Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1274
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, June 15 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1274

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:54:28 -0700
From: Ellen Rony <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Questions

At 9:30 AM -0400 6/14/02, James Love wrote:
>What would fix the WLS issue would be to have a period after a domain
>expired, where anyone who wanted it could express intereset, and there would
>be a fair lottery to see who got it.     And, at any point before the
>lottery, the old domain holder should be able to get it back.
>
>Jamie

I like the idea of a 30-to-60-day grace period.  It's a common business
practice among insurance companies and providers of cable, telephone and
other services. People miss payment deadlines due to oversight, travel, and
mundane distractions.  Given what is at risk, a post-expiry date grace
period makes sense.

But why a post-grace period lottery?  Who would administer it?  What
mechanisms would assure its accountability, fairness and timeliness?  Who
would  be the registrant of record after the epiry date, if the registrant
chooses not to renew? Who would get to claim the fees involved?  How would
they be determined?  How would all registrars be assured equal access to
WLS?  Would the process run in tandem with the registration procedure--a
shared registry system for WLS requests.  Who would determine the rules
that apply?

Demand for domain names has slowed, and resale prices have softened.  More
than 1 million domain names are available at auction.  Millions sit in
virtual inventories of companies, organizations and individuals, unusued.

IMHO, WLS adds an unnecessary layer of expense and complication atop the
FCFS race and provides opportunity for internal abuse.  Nothing prevents a
party from approaching the current registrant and expressing direct
interest in acquiring the domain name.  Will that make the price go up?
Maybe so, but surely no less than the registrant knowing that someone has
paid for the privilege of waiting in line for it on the oft-remote chance
the domain name becomes available.

What is the problem the WLS proposes to solve?  Is it that cybersquatters
and speculators currently have some technical advantage not available to
ordinary folk, such as bots that scoop up expired names instantly?  Can
such bots be prohibited?   Is it that people with genuine interest in a
specific name want to be spared the time and expense of monitoring its
availability?   Can this be accomplished without imposing additional
expenses on those who are willing to do such monitoring on their own?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ellen Rony, Co-author         )/_    http://www.domainhandbook.com
Domain Name Handbook  	     <" \      http://www.domainsleuth.biz
                             /)  )                  [email-masked]
                         ---/'-""---
       The more people I meet, the more I like my cockatiel.
- --
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, 14 Jun 2002 14:29:45 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .org bidders?

YJ Park wrote:

>It has been known that ISOC is to make a bid for .ORG.
>
If ISOC were to be awarded the .org registry management, I presume that 
will preclude ISOC as an eligible At-Large element?  

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: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 03:44:39 +0800
From: Jim Ayson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] South African .za ccTLD administrator takes drastic  action to prevent government takeover

At 11:36 PM 6/14/2002 +0800, Jim Ayson wrote:

>Thanks for the explanation but the news report makes it appear there are 
>only two parties affected, the ccTLD administrator and the South 
>African  government. Where does the South African Internet community fit 
>into all this, what has been their stand so far, pro or anti 
>nationalization? The ccTLD administrator after all is supposed to be a 
>trustee working on behalf of the community . That element seems to have 
>been missing from news coverage of the issue. Has there been any one 
>posting from South Africa about this?

ah, ok. This South African news report just answered my question on 
community representation, it appears Lawrie was in the process of 
transferring domain administration anyway from "one man rule" to an 
Internet user group (Namespace ZA). Also it says he recognizes the 
authority of ICANN in deciding on redelegation procedures. Looks like the 
Reuters piece on Yahoo was a little on the sensationalist side.

see
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/0,1113,2-7_1199167,00.html

Excerpt:

Lawrie and Namespace ZA, an organisation of prominent internet users formed 
to take over the domain name's administration from him, are opposed to the 
Electronic Communications and Transactions Bill approved by the National 
Assembly on Friday.

They claim the bill, which still has to pass through the National Council 
of Provinces and be signed by the president, gives the government too much 
control over the administration.

