Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1295
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, June 22 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1295

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Kent Crispin wrote:

>
> 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?

Probably because the ICANN BoD successfully obtained a contract with the
DoC who DOES have authority over the A root server with explicit promises
that it has consistently failed to live up to. These include
non-arbitrary, bottoms-up processes and transparency.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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 20:07:40 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS & Anti-Trust: Can consumers sue? You betcha!

Geroge and all assembly members,

  Actually I personally applaud this ruling!  And it would seem that
there may be consequences as to applying this ruling to the anti
competitive
practices of ICANN with other root structures in the DNS game.

George Kirikos wrote:

> 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

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: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 03:39:33 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, at 20:00 [=GMT-0400], John Berryhill wrote:

> > Well, how will they find WLS then?
>
> Verisign will send "renewal notices".
>
> To everyone.
>
> For every domain name.

In .com of course, but also in .net, which they will give up soon??

And what about .org, which they will give up in 6 months? Does any of the
ORG bidders have a paragraph about WLS?

And what about .info etc.?

NYT of January 2, 2003
Syracuse, From our correspondent
The family of John Williams, a 39 year old dentist, who was found shot
dead three days ago, say they suspect a namesake of the victim. The motive
for the crime is alleged to be the domain name that the victim used:
[email-masked]. The victim had received several threats via email in
which he was told to let the name expire. Police have in the mean time
arrested a 29 year old computer scientist from Palo Alto, who is on the
waiting list for said domain.

- --
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 21:59:28 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] DNSO/GNSO:  Same dysfunctionality/ New package

Kent,

I appreciate your interest in the reform topic and wouldn't mind getting your 
views on the proposed reform of the DNSO. 

At best, I see little more than cosmetic changes.  Sure, we have a new name 
(GNSO), but we basically still have the same set of players (with the ccTLDs 
being replaced by NonCom appointees)... and no proposals to deal with the 
current dysfunctionality of the constituency approach.  

For some reason, rather than creating new and long-overdue constituencies by 
fiat, which the Board is empowered to do on its own motion, we have once more 
been asked to wait for the establishment of "criteria" which will allow for 
"provisional" constituencies to eventually obtain full-voting constituency 
status.  I need not remind you that we have already been down this "criteria" 
road before...

So what has really changed?  How is this an improvement over the prior model 
which also had "criteria" for new constituencies?  

Not surprisingly, we are told that yet another "Review" will be conducted in 
12 months time... but what's the point?  We have already had two back-to-back 
"reviews" of the DNSO, and obviously no one bothered to listen as no 
modifications have been recommended.  So why go through the exercise again 
when absolutely nothing of consequence has changed?

The Council will continue to operate in the same fashion that it has always 
operated.  Policy guidance to the Board will become even more poor than it is 
at the moment because there is now no longer any incentive for GA members to 
participate...  they can't vote on their own procedures, they can't elect 
their own Chair, and they can't tender recommendations to the Board.  The 
current proposal only serves to dishearten the remaining volunteers.

How exactly does this plan increase the quality of the policy guidance that 
will be offered to the Board?  I'm sorry, but I don't see any "evolution", 
only a plan to continue carrying dysfunctionality forward.  

- --
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 19:24:47 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

At 07:42 PM 21/06/02 -0500, Don Brown wrote:

>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.

Yes, I remember like it was yesterday. [Thinks about it]
Waytaminit, it *was* yesterday! ;) -g

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 21:59:48 -0500
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

Joe,

You asked the other day for folks to explain to you precisely how the WLS
would harm consumers and/or registrars because you were confused about some
statements that had been bandied about?  You got quite a few responses for
which you expressed your appreciation and that's great.  Now, I'm a bit
confused and was hoping you could help me understand (and I'm sure many on
the list would be interested as well) what would, in this situation,
constitute harm to consumers and/or registrars from a legal point of view?

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: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 06:21:15 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Friday, June 21, 2002, 5:05:49 PM, Mason Cole wrote:

>>> 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. . . .  In fact, those snapbacks can remain post-WLS 
>>> snapbacks and not be breached at all.

> 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.

But of course, the same courtesy is not to be extended to the
customers of other registrars operating such services.

Thus giving Snapnames an advantage even now.

I see Snapnames has the same principles of Verisign in dealing with
the public.

Snapnames can't compete with registrars offering snapnames-like
services, so they seek to make them irrelevant by getting an exclusive
contract from the registry and circumvent the competition altogether.

Your company's tactics disgusted me when they were first launched, and
throwing your lot in with Verisign has only lowered my opinion even
further.

