Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1293
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, June 21 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1293

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 16:48:31 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

Danny Younger wrote:

>
>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".

Well, I believe that the GA should be able to take votes on matters relevant 
to its mission and matters relevant to its internal functioning.
For instance, should be able to elect its chair.
If the GA starts becoming a body whose main purpose is to vote motions, 
moreover addressed at bodies outside ICANN, like in the recent past, the 
results are before our eyes.

>
>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."

That the GA should be able at all to make recommendation to the Department 
of Commerce, or to any other Department, or to the Security Council of the 
United Nations, or to the local council of the Automobile Association of 
America, is questionable.
Personally, I have always endorsed a vision of the GA as a forum for debate, 
with capability to take a vote on a specific set of issues and under 
specific circumstances. Of course, the motionmania has brought us in a 
different direction, and now we have to face the consequences.
Remember the "suicide of the GA" thread?

>Furthermore, in
>order to ensure that there is no "undue disruption", the "GNSO GA shall 
>only
>support *moderated* electronic discussion lists and forums".

Kids in kindergarten need adult supervision, adults debating need not.
It is up to us to show to which category we belong.

>
>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.
>

Exactly. Let´s call once again the 77th Cavalry, they´ll fix it for us. 
Let´s give another demonstration that we need adult supervision.
You know, to know that there are such fine people like Rep. John M. Shimkus 
(R-Ill.) that can fix it for us gives a warm feeling. Of course, they fill 
fix it exactly how we want it: they know the what and how.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.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: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 02:49:06 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 22:27:12 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
 > 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.

Hi Kent

The three sentences used by John Berryhill are combined into one, single
meaningful piece of text.  To show that you are quoting out of context, you
should add three dots as follows:

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

In relation to your point, are you arguing that speculation is inherently
a "bad thing"?   Perhaps you would consider if that is actually the case.

A policy maker often needs to consider what is the "harm"?  Clearly any breach
of a person's trade mark rights can be tackled through the UDRP or the Courts.

As usual your remarks are cryptic to the point of unintelligibility.  However,
by distinguishing between a speculator and a consumer, you seem to be arguing
that "harm" is caused to the public interest by speculation in domain names.

Let's consider some of the undesirable consequences as follows:

(1)    That speculators "land grab" many thousands of desirable domain names
with a view to hoarding and/or sale.  Undesirable consequences include:

    (a)    a reduction in total supply of domain names, and
    (b)    disappointed people who can't get the name they want.

(2)    That supply-demand factors cause increased prices.  Undesirable
consequences include:

    (a)    windfall "unearned" profits by speculators, and
    (b)    excessive prices being paid by normal consumers.

(3)    That constant bombardment of domain names for sale bring the industry
into disrepute.  In particular:

    (a)    It looks like ICANN is falling down on the job, and
    (b)    without zero tolerance, there is generally less compliance.

If these assumptions are only partly true, you might argue that
speculation is harmful.  If so, there is a very easy way to stop it
viz make it a condition that any public offering for sale of a domain
name is grounds for revocation of that domain name "licence".
You could even prohibit transfers between registrants !!

But none of that is the point, is it?

What ICANN is doing is giving VeriSign a monopolistic edge through WLS.

That's because VeriSign is the REGISTRY and not the REGISTRAR . . .
which is contrary to all the promises about registry-registrar separation.

And which is a very valid slippery slope" argument indeed !!!!!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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 09:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Hello,

- --- Andy Gardner <[email-masked]> wrote:
> At 11:47 AM -0400 6/21/02, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
> 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.

I'm afraid it's even worse than that. Those are the stats for the "good
domains that have a high chance of expiring", that you want to have WLS
slots, if one has a sense of valuations. After the first hour, the most
gullible buyers, perhaps misled by spams and misinformation (imagine
the spam we'll start getting about "get that domain name you always
wanted!") will start buying WLS slots on names that will never expire
(sex.com, ibm.com, amazon.com, etc.), or on names that are so terrible
they'd have been better off not registering the name or waiting to
register it for the normal registration fee, as no one else would have
been 'competing' for that name.
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 12:06:47 -0500
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
> Crispin
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:39 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] WLS
>
<---cut--->
> 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

Yes, but I don't believe anyone has made the argument that WLS in any way
reduces speculation.  In any case, I don't believe reducing speculation in
domain names is within the scope of ICANN's duties just because "many people
would like to minimize it".  Speculation reducing, and whether or not there
is a need to do it, is unrelated to technical coordination in any way shape
or form.

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:00:01 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>

> 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.

I agree with Kent as well.  The difference between a "consumer" and a
"speculator" is a state of mind.  There is no disagreement there.

