Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1323
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, July 11 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1323

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:11:36 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest

On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 04:46:47PM +0100, Michael Froomkin wrote:
> That's interesting.  Are you saying that Karl's claim he was NOT
> provided with the Board members disclosure forms is false?   Certainly
> the allegation that a member of the Conflicts committee was never given
> the data to his job is quite a serious charge.

Eh?

You must be referring to some other message of Karl's.  The one Joe was 
referring to doesn't talk about any of this.

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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:16:47 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

Danny,

WLS has been debated on the GA list for months. A review of the
archives will show that many on the GA list are steadfastly opposed to
WLS and that I am one of them. Therefore, Marilyn's conclusion about
my silence is correct and on-point and I'd guess the same would be
true of the others who oppose WLS.

As for those in favor of WLS, like the gTLDs, IPC, VeriSign Registry,
SnapNames, SnapName partners, VeriSign Registrar, VeriSign's Registrar
subsidiaries, VeriSign partners, their law firms and lawyers, their
shills who spoke in Bucharest and posted canned statements to the
ICANN comment forum, and the other folks who actually are pursuing
their own independent agenda, they have not been silent, as you have
noticed and pointed out below.

There has already been opportunity for comment, as you have also noticed
and pointed out below, and careful reading of item 3 of the "Schedule of
Events" posted at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00331.html will
disclose a plan for another 10 day public comment period.

The TF has been criticized on matters of form, but not really on
substantive issues.

For instance, perhaps, as the gTLDs pointed out, the TF should not
have considered the wholesale price of a WLS to the Registrars, but
it's difficult not to do so in light of a $6 cost to register a domain
name and a $24 cost for a WLS option. That's particularly true in
light of all of the documents spewed by SnapNames justifying an even
higher price. Let's not forget that the proposed WLS price used to be
much higher than the current $24 WLS proposal, as well.

Perhaps, also, the TF should not have discussed whether an additional
registry service can be introduced by the registry, totally ignoring
SnapNames long and convoluted legal diatribe about how the registry
can't be prevented from introducing WLS and, of course, how everyone
would get sued unless SnapNames' customers were given preferential
treatment.

However, considering that other people made those points a part of the
equation for consideration, I think the TF would have been negligent
if they had not addressed them.

I think, therefore, that the process behind the report either fails your
comprehension or that you have not carefully researched your position
and, as a result, are too petulant to criticize.

WLS has two fatal flaws: (1) WLS is anti-consumer because it
eliminates consumer choice. Instead of multiple services in an already
available market at differing prices, the consumer will have only one,
take it or leave it, service. (2) WLS is anti-competitive because it
will effectively kill the current market of services which are already
available.

Since part of ICANN's mission is to promote competition, WLS should
fail on its face, because of those two fatal flaws alone. Everything
beyond that, is just marketing spins, noise and rabbit trails. ICANN's
BoD vote in favor of WLS will be a vote approving a Monopoly, which
contravenes the very reason for ICANN's very existence.

Thanks,

Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 1:00:41 PM, [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote:
Dcc> Marilyn,

Dcc> In your letter to the Transfers TF you write:  "To date, while input was 
Dcc> received pre-status report, there has been very little feedback from the 
Dcc> community, constituencies and GA on the status report, or the recommendation 
Dcc> proposed by Grant Forsyth. This should indicate that the draft has wide 
Dcc> support within the constituencies/GA".  

Dcc> Your conclusion is flawed.  Silence does not equate to acquiescence.  Your TF 
Dcc> has still not produced a final set of recommendations, nor has the public yet 
Dcc> been invited to comment upon such a final set of recommendations.   To 
Dcc> conclude that a lack of comments on an incomplete proposal is an indication 
Dcc> of support is nothing more than wishful thinking.  

Dcc> The gTLDs have already indicated that they do not support your 
Dcc> recommendations, as have many that spoke at Bucharest and many that have made 
Dcc> their comments on the Public Forum list.  By the way, I have seen no 
Dcc> indication that any members of your TF have ever once looked at the public 
Dcc> forum comments (if so, you would already have the URLs for the SNAPNAMES 
Dcc> documentation that you are now requesting).

