Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1285
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, June 19 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1285

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

Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 23:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Grandfathering of SnapBacks vs other systems, and other comments

Hi Marilyn,

If you would forward this message to the Task Force mailing list, that
would be great.

In regards to SnapNames' document with regards to Grandfathering, they
slipped in a very misleading and inaccurate point with regards to
tortious interference of contracts, and I quote:

"no other customers—lacking pre-paid contracts today—have even a prayer
of that kind of claim."

The key word that was slipped in was "pre-paid". An agreement does NOT
require prepayment to be considered a contract -- all that is required
is consideration (amongst all the other elements that constitute a
contract). A promise to pay later, on a contingent basis, is valid
consideration and still constitutes a binding contract. With regards to
business models such as NameWinner, where payment is only received upon
successful registration of a name, those are valid binding contracts.
The addition of "prepaid" doesn't mean that non-prepaid contracts are
any less important or valid, although the attempt has been made to
imply that.

Services that would be impacted by WLS should be permitted the ability
to produce a list of names they wish to be excluded, before WLS is
implemented (they need not produce those lists in advance of ICANN's
decision to Verisign or SnapNames)

Furthermore, it is misleading to suggest that the affected names with
SnapBacks would not be grandfathered into WLS. These are sophisticated
players, who know how to game a system. They can manually remove their
SnapBack at a pre-specified time, thus having certain knowledge that a
WLS slot will become available. That knowledge is inside information,
that is not accessible to all. They would then hammer the WLS system
for that particular name, to achieve the WLS slot using that inside
information. This would thus allow sophisticated players to transfer
their SnapBack slots into WLS slots. Sophisticated players with
SnapBacks on valuable names would rather have a high chance at getting
a WLS slot using that insider information, rather than competing in the
current level playing field against NameWinner, eNom, and other players
in the Status Quo where there is equal access among registrars to the
registry resources.

With regards to some of the statistics provided by SnapNames, they
should be taken with a grain of salt, clearly. We don't even see a list
of the actual names, and they exclude their own customer base.

Contrast that with the independent analysis of their own "Hot 100"
list, of their best names (since removed from their site):

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01738.html

I'd also like to bring the Task Force's attention to the opinions of
Slashdot readers when the topic of WLS first came up:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/14/0649205

There was little support for it, and lots of opposition.

Lastly, I'd like to reissue the challenge that was presented in the
teleconference. The wait-list metaphor for apartment rentals was a very
useful analogy brought up by Chuck Gomes of Verisign. I'd like to know
of a single landlord anywhere in the world that charges a deposit for a
rental property ("aka WLS fee") but does not refund that deposit if the
current tenant renews the apartment rental (i.e. domain is renewed).
Only an abusive monopolist like Verisign registry would introduce such
a system, and have the gall to actually suggest it enhances
competition!

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, 19 Jun 2002 09:51:37 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Posting limit!

I remind everyone that a FIVE postings per day limit
of postings to the GA list is in place!

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/GA.list-monitoring.html

/// Alexander 

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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 03:51:19 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting limit!

And I remind everyone that if you want to be free of this 
censorship, you can join the alternative GA list at 
http://dns-o.org/mailman/listinfo/ga

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>; "Don Brown" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 2:51 AM
Subject: [ga] Posting limit!

> 
> I remind everyone that a FIVE postings per day limit
> of postings to the GA list is in place!
> 
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/GA.list-monitoring.html
> 
> /// Alexander 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- --
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, 19 Jun 2002 13:36:35 +0200
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .org bidders?

On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 02:50:52AM -0700, William X Walsh took time to write:
> > Global Name Registry?
> >   (http://www.orgbid.org)
> >   --> Registrant: Hakon Haugnes, GNR Co-Founder
> >   http://www.gnr.name
> 
> 
> > Are any others in sight, are any of those mentioned above
> > collaborating or not making a bid?
> 
> Quick question, if anyone knows, who is handling the registry services
> for GNR's .name registry?

Technically ? I think they are using Verisign servers. So...

