOST-ORG)        [email-masked]
        VeriSign, Inc.
        21355 Ridgetop Circle
        Dulles, VA 20166
        US
        1-888-642-9675 fax: - [email-masked]

     Record expires on 18-Apr-2005.
     Record created on 18-Apr-2002.
     Database last updated on 5-Jun-2002 17:55:12 EDT.

     Domain servers in listed order:

     NSIR1.FILM88.COM             213.29.62.33
     NSIR2.FILM88.COM             213.29.62.36

  --
  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

- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C20CC3.AF516BA0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>looks like film88.com went bye bye !!</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A title=[email-masked] =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">Bret=20
  Fausett</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">DNSO General Assembly</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 05, 2002 =
6:03=20
  PM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ga] Re: =
Redelegation=20
  issues</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>Marc Schneiders wrote:<BR>&gt; Or worse? Hang them? I =
think=20
  this is a lot adoo about nothing.<BR><BR>Here's worse for you...they =
could=20
  find the intellectual property<BR>constituency on their tail. Remember =
the=20
  folks at Movie88.com who streamed<BR>thousands of unlicensed movies =
over the=20
  Internet for $1.00 each? The MPAA<BR>shut it down. So the folks behind =
it=20
  moved to Iran. And registered<BR>"film88.com" ...with Verisign =
Registrar.=20
  Today's featured streaming movie is<BR>"Harry Potter." <BR><BR>More =
at: <A=20
  =
href=3D"http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=3D02/06/05/2037201">http://sla=
shdot.org/article.pl?sid=3D02/06/05/2037201</A><BR><BR>&nbsp;=20
  -- Bret <BR><BR><BR>Registrant:<BR>Hami, Hali =
(QSFENHTSUD)<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; 216=20
  Ostad Nejatollahi Ave.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Tehran, Iran =
1598751314<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
  IR<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Domain Name: FILM88.COM<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
  Administrative Contact:<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Hami, =
Hali&nbsp;=20
  (ZARYJOHMEI)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A><BR>&nbsp;&nbs=
p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
  Hami,Hali<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 216 Ostad Nejatollahi=20
  Ave.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Tehran, Iran&nbsp;=20
  15987?=04=01?`?51314<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
  IR<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 98218903252 123 123 =
1234<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
  Technical Contact:<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; VeriSign, =
Inc.&nbsp;=20
  (HOST-ORG)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A><BR>&nbsp;=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
  VeriSign, Inc.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 21355 Ridgetop=20
  Circle<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Dulles, VA=20
  20166<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
US<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
  1-888-642-9675 fax: - <A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A><BR><BR>&n=
bsp;&nbsp;=20
  Record expires on 18-Apr-2005.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Record created on=20
  18-Apr-2002.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Database last updated on 5-Jun-2002 =
17:55:12=20
  EDT.<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Domain servers in listed =
order:<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
  =
NSIR1.FILM88.COM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
  213.29.62.33<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
  =
NSIR2.FILM88.COM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
  213.29.62.36<BR><BR><BR>--<BR>This message was passed to you via the =
<A=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> list.<BR>Send mail to <A=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> to=20
  unsubscribe<BR>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the =
message).<BR>Archives at=20
  <A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.h=
tml</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C20CC3.AF516BA0--

- --
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, 6 Jun 2002 01:37:10 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redelegation issues

On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, at 21:39 [=GMT+0100], Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

> >From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 6:47 PM
> >Subject: Re: [ga] Redelegation issues
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > What is the average time ICANN needs to change ccTLD nameservers in the
> > root zone? Not hours, not days, not weeks...
> >
>
> If ICANN decides to change ccTLD nameservers in the root zone,
> they can do this instantaneously,

My point was that they are not likely to do that, if past performance is
anything to go by. It seems to take months...

- --
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, 05 Jun 2002 19:00:49 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

Asadd and all assembly members,

Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc. wrote:

> Eric, now which ccTLD you said you represnt or in charge of?

  I am not sure mine you, but I think it is .VN.  However, I don't
believe, and I may also be mistaken here, that eric said that HE was
in charge of any ccTLD, but that an organization her represents
in the "Manager" of .VN.  The distinction is specifically significant,
BTW...

