Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1348
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, July 31 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1348

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:16:54 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

- --=======488D3243=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5BCC51E1; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 23:31 29/07/02, Dan Steinberg said:
>so for the sake of continuity, I ask the question again.  Every TM 
>specialist who argued for or against the WLS in front of the task force 
>seemed to agree WLS was intellectual property neutral, a position I happen 
>to agree with.

I am afraid that these specialists forgot a detail. The WLS should be 
accepted in the DN registration agreement (or renewal for the current DNs). 
That agreement also accepts the UDRP.

The WLS is not transparent to the TM in that sense that one can take 
advantage from it to defend cross-TM class boarder rights and jurisprudence 
would say if there is something in there or not. But WLS+UDRP agreement in 
the *same* document is lethal to TM. The reason why is that in accepting 
the UDRP principle you accept that good faith is a good reason to get a DN. 
SO you accept that your successor in your own DN is entitled to show his 
own good faith against UDRP challengers. This entitles your potential 
successor to take every reasonable step to that end.

1. this leads to TMsquatting
2. there is no procedure for you to UDRP your WLSuccessor

Another problem is that you pay for a WLS after having estimated your 
chances that the present owne go bankrupt or lose interest in the DN. Now 
an UDRP can change the owner with very low chances that he will drop the 
DN. Will you be returned you money, can you claim for compensation? against 
who? Can you protect your rights in sharing in the UDRP? Can you impeach 
the current owner to sell his DN?
jfc

- --=======488D3243=======--

- --
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 04:55:45 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

I am afraid that we simply must resign our thoughts to routing around the WLS
concept as applied to .com.
But then again, I think that we are all aware enough to route around .com as a
whole and move on to more stable TLDs like ccTLDs and inclusives.

Eric

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

> On 23:31 29/07/02, Dan Steinberg said:
> >so for the sake of continuity, I ask the question again.  Every TM
> >specialist who argued for or against the WLS in front of the task force
> >seemed to agree WLS was intellectual property neutral, a position I happen
> >to agree with.
>
> I am afraid that these specialists forgot a detail. The WLS should be
> accepted in the DN registration agreement (or renewal for the current DNs).
> That agreement also accepts the UDRP.
>
> The WLS is not transparent to the TM in that sense that one can take
> advantage from it to defend cross-TM class boarder rights and jurisprudence
> would say if there is something in there or not. But WLS+UDRP agreement in
> the *same* document is lethal to TM. The reason why is that in accepting
> the UDRP principle you accept that good faith is a good reason to get a DN.
> SO you accept that your successor in your own DN is entitled to show his
> own good faith against UDRP challengers. This entitles your potential
> successor to take every reasonable step to that end.
>
> 1. this leads to TMsquatting
> 2. there is no procedure for you to UDRP your WLSuccessor
>
> Another problem is that you pay for a WLS after having estimated your
> chances that the present owne go bankrupt or lose interest in the DN. Now
> an UDRP can change the owner with very low chances that he will drop the
> DN. Will you be returned you money, can you claim for compensation? against
> who? Can you protect your rights in sharing in the UDRP? Can you impeach
> the current owner to sell his DN?
> jfc

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:16:45 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

Eric,

ummmmmmm I am curious.  what does routing around the WLS imply? Are you
talking about routing in a technical, metaphorical, procedural context?
I did think about this and I have absolutely no clue...how to 'route'
around WLS. Could you X-plain please?

