Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1289
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, June 20 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1289

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

Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 23:11:06 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal

At 04:52 AM 20/06/02 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> > As Gary Osbourne has already mentioned, if I had a gee-whizz great idea
> > for a Web site,
>
>Domains are used for other things than websites.

Agreed, but I don't know of a protocol that functions
better through possibly using a kewl name at some unknown
point in the future than just registering and using an
available domain name in the present. -g

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 01:12:16 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal

>>From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
>>To: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[email-masked]>
>>Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
>>Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 4:41 PM
>>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.
>
>As Gary Osbourne has already mentioned, if I had a gee-whizz great idea
>for a Web site, I would not be waiting for a domain to expire, to implement
>the idea.

What if that idea hinged on one particular name, and no other would work
the same?

>Nobody waits for domains to expire to use them - nobody, apart
>from those people that want to make money from re-selling the domain
>at a premium.

I'm sorry but that is patently false.

>Besides, since the vast majority of domains are renewed,

OK. Now where did you get that stat from, or are you just guessing?

>you'd have a bigger chance of winning a million dollars at the state lottery
>than to wait for a domain to expire and not be renewed by its owner.

Depends what the domain name is, whether the current owner correctly
perceived it's value, and whether they can afford to renew it along with
the thousands of others they registered.

>> > 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.
>
>Scripts & Cron are fine - but can you imagine how many scripts and
>cron jobs would have to be run to check for all domain names that might
>have expired?

OK. So what you really meant to say was that you really have no idea about
this and everything so far has been a guess on your part. Correct?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 10:21:01 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Showing your support for .org is hard to do.

On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 10:42:50AM -0700,
 Rick Wesson <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 39 lines which said:

> Sponsors with no link to show support
...
>   The .Org Foundation

Wrong, it is clearly on their home page:

http://www.theorgfoundation.org/

>   Organic Names Ltd.

Same thing.

http://www.organicnames.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: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 01:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Showing your support for .org is hard to do.

Stephane,

thanks for the update! when I checked this mmorning PDT time, there were
no methods for showing support for either of these two bids, I'm glad they
updated their sites.

- -rick

On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 10:42:50AM -0700,
>  Rick Wesson <[email-masked]> wrote
>  a message of 39 lines which said:
>
> > Sponsors with no link to show support
> ...
> >   The .Org Foundation
>
> Wrong, it is clearly on their home page:
>
> http://www.theorgfoundation.org/
>
> >   Organic Names Ltd.
>
> Same thing.
>
> http://www.organicnames.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: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:13:51 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Showing your support for .org is hard to do.

On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 11:37:59AM -0700,
 Bret Fausett <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 18 lines which said:

> Part of the application process was to give ICANN full copies of the
> proposals in html. I believe that ICANN will be posting all of what was
> submitted to it shortly, maybe even today.

Yes, things move fast, seven proposals are on-line:

http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applications/

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 02:49:48 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Whois/wls

Have our lives become so murky that we do not see data bases ruling our
thought process?
Do those of us on these lists have an obligation to users - whoever they
may be?
Perhaps not.  But if that is the case let us recognize it.

We have just altered our data base, alpha-to-beta and soon to be live,
to exclude personal info and include a name and an email address and
nothing more.  But we require a domain name to go live quickly.  I have
fought hard and in good conscience cannot allow more than that whether
for expiry or registration purposes.

In the parlance of good farmers, WLS is an extra milking game, and cows
have only so much milk.  But the whois gives the utter away.  We are
ready to grow up, let us do it in good fashion.
dotCOM is a mess and maybe should be allowed to die a respectable death
in favor of ccTLDs, and inclusives.

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 02:51:28 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Showing your support for .org is hard to do.

Watch the roses they often have thorns.

Eric

Rick Wesson wrote:

> Stephane,
>
> thanks for the update! when I checked this mmorning PDT time, there were
> no methods for showing support for either of these two bids, I'm glad they
> updated their sites.
>
> -rick
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 10:42:50AM -0700,
> >  Rick Wesson <[email-masked]> wrote
> >  a message of 39 lines which said:
> >
> > > Sponsors with no link to show support
> > ...
> > >   The .Org Foundation
> >
> > Wrong, it is clearly on their home page:
> >
> > http://www.theorgfoundation.org/
> >
> > >   Organic Names Ltd.
> >
> > Same thing.
> >
> > http://www.organicnames.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

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:00:47 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, at 23:11 [=GMT-0700], Gary Osbourne wrote:
> At 04:52 AM 20/06/02 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> > > As Gary Osbourne has already mentioned, if I had a gee-whizz great idea
> > > for a Web site,
> >
> >Domains are used for other things than websites.
>
> Agreed, but I don't know of a protocol that functions
> better through possibly using a kewl name at some unknown
> point in the future than just registering and using an
> available domain name in the present. -g

Naturally. And then keeping a wide open eye for the domain you really want
to expire. :-/

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:32:46 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The dot-ORG proposals (v1)

Please note that not all proposals have been posted yet.