- -- 
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 09:03:46 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "The blueprint": New Reform Committee paper posted

On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 08:46:31AM -0700, William X Walsh wrote:
> 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?

Nope.  The model for the GA was the "irish proposal", which in turn was
based on the IETF, and I marked it well, because it wasn't my preferred
outcome -- my preferred outcome was the "at-large" constituency.

Note that "the IETF" as a whole doesn't exist as a formal organization,
and, except for perhaps an occasional straw poll at the plenary
meetings, never votes on anything.  This was the intended role of the
GA.  

Note that the IETF is a singularly effective body.  Perhaps that is
because, unlike the GA, it does not have the "internet governance"
disease, and in fact fights it off vigorously whenever a localized
infection occurs. 

- -- 
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: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 09:46:29 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

I only know about fifteen people on this list fairly well through
correspondence
and face to face and telephone.
Kristy, Jeff, Joop, Danny, Roeland, Joanna, Jefsey, Sotiris, Joe, Jim,
Marilyn,
YJ, (I can include some that don't like me at all) etc. etc. And every
one of them
supervises very important matters.  Unlike most I really am only
concerned with
developing LICs. Jefsy's point rings quite true as does Roberto's whom I
have only
chatted with briefly in Melbourne, with Patrick.

I don't really think it matters what role is placed on our great GA.  We
will
debate the issues and we will reach consensus if possible on all matters
the
majority of us think are correct.  If "they" kill this list we will go
elsewhere
and do the same.

In short this is one of the greatest groups of intellectuals and caring
individuals from the broadest grouping of global citizenry ever
assembled.  It
will carry on.  It will thrive.
I personally thank you all from the bottom of my heart for
participating. As I
have oft inclined our power is in our truth and that may not be denied.

Sincerely,
Eric

PS check out this weird little link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20822-2002Jun20.html

"J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" wrote:

> 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
- --
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 11:51:47 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "The blueprint": New Reform Committee paper posted

At 9:03 AM -0700 6/22/02, Kent Crispin wrote:
>Perhaps that is
>because, unlike the GA, it does not have the "internet governance"
>disease,

Kent, my dear boy, you're getting the GA and ICANN Board/Staff confused again.

- -- 
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: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 10:07:01 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] "The blueprint": New Reform Committee paper posted

This is pure crap.

There is nothing wrong with the GA.  It elects fine leaders.  It reaches
consensus.  It gives advisory opinions.  It produces fine members to TFs and
WGs.  It deals with tough cross/professional issues.  It helps in the
evaluation of Internet issues.  In fact it advises governments in a manner
undoable by most.  It is the most transparent policy evaluation group in
existence. It has members from over a hundred countries.

Suggesting decreasing of the DNSO GA in order to cure ICANN's ills is like
taking out your heart and brain to save your rectum  (Well maybe that does not
work for Kent in that I have yet to see evidence of a heart or a brain from him
- - but a whole lot of rectum)

Eric

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 08:46:31AM -0700, William X Walsh wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Nope.  The model for the GA was the "irish proposal", which in turn was
> based on the IETF, and I marked it well, because it wasn't my preferred
> outcome -- my preferred outcome was the "at-large" constituency.
>
> Note that "the IETF" as a whole doesn't exist as a formal organization,
> and, except for perhaps an occasional straw poll at the plenary
> meetings, never votes on anything.  This was the intended role of the
> GA.
>
> Note that the IETF is a singularly effective body.  Perhaps that is
> because, unlike the GA, it does not have the "internet governance"
> disease, and in fact fights it off vigorously whenever a localized
> infection occurs.
>
> --
> 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

- --
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 13:22:55 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Pursuing Progress on Transfers

Dear Vint,

Transfers of sponsorship are governed by the "Policy on Transfer of 
Sponsorship of Registrations Between Registrars" that appears as an exhibit 
to the Registry-Registrar Agreement for each top-level domain.  ICANN's 
Reconsideration Committee responding to Request 02-2 has stated, "ICANN, 
however, is not a party to those agreements and is not entitled to enforce 
them."  The Committee has further stated, "Because the "registrar 
requirements" regarding transfers are not included in any contract 
enforceable by ICANN, it is not appropriate that ICANN attempt to enforce 
them."

A simple and pragmatic solution to the ongoing problem of transfers might be 
found by incorporating the language of the "exhibit" within the Registrar 
Accreditation Agreement to which ICANN is indeed a signatory, thereby 
allowing for the prospect of enforcement.  In your view, would the Board be 
amenable to such an approach?

- --
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 10:51:08 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Dear Mr. Berryhill,

Many of your recent observations are quite helpful, but I would ask you to
re-evaluate them with correct assumptions in that yours were incorrect.

