Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1351
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, August 1 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1351

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:33:21 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

>
> This assumes that the registrant would blame the registrar for the
> registrant's failure to properly renew their domain name.  That is
> rarely ever the case.

It is rarely the case that it *is* the registrar's fault.  It is FREQUENTLY
the case that the registrant *blames* the registrar when the registrant fails
to properly renew the domain name.  I hear these sob stories several times a
week.

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

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:05:39 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Tucows Comments to the Implementation Committee on the Names Policy Development Process

(with apologies to those of you that may have received this twice)

Rita,

Please find below links to Tucows latest comments on the work of the ERC
with specifics comments directed to the work that your team is currently
engaged in. Tucows is pleased to offer these observations and
suggestions regarding the names policy development process, and in
particular on the workings of the current DNSO and its proposed
successor, the GNSO. 

Tucows has previously published the Heathrow Declaration
(www.byte.org/heathrow/) and two subsequent iterations of comments and
proposals (http://www.byte.org/heathrow/comments-icann-reform-v0r1d5.doc
of June 7, 2002 and
http://www.byte.org/heathrow/icann-reform-cda-v0r0d1-062602.html of June
26, 2002. We summarize them in this latest document, to the extent they
may be still relevant to the work of the committee, and make further and
more specific suggestions as to how the future policy process can work
better. Some of our proposals are reflected in the decisions of the ERC
and the Board and need no further discussion in this paper. Others, such
as the proposal for a commercial dispute resolution policy, have neither
been taken up nor rejected, and we continue to think that the reform of
ICANN's structure should not confined to improvements to its names
policy, but should also encompass commercial dispute arbitration among
contracted parties. 

Tucows Comments to the Implementation Committee on the Names Policy
Development Process;
HTML -
http://www.byte.org/heathrow/tucows-comments-icann-reform-third-v0r0d1-0
73002.htm
DOC -
http://www.byte.org/heathrow/tucows-comments-icann-reform-third-v0r0d1-0
73002.doc
PDF -
http://www.byte.org/heathrow/tucows-comments-icann-reform-third-v0r0d1-0
73002.pdf

Supporting materials can be found at http://www.byte.org/heathrow

We thank your committee and the ERC for their diligent and thoughtful
work thus far and remain committed to the evolution and reform of ICANN.

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow

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

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:26:59 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

At 09:37 PM 30/07/02 -0400, vinton g. cerf wrote:

>It looks so me as if we need something more
>refined than dis-accreditation as the principal
>tool providing incentive to adhere to contract terms.

By all means. That could conceivably take years.

In the meantime, could you tell me how often you have
used the un-refined tool of disaccreditation? If it
is greater than zero, could you please provide a pointer
to a list of once ICANN accredited registrars who have
fallen from grace? It is possible that some consumers
aren't aware of whom is accredited at this particular
point in time, which could lead to problems.

I note for example, the case of one bondillc.com
Although it isn't unique (Vint Cerf and Dan Halloran
have received various emails from Richard Henderson
of England regarding others over the past almost 3
months with no substantive response fron the former
and none at all from the latter), it is actually
becoming more common under the  current hands-off
administration.

Bondillc seems to wink in and out as an ICANN
accredited registrar everytime there's a new .info
or .biz landrush. It used to be a .biz accredited
registrar according to NeuLevel during the .biz 2b
rollout but presently doesn't appear to be:
http://www.neulevel.biz/partners/registrars.html

It later appeared as an apparently ICANN accredited
registrar during the recent Afilias ,info LR2, and
is presently listed here in the alphabetical list:
http://www.afilias.info/register/find/alphabetical
The page states:
This page last updated: 27-September-2001
although I find that date suspect.

ICANN's own list of ICANN accredited registrars:
http://www.icann.org/registrars/accredited-list.html
Page Updated 30-Jul-2002

does not appear to list them, nor were they listed
when I have checked approximately every two weeks
for the past three months.

Bondillc.com itself apparently claims to be ICANN
accredited:
http://www.bondillc.com/
Stating:
BondiLLC.com
Domain Registration!
ICANN ACCREDITED!

I invite you or anyone to try to register a
name through them. I was unable to despite
repeated attempts on a few occasions. I
certainly couldn't during the .biz 2b name
registration period as their web page at the
above address during that period stated simply:
Bondillc Coming soon.

I have saved that as a complete web page and
also done a dated .jpg screengrab, as I have
done with all pages I reference here, as well
as others, there is more to this story. Of
course the date settings on any system can be
faked so I invite other interested individuals
reading this to do so independently as it is
possible the web pages may shortly change.

