Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1364
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, August 8 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1364

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

Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 16:56:47 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> What I find even more telling is the fact that the Civil Liberties  
> community (the folks who brought us the Rebid Vote War ;) isn't  doing 
> much on-topic, either.

1.   Maybe because you (TR) do not understood the fundamental complaints 
about the blue print, and why people were unhappy with the new structure, or

2.  People are tried of putting a lot of energy into comments to the ERC, 
and then being blow off time and time again, or

3.   There are other strategies underway, some maybe long shots, but maybe 
better bets that appeals to the good nature of the board.

     Jamie

- -- 
- ------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040

- --
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, 7 Aug 2002 16:07:24 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

At 4:26 PM -0400 8/7/02, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>I look forward to further thoughts on this.  For the first time, we are now
>getting to the point where we can begin to compare real differences of the
>thin and thick registry models in the gTLD space.

The real difference is whether you believe in the "power of trust" or not.

- -- 
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: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:46:19 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Transfers TF

Marilyn,

The registrars put a plan on the table to deal with the issues of transfers 
last year on September 19.  It was brought to the attention of your TF on 
October 29.  Ross Rader has personally appealed to you several times to 
initiate discussions on this document as it represents months of work on the 
part of the registrar constituency.

Not one single comment on this work-product has yet been offered by any 
member of the TF in over nine months.  

If your team will not accept their responsibilities and get the job done, 
then please ask the Council to assign another group to this effort.  

The hard work of those that have accepted their responsibilities should not 
continue to be thwarted by conscripts that don't care to participate.
- --
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, 07 Aug 2002 20:40:13 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FTC Probing Verisign

George and all assembly members,

  If Verisign or the folks at Verisign you named below know of knew
about any investigation of Verisign is underway they would be foolish
and in some potential further legal exposure if they had answered your
question in that regard George.

  In any event Versign/NSI has been investigated before, so I am
sure this FCC investigation is pretty old hat to them by now...

  And the inference of deleting Domains does not equal
WLS as WLS is yet to be implemented other than for testing...

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Hot off the presses:
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/ri/020806/tech_verisign_3.html
>
> "The FTC is seeking information about the company's practices with
> regard to transferring Web addresses, deleting domain names and sending
> direct mail solicitations to customers of competitors in the marketing
> campaign that ended in May, the source said, and the company later
> confirmed."
>
> "Deleting domain names" = WLS :)
>
> I had asked a couple of months ago, openly, whether they were under
> investigation. See:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01326.html
>
> (near the very bottom)
>
> Of course, Chuck and Roger from Verisign ignored that question...time
> has a way of proving people right, though. :)
>
> If anyone has evidence to submit to the FTC, [email-masked]
> would be the appropriate email to use.
>
> Life at Verisign would be a lot simpler if they'd simply drop the WLS
> proposal....
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> http://health.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

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, 7 Aug 2002 19:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FTC Probing Verisign

Hello,

- --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   If Verisign or the folks at Verisign you named below know of knew
> about any investigation of Verisign is underway they would be foolish
> and in some potential further legal exposure if they had answered
> your
> question in that regard George.

I don't think so. The only question was whether or not they were under
investigation, not any of the details of it.

If you re-read the story in Reuters,

> > http://biz.yahoo.com/ri/020806/tech_verisign_3.html

the company did confirm it to the reporter, before it was public
knowledge from the FTC itself.

If you haven't noticed yet, Verisign rarely answers any questions, and
the ones they do tend to be spin. One has to be careful to ask them
questions whose answers can't be spun easily.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.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: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 23:20:53 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FTC Probing Verisign

George and all assembly members,

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >   If Verisign or the folks at Verisign you named below know of knew
> > about any investigation of Verisign is underway they would be foolish
> > and in some potential further legal exposure if they had answered
> > your
> > question in that regard George.
>
> I don't think so. The only question was whether or not they were under
> investigation, not any of the details of it.

  Well your are of course entitled to your opinion.  I have no problem
with that.   But try not to forget that the Devil is in the details...

>
>
> If you re-read the story in Reuters,
>
> > > http://biz.yahoo.com/ri/020806/tech_verisign_3.html
>
> the company did confirm it to the reporter, before it was public
> knowledge from the FTC itself.

  Yes I read that...

>
>
> If you haven't noticed yet, Verisign rarely answers any questions, and
> the ones they do tend to be spin. One has to be careful to ask them
> questions whose answers can't be spun easily.

  I noticed this back in '98 Geroge.

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
> http://www.hotjobs.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

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, 7 Aug 2002 23:11:52 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FTC Probing Verisign

"questions whose answers can't be spun easily." I have yet to see one
of those critters. :-)  Actually, I've seen some good ones, but they
were spun, anyway.