Dcc> I share the concerns of the gTLDs regarding "the process behind producing 
Dcc> that Report", and would encourage your TF to more responsibly attend to your 
Dcc> obligations.
Dcc> --
Dcc> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Dcc> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
Dcc> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Dcc> 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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:27:15 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest

Michael and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested parties,

  Good questions here Michael.  I am sure you don't expect a public
answer to them.  Not do I.  And I doubt that anyone else does either.

  It seems rather clear, as it has for sense Karl's election to the
ICANN BoD that a number of the Original Interim BoD
members, their selected legal counsel, as well as some of the
ICANN staff members are now and were not in the past,
all together happy with Karl being elected.  Same seems to
be true of Andy as well, all be it to a lesser extent.  Hence
seems to yet again be the word and tone of Joe's post
to this forum and it's obvious attempt to cast Karl in particular
in a negative light.

  To me anyway, and from what I can gather, Joe amongst
several sr. staff members at ICANN, are trying to use
Karl and Andy as a whipping post for not having elections
for Bod members.  I also gather that a large number of
other stakeholders/participants also have come to this
or a very similar conclusion as well.

  My questions than would be: when if ever, is the DOC/NTIA
going to step in sufficiently and either correct this problem.
or actually consider a Rebid of the ICANN contracts? Or,
when and how does the DOC/NTIA expect the now third
attempt at ICANN reform, namely the so called "Blueprint",
now aptly dubbed the "Black-and-Blueprint" to be open
and transparent to any and all stakeholders/users/participants
now and in the future?

Michael Froomkin wrote:

