Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1309
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, July 1 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1309

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 03:43:58 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Abusive Registrar Practices

Does anybody know this bunch of clowns? They keep sending me these threats
about a Domain Name [actual name replaced by xxxx for privacy reasons] that
is actually registered at Dotster and doesn't come up for renewal until
December. Dotster isn't interested.

Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:27 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: xxxxxx.com Renewal Reminder - 28 Days Notice
>
>
> Domain Renewal Notification
> ===========================
>
> Your domain name xxxxxx.com is due for renewal with the
> registering authority on Sunday, July 28, 2002.
>
> To renew this domain name you must visit the freeparking
> web site, http://www.freeparking.co.uk/, login to the
> members area and select "Modify" from the menu, then select
> the "Renew Domains" link. From here you will be able to
> either renew or cancel this domain name.
>
> If a domain is not renewed by Sunday, July 28, 2002 it will be
> deactivated by the registering authority shortly afterwards
> which means that the name will no longer be useable, and
> someone else will be able to register it.
>
> Kind Regards
> Freeparking Domain Name Admin
>
>

- --
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: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 06:06:46 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C21FFC.50B5B320
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

maybe instead of just talking about the issues , someone should suggest =
a practical solution to the potential propblem being discussed here..

ken stubbs

  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: L. Gallegos=20
  To: [email-masked]=20
  Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 4:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

  My point is that the registrant has to use the email address to =
contact=20
  the system in order to verify the transaction (email verification).  =
Many=20
  registrants use their domain for email and some even just for email, =
so=20
  that they do not have to continually change email addresses if they=20
  change ISPs, etc.  So, going to a neighbor to use his email addy is =
not=20
  going to do anything.  It won't compute.  That has been one of the=20
  bugaboos when people do change email addresses due to ISP=20
  changes, especially when it is due to an ISP failure or other =
emergency=20
  change.  Suddenly one can't do anything about modifying domain=20
  information and it all has to be done by phone.  With Verisign it is=20
  extremely painful to do anything via phone or fax.  Other registrars =
do=20
  not even make their phone numbers public - or at least easy to find. =20

  It is an issue whether some feel otherwise or not.

  The telephone or electric bill analogy is not a good one, IMO, since=20
  most people would be able to deal with that simply - by using another=20
  phone.  Verification of an email address is not necessary, nor is=20
  verification of the number from which you are calling.

  Leah

  On 28 Jun 2002, at 13:54, Dan Steinberg wrote:

  > I have to agree. If your phone gets disconnected, it doesnt matter =
if
  > its because you 'thought you had paid' but hadnt or if its turly =
telco
  > error or lost cheque.  You still have to go visit a neighbour, or =
use a
  > cell phone or trundle down to find a pay phone just to establish =
what
  > the problem is and see if you have to do something (like pay). It's =
your
  > repsonisibility to find a way to do this.
  >=20
  > William X Walsh wrote:
  > >=20
  > > Friday, June 28, 2002, 1:31:08 AM, L. Gallegos wrote:
  > >=20
  > > > Well, the board approved it, but I still have a question that no =
one
  > > > seems to have addressed.
  > >=20
  > > > If an expired domain is placed on registry hold and no longer =
resolves,
  > > > and the contact email is based on that domain, how will the =
registrant
  > > > be able to "undelete" it or move it to another registrar to =
redeem it if
  > > > there can be no contact?
  > >=20
  > > > It seems to me that there should be some resolution to this =
question or
  > > > what good is the Grace and Redemption perioid?  The only other =
means
  > > > to communicate in this scenario, would be by telephone.  Some of =
the
  > > > registrars do not even list their phone numbers on their =
websites and
  > > > there would be little time to handle it via snail mail.
  > >=20
  > > > Anyone have any comments?
  > >=20
  > > Personal Responsibility.
  > >=20
  > > --
  > > Best regards,
  > > William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
  > > --
  > > Save Internet Radio!
  > > CARP will kill Webcasting!
  > > http://www.saveinternetradio.org/
  > >=20
  > > --
  > > 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
  >=20
  > --=20
  > Dan Steinberg
  >=20
  > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
  > 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
  > Chelsea, Quebec fax:   (819) 827-4398
  > J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
  > --
  > 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
  >=20
  >=20