>
>
> John, if we go by your treasury argument, then at least the leading 25 .com
> registrars are already in violation of the law by selling thousands of names to
> citizens of Iraq & Libya. Do a whois query and you will find out for yourself.
>
> Jeff, can you please be more specific to the laws that ICANN staff broke as you
> do mention in your email!

  I was referencing John's comments and other comments and stated laws
that have been pointed out on this forum some time ago, Assad.  You
can look those laws and posts up for yourself, as I have already done so
and don't feel the need to do so again here as it has been done
so many times in the past to do so again would overly redundant
in the extreme...

>
>
> In my personal opinion, the role and interaction of ICANN is no different than
> that of communications companies providing long distance services to the
> countries you mention here, isn't it?

 Depends on the jurisdiction of the the communications companies that
are providing the long distance services you are referring to, Assad...

>

>
>
> Regards,
>
> Asaad Alnajjar
> CEO Millennium Inc  ( Los Angeles, CA, USA )
> AINC Executive Director
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[email-masked]>
> To: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>; "Elisabeth Porteneuve"
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues
>
> > Let me make sure that my take is very clear on the issue of ccTLDs.
> >
> > ICANN keep you infested hands off and let the sovereigns run their own show.
> >
> > You have no business interfering with sovereigns and need to stay the hell
> out.
> >
> > Sell a connectivity service and shut up.
> >
> > Is that clear enough?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Eric
> >
> > Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > > John and all assembly members,
> > >
> > > John Berryhill wrote:
> > >
> > > > > stability of the Internet, responsibility and service to the
> > > > > Internet users.
> > > >
> > > > >From the viewpoint of a U.S. corporation, i.e. ICANN, an over-riding
> > > > consideration is obedience to the law.  We have, for example, an economic
> > > > embargo of Libya (.ly)in effect in the United States. We also have
> embargoes
> > > > against Myanmar (.mm), Iran (.ir), North Korea (.kp not delegated), and
> Cuba
> > > > (.cu), among others.
> > > >
> > > > Quite frankly, if ICANN staff are negotiating ccTLD contracts with these
> > > > countries, then they had better get a license from the U.S. Treasury, or
> > > > they should be arrested and imprisoned.
> > >
> > >   I agree with you here John.  The problem is that presently the ICANN
> > > staff has already broke several other laws as you well know.  As such,
> > > they seem to be in the mode or of the opinion as to be above US
> > > law.  Hence I doubt that the ICANN staff is at all concerned if they
> > > are negotiating with any of the above listed ccTLD managers...
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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

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, 5 Jun 2002 20:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS Status Report

Hello,

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00236.html

has an update by the DNSO Transfers Task Force (TF) chair, and makes
excellent reading (unless you happen to work for VGRS).

Essentially, after reviewing everything, the task force is against WLS,
as expected.

I would have to point out, though, that the TF is giving undue weight
to Verisign's statements that it is suffering due to "add storms", and
I object to its inclusion (or at least one should point out the counter
arguments, for balance). The TF writes:

"1. It was acknowledged that present practices of competitive services
result in “add storms” which are affecting the registry’s services, and
according to the registry, adding significant costs for support of all
the attempts to “grab” names but without resulting in transactions
which provide revenue to the registry." (III.1)

I'd like to remind people that by Verisign's own admissions, at:

http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf

In the answer to B.1:

"The WLS is not intended or designed to deal with deleted
registrations nor has VGRS ever made that claim."

and in reply to B.2.

"registry load is no longer an issue. The multiple pools and rate
limiting technology have solved that problem."

I repeat "registry load is no longer an issue."!!