(1)
THE DOTORG FOUNDATION
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Site:     http://www.dotorgfoundation.org/
Proposal: Not posted yet?
Partner:  Registry Advantage, http://www.registryadvantage.com/
          [subsidiary of Register.com?]
          Kintera, http://www.kintera.com
Support:  No link yet?

(2)
THE GLOBAL NAME REGISTRY, LIMITED
Location: London, UK
Site:     (http://www.gnr.name)
Proposal: Not posted yet?
Partner:  International Federation of Red Cross and 
          Red Crescent Societies, http://www.ifrc.org
Support:  No link yet?

(3)
INTERNET MULTICASTING SERVICE, INC./INTERNET SOFTWARE CONSORTIUM, INC.
Location: Stewart Point, CA, US
Site:     http://trusted.resource.org
Proposal: http://trusted.resource.org/org-proposal.html
Partner:  None; 8% of revenue donated to ISOC for the 
          specific purpose of funding the IETF and IAB
Support:  http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000055.shtml

(4)
THE INTERNET SOCIETY (ISOC)
Location: Reston, VA, USA
Site:     http://www.isoc.org/dotorg/
Proposal: Not posted yet?
Partners: Afilias, http://www.afilias.info
          IBM, http://www.ibm.com
          UltraDNS, http://www.ultradns.com
          DSI Technology Escrow Services, http://www.dsiescrow.com/
Support:  http://www.isoc.org/dotorg/

(5)
NEUSTAR, INC.
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Site:     (http://www.neustar.com)
Proposal: http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applications/neustar/
Partner:  - 
Support:  No link yet?

(6)
THE .ORG FOUNDATION
Location: Bellevue, WA, USA
Site:     http://www.theorgfoundation.org/
Proposal: http://www.theorgfoundation.org/proposal/
Partner:  eNom, Inc. http://www.enom.com
Support:  http://www.theorgfoundation.org/

(7)
ORGANIC NAMES LTD.
Location: London, UK
Site:     http://www.organicnames.org/
Proposal: http://www.organicnames.org/page.php?cid=67
Partner:  CentralNIC, http://www.centralnic.com
Support:  http://www.organicnames.org/supporter.php

(8)
REGISTER ORGANIZATION, INC.
Location: New York, NY, USA
Site:     http://www.registerorganization.org/
Proposal: Not posted yet? (Link doesn't work yet)
Partners: Register.com, http://www.register.com;
          RegisterOrg will grant 2.5 million US$ to
          the Open Society Institute, 
          http://www.soros.org/internet, and the
          Benton Foundation's Digital Opportunity Channel,
          http://www.digitalopportunity.org
Support:  No link yet?

(9)
SWITCH SWISS ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH NETWORK
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Site:     (http://www.switch.ch/)
Proposal: http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applications/switch/index.htm
Partners: Mount10 Schweiz AG, www.mount10.ch 
          Wampumeag, LLC [Eric Brunner-Williams], http://nic-naa.net
          Nominum, http://www.nominum.com
          IX Europe Telehouse, http://www.telehouse.ch
Support:  No link yet?

(10)
UNION OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Site:     (http://www.uia.org)
Proposal: http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applications/uia/TOC.html
Partner:  VeriSign GRS, http://www.verisign-grs.com (for 3 years)
Support:  No link yet?

(11)
UNITY REGISTRY
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Site:     http://www.unityregistry.org
Proposal: http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applications/unity/proposal.htm
Partners: Poptel, http://www.poptel.coop,
          ausRegistry, http://www.ausregistry.com.au/
          Business Serve Plc, http://www.businessserve.co.uk
          NCC Services Ltd, http://www.nccglobal.com
          Nominum, http://www.nominum.com
          TeleCity UK Ltd, http://www.telecity.com
Support:  http://www.unityregistry.org/support.asp

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 07:52:29 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Showing your support for .org is hard to do.

