Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1292
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, June 21 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1292

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:47:21 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: GA Bucharest Agenda

Hello Danny,

[sorry, I didn't immediately see that you CCed the list!]

As you probably know from earlier GA meetings, the "Bucharest GA" 
is far from identical with the "online GA". The "Bucharest GA" 
will consists of much more people with business and g/ccTLD
registries/registrars background than usually in the online GA.
I certainly believe that the reform will be the number one
issue which will be discussed everywhere anyhow. So it would
really be the people who are *not* present in Bucharest who
should speak up. Why don't you and others (I'm afraid I'm caught 
up in pre-organizing in the next days) discuss this on the list 
and maybe come up with a (short) statement for the ICANN Public 
Forum? I hope that the Names Council members will again attend 
the GA meeting and I would be disappointed if the number of Board 
members listening would be as small as in Accra (only Rob Blokzijl 
in the very last minute). To make a difference, you should make 
your voice heard at the *Board* level, I think. If you want to 
discuss this at the GA meeting, send me a short statement in time 
for the GA meeting and I'll raise it in the "GA Public Forum" 
session. However, please keep in mind that it's not *me* you have 
to convince.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 16:07:44 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: European Council guidelines on ICANN Reform

[These were adopted by the EU Council of Telecommunications 
 ministers -- from a posting by Christopher Wilkinson on the
 ec-pop mailing list. /// Alexander]

>GUIDELINES FOR DISCUSSIONS
>
>1. The ICANN Mission
>
>ICANN should have a clearly defined, limited and stable mission, giving 
>priority to technical functions that are essential for the coordination 
>and stability of the Internet. Certain existing activities could be 
>reduced to improve that focus. Relevant legal and contractual work 
>should be reduced to what is essential.
>
>  The agreed definition should be adopted and revised by the Board 
>by a substantial majority, after a GAC opinion. 
>
>  Bottom-up participation, transparency and consensus building 
>should continue to be guiding principles of ICANN´s working methods. 
>Excessive and unnecessary centralisation within ICANN processes should 
>be avoided.
>
>In many cases, ICANN's mission impinges on public policy issues. In these 
>cases GAC must play a stronger role in the decision making process (see 
>point 4 below).
>
>2.  The Public-Private Partnership
>
>The open public-private partnership, involving ICANN, governments and 
>stakeholders in the Domain Name System (DNS), needs to be clarified. 
>
>Government involvement with ICANN processes, which in areas impinging on 
>public policy needs to be strengthened, should be through an enhanced 
>relationship between ICANN and the GAC rather than through direct 
>participation in ICANN's Board and Budget.
>
>  Governments should satisfy themselves that the interests of other 
>appropriate stakeholders are adequately recognised in the final structure. 
>
>3.  ICANN structure, membership and financing
>
>  The private sector participants concerned are responsible for 
>reaching mutually acceptable agreements regarding the structure of ICANN, 
>its membership and financing and its decision-making processes. Due 
>consideration should be given to the adequate protection of the public 
>interest by strengthening the standing of GAC Advice.
>
>  Such agreements, however, must give full weight to 
>internationalisation, transparency and fairness and to maintaining the 
>principle of geographic diversity and representation throughout the 
>organisation. These agreements should be defined in such a way that the 
>legitimate interests of each area of the world, and of their respective 
>stakeholders, whether economic, legal or pertaining to public policies, 
>could be duly taken into account.
>
>  Governments should not contribute directly to ICANN's budget. 
>
>4.  Treatment of public policy issues
>
>  Governments are responsible for public policy, not ICANN. Where ICANN's 
>activities are likely to involve public policy implications, ICANN must 
>consult the GAC. The GAC and ICANN should seek to define in advance which 
>areas involve such implications. When there is an ICANN Board majority 
>against a GAC advice, the matter must be further discussed in good faith 
>between the ICANN Board and the GAC, with a view to reaching an 
>agreement. Decisions taken by the ICANN Board against a GAC advice do 
>not prejudice any steps governments may decide to take in order to 
>protect the public interest. In all cases, ICANN should inform GAC on 
>how its advice has been taken into account.
>
>5.  The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
>
>Governments agree that the GAC is the principal forum for the 
>international discussion of public policy issues related to the ICANN 
>mission and the Domain Name System. In this respect, Governments attach 
>great importance to strengthening the role of GAC and ensuring its 
>functional independence, in particular in the context of its partnership 
>with ICANN.
>
>  In order to effectively fulfil this role vis-à-vis ICANN, GAC needs to 
>work more effectively and be better integrated into the policy formulation 
>process. This will require the necessary organisation and secretariat and
>in due course, if needed, a more appropriate legal structure. Governments
>should provide the necessary resources to this effect. In anticipation
>that other administrations will also make available such resources, the
>European Commission is also encouraged to allocate appropriate resources
>for this purpose. Responsibility for the GAC secretariat could thus be
>shared between several GAC participants. This secretariat would provide
>services to GAC both for policy making and logistics.
>
>  GAC may seek the assistance of other qualified international entities 
>for specific tasks or projects. 
>
>6.  Oversight of the Root Zone File and Reserve Powers
>
>  The important issue of the transfer of powers relating to the management 
>of the root server system from the United States' Department of Commerce 
>to ICANN, under appropriate supervision, remains unresolved. Governments, 
>in cooperation with the stakeholders concerned, should work towards 
>internationalising the oversight role currently exercised by the United 
>States government. The European Union should maintain a close political 
>dialogue with the United States administration in order to facilitate an 
>internationally acceptable outcome. 
>
>  In future reserve powers of last resort in the event of ICANN 
>failing to fulfil its essential tasks and for the oversight of the 
>maintenance of the authoritative Root Zone File could be exercised through 
>the GAC or another appropriately constituted entity. 
>
>Luxembourg, 18 June 2002