> That's interesting.  Are you saying that Karl's claim he was NOT
> provided with the Board members disclosure forms is false?   Certainly
> the allegation that a member of the Conflicts committee was never given
> the data to his job is quite a serious charge.
>
> Similarly, if it fell between the cracks, the request for copies some 6+
> weeks ago has allegedly not been answered.  Can you confirm or deny
> this?
>
> If these allegations are correct, they would seem to cast some doubt on
> ICANN's bona fides -- or its lawyers' ability to do their jobs.
>
> PS.  Recently, you have often said that you work for ICANN at "cost".
> Please define this term in the law firm context.  Do you mean "expenses"
> (i.e. out of pocket costs)?  "Costs" as defined in the UK (as it would
> be set by a taxing master)?  Or some other measure which includes
> payment for your time -- which you can set any number you like subject
> to what the market will bear.   How does "cost" as you are using it here
> compare to the rate that you charge corporate clients?  Or your
> discounted rate for clients who are able to negotiate discounts?.
>
> Joe Sims wrote:
>
> >  Karl's latest posting makes you wonder whether the self-imposed
> > responsibility for saving the Internet from the barbarians has finally
> > gotten to him (and even to his lawyers, if they in fact gave him the
> > strange advice he says they did).
> >
> > What is most revealing, however, in this latest message is his obvious
> > contempt for his fellow Board members, who according to him are
> > hapless and helpless, in the steely grip of a domineering staff and
> > unable (some, according to Karl, because English is not their native
> > language) to get the real truth of what is going on.  Karl, by
> > comparison, is a self-described big-time player, testifying before
> > Congress and meeting with important people in Washington.  His
> > comparison in the last hearing to Senators and himself as being
> > similar because both were elected was another manifestation of this
> > self-delusion, which is both amazing and a little sad.
> >
> > In fact, if Karl ever actually spent any time with his fellow
> > directors from outside the United States, he would discover that most
> > of them speak considerably better English than he (or I) do, as if
> > that had anything to do with their critical faculties.  Indeed, the
> > personal accomplishments of Alejandro Pisanty, or Nii Quaynor, or Ivan
> > Campos, or for that matter Vint Cerf and the rest of the ICANN
> > directors, compare quite favorably to Karl's career record of
> > accomplishment, I would guess.  And if he ever bothered to actually
> > debate the merits of issues with them -- which he does not, because,
> > of course, he knows he already has the delivered wisdom -- he would
> > know how hard they have struggled with these complicated issues.  If
> > he ever bothered to listen, he would have heard his fellow elected
> > directors explain why, for example, they thought that online elections
> > were not a good way to select ICANN Board members at this time -- but
> > since Karl knows better, he does not listen or dismisses these views
> > as the result of "fear of the US."   But Karl tells us later that
> > ICANN is headed for a "collision" with the US because it is failing to
> > comply with its obligations (by which he means elections).  Which is
> > it:  fear of the US is buffaloing people like Ivan Campos and Nii
> > Quaynor into opposing elections even though they really think they are
> > a good idea, or the US is going to force ICANN to, in Karl's words,
> > "comport with their obligations?"  Like many owners of delivered
> > wisdom, Karl is not troubled by internal inconsistency.
> >
> > I invite readers to review the GAC Statement on Evolution and Reform
> > issued at Bucharest.  The US, unlike Karl, was present for an intense
> > 2 1/2 day meeting that produced a detailed statement basically
> > endorsing the Blueprint for Reform adopted by the Board.  There were
> > some dissents or disassociations, like the ITU, but none from the US.
> > If we are headed for a collision, where are the signs?  Ah, perhaps
> > from his meetings with important people in Washington, but if so, who
> > are they and why are they not speaking out?  Could it be we have a
> > transparency issue with Karl?  Horrors! Or perhaps he mostly has a
> > hearing problem -- zealots frequently hear what they want to hear, and
> > only that.
> >
> > The real issue is not public input into ICANN; there is no dispute
> > from anyone that there must be effective mechanisms for the general
> > public, including individual users, to make their views known and to
> > participate if they choose to in the policy development process.
> > Karl's position, and that of some others, is that there is only one
> > possible acceptable way for that to happen -- by electing directors.
> > The views of many others are different -- that there are numerous ways
> > it can happen, and elections (at least today) are not the best of
> > those options.  This may be an issue that reasonable people can differ
> > on, but to Karl, those who disagree could only do so because they are
> > evil, or inept, or somehow constrained in their ability to think
> > because English is not their native language.
> >
> > This is either utter nonsense or the ramblings of a zealot.  In either
> > case, it deserves the weight that it is getting.  Karl asked to be a
> > member of the ICANN Board; nobody dragooned him.  Once given that
> > responsibility, he has chosen to ignore his fiduciary obligations to
> > ICANN and to this fellow Board members, and to use that platform to
> > feed his ego and advance a largely incoherent personal agenda.  Being
> > an ICANN director has given him prominence and attention, and
> > apparently that is what he wanted, since he has not even tried to do
> > anything iwith his fellow Board members that would possibly advance
> > the cause he says he espouses.  He has never missed a Senate or House
> > hearing, but he now excuses his lack of attendence at one of the most
> > important ICANN Board meetings ever on the fact that it was
> > inconvenient for him (as compared, one supposes, to those other Board
> > members from around the world that were able to adjust their schedules
> > to enable their attendence).  Other excuses for other absences were
> > that he was up late and fell asleep, and that he couldn't get the
> > phone to work.  In America, every person apparently has the right to
> > be irresponsible, but for heaven's sake, the rest of us don't have to
> > pretend that it is an attractive character trait.
> >
> > Karl is part of the old ICANN -- an organization that was as much a
> > magnet for every person with grandiose ideas about global democracy as
> > it was a serious working body.  That old ICANN is gone -- and is being
> > replaced with an organization that still adheres to the core values of
> > openness and transparency, of broad public input and participation,
> > and of making policy by consensus whenever possible, but does so with
> > the knowledge that it still has to all work.  For people like Karl,
> > the new ICANN may not have quite the magnetic attraction of the old,
> > but that is not a bad thing.  It should help get the decisions that
> > must be made done in a timely and effective way.  And that will be a
> > good thing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Joe Sims
> > Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> > 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> > Washington, D.C. 20001
> > Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> > Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> > Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
> >
> > ==============================
> > The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> > information that may be confidential, be protected by the
> > attorney-client or other applicable privileges, or constitute
> > non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the
> > designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this
> > message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then
> > delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or
> > reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not
> > authorized and may be unlawful.
> > ==============================
> >
> >
> > -- This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send
> > mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga-full" in
> > the body of the message). Archives at
> > http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                 -->   It's hot there.   I'm elsewhere.   <--
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:46:50 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List Service

Danny and all assembly members,

  I believe that the two reasons why the Registry constituency
stated by Jeff.Neuman were very minor reason, but good ones
none the less for why WLS should not be adopted as a
standard.  In light of recent security concerns from the
Homeland Security department reporting directly to the
president, (See article:http://news.com.com/2100-1023-942686.html)
as partial refrence, and the upcoming House hearing regarding
two recent house sponsored bills regarding "Cybersecurity"
WLS represents a direct avenue for Terrorists to use as
a tool for their many and varied attempts to cause problems
with the infrastructure and fabric of the DNS.

