Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1328
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, July 12 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1328

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:24:10 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

At 04:53 p.m. 11/07/2002 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:

>I think that's exactly what I was suggesting: give the job to a Court
>because deciding what is "anticompetitive" is outside ICANN's core
>competency.

Bret,

Are you then saying that ICANN's orgininal mission was a mission impossible?

Or that  the "success" in bandaging the NSI monopoly was simply a matter of 
fronting up for a job, doing what they were told, without any 
decisionmaking or real judgement about what they were doing to bring real 
competition into the marketplace?

- --Joop

- --
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: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS, and the Cookie Challenge

Hey Bret,

- --- Bret Fausett <[email-masked]> wrote:
> George Kirikos wrote:
> > ICANN exists to make the tough decisions. If they can't handle the
> job, give
> > it to someone who will.
> 
> I think that's exactly what I was suggesting: give the job to a Court
> because deciding what is "anticompetitive" is outside ICANN's core
> competency.

As mentioned in my initial reply, fostering competition is part of
ICANN's mission. Whether ICANN is competent or not in delivering upon
their mission is an open question. ;) Perhaps they need more folks with
an economics background (pick me, pick me!) on their Board. :)

All kidding aside, you're basically describing a laissez-faire legal
doctrine that says all disputes should be resolved through private
parties in courts, without government or quasi-government involvement.
In an academic and pure environment, I can see the attractiveness of
that (my own philosophy is moderately right-wing too, and I'm for less
government, not more).

However, in the real world this has problems for various reasons.

1) introduces legal costs and delays. Take the example of Microsoft vs.
Netscape, for instance. There is no question now that Netscape was
harmed by Microsoft's anti-trust activities, and they can collect
damages. However, how many years has it taken to get there, and still
Netscape hasn't seen a dime? The lawyers of course are big winners in
the meantime.

2) consumers and society are harmed in the meantime. While the "big
boys" fight things out in court, little guys and gals don't stop and
wait -- they have to live with the repercussions, through higher prices
and fewer choices. While some corporations have infinite lives, and
justice will eventually serve their interests, individual consumers
don't live forever! Getting $500 damages 10 years later is not a
perfect substitute for having had competition and increased choice for
those 10 years.

3) related to #2, one can only really sue for money damages, which is
not a perfect compensation for the harm done to consumers and society.
Collecting on those damages is also difficult (e.g. VRSN goes bankrupt,
or something, because they spent all their cash on lawyers defending
themselves to the bitter end, to rob their victims even further).

4) Verisign's contracts are with ICANN. Registrar's agreements are with
ICANN. It makes sense for ICANN to be involved. It's harder for
individual victims to organize, and Verisign knows this.

Thus, efficiency can be improved by stopping this anti-competitive
behaviour before it begins.

Take a look at what happened in the Microsoft/Netscape matter. To
survive, Netscape had to sell themselves to Sun Microsystems, at a
price that reflected a lower value due to the harm that had been
caused.

Verisign will harm the valuations of all registrars, allowing them to
continue to cherry pick them at low price, as they consolidate the
industry. Dotster said it clearly -- they make a significant profit
from their expired names service. If Verisign takes that away, VRSN can
buy up Dotster, or others, for less. It's naive to think that VRSN
hasn't thought of these things. One of the "funniest" parts of the
Bucharest transcripts at:

http://www.icann.org/bucharest/captioning-afternoon-27jun02.htm

was Chuck Gomes saying:

"I’ll be very honest with you.
There are registrar-based services that will likely experience negative
impact in a case or two.
Their particular business in going after the deleted names will
probably be change drastically.
And it certainly was not our intent to harm our customers' businesses;
okay?"

I leave it to the psychologists amongst us to interpret this, but I
personally know how to interpret things when one prefaces statements
with "I'll be very honest with you" (i.e. the more cynical people will
read that as buzzwords for "I'm getting ready to lie to you!" ;) ) and
end them with the question "okay?" (as though they're not convinced
themselves of the statements, and are asking you!). Verisign and their
army of consultants/lobbyists/lawyers are more sophisticated than
Chuck's statement suggests.