"I agree totally with the government that one person shouldn't control it," 
Lawrie said.

The problem lay with the degree of government control for which the Bill 
provided, he said.

Lawrie said he might be accused of being a disloyal South African for 
taking the latest step, but he feared the consequences of the takeover by 
the authority stipulated in the Bill.

Widespread support

He said those who passed the Bill clearly did not have the necessary 
understanding and if someone without the necessary knowledge was allowed to 
take over his computer, that might jeopardise the internet in South Africa.

"If they tell me to do wrong things that they don't understand, there might 
be a serious problem."

Lawrie, who insists that he would not do anything himself to collapse the 
internet, nevertheless said he would not hand over the administration to an 
entity with which he was not happy.

This, however, he could only do as long as he had the support of the 
internet community. He believed he had widespread support.

"The domain administrator operates with the trust of the community. He 
doesn't own the domain."

Lawrie said that if it was believed he did not serve the interests of the 
community, those concerned could notify the Internet Corporation for 
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

He would not be able to block any steps taken by ICANN.

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jim ayson / [email-masked] / www.philmusic.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: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:29:24 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech post on  "self-regulation'send"]

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech post on "self-regulation'send"
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:21:22 -0700
From: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

Previous Politech message:

"Michael Geist on ICANN, Congress, end of 'self-regulation'"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03653.html

Joe Sims is ICANN's chief outside counsel.

- -Declan

- ---

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Michael Geist's column
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:03:28 -0400

Of course, Geist has it all wrong.  I hope you will consider publishing 
this response.

The notion that not enough happens at ICANN in public, and that the answer 
to ICANN's problems is more transparency, illustrates a profound lack of 
understanding about what ICANN really does, and how it really does 
it.  Prof. Geist is not the only one that doesn't get it, but since he has 
the ability to publish columns, it is probably worth while trying to 
correct his misunderstanding.

Contrary to Prof. Geist's assertions, ICANN is not a self-regulatory 
body.  It was never intended to be a self-regulatory body.  It was intended 
to be a forum for the possible discovery of consensus solutions to global 
issues related to the DNS -- a way, quite frankly, for national governments 
to find a place for the resolution of global DNS issues that did not 
require a new treaty organization.  It is true that its original structure 
called for half its Board to be selected by a general At Large membership 
of some kind, but that was certainly not the consensus view of the Internet 
community at that time.  Prof. Geist, having not been part of the 
discussions with the US Government that produced that construction, is 
undoubtedly unaware of the fact that no one involved in that decision, and 
I include those in the US Government (feel free to ask them) was convinced 
that such an approach was really workable.  The ICANN organizers wanted to 
insert the words "if feasible;" the US Government position at the time, for 
reasons I leave to the reader to imagine, was "we'll figure out how to do 
it later."  The then brand-new Board of ICANN, without the assistence of 
Jon Postel who had died a month earlier, acquiesced to this position, 
notwithstanding a quite clear concern that it might not be possible to make 
it work.  In hindsight, I am quite sure most regret this decision.

We now have almost 4 years of experience by which to test the concepts on 
which the original construction rested, and we actually know some things 
that we did not know then.  We know that the notion of global on-line 
elections is fraught with problems that are too complicated for ICANN to be 
on the bleeding edge on innovation in this area.  We know that there is no 
consensus in the ICANN community on exactly how the public interest should 
be represented in ICANN's structure, notwithstanding the insistence of 
those like Prof. Geist that there is only one possible solution.  We know 
that part of the reason there is no consensus is that those who insist on 
direct elections of Board members have refused to consider any other 
alternative way of representing the public interest; this religious 
approach is not conducive to compromise or consensus.