"unwashed rabble" - it is quite obvious this group is the most washed rabble
ever assembled.  You happen to be a member and I assume you have at least one
post graduate degree and bathe frequently.  Although you are quite long in the
tooth so I have clipped your 6k worth of "rabble"

"market forces" - Snapnames is owned by Verisign which trades stock which is a
licensed monopoly through ICANN and the DoC.  Enron, Microsoft, US Steel, AT&T
are not good examples of market forces.

"competition & Golf"  Perhaps you could find a better analogy Tiger, in that
golf is often exclusive to those who are allowed to join - $$$, No niggers,
spics, Irish or kikes.  Maybe you are right?

"standard business practice" is always relevant no matter where or why.  Whether
it be an ISO or an unwritten clause in a contract.

On the other hand, perhaps you were being sarcastic and in which case I hope my
illustrations will help those from a different lingual persuasion.

Eric

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

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

Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 13:02:17 -0500
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] "The blueprint": New Reform Committee paper posted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
> Crispin
> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 11:04 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] "The blueprint": New Reform Committee paper posted
>
<---cut--->
>
> Note that the IETF is a singularly effective body.  Perhaps that is
> because, unlike the GA, it does not have the "internet governance"
> disease, and in fact fights it off vigorously whenever a localized
> infection occurs.
>

Kent,

Please clarify.  What do you mean when you accuse the GA of having an
"internet governance" disease?

Thanks!

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: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 11:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .org price breaks

Anyone else been reading .org proposals? I've got a question for you
folks regarding price and supporting causes in respect to proposals to run
the .org registry.

If all the proposals proport to support some internet or not-for-profit in
exchange for running the registry and that certain funds will be donated
to the not-for-profit is it not in the interest of supporting the
not-for-profit that prices be kept at or near the $6 whole sale price for
a .org.

It seems most of the organizations waving a flag for the .org bid have a
non-profit which gets donations of revenue. As the registry drops its
price the non-profit gets less of a benefit, and the price difference
translates into a better gross margin for the registrar.

Since most registrars do not price near the wholesale price a 15% drop in
wholesale price would not encourage registrars to drop their list price by
15% or an equal dollar value.

So this is what I don't get, why are most of the .org proposals offering a
$4.95 price which effectively reduces the contribution to the NGO that
is supposed to be the beneficiary of the whole operation.

I just don't get it -- could anyone explain, or did I totally miss the
mark?

thanks,

- -rick

- --
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 11:10:12 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Ellen Rony wrote:

> <clippage>
>
> 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.
>

Should that dog hunt?

>
> 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.
>

As long as we keep making progress toward monopolistic divestiture, albeit
seemingly small, this would seem to be a normal and proper thing.  Does this really
have an impact on the little gal?  If a domain name is meant to be personal rather
than commercial should not it be in a ccTLD?

Eric

>
> -Ellen Rony

<deletion>

- --
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 14:28:45 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

William, 

In one of the Transfer TF WLS calls I invited other businesses who might
experience contractual issues as a result of WLS implementation to contact
VGRS and said that we would consider accomodation there if it was possible.
I have not heard from anyone.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 9:21 AM
To: Mason Cole
Cc: 'John Berryhill'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Friday, June 21, 2002, 5:05:49 PM, Mason Cole wrote:

>>> 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. . . .  In fact, those snapbacks can remain post-WLS 
>>> snapbacks and not be breached at all.

> 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.

But of course, the same courtesy is not to be extended to the
customers of other registrars operating such services.

Thus giving Snapnames an advantage even now.

I see Snapnames has the same principles of Verisign in dealing with
the public.

Snapnames can't compete with registrars offering snapnames-like
services, so they seek to make them irrelevant by getting an exclusive
contract from the registry and circumvent the competition altogether.

Your company's tactics disgusted me when they were first launched, and
throwing your lot in with Verisign has only lowered my opinion even
further.

- -- 
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
- --
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 20:48:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .org price breaks

On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, at 11:02 [=GMT-0700], Rick Wesson wrote:

> It seems most of the organizations waving a flag for the .org bid have a
> non-profit which gets donations of revenue. As the registry drops its
> price the non-profit gets less of a benefit, and the price difference
> translates into a better gross margin for the registrar.

This depends also on how efficient the registry works. You seem to assume
that they are all equal in this respect. It could be (but doesn't have to
be), that those with lower fees, have a less top heavy management, e.g.

> Since most registrars do not price near the wholesale price a 15% drop in
> wholesale price would not encourage registrars to drop their list price by
> 15% or an equal dollar value.