  Therefor I would strongly suggest that WLS be either
dismissed entirely or be tabled for later revamping and
than reconsidered after some more serious consideration.

[email-masked] wrote:

> posted to the Council list:
>
> Dear Transfer Task Force/Names Council,
>
> The gTLD Constituency, which represents both the sponsored and unsponsored
> gTLD registries, has had the opportunity to review the DNSO Transfer Task
> Force's Report on the Wait List Service ("Report") presented to the Board at
> the ICANN meeting in Bucharest.  As we have consistently stated within the
> Transfer Task Force, the gTLD constituency has several serious concerns with
> the report and the process behind producing that Report, which prevent us
> from giving it our support.
>
> More specifically, the constituency unanimously believes that the Report
> delves into matters that are beyond the scope of any policy task force and
> certainly are not appropriate for the policy consensus process.  These
> matters include, but are not limited to: (1) whether a Registry Service can
> be introduced by a Registry Operator; and (2) the price of a Registry
> Service.  We believe that such issues are related to the business of the
> individual registry and are more appropriate for the market place to
> regulate rather than ICANN.
>
> In light of these, we strongly believe that VeriSign's proposed amendment to
> Appendix G be approved by ICANN and that they be allowed to introduce the
> Wait List Service.
>
> *We want to note for the record that because of VeriSign's inherent interest
> in this issue, VeriSign did not participate in the gTLD Constituency's
> discussion of this particular issue.
>
> Thank you for this opportunity to present our comments and we would be happy
> to answer any questions that you may have.
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
> e-mail: [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

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: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:25:36 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF - "Another Load"

Don and all assembly members,

  Although you and I have strongly disagreed on some privacy
related issues, we strongly agree in opposition to WLS and the TF
false report regarding WLS.  We both, along with others that
were in the Phone Conferences discussing WLS, which is
recorded as I understand it somewhere (P.S. I hope that
the recording device MP3? was working at the time), also
showed a strong displeasure with WLS as well.  Hence
I can only now conclude as I suspected, that Marilyn is
again grandstanding in the extreme for her own political
purposes and that the TR TF Report is just is just
"Another Load"...

Don Brown wrote:

> Danny,
>
> WLS has been debated on the GA list for months. A review of the
> archives will show that many on the GA list are steadfastly opposed to
> WLS and that I am one of them. Therefore, Marilyn's conclusion about
> my silence is correct and on-point and I'd guess the same would be
> true of the others who oppose WLS.
>
> As for those in favor of WLS, like the gTLDs, IPC, VeriSign Registry,
> SnapNames, SnapName partners, VeriSign Registrar, VeriSign's Registrar
> subsidiaries, VeriSign partners, their law firms and lawyers, their
> shills who spoke in Bucharest and posted canned statements to the
> ICANN comment forum, and the other folks who actually are pursuing
> their own independent agenda, they have not been silent, as you have
> noticed and pointed out below.
>
> There has already been opportunity for comment, as you have also noticed
> and pointed out below, and careful reading of item 3 of the "Schedule of
> Events" posted at
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00331.html will
> disclose a plan for another 10 day public comment period.
>
> The TF has been criticized on matters of form, but not really on
> substantive issues.
>
> For instance, perhaps, as the gTLDs pointed out, the TF should not
> have considered the wholesale price of a WLS to the Registrars, but
> it's difficult not to do so in light of a $6 cost to register a domain
> name and a $24 cost for a WLS option. That's particularly true in
> light of all of the documents spewed by SnapNames justifying an even
> higher price. Let's not forget that the proposed WLS price used to be
> much higher than the current $24 WLS proposal, as well.
>
> Perhaps, also, the TF should not have discussed whether an additional
> registry service can be introduced by the registry, totally ignoring
> SnapNames long and convoluted legal diatribe about how the registry
> can't be prevented from introducing WLS and, of course, how everyone
> would get sued unless SnapNames' customers were given preferential
> treatment.
>
> However, considering that other people made those points a part of the
> equation for consideration, I think the TF would have been negligent
> if they had not addressed them.
>
> I think, therefore, that the process behind the report either fails your
> comprehension or that you have not carefully researched your position
> and, as a result, are too petulant to criticize.
>
> WLS has two fatal flaws: (1) WLS is anti-consumer because it
> eliminates consumer choice. Instead of multiple services in an already
> available market at differing prices, the consumer will have only one,
> take it or leave it, service. (2) WLS is anti-competitive because it
> will effectively kill the current market of services which are already
> available.
>
> Since part of ICANN's mission is to promote competition, WLS should
> fail on its face, because of those two fatal flaws alone. Everything
> beyond that, is just marketing spins, noise and rabbit trails. ICANN's
> BoD vote in favor of WLS will be a vote approving a Monopoly, which
> contravenes the very reason for ICANN's very existence.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 1:00:41 PM, [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Dcc> Marilyn,
>
> Dcc> In your letter to the Transfers TF you write:  "To date, while input was
> Dcc> received pre-status report, there has been very little feedback from the
> Dcc> community, constituencies and GA on the status report, or the recommendation
> Dcc> proposed by Grant Forsyth. This should indicate that the draft has wide
> Dcc> support within the constituencies/GA".
>
> Dcc> Your conclusion is flawed.  Silence does not equate to acquiescence.  Your TF
> Dcc> has still not produced a final set of recommendations, nor has the public yet
> Dcc> been invited to comment upon such a final set of recommendations.   To
> Dcc> conclude that a lack of comments on an incomplete proposal is an indication
> Dcc> of support is nothing more than wishful thinking.
>
> Dcc> The gTLDs have already indicated that they do not support your
> Dcc> recommendations, as have many that spoke at Bucharest and many that have made
> Dcc> their comments on the Public Forum list.  By the way, I have seen no
> Dcc> indication that any members of your TF have ever once looked at the public
> Dcc> forum comments (if so, you would already have the URLs for the SNAPNAMES
> Dcc> documentation that you are now requesting).
>
> Dcc> I share the concerns of the gTLDs regarding "the process behind producing
> Dcc> that Report", and would encourage your TF to more responsibly attend to your
> Dcc> obligations.
> Dcc> --
> Dcc> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Dcc> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> Dcc> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Dcc> 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

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: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:19:36 -0400
From: "Jeffrey J. Neuman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

To be fair, there were a number of other parties that spoke out in favor
of the WLS in the public forum, not necessarily because they liked the
service, but rather for the points that were raised by the gTLD
Constituency.  In fact, when the transcript for the public forum is
published (hopefully soon), you will see a strong statement of support
for allowing the WLS to be introduced from Bruce Tonkin, a Names Council
representative speaking on behalf of the MelbourneIT registrar
supporting the notion of allowing the service to go forward.  In
addition, I understand that in the Registrar Constituency a vote was
taken on whether to support the report or not and the result was 13 in
favor of it, 10 against.

So, with the gTLDs, Snapnames, 10 of the 23 voting registrars, the IPC
(who is actually neutral so long as the Grace Period is implemented),
and ccTLDs (who I understand abstained in a TF vote on whether to
support the report) not opposed to the introduction of the WLS, can it
really be said that a consensus exists in favor of having the Board
reject the service?

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Don
Brown
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 7:17 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

Danny,

WLS has been debated on the GA list for months. A review of the
archives will show that many on the GA list are steadfastly opposed to
WLS and that I am one of them. Therefore, Marilyn's conclusion about
my silence is correct and on-point and I'd guess the same would be
true of the others who oppose WLS.

As for those in favor of WLS, like the gTLDs, IPC, VeriSign Registry,
SnapNames, SnapName partners, VeriSign Registrar, VeriSign's Registrar
subsidiaries, VeriSign partners, their law firms and lawyers, their
shills who spoke in Bucharest and posted canned statements to the
ICANN comment forum, and the other folks who actually are pursuing
their own independent agenda, they have not been silent, as you have
noticed and pointed out below.