If anyone's read this far ;) I find it so predictable of Verisign and
proponents of WLS to continue to avoid the tough questions. So, let's
up the stakes a little, and provide them with an incentive. Before, I
asked at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02800.html

"Consider the following scenario. The Status Quo exists, and SnapNames
approaches VGRS to make a private deal, whereby SnapBack holders get
first dibs on all expiring domain names for the first day. SnapNames
then announces that any registrar can resell SnapBacks for $30 ($24+$6
registration fee). SnapNames negotiates a private deal with VGRS to
split the cash.

Do you not think the above scenario would have consumers and registrars
up in arms? I REALLY want someone to answer that question -- yes or no,
would that deal as described above be allowed?

Now, how do you differentiate the above scenario with the WLS proposal?
The *impact* on the marketplace is IDENTICAL, the only thing that has
changed is that VGRS is the one with the "public face" saying they'll
collect the proceeds from participating Registrars.

If anyone can explain to me how they would logically Reject the
scenario above, yet accept WLS, that would put to rest the WLS debate
completely. I issue that as a challenge to Jeff, Chuck, your lawyers,
lobbyists, and any other proponent of WLS -- your silence will be
telling."

Since their silence is deafening, I renew and repeat the challenge --
and to make things more interesting, I'll send a basket of cookies
anywhere in the world to the first proponent of WLS at
Verisign/SnapNames/etc. who takes on the challenge of answering that!
:) Come on, Chuck, Roger, Mason, Becky Burr, Jeff, etc. -- take my
challenge, and earn some cookies. :)

Showing you the money, errr, cookies, :)

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:33:41 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS, and the Cookie Challenge

Getting $500 damages 10 years later is not a
> perfect substitute for having had competition and increased choice for
> those 10 years.

10 years? How about 2 thousand. For those of you wondering where all this is
leading, consider this....

The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5
inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because
that's the way they built them in England, and English
expatriates built the US Railroads. Why did the English build them like
that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built
the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used. Why did "they"
use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same
jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel
spacing.Okay! Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing?
Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break
on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the
spacing of the wheel ruts. So who built those old rutted roads? Imperial
Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (and England) for their
legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts in the roads?
Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match
for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for
Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. The
United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from
the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot.

And bureaucracies live forever. So the next time you are handed a
specification and wonder what horse's ass came up with it, you may be
exactly right, because the Imperial Roman war chariots were made just wide
enough to accommodate the back ends of two war horses. Now the twist to the
story... When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are
two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These
are Solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their
factory at Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to
make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the
factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to
run through a tunnel in the mountains and so the SRBs had to fit through
that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the
railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.
So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the
world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand
years ago by the width of a horse's ass... and you thought being a HORSE'S
ASS wasn't important.

With thanks to:-

David E. Huntley, CPC
President/CEO
Huntley Associates(Dallas), Inc. Phone 972/599-0100
Intl Corporate Consultants Fax 972/599-0300
P.O.Box 868144
Plano, Texas 75086-8144
www.huntley.com
Dallas - London - Paris - Amsterdam - Mexico City
Founding Member: British - American Commerce Association Dallas

- --
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, 12 Jul 2002 02:22:01 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

Joanna and all assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> John Berryhill
> > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 8:22 PM
> > What, in your mind, or in theirs, is stopping them?
>
> IMHO, nothing is stopping VeriSign, they are on track to launch. My guess is
> that the only reason the Staff referred the issue back to a DNSO TF (whose
> opinions and processes they could not care less about) is for damage
> limitation purposes.

  There is nothing stopping verisign anyway if they wish to go ahead
and launch WLS.  And that is really not the issue with WLS and the
DNSO TR-TF anyway.  What is the issue is that if the ICANN
BoD accepts WLS than ICANN is effectively saying that
WLS is a "Best Practices" or "Standard" for dealing with the
Delete problem.

> - snip -
>
> The real question is: what benefit can ICANN Staff possibly gain from
> stopping WLS?

  Yes this is also a good question, but not the only "Real" question.

What benefit that ICANN now has is that if it does not approve
WLS, than the ICANN BoD and staff can at least show some
techo-policy savvy and creditability.  Right now the ICANN BoD
and staff doesn't have very much of that, if any...