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> I am afraid that we simply must resign our thoughts to routing around the WLS
> concept as applied to .com.
> But then again, I think that we are all aware enough to route around .com as a
> whole and move on to more stable TLDs like ccTLDs and inclusives.
> 
> Eric
> 
> "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" wrote:
> 
> > On 23:31 29/07/02, Dan Steinberg said:
> > >so for the sake of continuity, I ask the question again.  Every TM
> > >specialist who argued for or against the WLS in front of the task force
> > >seemed to agree WLS was intellectual property neutral, a position I happen
> > >to agree with.
> >
> > I am afraid that these specialists forgot a detail. The WLS should be
> > accepted in the DN registration agreement (or renewal for the current DNs).
> > That agreement also accepts the UDRP.
> >
> > The WLS is not transparent to the TM in that sense that one can take
> > advantage from it to defend cross-TM class boarder rights and jurisprudence
> > would say if there is something in there or not. But WLS+UDRP agreement in
> > the *same* document is lethal to TM. The reason why is that in accepting
> > the UDRP principle you accept that good faith is a good reason to get a DN.
> > SO you accept that your successor in your own DN is entitled to show his
> > own good faith against UDRP challengers. This entitles your potential
> > successor to take every reasonable step to that end.
> >
> > 1. this leads to TMsquatting
> > 2. there is no procedure for you to UDRP your WLSuccessor
> >
> > Another problem is that you pay for a WLS after having estimated your
> > chances that the present owne go bankrupt or lose interest in the DN. Now
> > an UDRP can change the owner with very low chances that he will drop the
> > DN. Will you be returned you money, can you claim for compensation? against
> > who? Can you protect your rights in sharing in the UDRP? Can you impeach
> > the current owner to sell his DN?
> > jfc
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:22:32 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A special  excite game

Hi, here's a real email from me (Milton Mueller)
I am not in Mexico, but have had trouble with Klez
recently, thought I had it under control. 
Since I was no online at the time this was sent
out, I suspect it did not come from me.
I've received similar mailings from other ICANN-related folks

(including one from Esther Dyson's address
headlined, "Let's be friends"....)

>>> Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]> 07/29/02 11:21PM >>>
At 06:32 PM 29/07/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>Milton has a virus.

I dunno. I once falsely (but privately) accused
Bret Fausett of sending me one without first
checking the headers. It turned out to be from
another list member who shall remain nameless,
I never notified that other member, but as it
also went to the GA list that would have been
piling on. Is Milton in Mexico?

Mhybmdz 148.246.11.253

That's the apparent originating IP and that's
where the block leads. There's certainly nothing
in the headers corresponding to syr.edu, though
that's not definitive. I don't have other email
from Milton to compare.

I'm sure you know this, but some may be unaware
that there are virii out there that will appear
to come from someone, whereas they're actually
from someone else who has that first someone in
their address book, typically MicroSoft Outlook
(and Express), AKA the world's largest open relay,
although some virii do go so far as to get it
from elsewhere on an infected system, any *@*.*
will do. This must be more than 5 posts, sorry. -g

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:30:59 -0400
From: "Beckwith, Bruce" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] What deal was made? - VeriSign Response

Danny,

There was no "deal made" with ICANN regarding the ICANN budget for this new
fiscal year.

As noted in my email to the Registrar Constituency list of June 24, "We
[VeriSign] are not rejecting the current budget proposal outright, we are
simply stating that at this point in time, given the major review that is
underway, it is not fiscally prudent for a budget to enter into significant
new, long term, financial commitments that will increase the current budget
by 25% or more..."

Following is the text of the letter (sent via fax and mail) that was sent to
ICANN, whereby VeriSign approves our portion of the variable accreditation
fees.

ICANN 
Registrar Accreditation Dept.
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA  90292  USA
Fax: 1/310-823-8649 (Hard Copy by Mail)

Re: Variable Accreditation Fee for 2002-2003

To ICANN:

Notwithstanding our concern with the overall budget approved by ICANN or the
fact that our interpretation of the interplay between Subsection 3.9.2 of
the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Article I of the Concurrent
Agreement between ICANN and Network Solutions, Inc. differs from the
interpretation expressed by ICANN's counsel, I, on behalf of Network
Solutions, Inc., expressly approve, for the ICANN fiscal year beginning on 1
July 2002 and ending on 30 June 2003, the variable registrar accreditation
fee, so long as such fee does not exceed $2,000,000.