Their culture needs to change from "jam it down their throats for our
own good" or "it's our way or the highway."  If they get with the
program of "good faith and fair dealing," like most others in the
delivery channel, there could be some hope for them.  Although, it
could be too late, as well.  Rivers run deep and a tiger doesn't
change its stripes.

Currently, they are paying the piper through the various legal
actions: competitors, competitors' TROs, class action, stockholders,
the FTC and worst of all, the press.

Their stock is down to what < $6 a share, with a 52 week high in
excess of $55?  I'd call that significant, but I'm not a math major.

What we are seeing is desperation at the ultimate. How many of
VeriSign's executives and long-time employees have a substantial nest
egg bet upon the value of VeriSign's stock?  You can bet, without
reading their 10K, that the upper echelon of executive management gets
a large payday with stock options.  Right now, they have been
scorched by the street.

So, taking it all in, we can understand the motives. However, it's the
integrity part from the "value of trust" people which is most
troublesome. My value of trust doesn't fit their mold and never will
unless, and until, they earn it through their actions.  I'm not going
to hold my breath, but I'll give them the benefit if they show and
prove it.

Thanks,

Wednesday, August 7, 2002, 9:56:04 PM, George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote:
GK> Hello,

GK> --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>   If Verisign or the folks at Verisign you named below know of knew
>> about any investigation of Verisign is underway they would be foolish
>> and in some potential further legal exposure if they had answered
>> your
>> question in that regard George.

GK> I don't think so. The only question was whether or not they were under
GK> investigation, not any of the details of it.

GK> If you re-read the story in Reuters,

>> > http://biz.yahoo.com/ri/020806/tech_verisign_3.html

GK> the company did confirm it to the reporter, before it was public
GK> knowledge from the FTC itself.

GK> If you haven't noticed yet, Verisign rarely answers any questions, and
GK> the ones they do tend to be spin. One has to be careful to ask them
GK> questions whose answers can't be spun easily.

GK> Sincerely,

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

GK> __________________________________________________
GK> Do You Yahoo!?
GK> HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
GK> http://www.hotjobs.com
GK> --
GK> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
GK> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
GK> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
GK> 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: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 01:30:06 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Cyber-Federalist

Issue #14 of Cyber-Federalist has been published
http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/cyber-fed/Number_14.html

The issue is entitled "Creating the Illusion of Legitimacy" 

Excerpt:  In its words and its actions, ICANN seems to employ participative, 
consensus-based, bottom-up procedures.  The problem is that these words and 
actions often serve only to create an illusion of legitimacy.  The reality is 
much different. 

- --
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, 8 Aug 2002 00:29:56 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020807/phw049_1.html
BulkRegister.com and Verisign reached a confidential settlement in the
lawsuit.

Wednesday, August 07, 2002, 1:16:42 PM, George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,

> --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Do you have any data to back up your conclusion about the cost of the
>> network?
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> > While the thick registry is certainly convenient from a 
>> > management point
>> > of view, the cost to the network likely exceeds the value of the
>> > savings...

> There are more "costs" than simply the operational costs incurred in
> running the centralized WHOIS. One should also consider other things.
> One example, for instance, is the abuse that can occur when such a
> valuable database is centralized in hands that seem to have no problem
> "testing the limits" of the law, as per the current FTC investigation
> into the trade practises of a company we all know and love....

> The costs to consumers, registrars, and other market participants due
> to those practises are non-trivial, albeit difficult to measure.

> Perhaps your colleagues can tell us exactly how many of those "renewal
> notices" were mailed out, to assist us in estimating those costs. If 5%
> of individuals got confused, had to call their registrars (incurring
> increased support costs) for 10 minutes of support, at $20/hour, we can
> provide some educated guesses as to some of the costs. Perhaps another
> 0.1 percent had their business disrupted (email, webservices, etc.) for
> 10 days, at a cost of $100/day, adding even more to the true "costs".

> Sincerely,

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

> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> http://health.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

- -- 
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: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 01:21:11 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

Thursday, August 08, 2002, 12:29:56 AM, William X Walsh wrote:

> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020807/phw049_1.html
> BulkRegister.com and Verisign reached a confidential settlement in the
> lawsuit.

http://biz.yahoo.com/opt/020807/56f84715c19a0feecd1027e1c9266545_1.html
Verisign-True Trust or True Lies?
- - Shelley Souza Senior Writer & Trading Strategist Optionetics.com

- -- 
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: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:05:06 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 07:50:00AM -0700,
 William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 26 lines which said:

> > Care to explain  or is it just FUD?
> 
> Makes it easier for them to cover their tracks, Stephane.  Makes it
> that much easier for them to hide from the consequences of their
> actions.