  --
  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

- ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C21FFC.50B5B320
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>maybe instead of just talking about the issues , =
someone=20
should suggest&nbsp;a practical solution to the potential propblem being =

discussed here..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>ken stubbs</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A title=[email-masked] href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">L. =
Gallegos</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, June 28, 2002 =
4:56 PM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ga] Grace and=20
  Redemption</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>My point is that the registrant has to use the email =
address to=20
  contact <BR>the system in order to verify the transaction (email=20
  verification).&nbsp; Many <BR>registrants use their domain for email =
and some=20
  even just for email, so <BR>that they do not have to continually =
change email=20
  addresses if they <BR>change ISPs, etc.&nbsp; So, going to a neighbor =
to use=20
  his email addy is not <BR>going to do anything.&nbsp; It won't =
compute.&nbsp;=20
  That has been one of the <BR>bugaboos when people do change email =
addresses=20
  due to ISP <BR>changes, especially when it is due to an ISP failure or =
other=20
  emergency <BR>change.&nbsp; Suddenly one can't do anything about =
modifying=20
  domain <BR>information and it all has to be done by phone.&nbsp; With =
Verisign=20
  it is <BR>extremely painful to do anything via phone or fax.&nbsp; =
Other=20
  registrars do <BR>not even make their phone numbers public - or at =
least easy=20
  to find.&nbsp; <BR><BR>It is an issue whether some feel otherwise or=20
  not.<BR><BR>The telephone or electric bill analogy is not a good one, =
IMO,=20
  since <BR>most people would be able to deal with that simply - by =
using=20
  another <BR>phone.&nbsp; Verification of an email address is not =
necessary,=20
  nor is <BR>verification of the number from which you are=20
  calling.<BR><BR>Leah<BR><BR><BR>On 28 Jun 2002, at 13:54, Dan =
Steinberg=20
  wrote:<BR><BR>&gt; I have to agree. If your phone gets disconnected, =
it doesnt=20
  matter if<BR>&gt; its because you 'thought you had paid' but hadnt or =
if its=20
  turly telco<BR>&gt; error or lost cheque.&nbsp; You still have to go =
visit a=20
  neighbour, or use a<BR>&gt; cell phone or trundle down to find a pay =
phone=20
  just to establish what<BR>&gt; the problem is and see if you have to =
do=20
  something (like pay). It's your<BR>&gt; repsonisibility to find a way =
to do=20
  this.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; William X Walsh wrote:<BR>&gt; &gt; <BR>&gt; =
&gt;=20
  Friday, June 28, 2002, 1:31:08 AM, L. Gallegos wrote:<BR>&gt; &gt; =
<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt; &gt; Well, the board approved it, but I still have a question =
that no=20
  one<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; seems to have addressed.<BR>&gt; &gt; <BR>&gt; =
&gt; &gt;=20
  If an expired domain is placed on registry hold and no longer=20
  resolves,<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; and the contact email is based on that =
domain, how=20
  will the registrant<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; be able to "undelete" it or move =
it to=20
  another registrar to redeem it if<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; there can be no=20
  contact?<BR>&gt; &gt; <BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; It seems to me that there =
should be=20
  some resolution to this question or<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; what good is the =
Grace=20
  and Redemption perioid?&nbsp; The only other means<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; =
to=20
  communicate in this scenario, would be by telephone.&nbsp; Some of =
the<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt; &gt; registrars do not even list their phone numbers on their =
websites=20
  and<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; there would be little time to handle it via =
snail=20
  mail.<BR>&gt; &gt; <BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; Anyone have any =
comments?<BR>&gt; &gt;=20
  <BR>&gt; &gt; Personal Responsibility.<BR>&gt; &gt; <BR>&gt; &gt; =
- --<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt; Best regards,<BR>&gt; &gt; William X Walsh &lt;<A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>&gt;<BR>&gt; =
&gt;=20
  --<BR>&gt; &gt; Save Internet Radio!<BR>&gt; &gt; CARP will kill=20
  Webcasting!<BR>&gt; &gt; <A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.saveinternetradio.org/">http://www.saveinternetradio.o=
rg/</A><BR>&gt;=20
  &gt; <BR>&gt; &gt; --<BR>&gt; &gt; This message was passed to you via =
the <A=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> list.<BR>&gt; &gt; Send =
mail to <A=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> to =
unsubscribe<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt; ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).<BR>&gt; &gt; =
Archives at=20
  <A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.h=
tml</A><BR>&gt;=20
  <BR>&gt; -- <BR>&gt; Dan Steinberg<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; SYNTHESIS:Law =
&amp;=20
  Technology<BR>&gt; 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356<BR>&gt; Chelsea, =
Quebec=20
  fax:&nbsp;&nbsp; (819) 827-4398<BR>&gt; J9B=20
  =
1N1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
  e-mail:[email-masked]<BR>&gt; --<BR>&gt; This message was =
passed to=20
  you via the <A href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>=20
  list.<BR>&gt; Send mail to <A=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> to =
unsubscribe<BR>&gt;=20
  ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).<BR>&gt; Archives =
at <A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.h=
tml</A><BR>&gt;=20
  <BR>&gt; <BR><BR><BR>--<BR>This message was passed to you via the <A=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> list.<BR>Send mail to <A=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> to=20
  unsubscribe<BR>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the =
message).<BR>Archives at=20
  <A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.h=
tml</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C21FFC.50B5B320--