I suspect that the most important place to show your support for one or more
bids is on the ICANN site. I certainly expect ICANN to open a public comment
forum on these applications, and that likely would be the first place that
staff would look to see what applications had the support of the community.

Rick Wesson wrote:
> thanks for the update! when I checked this mmorning PDT time, there were
> no methods for showing support for either of these two bids, I'm glad they
> updated their sites.

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 08:47:52 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Showing your support for .org is hard to do.

Bret Fausett wrote:
> I certainly expect ICANN to open a public comment forum
> on these applications...

And what do you know...it already exists:

 http://forum.icann.org/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: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:49:26 +0100
From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal

>From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal
[...]

> One diff's the .com zone of today and that of two (or four) weeks ago.
> The names that have been dropped, will expire (well, most of them) soon.
> On these one keeps an eye.
> This does not work for names that have no nameservers. Alas, that is
> possible in .com.
> 

Are you advocating downloading the whole .COM Zone repeatedly?
Nice work. I am sure that whoever you are downloading this from loves 
that hammering of their servers if hundreds of other people do the same...

- --
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: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:05:56 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal

Thursday, June 20, 2002, 8:49:26 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

>>From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
>>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal
> [...]

>> One diff's the .com zone of today and that of two (or four) weeks ago.
>> The names that have been dropped, will expire (well, most of them) soon.
>> On these one keeps an eye.
>> This does not work for names that have no nameservers. Alas, that is
>> possible in .com.
>> 

> Are you advocating downloading the whole .COM Zone repeatedly?
> Nice work. I am sure that whoever you are downloading this from loves 
> that hammering of their servers if hundreds of other people do the same...

They do it every day.  Right from Verisign or the other registries for
their TLDs.

- -- 
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: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:48:04 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

John,

Please note my comments below.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 1:12 PM
> To: [email-masked]; Joe Sims
> Cc: [email-masked]; [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.
At extremely excessive expense to VGRS to support a business model that
results in one six dollar registration for as many as 500,000 transactions.
> 
> 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.
Not entirely true but it is reasonable to expect that there would be much
fewer desirable names.  At the same time, the registrars and their resellers
would have equal opportunity to participate in the WLS offering, thereby
replacing lost revenues with a service that has a higher probility of
success for end users, a probablilty that is only possible if offered at the
registry level. 
>  **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.
The WLS will not eliminate direct selling of names, name auctions for
existing names, etc.

>  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.
As you well know, that is the reality of the DNS.

>  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.
Please elaborate on the consumer choice that is available today.  What
specifically are the choices?  How does a consumer find the choices?  What
will the consumer have to pay if he/she is successful?  How easy is it?
Everyone continues to make these broad generalizations but nobody puts
forward any measurable data to support them.

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:54:51 +0100
From: "Jon Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal

>> Are you advocating downloading the whole .COM Zone repeatedly?
>> Nice work. I am sure that whoever you are downloading this from loves

>> that hammering of their servers if hundreds of other people do the same...
>
>They do it every day.  Right from Verisign or the other registries for
>their TLDs.

Indeed.  Twice daily in fact.

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:59:17 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Thursday, June 20, 2002, 9:48:04 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Please elaborate on the consumer choice that is available today.  What
> specifically are the choices?  How does a consumer find the choices?  What
> will the consumer have to pay if he/she is successful?  How easy is it?
> Everyone continues to make these broad generalizations but nobody puts
> forward any measurable data to support them.

Common sense, Chuck.

Something has been lacking in Verisign and NSI before that for a long
time now.

Common sense would have avoided Verisign now being the subject of a
USPS Postal Investigative service investigation on their advertising,
not to mention at least 3 lawsuits I know of on the same issue.

Common sense would have avoided creating a predatory system to block
customers from trying to exercise their right of choice, and thus
creating an even worse image for the company throughout the internet,
resulting in mass exodus of domain names now, from providers who
realized they should get all of their own and their customers domains
out from under the Verisign/NSI registrar immediately.

Common sense would have avoided charges of stock price manipulation
by the company's Shareholders, and the resulting lawsuit.

"Trust is the foundation of every human relationship" an image on your
company's website said recently.  It really is too bad your company
doesn't live by those slogans.

- -- 
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: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:03:04 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Showing your support for .org is hard to do.

What worries me about all this is that an organisation whose boss fella has
all but announced that they're dysfunctional, is allowed to continue to
make decisions that seriously affect the Internet.