Patrick.
- --
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, 19 Jun 2002 08:19:52 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re:  WLS proposal

Sorry Don,

The quoting started to make it look like I had proposed the auction
model - I just wanted to be painfully clear because, as we know,
auctions/lotteries don't tend to go over that well in domain land ;)

                       -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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Brown [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:24 PM
> To: [email-masked]; Ross Wm. Rader
> Cc: James Love; John Berryhill; [email-masked]; Transfer TF (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: WLS proposal
> 
> 
> Is this redundant?  My comments were regarding Ross's 
> "cooling tank" model.  Thanks,
> 
> 
> Tuesday, June 18, 2002, 9:39:27 PM, Ross Wm. Rader 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> RWR> To be clear, Jamie Love re-proposed the auction model. I was 
> RWR> putting forward the new concept of the "cooling tank".
> 
> RWR> Thanks,
> 
> RWR> -rwr
> 
> 
> RWR> ----- Original Message -----
> RWR> From: "Don Brown" <[email-masked]>
> RWR> To: <[email-masked]>; "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
> RWR> Cc: "James Love" <[email-masked]>; "John Berryhill" 
> RWR> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Transfer TF (E-mail)" 
> RWR> <[email-masked]>
> RWR> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:20 PM
> RWR> Subject: Re: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: WLS proposal
> 
> 
> >> I don't see anything wrong with the concept explained by 
> Ross, below.
> >>
> >> It gives the original registrant much more time to realize 
> they have 
> >> an expired domain name and it removes the conflict of interest 
> >> potential for the Registrar and Registry, during a much short time 
> >> period.
> >>
> >> Furthermore, NetSol/VeriSign shouldn't have a problem with this 
> >> extended period, either, since they have, in fact, been hoarding 
> >> expired names for a considerably longer period of time. 
> Although, my 
> >> bet is that they will use it as an excuse to ask for a price 
> >> increase. I could be psychic - time will tell.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tuesday, June 18, 2002, 4:37:08 AM, Ross Wm. Rader 
> <[email-masked]>
> RWR> wrote:
> >> >> Specifically, I proposed a 30 day period during which 
> people could 
> >> >> register for a lottery for the expired domain, and that during
> RWR> this
> >> RWR> 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
> >> RWR> name
> >> >> holder, and suggest they get the domain back and sell 
> it to them.  
> >> >> So
> RWR> if
> >> RWR> any
> >> >> auction develops, it will be with the original domain 
> holder, not the
> >> >> registrar.   The original domain name holder benefits 
> the most from
> RWR> this
> >> >> system.  They are more likely to catch mistakes, or 
> could sell the
> RWR> domain
> >> RWR> to
> >> >> an interested party.
> >>
> >> RWR> We talked about something similar on the last call.
> >>
> >> RWR> Realizing that a lot of the speculative value of a 
> domain lies 
> >> RWR> with
> RWR> the
> >> RWR> goodwill that accrues to it because of the initial 
> registrant, 
> >> RWR> it was proposed that all domain names slated for deletion are 
> >> RWR> put into a
> RWR> cooling
> >> RWR> tank for x days beyond the 30 days described in the 
> Redemption 
> >> RWR> Grace
> RWR> Period
> >> RWR> proposal.
> >>
> >> RWR> This would create a situation whereby registrants would be 
> >> RWR> guaranteed
> RWR> a
> >> RWR> right of re-registration "if they forgot to renew" 
> and eliminate 
> >> RWR> or
> RWR> diminish
> >> RWR> trainspotting by ensuring a prolonged 404-like 
> condition over a
> RWR> reasonably
> >> RWR> extended period of time before the name was deleted. Once 
> >> RWR> cooled, the
> RWR> domain
> >> RWR> could be deleted and re-registered by anyone on a first-come, 
> >> RWR> first
> RWR> served
> >> RWR> basis (and get a name relatively free of baggage).
> >>
> >> RWR> In my mind, this proposal has much to commend it in its 
> >> RWR> simplicity
> RWR> and
> >> RWR> perceived effectiveness.
> >>
> >> RWR> -rwr
> >>
> >>
> >> RWR> --
> >> RWR> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send 
> >> RWR> mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe 
> ("unsubscribe ga" in 
> >> RWR> the body of the message). Archives at 
> >> RWR> 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
> >> ----
> >>
> 
> RWR> --
> RWR> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. 
> Send mail 
> RWR> to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga" 
> in the body 
> RWR> of the message). 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: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:30:08 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS

<FONT face=3D"Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" si=
ze=3D2><DIV>George Kirikos wrote:</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>"The official =
position of the DNSO Registrars<BR>community, and the position of many othe=
r market participants suggest<BR>that WLS will have a devastating impact by=
 creating a new monopoly<BR>service for Verisign, to the detriment of consu=
mers and registrars."</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>I have be=
en following the discussions on this subject, and must confess that I still=
 am confused about&nbsp;exactly what this (and the many other similar state=
ments that have appeared from others) really mean.&nbsp; Could someone expl=
ain to me precisely&nbsp;how&nbsp;the WLS would harm consumers and/or regis=
trars?&nbsp; I understand, I think, the point that this would be a new serv=
ice that provides revenue for VeriSign (assuming, of course, that someone a=
ctually buys it), and I understand that having more revenue will give VeriS=
ign more resources, and more resources will give it more financial ammuniti=
on with which to compete with its competitors, including other registrars.&=
nbsp; And I understand that, because this reservation service (and only thi=
s service, given the fact that there is only one .com registry) will be abl=
e to offer more certainty than other competing reservation services, it may=
 have a competitive advantage over those competing products, which some peo=
ple think is unfair.&nbsp; But I get the impression that at least some peop=
le believe that&nbsp;there is&nbsp;more to the competitive concern than the=
se point?&nbsp; If that is right, could someone lay it out for me&nbsp;simp=
ly and clearly, so that even I can understand it?&nbsp; Thanks.<BR></DIV><B=
R><BR><BR>Joe&nbsp;Sims<BR>Jones&nbsp;Day&nbsp;Reavis&nbsp;&amp;&nbsp;Pogue=
<BR>51&nbsp;Louisiana&nbsp;Avenue&nbsp;NW<BR>Washington,&nbsp;D.C.&nbsp;200=
01<BR>Direct&nbsp;Phone:&nbsp;&nbsp;1.202.879.3863<BR>Direct&nbsp;Fax:&nbsp=
;&nbsp;1.202.626.1747<BR>Mobile&nbsp;Phone:&nbsp;&nbsp;1.703.629.3963<BR><B=
R>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR>The preceding e-mail message (including any attachmen=
ts) contains information that may be confidential, be protected by the atto=
rney-client or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public inform=
ation. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). I=
f you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the send=
er by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, di=
ssemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended re=
cipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.<BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D  <DIV><B=
R></DIV><BR></FONT>=
- --
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, 19 Jun 2002 15:08:43 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: More links on reform

Some will probably have seen these already:

 Elliot Noss/Timothy Denton/Ross Rader (Tucows Inc.)
 http://www.byte.org/heathrow/comments-icann-reform-v0r1d5.htm

 IAB Response to ICANN Evolution and Reform
 http://www.iab.org/DOCUMENTS/icann-response.html

 Latin American & Caribbean ccTLDs 
 http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/general/msg00119.html
 http://www.lactld.org/org/position-on-ER-ICANN.html

 Oscar Robles, nic.mx director (personal comment)
 http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/general/msg00117.html

 InternetNZ on request for funding 
 http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=811&mode=thread&order=0

BTW, I hope those attending the Bucharest meeting have seen 
ICANN's advisory regarding visa requirements?
http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-18jun02.htm

Best regards,
/// Alexander 

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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 06:44:00 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

- --------------A80A5C7C0716B07343AB8379
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

You approach this backwards with an assumption that they have a right to
have the service.
Secondly you are mistaken badly in suggesting that the sole registry for
dotCOM has competitors.
Verisign is a state sanctioned monopoly with contracts that were opposed
by the majority of the members on this list.
You had a hand in all this and your disingenuousness is vile.  This type
of complete lying about knowledge through categorizing material wrongly
creates hatred toward you and the BoD and Staff.

Why in the Hell did you even make this post?

