Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1280
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, June 18 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1280

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

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:43:27 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re:  WLS proposal

VeriSign is on the Wall Street treadmill. They can increase revenue
and hide margin slip through acquisitions for a limited time only. One
day, the fat lady always sings. I can spell desperate, but I'll bet
their CEO and CFO can spell it backwards.

Gomez wants to keep his job and making WLS a reality will make him a
hero at VeriSign.

He seems to be a nice guy, but the WLS dog just won't hunt. He needs
to find a different avenue to the medal of honor at VeriSign. I gotta
say, though, that he is persistent and the guy has worked really hard
at it, even in face of those of us with an IQ above that of a rock.

Thanks,

Monday, June 17, 2002, 9:32:46 PM, George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote:
GK> Hello,

GK> --- John Berryhill <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Could somebody remind me again of what problem the WLS is the
>> proposed
>> solution?

GK> Verisign overpaid for Network Solutions years ago, and needs more
GK> money, especially now that their stock price is below $10. WLS would
GK> let Verisign begin to reprice names at the wholesale level, eventually
GK> moving to a dot-TV pricing scheme, at the extreme.
 
>> And if the problem is "SnapNames can't compete effectively without a
>> monopoly", you can cry me a river.

GK> Amen.

GK> WLS should be taken as seriously as my own "Let's Make George Kirikos a
GK> Multi-Millionaire Proposal", at:

GK> http://www.opensrs.org/archives/discuss-list/0201/0339.html

GK> Both would be immense cash grabs. Verisign's proposal is maybe treated
GK> more seriously because they might have the power, through leveraging
GK> their monopoly, to force it through. But, both have about the same
GK> sense of "equity" and "fairness".

GK> Sincerely,

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

GK> __________________________________________________
GK> Do You Yahoo!?
GK> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
GK> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
GK> --
GK> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
GK> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
GK> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
GK> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 20:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS/Transfers Task Force teleconference, Tuesday at 2 pm Eastern time

Hello,

I don't think it was mentioned on the GA list yet, but there's a
conference call on Tuesday, re: WLS mostly, and it's open to all. See:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00280.html

It's the last public input into the Task Force before the ICANN
meeting, so be there if WLS is important to you.

Sincerely,

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

P.S. This is my 5th post today, so no more until midnight Eastern time,
when the counter goes back to zero! :)

__________________________________________________
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: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:53:50 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re:  WLS proposal

> I don't care about "average registrants" seeking to register the
> domain, but it does make sense to create a system that (a) protects the
> original domain holder if a mistake was made,

That is not a function of WLS as proposed.  The last person anyone on the
WLS wants to know about an expiring domain name is the registrant.  That, in
fact, was my objection to registrar participation in SnapNames many moons
ago - it provides an incentive for registrars to fail to notify their own
registrants of domain expiration.

Grace period or not, mistakes will continue to be made.  How many people
look at the grace period of various of their bills as constituting the
"real" deadline.  I, for one, do.  In my case, failure to obtain a dial tone
is the usual method by which I am apprised of the amount and deadline of my
telephone bill.  That's just me, but I am surely representative of some
population of domain name registrants.

Oops, no cable TV tonight...

> (b) does't require
> people to
> speed dial to "win" the expired domains,

That's right, with WLS as proposed, the race is to get on the WLS.  Same
race, different finish line.

http://www.dnso.com/comics/2002/Apr/3/

> If there is going to be a
> bidding system
> going on, they can bid directly with the old domain holder,
> rather than with
> the registrars.

Why is it preferable to have the old domain holder conduct an auction, as
opposed to the registrars, or anyone else.  Why does a technical
coordination system care who gets paid the same money?  The question is, is
something broken and in need of fixing?

> Giving domains to those who are good at "being
> first" when
> domains expire seems a bit weird to me,

RFC1591 may be weird, but it remains RFC1591.

>  A brief period to express interest followed by
> a lottery
> allows people to get a good night's sleep.

That's more or less what is going on now - nobody knows who is going to get
an expiring domain names, and everyone who wants one takes their chances
with one system or another.

>     Well, if it comes to that, who cares?