Shouldn't decision-making be stopped until the broken bits are fixed?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 10:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

Hi Chuck,

- --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. [mailto:[email-masked]]
> At extremely excessive expense to VGRS to support a business model
> that
> results in one six dollar registration for as many as 500,000
> transactions.

You've been offered the opportunity to document those "excessive"
expenses on more than one occasion. We offer you yet one more.

Note the words you used are "as many as" -- i.e. you're NOT saying that
is the typical case, or the average. Furthermore, your own documents
(answers to Questions B.2 and B.3) say that registry load is no longer
an issue, and even more powerfully, should not be considered in the
deletions debate.

Also, not every registry activity is a profit center, for instance the
provision of registry WHOIS, the zone files, etc. In relation to your
total expenses and revenues, the amount spent on the batch pool is
trivial, and I'm sure you know it (thus explaining the embarrassment
and hesitation to provide the actual figure).

> Please elaborate on the consumer choice that is available today. 
> What
> specifically are the choices?  How does a consumer find the choices? 
> What
> will the consumer have to pay if he/she is successful?  How easy is
> it?
> Everyone continues to make these broad generalizations but nobody
> puts
> forward any measurable data to support them.

If you're selling WLS as a 1-year test, don't you think YOU and ICANN
should have done the research on some of the above questions, to havea 
baseline of measurable data, before interfering in an existing market?
Perhaps a 6-month cooling off is required on the WLS debate, while we
get the current market data, via an independent research source, e.g.
one of the universities can devote a summer student to the job.

To give you some examples, without enumerating all of them, NameWinner
and NicGenie have prices as low as $20 per name, and that's INCLUSIVE
of the $6 wholesale cost that goes to VGRS (your WLS prices don't
include the additional $6+ that a successful registrant would be
charged).

Here's a question for you -- what does a consumer pay under WLS if they
are NOT successful?? They're out the $35+ !! That's maybe good for
VGRS, but not good for a consumer, getting something for nothing. Under
other models, consumers pay NADA if they don't get the name.

Consumers can find these sources the same way they can when they go
looking for regular domain names. Some registrars, like Verisign, have
banner ads all over the place. Others have different marketing
strategies. AOL/Compuserve, for instance, seem to own a registrar.
Perhaps you can advise where on the web I can signup to buy domains
through them.....or perhaps they only serve themselves, amazing...
NameWinner even has a program at Commission Junction (www.cj.com) for
those who want to remarket the service. Of course, these are all
obvious to those whose heads aren't in the sand.

If I go to http://www.registrar.aol.com/index.adp I can't see where to
input my credit card.... I want to "show them the money", but they
won't let me. :( I've never seen anyone complain about bad domain name
service at AOL Registrar -- it must be only the "elite" that can get in
there...boo hoo. :(

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: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:41:09 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Thursday, June 20, 2002, 11:48:04 AM, Gomes, Chuck <[email-masked]> wrote:
JB> overloading registry resources during name drop periods.  That problem has
JB> since been solved.
GC> At extremely excessive expense to VGRS to support a business model that
GC> results in one six dollar registration for as many as 500,000 transactions.
So now you're saying that registry load is a problem, again. How many
times are you going to change this story? That was a rhetorical
question, since we already know from experience that it will change
when ever it serves you. Unfortunately, that also equates to no
credibility.

GC> Please elaborate on the consumer choice that is available today.  What
GC> specifically are the choices?  How does a consumer find the choices?  What
GC> will the consumer have to pay if he/she is successful?  How easy is it?
GC> Everyone continues to make these broad generalizations but nobody puts
GC> forward any measurable data to support them.
The current competitors in the market have been named several times on
this list.  It seems you may have a selective memory or a short
attention span.

Further, it seems to me that you would already know this information
"on your own," if you were doing your job correctly and effectively.

On the other hand, maybe you don't really want to know what companies
WLS will put out of business.  Maybe it's a conscience thing or maybe
you don't really care.

As for measurable data, it seems like the kettle calling the pot
black, i.e.  let's try it for a year and see what happens or the
WLS price is high in order to reduce the speculators.  However,
my compliments to you, VeriSign and Snap Names for the masterful
marketing spins and misinformation pollution.

WLS is anti-competition and anti-consumer. It is solely calculated to
make VeriSign and Snap Names a lot of revenue, through monopoly
control of an established, thriving, open and free market.

- ----
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1289
*************************