Sincerely yours,

W. G. Champion Mitchell
July 22, 2002

Please let me know if you have further questions.

Regards,

Bruce

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 1:07 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] What deal was made?

The only explanation that I can find to account for VeriSign's decision to 
reverse its position on the budget is within the context of the NSI 
Concurrent Agreement:

1. Approval of Variable Accreditation Fee. For so long as Registrar is an 
ICANN-Accredited Registrar in the .com, .net or .org TLD, Registrar will 
approve the variable accreditation fee, as provided in Subsection 3.9.2 of 
the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, for so long as Registrar's portion 
does not exceed $2,000,000 annually.

http://www.icann.org/registrars/nsi-concurrent-agreement-17may01.htm

But surely Bruce Beckwith with aware of this provision before he declared
his 
intent not to support this year's proposed budget...  
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:05:34 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] What deal was made? - VeriSign Response

Bruce,

Thank you for the clarification.  

At the recent CATO Institute session, Mike Roberts had the following to say:  
"Making ICANN more effective is not going to come through flights of 
rhetorical fancy, but rather through very tough grind-it-out deal-making and 
the continued support of a majority of the major stakeholders."

Please feel free to abide by your contention that there was no "deal made".  
I, on the other hand, will continue to believe that deal-making with a 
dominant entity remains a part of the ICANN landscape.

Best regards,
Danny
- --
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:37:53 -0400
From: "Beckwith, Bruce" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] What deal was made? - VeriSign Response

Danny,

I've watched you at ICANN meetings and seen most of your posts to mailing
lists.  I have tremendous respect for you and for your efforts in trying to
achieve proper outcomes for the internet community as a whole, on a range of
issues.

In this particular instance, I suggest we respectfully disagree.  VeriSign
did not strike any deal with ICANN regarding the 2002/2003 budget or the
accreditation fees.

Best regards,

Bruce

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 3:06 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] What deal was made? - VeriSign Response

Bruce,

Thank you for the clarification.  

At the recent CATO Institute session, Mike Roberts had the following to say:

"Making ICANN more effective is not going to come through flights of 
rhetorical fancy, but rather through very tough grind-it-out deal-making and

the continued support of a majority of the major stakeholders."

Please feel free to abide by your contention that there was no "deal made".

I, on the other hand, will continue to believe that deal-making with a 
dominant entity remains a part of the ICANN landscape.

Best regards,
Danny
- --
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:18:22 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Cavebear overcomes stonewall. Auerbach wins decisively.

At 10:32 PM -0400 7/29/02, L. Gallegos wrote:
>"Confidential" documents, whether in electronic form or in hard-copy, shall be
>made available for Mr. Auerbach's review in Marina del Rey at a mutually
>agreeable time before August 9th.

I can hear the shredder buzzing away from here.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:23:06 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] DNSO Board Elections

At the 12 February 2002 Special Meeting of the Board it was resolved [02.12] 
to amend the Bylaws to align the terms of Board Directors.  The term of 
Director Alejandro Pisanty will soon be expiring, and the DNSO General 
Assembly has an obligation to participate in the election of the DNSO 
representative to the Board (which I understand must be concluded by 1 
October).  Can the Chair and the Secretariat advise the procedures and 
timelines for this election?

- --
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:26:34 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Cavebear overcomes stonewall. Auerbach wins decisively.

Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> Gary and all assembly members,
> 
> Gary Osbourne wrote:
> 
> > Bret Fausett, who attended the court case this
> > morning, has the details at:
> > http://icann.blog.us/
> > As they're still being posted I won't link to an
> > individual item. Congrats to Karl and real openness.
> > Let's see ICANN spin this one. -g
> 
>   Well you can read all about it here:
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-29jul02.htm

That's the ICANN spin, alright. Getting dizzier by the
minute :-)