But the question was how WLS pricing was going to distinguish between the
mental states of these groups in order to make it more expensive for one
group while less expensive for the other group.  That was why I asked Chuck
what meaningful distinction there was to have disparate economic consequences
depending on the mental state of the participant.  Chuck made the assertion
there woud be such a disparate impact, and that is a fascinating conclusion
which flies in the face what the evil "professionals" are paying, as
documented in SnapNames' own report.

Maybe there is a way of doing that, but, gee, I can't wait to read that
SnapNames patent to figure out how they are going to engage in mind reading.

Let's do some more math based on documented facts, instead of the unsupported
hypothesis that Mr. Gomes has put forth.  According to the SnapNames report,
people pay as much as $2500 per month simply to be a member of a group which
shares registrar access to the registry.  This payment does not secure those
people a *single* domain name, it is simply the price of admission to the
club.

Now along comes someone who says that WLS will increase the cost of doing
business for these people.  I have to scratch my head and wonder how paying
$2500 for a certain prospect of obtaining 71 domain names at a rate of $35 is
going to make these club members worse off than paying $2500 for nothing, as
they are doing now, by SnapNames own document.

The SnapNames report deplores the fact that these miscreants happen to have a
lot of money.  Okay, so along comes WLS which makes it a fixed-price
proposition.  Who will do better, Jamie, someone with a lot of money or
someone without a lot of money.  Oddly enough, people with a lot of money
will do better.  Big surprise there.

People pay more money than that to be in a club to play golf, exclusive of
greens fees.  Que lastima!  Let's have a Senate hearing about how people are
being denied access to golf courses because they don't have enough money to
join.  Somebody call the "free market" police!

And if you are happy with a system, which by SnapNames own admission, will
come into being front-loaded with more than 50% of the slots grandfathered in
by speculators, that's fine.  And that is precisely what IOD tried to do with
.web, and was a prime reason why they were shot down in flames.  But let's
stop pretending that SnapNames is primarily working for the "consumer",
because they simply are not.  SnapNames will not disclose all of its
customers and how many domain names it has obtained for each, but they sneer
at the registrars who have decided not to partner with SnapNames for the very
same thing lack of candor.  The only time SnapNames published their "Hot 100"
list, they took it down after it was analyzed here.

Bottom line on "competition" - SnapNames is not competing as well as they
would like to, so they need a leg-up.

And, throughout the SnapNames document, they keep referring to their own
system as providing fair and equal treatment to all comers.  Why doesn't
someone go ask Cameron Powell to state, under oath, that all snapback
customers paid the same price?  Or are "unadvertised special deals" something
they only want to mention when they are talking about OTHER people.  Maybe
they do, maybe they don't.  But let's hear Mr. Powell deny it.  I'll make the
popcorn, while some kind soul forwards this invitation to him.

If he can't deny it, then that stuff in their report about "fair first-come
first-serve treatment of all customers" is nothing other than a plain
unvarnished lie.  Are you out there, Mr. Powell?

If he won't answer the question here, then let's have Mr. Sims or a board
member ask him in Bucharest.

And you think the leopard is going to change its spots, right?

Again, I don't care whether WLS is approved or not.  But the hypocrisy alone
is a reason to wonder what these folks are really all about.

- --
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 14:08:51 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Well, I believe that the GA should be able to take votes on matters 
> relevant to its mission and matters relevant to its internal functioning.
> For instance, should be able to elect its chair.
> If the GA starts becoming a body whose main purpose is to vote motions, 
> moreover addressed at bodies outside ICANN, like in the recent past, the 
> results are before our eyes.

     Which means what?  You agree that the GA should not record opinions if 
that offends the ICANN board?

> That the GA should be able at all to make recommendation to the 
> Department of Commerce, or to any other Department, or to the Security 
> Council of the United Nations, or to the local council of the Automobile 
> Association of America, is questionable.
> Personally, I have always endorsed a vision of the GA as a forum for 
> debate, with capability to take a vote on a specific set of issues and 
> under specific circumstances. Of course, the motionmania has brought us 
> in a different direction, and now we have to face the consequences.
> Remember the "suicide of the GA" thread?

    Yes.  And your point is what?  Live unfree and don't die?

    Jamie

- --
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 04:18:25 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:47:34 -0400, James Love wrote:

> 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.

Hi Jamie

Most of the time I agree with you but you are being misled by Kent.

First, you should realise that Kent uses very subtle debating tricks.
Then, please consider the following three questions:

IF "speculation is wrong" (unproved hypothesis) THEN

(1)    Does the WLS stop it or even reduce it ?  Answer NO (why would it?).