Despite being inaccessible to the public, and
despite its ICANN accreditation being open to
question, bondillc appears to have managed to
register quite a number of the most desirable
.biz 2b and .info LR2 names through registrar
access to the respective registries.

Bondillc.com is apparently registered to a
lawyer in Houston, Texas. Once one reaches
certain of their inner pages, they lead to:
Parava Networks, Inc. d/b/a RegistrateYa.com
and nAAme.com
which ICANN itself lists as accredited. Parava
is also based in Houston, Texas. Also
bondillc.com mail goes to mail.parava.net at
65.210.194.18
Bondillc.com's nameservers are:
ns1.parava.net
ns2.parava.net
and there are far more connections between
these two registrars, but this is already
turning into a book so I hope I have made
my point. Indeed, there is much, much more
to this story and it is still unfolding.

I expect to provide a fuller report via
ICANNWatch and/or some other venue in the
near future. I also reiterate that this is
not the only such case, Richard Henderson
has repeatedly pointed out others.

The individual behind bondillc.com is allegedly
one Marc Ostrofsky also of Houston, Texas. He
is a domain speculator perhaps best known for
selling business.com to eCompanies for $7.5
million a couple of years ago. In the time
one might reasonably expect ICANN to come up
with more refined tools I fully expect others
might like to become registrar speculators,
indeed some already have. If you expect that
all of them will be well-behaved in the
meantime, about transfers or anything else,
well, I have some oceanfront property to sell
you that I'll show you at low tide.

Now, if bondillc are not ICANN accredited,
then I suppose one cannot reasonably expect
ICANN to disaccredit them. :) OTOH, if they
are, or were, ICANN accredited, please advise.

In addition, to repeat, could you tell me how
often, if ever, an ICANN accredited registrar
has been disaccredited? If there have been any
such disaccreditations, is there a public list
of them, and if not, why not? It seems to me
if there isn't a definitive and always current
list of ICANN accredited registrars that is
authoritative, then even the threat of
disaccreditation is hollow. Ditto for if a
non-accredited registrar can get registrar
access. Thanks, -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: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:26:31 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

>
> Bondillc seems to wink in and out as an ICANN
> accredited registrar [...]

As Gary points out, they are by no means the only mysterious registrar
around.  The issues that have arisen around the poorly thought-through and
poorly supervised registrar accreditation program are legion.  Of course,
the primary problems relate to common scenarios in which domain registrants
wind up being screwed.

Reflect on this a moment... ICANN is supposed to provide for "stability"
while promoting competition.  If a domain registrar accidentally drops a
registration, and that registration is picked up through another registrar -
a scenario which I've seen about 15 times in the last couple of months - you
would not believe the gyrations involved in trying to fix that kind of
problem, and sometimes it cannot be fixed at all.  People are out there
building businesses on their internet identity, believing that they are
secure in their domain registration, and then they find the juice has been
cut off through no fault of their own, it cannot be turned back on, and the
contractual limit on liability through NSI is $35.  In these situations
ICANN does nothing, says nothing, and has no policy.  They have accredited
fly-by-night registrars who are little more than pirates, and have the gall
to point to this as one of their "successes".  The people who run ICANN have
no connection with what the world looks like from the registrants point of
view, certainly don't get their fingers dirty by caring about how the
monster they've created works on a practical level, and full-throatedly
denigrate any notion that perhaps domain name registrants might have an
interest in how the domain name system is administered.  But, hey, Shanghai
is a great place to visit and maybe someday we'll all be lucky enough to fly
there business class.

I'll keep taking the commuter train to Philly.

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

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:04:11 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

Don and all assembly members,

Don Brown wrote:

> Tuesday, July 30, 2002, 8:37:31 PM, vinton g. cerf <[email-masked]> wrote:
> [SNIP]
>
> vgc> It looks so me as if we need something more refined than dis-
> vgc> accreditation as the principal tool providing incentive to adhere
> vgc> to contract terms.
>
> vgc> v
>
> Why? Breach is Breach. There is nothing that says you Can't give
> notice and allow a period of time for the Registrar to Cure it. In
> fact, most contracts provide for a notice and cure period.

  Yes.  And this was discussed at some length when these contracts
were being developed.  However Joe Sims and Louis Touton
did not listen or just ignored the call for some serious modifications
in order to AT THAT TIME, provide for clauses in these
contracts to at least address this foreseen problem.

>
>
> You seem to be looking for reasons not to even try to fix this
> transfer problem.

  Yes, I must say that does seem to be Vint's tone in his responses.

>
>
> Today, we have a transfer problem caused by only one Registrar.  Left
> unchecked, what can we reasonably expect in the future?