Cryptome has (an unofficial version of) the actual
ruling:

http://cryptome.org/auerbach-icann.htm

" ... the court concludes that ... the Inspection
" Procedures conflict with section 6334 and ... the
" Bylaws by unreasonably restricting directors'
" access to corporate records and depriving directors
" of inspection rights afforded them by law. 
"
" Furthermore, Lynn's 10/5/01 letter violates both
" section 6334 and Bylaws Article V, Section 21 because
" it deprives Auerbach of the inspection rights he has
" under law and imposes such unreasonable requirements
" as having to sign a confidentiality agreement and ...
"
" Based on the undisputed facts, there is no triable
" issue as to any material fact and Petitioner Auerbach
" is entitled to judgment as a matter of law granting
" his Petition for Writ of Mandate.
"
" Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. 
"
" A Writ shall issue, the terms to be determined at
" the hearing after argument.

Her honour is not spinning their way.
- --
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:27:41 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names 

Marilyn,

I have a question regarding one aspect of the work of your Transfers Task 
Force concerning inter-registrar transfers during the Delete Pending period.  

The Technical Steering Group's Implementation Proposal "determined that it 
would not be practical to implement inter-registrar transfers of deleted 
names in Stage 1. Instead, it is proposed that six months after this 
Redemption Grace Period Proposal is adopted, ICANN's President should 
re-convene this (or a similar) Technical Steering Group to review the 
implementation of the Redemption Grace Period, to suggest possible 
improvements to the Redemption Grace Period, and to develop a specification 
for Stage 2 of the implementation of the Redemption Grace Period, which will 
enable registrants to choose the “restoring” registrar.'

The Technical Steering Group believed that "allowing registrants to choose 
the redeeming registrar will introduce numerous technical and operational 
complications into the system", and "that the best course of action would be 
to reserve implementation of registrar choice until a second stage".

Do the members of your TF share the assessment of the Technical Steering 
Group that such considerations should be postponed another six months?  Will 
your TF examine this issue, or will it defer the matter to the Steering Group 
as proposed above?  I would think that when a registrant has found 
himself/herself in need of the Redemption Grace Period that a fair amount of 
enmity would exist between the registrant and the current registrar... in 
such circumstances, might it not be appropriate to expeditiously facilitate a 
transfer?  

- --
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:07:09 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Cavebear overcomes stonewall. Auerbach wins decisively.

At 05:26 PM 30/07/02 -0700, Sandy Harris wrote:

> > http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-29jul02.htm
>
>That's the ICANN spin, alright. Getting dizzier by the
>minute :-)

As I said quite some time ago (so it must be time to
repeat it), with regard to ICANN painting its rollout
of new TLDs fiascos and pratfalls as a resounding
success, if you could hook a generator to the MdR
spin, you could solve California's energy problems.

Some good coverage here from IDG:
http://www.itworld.com/Man/2681/020730icann/

>Her honour is not spinning their way.

The armature is beginning to smoke. Quick.
Run away. Flee. -g

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names 

Danny,

nothing prevents a transfer after a domain is revived.

- -rick

> I would think that when a registrant has found himself/herself in need
> of the Redemption Grace Period that a fair amount of enmity would
> exist between the registrant and the current registrar... in such
> circumstances, might it not be appropriate to expeditiously facilitate
> a transfer?

- --
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:22:31 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

Eric and all assembly members,

  Unfortunately I think you are quite right here.  If the NC is not going
to listen at all the Registrants and the Registrars, than it is time to
take more drastic diverse action.

