Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1387
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 23 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1387

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:50:03 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Danny and all assembly members,

  I must agree wit Danny here nearly 100%.  And yes Danny it is
actually long past due for DOC to hear or read these and other
concerns that have been forwarded to them time and time
again.   It is long past due for DOC/NTIA to act on them
precipitously.  Hence you may wish Danny, to forward this as is
on to DOC/NTIA at you earliest opportunity.

[email-masked] wrote:

> The Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group has proposed
> institutionalizing an abysmal failure -- the Task Force Concept.  These task
> forces will continue to produce poor policy guidance, only now they will do
> so even faster.
>
> We will continue to receive pompous self-serving constituency reports from
> groups like the BC that will state "The BC is in large part in agreement
> with… or, the BC believes… or, the BC supports…" with absolutely no
> documentation of BC discussions on the issue.  This constituency, like
> several others, including the gTLDs and the ISPs, refuse to maintain a
> publicly archived discussion list.   They do not believe in abiding by the
> ICANN Bylaws on transparency "to the maximum extent feasible".  They believe
> that they can continue to flaunt the Bylaws even while criticizing the Board
> for its failure to conduct fully open and transparent Board meetings.
>
> Other constituencies, such as the NCDNHC and the IPC, will have their Council
> members tender remarks such as "It is the position of…" even when there is
> absolutely no record of any dialogue on their lists relative to the topic at
> hand.  Neither will they post the minutes of their teleconferences, nor the
> record of any discussion held by their excom or adcom --  in short, we will
> continue to see nothing but more of the same, only now at an expedited pace.
>
> The truth of the matter is that, with rare exceptions (such as within the
> Registrar Constituency), discussion is not happening at the constituency
> level.  And frankly, of what value is a constituency if its members don't
> participate?  An organization sends in its membership dues, and then we don't
> hear from them until they decide to take a junket to an ICANN meeting at some
> interesting venue, and even then these folks have little to contribute since
> they haven't kept up with the day-to-day activities of the organization.
> Sure, it adds to the prestige of the organization to state on their website
> that they are member of such-and-such an ICANN constituency, but of what
> value is it to us?
>
> How many times have we heard the BC extol the virtues of one their members,
> the International Chamber of Commerce, that "outreaches to over 1.5 million
> companies worldwide"?  Yet never once have we heard the opinions of this
> group on anything.  No position papers have ever been submitted, there is no
> record of any commentary, and no indication that this group does anything
> other than remit a membership payment to the BC.
>
> Other constituencies that are more transparent with a membership roster that
> includes almost two hundred organizations, such as the NCDNHC, are equally
> perpetrating a fraud.  They have almost no "paying members", and according to
> the recently published ledger of DNSO Contributions, two out of three of
> their current Council representatives haven't even made a membership payment
> on behalf of their own organizations.  By what right do they thereby claim to
> be a constituency member, or for that matter to be able to "represent" the
> constituency if they are not even a member in good standing?
>
> Only 23 organizations out of 187 in the NCDNHC made a membership payment
> according to the ledger.  They don't pay, and most don't participate in any
> dialogue at the constituency level, and when they do it's never on topics
> that directly deal with DNSO policy issues.  When was the last time you saw
> any NCDNHC members discuss WLS, or Transfers, or Deletes, or IDN on their
> discussion list?
>
> Discussion of policy issues is in fact happening not at the constituency
> level, but rather at a different locale, the DNSO General Assembly.  Further,
> participants in these discussions are almost never members of any given
> constituency, and yet these interested and involved members of the community
> are the ones being excluded from direct and equal participation in the Names
> Policy Development Process.
>
> This is not Reform.  This is again denying representation to the broader
> At-Large community in favor of entrenched special interest groups.
>
> If these groups would actually participate in the task force process, then
> there might be some basis for proposing modifications to the current system.
> But we have seen the record of their involvement.  Just look at the transfers
> task force, or the IDN task force as examples that highlight the
> non-participation of constituency conscripts.  These are folks that don't
> want to be there, that won't participate in any meaningful fashion, and that
> are stuck on these TFs because their constituency had to assign somebody to
> be there.
>
> A task force of six members, when half won't participate, is next to useless.
>  When the task force is expanded to two members per constituency, and the
> constituencies still fail to participate (as has already been noted), this is
> a sign that the entire process is defective, and no amount of tinkering will
> fix the situation when some constituencies just don't want to participate.
> In many cases, several of these constituencies just don't have an actual
> membership that is willing to do anything more than show up at an occasional
> ICANN meeting.  Why do you think that the ISPs always have the same members
> on every single task force?  It's probably because their constituency is as
> much of a sham as is the BC constituency - they don't have an involved
> membership, only a few representatives that are stuck on every single
> committee since no one else is willing to do the job.
>
> We have all seen what happens to public comments submitted to task forces.
> We have sufficient proof that they are not even being read.  The opinions of
> the public are of no consequence to those that represent special interest
> groups.  One way or another, only their views will prevail in this system as
> there is no one to advocate for the public view in this process.  Without an
> advocate or representative, the comments of the public will continue to
> wither on the vine, and ICANN will blissfully continue to fail to understand
> why the public is so incensed.
>
> Participation means nothing if there is no representation.  The views of the
> broader community will continue to be ignored as special interest groups will
> continue to apply their own unique SPIN on the public voice.
>
> This Task Force process is as illegitimate as the Reform itself and it is not
> surprising that Hans Kraaijenbrink and Joe Sims participated in the
> development of this perversion.
>
> There was a time when we believed in the utility of the Open Working Group,
> the collaboration of the At-Large Community with the constituencies in a
> mutual effort to arrive at a consensus-based solution.  This has now been
> replaced with a system that excludes the At-Large, excludes the General
> Assembly, and which continues to advantage incumbent interests at the expense
> of all those that are not properly represented in the ICANN process.
>
> This plan will, of course, be adopted by the Board, because they have already
> spoon-fed their opinions to the assistance group.  It's just another sign of
> how perverse this organization has become.  The bottom-up is not to be
> trusted to draft their own recommendations… they need to be coached by the
> ICANN Board and its outside Counsel.
>
> This is no more than a charade being played out to entertain the DoC.  I
> can't wait to hear Mary Hewitt's comments on how wonderful it is that ICANN's
> Blueprint is being supported by so many that have come forth with
> implementation suggestions.
>
> Looks like its time to write to the DoC yet again.
>
> --
> 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 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:01:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Kristy McKee wrote:

> If this WLS process must be implemented, why not offer the Domain Name 
> Registrant the "opportunity" to pay more money per year to ensure that they 
> also have claim to their domain(s) within the WLS database.

Presumably under WLS they have that - they simply buy into WLS.

I have a question for you (and everyone on the GA list):

I've been wrestling back and forth on the WLS issue.  I don't like giving
NSI/Verisign yet another boon but I also don't like ICANN being a
regulator of ever increasing size.

This is a tough question and there are equities on all sides.

My feeling is that I at the board meeting tomorrow morning that I will
vote in favor of WLS but only on the condition that there are provisions
that require the current registrant to know of the existance (and
identity) of WLS entries placed on his/here domain name.  That, to my
mind, helps restore the balance of information and lets all parties to the
registration agreement attempt to optimize their actions.

(It may not be black letter contract law, but I do feel that those who are
parties to a contract ought not to be unreasonably manipulative of one
another - particularly when the contracts are of an adhesive quality [and
more particularly when the public isn't allowed onto the regulatory body
that establishes many of the contractual terms].  And in the case of WLS I
have always found it distasteful that the registry, who has an indirect
contractual relationship with the registrant, might hold back information
from the registrant that could be of value to the registrant.)

This condition on the casting of my vote in favor is in addition to things
like the pre-existance of the grace period mechanisms for at least 6
months, etc etc.)

Any comments?

		--karl--

- --
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, 22 Aug 2002 18:03:31 -0500
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: General Counsel 2nd WLS analysis

ICANN's General Counsel recommending WLS be approved in the face of obvious
consensus that it should *not* be approved is not surprising at all.  What
is more interesting is that VeriSign stock is up nearly 40% in the last two
days.  Just curious...does anyone know at exactly what time this report went
live on ICANN's website today?  Specifically, was it after the market close?

