Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1286
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, June 19 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1286

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

Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 07:30:41 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [nc-transfer]  Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS  proposal

Freedoms and rights are established by people who advocate them.
They are hard fought for and recklessly defended.
It is up to you to defend and or advocate what you think is right, without that
there is no quarter drawn that is not appropriate.
Eric

Eray Ozkural wrote:

> On Wednesday 19 June 2002 06:46, Don Brown wrote:
> >
> > Frankly, I do not advocate, taking any freedoms (including inspecting
> > the WhoIs database) away from anyone.  On that point, I don't foresee
> > that we'll see eye to eye.
>
> Is it a freedom to be able to look up a person's phone number and address from
> a global database? I doubt that.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Eray Ozkural (exa) <[email-masked]>
> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
> www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo  Malfunction: http://mp3.com/ariza
> GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B  EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]

- --
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 07:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Hi Joe,

It's been explained numerous times, including:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00300.html

There are two specific points of harm:

1) reduced consumer choice
2) higher prices

I could elaborate further if you need further help in understanding
these issues, but they're pretty straightforward.

If AT&T suddenly forced all long distance carriers to go through it,
being charged a per minute rate of $0.15, and forcing existing
competitors to simply becoming resellers of AT&T, that would be the
equivalent of the WLS proposal. Competitors couldn't make investments
or build their own networks, to reduce costs. They couldn't have a
"call your friends for free" plan, or a "$50/month all you can eat"
plan, or other innovations that exist due to a competitive landscape
that exists today.

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 15:26:54 +0100
From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal

>Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 15:22:18 -0400
>From: James Love <[email-masked]>
>To: "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
>CC: NCDNHC-discuss list <[email-masked]>
>
>As one of the members of the Transfers TK from the NCC, this is my proposed
>solution to the problem of expired domains.
>
>Rather than allocate these domains on a first come first serve basis, which
>   creates a lot of problems in terms of how people get first in line, and
>which also  presents problems for people that did not intend to let a
domain
>lapse, I propose the following proceedure.
>
>1.  Whenever a domain expires, and after whatever grace period is
>appropriate, it be placed upon a list of expired domains, maintained joinly
>by the registrars who want to participate, with equal access to the list.
>
>2.  Over a period of 30 days, any person who wants to register the expired
>domain can express an interest.
>
>3.  During the 30 day period, the original domain owner can reactivate the
>domain.
>
>4.  If the original domain owner has not reactivated the domain during the
>30 day period, the domain is assigned by lottery to one of the parties
>seeking the domain.
>
>Jamie

What is wrong with the expired domain name falling into obscurity?

Why is "expiry" information published and openly accessed by the rest of the
world in the WHOIS database ? Does this help anybody apart from domain
name hoarders/pirates/speculators ?

Let me explain my proposed solution clearly:

1. removal of the "expires" info in the publicly accessed WHOIS database
2. before expiry, the registrar send out usual renewal notices, as it is
done now.
3. at expiry, the registrar notifies the domain name holder that the domain
has
expired, and keeps it "on ice" for 30 days during which time the domain is
completely
removed from the WHOIS database - ie. it falls in obscurity
4. if the domain name holder then renews the domain, it re-appears in the
WHOIS
database, and all is fine
5. if the domain name holder prefers not to renew the domain, the domain's
details are erased from the database altogether, and the domain falls into
obscurity. Anybody could re-register it again, but they first need to find
out
if it exists, and that involves a lot of work. Remember that automatic data
mining of the WHOIS database contradicts the AUP of the registrar.

How much more difficult can it be than this ?
It is the fairest way to run the DNS.

- --
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 08:16:55 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Joe Sims wrote:
> 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.

At present, registrars offer a variety of different services to allow their
customers the opportunity to register a domain name. These services, some of
which have been offered for a very long time, would be usurped by the WLS at
the registry level. Yes, the registrars would be allowed to offer WLS to
their customers, but some of the registrars would prefer to continue
offering their own, unique solutions.

