Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1329
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, July 13 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1329

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:04:27 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [ga] Why so long

Actually, Don, that looks like a common issue with The Bat email
program, which I myself use.

Friday, July 12, 2002, 8:32:45 AM, Don Brown wrote:

> 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:

> Received: from dnso.dnso.org [192.134.4.239] by inetconcepts.net with ESMTP
>   (SMTPD32-6.06) id AB41B61010A; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:56:49 -0500
> Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
>         by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id BAA08104;
>         Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:00:35 +0200 (MET DST)
> Received: from inetconcepts.net (mail.inetconcepts.net [64.90.56.8])
>         by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA08100;
>         Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:00:33 +0200 (MET DST)
> Received: from db.inetconcepts.net [64.90.56.19] by inetconcepts.net with ESMTP
>   (SMTPD32-6.06) id AE99111A011C; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:02:49 -0500
> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:01:28 -0500
> From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
> X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.60q) Business
> Reply-To: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
> Organization: Internet Concepts, Inc.
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> 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
> In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> References: <[email-masked]>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Declude-Sender: [email-masked] [64.90.56.19]
> X-Declude-Spoolname: D0e9911c.SMD
> X-Note: Please send abuse reports to [email-masked].
> Sender: [email-masked]
> Precedence: bulk
> X-Declude-Sender: [email-masked] [192.134.4.239]
> X-Declude-Spoolname: D1b4110a.SMD
> X-Note: This E-mail was sent from dnso.dnso.org. ([192.134.4.239]).
> X-Note: Failed: None - Total Weight: 0.
> X-Note: Checked for SPAM and Viruses by Internet Concepts - http://www.inetconcepts.net.
> X-RCPT-TO: <[email-masked]>
> X-UIDL: 313641978
> 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
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 12:08:26 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

Friday, July 12, 2002, 9:31:47 AM, Bret Fausett wrote:

> 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.

An entirely different issue. In this case, Verisign actually broke the
law, and in fact the US Postal Service opened an investigation against
Verisign for mail fraud after receiving a flood of complaints from
consumers.

ICANN's responsibility is to promote competition.  That doesn't mean
that they are deciding if a particular action is legal under antitrust
laws, etc.  ICANN can decide something is anticompetitive which is not
necessary unlawful.

> Tucows was just
> sued for defamation (http://comingsoon.tucows.com/.court_case//) by a
> competitor.

Said competitor is not an accredited registrar, and is not under
contract to ICANN.

- -- 
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 14:26:51 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [ga] Why so long

Yeah.  I think you are correct.  Someone else pointed that out, as
well.

Friday, July 12, 2002, 2:04:27 PM, William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:

WXW> Actually, Don, that looks like a common issue with The Bat email
WXW> program, which I myself use.

WXW> Friday, July 12, 2002, 8:32:45 AM, Don Brown wrote:

>> 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:

>> Received: from dnso.dnso.org [192.134.4.239] by inetconcepts.net with ESMTP
>>   (SMTPD32-6.06) id AB41B61010A; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:56:49 -0500
>> Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
>>         by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id BAA08104;
>>         Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:00:35 +0200 (MET DST)
>> Received: from inetconcepts.net (mail.inetconcepts.net [64.90.56.8])
>>         by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA08100;
>>         Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:00:33 +0200 (MET DST)
>> Received: from db.inetconcepts.net [64.90.56.19] by inetconcepts.net with ESMTP
>>   (SMTPD32-6.06) id AE99111A011C; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:02:49 -0500
>> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:01:28 -0500
>> From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
>> X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.60q) Business
>> Reply-To: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
>> Organization: Internet Concepts, Inc.
>> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>> 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
>> In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
>> References: <[email-masked]>
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> X-Declude-Sender: [email-masked] [64.90.56.19]
>> X-Declude-Spoolname: D0e9911c.SMD
>> X-Note: Please send abuse reports to [email-masked].
>> Sender: [email-masked]
>> Precedence: bulk
>> X-Declude-Sender: [email-masked] [192.134.4.239]
>> X-Declude-Spoolname: D1b4110a.SMD
>> X-Note: This E-mail was sent from dnso.dnso.org. ([192.134.4.239]).
>> X-Note: Failed: None - Total Weight: 0.
>> X-Note: Checked for SPAM and Viruses by Internet Concepts - http://www.inetconcepts.net.
>> X-RCPT-TO: <[email-masked]>
>> X-UIDL: 313641978
>> 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-full" in the body of the message).
>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:29:06 +0100
From: "Stuart Marsden" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS, and the Cookie Challenge

Is there a point to any of this drivel?

Just about to unsubscribe after a week of disbelieve of what junk has
filled my inbox

Stuart Marsden

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
Williams
Sent: 12 July 2002 21:33
To: George Kirikos
Cc: DNSO General Assembly
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

- --
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 21:46:03 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:37:44 -0700, you wrote:

>Here's where I'm going with all this. If the WLS is anticompetitive, why is
>it not preferable to have ICANN take no position on the WLS? 

