Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1294
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, June 22 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1294

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:33:06 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

William X Walsh wrote:
> 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.

    Wow, that is a mouthful.   Am I supposed to feel bad about about having 
"influence," "getting results," or having a life "outside" of the GA?

    I work for an NGO that works to protect consumer interests.   Do you 
think consumer interests are over represented in the ICANN process?   Or is 
this completely out of place in ICANN, as Mike Roberts once suggested?

   Jamie

- ------
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 12:37:31 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

Friday, June 21, 2002, 12:33:06 PM, James Love wrote:

> William X Walsh wrote:
>> 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.

>     Wow, that is a mouthful.   Am I supposed to feel bad about about having 
> "influence," "getting results," or having a life "outside" of the GA?

>     I work for an NGO that works to protect consumer interests.   Do you 
> think consumer interests are over represented in the ICANN process?   Or is 
> this completely out of place in ICANN, as Mike Roberts once suggested?

Again, Jamie, you are quite skilled at making comments out to be
something that they aren't, and at ignoring the SUBSTANCE of them, in
an attempt to divert attention from the SUBSTANCE when it doesn't
support your position.

And I will not play into that little game of yours.

- -- 
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 12:38:03 -0700
From: Paul Stahura <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

>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.

John,
If this report refers to eNom's "Club Drop", the fee is now zero, not $2500
and
has been for some time.

Paul
eNom, Inc.

- --
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 13:13:10 -0700
From: Ellen Rony <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

So you want to oblige registrars to identify "speculators" and "protect"
users against them?  You are expecting them to become mind police?   What
criteria do you propose to make that distinction, to identify intent at the
time of registration or, worse, future intent?

Here is more pretzel logic:  Isn't VeriSign indulging speculators by
offering "premium" domain names at highly inflated prices on eBay....?  Or
will you claim that VeriSign is simply facilitating consumers who just want
to shed themselves of the onerous burden of carrying a $29 annual fee for a
domain name they no longer want?

Speculation at one time was curbed by threshhold limits to the number of
domain names that could be registered and a requirement that they be
activated (used for website or email) within 90 days of egistration.  Then
registrations became fee-based in September 1995, and the notion of
inhibiting potential income became antithetical to the corporate bottom
line.  The threshhold limits were removed.

If I register a hot domain name hoping that someone will offer me $1M, by
your definition, that makes me a "speculator", but whom have I harmed?
Now, if I register 10,000 names with the same expectation, the harm is not
in the obscene resale price that might be received but the fact that 10,000
names have been removed from the pool and are being warehoused, unused and
unavailable, driving up demand for other opportunities to acquire easy,
desirable names.

If one really wanted to get rid of speculators, then outlaw resale of
domain names altogether  Some countries do this, but that dog won't hunt in
the U.S.

The speculator/consumer distinction wrt WLS is a red-herring.  What I
believe is driving WLS is the larger effort to find new ways to extract
income from the simple task of entering a domain record into the root zone.
It's not about speculating, hoarding, supply-demand, consumer costs or
subscriber convenience.  At the end of the day, a WLS subscription has more
than doubled the income VeriSign derives from a desirable domain name.

- -Ellen Rony

At 11:47 AM -0400 6/21/02, 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.
>
>   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]>
>> -----
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ellen Rony                    //          http://www.domainhandbook.com
Co-author                  *="  ____ /                   [email-masked]
The Domain Name Handbook      \     )                   +1 415.435.5010
                              //   \\                    "Carpe canine"
              On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog.
- --
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 16:16:13 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Registrars and ICANN Budget Approval

Dear Mike,

I understand from reading the registrars list that there is a push underway 
to have the registrars approve the ICANN budget (which orginally entailed a 
per-name fee increase under the formula from 8 to approximately 12 cents).  
In view of the fact that the recently published "Blueprint" calls for a 
per-name fee at 25 cents, is it at all possible that you and your fellows 
registrars might be acting in an unduly hasty manner by sending in such 
agreements in advance of the final budget decision? 
- --
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 16:43:17 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

>>According to the SnapNames
>> report,
>>people pay as much as $2500 per month

> If this report refers to eNom's "Club Drop", the fee is now zero, not $2500
> and
> has been for some time.

While I understand that Paul, SnapNames says you are charging $2500, have ten
members, and are full.  Comrade Powell speak Pravda.  Bourgeousie
counter-revolutionary running dog lackeys have ulterior motives if they
disagree.