- --
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:33:35 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

Under the terms of the "Blueprint for Reform" the GA will no longer be 
allowed to vote on anything, including its own chair or on advisory matters:  
"the GNSO GA should take no votes".   

The GA will no longer be able to make recommendations to the Department of 
Commerce or to the ICANN Board:  "The GNSO GA is not a forum for making 
decisions or recommendations, or taking formal positions."   Furthermore, in 
order to ensure that there is no "undue disruption", the "GNSO GA shall only 
support *moderated* electronic discussion lists and forums". 

Summary:  Criticism of ICANN will not be tolerated.  ICANN has eliminated its 
vocal critics on the Board by terminating At-Large representation, and is now 
attacking its remaining critics in the GA and in the ccSO (who must sign 
loyalty oaths in order to participate:  "evidenced through signed agreements 
or by other means, such as full funding support").

Our only hope at this point is to once more reach out once more to the US 
Congress to help reign in this runaway train.  
Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), a member of the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee has made the comment, "Barring significant changes, we'll have to 
look at alternatives to ICANN."  It's time to help our congressmen find such 
alternatives.

- --
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 16:55:52 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] icannatlarge.com meeting in bucharest

Dear all,

I want to confirm that icannatlarge.com will organize a meeting in
Bucharest, on Tuesday at 5pm. Unfortunately I did not get final room
information from Denise Michel yet, but I have been assured that we *will*
have a room :-)

The tentative agenda is:

- - A quick introduction about icannatlarge.com and what we have done so far
- - An open discussion about:
	* Next steps for icannatlarge.com (ie elections, Bylaws, outreach)
	* Interaction between icannatlarge.com, the ALOC and other "At Large
          structures"
	* Possible reactions to the Reform Committee "Blueprint" document

We expect to close the meeting at 6:30pm. I hope that many of you will be
able to attend.

Regards,
- -- 
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
Vittorio Bertola     <[email-masked]>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology

DISCLAIMER, PLEASE NOTE: This communication is intended only for use by the
addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information. 
Transmission, distribution and/or copy cannot be permitted. Please notify
immediately the sender by replying if you are not the intended recipient.
- --
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:39:09 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 07:30:53AM -0500, Jeff Field wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
> > Crispin
> > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 12:27 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] WLS
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:40:23PM -0400, John Berryhill wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Dramatically increase the cost for whom?  Registrars, speculators? or
> > > > consumers?
> > > >
> > > > Chuck
> > >
> > > Please provide a meaningful distinction between a "speculator" and a
> > > "consumer".
> >
> > Speculators register domain names for the primary intent of reselling
> > them later for a profit.  Consumers don't have resale as a primary
> > intent.  As you know, the law is quite capable of using intent as a
> > meaningful distinguishing characteristic.  In general, you are making a
> > "slippery slope" argument, and, again, as you know, slippery slope
> > arguments are not valid.
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> > [email-masked]                          lonesome."  -- Mark Twain
> >
> 
> In the stock market you have some people that buy and sell stocks as an
> investment and others that buy and sell stocks on pure speculation.