There has already been opportunity for comment, as you have also noticed
and pointed out below, and careful reading of item 3 of the "Schedule of
Events" posted at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00331.html will
disclose a plan for another 10 day public comment period.

The TF has been criticized on matters of form, but not really on
substantive issues.

For instance, perhaps, as the gTLDs pointed out, the TF should not
have considered the wholesale price of a WLS to the Registrars, but
it's difficult not to do so in light of a $6 cost to register a domain
name and a $24 cost for a WLS option. That's particularly true in
light of all of the documents spewed by SnapNames justifying an even
higher price. Let's not forget that the proposed WLS price used to be
much higher than the current $24 WLS proposal, as well.

Perhaps, also, the TF should not have discussed whether an additional
registry service can be introduced by the registry, totally ignoring
SnapNames long and convoluted legal diatribe about how the registry
can't be prevented from introducing WLS and, of course, how everyone
would get sued unless SnapNames' customers were given preferential
treatment.

However, considering that other people made those points a part of the
equation for consideration, I think the TF would have been negligent
if they had not addressed them.

I think, therefore, that the process behind the report either fails your
comprehension or that you have not carefully researched your position
and, as a result, are too petulant to criticize.

WLS has two fatal flaws: (1) WLS is anti-consumer because it
eliminates consumer choice. Instead of multiple services in an already
available market at differing prices, the consumer will have only one,
take it or leave it, service. (2) WLS is anti-competitive because it
will effectively kill the current market of services which are already
available.

Since part of ICANN's mission is to promote competition, WLS should
fail on its face, because of those two fatal flaws alone. Everything
beyond that, is just marketing spins, noise and rabbit trails. ICANN's
BoD vote in favor of WLS will be a vote approving a Monopoly, which
contravenes the very reason for ICANN's very existence.

Thanks,

Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 1:00:41 PM, [email-masked]
<[email-masked]> wrote:
Dcc> Marilyn,

Dcc> In your letter to the Transfers TF you write:  "To date, while
input was 
Dcc> received pre-status report, there has been very little feedback
from the 
Dcc> community, constituencies and GA on the status report, or the
recommendation 
Dcc> proposed by Grant Forsyth. This should indicate that the draft has
wide 
Dcc> support within the constituencies/GA".  

Dcc> Your conclusion is flawed.  Silence does not equate to
acquiescence.  Your TF 
Dcc> has still not produced a final set of recommendations, nor has the
public yet 
Dcc> been invited to comment upon such a final set of recommendations.
To 
Dcc> conclude that a lack of comments on an incomplete proposal is an
indication 
Dcc> of support is nothing more than wishful thinking.  

Dcc> The gTLDs have already indicated that they do not support your 
Dcc> recommendations, as have many that spoke at Bucharest and many that
have made 
Dcc> their comments on the Public Forum list.  By the way, I have seen
no 
Dcc> indication that any members of your TF have ever once looked at the
public 
Dcc> forum comments (if so, you would already have the URLs for the
SNAPNAMES 
Dcc> documentation that you are now requesting).

Dcc> I share the concerns of the gTLDs regarding "the process behind
producing 
Dcc> that Report", and would encourage your TF to more responsibly
attend to your 
Dcc> obligations.
Dcc> --
Dcc> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Dcc> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
Dcc> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Dcc> 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

- --
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: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:41:05 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 6:19:36 PM, Jeffrey J. Neuman wrote:
> addition, I understand that in the Registrar Constituency a vote was
> taken on whether to support the report or not and the result was 13 in
> favor of it, 10 against.

How many of those 10 registrars are owned or otherwise in the Verisign
Sphere of influence, Jeff?

- -- 
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: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Jeffrey J. Neuman wrote:

> To be fair, there were a number of other parties that spoke out in
> favor of the WLS in the public forum, not necessarily because they
> liked the service, but rather for the points that were raised by the
> gTLD Constituency.  In fact, when the transcript for the public forum
> is published (hopefully soon), you will see a strong statement of
> support for allowing the WLS to be introduced from Bruce Tonkin, a
> Names Council representative speaking on behalf of the MelbourneIT
> registrar supporting the notion of allowing the service to go forward.
> In addition, I understand that in the Registrar Constituency a vote
> was taken on whether to support the report or not and the result was
> 13 in favor of it, 10 against.