Whatever it comes to, it will come to another set of rules upon which clever
people will construct clever strategies.  The only difference is that all of
the money will go into one pocket instead of several.  That much is a
certainty.

Sort of like the byzantine rules for .museum names, which prudently allocate
swiss.frog.museum to the Swiss Frog Museum, rather than
frog.swiss.museum....

- --
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: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:11:46 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re:  WLS proposal

John, I am a member of the Transfers TK, and I proposed something different 
than the WLS.   Specifically, I proposed a 30 day period during which people 
could register for a lottery for the expired domain, and that during this 30 
day period, at any time, the original domain holder could get it back. 
Anyone who wanted the expired domain could contact the original domain name 
holder, and suggest they get the domain back and sell it to them.  So if any 
auction develops, it will be with the original domain holder, not the 
registrar.   The original domain name holder benefits the most from this 
system.  They are more likely to catch mistakes, or could sell the domain to 
an interested party.

The only case where there would be a speed dial type "race" would be if the 
domain was really expired, and no one bother to sign up for the lottery.

   Jamie

John Berryhill wrote:
>>I don't care about "average registrants" seeking to register the
>>domain, but it does make sense to create a system that (a) protects the
>>original domain holder if a mistake was made,
> 
> 
> That is not a function of WLS as proposed.  The last person anyone on the
> WLS wants to know about an expiring domain name is the registrant.  That, in
> fact, was my objection to registrar participation in SnapNames many moons
> ago - it provides an incentive for registrars to fail to notify their own
> registrants of domain expiration.
> 
> Grace period or not, mistakes will continue to be made.  How many people
> look at the grace period of various of their bills as constituting the
> "real" deadline.  I, for one, do.  In my case, failure to obtain a dial tone
> is the usual method by which I am apprised of the amount and deadline of my
> telephone bill.  That's just me, but I am surely representative of some
> population of domain name registrants.
> 
> Oops, no cable TV tonight...
> 
> 
>>(b) doesn't require
>>people to
>>speed dial to "win" the expired domains,
> 
> 
> That's right, with WLS as proposed, the race is to get on the WLS.  Same
> race, different finish line.
> 
> http://www.dnso.com/comics/2002/Apr/3/
> 
> 
> 
>>If there is going to be a
>>bidding system
>>going on, they can bid directly with the old domain holder,
>>rather than with
>>the registrars.
> 
> 
> Why is it preferable to have the old domain holder conduct an auction, as
> opposed to the registrars, or anyone else.  Why does a technical
> coordination system care who gets paid the same money?  The question is, is
> something broken and in need of fixing?
> 
> 
>>Giving domains to those who are good at "being
>>first" when
>>domains expire seems a bit weird to me,
> 
> 
> RFC1591 may be weird, but it remains RFC1591.
> 
> 
> 
>> A brief period to express interest followed by
>>a lottery
>>allows people to get a good night's sleep.
> 
> 
> That's more or less what is going on now - nobody knows who is going to get
> an expiring domain names, and everyone who wants one takes their chances
> with one system or another.
> 
> 
>>    Well, if it comes to that, who cares?
> 
> 
> Whatever it comes to, it will come to another set of rules upon which clever
> people will construct clever strategies.  The only difference is that all of
> the money will go into one pocket instead of several.  That much is a
> certainty.
> 
> Sort of like the byzantine rules for .museum names, which prudently allocate
> swiss.frog.museum to the Swiss Frog Museum, rather than
> frog.swiss.museum....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
- ------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040

- --
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: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:33:15 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS proposal

Don and all assembly members,

  Don, long time no hear.  Thanks for chiming in here...
(See more below Don's comments)

Don Brown wrote:

> Rick,
>
> I think you are missing the point.
>
> The status quo is pro-competition.  Pro-competition is pro-consumer.
> Look what's happened to the price of domain name registrations after
> other Registrars have entered the market.  Even NetSol/VeriSign has
> been offering sales and discounts.

  This is true.  However this also has nothing what so ever to
do with WLS, Transfer's, or the Delete problem, Don...