  More of the same.  A big mess...

>
>
> ICANN has, at the very least, an obligation to all of the Other
> Registrars who are following the Rules, to at least try to intervene
> and stop this practice. Moreover, ICANN has an obligation to the
> grass-roots Domain Registrants who are being punished and deceived.

  Yes they do.  However they lack for some reason(s) to be willing
to do so.  To me this is a basic stability problem that keeps getting
bigger...

>
>
> It's ICANN's job.

  Well yes.  But it is also each of the stakeholders job as well.  We
must continue to insist on the ICANN staff doing it's job while
at the same time helping by providing potential solutions also...

>
>
> Thanks,
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> [email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:31:55 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

Don and all assembly members,

Don Brown wrote:

> Wednesday, July 31, 2002, 4:01:15 AM, vinton g. cerf <[email-masked]> wrote:
> vgc> At 05:31 PM 7/31/2002 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >>At 09:37 p.m. 30/07/2002 -0400, vinton g. cerf wrote:
> [SNIP]
> >>>It looks so me as if we need something more refined than dis-
> >>>accreditation as the principal tool providing incentive to adhere
> >>>to contract terms.
> >>
> >>fines?
> >>
> >>And to whom will the cost of both the policing and the compliance be passed on?
> >>--Joop
>
> vgc> that's one of the reasons there probably are no more refined mechanisms
>
> You're saying that ICANN intentionally set themselves up as a paper
> tiger and intentionally circumscribed their contractual rights because
> of doubts over potential, future funding issues?  That makes absolutely
> no business sense or common sense.

  Sounds allot like what Worldcom and Enron has done.  Funny
how history, especially sense one of the Worldcom Executives
is also and ICANN BoD member, repeats itself...  This smells
allot like a COI complication of this problem...  But none the
less Don, your absolutely right here.  This comment from Vint
makes no business sense at all and no common sense either...

>
>
> Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the costs of policing, (which
> I fail to see a requirement for, anyway) or the costs of contract
> compliance or even the costs of contract administration.
>
> In contrast, this a contractual performance issue, where the other
> party is INTENTIONALLY performing contrary to contractual requirements
> and in TOTAL DISREGARD to its obligations under the contract.

  Indeed!  To me anyway as well as a number of our members,
such continued practice by any registrar justifies their accreditation
to be revoked immediately...

>
>
> Are you telling us that ICANN has no contractual rights to require
> specific performance under its contracts?t

  Sounds like that is what Vint is saying.  But who can really tell...

>
>
> ICANN's continued inaction to rectify this transfer problem is a
> disservice to all of the other Registrars who are compliant and it is
> particularly a disservice to the grass-roots domain Registrants who
> are being punished and deceived.

  ICANN is a disservice to the stakeholders/users and has been almost
from the beginning.

>
>
> Thanks,
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> [email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:04:16 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Revising the RAA?

Chuck, 

In a recent letter to the GA list, Ross Rader directed our attention to a 
provision in the registry agreement which allows the Registry Operator to 
revise the terms of the Registry-Registrar Agreement (provided that any such 
revisions must be approved in advance by ICANN).

As the issue of transfers of registrar sponsorship of registrations has now 
been under discussion for well over a year without adequate resolution, and 
whereas the advice tendered by our General Counsel in his 27 August 2001 
letter to Ms. Christine Russo still has not been codified into any agreement 
that is binding on all parties, can you comment on whether VeriSign Global 
Registry Services might be willing to offer its leadership in spearheading a 
collaborative effort to revise the Registry-Registrar Agreement to better 
facilitate a resolution of this transfers issue?  

I am thinking of the possibility of a registry-registrar team working in 
conjunction with ICANN staff to meaningfully attack the problem.  As this is 
primarily a contract issue, I don't view this proposed activity as being in 
conflict with the policy development efforts of the current Names Council 
transfers task force.

Best regards,
Danny Younger

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

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:10:36 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Revising the RAA?

Dear Danny,

Thank you for your continuing efforts and I apologize for lack of
communication.  Spending so much time in my developing nations causes a loss of
focus on these larger issues.

An open and transparent organization of registrars and registries is a good
idea.  Proposals and modifications of contracts could be discussed honestly with
our full knowledge of interested parties positions.

I deal with BTA and WTO issues daily and find that the obvious inclusion of self
interest in arguments to be refreshing.  ICANN does not seem to know who they
represent, or they are dishonest in what they believe.

