Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1290
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, June 21 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1290

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 20:52:55 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Bucharest meeting agenda June 26, 2002

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

[ http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCBucharest-meeting-agenda.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

               DNSO Names Council Bucharest, Romania meeting -

                           26 June 2002 - agenda
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coordinated Universal Time UTC 11:00 - see below for local times

Philip Sheppard will be chairing the NC meeting
Scheduled time for meeting - 180 mins.

PROPOSED NAMES COUNCIL AGENDA Wednesday, June 26, 2002

1. Adoption of agenda

2. Status report from WHOIS Task Force - Tony Harris - 30 mins.

3. Transfers and Deletes - Marilyn Cade
- - Status report from Transfers Task Force - 30 mins.
- - Wait Listing Service report and next steps - 30 mins
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020604.NCTransferTF-report.html

4. ICANN Evolution and reform - further discussion 90 mins.
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/recommendations-31may02.htm
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020617.NCreply-evolutioncomv3.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020607.NCinterimresp-evolutionv12.html

5. AOB

Note:

The next Names Council teleconference :
Thursday, July 11, at 15.00 CET, 13:00 UTC
See http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html

(4:00 LA, 7:00 New York, 13:00 Paris, Japan/Korea 20:00, 21:00 Melbourne)
Local time between April and October, Summer in the Northern Hemisphere

  ------------------------------------------------------------
  Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         11:00
  ------------------------------------------------------------
  California, USA                            UTC-8+1DST   4:00
  Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+1DST   6:00
  Lima, Peru                                 UTC-5+0DST   6:00
  Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+1DST   7:00
  St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST   7:00
  Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST   8:00
  London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+1DST  12:00
  Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+1DST  13:00
  Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+1DST  13:00
  Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+1DST  13:00
  Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST  13:00
  Jerusalem, Israel                          UTC+2+1DST  14:00
  Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  20:00
  Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST  20:00
  Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+0DST  21:00
  Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+0DST  23:00
  ------------------------------------------------------------
  The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October (with some exceptions)
  ------------------------------------------------------------
  For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

The full participants are the 21 NC members as listed in
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html,
DNSO Secretariat and ICANN Officers.

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

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

- --
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 14:27:58 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The dot-ORG proposals (v1)

Alex and all assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> 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?

  I noticed that their contact information link is somewhat criptic..

>
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:27:14 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

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.

Mr. Sims,

I believe you don't *want* to understand the problems the WLS raises. 
 In fact, I think you'd rather ignore them.   Which is basically what 
your email amounts to.  Why bother to send such messages.  

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
     -Today's relevant word is 'kakistocracy': political rule by the worst.

- --
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 13:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign now auctioning off dot-cc names on eBay

Hello,

I've not seen this mentioned before, but they're now auctioning off .cc
names. It had previously been noted that they were auctioning off .bz
names. See their store at:

http://www.ebaystores.com/id=47260199

Is this the future of dot-com?

Chuck Gomes had written at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02298.html

"How does a consumer find the choices?  What will the consumer have to
pay if he/she is successful?  How easy is it?"

Well, I went to http://www.nic.cc, and typed in "games" and was told
that games.cc was already taken. Hmmm. Not finding a "back order this
domain" button, I looked for the WHOIS...

http://www.nic.cc/cgi-bin/whois?domain=games.cc

Domain Name: games.cc
Creation Date: 10-12-1997
Expiration Date: 10-12-2007

Not very much detail. If I wanted to buy the name, can't really contact
the current owner....

So, let's see if there's a webpage. I went to http://www.games.cc and
just see an under construction page -- there is an email to
"[email-masked]", though....perhaps someone will reply....

No link to the eBay auction, nada, which is at:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2033366154

Only $25,000 opening bid! Who knows what the reserve is...

I'm glad that Verisign is out there protecting consumers from
speculators.... ;) Who are the real speculators out there, Chuck?

I think I'll keep my http://Games.org/ instead. :)

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 14:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign now auctioning off dot-cc names on eBay

this is an interesting example for an econmics person. To me the inventory
on the eBay store is way over inflated and after viewing as many pages as
I could, I couldn't find one auction in progress.

It does not apprar that it does the market (primary or secondary) any good
to have that volume of inventory unavailable because the registry
overpriced the strings. How much money does a registry need?