>
>
> WLS means there will be one, and only one, source of supply for
> expired domain names and at a very high cost, indeed. Add to that
> equation the fact that NetSol/VeriSign has been hoarding domain names
> for a long time. They will, therefore, have the only watering hole and
> can dictate, mandate and demand whatever price they want for anyone to
> have a drink. The consumer has absolutely no choice.  The price is
> fixed.

  Exactly right here!  And this is just one of the many problems with WLS.

>
>
> If WLS happens, there will not be any open market competition or
> consumer choice.  History shows us that's a bad deal.  Monopoly has
> never proven to be good for the consumer.

  True.  Monopolies such as NSOL/Verisign and now ICANN itself
have lead to more problems or created more problems than they
were originally intended to solve, or could ever solve.

>
>
> However, you are absolutely correct that other people are making money
> due to the status quo.  They are competing for the opportunity to make
> it, though, and that introduces market efficiencies.

  Yes, but  an over competitive marketplace is also not a healthy
thing as it creates an over reduced price decline that can therefore
not support the overages in supply.  Hence market practices dictate
a balanced approach and striving to maintain such a balance...

>  That's good for
> the consumer and generally drives down the price.  A monopoly has
> absolutely no incentive to do that, since they are the only game in
> town.

  Monopolies have little or no incentive to do much of anything to
provide for better service as they have no competition what so ever.

>
>
> The "add storms" were initially an excuse to justify WLS. However,
> when NetSol/VeriSign was called on it, they stated more than once that
> the "add storms" are no longer a problem.

  Add Storms, were never a problem.  They existed in short time frames,
yes, but could have been handled in a number of ways that were
articulated when they were first noticed or discovered.  Yet, Verisign
decided to in part use them to buy time mostly.  I can't completely
blame for that...

> George gave you the links to
> those statements. Therefore, Registry capacity is not relevant to WLS.
> Even if it was relevant, it is a very weak argument, laughable, in
> fact, from a technical standpoint.

  Exactly.  And was laughable a when first stated/reported from a technical
standpoint.  Yet the ICANN Staff allowed this behavior to continue, even
though it's oversight responsibility should have dictated otherwise...  That
is a prime example of how poor the ICANN staff handles it's responsibility,
yet again...

>
>
> Bull Feathers, WRT the argument that WLS will reduce domain name
> speculation.  Snap Names and Gomez readily admits that half of the
> Snap Name customers are speculators.

  What difference does it make it 90% of them are speculators?

>
>
> Bull Feathers, also to the argument that the other competitors will be
> able to market WLS at whatever price they like. NetSol sets that
> price, too. There is not very much margin to pay for the little things
> like R&D and marketing discriminators, either. NetSol/VeriSign gets
> the lions share of the margin. Again, the big dog eats whenever he
> wants. That's how a monopoly works and that's bad for a free market
> and consumers.

  Exactly!  And the cozy relationship between ICANN and Verisign
allows for this sort of thing to occur, if not actually encourages it...

>
>
> Please don't fall for the marketing hipe. The obvious intent of WLS is
> to fully control and monopolize domain name expirations, kill all
> competition, remove any consumer choice and for Snap Names and
> NetSol/VeriSign to make one heck of a lot of money.

  Making a hell of a lot of money is not a crime or to be looked upon
in a negative light by any company.  But when they do so at the detriment
of the consumer/stakeholder/user, of even intend to, than it is time
for them to get spanked!  Auther Anderson just found that out
in today's verdict...

>
>
> It's not an original thought, but I'll repeat it anyway.  WLS is
> nothing more than a money grab.  It is about profit for the WLS
> players, pure and simple.

  No.  I part this is what it is about.  It is also a tool to be used
in such a way so as to control the Domain Name market, to limit
speculation to a very few, and a boon for the IP legal community
to gain some $$ and notoriety as well...  WLS as it is being proposed
now, and will also not solve the real delete problem, and does not
even remotely address the Domain Name Transfer problem.  Hence
as a issue with the TR Task Force, it is more of a created problem
to also in part distract from the real purpose of the TR Task Force.

>
>
> I'm confident that if you continue to peel the onion and look at all
> of the posts with regard to WLS and use your own common sense, that
> you will come to the very same conclusion.

  Well I am glad that you are confident, Don, but I unfortunately am
not.  It seems that Rick, amongst others have been in part, sucked
in to some of the Verisign Hype...