Eric

Joe Sims wrote:

> George Kirikos wrote: "The official position of the DNSO Registrars
> community, and the position of many other market participants suggest
> that WLS will have a devastating impact by creating a new monopoly
> service for Verisign, to the detriment of consumers and
> registrars."  I have been following the discussions on this subject,
> and must confess that I still am confused about exactly what this (and
> the many other similar statements that have appeared from others)
> really mean.  Could someone explain to me precisely how the WLS would
> harm consumers and/or registrars?  I understand, I think, the point
> that this would be a new service that provides revenue for VeriSign
> (assuming, of course, that someone actually buys it), and I understand
> that having more revenue will give VeriSign more resources, and more
> resources will give it more financial ammunition with which to compete
> with its competitors, including other registrars.  And I understand
> that, because this reservation service (and only this service, given
> the fact that there is only one .com registry) will be able to offer
> more certainty than other competing reservation services, it may have
> a competitive advantage over those competing products, which some
> people think is unfair.  But I get the impression that at least some
> people believe that there is more to the competitive concern than
> these point?  If that is right, could someone lay it out for me simply
> and clearly, so that even I can understand it?  Thanks.
>
>
> 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.
> ==============================
>
>
> -- 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

- --------------A80A5C7C0716B07343AB8379
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
You approach this backwards with an assumption that they have a right to
have the service.
<br>Secondly you are mistaken badly in suggesting that the sole registry
for dotCOM has competitors.
<br>Verisign is a state sanctioned monopoly with contracts that were opposed
by the majority of the members on this list.
<br>You had a hand in all this and your disingenuousness is vile.&nbsp;
This type of complete lying about knowledge through categorizing material
wrongly creates hatred toward you and the BoD and Staff.
<p>Why in the Hell did you even make this post?
<p>Eric
<p>Joe Sims wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><font face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=-1>George
Kirikos wrote:</font></font>&nbsp;<font face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=-1>"The
official position of the DNSO Registrars</font></font>
<br><font face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=-1>community,
and the position of many other market participants suggest</font></font>
<br><font face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=-1>that
WLS will have a devastating impact by creating a new monopoly</font></font>
<br><font face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=-1>service
for Verisign, to the detriment of consumers and registrars."</font></font>&nbsp;&nbsp;<font face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=-1>I
have been following the discussions on this subject, and must confess that
I still am confused about exactly what this (and the many other similar
statements that have appeared from others) really mean.&nbsp; Could someone
explain to me precisely how the WLS would harm consumers and/or registrars?&nbsp;
I understand, I think, the point that this would be a new service that
provides revenue for VeriSign (assuming, of course, that someone actually
buys it), and I understand that having more revenue will give VeriSign
more resources, and more resources will give it more financial ammunition
with which to compete with its competitors, including other registrars.&nbsp;
And I understand that, because this reservation service (and only this
service, given the fact that there is only one .com registry) will be able
to offer more certainty than other competing reservation services, it may
have a competitive advantage over those competing products, which some
people think is unfair.&nbsp; But I get the impression that at least some
people believe that there is more to the competitive concern than these
point?&nbsp; If that is right, could someone lay it out for me simply and
clearly, so that even I can understand it?&nbsp; Thanks.</font></font>
<br>&nbsp;
<p><font face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=-1>Joe
Sims</font></font>
<br><font face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=-1>Jones
Day Reavis &amp; Pogue</font></font>
<br><font face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=-1>51
Louisiana Avenue NW</font></font>
<br><font face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=-1>Washington,
D.C. 20001</font></font>
<br><font face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=-1>Direct
Phone:&nbsp; 1.202.879.3863</font></font>
<br><font face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=-1>Direct
Fax:&nbsp; 1.202.626.1747</font></font>
<br><font face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=-1>Mobile
Phone:&nbsp; 1.703.629.3963</font></font>
<p><font face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=-1>==============================</font></font>
<br><font face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=-1>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.</font></font>
<br><font face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=-1>==============================</font></font>&nbsp;
<p><br>-- 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 <A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</A></blockquote>
</html>

- --------------A80A5C7C0716B07343AB8379--

- --
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, 19 Jun 2002 09:52:13 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Joe Sims wrote:
> I have been following the discussions on this subject, and must confess 
> that I still am confused about exactly what this (and the many other 
> similar statements that have appeared from others) really mean.  Could 
> someone explain to me precisely how the WLS would harm consumers and/or 
> registrars?  

     Joe, I represent the NCC on the Transfers task force.  These are my 
policy concerns:

1.  I don't think existing domain holders should have to pay extra to get on 
a WLS, so they don't lose a domain by mistakes.