In the stock market world the terms speculation and investor have
connotations of particular ranges of risk/reward ratios.  That
distinction is not necessary in the domain name world, because the
risk/reward ratio for registering names w/ the intent of making an
investment is intrinsically very high.  That is, essentially all domain
name "investors" easily meet the criteria for "speculator". 

> The
> first group are called, "investors"; the second group, "speculators".  But
> investors and speculators are simply subsets of the more broad terms,
> "buyers" and "sellers".
>
> In regards to domain names, IMHO, *way* too much emphasis has been placed on
> trying to make the distinction between a "consumer" and a "speculator".
> Both are simply members of the more broad term, "registrant".  The basic
> question that needs answering regarding WLS is whether or not "registrants"
> will be harmed.

I wasn't addressing the WLS proposal directly, and I would rather not
comment on it.  I was addressing the more general question of whether
one could make a make a distinction betweeen the notion of "speculator"
and the notion of "consumer".  I provided a definition that I think
works well enough, is understandable, and captures the distinction. 
That definition is not perfect, but a definition doesn't have to be
perfect to be meaningful, or useful. 

As to whether making the distinction between "investor" and "consumer"
is important:

Speculators are an important component of many markets, because they
make the market more efficient.  Many people feel that justification is
not present in the case of domain names, and that speculators add nothing
to the market but more middlemen.  That is generally considered a bad
thing in any market, and many people would like to minmize it.  Hence 
an argument that a proposal will reduce the amount of speculation has 
weight with many people.  (I don't know if Chuck Gomes was making that 
argument or not.)

Kent

- --
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:42:06 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "The blueprint": New Reform Committee paper posted

On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 11:03:17AM +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 
> Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform
> ICANN: A Blueprint for Reform
> http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/blueprint-20jun02.htm
> 
> [*Please* read and comment this -- little time before Bucharest!
> /// Alexander]
> 
> 
> Excerpt:
> >The GNSO General Assembly shall be a cross-constituency meeting place 
> >of both voting and provisional (see above) constituencies. A member 
> >of the GNSO Council appointed by that Council should chair it.
> >
> >The GNSO GA exists for the exchange of information and ideas, the 
> >discussion of particular issues, and as a resource for the creation – 
> >under the direction of the GNSO Council – of working groups, drafting 
> >committees, and task forces. The GNSO GA is not a forum for making 
> >decisions or recommendations, or taking formal positions.

It's worth noting that this is precisely the role of the GA that is
intended in the current bylaws. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin, Technical Systems Manager, ICANN            [email-masked]
"Be good, and you will be lonesome."  -- Mark Twain       [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: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:46:31 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "The blueprint": New Reform Committee paper posted

Friday, June 21, 2002, 8:42:06 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:

> It's worth noting that this is precisely the role of the GA that is
> intended in the current bylaws. 

Rewriting history again, Kent?

- -- 
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:47:34 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

I agree with Kent on this.   There is a difference between end users and 
speculators, and it is far more important to protect end users than 
speculators in domain names.

   Jamie

Jeff Field wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
>>Crispin
>>Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 12:27 AM
>>To: [email-masked]
>>Subject: Re: [ga] WLS
>>
>>
>>On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:40:23PM -0400, John Berryhill wrote:
>>
>>>>Dramatically increase the cost for whom?  Registrars, speculators? or
>>>>consumers?
>>>>
>>>>Chuck
>>>
>>>Please provide a meaningful distinction between a "speculator" and a
>>>"consumer".
>>
>>Speculators register domain names for the primary intent of reselling
>>them later for a profit.  Consumers don't have resale as a primary
>>intent.  As you know, the law is quite capable of using intent as a
>>meaningful distinguishing characteristic.  In general, you are making a
>>"slippery slope" argument, and, again, as you know, slippery slope
>>arguments are not valid.
>>
>>--
>>Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
>>[email-masked]                          lonesome."  -- Mark Twain
>>
> 
> 
> In the stock market you have some people that buy and sell stocks as an
> investment and others that buy and sell stocks on pure speculation.  The
> first group are called, "investors"; the second group, "speculators".  But
> investors and speculators are simply subsets of the more broad terms,
> "buyers" and "sellers".
> 
> In regards to domain names, IMHO, *way* too much emphasis has been placed on
> trying to make the distinction between a "consumer" and a "speculator".
> Both are simply members of the more broad term, "registrant".  The basic
> question that needs answering regarding WLS is whether or not "registrants"
> will be harmed.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jeff
> 
> --
> jeff field
> 952-848-7626
> 952-848-7627 fax
> [email-masked] <mailto:[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
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
- ------
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:55:13 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Posting of Final NTEPPTF Report