Best regards,

Jeff

- --
jeff field
952-848-7626
952-848-7627 fax
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
- -----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Alexander
> Svensson
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 2:16 PM
> To: DNSO General Assembly
> Subject: [ga] FYI: General Counsel 2nd WLS analysis
>
>
>
> General Counsel's Second Analysis of VeriSign Global Registry Services'
> Request for Amendment to Registry Agreement
> (http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-22aug02.htm)
>
> Excerpts:
>
>   Should the VGRS be permitted to offer some form of WLS?
>
>   [...]
>   The approach followed in the case of .name [second-level domain e-mail
>   service] suggests that the WLS should be allowed, thereby giving
>   consumers an additional option, provided there are appropriate
>   safeguards in place to prevent the registry operator from abusing
>   its sole-source position to the detriment of consumers.
>   [...]
>
>   If so, what conditions, if any, should be required?
>
>   Assuming VGRS is permitted to offer some form of WLS, the question
>   arises what conditions (if any) should be required. In its report, the
>   DNSO task force suggested several, and some others have been agreed
>   by VGRS:
>
>   1. The WLS should only be introduced after the Redemption Grace Period
>      is in place.  [...]
>   2. No preferential treatment should be given to existing SnapNames
>      "SnapBack" reservations. [...]
>   3. Avoidance of registrar preferences through advance knowledge of
>      deletion. [...]
>   4. Transparency of reservations [...]
>   5. Pricing [...]
>      The price VGRS now proposes to charge for WLS reservations is US$24
>      per year (this is reduced from the US$40 it originally
> proposed), and
>      in view of the limited time of the trial, the uncertain volume of
>      reservations that will be sold, and need to amortize start-up costs
>      over one year, the proposed price appears to be plausibly cost-based
>      (accounting for the risk of limited consumer interest). [...]
>    6. Trial period [...]
>
> --
> 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, 22 Aug 2002 18:13:03 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: General Counsel 2nd WLS analysis - Another farse...

Alex and all assembly members,

  Well as expected ICANN is trying to wiggle around this one.
No surprise there...  Just as the UDRP was not broadly supported
but none the less hoist upon the stakeholders/users, by the than
ICANN Interim BOD, so shall WLS it seems.

  None the less we [INEGroup] have no problem with WLS
being implemented by Verisign.  However it should not be
a defacto standard for any Registrar or Registry.

Alexander Svensson wrote:

>
> General Counsel's Second Analysis of VeriSign Global Registry Services'
> Request for Amendment to Registry Agreement
> (http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-22aug02.htm)
>
> Excerpts:
>
>   Should the VGRS be permitted to offer some form of WLS?
>
>   [...]
>   The approach followed in the case of .name [second-level domain e-mail
>   service] suggests that the WLS should be allowed, thereby giving
>   consumers an additional option, provided there are appropriate
>   safeguards in place to prevent the registry operator from abusing
>   its sole-source position to the detriment of consumers.
>   [...]
>
>   If so, what conditions, if any, should be required?
>
>   Assuming VGRS is permitted to offer some form of WLS, the question
>   arises what conditions (if any) should be required. In its report, the
>   DNSO task force suggested several, and some others have been agreed
>   by VGRS:
>
>   1. The WLS should only be introduced after the Redemption Grace Period
>      is in place.  [...]
>   2. No preferential treatment should be given to existing SnapNames
>      "SnapBack" reservations. [...]
>   3. Avoidance of registrar preferences through advance knowledge of
>      deletion. [...]
>   4. Transparency of reservations [...]
>   5. Pricing [...]
>      The price VGRS now proposes to charge for WLS reservations is US$24
>      per year (this is reduced from the US$40 it originally proposed), and
>      in view of the limited time of the trial, the uncertain volume of
>      reservations that will be sold, and need to amortize start-up costs
>      over one year, the proposed price appears to be plausibly cost-based
>      (accounting for the risk of limited consumer interest). [...]
>    6. Trial period [...]
>
> --
> 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 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:42:25 -0700
From: "Bret Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

> Any comments?

Thanks for asking, Karl.

As a consumer, I prefer the WLS to the status quo. As a marketwatcher, I
think registrar innovation should be encouraged. I also think registry
innovation should be enouraged. If there's a conflict between registrar
innovation and registry innovation, I'd personally strike the policy balance
on the side of the registrars.

I don't envy you this decision. I think a vote on either side would be
completely justifiable.