You should read the SnapNames report.  The comments made about "anyone who
says differ'nt" is the most classic and explicit example of the debating
tactic of "poisoning the well" I have ever seen.  You only disagree because
you are agent of counter revolution.

Read Part II here:

http://www.snapnames.com/wls.html

You see Paul, your service does not exist or can't be found (according to Mr.
Gomes), or it costs $2500 and serves ten people (according to SnapNames).
Not only that, but your customers smell bad and have impure thoughts.  That
is why you refuse to name your customers publically.

After revolution, Tovarisch, domain name go to proletariat Ivan according to
need and standing in line.  And price will go up for customers with impure
thoughts.  Price will go down for people who think good things.  (according
to Mr. Gomes as augmented by Mr. Crispin's definition)  The domain name
system is intended to provide domain names to people who are good.  Money is
a bad corrupting influence, and the advantages of having money need to be
minimized.

So, please, don't try to fool us about your non-existent and expenseive
service.  We can all read the report at SnapNames.

- --
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 14:20:04 -0700
From: Mason Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

Here's a brief set of corrections to be sure everyone has the dispassionate
facts:

The distinction is not speculators versus "normal" consumers; as many have
correctly pointed out, this distinction doesn't get you very far. Rather,
the problem we're addressing is service of a *few* customers -- whoever they
may be -- and exclusion of the majority of customers. Speculators are among
our best customers; we have no desire to see them disadvantaged. What we do
want to see is the system being more transparent to unsophisticated users,
one in which evidence of use by *all types* of customers is readily
available. 

There is no evidence that any non-speculator customer -- IP owner,
corporation, etc. -- uses any of the "competing" services referred to.
Whether they are capable of being found or not (mostly not, and when found,
confusing and sometimes very expensive), there is no question that consumers
are simply not finding them. There is no evidence to the contrary, though it
has been requested for months.

Although our pricing, like much of the debate taking place over WLS, is not
legally relevant to the ICANN Board's review of VeriSign's proposed WLS
price, we apply the same pricing rules to all SnapBack customers on an equal
basis. We do and have always offered volume discounts, as any business does.
Because this is standard business practice, and is in fact followed by all
registrars, it's unclear why it is relevant here, even under the still
legally unsupported standards of relevance held by WLS critics. So yes, we
do offer "fair first-come first-serve treatment of all customers."

If the other implication is that we provide greater resources to certain
customers than to others, regardless of price, that would be an incorrect
implication. We provide exactly the same resources and service to each
customer, regardless of the volume of the customer or the value of their
desired name.

- -----Original Message-----
From: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 1:43 PM
To: Paul Stahura; James Love; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Kent Crispin; Joe Sims
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

>>According to the SnapNames
>> report,
>>people pay as much as $2500 per month

> If this report refers to eNom's "Club Drop", the fee is now zero, not 
> $2500 and has been for some time.

While I understand that Paul, SnapNames says you are charging $2500, have
ten members, and are full.  Comrade Powell speak Pravda.  Bourgeousie
counter-revolutionary running dog lackeys have ulterior motives if they
disagree.

You should read the SnapNames report.  The comments made about "anyone who
says differ'nt" is the most classic and explicit example of the debating
tactic of "poisoning the well" I have ever seen.  You only disagree because
you are agent of counter revolution.

Read Part II here:

http://www.snapnames.com/wls.html

You see Paul, your service does not exist or can't be found (according to
Mr. Gomes), or it costs $2500 and serves ten people (according to
SnapNames). Not only that, but your customers smell bad and have impure
thoughts.  That is why you refuse to name your customers publically.

After revolution, Tovarisch, domain name go to proletariat Ivan according to
need and standing in line.  And price will go up for customers with impure
thoughts.  Price will go down for people who think good things.  (according
to Mr. Gomes as augmented by Mr. Crispin's definition)  The domain name
system is intended to provide domain names to people who are good.  Money is
a bad corrupting influence, and the advantages of having money need to be
minimized.

So, please, don't try to fool us about your non-existent and expenseive
service.  We can all read the report at SnapNames.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send mail to
[email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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 14:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS & Anti-Trust: Can consumers sue? You betcha!

Hello,

Hot off the press (see Slashdot's front page):

http://www.msnbc.com/news/770391.asp

"Court Opens Baby Bells to Lawsuits"

"IN A DECISION that could end up before the Supreme Court, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said consumers must be able to
bring antitrust actions because “the antitrust laws serve the purpose
of affording the consumer compensation that the Telecommunications Act
does not provide.”

etc.