J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:
>
><quote>
>the distributed architecture of the DNS presumes a hierarchical namespace
>for effective performance. (Relatively large numbers of domain names at the
>second level – as, for example, occurs with .com – may jeopardize
>performance regardless of how few or how many top level domains have been
>authorized.) The PSO and the IETF should be asked for their views on
>whether this conventional wisdom is substantially correct.
></quote>
>
>In plain words it means :
>- large TLDs like ".com" endanger the DNS.
>- so let not create other ".com" and ... let keep enlarging ".com" to
>better jeopardize the DNS.
>
>Happily they ask the IETF and PSO. Interesting to see their responses. I
>hope they come before ".com" becomes too large?
>

I´m not holding my breath waiting for an answer.
The PSO has held its GA two days ago, and this point was not in the agenda.
Anyway, I think that there are other more important effects of .com becoming 
too large, and that the potential degradation of performance (on which, 
incidentally, I disagree) is a secondary problem.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

- --
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: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 01:55:52 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ccTLD Redelegation Case Studies

The GAC home page is at:
http://www.noie.gov.au/Projects/international/DNS/gac/news/index.htm

It has two ccTLD redelegation case studies viz .au and .hk.

Regards
Patrick Corliss
_________________________________________________________
I'm on the Board of auDA (the .au country code).  Anything I write is my
personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of any body
with which I am associated.  Please also note IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer).

- --
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:47:05 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

> > > Dramatically increase the cost for whom?  Registrars, speculators? or
> > > consumers?
> >
> > Please provide a meaningful distinction between a "speculator" and a
> > "consumer".
>
> Speculators register domain names for the primary intent of reselling
> them later for a profit.  Consumers don't have resale as a primary
> intent.

I suppose I should have qualified "meaningful", to avoid a studied disregard
of context.  Let me put it this way.  When the registry receives $6 for a
domain name, how does the mental state of the registrant alter that $6?
Additionally, what distinction is made in the registry data between a
"speculator" and a "consumer".

If we are discussing a proposal to regulate social behavior, fine.  But let's
be clear about that.  Because there is no economic or technical distinction
to be made here.

And, let's be clear, a bulk registrant who acquires many domain names in
order to capitalize on traffic, rather than to sell the domain names is not a
"speculator", correct?  Because I get the impression that some folks equate
"bulk registrant" with "speculator".  The fact is that most of the people of
whom I'm aware which have sizeable numbers of domain names have learned long
ago that there is more money in developing traffic from them than selling
them.

>As you know, the law is quite capable of using intent as a
> meaningful distinguishing characteristic.  In general, you are making a
> "slippery slope" argument, and, again, as you know, slippery slope
> arguments are not valid.

A "slippery slope" to what?

Let's recap... half of snapbacks are admitted to be held by "speculators".
SnapNames wants to grandfather snapbacks into the WLS.  In their report, they
say that ICANN will be sued if they aren't grandfathered.  So we know,
already, that half of the WLS positions are going to be held by speculators
on the very day that WLS starts.  You want to guess what is happening with
snapback sales right now?  Duh.  People are already staking out their WLS
turf pre-emptively.  Those are the facts as they stand today - it is not a
"slippery slope" to anything.  On day one, half of all WLS positions will be
held by speculators, and that is the admitted and undisputed present fact.

Now, if you read the long Part II screed that SnapNames has published on this
thing, it basically says that the current system is "unfair" because people
with a lot of money are better at getting what they want than people who do
not have a lot of money.  We are also provided with a lovely short story
about someone from a socialist country who has a hard time dealing with that
simple fact of the free world.

The SnapNames report also says that these speculators are paying acquisition
costs of between sixty and one hundred dollars per name.  Then, the SnapNames
report says that a price point of $35 will discourage speculators.