If you do vote to approve it, one suggestion that might go to Kristy's
point: How about a rule that says that no one can take out a WLS
subscription on a name that doesn't expire within the next 12 months? That
way, registrants can ensure that no one "squats" on their expiring
registrations simply by taking out a multi-year term. WLS subscriptions
would automatically expire when a name was renewed for a period longer than
1 year. Something like that.

       -- Bret

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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Karl,

- --- Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Any comments?

I hope that you end up in the usual position of the minority vote, in
which case everyone else votes against WLS. ;)

Seriously, I can't see how you can support such a blatantly
anti-competitive proposal as WLS. None of the proponents of WLS took my
"Cookie Challenge", or the "Effects Test", if you prefer, at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00350.html

(which had been offered multiple times) If you support WLS, it is no
different than supporting the similar deal that is offered in that
test, since the effect is identical.

If I propose a deal with ICANN to do something similar, and cut out the
middleman Verisign while we're at it, would you support it? Of course
not, it'd be ridiculous to just hand over millions of dollars to
someone, just because they ask for it. At least thieves in back alleys
threaten your life, before asking to steal your money. WLS is to the
detriment of consumers and registrars, and the marketplace as a whole,
and you're prepared to acquiesce simply because Verisign *asks*?
Millions of dollars aren't going into Verisign and SnapNames' pockets
for adding any value whatsoever -- it is coming at someone's expense.
The value is in the domain names themselves, intrinsically, not the
allocation method that Verisign is picking to maximize its profits.

Remind me again who you purport to represent? The Names Council report
is clearly against WLS, on a consensus basis. Furthermore, there are
thousands upon thousands of posts against it at:

http://forum.icann.org/wls/?expire=100000

and

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?antiwls

Why do you go against the consensus? Simply because you think ICANN
should get out of the way? That's a dangerous precedent, to allow the
registry operator carte blanche, especially this one.

Thankfully, should the Board do the wrong thing, registrars will hold
them accountable, as per their Registrar agreement, and in court. ICANN
took a beating in court last time. Looks like it's going to be two in a
row, if it gets that far. The Board might want to read:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00303.html

for how the challenge will be framed at the Registrar level, and as for
the anti-trust aspects, that should be pretty obvious. It'll be
interesting to read the documents that come up in Discovery.

Touton's argument on price was a joke, too -- if he waved his hands any
more, he'd be liable to take off like a bird. :) Dotster has gone on
record that they'd run WLS for $6/name, if offered the chance. That
should give you an idea that $24 is *not* cost based. I bet if offered
for tender, folks would bid far below $6, for the chance to run such a
simple database.

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: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:01:18 -0700
From: "Bret Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] One more thing

Karl Auerbach wrote:
> Any comments?

Oh yeah, one more thing.

When the subject of the New TLD Task Force report comes up, I hope the
Directors will discuss the concept of "Parallal Processing" detailed in
Section 4 of the Report:

http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/final-report-31jul02.htm#4

"Parallel Processing" would be a good thing.

             -- Bret

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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

>
> If you do vote to approve it, one suggestion that might go to Kristy's
> point: How about a rule that says that no one can take out a WLS
> subscription on a name that doesn't expire within the next 12 months? That
> way, registrants can ensure that no one "squats" on their expiring
> registrations simply by taking out a multi-year term. WLS subscriptions
> would automatically expire when a name was renewed for a period longer than
> 1 year. Something like that.

as a registrar I believe this is an excellent suggestion.

- -rick

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

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:33:00 +1200
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS Suggestion

- --- Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Any comments?

My biggest area is that this eliminates an already dynamic area of the
industry and forces everyone into a monopoly based system.  Now, the current
system is not perfect by why should Verisign gain a highly profitable
monopoly and force everyone else into a reseller arrangement?

Now, if WLS was to go ahead then being a realist the follow things should be
done:

1, Competitive tender process (while not perfect is far better than handing
the WLS to Verisign on a platter).

2, As Mr Touton states the deletion process/policy must be cleaned up and
all names that meet the policy be purged BEFORE WLS comes into effect.