2.   I don't think the system should enhance the likihood that the domain is 
transfered by mistake, or create incentives by any party to make transfers 
occur that should not have happened.

3.     I think that during a reasonable period when an expired domain is 
available for others, the original domain holders should be able to get it 
back, and it would be best if there were incentives for that period to be 
contacted, for example, by persons who wanted to buy the domain.

4.    If there is some value in the expired domain, I would prefer a system 
where the previous owner of the domain benefited, rather than a registrar 
type service, in part to reduce the incentives to have a domain expired by a 
non-mistake mistake.

5.     I think ICANN should be concerned about competition issues.  You are 
an antitrust lawyer.  It should be obvious that Verisign has a dominant 
position in the gTLD registrations, and it should be obvious also that 
Verisign has continually abused its monopoly position.  It took us several 
months to transfer out domains from Verisign to a competitor who charged 1/3 
the price, because Versign made it very difficult.

6. 	The recent "expiration department" fiasco seemed a lot like a criminal 
fraud to me.  How could you look at what what Versigin did there, and then 
recommend that they run an expiration service?  Representing domain name 
holders, this seems (to me) to send exactly the wrong signal.    You would 
be rewarding a firm that was actively defrauding domain holders over the 
expiration issue.

7.    Why not have all the competitive registrars run an expiration service 
as a open access coop, with rules that favor the existing domain holders 
(ability to reclaim the domain during 30 day period when domain is on the 
list), *and* which avoids the speed dial system?

8.  Is there any evidence that Versigin's ability to discharge its 
contractual obligations with ICANN can't be met without extending its 
monopoly control over .com and .net domains?

   Jamie

>I understand, I think, the point that this would be a new 
> service that provides revenue for VeriSign (assuming, of course, that 
> someone actually buys it), and I understand that having more revenue 
> will give VeriSign more resources, and more resources will give it more 
> financial ammunition with which to compete with its competitors, 
> including other registrars.  And I understand that, because this 
> reservation service (and only this service, given the fact that there is 
> only one .com registry) will be able to offer more certainty than other 
> competing reservation services, it may have a competitive advantage over 
> those competing products, which some people think is unfair.  But I get 
> the impression that at least some people believe that there is more to 
> the competitive concern than these point?  If that is right, could 
> someone lay it out for me simply and clearly, so that even I can 
> understand it?  Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> ==============================
> 
> 
> -- 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

- -- 
- ------
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:02:33 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

The WLS proposal will create monopoly control of the source of supply
and dramatically increase the unit cost.

Instead of consumers having a choice between Fords, Chevrolets and
Plymouths, they'll only be able to buy Volkswagen's at the former
price of a Cadillac.

Competition vs. a monopoly.  Fixed pricing vs. a fluid, competitive
and free market.  Market discriminators and innovation vs. take it or
leave it.  No consumer choice.

What, exactly, do you find difficult to comprehend?

Wednesday, June 19, 2002, 7:30:08 AM, Joe Sims <[email-masked]> wrote:
JS> George Kirikos wrote:

JS>  

JS> "The official position of the DNSO Registrars
JS> community, and the position of many other market participants suggest
JS> that WLS will have a devastating impact by creating a new monopoly
JS> service for Verisign, to the detriment of consumers and registrars."

JS>  

JS>  

JS> I have been following the discussions on this subject, and must confess that I still am confused about exactly what this (and the many other similar statements that have appeared from others)
JS> really mean.  Could someone explain to me precisely how the WLS would harm consumers and/or registrars?  I understand, I think, the point that this would be a new service that provides revenue
JS> for VeriSign (assuming, of course, that someone actually buys it), and I understand that having more revenue will give VeriSign more resources, and more resources will give it more financial
JS> ammunition with which to compete with its competitors, including other registrars.  And I understand that, because this reservation service (and only this service, given the fact that there is
JS> only one .com registry) will be able to offer more certainty than other competing reservation services, it may have a competitive advantage over those competing products, which some people think
JS> is unfair.  But I get the impression that at least some people believe that there is more to the competitive concern than these point?  If that is right, could someone lay it out for me simply
JS> and clearly, so that even I can understand it?  Thanks.