Yes, that's what I thought, you do not understand the difference
between privacy and secrecy. So let me explain.  

Privacy does not mean I advocate completely hiding the social
information by shutting down the whois server.

Privacy means that *some* limits (which have to be defined) are set to
the (mis)use of personal data. For instance, in France, transferring
(in bulk, not in detail) personal data to a country without sufficient
protection, such as the USA, is illegal. Unlike what even many French
believe, it is not forbidden to have a public whois, just that *some*
things are regulated (the registry may go further and add other
protections for its customers).

> Some antispam services automatically block all domains under TLDs
> which do not have a public whois server available that provides full
> contact information, for this very reason.

Pure bluff. This would suppress mail for most African and
Latin-American countries (which typically do not have a whois for
practical reasons) but would allow .COM (whose database is public but,
for this very reason, highly unreliable) to spam everyone. BS.

- --
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, 8 Aug 2002 12:33:57 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 04:02:16PM -0400,
 Ross Wm. Rader <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 134 lines which said:

> It's not the cost of the network that is the variable, but the cost to
> the network - ie, the Internet as a whole. For one, there is a
> tremendous opportunity cost associated with a centralized structure a la
> a thick registry in terms of lost innovation, competition etc. 

I wonder how many of the 100-200 registrars of .COM innovated anything
with the nice database of contacts they have?

- --
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, 8 Aug 2002 03:59:25 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

Thursday, August 08, 2002, 3:05:06 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> Makes it easier for them to cover their tracks, Stephane.  Makes it
>> that much easier for them to hide from the consequences of their
>> actions.

> Yes, that's what I thought, you do not understand the difference
> between privacy and secrecy. So let me explain.  

> Privacy does not mean I advocate completely hiding the social
> information by shutting down the whois server.

> Privacy means that *some* limits (which have to be defined) are set to
> the (mis)use of personal data. For instance, in France, transferring
> (in bulk, not in detail) personal data to a country without sufficient
> protection, such as the USA, is illegal. Unlike what even many French
> believe, it is not forbidden to have a public whois, just that *some*
> things are regulated (the registry may go further and add other
> protections for its customers).

So let me ask the question POINT BLANK.  What information will be
available?

Will a public whois service, as defined by RFCs, with address and
contact information for domain registrants, be available by the future
eu registry?

Because you seem to be wanting to twist this into some debate over
something else entirely.  The fact is that if their information will
not be available in the public whois, then I stand by what I said as
accurate, and state that your response does not address, in any
fashion, the issues I raised.

>> Some antispam services automatically block all domains under TLDs
>> which do not have a public whois server available that provides full
>> contact information, for this very reason.

> Pure bluff. This would suppress mail for most African and
> Latin-American countries (which typically do not have a whois for
> practical reasons) but would allow .COM (whose database is public but,
> for this very reason, highly unreliable) to spam everyone. BS.

Pure bluff?

Where have you been Stephane?  This blackhole service already exists
today, and is already blocking all domains under TLDs that do not
operate public whois servers providing domain contact information.

The qualification for listing them is here:
If a TLD does not have a working, public, free of charge WHOIS
registry working and providing all the necessary contact information,
then by definition no domain in that TLD is RFC954-compliant, and that
would make the entire TLD a viable candidate for listing.

http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-whois.html

I don't advocate use of this blacklist service, myself, but I do know
that its use is on the increase, as the spam issue becomes more and
more an issue for individual users, ISPs are responding with more
rigid rules for accepting email from particular servers, domains, and
yes, even TLDs.

You might think that this is bluff, but I don't see how you can
possibly say that when it is in fact in place and being used today, by
a growing number of ISPs and networks.

- -- 
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: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 07:05:09 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

Any number of them. The very existence of registrars in this namespace
is, in itself, an innovation. The myriad of business models they employ
represent an innovation, the technology that they use, in many cases,
represent an innovation...the list does go one, but the specifics are
well-documented and not really important to this discussion.

                       -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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 6:34 AM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader
> Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'; 'Rick Wesson'; 
> 'Joop Teernstra'; 'Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law'; 
> 'Gary Osbourne'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 04:02:16PM -0400,
>  Ross Wm. Rader <[email-masked]> wrote 
>  a message of 134 lines which said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the cost of the network that is the variable, but 
> the cost to 
> > the network - ie, the Internet as a whole. For one, there is a 
> > tremendous opportunity cost associated with a centralized 
> structure a 
> > la a thick registry in terms of lost innovation, competition etc.
> 
> I wonder how many of the 100-200 registrars of .COM innovated 
> anything with the nice database of contacts they have?
> 

- --
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, 08 Aug 2002 15:35:21 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

- --=======7E826E26=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2A651489; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

yes. but what is the need for a registrar (as understood today)?
jfc

On 13:05 08/08/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
>Any number of them. The very existence of registrars in this namespace
>is, in itself, an innovation. The myriad of business models they employ
>represent an innovation, the technology that they use, in many cases,
>represent an innovation...the list does go one, but the specifics are
>well-documented and not really important to this discussion.
>                       -rwr

- --=======7E826E26=======--

- --
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, 8 Aug 2002 10:11:18 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

Competition, innovation, progress, no monopoly and lower registration
costs for consumers, to name a few . . .