If ICANN's mission is to take no position on initiatives affecting
competition, then I don't see why we should have ICANN at all. Especially
given that in this case "staying neutral" would mean to let a monopoly put a
whole set of companies out of business - of course they could then sue
Verisign and let a court decide, but even if they won the cause, the damage
would already have been irreparable. 

(And by the way, the legal instrument might work between US companies... but
I still have to see, for example, a small company in Europe or Asia enter
into litigation with Verisign with success or even with the ability to
support the costs. First of all, which court would be competent to rule on
the case?)
- -- 
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
Vittorio Bertola     <[email-masked]>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology

DISCLAIMER, PLEASE NOTE: This communication is intended only for use by the
addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information. 
Transmission, distribution and/or copy cannot be permitted. Please notify
immediately the sender by replying if you are not the intended recipient.
- --
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 13:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS, and the Cookie Challenge

Hi Stuart,

- --- Stuart Marsden <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Is there a point to any of this drivel?

It's only the continuing silence of WLS advocates in the face of tough
questions that requires a bit of dramatic flair and style to some
postings, to illustrate the absurdity of those who've been silent.

Valid points have been made by many opponents of WLS. For a good
summary, see Dotster's statement at:

http://www.dotster.com/resources/wlsresponse.asp

which pulled the best arguments since last summer.

As you appear to be a member of the gTLD Registries constituency,
who've gone on record as supporting WLS, perhaps you can tackle the
issue below. In place of VGRS, perhaps use your own registry, dot-coop
in exchange, to let us know whether those back-door dealings described
in that scenario would be permitted in .coop.

* * * * WLS and the "Effects Test" * *  * *

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.

Does one 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 does one differentiate the above scenario with the WLS
proposal? The *impact* (effect) 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 Roger, Chuck, SnapNames,
your lawyers, lobbyists, and any other proponent of WLS -- your silence
will be telling.

Since one of the purposes of the DNSO GA list is to foster
inter-constituency dialogue, your feedback and replies can influence
the other constituencies (and vice-versa), leading to improved
solutions to real problems and concerns.

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 22:22:35 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Deletions, state of the art

On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 17:14 [=GMT+0200], Alexander Svensson wrote:

> 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.

And what happens then? Will it ever be released? When?

> 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.

Well, I have never received any notice from Verisign registrY. Anyone?

To add another ccTLD to the experience list: In my ccTLD, NL, one does not
receive a message from the registry when one deletes a domain. Also it is
unclear to the old registrant when the domain will exactly be deleted. It
seems to depend on when the registrar deletes the domain.

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 22:29:01 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 09:31 [=GMT-0700], Bret Fausett wrote:

> The registrars have already tacitly agreed

You are stretching this much too far. The fact that they started a lawsuit
in stead of invoking ICANN as arbitrator does not imply that they think
ICANN should or could not do something for them. It may very well be that
they think the courts are faster.

> 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?

The fact that people go to court over a topic, does not prove that the
topic is outside ICANN's scope. It could mean all sorts of things. People
could not trust the outcome of ICANN's involvement. They could want
damages, which ICANN cannot award.

- --
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 21:23:31 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

- --=======746DEC=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-67E773A2; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 16:51 12/07/02, Marc Schneiders said:
>It is one of the few successes it can boast.

... I beg your pardon?

Where did ICANN fostered competition? Or do you mean that the registrars 
brownian movement was competition to VRSN?

- --=======746DEC=======--

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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 02:29:43 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 21:23 [=GMT+0200], J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:
> On 16:51 12/07/02, Marc Schneiders said:
> >It is one of the few successes it can boast.
>
> ... I beg your pardon?
>
> Where did ICANN fostered competition? Or do you mean that the registrars
> brownian movement was competition to VRSN?

Yes, plus the new gTLDs. It wasn't perfect, but ICANN did foster
competition.

- --
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 21:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Do you hear the people sing?

    Will you join in our crusade?
    Who will be strong and stand with me?
    Beyond the barricade
    Is there a world you long to see?
    Then join in the fight
    That will give you the right to be free!
            --- From 'Les Miserables'

The People are responding to the monopolistic and anti-competitive WLS
proposal by Verisign, as one can see at:

http://forum.icann.org/wls/ (ICANN WLS Forum)

and

http://www.petitiononline.com/antiwls/petition.html
(Anti-WLS Petition)

We are currently in the 10 day comments period (ending approximately
July 20th), after which ICANN will decide the fate of WLS. For those
Registrars and Resellers who've not already informed their clients,
ordinary registrants, of Verisign's proposal, now is the time to act.
Use those magical mailing lists to involve your clients in the debate,
after all they will be the ones ultimately most negatively affected by
this.