Which vote was that, one in Bucharest? If the vote was in Bucharest, not
all registrars voted or had the oppertunity to vote, nor were any minutes
distributed to the registrars constituency concering such a WLS vote.

If you want to talk about the vote in Feb the Registrars Constituency
voted in opposition of the WLS.

spin the numbers as you wish, everyone else does.

- -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: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:19:26 -0400
From: "Jeffrey J. Neuman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

Regardless, even assuming that these matters should be considered by the
DNSO (which the gTLDs do not believe that it should be), the point I was
trying to make is that with the IPC, gTLDs, ccTLDs and at least some of
the Registrars (some of which are not in any way associated with
VeriSign) not opposed to the introduction of the WLS, I do not believe
that it can be said that there is a consensus to prevent its
introduction.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wesson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 9:59 PM
To: Jeffrey J. Neuman
Cc: 'Don Brown'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; Registrars Executive Committee; Registrars List
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Jeffrey J. Neuman wrote:

> To be fair, there were a number of other parties that spoke out in
> favor of the WLS in the public forum, not necessarily because they
> liked the service, but rather for the points that were raised by the
> gTLD Constituency.  In fact, when the transcript for the public forum
> is published (hopefully soon), you will see a strong statement of
> support for allowing the WLS to be introduced from Bruce Tonkin, a
> Names Council representative speaking on behalf of the MelbourneIT
> registrar supporting the notion of allowing the service to go forward.
> In addition, I understand that in the Registrar Constituency a vote
> was taken on whether to support the report or not and the result was
> 13 in favor of it, 10 against.

Which vote was that, one in Bucharest? If the vote was in Bucharest, not
all registrars voted or had the oppertunity to vote, nor were any
minutes
distributed to the registrars constituency concering such a WLS vote.

If you want to talk about the vote in Feb the Registrars Constituency
voted in opposition of the WLS.

spin the numbers as you wish, everyone else does.

- -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: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:13:08 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

Jeff,

Read the archives and come to your own conclusion.  The truth will set
you free.

Thanks,

Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 8:19:36 PM, Jeffrey J. Neuman <[email-masked]> wrote:
JJN> To be fair, there were a number of other parties that spoke out in favor
JJN> of the WLS in the public forum, not necessarily because they liked the
JJN> service, but rather for the points that were raised by the gTLD
JJN> Constituency.  In fact, when the transcript for the public forum is
JJN> published (hopefully soon), you will see a strong statement of support
JJN> for allowing the WLS to be introduced from Bruce Tonkin, a Names Council
JJN> representative speaking on behalf of the MelbourneIT registrar
JJN> supporting the notion of allowing the service to go forward.  In
JJN> addition, I understand that in the Registrar Constituency a vote was
JJN> taken on whether to support the report or not and the result was 13 in
JJN> favor of it, 10 against.

JJN> So, with the gTLDs, Snapnames, 10 of the 23 voting registrars, the IPC
JJN> (who is actually neutral so long as the Grace Period is implemented),
JJN> and ccTLDs (who I understand abstained in a TF vote on whether to
JJN> support the report) not opposed to the introduction of the WLS, can it
JJN> really be said that a consensus exists in favor of having the Board
JJN> reject the service?

JJN> -----Original Message-----
JJN> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Don
JJN> Brown
JJN> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 7:17 PM
JJN> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
JJN> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
JJN> Subject: Re: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

JJN> Danny,

JJN> WLS has been debated on the GA list for months. A review of the
JJN> archives will show that many on the GA list are steadfastly opposed to
JJN> WLS and that I am one of them. Therefore, Marilyn's conclusion about
JJN> my silence is correct and on-point and I'd guess the same would be
JJN> true of the others who oppose WLS.

JJN> As for those in favor of WLS, like the gTLDs, IPC, VeriSign Registry,
JJN> SnapNames, SnapName partners, VeriSign Registrar, VeriSign's Registrar
JJN> subsidiaries, VeriSign partners, their law firms and lawyers, their
JJN> shills who spoke in Bucharest and posted canned statements to the
JJN> ICANN comment forum, and the other folks who actually are pursuing
JJN> their own independent agenda, they have not been silent, as you have
JJN> noticed and pointed out below.