WLS is going to be great for speculators.  And, what's even better, the
exclusivity and certainty of a WLS position renders the position itself to be
a thing of speculative value.

The WLS folks are beginning to sound more and more like IOD's .web folks. "I
can't get the exclusive franchise I want from ICANN, so I'm going to piss and
moan at increasing volume."  And also, just like IOD, they want to bring
their pre-registered customers in with the deal.

The SnapNames report makes it clear that with enough money, the present
system allows people to get what they want.  Tell me something new.  Just TRY
getting a TLD that way.  You want to talk about an exclusive market
barrier...

- --
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 16:20:03 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

Jeff Field wrote:

>
>In the stock market you have some people that buy and sell stocks as an
>investment and others that buy and sell stocks on pure speculation.  The
>first group are called, "investors"; the second group, "speculators".  But
>investors and speculators are simply subsets of the more broad terms,
>"buyers" and "sellers".
>
>In regards to domain names, IMHO, *way* too much emphasis has been placed 
>on
>trying to make the distinction between a "consumer" and a "speculator".
>Both are simply members of the more broad term, "registrant".  The basic
>question that needs answering regarding WLS is whether or not "registrants"
>will be harmed.
>

There are two type of people who buy tickets for performing arts or sport 
events, spectators and scalpers, but they both belong to the same category 
of "buyers".
In fact, for some events, some theaters or stadiums may refuse to sell more 
than a certain number of tickets to the same person: implicitely, they 
acknowledge that there is a difference.
IMHO, to ignore the difference between "consumers" and "speculators" is only 
in the interest of the speculators.

Regards
Roberto

P.S.: Stock markets are regulated, although the regulation differs from 
place to place. In many regulations the speculation is discouraged by the 
supervising bodies. The major difference is that, while in stock markets the 
speculation can push shares up or down, and therefore can be detrimental to 
single enterprises, and therefore there is an incentive to regulate the 
matter, for domain names the speculators can only work in the (short term 
economical) interest of the registration bodies, and the only people that 
have interest in limiting the speculation are the final "users" of the 
names.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:21:23 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

At 11:47 AM -0400 6/21/02, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
>So we know,
>already, that half of the WLS positions are going to be held by speculators
>on the very day that WLS starts.  You want to guess what is happening with
>snapback sales right now?  Duh.  People are already staking out their WLS
>turf pre-emptively.  Those are the facts as they stand today - it is not a
>"slippery slope" to anything.  On day one, half of all WLS positions will be
>held by speculators, and that is the admitted and undisputed present fact.

Slight correction, I feel:

At the BEGINNING of day one, half of all WLS positions will be held by
speculators.

ONE HOUR LATER, 95% of all WLS positions will be held by speculators.

Joe Blow won't get a look-in. Anyone who doesn't see that and bleats "it'll
make it fair for the little guy" is an idiot.

- -- 
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:30:20 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Do all posts take a long time?

It is the queerest thing that ever actually worked.
Go to www.gigalaw.com  ;  any reasonable reading tells you that this list is a
liability waiting to happen.
Actually we have these things called monitors - they are in fact editors.
Then we have this thing called the NC - actually in fact they are publishers.
Then we have this group that writes - actually they are reporters.
If the editors and publishers have the power over content, which they do, then
they are liable for that content and any libellous (in print slander) material
herein.
AS is at this moment our editor and so your material posted here must pass his
muster.
In the US we call this censorship, which any good publication requires, while in
reality we censor ourselves because we want our articles read.
While he cannot possibly monitor or edit each piece, herein lies the original
cause for delay.
A really lousy mechanics is the secondary cause, and a desire to halt our
discussions which is evidenced in the new blueprint is another.

Sincerely,
Eric

Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Jeff Field wrote:
>
> > BTW all, am I the only one for which it seems to take about 30-40 minutes
> > for posts to show up on this list?  I'm on a dozen or so mailing lists and
> > none, not even the few that have thousands of subscribers and hundreds of
> > posts each day, take anywhere near as long as this list.  Anyway, just
> > curious.
>
> Well Jeff - That GA is a very special mailing list with a very special
> configuration file last time i looked.  I think we call it censorship and
> it does tend to slow delivery.
>
> Cheers
> Joe Baptista
>
> --
> Planet Communications & Computing Facility
> a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Hello,

> > > > Please provide a meaningful distinction between a "speculator"
> and a
> > > > "consumer".