For those who've not already prepared documents, you might wish to
model them after Dotster's thoroughly thought-out document at:

http://www.dotster.com/resources/wlsresponse.asp

or adapt your own, based on all the postings on the DNSO GA list, the
Names Council's Transfers Task Force, or any number of other sources.

Simply reading the comments on ICANN's WLS Forum and on the Anti-WLS
petition, I was very impressed at the level of sophistication of
oridinary users, many of whom are small businesses and individuals, who
are able to see through Verisign's planned regime, which would be a
step back to the "old days" of monopoly and reduced consumer choice.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing, and I am heartened to see that
so many folks are doing something. Will you be one of them?

Sincerely,

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

P.S.

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Beyond the barricade
Is there a world you long to see?
Then join in the fight
That will give you the right to be free!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.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: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 16:11:29 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

At 09:31 a.m. 12/07/2002 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
>  Tucows was just
>sued for defamation (http://comingsoon.tucows.com/.court_case//) by a
>competitor.

I think the Honourable Court will know how to judge the merits of that 
lawsuit. :-)
10 million dollars worth of lost business? Hah!

It's a good illustration of the  sleaze-factor in this industry
registrants need protection against.

- --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: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:46:33 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

On 09:31 a.m. 12/07/2002 -0700, Bret Fausett said:

>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?

Good question.
I also agree that there is nothing registrants can do to stop the 
introduction of WLS.
They have to focus on regulation that will minimize harm from the WLS.

- --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: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 07:55:31 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS: Mental Exercize

Discussing the WLS reasons get mixed up easily. We don't want it, so we
pile up everything we can find, different levels get intertwined.

Now, if we would suppose that the WLS would not be run by Verisign, but by
some other company? Would we then like it? If it was put up for bidding?
Company with the lowest price gets it? Then the wholesale price could
become something like $ 2.00?

- --
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 23:17:07 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS: Mental Exercize

Friday, July 12, 2002, 10:55:31 PM, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Discussing the WLS reasons get mixed up easily. We don't want it, so we
> pile up everything we can find, different levels get intertwined.

> Now, if we would suppose that the WLS would not be run by Verisign, but by
> some other company? Would we then like it? If it was put up for bidding?
> Company with the lowest price gets it? Then the wholesale price could
> become something like $ 2.00?

Not I.  There is no pressing reason for there not to be multiple
sources for this type of service, and in fact that system is currently
working without problems.  Even Verisign admits that it does not
create load problems for them, and that server load is not an issue
that should be considered when addressing the WLS issues.

Absent that, what possible reason would there be to support any kind
of monopoly service that guarantees someone a registration of a domain
name that may or may not become available?

The proper way is to just Delete the name according to standard
policies, and let the free open market handle the rest.  No system is
more fair than that.

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 01:33:55 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS: Mental Exercize

Marc and all assembly members,

  I personally don't see the debate/discussion on WLS or WLS
itself as any kind of mental exercise of any real complexity.

  So, to answer your question below, NO, regardless as to
whom or what entity/corp./organization that is offering
or considering WLS, I don't believe it is desired/wanted.

  It is not wanted for several reasons, some good reasons,
some not so good.  But it's fundamental flaw is that it
does not address the Delete Problem for expired, abandon,
or delinquent Domain Names in any complete or truly
meaningful way.

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Discussing the WLS reasons get mixed up easily. We don't want it, so we
> pile up everything we can find, different levels get intertwined.
>
> Now, if we would suppose that the WLS would not be run by Verisign, but by
> some other company? Would we then like it? If it was put up for bidding?
> Company with the lowest price gets it? Then the wholesale price could
> become something like $ 2.00?
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:55:14 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

On 2002-07-12 09:31:47 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:

>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.

Nobody could disagree with this.  As I said before, WLS has some  
aspects which may best be dealt with in court, and some aspects  
which can _only_ be dealt with within the ICANN process: Squashing 
existing businesses isn't something you can fix by establishing and 
enforcing a consensus policy - just like illegal advertising, 
defamation, and all that stuff.  Hoarding, however, is an issue 
which could be fixed that way - and it should be fixed, _before_ WLS 
can start.

- -- 
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: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:09:44 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [ga] Why so long

On 2002-07-12 10:32:45 -0500, Don Brown wrote:

[inserted '>' character]

>">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."

It's a very common problem which has its origins with the "mbox"  
mail folder format first introduced in Version 6 AT&T Unix.  In  
these mail folders, messages are stored as plain text, separated by  
lines like this one:

	From [email-masked]  Sat Jul 13 10:30:00 2002

Of course, when such a line occurs within a message, mail reading 
software would get confused, and would detect a message separator in 
the wrong place.

For that reason, it's still common to escape such lines by  
prepending a ">" characer in front of them.  

(With MIME's quoted-printable or flowed text, you can play other  
tricks to avoid the problem without changing what's presented to the 
user.)

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1329
*************************