Personally, I think the WLS offers a superior service for the vast majority
of end users, as only a registry-level service can takes the gamesmanship
out of the expiring domain grab. But the fact that some registrars, and
their customers, were occupying this space before Verisign complicates the
analysis.

This is a hard question. Where do you encourage innovation, at the
registry-level or the registrar-level, and/or how do you strike the balance
between rewarding registry innovation and registrar innovation? Snapnames
would say that I framed the question wrong; Verisign should be allowed to
offer new services subject only to a narrow review:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03669.html

The competitive concern that you're hearing though is that some services now
offered at the registrar-level would no longer be possible if the WLS were
implemented. 

    -- Bret

- --
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 08:21:25 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal

How naive.

You think people use the whois published date to find out about
expired domains?

Trust me, they don't.  That would be the worst, and least effective
way to do it.

Wednesday, June 19, 2002, 7:26:54 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

>>Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 15:22:18 -0400
>>From: James Love <[email-masked]>
>>To: "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
>>CC: NCDNHC-discuss list <[email-masked]>
>>
>>As one of the members of the Transfers TK from the NCC, this is my proposed
>>solution to the problem of expired domains.
>>
>>Rather than allocate these domains on a first come first serve basis, which
>>   creates a lot of problems in terms of how people get first in line, and
>>which also  presents problems for people that did not intend to let a
> domain
>>lapse, I propose the following proceedure.
>>
>>1.  Whenever a domain expires, and after whatever grace period is
>>appropriate, it be placed upon a list of expired domains, maintained joinly
>>by the registrars who want to participate, with equal access to the list.
>>
>>2.  Over a period of 30 days, any person who wants to register the expired
>>domain can express an interest.
>>
>>3.  During the 30 day period, the original domain owner can reactivate the
>>domain.
>>
>>4.  If the original domain owner has not reactivated the domain during the
>>30 day period, the domain is assigned by lottery to one of the parties
>>seeking the domain.
>>
>>Jamie

> What is wrong with the expired domain name falling into obscurity?

> Why is "expiry" information published and openly accessed by the rest of the
> world in the WHOIS database ? Does this help anybody apart from domain
> name hoarders/pirates/speculators ?

> Let me explain my proposed solution clearly:

> 1. removal of the "expires" info in the publicly accessed WHOIS database
> 2. before expiry, the registrar send out usual renewal notices, as it is
> done now.
> 3. at expiry, the registrar notifies the domain name holder that the domain
> has
> expired, and keeps it "on ice" for 30 days during which time the domain is
> completely
> removed from the WHOIS database - ie. it falls in obscurity
> 4. if the domain name holder then renews the domain, it re-appears in the
> WHOIS
> database, and all is fine
> 5. if the domain name holder prefers not to renew the domain, the domain's
> details are erased from the database altogether, and the domain falls into
> obscurity. Anybody could re-register it again, but they first need to find
> out
> if it exists, and that involves a lot of work. Remember that automatic data
> mining of the WHOIS database contradicts the AUP of the registrar.

> How much more difficult can it be than this ?
> It is the fairest way to run the DNS.

> --
> 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

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:41:09 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, at 15:26 [=GMT+0100], Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

> Why is "expiry" information published and openly accessed by the rest of the
> world in the WHOIS database ? Does this help anybody apart from domain
> name hoarders/pirates/speculators ?

Yes, people that want to register a domain that expires to use it.

> Let me explain my proposed solution clearly:
>
> 1. removal of the "expires" info in the publicly accessed WHOIS database

Is in the ICANN contracts...

> 2. before expiry, the registrar send out usual renewal notices, as it is
> done now.
> 3. at expiry, the registrar notifies the domain name holder that the domain
> has
> expired, and keeps it "on ice" for 30 days during which time the domain is
> completely
> removed from the WHOIS database - ie. it falls in obscurity
> 4. if the domain name holder then renews the domain, it re-appears in the
> WHOIS
> database, and all is fine
> 5. if the domain name holder prefers not to renew the domain, the domain's
> details are erased from the database altogether, and the domain falls into
> obscurity. Anybody could re-register it again, but they first need to find
> out
> if it exists, and that involves a lot of work.