- --
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: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:54:08 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS is perfect domain insurance?

During public comment, following the WLS presentation at Bucharest, a
gentleman, who held himself out to be a businessman and speaking on
his own, described WLS, more or less, as perfect domain expiration
insurance.

During his remarks, he indicated that he was already a SnapNames
customer and represented that WLS would be much better because it
would be 100%; leaving nothing to risk or chance.

It seemed the Lynn, and perhaps Cerf (I don't remember), picked up on
the theme of WLS's perfection as opposed to the random chance through
SnapNames and others in the current market.

Of course, there is also similar randomness with WLS, since there is
no guarantee that the gentleman will be the first person to secure a
WLS option on any of his existing domain names. That's particularly
true, if SnapNames is Not accorded any preferential treatment, as
promised by Gomes during the WLS presentation. Therefore, if the
gentleman does not secure a WLS option on his own registration(s),
then the 100% perfection logic takes on a new, and very different,
meaning.

I do speculate, however, that the chances of WLS success probably
improves, with respect to a domain name that is registered for the
first time, when a WLS is immediately ordered. There is still,
however, some (probably small) chance of failure, even then.
Consequently, the "perfection" logic was flawed to a certain extent,
but I don't think that the Lynn, and others on the Board, realized it.

As a side thought, I wonder what would motivate a businessman to spend
the time and money to travel all the way to Bucharest and attend the
ICANN Board meeting. He indicated that was a SnapNames customer, but
that was probably just a coincidence.

- ----
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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 18:08:57 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

On 2002-06-30 06:06:46 -0400, Ken Stubbs wrote:

>   maybe instead of just talking about the issues , someone should 
>   suggest a practical solution to the potential propblem being 
>   discussed here..

I'd guess it's a new business opportunity for (some) registrars: 
Correct billing for renewal (without trying to play tricks with  
customers, i.e., don't bill for two years when it's about an  
extension of the registration by one year; also, it greatly helps  
when you don't have a "one sender domain per mailing" approach -  
that way, customers have no way to tell if a message comes from  
their registrar or someone else trying to defraud you), contact  
phone numbers where you reach a competent individual instead of  
listening to bad music for ten minutes on a transatlantic phone call 
when you get confused by the next bill arriving after you have paid, 
and, ultimately, an option for automatic renewal (and payment), just 
like what you do with public utilities in Europe. 

To make it short: Be customer-friendly.

Please note that I'm still a customer of Verisign registrar, so my  
rather bad experience may not be representative for all the  
registrars around.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 18:16:41 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

The solution is to change the type of verification, or if that is not
possible, to transfer to another registrar. OpenSRS/Tucows, Enom (and
others, I am sure) let one change details over a webinterface. One must
not forget the password then, of course...

On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, at 06:06 [=GMT-0400], Ken Stubbs wrote:

> maybe instead of just talking about the issues , someone should suggest a practical solution to the potential propblem being discussed here..
>
> ken stubbs
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: L. Gallegos
>   To: [email-masked]
>   Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 4:56 PM
>   Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption
>
>
>   My point is that the registrant has to use the email address to contact
>   the system in order to verify the transaction (email verification).  Many
>   registrants use their domain for email and some even just for email, so
>   that they do not have to continually change email addresses if they
>   change ISPs, etc.  So, going to a neighbor to use his email addy is not
>   going to do anything.  It won't compute.  That has been one of the
>   bugaboos when people do change email addresses due to ISP
>   changes, especially when it is due to an ISP failure or other emergency
>   change.  Suddenly one can't do anything about modifying domain
>   information and it all has to be done by phone.  With Verisign it is
>   extremely painful to do anything via phone or fax.  Other registrars do
>   not even make their phone numbers public - or at least easy to find.
>
>   It is an issue whether some feel otherwise or not.
>
>   The telephone or electric bill analogy is not a good one, IMO, since
>   most people would be able to deal with that simply - by using another
>   phone.  Verification of an email address is not necessary, nor is
>   verification of the number from which you are calling.
>
>   Leah
>
>
>   On 28 Jun 2002, at 13:54, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>
>   > I have to agree. If your phone gets disconnected, it doesnt matter if
>   > its because you 'thought you had paid' but hadnt or if its turly telco
>   > error or lost cheque.  You still have to go visit a neighbour, or use a
>   > cell phone or trundle down to find a pay phone just to establish what
>   > the problem is and see if you have to do something (like pay). It's your
>   > repsonisibility to find a way to do this.
>   >
>   > William X Walsh wrote:
>   > >
>   > > Friday, June 28, 2002, 1:31:08 AM, L. Gallegos wrote:
>   > >
>   > > > Well, the board approved it, but I still have a question that no one
>   > > > seems to have addressed.
>   > >
>   > > > If an expired domain is placed on registry hold and no longer resolves,
>   > > > and the contact email is based on that domain, how will the registrant
>   > > > be able to "undelete" it or move it to another registrar to redeem it if
>   > > > there can be no contact?
>   > >
>   > > > It seems to me that there should be some resolution to this question or
>   > > > what good is the Grace and Redemption perioid?  The only other means
>   > > > to communicate in this scenario, would be by telephone.  Some of the
>   > > > registrars do not even list their phone numbers on their websites and
>   > > > there would be little time to handle it via snail mail.
>   > >
>   > > > Anyone have any comments?
>   > >
>   > > Personal Responsibility.
>   > >
>   > > --
>   > > 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
>   >
>   > --
>   > Dan Steinberg
>   >
>   > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
>   > 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
>   > Chelsea, Quebec fax:   (819) 827-4398
>   > J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
>   > --
>   > 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
>
>

- --
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: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:18:43 -0700
From: Ellen Rony <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusive Registrar Practices

I don't, but why not send a a copy of the threat along with WHOIS
information for the domain to registrar complaint central at
http://www.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi

It's obvious that ICANN giveth accreditation but doesn't taketh away when
policies are breached by registrars or their  resellers.  If everyone
pummeled the corporation upon receipt of bogus registration letters, ICANN
might be forced to put some ethical muscle behind its registrar
accreditation/de-accreditation process.

                                        REGISTRATION DETAILS
(domain-parking.net):

                                        Domain Name..........
domain-parking.net
                                          Creation Date........ 1999-05-27
                                          Registration Date.... 2001-05-13
                                          Expiry Date.......... 2003-05-27
                                          Organisation Name.... ActiveBytes
Software LLC
                                          Organisation Address. 2530
Channin Drive
                                          Organisation Address. _
                                          Organisation Address. Wilmington
                                          Organisation Address. 19810
                                          Organisation Address. DE
                                          Organisation Address. UNITED STATES

                                        Admin Name...........
domain-parking.net Domain Administration  (DA14330-OR)
                                          Admin Address........
domain-parking.net
                                          Admin Address........ _
                                          Admin Address........ USA
                                          Admin Address........ 19810
                                          Admin Address........ DE
                                          Admin Address........ UNITED STATES
                                          Admin Email..........
[email-masked]
                                          Admin Phone.......... +44 1959 540361
                                          Admin Fax............ -+44 1959
540328

                                        Tech Name............ Domain Admin
                                          Tech Address......... Burnhill
Business Centre
                                          Tech Address......... _
                                          Tech Address......... Beckenham
                                          Tech Address......... BR3 3LA
                                          Tech Address......... Kent
                                          Tech Address......... GREAT
BRITAIN (UK)
                                          Tech Email...........
[email-masked]
                                          Tech Phone........... +44 208 249
6081
                                          Tech Fax............. +44 208 249
6076
                                          Name Server..........
NS1.POWERHOST.CO.UK
                                          Name Server..........
NS2.POWERHOST.CO.UK