  However, as I have stated before early on in this WLS debate,
none of this precludes Verisign implementing WLS in any way.

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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:55:47 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS, and the Cookie Challenge

George and all assembly members,

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hey Bret,
>
> --- Bret Fausett <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > George Kirikos wrote:
> > > ICANN exists to make the tough decisions. If they can't handle the
> > job, give
> > > it to someone who will.
> >
> > I think that's exactly what I was suggesting: give the job to a Court
> > because deciding what is "anticompetitive" is outside ICANN's core
> > competency.
>
> As mentioned in my initial reply, fostering competition is part of
> ICANN's mission. Whether ICANN is competent or not in delivering upon
> their mission is an open question. ;) Perhaps they need more folks with
> an economics background (pick me, pick me!) on their Board. :)

  Well economics majors are good if they have allot of practical
experience in other areas other than economics.  Otherwise
they are of only specific value in situations of within companies.
That aside, or otherwise addressed here yet again, the competency
of the many of the ICANN BOD members and especially the
ICANN staff members is certainly in question as their financial
management alone has been very much less than stellar.

>
>
> All kidding aside, you're basically describing a laissez-faire legal
> doctrine that says all disputes should be resolved through private
> parties in courts, without government or quasi-government involvement.
> In an academic and pure environment, I can see the attractiveness of
> that (my own philosophy is moderately right-wing too, and I'm for less
> government, not more).

  Well nice to know your philosophy, George.  I think most
people don't give a dam about business philosophy's or
government philosophy's to any great degree.  The real world
want's effective and a good working government and business
sector.  This means regulation that is as simple as possible
and works consistently in an open and transparent market
place.

>
>
> However, in the real world this has problems for various reasons.
>
> 1) introduces legal costs and delays. Take the example of Microsoft vs.
> Netscape, for instance. There is no question now that Netscape was
> harmed by Microsoft's anti-trust activities, and they can collect
> damages. However, how many years has it taken to get there, and still
> Netscape hasn't seen a dime? The lawyers of course are big winners in
> the meantime.

  BTW, Netscape did receive some serious financial compensation
from Microsoft.  Netscape also got bought out by AOL at a highly
inflated value.

>
>
> 2) consumers and society are harmed in the meantime. While the "big
> boys" fight things out in court, little guys and gals don't stop and
> wait -- they have to live with the repercussions, through higher prices
> and fewer choices.

  Very good point here!

> While some corporations have infinite lives, and
> justice will eventually serve their interests, individual consumers
> don't live forever! Getting $500 damages 10 years later is not a
> perfect substitute for having had competition and increased choice for
> those 10 years.

  I sued in a joint class action suit an ex-employer.  It took 6 years
to collect, but I collected very BIG.  So it takes patience, persistence
and consistence.  But real world compensation can be obtained
even for the little guy.

>
>
> 3) related to #2, one can only really sue for money damages, which is
> not a perfect compensation for the harm done to consumers and society.

  Good point here!

>
> Collecting on those damages is also difficult (e.g. VRSN goes bankrupt,
> or something, because they spent all their cash on lawyers defending
> themselves to the bitter end, to rob their victims even further).

  Well suing Verisign now wouldn't be a very good strategy
as it's actual value is in the tank anyway.  >;)

>
> 4) Verisign's contracts are with ICANN. Registrar's agreements are with
> ICANN. It makes sense for ICANN to be involved. It's harder for
> individual victims to organize, and Verisign knows this.

  Yes it is hard for individuals to organize, but it can be done.
We [INEGroup] have done it.  I would not at this juncture
believe or desire ICANN to protect any of my interests
with respect to any registry or registrar.

>
>
> Thus, efficiency can be improved by stopping this anti-competitive
> behaviour before it begins.

  Now you got it!

>
>
> Take a look at what happened in the Microsoft/Netscape matter. To
> survive, Netscape had to sell themselves to Sun Microsystems, at a
> price that reflected a lower value due to the harm that had been
> caused.

  AOL bought Netscape, not Sun...  ????