This is a second issue. Since there are over 100 registrars, I don't see
why some would not drop their price for competitive purposes.

- --
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 14:58:34 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  WLS

A Reference Manual for the Wait Listing Service was posted earlier this week 
to:  
http://www.snapnames.com/downloads/PartIIMeritsofWLStoICANNBoardofDirectors.pd
f

The document is comprehensive and warrants comment as it cogently challenges 
the conclusions advanced by the Chair of the Transfers Task Force.  
- --
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 12:05:28 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS & Anti-Trust: Can consumers sue? You betcha!

Allow me to toot the great horn of the US.

We cannot keep up with the likes of the Internet or even the great minds of
the GA.
But our Governance generally works out to the right call.  We are fairly
open and we try our best to do the right thing.  We may be a little slow but
speed sometimes creates inequities which we try to avoid.
We are attacked, physically and verbally by many, but we actually help many
more in dire need.
There is already money pouring from this country to help the earthquake
victims in Iran - even with all the bad blood between our governments - and
while we face devastating fires here at home.
Perhaps - just Perhaps, this may be a decent place to allow the Internet to
grow.
Maybe - just Maybe, we are not such demonic bastards and we are trying to do
the right thing.

I certainly hope for and am dedicated to establishing a harmony and
synthesis between all of our great cultures. Our work in Mexico and Vietnam
is living proof that cultural problems can be bridged and that one of the
finest bridges is the Internet.  I owe an endearing gratitude to all of you
guys and gals that make this sucker work.

I ask for a rededication to our hard work and a tolerance to each other as
we continue to move forward as we surely are doing.  Listen to the
complaints and our frequent whining but keep doing what your doing.
Ultreya

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Geroge and all assembly members,
>
>   Actually I personally applaud this ruling!  And it would seem that
> there may be consequences as to applying this ruling to the anti
> competitive
> practices of ICANN with other root structures in the DNS game.
>
> George Kirikos wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> 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

- --
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 15:04:23 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Harald's thoughts on ICANN reform

Harald Tveit Alvestrand (speaking for himself only) has advanced an ICANN 
reform plan:   http://www.alvestrand.no/icann/splitting.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: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 12:46:37 -0700
From: Paul Stahura <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] .org price breaks

This message posted on behalf of The .org Foundation (theorgfoundation.org)

Good question Rick.
I can tell you we struggled with this one.
We devoted some text to it in our proposal.
The question was: why lower prices if the lower prices
will not be passed to the registrants, especially
low volume purchasers (the majority of .org registrants), 
for whom the registry exists to service?  
We can see this already.  Most registrars do not charge
slightly lower prices for .info and .biz names, even
though those names cost slightly less than .com and .net
Why not keep more to do "good works"?  
Since the price to registrants (especially those who
purchase just one name) is generally the same either way,
the registrars in effect would be paying for the "good works",
if the price was higher.  
Additionally, who's to say this will continue?  
A competing registrar in the future may well choose to
service the .org community by passing on the lower fee
to .org registrants.  This can only happen if there is
a lower fee to pass on.

What we decided was to set the price to cover expenses.
Any "good works" would be covered by 3rd party matching funds.  

The maximum price that we proposed ($4.95/name-year)
covers running an efficient, robust and stable registry and 
still provides a  small amount for the registry to respond well 
to the needs of the noncommercial Internet community, and to
support that community.
At this price, which I believe is one of the lowest proposed, 
we figured only a portion of the ICANN endowment
would be needed to help cover expenses and 
contingency costs of the registry.

Terry Drayton
Executive Director
The .org Foundation

- -----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wesson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 11:02 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] .org price breaks

Anyone else been reading .org proposals? I've got a question for you
folks regarding price and supporting causes in respect to proposals to run
the .org registry.

If all the proposals proport to support some internet or not-for-profit in
exchange for running the registry and that certain funds will be donated
to the not-for-profit is it not in the interest of supporting the
not-for-profit that prices be kept at or near the $6 whole sale price for
a .org.

It seems most of the organizations waving a flag for the .org bid have a
non-profit which gets donations of revenue. As the registry drops its
price the non-profit gets less of a benefit, and the price difference
translates into a better gross margin for the registrar.

Since most registrars do not price near the wholesale price a 15% drop in
wholesale price would not encourage registrars to drop their list price by
15% or an equal dollar value.

So this is what I don't get, why are most of the .org proposals offering a
$4.95 price which effectively reduces the contribution to the NGO that
is supposed to be the beneficiary of the whole operation.

I just don't get it -- could anyone explain, or did I totally miss the
mark?

thanks,

- -rick

- --
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 #1295
*************************