[email-masked] wrote:

> I am afraid that we simply must resign our thoughts to routing around the WLS
> concept as applied to .com.
> But then again, I think that we are all aware enough to route around .com as a
> whole and move on to more stable TLDs like ccTLDs and inclusives.
>
> Eric
>
> "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" wrote:
>
> > On 23:31 29/07/02, Dan Steinberg said:
> > >so for the sake of continuity, I ask the question again.  Every TM
> > >specialist who argued for or against the WLS in front of the task force
> > >seemed to agree WLS was intellectual property neutral, a position I happen
> > >to agree with.
> >
> > I am afraid that these specialists forgot a detail. The WLS should be
> > accepted in the DN registration agreement (or renewal for the current DNs).
> > That agreement also accepts the UDRP.
> >
> > The WLS is not transparent to the TM in that sense that one can take
> > advantage from it to defend cross-TM class boarder rights and jurisprudence
> > would say if there is something in there or not. But WLS+UDRP agreement in
> > the *same* document is lethal to TM. The reason why is that in accepting
> > the UDRP principle you accept that good faith is a good reason to get a DN.
> > SO you accept that your successor in your own DN is entitled to show his
> > own good faith against UDRP challengers. This entitles your potential
> > successor to take every reasonable step to that end.
> >
> > 1. this leads to TMsquatting
> > 2. there is no procedure for you to UDRP your WLSuccessor
> >
> > Another problem is that you pay for a WLS after having estimated your
> > chances that the present owne go bankrupt or lose interest in the DN. Now
> > an UDRP can change the owner with very low chances that he will drop the
> > DN. Will you be returned you money, can you claim for compensation? against
> > who? Can you protect your rights in sharing in the UDRP? Can you impeach
> > the current owner to sell his DN?
> > jfc
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:22:40 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Cavebear overcomes stonewall. Auerbach wins decisively.

RE: http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-29jul02.htm

What a bunch of inaccurate, deceptive and self-serving garbage.  It's
also the most stupid "damage control" I think I have ever seen.

This speaks volumes about competence, transparency and integrity.  All
of which scream an absence.

Monday, July 29, 2002, 9:06:48 PM, Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
JW> Gary and all assembly members,

JW> Gary Osbourne wrote:

>> Bret Fausett, who attended the court case this
>> morning, has the details at:
>> http://icann.blog.us/
>> As they're still being posted I won't link to an
>> individual item. Congrats to Karl and real openness.
>> Let's see ICANN spin this one. -g

JW>   Well you can read all about it here:
JW> http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-29jul02.htm

>>
>>
>> --
>> 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

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

JW> --
JW> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
JW> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
JW> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
JW> 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: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:26:17 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

I'm not clear here, either. Will the Registrant have to stay put for
60 days, like when a new name is registered or when one is renewed or
transferred?

Tuesday, July 30, 2002, 6:22:10 PM, Rick Wesson <[email-masked]> wrote:

RW> Danny,

RW> nothing prevents a transfer after a domain is revived.

RW> -rick

>> I would think that when a registrant has found himself/herself in need
>> of the Redemption Grace Period that a fair amount of enmity would
>> exist between the registrant and the current registrar... in such
>> circumstances, might it not be appropriate to expeditiously facilitate
>> a transfer?

RW> --
RW> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
RW> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
RW> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
RW> 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: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:28:47 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names 

Excellent questions. Dan, can you forward to the Transfer Task Force?

Thanks... good idea to address this very early... we had just started trying
to sort through the linkage, Danny, but your insights are very helpful.

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 6:28 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names 

Marilyn,

I have a question regarding one aspect of the work of your Transfers Task 
Force concerning inter-registrar transfers during the Delete Pending period.  

The Technical Steering Group's Implementation Proposal "determined that it 
would not be practical to implement inter-registrar transfers of deleted 
names in Stage 1. Instead, it is proposed that six months after this 
Redemption Grace Period Proposal is adopted, ICANN's President should 
re-convene this (or a similar) Technical Steering Group to review the 
implementation of the Redemption Grace Period, to suggest possible 
improvements to the Redemption Grace Period, and to develop a specification 
for Stage 2 of the implementation of the Redemption Grace Period, which will 
enable registrants to choose the “restoring” registrar.'

The Technical Steering Group believed that "allowing registrants to choose 
the redeeming registrar will introduce numerous technical and operational 
complications into the system", and "that the best course of action would be 
to reserve implementation of registrar choice until a second stage".