We also know that a purely private organization, without the support and 
involvement of governments from around the world, will not be able to carry 
out thes mission assigned to ICANN (if you believe that mission requires 
the agreed participation of all the relevant infrastructure 
providers).  ICANN has no guns, and no soldiers; it has no coercive 
power.  It can succeed only if the relevant portions of the community 
voluntarily agree that they want to participate and make it succeed.  To 
date, that has not happened.  We can argue all we want about why it has not 
happened, but it is clear that the reason is not the failure to hold 
on-line elections.  The fact is that the root server operators, the address 
registries, and the ccTLD registries must be persuaded to come to the ICANN 
table, and it will not help that process to make ICANN a less stable, less 
predictable organization.

Finally, we know (or at least some of us strongly believe) that the path to 
ICANN success is an appropriate public/private partnership, with the 
private sector and global governments working together within an ICANN 
structured to accept input from all but also able to make effective 
decisions in a timely way.  We are clearly on the path to such an ICANN, 
and I hope we will take another step toward that goal at the meeting in 
Bucharest later this month.

The notion that government interest in ICANN is heightened by the failure 
to adopt some form of global elections is laughably naive.  Governments are 
properly interested in ICANN because the Internet is increasingly critical 
to the well-being, social and commercial, of their citizens, and because 
what ICANN is responsible for is critical to the continued stable operation 
of the Internet.  This would be true whether all or none of ICANN's 
directors were elected by the general public.  And it is this fact that is 
driving the process of gaining the proper level of government participation 
in ICANN, nothing else.  This is the real world; Prof. Geist insists on 
occupying some academic construct of a world.  This longing for some 
utopian construct is not useful in trying to reform ICANN into a body that 
does reflect, as best it can be done, the views and concerns of the entire 
Internet provider and user community.

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

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

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

- --
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, 14 Jun 2002 16:04:31 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Questions

So, in other words, you think that a bunch of people are going to sit around
having a "fair lottery" to get the domain name, when all anyone needs to do
is to pay off the prior registrant in order to head off the lottery?

I don't follow the logic here.  This "fix" boils down to "have the prior
registrant conduct an auction".

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>

> What would fix the WLS issue would be to have a period after a domain
> expired, where anyone who wanted it could express intereset, and there
would
> be a fair lottery to see who got it.     And, at any point before the
> lottery, the old domain holder should be able to get it back.
>
> Jamie
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 12:13 AM
> Subject: [ga] WLS Questions
>
>
> :
> : I'm trying to understand this notion of how a monopoly WLS, which
> guarantees
> : only one person a crack at an expiring name, is "fair" relative to
> multiple
> : competing services, and would appreciate hearing from someone who (a)
> : believes it is fair, and (b) is not associated with SnapNames or
Verisign.
> :
> : Chuck Gomes has said that something like 50% of SnapNames customers are
> : speculators instead of "average" domain name registrants.  Leaving aside
> the
> : question of how a population of 50% of anything is not "average", or the
> : methodology used to read the minds of the other 50% to determine their
> : motivation, then can someone clue me in to how 50% of WLS position
holders
> : are NOT going to be speculators?
> :
> : Snapbacks are $69 a pop, and we are told half of them are owned by
> : speculators.  So, the point here is that SnapNames wants to have 50%
fewer
> : customers?  Or they want to charge 100% of them twice as much money in
> order
> : to get rid of the "bad" customers while keeping the "good" customers?
> :
> : And with the "price high enough to discourage speculation" idea, what is
> the
> : evidence that speculators don't have more money than these "average"
> : registrants for whom we are trying to make things "fair"?
> :
> : And if we aren't going to have a dispute resolution procedure for people
> who
> : take up WLS slots on expiring domain names that are someone else's
> : trademarks, then what is the point of making the identity of WLS slot
> : holders known?
> :
> : I have to take my hat off to the guy with enough chutzpah to tell a
Senate
> : subcommittee that ICANN was strangling consumer choice and competition by
> : refusing to introduce a monopoly service that would replace several
> : competing services to do the same thing.  Doing that and avoiding
> dizziness
> : at the same time is an admirable feat.
> :
> : --
> : 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: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:16:04 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ga] WLS Questions

> A recent NAF decision is interesting...