>
>
> Thanks for spending the time to be on the TF and work on this project.

  Yes, now if they will just get some actual work done on Domain Name
Transfers, perhaps something productive can be accomplished by this
Task Force...

>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Monday, June 17, 2002, 6:44:17 PM, Rick Wesson <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> RW> George,
>
> >> Conclusion: the Status Quo works great! Don't worry, be happy!
>
> RW> an issue that concerns some is that your statement seems to read:
>
> RW>   " I making money, so please don't screw up my nice little market nitch"
>
> RW> Its not working for everyone and that is what we are attempting to fix in
> RW> a fair and equitable manor, fail to realize that and you are marginalized.
>
> RW> -rick
>
> RW> --
> RW> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> RW> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> RW> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> RW> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> [email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:43:38 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re:  WLS proposal

John and all assembly members,

John Berryhill wrote:

> > I don't care about "average registrants" seeking to register the
> > domain, but it does make sense to create a system that (a) protects the
> > original domain holder if a mistake was made,
>
> That is not a function of WLS as proposed.

  Exactly right.  And because this is true, it seems rather odd in the extreme
that so much discussion regarding WLS around these lines is being
put forth...

>  The last person anyone on the
> WLS wants to know about an expiring domain name is the registrant.

  Also exactly right here as well!  The WLS "Place Holder" doesn't give
a hoot in hell about who the original registrant is or was.  Nor does the
Registrar that is selling the WLS "Service?", even if that original registrant
is one of their registrants.  Vicious circle here...

>  That, in
> fact, was my objection to registrar participation in SnapNames many moons
> ago - it provides an incentive for registrars to fail to notify their own
> registrants of domain expiration.
>
> Grace period or not, mistakes will continue to be made.  How many people
> look at the grace period of various of their bills as constituting the
> "real" deadline.  I, for one, do.

  I do as well, but than again I am likely a bit out of the norm in this area..
>;)

>  In my case, failure to obtain a dial tone
> is the usual method by which I am apprised of the amount and deadline of my
> telephone bill.  That's just me, but I am surely representative of some
> population of domain name registrants.
>
> Oops, no cable TV tonight...

  ROFLMAO!  Well there is always Satellite!  >;)

>
>
> > (b) does't require
> > people to
> > speed dial to "win" the expired domains,
>
> That's right, with WLS as proposed, the race is to get on the WLS.  Same
> race, different finish line.
>
> http://www.dnso.com/comics/2002/Apr/3/
>
> > If there is going to be a
> > bidding system
> > going on, they can bid directly with the old domain holder,
> > rather than with
> > the registrars.
>
> Why is it preferable to have the old domain holder conduct an auction, as
> opposed to the registrars, or anyone else.  Why does a technical
> coordination system care who gets paid the same money?  The question is, is
> something broken and in need of fixing?
>
> > Giving domains to those who are good at "being
> > first" when
> > domains expire seems a bit weird to me,
>
> RFC1591 may be weird, but it remains RFC1591.
>
> >  A brief period to express interest followed by
> > a lottery
> > allows people to get a good night's sleep.
>
> That's more or less what is going on now - nobody knows who is going to get
> an expiring domain names, and everyone who wants one takes their chances
> with one system or another.
>
> >     Well, if it comes to that, who cares?
>
> Whatever it comes to, it will come to another set of rules upon which clever
> people will construct clever strategies.  The only difference is that all of
> the money will go into one pocket instead of several.  That much is a
> certainty.
>
> Sort of like the byzantine rules for .museum names, which prudently allocate
> swiss.frog.museum to the Swiss Frog Museum, rather than
> frog.swiss.museum....
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 05:37:08 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re:  WLS proposal

> Specifically, I proposed a 30 day period during which people
> could register for a lottery for the expired domain, and that during this
30
> day period, at any time, the original domain holder could get it back.
> Anyone who wanted the expired domain could contact the original domain
name
> holder, and suggest they get the domain back and sell it to them.  So if
any
> auction develops, it will be with the original domain holder, not the
> registrar.   The original domain name holder benefits the most from this
> system.  They are more likely to catch mistakes, or could sell the domain
to
> an interested party.