Not at all. Scripts, cron.

> Remember that automatic data
> mining of the WHOIS database contradicts the AUP of the registrar.

Mining is about getting email addresses for spam. Trying to find out about
a domain or a limited set of domains is not.

Also, trying to grab a released domain does not operate over whois,
obviously. One just tries to register is every so often. So your plan will
only increase the hammering on the registry...

> How much more difficult can it be than this ?
> It is the fairest way to run the DNS.

It is merely a variant of 'security by obscurity'. What is worse: big
players can work around your scheme (by setting up a shaddow whois for
interesting domains _with_ expiry dates); ordinary users of domain names
cannot. Your plan will increase the hold of speculators on names.

- --
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 17:47:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ORG bidders

For those interested, the list of, 11, ORG bidders is now up, with lots of
details, at

http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applications-received-18jun02.htm

- --
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 10:08:02 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Brett,
I understand part of your consternation here but I am finding it difficult to
believe you have not formed opinions.  Innovation should clearly be at all levels.
Monopolies should clearly be at no level.  ICANN/Verisign is wrong and you know it.

WLS is clearly wrong in that it emanates at the monopolistic level rather than the
relatively level playing field of registrars, thereby promoting (one would hope)
competition.  Or leaving it alone and allowing the even more level field of the
ISPs to handle getting names.
We must not give more to a monopoly.  We must take more away in order for human
nature and capitalistic concerns to run the roost.  The US Government runs Verisign
through an agreement that allows only them to run the dotCOM - you want to give
them more power?
Eric

Bret Fausett wrote:

> Joe Sims wrote:
> > 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.
>
> At present, registrars offer a variety of different services to allow their
> customers the opportunity to register a domain name. These services, some of
> which have been offered for a very long time, would be usurped by the WLS at
> the registry level. Yes, the registrars would be allowed to offer WLS to
> their customers, but some of the registrars would prefer to continue
> offering their own, unique solutions.
>
> Personally, I think the WLS offers a superior service for the vast majority
> of end users, as only a registry-level service can takes the gamesmanship
> out of the expiring domain grab. But the fact that some registrars, and
> their customers, were occupying this space before Verisign complicates the
> analysis.
>
> This is a hard question. Where do you encourage innovation, at the
> registry-level or the registrar-level, and/or how do you strike the balance
> between rewarding registry innovation and registrar innovation? Snapnames
> would say that I framed the question wrong; Verisign should be allowed to
> offer new services subject only to a narrow review:
> http://www.politechbot.com/p-03669.html
>
> The competitive concern that you're hearing though is that some services now
> offered at the registrar-level would no longer be possible if the WLS were
> implemented.
>
>     -- Bret
>
> --
> 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 19:18:26 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

In the ccTLD world I am familiar with, the Registry MUST
be neutral to competitive market of Registrars (or ISPs
- - we do not use the same vocabulary either).

This is the first and most important rule - be neutral.

There are some ccTLD Registries which are forbiden by rule
to act as ISPs/Registrars (like .fr), there are others
which are obligated by rule to provide registration service
(like .uk or .de). In the later case, the ccTLD Registry
set up registration fees at very costly high level,
to discourage customer to register directly and to avoid
to compete with their own ISPs/Registrars members.

It seems to me that it is the way to follow: open competition
at Registrars level, neutrality at Registry.

Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --

======================================================================
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:16:55 -0700
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
To: Joe Sims <[email-masked]>, DNSO General Assembly <[email-masked]>
CC: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>

Joe Sims wrote:
> 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.

At present, registrars offer a variety of different services to allow their
customers the opportunity to register a domain name. These services, some of
which have been offered for a very long time, would be usurped by the WLS at
the registry level. Yes, the registrars would be allowed to offer WLS to
their customers, but some of the registrars would prefer to continue
offering their own, unique solutions.