...because it is a re-affirmation of panelist Johnson's opinion that a web
site must be in fool bloom immediately upon registration of a domain name.
The name in that case was registered February 27, and the complaint was filed
April 9.  If you aren't using a domain name in a month, then you are a bad
faith registrant, as far as she is concerned.

Other decisions have gone the other way:

http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/98441.htm
In sum, where a party registers a lapsed domain name, and it is not
attempting to use the name to compete with the mark holder or disrupt its
business, we believe that ordinarily the trademark holder should be denied
relief, whether the mark is a common law or registered mark, whether the mark
is "strong" or "weak."

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0189.html
The Respondent is entitled to conduct a business of capturing generic
trademark names which become available in the marketplace - often through
failure to renew registration.

- --
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, 14 Jun 2002 16:27:11 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Questions

>
> I like the idea of a 30-to-60-day grace period.  It's a common business
> practice among insurance companies and providers of cable, telephone and
> other services.

It is also a common business practice at most registrars.  There are millions
of domain names.  No matter what kind of grace period is provided, there are
those which will be inadvertently not renewed.  NSI normally shuts off the
juice for quite a long time... people still don't pay and are still upset
when the name drops.

Dotster has a new spin on this.  Take a look at, say, www.jdhs.com .  There
it sits, asking to be renewed, and not dropping, despite the fact that the
alumni of John Dickinson High School would like to have it.  It expired on
March 9.  How long do you want these things to sit around like that?

- --
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, 14 Jun 2002 14:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Questions

Hi John,

I agreed with what you wrote, but the example you used seem odd:

> Dotster has a new spin on this.  Take a look at, say, www.jdhs.com . 
> There
> it sits, asking to be renewed, and not dropping, despite the fact
> that the
> alumni of John Dickinson High School would like to have it.  It
> expired on
> March 9.  How long do you want these things to sit around like that?

My WHOIS says that jdhs.com is registered through OpenSRS (although the
nameservers are Dotster's, so it's parked there), and that it expires
March 9, 2003 (not 2002). Not sure which WHOIS you're using...

http://www.betterwhois.com/bwhois.cgi?domain=jdhs.com

Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.   Domain Name: JDHS.COM
   Registrar: TUCOWS, INC.
   Whois Server: whois.opensrs.net
   Referral URL: http://www.opensrs.org
   Name Server: NS1.DOTSTERINC.COM
   Name Server: NS2.DOTSTERINC.COM
   Updated Date: 19-jan-2002
The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and
Registrars.

[rr-n1-tor.opensrs.net]
Registrant:
 Gapmount Ltd
 7 Lightley Close
 Sandbach, Cheshire CW11 4QE
 GB

 Domain Name: JDHS.COM

 Administrative Contact:
    Hall, John  [email-masked]
    7 Lightley Close
    Sandbach, Cheshire CW11 4QE
    GB
    447976749907

 Technical Contact:
    Domains Team, UKReg  [email-masked]
    Discovery House
    154 Southgate Street
    Gloucester, Gloucestershire GL1 2EX
    UK
    +44 1452 541252
    Fax: +44 1542 541633

 Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
 Record last updated on 20-Mar-2002.
 Record expires on 09-Mar-2003.
 Record Created on 09-Mar-2000.

 Domain servers in listed order:
    NS1.DOTSTERINC.COM   64.85.73.18
    NS2.DOTSTERINC.COM   64.85.73.15

Dotster thinks it lapsed, but should have first checked that the name
is still with it as registrar (it's not, it was transferred to
OpenSRS).

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: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:37:12 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] Re: [ga] WLS Questions

At 09:49 AM 14/06/02 -0400, Safran, David wrote:
>If a similar position is consistently taken by UDRP arbitrators,
>WLS cybersquatters should have no greater success than ab initio 
>cybersquatters.