We talked about something similar on the last call.

Realizing that a lot of the speculative value of a domain lies with the
goodwill that accrues to it because of the initial registrant, it was
proposed that all domain names slated for deletion are put into a cooling
tank for x days beyond the 30 days described in the Redemption Grace Period
proposal.

This would create a situation whereby registrants would be guaranteed a
right of re-registration "if they forgot to renew" and eliminate or diminish
trainspotting by ensuring a prolonged 404-like condition over a reasonably
extended period of time before the name was deleted. Once cooled, the domain
could be deleted and re-registered by anyone on a first-come, first served
basis (and get a name relatively free of baggage).

In my mind, this proposal has much to commend it in its simplicity and
perceived effectiveness.

- -rwr

- --
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: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 03:55:05 -0700
From: Paul Stahura <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re:  WLS proposal

Ross, I don't think I agree, for practical reasons.
1) How would the registrant "get it back"?  how do we validate that
the guy who says he was the registrant was actually the registrant?
2) for that matter, who is legally, the registrant, or the
registrar-of-record
during the period after the registrar issues the delete?
3) Speculators will "delete" their names, see if anyone calls to
bid on it, then get it back (method to be determined) in either case.
Speculators may be constantly deleting and getting names back.
4) Lottery, .biz, fiasco. 

Paul

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 2:37 AM
To: James Love; John Berryhill
Cc: [email-masked]; Transfer TF (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: WLS proposal

> Specifically, I proposed a 30 day period during which people
> could register for a lottery for the expired domain, and that during this
30
> day period, at any time, the original domain holder could get it back.
> Anyone who wanted the expired domain could contact the original domain
name
> holder, and suggest they get the domain back and sell it to them.  So if
any
> auction develops, it will be with the original domain holder, not the
> registrar.   The original domain name holder benefits the most from this
> system.  They are more likely to catch mistakes, or could sell the domain
to
> an interested party.

We talked about something similar on the last call.

Realizing that a lot of the speculative value of a domain lies with the
goodwill that accrues to it because of the initial registrant, it was
proposed that all domain names slated for deletion are put into a cooling
tank for x days beyond the 30 days described in the Redemption Grace Period
proposal.

This would create a situation whereby registrants would be guaranteed a
right of re-registration "if they forgot to renew" and eliminate or diminish
trainspotting by ensuring a prolonged 404-like condition over a reasonably
extended period of time before the name was deleted. Once cooled, the domain
could be deleted and re-registered by anyone on a first-come, first served
basis (and get a name relatively free of baggage).

In my mind, this proposal has much to commend it in its simplicity and
perceived effectiveness.

- -rwr

- --
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: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:10:11 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re:  WLS proposal

Paul - not sure that we're talking about the same thing here. The idea
floated on the call was to create a cooling off period after the
proposed Redemption Grace Period...more comments below...

> Ross, I don't think I agree, for practical reasons.
> 1) How would the registrant "get it back"?  how do we 
> validate that the guy who says he was the registrant was 
> actually the registrant?

Covered by the RGP proposal
(http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm).

> 2) for that matter, who is legally, the registrant, or the 
> registrar-of-record during the period after the registrar 
> issues the delete?

Covered by the RGP proposal.

> 3) Speculators will "delete" their names, see if anyone calls 
> to bid on it, then get it back (method to be determined) in 
> either case. Speculators may be constantly deleting and 
> getting names back.

This is also covered by the RGP proposal. Further, there wasn't any
recovery available to the registrant post-RGP during the cooling off
period. Once in the cooling off period, the name would be eentually
deleted, regardless of any claims or potential claims to it.

> 4) Lottery, .biz, fiasco. 

Not contemplated by this proposition. I believe it was Jamie Love that
had proposed using auctions to disperse the names post-delete. The
cooling tank proposal only considered FCFS.