At 3:43 AM -0400 7/1/02, Joanna Lane wrote:
>Does anybody know this bunch of clowns? They keep sending me these threats
>about a Domain Name [actual name replaced by xxxx for privacy reasons] that
>is actually registered at Dotster and doesn't come up for renewal until
>December. Dotster isn't interested.
>
>Regards,
>Joanna
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:27 AM
>> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>> Subject: xxxxxx.com Renewal Reminder - 28 Days Notice
>>
>>
>> Domain Renewal Notification
>> ===========================
>>
>> Your domain name xxxxxx.com is due for renewal with the
>> registering authority on Sunday, July 28, 2002.
>>
>> To renew this domain name you must visit the freeparking
>> web site, http://www.freeparking.co.uk/, login to the
>> members area and select "Modify" from the menu, then select
>> the "Renew Domains" link. From here you will be able to
>> either renew or cancel this domain name.
>>
>> If a domain is not renewed by Sunday, July 28, 2002 it will be
>> deactivated by the registering authority shortly afterwards
>> which means that the name will no longer be useable, and
>> someone else will be able to register it.
>>
>> Kind Regards
>> Freeparking Domain Name Admin
>>
>>
>
>--
>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

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ellen Rony, Co-author         )/_    http://www.domainhandbook.com
Domain Name Handbook  	     <" \      http://www.domainsleuth.biz
                             /)  )                  [email-masked]
                         ---/'-""---
       The more people I meet, the more I like my cockatiel.
- --
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: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 18:18:06 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, at 19:24 [=GMT+0200], Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 09:27:30 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >I believe based upon experience and a long history this is naive.
>
> I think we can have counter-proof of this: just let any organization you
> trust (including Jefsey's ones) ask Denise Michel for inclusion in the ALOC,
> and let's see what she answers.

If I am not mistaken, Jefsey told us he was rejected. So what now?

- --
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: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 18:48:44 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

On 2002-07-01 18:18:06 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:

>If I am not mistaken, Jefsey told us he was rejected. So what now?

Look at the details of that rejection, and find out whether or not  
it was the right thing to do.  For instance, what kind of substance  
do the associations he's talking about have?  What have they  
accomplished and done so far?

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:53:03 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

Ken,

Regarding practical solutions, perhaps you could give us an update on 
registrar efforts to establish a code-of-conduct.  I understand that it was a 
topic on the registrar's agenda in Bucharest.  Any progress to report?
- --
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: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 14:24:07 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

The web interface works, of course.  If all registrars went that route, 
requring paswords, the email addy situation would not matter.  Of 
course, one would have to do the undelete via that registrar.  doable.  
And if done right, there would be little or no need for using a land line to 
"fix" things.

Leah

On 1 Jul 2002, at 18:16, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> The solution is to change the type of verification, or if that is not
> possible, to transfer to another registrar. OpenSRS/Tucows, Enom (and
> others, I am sure) let one change details over a webinterface. One must
> not forget the password then, of course...
> 
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, at 06:06 [=GMT-0400], Ken Stubbs wrote:
> 
> > maybe instead of just talking about the issues , someone should suggest a practical solution to the potential propblem being discussed here..
> >
> > ken stubbs
> >
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: L. Gallegos
> >   To: [email-masked]
> >   Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 4:56 PM
> >   Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption
> >
> >
> >   My point is that the registrant has to use the email address to contact
> >   the system in order to verify the transaction (email verification).  Many
> >   registrants use their domain for email and some even just for email, so
> >   that they do not have to continually change email addresses if they
> >   change ISPs, etc.  So, going to a neighbor to use his email addy is not
> >   going to do anything.  It won't compute.  That has been one of the
> >   bugaboos when people do change email addresses due to ISP
> >   changes, especially when it is due to an ISP failure or other emergency
> >   change.  Suddenly one can't do anything about modifying domain
> >   information and it all has to be done by phone.  With Verisign it is
> >   extremely painful to do anything via phone or fax.  Other registrars do
> >   not even make their phone numbers public - or at least easy to find.
> >
> >   It is an issue whether some feel otherwise or not.
> >
> >   The telephone or electric bill analogy is not a good one, IMO, since
> >   most people would be able to deal with that simply - by using another
> >   phone.  Verification of an email address is not necessary, nor is
> >   verification of the number from which you are calling.
> >
> >   Leah
> >
> >
> >   On 28 Jun 2002, at 13:54, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> >
> >   > I have to agree. If your phone gets disconnected, it doesnt matter if
> >   > its because you 'thought you had paid' but hadnt or if its turly telco
> >   > error or lost cheque.  You still have to go visit a neighbour, or use a
> >   > cell phone or trundle down to find a pay phone just to establish what
> >   > the problem is and see if you have to do something (like pay). It's your
> >   > repsonisibility to find a way to do this.
> >   >
> >   > William X Walsh wrote:
> >   > >
> >   > > Friday, June 28, 2002, 1:31:08 AM, L. Gallegos wrote:
> >   > >
> >   > > > Well, the board approved it, but I still have a question that no one
> >   > > > seems to have addressed.
> >   > >
> >   > > > If an expired domain is placed on registry hold and no longer resolves,
> >   > > > and the contact email is based on that domain, how will the registrant
> >   > > > be able to "undelete" it or move it to another registrar to redeem it if
> >   > > > there can be no contact?
> >   > >
> >   > > > It seems to me that there should be some resolution to this question or
> >   > > > what good is the Grace and Redemption perioid?  The only other means
> >   > > > to communicate in this scenario, would be by telephone.  Some of the
> >   > > > registrars do not even list their phone numbers on their websites and
> >   > > > there would be little time to handle it via snail mail.
> >   > >
> >   > > > Anyone have any comments?
> >   > >
> >   > > Personal Responsibility.
> >   > >
> >   > > --
> >   > > 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
> >   >
> >   > --
> >   > Dan Steinberg
> >   >
> >   > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> >   > 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> >   > Chelsea, Quebec fax:   (819) 827-4398
> >   > J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
> >   > --
> >   > 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
> >
> >
> 
> 