>
>
> Verisign will harm the valuations of all registrars, allowing them to
> continue to cherry pick them at low price, as they consolidate the
> industry. Dotster said it clearly -- they make a significant profit
> from their expired names service. If Verisign takes that away, VRSN can
> buy up Dotster, or others, for less. It's naive to think that VRSN
> hasn't thought of these things. One of the "funniest" parts of the
> Bucharest transcripts at:
>
> http://www.icann.org/bucharest/captioning-afternoon-27jun02.htm
>
> was Chuck Gomes saying:
>
> "I’ll be very honest with you.
> There are registrar-based services that will likely experience negative
> impact in a case or two.
> Their particular business in going after the deleted names will
> probably be change drastically.
> And it certainly was not our intent to harm our customers' businesses;
> okay?"
>
> I leave it to the psychologists amongst us to interpret this, but I
> personally know how to interpret things when one prefaces statements
> with "I'll be very honest with you" (i.e. the more cynical people will
> read that as buzzwords for "I'm getting ready to lie to you!" ;) ) and
> end them with the question "okay?" (as though they're not convinced
> themselves of the statements, and are asking you!). Verisign and their
> army of consultants/lobbyists/lawyers are more sophisticated than
> Chuck's statement suggests.
>
> If anyone's read this far ;) I find it so predictable of Verisign and
> proponents of WLS to continue to avoid the tough questions. So, let's
> up the stakes a little, and provide them with an incentive. Before, I
> asked at:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02800.html
>
> "Consider the following scenario. The Status Quo exists, and SnapNames
> approaches VGRS to make a private deal, whereby SnapBack holders get
> first dibs on all expiring domain names for the first day. SnapNames
> then announces that any registrar can resell SnapBacks for $30 ($24+$6
> registration fee). SnapNames negotiates a private deal with VGRS to
> split the cash.
>
> Do you not think the above scenario would have consumers and registrars
> up in arms? I REALLY want someone to answer that question -- yes or no,
> would that deal as described above be allowed?

  There are two questions here George.  Our answer to the first is
yes the registrars would be up in arms, but the consumers likely
would not be.

>
>
> Now, how do you differentiate the above scenario with the WLS proposal?

  You don't.

>
> The *impact* on the marketplace is IDENTICAL, the only thing that has
> changed is that VGRS is the one with the "public face" saying they'll
> collect the proceeds from participating Registrars.
>
> If anyone can explain to me how they would logically Reject the
> scenario above, yet accept WLS, that would put to rest the WLS debate
> completely. I issue that as a challenge to Jeff, Chuck, your lawyers,
> lobbyists, and any other proponent of WLS -- your silence will be
> telling."
>
> Since their silence is deafening, I renew and repeat the challenge --
> and to make things more interesting, I'll send a basket of cookies
> anywhere in the world to the first proponent of WLS at
> Verisign/SnapNames/etc. who takes on the challenge of answering that!
> :) Come on, Chuck, Roger, Mason, Becky Burr, Jeff, etc. -- take my
> challenge, and earn some cookies. :)

  I just did answer.  So I like chocolate chip cookies!  How many in
a basket George?  >;)

>
>
> Showing you the money, errr, cookies, :)
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
> --
>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS, and the Cookie Challenge

Hello,

- --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   AOL bought Netscape, not Sun...  ????

Oops, I had something in my mind, and my fingers had a mind of their
own when I typed it. You're right, it's AOL, not Sun.

> > and to make things more interesting, I'll send a basket of cookies
> > anywhere in the world to the first proponent of WLS at
> > Verisign/SnapNames/etc. who takes on the challenge of answering
> that!
> > :) Come on, Chuck, Roger, Mason, Becky Burr, Jeff, etc. -- take my
> > challenge, and earn some cookies. :)
> 
>   I just did answer.  So I like chocolate chip cookies!  How many in
> a basket George?  >;)

Ahhh, but you're not a proponent of WLS, so you don't qualify. (I doubt
Verisign, SnapNames, etc. will take the bait, though --- the "effects
test" I gave traps them, and their silence so far tells me they know
it)

Something tells me that whichever proponent takes the challenge, err,
bait, likes their cookies with a lot of nuts sprinkled on top. :)

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:15:59 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS, and the Cookie Challenge

Friday, July 12, 2002, 1:08:42 AM, George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,

> --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>   AOL bought Netscape, not Sun...  ????