Thursday, August 8, 2002, 8:35:21 AM, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin <[email-masked]> wrote:
JFCJM> yes. but what is the need for a registrar (as understood today)?
JFCJM> jfc

JFCJM> On 13:05 08/08/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
>>Any number of them. The very existence of registrars in this namespace
>>is, in itself, an innovation. The myriad of business models they employ
>>represent an innovation, the technology that they use, in many cases,
>>represent an innovation...the list does go one, but the specifics are
>>well-documented and not really important to this discussion.
>>                       -rwr

- ----
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: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:41:37 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

> yes. but what is the need for a registrar (as understood today)? jfc

The construct decentralizes an unnecessary concentration of power and
pushes the intelligence closer to the edge of the network.

                       -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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin
> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 9:35 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)
> 
> 
> yes. but what is the need for a registrar (as understood today)? jfc
> 
> On 13:05 08/08/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
> >Any number of them. The very existence of registrars in this 
> namespace 
> >is, in itself, an innovation. The myriad of business models 
> they employ 
> >represent an innovation, the technology that they use, in 
> many cases, 
> >represent an innovation...the list does go one, but the 
> specifics are 
> >well-documented and not really important to this discussion.
> >                       -rwr
> 
> 
> 

- --
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, 8 Aug 2002 12:21:24 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

On 8 Aug 2002, at 10:11, Don Brown wrote:

> Competition, innovation, progress, no monopoly and lower registration
> costs for consumers, to name a few . . .

If there were thousands of TLDs, or even hundreds, the monopoly issue 
would be put to rest.  The market would take care of pricing.  In the 
case of VRSG, it is an issue simply because it was the only game in 
town for so long that every commercial enterprise was forced to register 
in that registry, providing a scenario where it was easy to gauge 
consumers.  Adding "registrars" to the mix forced price reductions, yes. 
 However, it is still a monopoly in the sense that VRSG still fixes the 
registry fee.  

Had there been a hundred gTLDs added early on, consumers would 
have been registering in many regsitries and NSI would have had to 
compete in a fair market.  Every registry is a monoply, but that is no 
different from every insurance company being a monopoly.  If you don't 
like the practices, terms and conditions or policies of one company, 
choose another.  

A great many of the issues driving people crazy today could go away 
with hundreds of TLDs being made available in the USG root.  I doubt 
we will see it because the IP interests will do all they can to prevent it.  

There is nothing wrong with having a single registrar for a regsitry if there 
are many registries - small, large and in-between.  As with the problems 
surrounding ICANN's elimination of the at-large, the artificial scarcity of 
TLDs prevents the public's having a choice in the most basic areas of 
the internet - the DNS.

All the talk of confusion raised by having a multitude of TLDs is also 
pure FUD.  People have become accustomed to changing area codes 
constantly, as well as having to use more digits in phone numbers, dial 
around codes, etc.  The public would become accustomed to a variety 
of TLD extensions in the same manner and more companies would 
spring up to index them.  

Registries could succeed or fail.  People and companies would then 
have to make changes just as they do when they move and change 
phone numbers or an area code is changed forcing companies and 
individuals to adjust.  It's a pain, but we all do it.  A worse scenario 
would be to not allow new area codes and have an artificial scarcity of 
phone numbers.  I see no difference with the lack of TLDs in the USG 
root, especially when there are thousands of TLDs already in existence, 
many of which actively accept registrations.  It's no longer an 
experiment in the sense that it can be done.  It's been done.  So what is 
ICANN's excuse?

Leah

> 
> Thursday, August 8, 2002, 8:35:21 AM, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin
> <[email-masked]> wrote: JFCJM> yes. but what is the need for a
> registrar (as understood today)? JFCJM> jfc
> 
> JFCJM> On 13:05 08/08/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
> >>Any number of them. The very existence of registrars in this namespace
> >>is, in itself, an innovation. The myriad of business models they employ
> >>represent an innovation, the technology that they use, in many cases,
> >>represent an innovation...the list does go one, but the specifics are
> >>well-documented and not really important to this discussion.
> >>                       -rwr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 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
> 
> 

- --
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 #1364
*************************