3, Clear metrics must be outlined before the WLS is implemented on what its
takes for the WLS to continue after the 'trial period'. To determine the
success or failure of the WLS trial after the contract is signed is prone to
'disagreement'. (I personally think that if WLS is implemented it would
never be withdrawn)

If this is a trial to test the process and such like what is it not done in
a ccTLD that Verisign is already involved in? Or perhaps even trial it in
.org as that is in the process of being divested.

Steven Heath
.nz news and views
http://radio.weblogs.com/0110729/

 
- --
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, 22 Aug 2002 19:33:37 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

karl and all assembly members,

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Kristy McKee wrote:
>
> > If this WLS process must be implemented, why not offer the Domain Name
> > Registrant the "opportunity" to pay more money per year to ensure that they
> > also have claim to their domain(s) within the WLS database.
>
> Presumably under WLS they have that - they simply buy into WLS.
>
> I have a question for you (and everyone on the GA list):
>
> I've been wrestling back and forth on the WLS issue.  I don't like giving
> NSI/Verisign yet another boon but I also don't like ICANN being a
> regulator of ever increasing size.

  I have no problem personally with Verisign getting a boon on anything
as long as it is not at the unfair expense of the stakeholders/users.
If Verisign or any other company has a "Better Idea" and can
effectively sell it as such, than more power to them.

  I do agree with you Karl that ICANN should not become
what it already has, an over imposing regulator and any 
further modify the registrar contract to include WLS 
as a Defacto standard for dealing with Deletes. 
ICANN should stay away from WLS all together.  On 
that biases alone the ICANN BoD should not vote in 
favor of WLS...

>
>
> This is a tough question and there are equities on all sides.
>
> My feeling is that I at the board meeting tomorrow morning that I will
> vote in favor of WLS but only on the condition that there are provisions
> that require the current registrant to know of the existance (and
> identity) of WLS entries placed on his/here domain name.  That, to my
> mind, helps restore the balance of information and lets all parties to the
> registration agreement attempt to optimize their actions.

  I would agree that the provision you suggest here Karl, would
help balance the interests of the registrants with the
Registrars/Registries.
My personal concern though is that can we trust Verisign to
insure this suggestion of yours takes place and can we also
be sure that the oversight of ICANN to insure that they do?
I say no we cannot...  ICANN has no provisions in the
current Registrar and Registry contracts to even enforce them
As-Is.  With the modification to encompass WLS we would
have an even potential and likely worse situation for 
the Registrant and other Registrars...

  Hence Karl, I would advise/ask that you vote against
Louis's suggestion and WLS...

>
>
> (It may not be black letter contract law, but I do feel that those who are
> parties to a contract ought not to be unreasonably manipulative of one
> another - particularly when the contracts are of an adhesive quality [and
> more particularly when the public isn't allowed onto the regulatory body
> that establishes many of the contractual terms].  And in the case of WLS I
> have always found it distasteful that the registry, who has an indirect
> contractual relationship with the registrant, might hold back information
> from the registrant that could be of value to the registrant.)
>
> This condition on the casting of my vote in favor is in addition to things
> like the pre-existance of the grace period mechanisms for at least 6
> months, etc etc.)
>
> Any comments?
>
>                 --karl--
>
> --
> 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 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:57:27 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Karl,

In his preliminary report on WLS, our General Counsel identified a primary 
concern -- the potential for various types of harm to the legitimate 
interests of others.   We are obligated to abide by the terms of the MoU 
which state:  "Neither Party, either in the DNS Project or in any act related 
to the DNS Project, shall act unjustifiably or arbitrarily to injure 
particular persons or entities or particular categories of persons or 
entities."

Counsel recommended a preliminary "quick-look" evaluation to determine 
whether it was plausible that the legitimate interests of others could be 
harmed by the proposed amendment, and ultimately if such a determination was 
made, that ICANN should invoke the formal consensus development mechanisms 
that currently exist prior to any decision by the ICANN Board.

So, as a matter of policy, we need to determine first whether the proposal 
will in fact will injure others, and secondly whether such injury is 
justifiable and non-arbitrary.  The DNSO report did not determine that the 
WLS proposal would in fact injure others, nor did it examine whether such 
injury might be justifiable or non-arbitrary.  In short, it failed to examine 
the relevant policy issue.

I don't believe that it would be "fair" to either party in this debate to 
proceed without the benefit of such an examination (as our primary obligation 
should be to respect the MoU).  