> Oops, I had something in my mind, and my fingers had a mind of their
> own when I typed it. You're right, it's AOL, not Sun.

Actually, Sun did buy part of Netscape in the deal, the Netscape
server products.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:25:21 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> I note that the neither the mail exchange you may recall, neither the 
> automated at-larg;org process, nor the mail I sent again to Denise 
> resulted in my receiving of a registration form for france@large. 
> Interesting.

Not only that, but MANY of the members of the current ALOC as organized 
by Denise Michel have ADMITTED that they are NOT FAMILIAR with many/all 
of the the ICANN issues for which an AtLarge is intended to act as a 
countervail!   Seems Denise went about her "outreach" in a rather 
methodical manner, Jefsey...    

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

>
>
> On 16:39 11/07/02, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
>
>> Denise Michel ALSC wrote:
>>
>>> Jamie,
>>>
>>> The "at-large.org effort" is led by the At-Large Organizing 
>>> Committee (ALOC)
>>> whose members are selected by At-Large organizations, such as
>>> Icannatlarge.com with which you are involved.
>>
>> This is not an accurate statement.  The ALOC is ld by Denise Michel 
>> and Esther Dyson.  Denise Michel has NOT allowed for any *real* input 
>> into her efforts, and she has refused to disclose her 
>> budget/expenditure details (much like ICANN with respect to K. 
>> Auerbach's suit).  Now, she and E. Dyson want to raise funds for 
>> ICANN via the ALOC.
>> Furthermore, the overall scope and representativeness of the 
>> organizations involved in the ALOC is highly questionable.  As far as 
>> I know, myself and Satyajit Gupta as representatives for 
>> icannatlarge.com on the ALOC are the only members of the selfsame 
>> ALOC who are elected represenatives of our organization.  The rest of 
>> the "organizations" involved in the ALOC lack any evidence of 
>> elections for their representation (at least as far as I was able to 
>> determine).  I invite Denise Michel to assert otherwise, as I'm sure 
>> she will try.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 01/07/02
>

- --
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, 12 Jul 2002 16:51:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, at 16:53 [=GMT-0700], Bret Fausett wrote:

> This WLS seems an appropriate problem to consider while we're also
> discussing ICANN Reform. Where are we going to draw the line around what
> ICANN can do? If we're going to extend the scope of ICANN's responsibilities
> to stirring the pot of competition, what else might that include?

You are turning things around. ICANN was founded to realize competition.
It is one of the few successes it can boast. You have to make clear why it
should now take the position of a coward. The burden is on you.

- --
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, 12 Jul 2002 17:14:20 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Deletions, state of the art

Dear all,

now I can finally add my own experience with deletions
- -- but in a ccTLD environment...

A while ago, I deleted two .de domain names I no longer
needed with my ISP. Today, I received a letter from DENIC,
the German ccTLD registry. DENIC is alerting me to the fact 
that my provider is no longer paying the fees for my 
domain names. I have now four weeks to choose whether
(1) I really want to delete the domain, (2) I want to choose 
a different "registrar" (actually a DENIC member provider)
or (3) I want to use DENIC's own domain service DENICdirect.
(DENIC is not barred from offering end user service, but
they offer bare registration, no hosting, no name servers;
in order not to compete with the "registrars", the
DENICdirect service is a high price service).

With the letter I received a brochure explaining all the
necessary steps and a personal password which I can use
to transfer or delete the domain name online, using
http://transit.denic.de. If I don't act until the 7th
of August, I *still* retain my domain name, only that it
is automatically transferred to DENICdirect.

Hats off. It would be a sorry thought if people really
started taking out WLS options on their *own* domain name
just because the com/net registry/registrar system is
not safe for registrants.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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, 12 Jul 2002 10:32:45 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [ga] Why so long

It is precisely here:

">From a slightly different perspective, a party can currently obtain
service from several different sources (SnapNames, included) and there
is competition between them. If ICANN approves WLS, then there will be
only one source. So, in that scope your statement is true, since ICANN
would be getting in the way of free enterprise and not fostering
competition."