Personally, I think the WLS offers a superior service for the vast majority
of end users, as only a registry-level service can takes the gamesmanship
out of the expiring domain grab. But the fact that some registrars, and
their customers, were occupying this space before Verisign complicates the
analysis.

This is a hard question. Where do you encourage innovation, at the
registry-level or the registrar-level, and/or how do you strike the balance
between rewarding registry innovation and registrar innovation? Snapnames
would say that I framed the question wrong; Verisign should be allowed to
offer new services subject only to a narrow review:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03669.html

The competitive concern that you're hearing though is that some services now
offered at the registrar-level would no longer be possible if the WLS were
implemented. 

    -- Bret

- --
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 10:27:54 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

[email-masked] wrote:
> I understand part of your consternation here but I am finding it difficult to
> believe you have not formed opinions.  Innovation should clearly be at all
> levels. Monopolies should clearly be at no level.

I *have* formed an opinion on what works best for consumers. In my mind,
there's no question that WLS is a superior service because it makes expiring
domain names broadly available to regular consumers and reduces uncertainty.
(I've followed the arguments closely over the last few months, and I haven't
seen any compelling argument to convince me otherwise.)

I haven't formed an opinion on whether the benefits of a uniform WL service
are so great that they trump the legitimate business interests of registrars
in offering competing WL services. For example, few would argue that
assignment of unique names has to occur at the registry-level in order to
prevent name conflicts. The benefit of unique name assignments trumps the
ability of registrars to register whatever names customers request. I don't
think the benefits of WLS are as great as the benefits of unique name
assignments, but are they great enough to justify the service? I don't know.
That's the hard question.

     -- Bret

- --
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 10:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Showing your support for .org is hard to do.

Sponsors with no link to show support
  .org Foundation
  The Global Name Registry, Limited
  The .Org Foundation
  Organic Names Ltd.
  Register ORGanization, Inc.
  SWITCH Swiss Academic and Research Network

Sponsors With Links to show support

  ISC/IMS  http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000034.shtml
  ISOC     http://www.isoc.org/dotorg/
  Unity    http://www.unityregistry.org/form.asp

Full Proposals

  IMS/ISC http://trusted.resource.org
  NeuStar http://www.neustar.biz/services/dot_org/

  its hard to believe that 9 of 11 organizations bidding for a resource to
  be managed as a public trust don't trust us enough to let us read their
  proposals.

Proposals [summary only]

  Union of International Associations ( VeriSign )
     http://db.uia.org/diversitas.org/executive_summary_for_diversitas.php

- --
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 13:12:17 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

>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.

It is fairly simple and clear, and entirely missed in your recapitulation of
the competition concerns.  The "registrar harm" and "consumer harm" points
are flagged below with asterisks, so that even you can find them.

1.  Presently, there are several different services which use different
business models to compete for the opportunity to register domain names which
come off registration.  For example, there is SnapNames.com, Namewinner.com,
and several others.  Some of these services are fixed price services, some of
them are auctions with payment due on contingency, some for a "bounty", and
so forth.  During the development of these services, which involve various
repetitive polling mechanisms, there was concern that these services were
overloading registry resources during name drop periods.   That problem has
since been solved.

2.  WLS as proposed, will be the only way to obtain an expiring domain name,
since it will operate at the registry level.  Hence, this registry-level
service will effectively eliminate the present range of competing
registrar-level services for registration of expiring names.  Not compete -
eliminate - as any other method will be entirely ineffective.  **This will
eliminate a present revenue stream for some registrars.**  It is not a matter
of WLS providing a "competitive advantage" over the existing mix of services,
as you seem to perceive it.  The WLS as proposed will be the only game in
town, and will eliminate the existing mix of services, because it will
operate with certainty at the registry level to provide registration of an
expiring domain name to the single person who managed to grab the WLS slot
first.  There will be no competition to have an "advantage" over, and if a
WLS-squatter has the slot, you are out of luck.