I hope this points to the bottom of the barrel for the industry and after
we all have learned our lessons about auctioning names we'll get back to
building businesses, organizations, and ideas to be communicated on the
hosts under those domain names.

It is almost too sad that greed has gone this far.

- -rick

On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I've not seen this mentioned before, but they're now auctioning off .cc
> names. It had previously been noted that they were auctioning off .bz
> names. See their store at:
>
> http://www.ebaystores.com/id=47260199
>
> Is this the future of dot-com?
>
> Chuck Gomes had written at:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02298.html
>
> "How does a consumer find the choices?  What will the consumer have to
> pay if he/she is successful?  How easy is it?"
>
> Well, I went to http://www.nic.cc, and typed in "games" and was told
> that games.cc was already taken. Hmmm. Not finding a "back order this
> domain" button, I looked for the WHOIS...
>
> http://www.nic.cc/cgi-bin/whois?domain=games.cc
>
> Domain Name: games.cc
> Creation Date: 10-12-1997
> Expiration Date: 10-12-2007
>
> Not very much detail. If I wanted to buy the name, can't really contact
> the current owner....
>
> So, let's see if there's a webpage. I went to http://www.games.cc and
> just see an under construction page -- there is an email to
> "[email-masked]", though....perhaps someone will reply....
>
> No link to the eBay auction, nada, which is at:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2033366154
>
> Only $25,000 opening bid! Who knows what the reserve is...
>
> I'm glad that Verisign is out there protecting consumers from
> speculators.... ;) Who are the real speculators out there, Chuck?
>
> I think I'll keep my http://Games.org/ instead. :)
>
> 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
>

- --
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 17:35:59 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal

William X Walsh wrote:

>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.
>
>  
>
One has to wonder why?  Especially in Verisign's case since they show no 
real desire for effective, regular, and timely updates of the zone 
directory.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:40:23 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign slapped with second restraining order for deceptive marketing

Verisign slapped with second restraining order for deceptive marketing
http://biz.yahoo.com/ri/020620/tech_domains_verisign_4.html

A second federal judge has now slapped Verisign with a restraining
order over their deceptive marketing campaign, but this one appears to
have ordered them to stop sending out the notices to customers of ALL
of its competitors, the first having limited it to the customers of
the Plaintiff, BulkRegister.com.

Both GoDaddy and BulkRegister vow to seek damages.

VRSN stock lost 5% of its value today, down 0.46 to 8.55, it had
reached a low of 8.37 during the day.

The company that touts "The Value of Trust" is also the subject of a
mail fraud investigation by the US Postal Service after a high number
of consumer complaints were received about the deceptive marketing
campaign.

- -- 
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 14:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign now auctioning off dot-cc names on eBay

Hello,

- --- Rick Wesson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> this is an interesting example for an econmics person. To me the
> inventory
> on the eBay store is way over inflated and after viewing as many
> pages as
> I could, I couldn't find one auction in progress.

It doesn't look like they know how to properly run an auction. If they
wanted to do it "right", they should just have no reserves, and put the
starting bid at $1. If the market is efficient, that would reveal the
price, as folks know the domain will sell.

And Verisign definitely has the traffic to promote their auctions, thus
making the market more efficient (as does eBay, which has more traffic
than GreatDomains.com). What's annoying about all those auctions with
zero bids is that they are clogging up the regular auctions of domains
at eBay -- I have an auction of "Texan.com" listed there, to test the
waters, but no one can find it having to wade through a gazillion pages
of Verisign zero-bid auctions on overpriced .bz and .cc names.

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 14:47:22 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal

Thursday, June 20, 2002, 2:35:59 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> One has to wonder why?  Especially in Verisign's case since they show no 
> real desire for effective, regular, and timely updates of the zone 
> directory.

I'd say they do regular timely updates.  One of the few things they do
tend to get right.

Are you dealing with a Registrar who does real live updates to the
registry, or one that has a queue and only sends update via these
queues?

I generally see my updates in the zones within 12 hours.