Be afraid.....be very afraid.

Sincerely,

One of many consumers,

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 14:47:59 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLSproposal

Friday, June 21, 2002, 2:28:08 PM, todd glassey wrote:

> I agree 100 % with you Micheal. But the interesting thing is that the US
> legislation on SPAM was as it was.SPAM is unlike the garbage that you get as
> second and third class mailings in with the real postal mail because you
> have top pay for the spam whether you read it or not. If you do not want

AT&T has started charging Worldnet users per email received?

Or are you trying to make a poorly thought out argument?

Cost shift requires that you actually incur a cost you would not
otherwise of incurred, Todd.

- -- 
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: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 08:21:49 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNS default helps hackers

As many as half the companies in the UK, including top ISPs, do not prevent
hackers from copying DNS server databases that may hold valuable information.
Though the lapse will not allow a hacker to take control of a DNS server, it
could help them to breach security.  [more]

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1132666

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: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:28:10 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

- --=======48BD1C84=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-55FE2095; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 18:48 21/06/02, Roberto Gaetano said:
>>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

IMHO only kids in kindegarten accept adult supervision and debates under 
adult control, adults do not. I am afraid that while the ERC first document 
could have been promizing, the blueprint is the ICANN slow suicide. Anyway 
the GNSO GA is of no real interest, CCSO local GA are.
jfc

- --=======48BD1C84=======--

- --
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 15:33:38 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNS default helps hackers

Friday, June 21, 2002, 3:21:49 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> As many as half the companies in the UK, including top ISPs, do not prevent
> hackers from copying DNS server databases that may hold valuable information.
> Though the lapse will not allow a hacker to take control of a DNS server, it
> could help them to breach security.  [more]

> http://www.vnunet.com/News/1132666

This is nothing but ISS trying to get itself into the media more, much
like how they blew the receive vulnerability regarding Apache WAY out
of proportion simply trying to get media outlets to quite their
releases and name their company.

- -- 
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 22:53:55 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

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?
>

Which means that the GA should be able to take votes on matters relevant to 
its mission and matters relevant to its internal functioning, irrespective 
on whether this offends ICANN board or not, and should refrain from voting 
on motions outside the scope of its mandate, irrespective on whether this 
offends ICANN board or not.

I don´t understand why you introduced the element of "offending the ICANN 
board", that was absent in my reasonment. Why do you think it should be an 
important element in determining what should the GA vote on?

>
>
>>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?
>

My point is that the GA should mind its own business, and not be derailed by 
interests and discussions that are not in its mission, which is, IMHO, to 
provide a forum for debating issues related to the DNS. If the GA will do 
(possibly effectively) the things it is supposed to do, it will live free 
and survive, if it neglects its mission, it will die (free or unfree is of 
course irrelevant).

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

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

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

Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 01:05:31 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, at 14:20 [=GMT-0700], Mason Cole wrote:

> Here's a brief set of corrections to be sure everyone has the dispassionate
> facts:
>
> The distinction is not speculators versus "normal" consumers; as many have
> correctly pointed out, this distinction doesn't get you very far. Rather,
> the problem we're addressing is service of a *few* customers -- whoever they
> may be -- and exclusion of the majority of customers. Speculators are among
> our best customers; we have no desire to see them disadvantaged. What we do
> want to see is the system being more transparent to unsophisticated users,
> one in which evidence of use by *all types* of customers is readily
> available.
>
> There is no evidence that any non-speculator customer -- IP owner,
> corporation, etc. -- uses any of the "competing" services referred to.
> Whether they are capable of being found or not (mostly not, and when found,
> confusing and sometimes very expensive), there is no question that consumers
> are simply not finding them. There is no evidence to the contrary, though it
> has been requested for months.

Well, how will they find WLS then?

- --
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 16:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 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?
> >
>
> Which means that the GA should be able to take votes on matters relevant to
> its mission and matters relevant to its internal functioning, irrespective
> on whether this offends ICANN board or not, and should refrain from voting
> on motions outside the scope of its mandate, irrespective on whether this
> offends ICANN board or not.