In this msg:

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:01:28 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Organization: Internet Concepts, Inc.
To: [email-masked], Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
CC: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>, DNSO General Assembly <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: U

Thursday, July 11, 2002, 11:15:33 PM, Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> wrote:
TR> On 2002-07-11 21:09:30 -0500, Don Brown wrote:

>>I would like to know exactly why it is taking my posts almost an 
>>hour to be distributed to this list.

TR>  From the received headers, it looks like the message sat in the  
TR> mail queue on the DNSO server for some time, waiting for final  
TR> delivery.  It's certainly not a delay caused by filtering, and the  
TR> list is not in "censorship mode" beyond what's usual - i.e.,  
TR> filtering out postings from non-subscribers, and applying list  
TR> monitor decisions.

TR> (Note that "filtering out" more precisely means that the secretariat 
TR> gets these particular messages for approval - the rest is passed  
TR> through directly.  See majordomo's documentation for more details on 
TR> this.)

>>More particularly, I would like to know exactly how an extraneous 
>>">" was in the post which was published to this list, but not in 
>>the post which was sent.

TR> I'm sorry, but I don't see that ">".  Where precisely is it?

- ----
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: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:31:47 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

John Berryhill wrote:
> The *only* thing that prevents Verisign and Snapnames from starting WLS
> *tomorrow* is their own lack of will, and their desire to have ICANN's
> blessing (which, if you think about it, answers a previous question of
> yours - they want that defense).

Under my scenario though, ICANN wouldn't bless this. Its response would
simply be something like:

   (a) Under ICANN's interpretation of the .com registry
       contract, Verisign is not precluded from introducing
       the Waiting List Service; but

   (b) ICANN neither requires nor blesses the introduction
       of the Waiting List Service and takes no position on
       whether, when or how it is implemented. If any person
       or company believes that the introduction of the
       Waiting List Service has anticompetitive effects, then
       appropriate remedies exist -- through either government
       enforcement of relevant antitrust laws or private civil
       actions -- to address those concerns, but those
       are outside the scope of ICANN's current mandate.

The registrars have already tacitly agreed that not all anticompetitive acts
taken by those under contract with ICANN are ICANN's responsibility to sort
out. Take, for example, the recent actions by registrars and registrants
against Verisign's direct mail renewal/transfer campaign. Tucows was just
sued for defamation (http://comingsoon.tucows.com/.court_case//) by a
competitor. What exactly separates the kind of business disputes that have
recently ended up in court from the kind of business dispute that was
detailed in the Dotster WLS letter circulated earlier this week? Why is one
supposedly within the scope of ICANN's responsibilities while the others
outside it?

     -- Bret

 

- --
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, 12 Jul 2002 13:33:05 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS, and the Cookie Challenge

George and all assembly members,

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >   AOL bought Netscape, not Sun...  ????
>
> Oops, I had something in my mind, and my fingers had a mind of their
> own when I typed it. You're right, it's AOL, not Sun.

  Ok.  >;)

>
>
> > > and to make things more interesting, I'll send a basket of cookies
> > > anywhere in the world to the first proponent of WLS at
> > > Verisign/SnapNames/etc. who takes on the challenge of answering
> > that!
> > > :) Come on, Chuck, Roger, Mason, Becky Burr, Jeff, etc. -- take my
> > > challenge, and earn some cookies. :)
> >
> >   I just did answer.  So I like chocolate chip cookies!  How many in
> > a basket George?  >;)
>
> Ahhh, but you're not a proponent of WLS, so you don't qualify.

  Oh, well dam!  I was looking forward to some cookies...  >;)

> (I doubt
> Verisign, SnapNames, etc. will take the bait, though --- the "effects
> test" I gave traps them, and their silence so far tells me they know
> it)

  Yeah I think you likely correct here.  But than again most of us
here have known this for some time.

>
>
> Something tells me that whichever proponent takes the challenge, err,
> bait, likes their cookies with a lot of nuts sprinkled on top. :)

  Yeah!  Nuts for nuts, eh!  >;)

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
> http://sbc.yahoo.com

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1328
*************************