3.  From the consumer perspective, the WLS as proposed will provide one, and
only one, person with certainty that they will become the registrant of an
expiring domain name.  Under the current situation, a consumer may obtain at
least an uncertain chance of obtaining the name through one of the present
competing services.  Presently, a consumer who finds that a SnapNames
"snapback" is taken on the domain name they want, can go elsewhere and have a
chance to register the name.  Under WLS, a consumer who finds that someone
else has already obtained the WLS slot for the name they want will have no
choice, because **there will be no alternative available.**

4.  To recap, the WLS will (a) eliminate a present registrar revenue stream
and a present competitive market, and (b) reduce consumer choice.  These
effects are entirely independent of whether Verisign will make money.
Verisign is entitled to make all of the money they lawfully can, and nobody
should have a problem with that.  Nobody has been saying that WLS is
anti-competitive for the mere fact that Verisign will make money from it.
The competition concern is that the proposal under consideration here is for
a monopoly service which will have incidental effects (a) and (b) noted
above.

Whether the WLS as proposed is implemented or not, released domain names will
continue to be registered by the quick and the clever, just as they are now.
The race will only be shifted to obtaining WLS slots rather than obtaining
the domain names themselves.  The notion is simply absurd that people who are
generally unfamiliar with domain name policies and procedures will have a
level playing field with those who are expert and studious followers of this
arcane nonsense.  But, the WLS party line plays well with those abused of a
habit of wishful thinking and unsupported theories of human behavior.

On further reflection, we may well simply see a bloom of competitive WLS
"gaming" services...

- --
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 14:10:32 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re:  WLS proposal

I had proposed a lottery, either one chance person, or one per registrar. 
But if you had an auction, it would be more acceptable if the proceeds went 
to the previous domain holder.

jamie

Don Brown wrote:
> To be clear also, I don't find anything wrong with Ross's proposition
> of a "cooling tank."  Furthermore, for the sake of clarity, I am not
> in favor of "any" auction 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 putting forward
> RWR> 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 with
>>
> RWR> the
> 
>>>RWR> goodwill that accrues to it because of the initial registrant, it was
>>>RWR> proposed that all domain names slated for deletion are put into a
>>
> RWR> cooling
> 
>>>RWR> tank for x days beyond the 30 days described in the Redemption Grace
>>
> RWR> Period
> 
>>>RWR> proposal.
>>>
>>>RWR> This would create a situation whereby registrants would be guaranteed
>>
> RWR> a
> 
>>>RWR> right of re-registration "if they forgot to renew" and eliminate 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 cooled, the
>>
> RWR> domain
> 
>>>RWR> could be deleted and re-registered by anyone on a first-come, 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 simplicity
>>
> RWR> and
> 
>>>RWR> perceived effectiveness.
>>>
>>>RWR> -rwr
>>>
>>>
>>>RWR> --
>>>RWR> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>>>RWR> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>>>RWR> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>>>RWR> 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
>>>----
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 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
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
- ------
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 13:30:03 -0500
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

Hmmmm...I so very rarely find the need to respond to much of anything that goes on here; the arguments on all things domain name are so circular; but my "this smells fishy" meter just hit a new high this morning with this current post from Joe Sims.

If I believed the post was a sincere desire to obtain information, my response would be something along the lines of:

"Simply and clearly, consumers will end up paying $35 minimum with WLS for something they can currently get for free at some competing registrars (a shot at an expiring domain name)."

However, what I'm really feeling is this:

"Please, everyone, don't bother to respond to Mr. Sims.  The decision to approve WLS for a one-year trial in Bucharest has already been made.  The writing on the wall couldn't be more clear."

Best regards,

Jeff

- --
jeff field
952-848-7626
952-848-7627 fax
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
- -----

- -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joe Sims
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 7:30 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] WLS
> 
> 
>> 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
> 
> 

- --
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 #1286
*************************