(2)    Even if WLS did stop, or reduce, speculation, is it the best way to
achieve that objective?  Answer NO (you could, for example, just ban
sales and/or transfers).

(3)    Even if WLS solved the problem of speculation completely, does WLS have
other consequences which are as harmful as the evil you are attacking (viz.
"speculation")?  Answer YES (as stated, absence of registrar competition).

If my answer to any one of those three questions is correct, then Kent hasn't
made a case for introducing WLS to stop speculation !!!

Apart from which it is a very hypothetical edifice quite unrelated to the
objective of WLS.  [Note that I don't believe the system will be limited to
only one person in the queue.]

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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 11:18:58 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

Friday, June 21, 2002, 11:08:51 AM, James Love wrote:

> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> Well, I believe that the GA should be able to take votes on matters 
>> relevant to its mission and matters relevant to its internal functioning.
>> For instance, should be able to elect its chair.
>> If the GA starts becoming a body whose main purpose is to vote motions, 
>> moreover addressed at bodies outside ICANN, like in the recent past, the 
>> results are before our eyes.

>      Which means what?  You agree that the GA should not record opinions if 
> that offends the ICANN board?

It has nothing to do with what the ICANN Board thinks of the opinion,
Jamie, and you damn well know it.

It's about subjects being GERMANE to the GA's tasks and missions, the
GA is not some open association, it is an assembly with a specific
purpose.

I know that limits the ability of leaders of lobbyist organizations
like you to abuse their influence to try and get results that back up
their outside efforts, but it's a simple fact.

- -- 
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 13:32:45 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Jeff and all assembly members,

Jeff Field wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
> > Crispin
> > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:39 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] WLS
> >
> <---cut--->
> > 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
>
> Yes, but I don't believe anyone has made the argument that WLS in any way
> reduces speculation.

  This is a key point.  Thank you Jeff for pointing it out again.  Indeed
WLS does nothing to address speculation on Domain Names.  If anything
it in effect increases speculation on Domain Names, specifically soon to
be expired ones.  The second issue that WLS does not completely address
is the delete problem, which WLS is supposed to address in the first
place.

> In any case, I don't believe reducing speculation in
> domain names is within the scope of ICANN's duties just because "many people
> would like to minimize it".  Speculation reducing, and whether or not there
> is a need to do it, is unrelated to technical coordination in any way shape
> or form.

  I don't see and outcry for reducing Domain Name speculation.  I also
have not seen or read very much of anything that WLS will actually
enhance or even address coordination of the DNS is any meaningful
way.

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

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: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:48:50 -0700
From: Paul Stahura <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

Joe Sims, 
please see below

you said:
> 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.

You and ICANN have painstakingly setup 
fair competition among registrars, and WLS would, IMO
make the playing field uneven because different registrars
buy the names at different costs.  Sure, the dollar amount
paid to the registry would be the same (the magnitude 
of this mount is another issue), 
but the cost in *risk* would be different for different registrars.

I'll try to be simple and clear in my explanation of just this one concern:
Only Verisign-the-registrar knows which names Verisign-the-registrar is
about to delete.  
Verisign-the-registrar can then offer the WLS on these
names to customers with less risk that they will actually be 
deleted than any other registrar can.  
(If they are not actually deleted, the cost of the WLS will be wasted 
by the WLS subscriber. One reason is because the subscriber can switch 
the WLS to another name only a limited number of times, 
and removing this limit does not remove this problem)  

Obviously if a subscriber had the choice of:
1) buying the WLS from Registrar A for $X, 
knowing for sure that they will get the name
since they know for sure the name will be deleted
or
2) buying the WLS from Registrar A for the same $X, 
NOT knowing for sure that they will get the name,
since they don't know the name will actually be deleted.

They will pick the less risky (actually certain) number 1.

Even though the price Verisign-the-registrar
pays to the registry is the same as any other registrar, the risk
is less (zero) that the names they hold and are selling WLS on will be
deleted.  
Since they delete by far the most names, they have by far the biggest
advantage
in selling the WLS on the names for less risk than the other registrars.
This is different than the current systems in re-registering deleted names 
where large registrars have no advantage at all over the smaller 
registrars by knowing which of their own names will be deleted.

The fact that Verisign-the-registry wishes to offer a service
that advantages Verisign-the-registrar (the same company) 
should raise a red flag.