- --
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: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 15:20:33 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] PROJECT: A Quantitative Evaluation of DNS as a Directory Service

GA members have on multiple occasions discussed the extent to which DNS does
or does not provide directory-like services -- with DNS designer Paul Vixie
pointing out that this is not the purpose for which DNS was designed, but
with millions of users continuing to use DNS in this way.

In my "DNS as a Search Engine: A Quantitative Evaluation," I attempt to
investigate and quantify the success with which the DNS provides services
similar to a search engine or directory system.  I first find that DNS is
nearly as accurate as Google among a sample of the world's largest brands.
However, for smaller brands, smaller companies, and less selective
educational institutions, DNS's accuracy is substantially worse than
Google's.  These results suggest that while DNS well serves the needs of the
largest companies, it is less successful in providing intuitive naming
services to small businesses and other smaller organizations.

I've also investigated the accuracy of now-defunct private keyword system
RealNames.  In recent testing, RealNames offered relatively high accuracy
among sampled educational institutions, but it failed to properly provide
references for many of the largest brands worldwide (as reported by
Interbrand), including Nokia, Intel, and Ford.  This outcome may reflect a
conflict in the goals of keyword service operators -- that providing an
accurate keyword system requires giving away a large number of
registrations, but that operating a profitable keyword system requires
denying registrations to those who have not paid the specified fees.

My results are posted at
  <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/dns-as-search>

I look forward to comments from GA members.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman

- --
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: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:36:18 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] PROJECT: A Quantitative Evaluation of DNS as a Directory Service

Monday, July 01, 2002, 12:20:33 PM, Ben Edelman wrote:

> GA members have on multiple occasions discussed the extent to which DNS does
> or does not provide directory-like services -- with DNS designer Paul Vixie
> pointing out that this is not the purpose for which DNS was designed, but
> with millions of users continuing to use DNS in this way.

> In my "DNS as a Search Engine: A Quantitative Evaluation," I attempt to
> investigate and quantify the success with which the DNS provides services
> similar to a search engine or directory system.  I first find that DNS is
> nearly as accurate as Google among a sample of the world's largest brands.
> However, for smaller brands, smaller companies, and less selective
> educational institutions, DNS's accuracy is substantially worse than
> Google's.  These results suggest that while DNS well serves the needs of the
> largest companies, it is less successful in providing intuitive naming
> services to small businesses and other smaller organizations.

This last sentence is flawed, Ben, in that it is again based on the
principle that doing what you are suggesting is the purpose of DNS.

Just because something CAN be used for some in a fashion, does not
mean that it is, was, or should be intended to work that way, or that
it should work that way for all people.  Search engines and other
directory services are the way to go for that.

And that is the best conclusion that could be made from your study.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1309
*************************