If ICANN were the "bottoms-up" organization that it purports to be, then
why does the ICANN BoD or NC believe it is for them to decide the GA's
mandate?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
         Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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 19:43:05 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

> Although our pricing, like much of the debate taking place over
> WLS, is not
> legally relevant to the ICANN Board's review of VeriSign's proposed WLS
> price, we apply the same pricing rules to all SnapBack customers
> on an equal
> basis. We do and have always offered volume discounts, as any
> business does.
> Because this is standard business practice, and is in fact followed by all
> registrars, it's unclear why it is relevant here, even under the still
> legally unsupported standards of relevance held by WLS critics.

"Legally relevant"?  I'm not on the ICANN board, nor am I in a courtroom.
I'm just looking for some honesty.  And yours is refreshing.  You are under
no compulsion to respond to the unwashed rabble here.

You see, there are some people here, i.e. Mr. Gomes, who do not realize that
what is proposed is a system that, on day one, will assure the grandfathered
population of speculators, who paid *less* than everyone else for those
slots, will populate most of the WLS (or about half of it by his reckoning).
Also, quite obviously, your volume pricing practice will remain legally
irrelevant, none of anyone else's business, and unknown to the general
public who thinks they are getting the same deal as everyone else.  But Mr.
Gomes' opinion of how WLS will affect speculators is based on his apparent
ignorance of the actual fact that volume customers have obtained snapbacks -
which will be redeemed for WLS slots - at a discount.  So, he babbles on
about how it will increase their costs and claims that critics aren't basing
their arguments on "facts".

So those outside of SnapNames, who are unaware of that simple fact, may now
be enlightened and stop their uninformed comments about how this will work
against speculators.  The speculator advantage to WLS is built in, and,
again, when people find out that they were led to believe differently, I
just want to be able to pre-empt their whining.

Further reflection on the fact that Snapbacks have not all been priced the
same to all comers, will also aid the understanding of those who think I'm
kidding about WLS position speculation.  That is also built into the system,
and volume customers can play the spread between their price and the retail
price, even if we ignore the underlying value, if any, of the domain name in
question.

In terms of strategy with the legal mumbo-jumbo, though, it will work as
well on the board as did IOD's same tactics.  Whoever wrote the stuff about
how SnapNames is required to bring along its pre-registered customers, or
else they will sue ICANN, should look over how well that played in Marina
Del Rey the last time that tune was heard.  Quite frankly, the legal basis
for that argument is fundamentally flawed anyway.  It is not tortious
interference when circumstances change to make continued performance
impossible, and the current snapback contracts are not for a guaranteed
service.  In fact, those snapbacks can remain post-WLS snapbacks and not be
breached at all.  Of course they won't work as well, but no current snapback
customer contracted for the certainty of WLS, and thus are not entitled to a
benefit above that of the expected service for which they signed up.  Even
now, the possibility of "someone else got there first" happens.  So
post-WLS, that contingency simply becomes "the WLS got there first".  That
is not a contract problem for anyone, but I do smile when someone threatens
lawsuits against ICANN, as SnapNames does in a sideways fashion.

But while we are crying a river over the fact that other services are hard
to find/use/join/afford by the general public, let's reflect on what the
market, unaided by a monopoly, has said, and how our society approaches this
situation in other contexts.  SnapNames has a heavily-advertised fixed-price
service which is readily publically accessible and affordable.  I get a
distinct impression that this model has found itself unable to compete with
the closed/exclusive/inaccessible models, assuming that is really the
situation (I, for one, have no problem finding namewinner).  Oh well.  If
you can't compete, then it is time to change your model.  That is how a
market works.  Do you play golf?

As long as domain names are an initial fixed price commodity, there will be
speculation - it is economically necessary to allocate fixed price
commodities to their highest value economic use.  If anyone on this list has
actually bought shares in a company at the initial public offering price,
then stand up now, because in order to get the initial public offering
price, you have to be a very special person in a very special circle of
people.

But you are correct.  "Standard business practices" are of no legal
relevance here, and you are certainly entitled to engage in them.  But there
are people who don't seem to understand what the real consequences will be
when the "standard business practice" of maximizing profit - as you are
certainly required and entitled to do - kicks in.

You are absolutely correct that the standard of review applicable to the
proposal is up to the folks at Jones Day, and you might even win on that.
If you do, congratulations.  But some of the propaganda on the "irrelevant"
issues is simply insulting to a person of reasonable intelligence.  That's
all.

- --
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 20:00:19 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

>
> Well, how will they find WLS then?

Verisign will send "renewal notices".

To everyone.

For every domain name.