Thus, I think the Task Force should remove any references to these
technical issues from their report, or note that they do not apply. WLS
should be treated as a BUSINESS PROPOSAL for a new MONOPOLY SERVICE at
the registry level, and it should be delinked from any discussion over
technical concerns. Any "technical" concerns are self-serving fiction
and misinformation by Verisign.  "Registry load is no longer an issue"
and "solved that problem" cannot be more clear. "Significant costs" is
entirely inappropriate language, as VGRS has never said what those
costs are, and has refused to provide any data whatsoever to backup
their misinformation. To some people, $5,000 or $10,000/yr is
"significant". If anyone but Arthur Andersen were to do a cost
accounting, the solution to the technical problems was likely a minimal
expenditure, and insignificant. I remind folks that CIRA in Canada
handled similar domain deletions (TBR names) without a cost increase of
any kind, and could handle the spike in traffic without hiccups. VGRS
is equally capable. I'm sure CIRA would gladly take the job, for $180
million/yr, if VGRS can't stomach the job...

Also, I think given the findings by the task force, full consensus
process should be invoked (or just reject WLS outright), given the harm
to numerous parties, and WLS could not and should not be fast-tracked.
As a policy concern for any new registry offering, only products that
would not unduly harm existing market participants should ever be
fast-tracked. I'm not sure why the TF hesitated in this regard in the
report.

Will there be more teleconferences before the coming ICANN meeting, to
iron out outstanding issues? (the possibility of 2 more had been
mentioned)

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.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, 05 Jun 2002 23:13:02 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Status Report

George and all assembly members,

  I wonder when Marilyn is going to learn to put such reports out
in a file type that is not a virus laden type such as .doc...  ???
Is this report available in a either HTML or .TXT?

Your right George is seems that this TF again didn't not listen very
well to the two Phone conferences very well either and Marilyn
also did not follow up on them very well either.  Indeed the
Load problem no longer exists!  Tisk, Tisk...

  It was also pretty much agreed on the Phone conferences that
the "Add Storms" are a very minor problem and yes, too much
emphasis was put on this issue as well...

  I think it is time for the GA to have a motion on and up or down
vote by the GA members on the WLS Proposal and the Task
Forces (Interim?) report in a separate motion up or down vote
as to it's conclusion...

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00236.html
>
> has an update by the DNSO Transfers Task Force (TF) chair, and makes
> excellent reading (unless you happen to work for VGRS).
>
> Essentially, after reviewing everything, the task force is against WLS,
> as expected.
>
> I would have to point out, though, that the TF is giving undue weight
> to Verisign's statements that it is suffering due to "add storms", and
> I object to its inclusion (or at least one should point out the counter
> arguments, for balance). The TF writes:
>
> "1. It was acknowledged that present practices of competitive services
> result in “add storms” which are affecting the registry’s services, and
> according to the registry, adding significant costs for support of all
> the attempts to “grab” names but without resulting in transactions
> which provide revenue to the registry." (III.1)
>
> I'd like to remind people that by Verisign's own admissions, at:
>
> http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf
>
> In the answer to B.1:
>
> "The WLS is not intended or designed to deal with deleted
> registrations nor has VGRS ever made that claim."
>
> and in reply to B.2.
>
> "registry load is no longer an issue. The multiple pools and rate
> limiting technology have solved that problem."
>
> I repeat "registry load is no longer an issue."!!
>
> Thus, I think the Task Force should remove any references to these
> technical issues from their report, or note that they do not apply. WLS
> should be treated as a BUSINESS PROPOSAL for a new MONOPOLY SERVICE at
> the registry level, and it should be delinked from any discussion over
> technical concerns. Any "technical" concerns are self-serving fiction
> and misinformation by Verisign.  "Registry load is no longer an issue"
> and "solved that problem" cannot be more clear. "Significant costs" is
> entirely inappropriate language, as VGRS has never said what those
> costs are, and has refused to provide any data whatsoever to backup
> their misinformation. To some people, $5,000 or $10,000/yr is
> "significant". If anyone but Arthur Andersen were to do a cost
> accounting, the solution to the technical problems was likely a minimal
> expenditure, and insignificant. I remind folks that CIRA in Canada
> handled similar domain deletions (TBR names) without a cost increase of
> any kind, and could handle the spike in traffic without hiccups. VGRS
> is equally capable. I'm sure CIRA would gladly take the job, for $180
> million/yr, if VGRS can't stomach the job...
>
> Also, I think given the findings by the task force, full consensus
> process should be invoked (or just reject WLS outright), given the harm
> to numerous parties, and WLS could not and should not be fast-tracked.
> As a policy concern for any new registry offering, only products that
> would not unduly harm existing market participants should ever be
> fast-tracked. I'm not sure why the TF hesitated in this regard in the
> report.
>
> Will there be more teleconferences before the coming ICANN meeting, to
> iron out outstanding issues? (the possibility of 2 more had been
> mentioned)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:24:59 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, at 15:03 [=GMT-0700], Bret Fausett wrote:

> Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > Or worse? Hang them? I think this is a lot adoo about nothing.
>
> Here's worse for you...they could find the intellectual property
> constituency on their tail. Remember the folks at Movie88.com who streamed
> thousands of unlicensed movies over the Internet for $1.00 each? The MPAA
> shut it down. So the folks behind it moved to Iran. And registered
> "film88.com" ...with Verisign Registrar. Today's featured streaming movie is
> "Harry Potter."
>
> More at: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/05/2037201

Piracy is worse than terrorism!

- --
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, 05 Jun 2002 23:03:47 -0700
From: Loren Stocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] WLS Status Report]

Hi Guys,

I think Marilyn & Company did a GREAT job of listening to our side and it
fully reflected in the TF proposal. Not only does the report not support WLS,
I didn't find where the "bad guys" won even one point! Your concerns about
"add storms" seems a minor point. The major one -- did you catch this -- is a
recommendation as follows:

"The price for the WLS be set at the same amount as the current registry fee
..."

End of story! Without a windfall of cash, what's the point? In fact, the cash
was the point!!! We all agree that WLS was an unneeded, unwanted service.

I do have one concern, however. The TF says, "..move with all haste to
implement and actively enforce the proposed Redemptions Grace Period for
Deleted Names policy." Great, but this seems like politics without vision. Why
are these isolated as independent issues? Where do users come in?

This should not be about the process, but about the people who use it! We need
a INTEGRATED plan and explicitly recognitize the rights of the Subscriber.
This crazy system we have today rose up from the vindictive retreat of an
outsted monopoly. Why are we trying to fix this nightmare? Rather, we should
start with this simply vision:

(1) Users rule, not "domains."
(2) Treat Users with respect.
(3) Design the process to protect Users.

It should be clear to anyone with direct experience with the system in place
today: Users are an afterthought. Rather, we need to begin anew and redesign
the process with users in mind. If we do that, how can we fail???

Best Regards,

Loren Stocker
www.evil.biz

Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
George and all assembly members,

  I wonder when Marilyn is going to learn to put such reports out
in a file type that is not a virus laden type such as .doc...  ???
Is this report available in a either HTML or .TXT?

Your right George is seems that this TF again didn't not listen very
well to the two Phone conferences very well either and Marilyn
also did not follow up on them very well either.  Indeed the
Load problem no longer exists!  Tisk, Tisk...

  It was also pretty much agreed on the Phone conferences that
the "Add Storms" are a very minor problem and yes, too much
emphasis was put on this issue as well...

  I think it is time for the GA to have a motion on and up or down
vote by the GA members on the WLS Proposal and the Task
Forces (Interim?) report in a separate motion up or down vote
as to it's conclusion...