Do the members of your TF share the assessment of the Technical Steering 
Group that such considerations should be postponed another six months?  Will 
your TF examine this issue, or will it defer the matter to the Steering Group 
as proposed above?  I would think that when a registrant has found 
himself/herself in need of the Redemption Grace Period that a fair amount of 
enmity would exist between the registrant and the current registrar... in 
such circumstances, might it not be appropriate to expeditiously facilitate a 
transfer?  

- --
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:49:19 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Cavebear overcomes stonewall. Auerbach wins decisively.

Don and all assembly members,

  Yes it seems to be getting a very similar reaction all over
the globe.  Not surprising to me or you or Gary of course.
At least we can agree on this!  >;)

  BTW Don are you going to the Presidents open forum on
business in Dallas next month.  I got an invite, so I guess
I shall appear.  My understanding is that NGO's/non-profits and
ICANN will be one of several topics for open discussion...

  I hope that others here will also attend as well...

Don Brown wrote:

> RE: http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-29jul02.htm
>
> What a bunch of inaccurate, deceptive and self-serving garbage.  It's
> also the most stupid "damage control" I think I have ever seen.
>
> This speaks volumes about competence, transparency and integrity.  All
> of which scream an absence.
>
> Monday, July 29, 2002, 9:06:48 PM, Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> JW> Gary and all assembly members,
>
> JW> Gary Osbourne wrote:
>
> >> Bret Fausett, who attended the court case this
> >> morning, has the details at:
> >> http://icann.blog.us/
> >> As they're still being posted I won't link to an
> >> individual item. Congrats to Karl and real openness.
> >> Let's see ICANN spin this one. -g
>
> JW>   Well you can read all about it here:
> JW> http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-29jul02.htm
>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
>
> JW> Regards,
> JW> --
> JW> Jeffrey A. Williams
> JW> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> JW> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> JW> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> JW> E-Mail [email-masked]
> JW> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> JW> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> JW> --
> JW> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> JW> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> JW> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> JW> 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
> ----

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: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:03:09 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Marilyn Cades non-answer to: Re: [ga] RE: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

Marilyn and all assembly members,

  You didn't answer Danny's question at all Marilyn.  Why is that
I wonder???  Could you please directly answer Danny's question
Marilyn?  Or can we expect more spin in your responses to questions?
Please advise.

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Excellent questions. Dan, can you forward to the Transfer Task Force?
>
> Thanks... good idea to address this very early... we had just started trying
> to sort through the linkage, Danny, but your insights are very helpful.
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 6:28 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names
>
> Marilyn,
>
> I have a question regarding one aspect of the work of your Transfers Task
> Force concerning inter-registrar transfers during the Delete Pending period.
>
> The Technical Steering Group's Implementation Proposal "determined that it
> would not be practical to implement inter-registrar transfers of deleted
> names in Stage 1. Instead, it is proposed that six months after this
> Redemption Grace Period Proposal is adopted, ICANN's President should
> re-convene this (or a similar) Technical Steering Group to review the
> implementation of the Redemption Grace Period, to suggest possible
> improvements to the Redemption Grace Period, and to develop a specification
> for Stage 2 of the implementation of the Redemption Grace Period, which will
> enable registrants to choose the “restoring” registrar.'
>
> The Technical Steering Group believed that "allowing registrants to choose
> the redeeming registrar will introduce numerous technical and operational
> complications into the system", and "that the best course of action would be
> to reserve implementation of registrar choice until a second stage".
>
> Do the members of your TF share the assessment of the Technical Steering
> Group that such considerations should be postponed another six months?  Will
> your TF examine this issue, or will it defer the matter to the Steering Group
> as proposed above?  I would think that when a registrant has found
> himself/herself in need of the Redemption Grace Period that a fair amount of
> enmity would exist between the registrant and the current registrar... in
> such circumstances, might it not be appropriate to expeditiously facilitate a
> transfer?
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1348
*************************