Paul Stahura
eNom, Inc.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
> 
> ==============================
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the 
> attorney-client or
> other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It is
> intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If 
> you are not
> an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender 
> by replying
> to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination,
> distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is
> not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==============================
> 
> 
> 
> -- This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send mail to
> [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the
> message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
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 11:53:02 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLSproposal

Friday, June 21, 2002, 11:10:30 AM, Micheal Sherrill wrote:

> What we need to do, I think, is make SPAM illegal, period.  SPAM
> should be a federal and international violation.  Do not hide from
> it by eliminating the Whois.  Have the Whois find the SPAMers and
> send them to jail, instead.

No way.

Who gets to decide what spam is?

An Australian company who provides free and low cost dns services sent
out a notice to its customers recently about an emergency down time
they were having.  It was the FIRST such message in many years of
operation that they had to sent out such a notice.

And it resulted in people laying accusations of spam against them.

Who gets to decide what spam is and what it isn't?

Since the start of the antispam community, the definition of what they
consider "spam" has continued to broaden, and encompass more and more
types of email.

You create a bad precedent in asking for the government, any
government, to regulate email in such a fashion.

And this doesn't even touch the fact that all you would do is drive
them offshore anyway.

- -- 
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 13:51:31 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

John and all assembly members,

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> > > > 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".

  Good point.  But I would bet that most people here will miss the
meaning of your point here John...

>
>
> 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.

  Very much agreed here.  However social behavior in the Domain Name
Game is not an issue that ICANN or the DNSO should be addressing.
WLS only hightens such behaviors IMHO...

>
>
> 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?

  Correct.

>  Because I get the impression that some folks equate
> "bulk registrant" with "speculator".

  Yes.  Bulkregister.com as a registrar for instance, perhaps???

>  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.

  This may be true.  I really don't know.  However I have made far
more from selling Domain Names than developing traffic from them.
I think this would depend on where one's emphasis lies, John...

>
>
> >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.

  Very much agreed here.

>
>
> 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.

  And this is a laugh to believe that $35 will discourage any speculator!
Even 10 times that amount would not discourage any good speculator,
and especially not ad-hoc speculator groups that have pooled financial
resources.

>
>
> 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.

  Yes WLS will be a potential boon for speculators to some degree.
And will still not address the delete problem of which WLS is touted
to address...  Sounds like a flim-flam to me...

>
>
> 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.

  Well ICANN set itself up for this as it has as you know John, already
given away some exclusive franchises in MdR 2000 for TLD's...

>
>
> 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

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: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:31:47 -0700
From: Paul Stahura <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

After re-reading my post,
below, I meant 
"2) buying the WLS from Registrar B for the same $X, "
not
"2) buying the WLS from Registrar A for the same $X, "

- -----Original Message-----
From: Paul Stahura [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 11:49 AM
To: [email-masked]'; Joe Sims; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

Joe Sims, 
please see below

you said:
> 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.

You and ICANN have painstakingly setup 
fair competition among registrars, and WLS would, IMO
make the playing field uneven because different registrars
buy the names at different costs.  Sure, the dollar amount
paid to the registry would be the same (the magnitude 
of this mount is another issue), 
but the cost in *risk* would be different for different registrars.

I'll try to be simple and clear in my explanation of just this one concern:
Only Verisign-the-registrar knows which names Verisign-the-registrar is
about to delete.  
Verisign-the-registrar can then offer the WLS on these
names to customers with less risk that they will actually be 
deleted than any other registrar can.  
(If they are not actually deleted, the cost of the WLS will be wasted 
by the WLS subscriber. One reason is because the subscriber can switch 
the WLS to another name only a limited number of times, 
and removing this limit does not remove this problem)  

Obviously if a subscriber had the choice of:
1) buying the WLS from Registrar A for $X, 
knowing for sure that they will get the name
since they know for sure the name will be deleted
or
2) buying the WLS from Registrar A for the same $X, 
NOT knowing for sure that they will get the name,
since they don't know the name will actually be deleted.

They will pick the less risky (actually certain) number 1.

Even though the price Verisign-the-registrar
pays to the registry is the same as any other registrar, the risk
is less (zero) that the names they hold and are selling WLS on will be
deleted.  
Since they delete by far the most names, they have by far the biggest
advantage
in selling the WLS on the names for less risk than the other registrars.
This is different than the current systems in re-registering deleted names 
where large registrars have no advantage at all over the smaller 
registrars by knowing which of their own names will be deleted.

The fact that Verisign-the-registry wishes to offer a service
that advantages Verisign-the-registrar (the same company) 
should raise a red flag.

Paul Stahura
eNom, Inc.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
> 
> ==============================
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the 
> attorney-client or
> other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It is
> intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If 
> you are not
> an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender 
> by replying
> to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination,
> distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is
> not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==============================
> 
> 
> 
> -- This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send mail to
> [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the
> message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
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 #1293
*************************