And this leads to another little interesting side effect of WLS.  As some
may recall, there is a reason why NSI registry is a "thin registry", and the
registrars are responsible for whois data...  I will leave the rest as an
exercise for the reader, but just consider where the WLS customer data will
be going.

This stuff is just too funny.

- --
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 17:21:45 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 04:26:04PM -0700, Patrick wrote:
> If ICANN were the "bottoms-up" organization that it purports to be, then
> why does the ICANN BoD or NC believe it is for them to decide the GA's
> mandate?

Let's extend that logic just a bit further:  If ICANN were the 
bottom-up organization that it purports to be, then why does the ICANN 
BoD believe that the US Dept of Commerce can decide anything about 
ICANN's mandate?

- -- 
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 20:44:44 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

>
> A clarification:  Please note that SnapBack customers will not be brought
> along, as is mentioned here.  Under VeriSign's proposal, names for which
> there exist SnapBacks will not be allowed into the WLS system.  All must
> compete over those names as they do today.  Thus is "grandfathering" an
> unfortunate misnomer.  And, as you mention, SnapBacks remain SnapBacks
> post-WLS.  What would constitute tortious interference would be
> to allow WLS
> orders on those names for which there are currently paid-up contracts
> (SnapBack orders) on specific names.

Clever.

Would the same restriction on WLS apply to pending or concluded namewinner
auctions at the time of institution of the WLS?

Why or why not?

Obviously since most of everyone else is going to leave town when WLS
starts, those held-over snapbacks are going to be the only game in town, and
thus pretty much certain.  Unless you were planning on posting a list of
them.

I can, right now, contract with anyone to attempt to register any domain
name when it expires in the future.  Why will only snapback contracts merit
special treatment?

Not to mention that snapbacks are re-targetable to different names if they
fail.  Why is it okay to rescind that part of snapback contracts but not
others?

- --
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 19:42:44 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Folks, we are getting far afield from the core issue and getting
buried in minutia.

WLS is anti-competitive. We've already seen the arguments. VeriSign
keeps trying to put perfume on a hog and it just doesn't work. Good
marketing spins and misinformation pollution, but a hog still smells
like a hog. They want to monopolize an already open, free and
available market.

There are several players already offering services - just go to the
archives of this list and you will see them named numerous times.

The truth is that VeriSign and Snap Names just want all of the
marbles. They don't want open competition. Look what happened to
VeriSign's market share for domain names as a result of competition,
for instance. To them, competition is bad.

WLS is anti-consumer.  Ditto.  Same reasons.  They argue that the high
price will drive speculators away, yet admit that half (or more) of
Snap Name's customers (also at a high price) are speculators.  They
say whatever will promote their cause to control and monopolize this
market.

Let's look at the big picture and not get down and grovel in their
ditches.

A free and open market is good for all consumers.  It drives the
price down, causes innovation and gives the consumer (whatever label
you may put on them) a CHOICE!  That's what the free enterprise system
is all about.  That's why there is an old law on the books called the
Sherman Antitrust Act.

Remember when domain names used to cost everyone $50 or $35 and they
had to be registered for a min of two years? Now that there is
competition, how does the current market compare?

Why would VeriSign and Snap Names be spending all of this time to
generate so much propaganda, if it wasn't worth substantial revenue to
them?  Follow the trail to the gold and you will find the answer.

It doesn't matter what label gets appended to the buyer. A buyer is
just a buyer and VeriSign and Snap Names want all the business. They
don't want any competitors. They want to return to the old days when
they were the supreme Monopoly and could "dictate" whatever they
wanted and "dictate" whatever they provided. Do y'all remember those
days of long hold times and dealing with people who had IQ's lower
than a rock? Think about it.

Since it seems that almost no one was happy during the days when we
had only one source of supply for new domain names, I doubt that
almost no one will be happy if we have only one source for expired
domain names, either.

Rise above the marketing spins and misinformation. Don't let them send
you down rabbit trails to no where. Look at the big picture and
remember your own experience with the former domain name monopoly.  If
you don't have prior experience, ask someone who does.  Just get the
other side of the story from someone who is not a sales type and has
nothing to gain . . .

Thanks,

Friday, June 21, 2002, 10:47:34 AM, James Love <[email-masked]> wrote:
JL> I agree with Kent on this.   There is a difference between end users and 
JL> speculators, and it is far more important to protect end users than 
JL> speculators in domain names.

JL>    Jamie

JL> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1294
*************************