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow

- --
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: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 05:37:39 -0700
From: Paul Stahura <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re:  WLS proposal

yea, I'm probably confused, but the post said:

> Specifically, I proposed a 30 day period during which people
> could register for a lottery for the expired domain, 
                       ^^^^^^^
> and that during this 30 day period, ...

maybe the word "lottery" through me for a loop
I need to get some sleep...
I'm with you on the RGP proposal

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 4:10 AM
To: 'Paul Stahura'; 'James Love'; 'John Berryhill'
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Transfer TF (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: WLS proposal

Paul - not sure that we're talking about the same thing here. The idea
floated on the call was to create a cooling off period after the
proposed Redemption Grace Period...more comments below...

> Ross, I don't think I agree, for practical reasons.
> 1) How would the registrant "get it back"?  how do we 
> validate that the guy who says he was the registrant was 
> actually the registrant?

Covered by the RGP proposal
(http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm).

> 2) for that matter, who is legally, the registrant, or the 
> registrar-of-record during the period after the registrar 
> issues the delete?

Covered by the RGP proposal.

> 3) Speculators will "delete" their names, see if anyone calls 
> to bid on it, then get it back (method to be determined) in 
> either case. Speculators may be constantly deleting and 
> getting names back.

This is also covered by the RGP proposal. Further, there wasn't any
recovery available to the registrant post-RGP during the cooling off
period. Once in the cooling off period, the name would be eentually
deleted, regardless of any claims or potential claims to it.

> 4) Lottery, .biz, fiasco. 

Not contemplated by this proposition. I believe it was Jamie Love that
had proposed using auctions to disperse the names post-delete. The
cooling tank proposal only considered FCFS.

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow
 
- --
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: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:12:38 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal

Barbara all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,

  INEGroup wholeheartedly and strongly agrees with Barbara's comments
below.  Indeed it is not necessary for a registrants personal and private
information such as home address and phone number to be listed in Whois
data for their domain name.  In fact to do so is s severe security risk
to that individual and a potential hindrance to law enforcement in this
unfortunate age of cyber terrorism.  Law enforcement agencies, such
as the FBI, CIA, NSA, or military intelligence do not need to be
chasing false leads due to some prankster using Whois data to
create false leads or false information fraudulently using someone's
registration information of a Domain Name that would include
their personal physical address or personal Phone Number.
To make such information necessary as part of the registration
of a Domain name is simply stupid and unnecessarily harmful, as
well as partly counter productive..

Barbara Simons wrote:

> If you are opposed to spammers, then I would think that you would be really
> upset with the whois database, which is a rich resource indeed for spammers.
>
> Information about where I live has nothing to do with openness or the lack
> thereof.  I am quite happy to have my email address made available (but not
> to spammers - I wish).  But surely you would not accuse me of a lack of
> openness if I were to refuse to provide my home address to the world in
> order to obtain my own domain name.  (It is entirely reasonable, by
> contrast, to require that I provide an accurate technical contact).
>
> I have no idea how many children have their own domain names, but there are
> obviously quite a few.  You might want to check out Chris Van Allen, whose
> dad gave him the domain name pokey.org several years ago.  Chris became
> somewhat famous when he was sent a cease and desist order by the Prema Toy
> Co., the company that manufactures Gumby.  You can read about Chris'
> adventures at www.pokey.org.
>
> To state the obvious, if a child has a website that has been purchased by
> that child's parent, and if the parent is required to provide his or her
> home address, most folks will be able to infer the address of the child.
>
> Many parents seem to believe that information about their children should
> not be posted for anyone in the world to view.  Many adults feel the same
> about their own information.
>
> You might have made a similar argument about drivers' license records being
> held by the California Dept of Motor Vehicles.  That information was open,
> and as a result a young women's home address was located by a stalker, and
> she was murdered.  I have heard about a woman who was stalked based on her
> whois information, but I'm afraid I can't give you a reference for that.
> Maybe someone else on one of these lists can.
>
> As far as political speech goes, I'm sure you are aware of countries and
> times during which criticism of one's government can be life threatening.
> And you don't have to go outside the US to find multiple examples of abuses
> and harassment of law abiding citizens by some law enforcement agencies.  If
> you have not been following the most recent revelations about the FBI and
> its obsession with UC Berkeley, the Free Speech Movement, and Clark Kerr,
> the then President of the University of California, I shall be happy to
> forward to you a very detailed set of articles published a couple of weeks
> ago in the San Francisco Chronicle.  If the '60s are ancient history for
> you, there are recent abuses by the LA Police Department, including the
> framing of innocent people, that date back only a few years.  I can send you
> some references for those as well.
>
> Openness does not mean that we must relinquish all notions of privacy if we
> are to own a domain name.  Rather than forcing people to provide information
> about where they are located, Congress should be requiring ICANN to
> institute meaningful privacy protections on the whois database.  Maybe then
> we could discuss whether or not the domain name owner's personal information
> should be provided.
>
> Barbara
>
> P.S.  The early incarnation of the Internet, ARPANET, was about maintaining
> communications after a devastating event such as the dropping of nuclear
> weapons on the US.  It was *not* about openness, nor was it about commerce.
> The openness that you and I both cherish came into being because of the
> small clique of researchers and academics who were the original ARPANET
> users.  I share your desire to maintain that openness and to prevent the
> Internet from being regulated and restricted to the point that it becomes a
> jazzed up Home Shopping Channel.  If the Internet is to continue to be the
> open communications channel that it has become, then it is critical that
> people have the ability to speak without fearing that everything they say
> and do can be monitored.
>
> On 6/17/02 10:46 PM, "Micheal Sherrill" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> > Wait a minute.  I am all for protecting abused wives, children, and those
> > seeking political asylum.  But, what does this have to do with the Whois
> > function?  I agree that perhaps a felony conviction for a first time offense
> > is harsh but please do not forget what this Internet was, and is all about,
> > openness.  At this time this (openness) is being clogged by a proliferation of
> > SPAMers that will, eventually, plug the pipe for any meaningful communication.
> > If we do not have the means to track accurate information of those that seek
> > to take advantage of all the resources that others fund how will we survive?
> > Your arguments pluck at our heartstrings but they also try to pluck my
> > pocketbook.  I mean, how many children have their own domain name?  And if
> > they can afford it, why do they need to hide their identity?  It would seem to
> > me that most children are trying to reach other children.  So why protect them
> > from each other?  Besides, the children do not register the domain names,
> > their parents usually do.  It has nothing to do with discovery.  Even more so,
> > what Internet sites are dedicated to battered women that would somehow lead
> > angry, misguided men to a safe house?  I do not think that any support group
> > would purchase a domain name but would be smart enough and economical enough
> > to go through a Web hosting company.  And what is even more perplexing is the
> > reference to free speech.  Free speech is about openness.  We talk about
> > things in the open!  So why the need for subterfuge?  If we have free speech
> > on the Internet what makes sense about listing a false address for our cause?
> > Anything else is already illegal, even via the USPS.  Plus, I have no idea
> > what you are talking about in reference to trademark holders sending out cease
> > and desist letters.  Overall, the logic of your complaint does not compute.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Micheal Sherrill
> >
> >
> > ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> > From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
> > Date:  Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:55:34 -0700
> >
> > Barbara and all,
> >
> > We [INEGroup] agree with you here Barbara, and are in process of
> > contacting the appropriate senate and House members that are
> > involved in this rather arcane and misguided legislation being considered.
> >
> > I personally would suggest that anyone concerned about their personal
> > safety, and privacy that are Domain Name holders do likewise without
> > delay...
> >
> > Barbara Simons wrote:
> >
> >> I agree that accurate information should be provided for the technical
> >> liaison.  What I'm saying is that a law that makes it a felony to provide
> >> inaccurate information for the domain name holder creates major problems
> >> regarding political speech, shelters for battered women, children who own
> >> their own domain name, etc.  The whois database is an open invitation for
> >> massive privacy invasion of domain name owners (as opposed to technical
> >> contacts).  HR 4640 would make it a felony in the U.S., punishable by up to
> >> 5 years in prison, to provide false address information for the owner of a
> >> domain name.  This would be a boon to trademark holders who are eager to
> >> send out large numbers of cease and desist letters, and a blow to people who
> >> care about protecting our privacy.
> >>
> >> I didn't mean to start a discussion about HR 4640, though I hope that this
> >> has helped to make our US based members aware of this misguided legislative
> >> proposal.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Barbara

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 #1280
*************************