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00236.html
>
> has an update by the DNSO Transfers Task Force (TF) chair, and makes
> excellent reading (unless you happen to work for VGRS).
>
> Essentially, after reviewing everything, the task force is against WLS,
> as expected.
>
> I would have to point out, though, that the TF is giving undue weight
> to Verisign's statements that it is suffering due to "add storms", and
> I object to its inclusion (or at least one should point out the counter
> arguments, for balance). The TF writes:
>
> "1. It was acknowledged that present practices of competitive services
> result in “add storms” which are affecting the registry’s services, and
> according to the registry, adding significant costs for support of all
> the attempts to “grab” names but without resulting in transactions
> which provide revenue to the registry." (III.1)
>
> I'd like to remind people that by Verisign's own admissions, at:
>
> http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf
>
> In the answer to B.1:
>
> "The WLS is not intended or designed to deal with deleted
> registrations nor has VGRS ever made that claim."
>
> and in reply to B.2.
>
> "registry load is no longer an issue. The multiple pools and rate
> limiting technology have solved that problem."
>
> I repeat "registry load is no longer an issue."!!
>
> Thus, I think the Task Force should remove any references to these
> technical issues from their report, or note that they do not apply. WLS
> should be treated as a BUSINESS PROPOSAL for a new MONOPOLY SERVICE at
> the registry level, and it should be delinked from any discussion over
> technical concerns. Any "technical" concerns are self-serving fiction
> and misinformation by Verisign.  "Registry load is no longer an issue"
> and "solved that problem" cannot be more clear. "Significant costs" is
> entirely inappropriate language, as VGRS has never said what those
> costs are, and has refused to provide any data whatsoever to backup
> their misinformation. To some people, $5,000 or $10,000/yr is
> "significant". If anyone but Arthur Andersen were to do a cost
> accounting, the solution to the technical problems was likely a minimal
> expenditure, and insignificant. I remind folks that CIRA in Canada
> handled similar domain deletions (TBR names) without a cost increase of
> any kind, and could handle the spike in traffic without hiccups. VGRS
> is equally capable. I'm sure CIRA would gladly take the job, for $180
> million/yr, if VGRS can't stomach the job...
>
> Also, I think given the findings by the task force, full consensus
> process should be invoked (or just reject WLS outright), given the harm
> to numerous parties, and WLS could not and should not be fast-tracked.
> As a policy concern for any new registry offering, only products that
> would not unduly harm existing market participants should ever be
> fast-tracked. I'm not sure why the TF hesitated in this regard in the
> report.
>
> Will there be more teleconferences before the coming ICANN meeting, to
> iron out outstanding issues? (the possibility of 2 more had been
> mentioned)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 11:04:04 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] [ecdiscuss] Fwd: Report of WIPO Standing Committee 21-24 May 2002 (from: [email-masked])

- ----- Forwarded message from Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]> -----

From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 08:32:07 +0200 (MET DST)
Subject: [ecdiscuss] Fwd: Report of WIPO Standing Committee 21-24 May 2002
Mailing-List: contact [email-masked]; run by ezmlm

FYI: this message and attached WIPO document are posted at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00238.html
WIPO-SCT-S2-8E.pdf
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/pdf00001.pdf

=====================================================================
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 18:05:36 -0700
From: Louis Touton <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [council] Report of WIPO Standing Committee

To the Names Council:

ICANN recently received the attached "Report of the Second Special
Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks,
Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT)", which reports 
on a meeting held at WIPO from 21-24 May 2002.  The report concerns 
the relationship of Internet domain names and:

  1. International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for Pharmaceutical
     Substances (paragraphs 8-26)
  2. Trade Names (paragraphs 27-55)
  3. Personal Names (paragraphs 56-59)
  4. Names and Acronyms of International Intergovernmental Organizations
     (IGOs) (paragraphs 60-88)
  5. Country Names (paragraphs 89-210)
  6. Geographical Indications (paragraphs 211-229)

The report also supports remarks submitted to the Standing Committee by 
OECD in relation to the accuracy and integrity of Whois databases 
(paragraph 230).

This report will be considered by the WIPO General Assembly in
September, which may formulate recommendations to ICANN.  Although the
report therefore does not call for any immediate action, it may be
useful to Names Council members in planning the DNSO's
policy-development work.

Best regards,

Louis Touton
ICANN Secretary

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
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, 6 Jun 2002 07:08:05 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Status Report

[cc'ed to [email-masked]]

George,

I completely agree with your remarks in this regard. As previously
mentioned, the community has really been dealing with two separate issues
here;

    1.) Verisign's initial failure to deal with registration activity
generated by registrars [the ensuing arguement boiled down to whether or not
the registrar behavior was appropriate or whether Verisign was failing to
live up to its obligations under the registry contract with ICANN and the
registrars. Tucows still contends that the batch pool system implemented by
Verisign represents an arbitrary establishment of policy contrary to the
FCFS methodology that was previously in place and that in fact, Verisign has
an obligation to establish and maintain systems infrastructure commensurate
with, and capable of dealing with the policy implications of their contract.
Verisign contents that registrars are engaging in an illegitimate activity
that they therefore should not support.]