See my article on ICANNWatch here:
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=548
for some additional examples of dropjackers who lost UDRP
decisions. There have been some additional cases since,
from memory only one of them sided with the Respondent.

However, having to shell out greater than $1,000 for the
ruling and having to have one's formerly trafficed site
serving up probably unrelated, and quite possibly
offensive, material for a few months in the meantime, or
having email intended for certain eyes winding up in front
of others, it seems to me there is far greater incentive
for the previous name holder to just pay off the
dropjacker/cybersquatter than there is in the case of a
cybersquatter using a newly registered domain.

>This case also points out the real need for a grace period...

As I worried in the above article, it seems the grace period
will come with an additional charge:
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm
if these registry-registrar representatives (and all the reps
of this technical steering group represent registries) have
their way. This strikes me as not much different than the WLS,
or extortion. Particularily considering that this steering group
(while ostensibly technical, if it is dealing with $ charges,
why aren't other interests represented?) proposes that the ability
of a registrant to move to a different registrar (even if it was
the registrar's fault that the name was dropped in the first place)
be curtailed until some point in the future, for technical reasons
of course. -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: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:56:36 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Questions

At 04:27 PM 14/06/02 -0400, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

>Dotster has a new spin on this.  Take a look at, say, www.jdhs.com 
>.  There it sits, asking to be renewed, and not dropping, despite the
>fact that the alumni of John Dickinson High School would like to
>have it.  It expired on March 9.  How long do you want these things
>to sit around like that?

Archive.org's record on the previous owner is obfuscated by
a robots.txt file, but I don't see a compelling reason why
it can't sit like that forever, particularily as jdhs.net,
jdhs.org, jdhs.info, and, if the High School alumni intend to
be commercial, jdhs.biz are all still available. Apparently
so is jdhs.us, if that alumni is sort of in the US, if not,
it seems to be available across most all ccTLDs 2LDs or 3LDs.

I'd say leave jdhs.com on the shelf, it's stale-dated. And
speaking of that, remember the good old days when 4 letter
domain names were much sought after items by speculators?
Seems the market has really finally crashed. -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: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:51:25 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: IPR and Standards and FTC/DOJ

Goroge all IETf'ers, all dnso ga assembly members, stakeholders or
intrested parties,

  Thank you George for passing this along.  I am doing so also in this
reply.

  This is interesting and very important information that I am quite
sure
will or should be of great interest to many...

George Willingmyre wrote:

>   I received many replies to the posting below, so I inform you the
> final GTW comment  will be submitted on Monday June 17
> http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/FTCCOMENTS.htm
>
> Thanks to all who commented.  The links have been substantially
> revised based on additional research and your comments. Note in
> particular the Introduction of HR4849 Standards Development
> Organization Advancement Act of 2002 (Introduced in House)
> at http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/HR4849.htm
>
> George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
> GTW Associates
> 1012 Parrs Ridge Drive
> Spencerville, MD 20868  USA
> 301.421.4138  fax 301.421.0977
> http://www.gtwassociates.com
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: George Willingmyre
>   To: [email-masked]
>   Cc: [email-masked] ; Scott Bradner ; Tony Rutkowski
>   Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:03 PM
>   Subject: Re: IPR and Standards and FTC/DOJ
>
>
>   Welcome  comments by COB June 7.   (also further exposure to any
> other relevant lists...not sure the post of May 23 to
> [email-masked] made it through)
>
>   GTW DRAFT  letter of Transmittal of Comments to the FTC  regarding
> Competition & Intellectual Property
> http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/FTCCOMENTS.htm.  The letter
> contains links to the following additional sites
>
>   GTW Associates  inventory of Intellectual Property Rights
>   Polices of  policies of selected standards developers  at
>   http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/IPRpolicies.html   The page
> contains
>   links to the IPR policies of key national and international
> standards
>   organizations such as ISO/IEC;  ITU; ANSI, IETF, W3C and more
>
>    "CONSIDERATIONS IN ASSESSING A STANDARDS DEVELOPING ORGANIZATION'S
>   INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS POLICIES IN ADVANCE OF PARTICIPATION"
> at
>   http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/IPR%20article.htm  are
> questions  that any company
>   should  contemplate given its own circumstances and competitive
> position
>   before participating in a standards process
>
>   DRAFT  Approaches to influence the IPR policies and practices in US
> and Global
>   standards setting  at
> http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/Approaches.htm
>   explores various approaches  to influence on a global scale the IPR
> policies
>   of key standards setting  organizations
>
>   Evolution of ANSI Patent Policy
> http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/EvolutionANSIPolicy.html
>
>   Evolution of IETF Patent Policy
> http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/EvolutionIETFPolicy.html
>
>
>   George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
>   GTW Associates
>   1012 Parrs Ridge Drive
>   Spencerville, MD 20868  USA
>   301.421.4138  fax 301.421.0977
>   http://www.gtwassociates.com
>
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: George Willingmyre
>     To: [email-masked]
>     Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 10:12 PM
>     Subject: IPR and Standards and FTC/DOJ
>
>
>     Invite comments and corrections w/r to IETF IPR policy/practice
> described at  Intellectual Property Rights Policies of selected
> standards developers
> http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/IPRpolicies.html
>
>     to become element of GTW comments to FTC/DOJ on IPR and Antitrust
> practices see  http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/04/iplaw2.htm
>
>
>
>     George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
>     GTW Associates
>     1012 Parrs Ridge Drive
>     Spencerville, MD 20868  USA
>     301.421.4138  fax 301.421.0977
>     http://www.gtwassociates.com
>
>
>
>

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: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:59:59 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Questions

Jamie and all assembly members,

As many US States that have lotteries know and many frankly admit,
there is not such thing as a "Fair Lottery"...  Hence such a concept
is nearly laughable if it weren't so serious of an issue to the stability
of the DNS..

James Love wrote:

> What would fix the WLS issue would be to have a period after a domain
> expired, where anyone who wanted it could express intereset, and there would
> be a fair lottery to see who got it.     And, at any point before the
> lottery, the old domain holder should be able to get it back.
>
> Jamie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 12:13 AM
> Subject: [ga] WLS Questions
>
> :
> : I'm trying to understand this notion of how a monopoly WLS, which
> guarantees
> : only one person a crack at an expiring name, is "fair" relative to
> multiple
> : competing services, and would appreciate hearing from someone who (a)
> : believes it is fair, and (b) is not associated with SnapNames or Verisign.
> :
> : Chuck Gomes has said that something like 50% of SnapNames customers are
> : speculators instead of "average" domain name registrants.  Leaving aside
> the
> : question of how a population of 50% of anything is not "average", or the
> : methodology used to read the minds of the other 50% to determine their
> : motivation, then can someone clue me in to how 50% of WLS position holders
> : are NOT going to be speculators?
> :
> : Snapbacks are $69 a pop, and we are told half of them are owned by
> : speculators.  So, the point here is that SnapNames wants to have 50% fewer
> : customers?  Or they want to charge 100% of them twice as much money in
> order
> : to get rid of the "bad" customers while keeping the "good" customers?
> :
> : And with the "price high enough to discourage speculation" idea, what is
> the
> : evidence that speculators don't have more money than these "average"
> : registrants for whom we are trying to make things "fair"?
> :
> : And if we aren't going to have a dispute resolution procedure for people
> who
> : take up WLS slots on expiring domain names that are someone else's
> : trademarks, then what is the point of making the identity of WLS slot
> : holders known?
> :
> : I have to take my hat off to the guy with enough chutzpah to tell a Senate
> : subcommittee that ICANN was strangling consumer choice and competition by
> : refusing to introduce a monopoly service that would replace several
> : competing services to do the same thing.  Doing that and avoiding
> dizziness
> : at the same time is an admirable feat.
> :
> : --
> : 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

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: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:05:46 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ga] WLS Questions