JJN> There has already been opportunity for comment, as you have also noticed
JJN> and pointed out below, and careful reading of item 3 of the "Schedule of
JJN> Events" posted at
JJN> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00331.html will
JJN> disclose a plan for another 10 day public comment period.

JJN> The TF has been criticized on matters of form, but not really on
JJN> substantive issues.

JJN> For instance, perhaps, as the gTLDs pointed out, the TF should not
JJN> have considered the wholesale price of a WLS to the Registrars, but
JJN> it's difficult not to do so in light of a $6 cost to register a domain
JJN> name and a $24 cost for a WLS option. That's particularly true in
JJN> light of all of the documents spewed by SnapNames justifying an even
JJN> higher price. Let's not forget that the proposed WLS price used to be
JJN> much higher than the current $24 WLS proposal, as well.

JJN> Perhaps, also, the TF should not have discussed whether an additional
JJN> registry service can be introduced by the registry, totally ignoring
JJN> SnapNames long and convoluted legal diatribe about how the registry
JJN> can't be prevented from introducing WLS and, of course, how everyone
JJN> would get sued unless SnapNames' customers were given preferential
JJN> treatment.

JJN> However, considering that other people made those points a part of the
JJN> equation for consideration, I think the TF would have been negligent
JJN> if they had not addressed them.

JJN> I think, therefore, that the process behind the report either fails your
JJN> comprehension or that you have not carefully researched your position
JJN> and, as a result, are too petulant to criticize.

JJN> WLS has two fatal flaws: (1) WLS is anti-consumer because it
JJN> eliminates consumer choice. Instead of multiple services in an already
JJN> available market at differing prices, the consumer will have only one,
JJN> take it or leave it, service. (2) WLS is anti-competitive because it
JJN> will effectively kill the current market of services which are already
JJN> available.

JJN> Since part of ICANN's mission is to promote competition, WLS should
JJN> fail on its face, because of those two fatal flaws alone. Everything
JJN> beyond that, is just marketing spins, noise and rabbit trails. ICANN's
JJN> BoD vote in favor of WLS will be a vote approving a Monopoly, which
JJN> contravenes the very reason for ICANN's very existence.

JJN> Thanks,

JJN> Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 1:00:41 PM, [email-masked]
JJN> <[email-masked]> wrote:
Dcc>> Marilyn,

Dcc>> In your letter to the Transfers TF you write:  "To date, while
JJN> input was 
Dcc>> received pre-status report, there has been very little feedback
JJN> from the 
Dcc>> community, constituencies and GA on the status report, or the
JJN> recommendation 
Dcc>> proposed by Grant Forsyth. This should indicate that the draft has
JJN> wide 
Dcc>> support within the constituencies/GA".  

Dcc>> Your conclusion is flawed.  Silence does not equate to
JJN> acquiescence.  Your TF 
Dcc>> has still not produced a final set of recommendations, nor has the
JJN> public yet 
Dcc>> been invited to comment upon such a final set of recommendations.
JJN> To 
Dcc>> conclude that a lack of comments on an incomplete proposal is an
JJN> indication 
Dcc>> of support is nothing more than wishful thinking.  

Dcc>> The gTLDs have already indicated that they do not support your 
Dcc>> recommendations, as have many that spoke at Bucharest and many that
JJN> have made 
Dcc>> their comments on the Public Forum list.  By the way, I have seen
JJN> no 
Dcc>> indication that any members of your TF have ever once looked at the
JJN> public 
Dcc>> forum comments (if so, you would already have the URLs for the
JJN> SNAPNAMES 
Dcc>> documentation that you are now requesting).

Dcc>> I share the concerns of the gTLDs regarding "the process behind
JJN> producing 
Dcc>> that Report", and would encourage your TF to more responsibly
JJN> attend to your 
Dcc>> obligations.
Dcc>> --
Dcc>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Dcc>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
Dcc>> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Dcc>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

JJN> --
JJN> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
JJN> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
JJN> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
JJN> 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 #1323
*************************