Mr. Gomes is a great example of laying out his cards, he does not hide his hand
and pretend to be other than what he is.  Transfers is an international issue in
that about 90% of ccTLDs do not allow it, yet they are beginning to see value in
allowing it and the allowance in proliferation of registrars.  How can open and
transparent proper procedures work to the benefit of all concerned?  I would
hope that this becomes the issue,  rather than spiteful criticism.

Sincerely,
Eric

[email-masked] wrote:

> Chuck,
>
> In a recent letter to the GA list, Ross Rader directed our attention to a
> provision in the registry agreement which allows the Registry Operator to
> revise the terms of the Registry-Registrar Agreement (provided that any such
> revisions must be approved in advance by ICANN).
>
> As the issue of transfers of registrar sponsorship of registrations has now
> been under discussion for well over a year without adequate resolution, and
> whereas the advice tendered by our General Counsel in his 27 August 2001
> letter to Ms. Christine Russo still has not been codified into any agreement
> that is binding on all parties, can you comment on whether VeriSign Global
> Registry Services might be willing to offer its leadership in spearheading a
> collaborative effort to revise the Registry-Registrar Agreement to better
> facilitate a resolution of this transfers issue?
>
> I am thinking of the possibility of a registry-registrar team working in
> conjunction with ICANN staff to meaningfully attack the problem.  As this is
> primarily a contract issue, I don't view this proposed activity as being in
> conflict with the policy development efforts of the current Names Council
> transfers task force.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 16:16:04 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Teleconf minutes July 24, 2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]]

        DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 24 July 2002 - minutes

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 July 2002.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020617.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD absent, apologies,proxy to Elisabeth Porteneuve
Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business
Greg Ruth              ISPCP  absent
Antonio Harris         ISPCP
Tony Holmes            ISPCP absent, apologies, proxy to Tony Harris
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan        gTLD
Cary Karp              gTLD
Ellen Shankman         IP
Laurence Djolakian     IP
J. Scott Evans         IP absent, apologies, proxy Ellen Shankman, Laurence
Djolakian
Harold Feld            NCDNH
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH
Erick Iriate           NCDNH

16 Names Council Members

Louis Touton           ICANN Staff

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut          MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat

MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020724.NCteleconf.mp3

Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summer time in the northern hemisphere).

Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.

Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020724.NCteleconf-agenda.html
The agenda was approved with a proposal by Ken Stubbs to discuss the NC
chair elections.

Decision 2: Secretariat will post an election schedule for the next NC
teleconference on August 1, 2002.

Item 1. Summary of last meeting:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020711.NCteleconf-minutes.html

Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Ellen Shankman,
The motion was carried.

Decision 2: Motion adopted.

Item 3: Wait Listing Service - report and vote to adopt
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00378.html
IPC statement:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00380.html
gTLD statement:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00381.html
Supporting material and substantive submissions on WLS
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00382.html
Marilyn Cade invited Louis Touton be on the call and welcomed him.
She reported that the report content had not changed but the format
corresponded to the NC procedures.
The additional statements and supporting material would be incorporated into
the report to be sent to the Board.
She walked through a summary of the final report and the recommendations
that people actually voted on.

Discussion: Harold Feld asked if the summary of general comments appear in
the report. It was confirmed that they were in III 3.

Philip Sheppard proposed voting on the report as a whole.

Further discussions after the recommmendation summary questioned the
procedural process and Roger Cochetti said that the Task Force should not
bind or restrict the Names Council. He went on to suggest that the elements
should be voted on rather than the whole.
Bruce Tonkin askedwhich of the several WLS versions were referred to in the
report. Marilyn Cade suggested that Chuck Gomes would be asked to approve
the version.
To a question from Ellen Shankman as to what would happen if the Board would
go ahead after a no vote from the Task Force, Louis Touton explained he
believed that putting forward the views of the various parts of the
community was more important than attempting to characterize those views in
terms of whether they constituted consensus.
Voting in the Task Force itself was discussed and it was felt that
questioning the Task Force composition at this stage was inappropiate.
However the eligibility of constituencies to vote or participate in the case
where they were not directly affected was questioned and Louis Touton said
that the exclusion of constituency representatives from voting in the NC
would present concerns under the by-laws. Constituency votes can be taken
conditionally and reported to the Board.

Ken Stubbs expressed concern about the section on cost, particularly the
specific participation of the ccTLDs in this vote and proposed a friendly
amendment to remove that recommendation. Grant Forsyth said that price is a
key issue and is properly considered and reported.
Louis Touton said that a principle for establishing price caps
was being put forward in the current version of report which gained support,
but that no position on the specific price was being stated.

He went on to say that in terms of utility to the Board it would be useful
to know if the Names Council feels the report does not appropiately and
accurately reflect the views of the constituencies as this would be an
important consideration from the Board.