- -- 
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 17:47:34 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign now auctioning off dot-cc names on eBay

George Kirikos wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I've not seen this mentioned before, but they're now auctioning off .cc
>names. It had previously been noted that they were auctioning off .bz
>names. See their store at:
>
>http://www.ebaystores.com/id=47260199
>
>Is this the future of dot-com?
>
>Chuck Gomes had written at:
>
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02298.html
>
>"How does a consumer find the choices?  What will the consumer have to
>pay if he/she is successful?  How easy is it?"
>
>Well, I went to http://www.nic.cc, and typed in "games" and was told
>that games.cc was already taken. Hmmm. Not finding a "back order this
>domain" button, I looked for the WHOIS...
>
>http://www.nic.cc/cgi-bin/whois?domain=games.cc
>
>Domain Name: games.cc
>Creation Date: 10-12-1997
>Expiration Date: 10-12-2007
>
>Not very much detail. If I wanted to buy the name, can't really contact
>the current owner....
>
>So, let's see if there's a webpage. I went to http://www.games.cc and
>just see an under construction page -- there is an email to
>"[email-masked]", though....perhaps someone will reply....
>
>No link to the eBay auction, nada, which is at:
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2033366154
>
>Only $25,000 opening bid! Who knows what the reserve is...
>
George, this one takes the cake.  :-o

>
>I'm glad that Verisign is out there protecting consumers from
>speculators.... ;) Who are the real speculators out there, Chuck?
>
Yes Chuck, who?

>
>I think I'll keep my http://Games.org/ instead. :)
>
Not bad.  I like that name.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:57:42 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

 Mr. Sims,                                                                                
                                                                                          
 I believe you don't *want* to understand the problems the WLS raises.                    
  In fact, I think you'd rather ignore them.   Which is basically what                    
 your email amounts to.  Why bother to send such messages.                                

A better question would be why you (and a few others) bother to waste
everyone's time and space with such trivial, non-substantive responses?  I
take it you don't have anything useful to say.  In such circumstances, it
might have been better to remain mute rather than demonstrate the point.

Thanks to Ross Rader, Bret Fausett, Jamie Love, Elisabeth Porteneuve, John
Berryhill, Gary Osbourne, Thomas Roessler and Chuck Gomes for trying to
help me understand the rationale underlying the various positions that
people have taken on this issue.

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 18:03:07 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Chuck,

I will have fuller comments on this later, but there are some things you've
said here that I don't understand.

From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
> The WLS will not eliminate direct selling of names, name auctions for
> existing names, etc.
>

Who said it would, and what do any of these things have to do with WLS
eliminating the mix of different services available for registering expiring
names?

The WLS will not eliminate night baseball, frozen waffles, or teen pregnancy
either, but so what?

What it will eliminate is ANY hope of registering an expiring name if someone
beats you to the one and only WLS slot for that name, and it will eliminate
any incentive or any other system for attempting to get that name.  That's
what the discussion here is about - the elimination of competition and
choice.

> > 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.

I know no such thing.  You are confusing _a priori_ probability with _ex
posteriori_ probability here, and you well know the difference.

Under WLS, whomever gets the WLS slot will get the name.  Period.

There is no "reality of the DNS" under which anyone knows with certainty that
they will become the registrant of an expiring name.  Yes, the day
afterwards, we all know which competitor registered the name.  But you are
proposing a system where either one person has the WLS slot and WILL BE
CERTAIN to get the name, or one can go pound sand because there is no other
choice or incentive to try.  "No domain for you".

Under the present system, there is a choice between SnapNames, Namewinner,
etc.  And because you seem to be unable to find these services, perhaps it is
worthwhile to point out that people found the AT&T breakup to be confusing
also.  Heck, I still don't know what all my telephone service options are.
That is a sign of a competitive market.  Yes, a monopoly service offers the
convenience of one place to go in order to obtain the uniform quality
monopoly service.  Making the service an MLM between the registry and the
registrars does not change that fact.

Enom:
http://www.enom.com/services.asp
Purchase "dropped" names. Grab a name as soon as the registry releases it.

DNS Research:
http://www.dnsresearch.com/monitor.htm
DNS Research, Inc. will attempt to register all of your desired "soon to
expire" domain names on your behalf the millisecond they are released from
the shared registry system.

Obviously, if you wait for these people to come to your door and introduce
themselves, then you will remain unaware of them.  But if you go looking for
them, it is remarkably possible to find them.  Some of them even use
techniques such as "advertising" to promote their competitive businesses.

> Please elaborate on the consumer choice that is available today.  What
> specifically are the choices?