Is Proctor and Gamble a 'speculator?? See:

http://content.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20000720S0006

Beautiful.com for $3 million, hmmm. It's a domain name with no active
website, either. 

How about Verisign, owner/registrar/registry of elite dot-cc and dot-bz
names??!!?? ;)

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

If someone wants to propose a new policy, that domain names can't be
transferred/sold to third parties, but must be returned to the registry
if not used by the registrant, in order to eliminate abusive
speculation, please do so, and see how much support it garners. This
might turn out to be one proposal that Verisign and I would be on the
same side of! ;) (although, I'm not anti-Verisign; I feel they should
hang on to dot-org, which is probably not a popular position amongst
the true anti-Verisign people)

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: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:37:48 -0500
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

Far more important to protect end users than speculators in domain names?
That's just plain silly and unworkable.

For example, so called "end user's" could probably be divided into numerous
sub-groups, i.e. end users that only use the domain name for email, end
user's that set up websites for ecommerce, end user's that set up
informational-only websites, end-user's that set up personal portals, end
user's that are white, black, Canadian, French...well, you get the idea.

For "speculator's" you have, speculator's that register hundreds
(thousands?) of names and do this for a full-time occupation, speculator's
that register a handful of names and do this for a hobby, speculator's that
infringe trademarks or other intellectual property, speculator's that don't
infringe on anyone's trademarks or other intellectual property.

I personally have some registered domains that I use in business (ecommerce)
and some that are for personal use, and some that I registered with the
intentions of using in business but have never gotten around to doing so.
In that regard, if someone comes along and offers my money for some of the
domains I'm not currently using, they'd probably find a receptive seller.
How am I to be classified?  An end user?  A speculator?  An end user in this
domain but a speculator in that domain?

I don't believe it's up to ICANN to separate registrants into arbitrary
groups and then decide which groups they'd like to protect or at what level
of protection each group deserves.  When you buy or sell a stock, nobody
asks whether or not the other side of the trade is a speculator or an
investor.  And, when it comes to shareholder rights, both speculators and
investors generally share the same rights.

No, it isn't for ICANN to make rules for different classes of registrants.
As far as ICANN should be concerned, a registrant is a registrant, period!
(Uhhh, that is, unless you perceive ICANN to be a governance body instead of
a technical one?  Do you?)

Of course, that's just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

Best regards,

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Love [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:48 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; Kent Crispi
> Subject: Re: [ga] WLS
>
>
> I agree with Kent on this.   There is a difference between end users and
> speculators, and it is far more important to protect end users than
> speculators in domain names.
>
>    Jamie
>
> Jeff Field wrote:
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
> >>Crispin
> >>Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 12:27 AM
> >>To: [email-masked]
> >>Subject: Re: [ga] WLS
> >>
> >>
> >>On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:40:23PM -0400, John Berryhill wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Dramatically increase the cost for whom?  Registrars, speculators? or
> >>>>consumers?
> >>>>
> >>>>Chuck
> >>>
> >>>Please provide a meaningful distinction between a "speculator" and a
> >>>"consumer".
> >>
> >>Speculators register domain names for the primary intent of reselling
> >>them later for a profit.  Consumers don't have resale as a primary
> >>intent.  As you know, the law is quite capable of using intent as a
> >>meaningful distinguishing characteristic.  In general, you are making a
> >>"slippery slope" argument, and, again, as you know, slippery slope
> >>arguments are not valid.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> >>[email-masked]                          lonesome."  -- Mark Twain
> >>
> >
> >
> > In the stock market you have some people that buy and sell stocks as an
> > investment and others that buy and sell stocks on pure speculation.  The
> > first group are called, "investors"; the second group,
> "speculators".  But
> > investors and speculators are simply subsets of the more broad terms,
> > "buyers" and "sellers".
> >
> > In regards to domain names, IMHO, *way* too much emphasis has
> been placed on
> > trying to make the distinction between a "consumer" and a "speculator".
> > Both are simply members of the more broad term, "registrant".  The basic
> > question that needs answering regarding WLS is whether or not
> "registrants"
> > will be harmed.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > --
> > jeff field
> > 952-848-7626
> > 952-848-7627 fax
> > [email-masked] <mailto:[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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ------
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1292
*************************