Safran and all assembly members,

Safran, David wrote:

> A recent NAF decision is interesting in the context of this discussion of
> the use of WLS by cybersquatters.
>
> In the proceeding of China Lucky Film Group v. Hu Haobo, FA 109372 (Nat.
> Arb. Forum May 28, 2002), Complainant's Internet Service Provider (ISP)
> failed to renew <luckyfilm.com>, a domain name it had used for five years.
> Respondent seized the opportunity and "grabbed" the lapsed domain name.  The
> Panel held that linking <luckyfilm.com> to a website that stated "back-order
> expiring domain names you want" constituted evidence of bad faith
> registration for the purpose of selling the domain name and the name was
> transferred to Complainant.
>
> If a similar position is consistently taken by UDRP arbitrators, WLS
> cybersquatters should have no greater success than ab initio cybersquatters.

  Yeah, IF?  But that's a very BIG IF, Sefran.  As the history of the
UDRP cases shows, consistency is not one of its redeeming values..
Hence, such a consideration is beyond reasonable consideration
if stability of the DNS it to be consistent...

>
>
> This case also points out the real need for a grace period and notice to the
> actual domain name owner of the expiration of its domain name since domain
> name owners can easily fall victim to the negligence of the ISP or other
> party to whom the domain name registration process had been entrusted.

  Exactly right!  And also why relying on the ISP or Registrar even with
WLS, is nearly worthless...

>
>
> David S. Safran
> Nixon Peabody LLP
> 8180 Greensboro Drive
> Suite 800
> McLean, VA 22102
> Office:  703.770.9315
> Fax:  703.770.9400
> [email-masked]
>
> This email message and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please immediately reply to the sender and delete the
> message from your email system. Thank you.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Love [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 9:31 AM
> To: John Berryhill; [email-masked]
> Cc: Transfer TF (E-mail)
> Subject: [nc-transfer] Re: [ga] WLS Questions
>
> What would fix the WLS issue would be to have a period after a domain
> expired, where anyone who wanted it could express intereset, and there would
> be a fair lottery to see who got it.     And, at any point before the
> lottery, the old domain holder should be able to get it back.
>
> Jamie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 12:13 AM
> Subject: [ga] WLS Questions
>
> :
> : I'm trying to understand this notion of how a monopoly WLS, which
> guarantees
> : only one person a crack at an expiring name, is "fair" relative to
> multiple
> : competing services, and would appreciate hearing from someone who (a)
> : believes it is fair, and (b) is not associated with SnapNames or Verisign.
> :
> : Chuck Gomes has said that something like 50% of SnapNames customers are
> : speculators instead of "average" domain name registrants.  Leaving aside
> the
> : question of how a population of 50% of anything is not "average", or the
> : methodology used to read the minds of the other 50% to determine their
> : motivation, then can someone clue me in to how 50% of WLS position holders
> : are NOT going to be speculators?
> :
> : Snapbacks are $69 a pop, and we are told half of them are owned by
> : speculators.  So, the point here is that SnapNames wants to have 50% fewer
> : customers?  Or they want to charge 100% of them twice as much money in
> order
> : to get rid of the "bad" customers while keeping the "good" customers?
> :
> : And with the "price high enough to discourage speculation" idea, what is
> the
> : evidence that speculators don't have more money than these "average"
> : registrants for whom we are trying to make things "fair"?
> :
> : And if we aren't going to have a dispute resolution procedure for people
> who
> : take up WLS slots on expiring domain names that are someone else's
> : trademarks, then what is the point of making the identity of WLS slot
> : holders known?
> :
> : I have to take my hat off to the guy with enough chutzpah to tell a Senate
> : subcommittee that ICANN was strangling consumer choice and competition by
> : refusing to introduce a monopoly service that would replace several
> : competing services to do the same thing.  Doing that and avoiding
> dizziness
> : at the same time is an admirable feat.
> :
> : --
> : 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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1274
*************************