I have listed four above.  How many choices do you want?  Do I have
comprehensive knowledge of the market?  No.  But I imagine one can poke
around enough registrar websites and find them, based on the full thirty
seconds I spent with Google.

> How does a consumer find the choices?

By looking for them.  How many different companies offer local telephone
service in your area, Chuck?   How do you find them?  How does anyone find
anything they want when there are various competitors offering services?

How does a consumer find registrar choices right now?

How do I look up a word in the dictionary if I don't know how to spell it?
Lord help me, I'm a confused consumer.

> What
> will the consumer have to pay if he/she is successful?  How easy is it?

Ah... the pricing models ARE different.  No, there is no fixed monopoly
price.  And there are probably different levels of ease involved.  These
again are signs of competitive services.   The fact that there is no single
answer to these two questions of yours effectively answers Mr. Sims'
question.

That's right - the current system is unpredictable and does not have uniform
pricing structures nor uniform ease.  Yes, we all understand that the WLS
will provide uniformity.  Mr. Sims' question was about how the WLS proposal
would affect market heterogeneity.  You have now answered his question.  WLS
will quack, walk, and swim like a monopoly service - and one you want to
position as a "natural monopoly" by your statement that "only the registry"
can provide the characteristic certainty and uniformity of result.

My neighbor is trying to find a real estate agent to sell his house, and NONE
of the agents he has interviewed has been able to tell him (a) how long will
it take you to sell my house and (b) what price will you get.  I'll bet if we
had some version of a quasi-socialist real estate market, he'd get the same
answer from every one of them.

But the way the real world works is like this - if you want something badly
enough, then your ability to get it is determined by what you are willing to
pay for it and how hard you are willing to try, and not by your ability to
stand in line to get it.  I know we've all been busy, but surely some people
noticed something about the Berlin Wall coming down a couple of years back.

> Everyone continues to make these broad generalizations but nobody puts
> forward any measurable data to support them.

Measurable data:

1 - At least 50%, which you admit, and probably more, of SnapNames snapbacks
are held by bulk customers.

2 - Snapbacks cost $69 and are uncertain.

3 - If Snapbacks were certain, they would be worth even more to the same bulk
customers.

4 - These data indicate that WLS slots, at the price ranges which have been
kicked around, will result in an increased favorable environment for domain
name registrants whom everyone seems to deplore.

5 - How is the relatively naive customer who wants a single domain name
favored by your proposal, which based on the measurable data you have put
forth, will disfavor that type of customer more strongly than the current
environment?

Changing the rules will change the game.  It will not change the result.
Which, if you think about it Chuck, should remove that suspicion that I have
some kind of bias here.  I don't.  I am not going to shed a tear after WLS is
put into place, and next year everyone is whining about how some clever folk
have figured out how to game it, and the "common folk" can't get the names
they want.  Experts have a way of being, you know, experts.  The *only* thing
WLS will change is how the money gets distributed.  And that's what makes
this debate fun, since between you and I, only one person is getting paid to
participate.

I still haven't gotten a single answer to the question, "If we go to a system
where expiring domain names are registered with certainty to the first comer
on the WLS list, what makes that more 'fair' than the present circumstances?"
And, before whining time rolls around next year, I want it to be clear that
everybody said WLS was going to be "fair".

The only things I hear are personal stories of people who tried one or
another technique, and did not get the domain name they wanted.  The naive,
narcissitic, and solipsistic belief inherent in that argument is that they
are divinely blessed and would have gotten to the WLS slot first, had one
been available.  I guarantee you - in fact I promise you - that in a system
where "being first to the WLS slot" is the determining factor, then there are
people who are going to become VERY good at being first to the WLS slot.

And I want to be present to see an executive get in front of his shareholders
and say, "We introduced a new service this year, and we set the price high
enough to discourage high volume customers, because we believed that having a
lot of orders for this service just wouldn't be fair."

Please invite me to that shareholder meeting.  Because I want to watch those
sell orders hit Wall Street faster than domain registration attempts at
registry drop time.

- --
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 18:16:30 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

Dramatically increase the cost for whom?  Registrars, speculators? or
consumers?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Brown [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 10:03 AM
> To: [email-masked]; Joe Sims
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [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
> 
- --
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 #1290
*************************