    2.) The introduction of a new (monopoly) registry service that would
affect (adversely or positively, I leave it to the reader to determine which
theology they prescribe to) the (pre-)existing market for services.

I recommend that the passage below be  removed[1] from the final report
unless it can be clearly established that a) registrars were engaging in
illegitimate behaviour, or conversely, b) that Verisign did not live up to
their contractual obligations and provide the infrastructure necessary to
support the existing policy instead of arbitrarily establishing new policy
that lead to the batch pool methodology.

To your second point concerning the fast-track recommendation, it is my
understanding that this will consist of a policy analysis (and
recommendations) concerning standardizing the process of deletion and
re-registration (and other related policy issues.) Tucows fully supports
this approach provided that it is not inconsistent with the views that have
been widely held as being "appropriate practice" over the last few years
(ie - specific and finite period during which a domain name must be deleted
by a registrar after it expires, safeguards for registrants, re-registration
pricing equivalent to original registration pricing, FCFS, etc.)

- -rwr

[1]The statements provided in bullet five and six of this section tend to
support the conclusion that this entire should be removed, perhaps with the
exception as being a historical note (which, if this is the case, the
passage need be reworded to function as a statement of fact.)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 11:28 PM
Subject: [ga] WLS Status Report

Hello,

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00236.html

has an update by the DNSO Transfers Task Force (TF) chair, and makes
excellent reading (unless you happen to work for VGRS).

Essentially, after reviewing everything, the task force is against WLS,
as expected.

I would have to point out, though, that the TF is giving undue weight
to Verisign's statements that it is suffering due to "add storms", and
I object to its inclusion (or at least one should point out the counter
arguments, for balance). The TF writes:

"1. It was acknowledged that present practices of competitive services
result in “add storms” which are affecting the registry’s services, and
according to the registry, adding significant costs for support of all
the attempts to “grab” names but without resulting in transactions
which provide revenue to the registry." (III.1)

I'd like to remind people that by Verisign's own admissions, at:

http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf

In the answer to B.1:

"The WLS is not intended or designed to deal with deleted
registrations nor has VGRS ever made that claim."

and in reply to B.2.

"registry load is no longer an issue. The multiple pools and rate
limiting technology have solved that problem."

I repeat "registry load is no longer an issue."!!

Thus, I think the Task Force should remove any references to these
technical issues from their report, or note that they do not apply. WLS
should be treated as a BUSINESS PROPOSAL for a new MONOPOLY SERVICE at
the registry level, and it should be delinked from any discussion over
technical concerns. Any "technical" concerns are self-serving fiction
and misinformation by Verisign.  "Registry load is no longer an issue"
and "solved that problem" cannot be more clear. "Significant costs" is
entirely inappropriate language, as VGRS has never said what those
costs are, and has refused to provide any data whatsoever to backup
their misinformation. To some people, $5,000 or $10,000/yr is
"significant". If anyone but Arthur Andersen were to do a cost
accounting, the solution to the technical problems was likely a minimal
expenditure, and insignificant. I remind folks that CIRA in Canada
handled similar domain deletions (TBR names) without a cost increase of
any kind, and could handle the spike in traffic without hiccups. VGRS
is equally capable. I'm sure CIRA would gladly take the job, for $180
million/yr, if VGRS can't stomach the job...

Also, I think given the findings by the task force, full consensus
process should be invoked (or just reject WLS outright), given the harm
to numerous parties, and WLS could not and should not be fast-tracked.
As a policy concern for any new registry offering, only products that
would not unduly harm existing market participants should ever be
fast-tracked. I'm not sure why the TF hesitated in this regard in the
report.

Will there be more teleconferences before the coming ICANN meeting, to
iron out outstanding issues? (the possibility of 2 more had been
mentioned)

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.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

- --
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 #1262
*************************