Philip Sheppard moved for a vote of adoption for the report as a whole.

15 voted in favour, 3 voted against (gTLD constituency) 1 abstention and
Greg Ruth was absent, no proxy given.

The motion carried.
Decision 3: Report adopted

Roger Cochetti stated after the vote that it should be noted that the gTLD
constituency feels that the Task Force and Names Council have gone way
beyond their proper role in policy matters.

Item 5: Status of 2002 fees

The ISPCP constituency reporteded that they were in the process of
collecting members' fees, and, due to the holidays, expected to be able to
provide a payment date by the end of August.
The non-commercials had received the appropiate invoices and were
distributing them.
The gTLD constituency said that they had the intent to pay but could not
give a date.

Item 4: ICANN Reform and proposed Resolution.
This was deferred to the next meeting

The teleconference ended at 16:30

Next NC teleconference will be on Thursday August 1 at 15:00 Paris time,
13:00 UTC/GMT

     See all past agendas and minutes at
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2002calendardnso.html
     and calendar of the NC meetings at
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

- --
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, 1 Aug 2002 16:24:44 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Teleconf. August 1, 2002, MP3 recording

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

The MP3 recording of the Names Council teleconference is now available at:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020801.NCteleconf.mp3

Happy listening!

DNSO Secretariat

- --
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, 1 Aug 2002 17:32:01 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] unix.com: interesting udrp case

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0294.html

The panel refuses to take a view on the generic character of 'unix', but
still denies the complaint. The present owner can keep it.

- --
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, 1 Aug 2002 09:23:05 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

The biggest problem is in righting the ills of the transfer process, not in
nuking the registrar. Just neuter them instead...

See - If the registrar/registry operator has no clout in that "it is the one
and only entity that can publish that entry to some resolution service, or
lookup service (Search Engines etc)", then this point is moot. So what if
they, the registrar refuse to release the domain name. The customer
re-registers the domain in another root zone . The customers notifies any
already published search engine listings and what the hell - its business as
usual. And then if they want, the Customer sues the old registrar over
failure to release their IP.

You gotta realize - Most all of ICANN's process and mechanical problems are
easily solvable - And realize that most of the issues surround possession of
IP is based against that there is still only one root. Once there are more
than one root available these issues evaporate.

So fix what is broken and then the problems will go away.

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Brown" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

> Wednesday, July 31, 2002, 4:01:15 AM, vinton g. cerf
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> vgc> At 05:31 PM 7/31/2002 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >>At 09:37 p.m. 30/07/2002 -0400, vinton g. cerf wrote:
> [SNIP]
> >>>It looks so me as if we need something more refined than dis-
> >>>accreditation as the principal tool providing incentive to adhere
> >>>to contract terms.
> >>
> >>fines?
> >>
> >>And to whom will the cost of both the policing and the compliance be
passed on?
> >>--Joop
>
> vgc> that's one of the reasons there probably are no more refined
mechanisms
>
> You're saying that ICANN intentionally set themselves up as a paper
> tiger and intentionally circumscribed their contractual rights because
> of doubts over potential, future funding issues?  That makes absolutely
> no business sense or common sense.
>
> Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the costs of policing, (which
> I fail to see a requirement for, anyway) or the costs of contract
> compliance or even the costs of contract administration.
>
> In contrast, this a contractual performance issue, where the other
> party is INTENTIONALLY performing contrary to contractual requirements
> and in TOTAL DISREGARD to its obligations under the contract.
>
> Are you telling us that ICANN has no contractual rights to require
> specific performance under its contracts?
>
> ICANN's continued inaction to rectify this transfer problem is a
> disservice to all of the other Registrars who are compliant and it is
> particularly a disservice to the grass-roots domain Registrants who
> are being punished and deceived.
>
> Thanks,
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> [email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 10:13:47 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] unix.com: interesting udrp case

At 05:32 PM 01/08/02 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:

>The panel refuses to take a view on the generic
>character of 'unix', but still denies the complaint.
>The present owner can keep it.

But they transfer unix.net:
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0296.html
No response filed.

I wondered if they'd split unix.org in half:
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0297.html

Nope, it is transferred too, partly because the
respondent allegedly had commercial links on his
*own* site here. Have a look:
http://elf.box.sk/byterage/
The supposed commercial link to here:
http://astalavista.box.sk/
is another site which in turn has an ad for a
casino (and popup ads). Sheesh. I suppose if
that site didn't have such, they'd just keep
following links until they found a commercial
site. Note to .orgs, stop hyperlinking. -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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1351
*************************