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

JS> ==============================
JS> 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
JS> 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
JS> 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.
JS> ============================== 

JS> --
JS> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
JS> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
JS> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
JS> 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: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 15:11:23 +0100
From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS  proposal

> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:17:10 -0700
> From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [nc-transfer] Re:
[ncdnhc-discuss] WLS  proposal

[...]

>   No one including Leah is advocating the the use of the Whois database
> for basic lookups on Domain names Don.  What is being objected to
> again is the fact that new proposed legislation to which Barbara
> previously provided, is considering making it a felony if a registrant
> does not provide their personal and private physical address when
> registering a Domain name as part of that legislation.  This would
> now doubt, endanger a person's safety, engender more specific
> types of fraud, possibly and likely give terrorists, stalkers, and
> other undesirables an easy source for their horrifying and
> dangerous activities, and in doing so, jeopardize the general
> safety of all of us registrants on a global scale.

 Okay, so how about this for a possible solution:

1. the proposed legislation still stands

2. the applicant has a choice to have his/her details published in the
WHOIS database. ie. OPT IN/OPT OUT

3. When a whois enquiry is made on an unpublished domain listing,
the information returned is of the type:
"The owner of this domain has opted out of the WHOIS database.
To contract the domain owner, please e-mail  [email-masked] "
(where this effectively provides the Postmaster's address at that domain)

4. law enforcement agencies have the right of access to the whole database

5. the registrar maintaining the database has no rights to market the
database
itself to any third party, nor do they have the right to use the database
for
data mining, demographic data, promotional e-mails, etc.

6. Each domain needs to have a technical contact, which can be set to
the domain name holder's phone number should they be okay with this,
or with the registrar's phone number, who will pass the enquiry on
accordingly,
if required.

With the above solution we AVOID:

a. paedophiles finding out details of a child's address when they hold a
domain
b. stalkers who want to find out "real" details of a web site owner
c. terrorists finding out the address of a web site's publisher
d. terrorists/hate groups publishing offending information on the Internet
with
no law enforcement agency being able to find out their source
e. spammers spamming out from a legitimate domain without anybody being
able to be in touch with them
f. taking away WHOIS priviledges from anybody
g. not being able to get in touch with a domain name holder if a FOOBAR
takes
place on their network and floods our own network

The fact that the legislation still stands means that Mr. Ousama Bin Laden
(or pick your favourite equivalent scumbag/dictator/despot/terrorist) cannot
register a domain to flood the world with his junk without anybody being
able
to get in touch with them.  I am taking an extreme example, but this stands
for
pornographic sites, gambling sites, etc. etc.

- --
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D. |--> Global Information Highway Limited
E-mail:<[email-masked]> | Tel:+44 (0)7956 84 1113 | Fax:+44 (0)20 7937 7666
Web: http://www.gih.com/ & http://www.nsrc.org/codes/country-codes.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 07:17:59 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Sermon/sorry/WHOIS

I thought I could get away without one for this week but it is
necessary.

WHOIS

We in any moral outstanding group have a creed and that creed from
Buddha to Eye God to Jesus to Hindu to Allah demands that we allow
others their right to privacy. Some even require privacy in public, a
veil.  We are are only required to be revealed to our chosen ones.  This
is historical through the ages.  Ceasars census, and China's great
recordings show the folly of anything else.  Only very important
privileges carry the requirement of disclosure - driving, practising a
profession and the like - and now even these are guarded informational
data.

Europe, Asia, South America and Africa have done a great job protecting
privacy.  The United States has done a great job denying privacy in the
name of trademarks. Any cursory evaluation of the Whois and UDRP shows
the alignment between revealing personal data and bringing a complaint
for trademark infringement. WLS is really just another gambit and this
same sad story.  Net Sol did not get all fuzzy and billions of dollars
for its registration service but a calculated evaluation of it's data
base of personal information on individuals that comes from the whois.
I cannot cotton this revelation of personal data.  It repulses me.
But what can I do?  Plenty.  I can write my government representatives,
I can argue my point on lists like this, I can inform others of the
situation, I can help develop more positive alternatives, in short I can
care.

May all of your cares be in the name of a higher principal and not
selfish.

Eric

- --
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 #1285
*************************