The Board may reject a recommendation if it was not arrived at through fair 
processes (Article VI, section 2, paragraph (e)(3)).  Further, "If the Board 
declines to accept any recommendation of a Supporting Organization, it shall 
return the recommendation to the Supporting Organization for further 
consideration, along with a statement of the reasons it declines to accept 
the recommendation".  

To my mind the question is:  Can we allow ourselves to potentially harm 
others without having thoroughly examined the potential harm and whether it 
might be justified?  As a matter of policy, a certain amount of due diligence 
is required... in this particular case, I don't think that our duty has been 
performed (I see no evidence of a Task Force evaluation attending to this 
concern).  I would recommend tossing this back into the lap of the DNSO and 
asking them to do a better job of it on the next go-around.  

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

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:36:52 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>
To: "Kristy McKee" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

snip
Karl said:
> I've been wrestling back and forth on the WLS issue.  I don't like giving
> NSI/Verisign yet another boon but I also don't like ICANN being a
> regulator of ever increasing size.

Karl, I have stayed out of the actual debate, but would like to comment on
some principles here.
ICANN becoming a "regulator" of matters relating to g-space matters
especially registry/registrar contracts is inevitable and compulsory  - its
part of the inevitable result of developing a global industry-led body to
manage this thing. While I believe there should be plenty of air between
policy making ICANN forums and the implementation arm, either ICANN does
this or we abandon it to your favourite government....

> (It may not be black letter contract law, but I do feel that those who are
> parties to a contract ought not to be unreasonably manipulative of one
> another - particularly when the contracts are of an adhesive quality [and
> more particularly when the public isn't allowed onto the regulatory body
> that establishes many of the contractual terms].

The argument over the need for representativeness in ICANN and the need for
open and transparent  process is assisted by reference to ICANN having to
perform these tasks. Removing the tasks because ICANN is not yet
representative should not (yet) be the approach.

And its not equivalent to two arms length commercial parties to a contract.
One is the internet communities' appointed  manager of a natural monopoly,
enjoined to manage that monopoly in the interest of that community according
to the consensus policies developed by that community, the other is a
commercial entity mandated to make a return to its investors. The fact that
the mechanism of compliance with those policies is contractual shouldn't, of
itself, be significant. In other words if it meant the import of contract
law so that enforcing those policies became frustrated, we should look for a
different compliance mechanism.

Good luck with your deliberations

regards

- --
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, 22 Aug 2002 19:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, George Kirikos wrote:

I'm responding to you and the other e-mails I've receives so far:

You present strong arguments why I ought to vote against WLS, and I too 
do not like it.  Nor do I like the way that those who have names 
registered in .com will, once again, have significant changes imposed upon 
their domain name relationships (I am intentionally using words that 
extend beyond the existance of the mere registration contract) without 
their consent - particularly without them having a meaningful role in the 
body, ICANN, that is governing those relationships.

However, I do not like the intense regulatory system that ICANN has become
- - at some point ICANN has to step back and get out of the way.  I disagree
somewhat with P.D. Thrush's point that the regulation has to occur
somewhere - to me that begs the question regarding whether regulation of
certain matters is necessary at all.)

For example - ICANN is imposing business models.  ICANN's mechanisms rule
out potentially innovative and useful alternatives.  For instance, I'm
intrigued by the possibility of a DNS registration system that uses
digitally signed "bearer" certificates that represent the right to control
a name, i.e. to be recognized as being able to make updates.  [This would
require a transfer agent to prevent repudiation of transfers, but that
transfer agent need not have any way to know what name that certificate
represents.] This would achieve what I believe is a far more effective
system and would hand control over to the registrant, including control of
his/her personally identifiable information [i.e. privacy data].

Overall, I do believe that the discussion of ICANN's proper scope is still 
in its infancy and that too much is happening without understanding what 
ICANN is to do and, more importantly, not to do.

Getting back to WLS - the thing that tilted the scales, that prompted my
e-mail earlier today, was the possibility that the current name holder
obtaining the name of anyone who takes out a WLS subscription on the
holder's name.  That would allow the holder to take appropriate action -
like continuing the registration.  [I would be really ticked off if some
UDRP panel construed such an act as a reason to take away the domain
name.]

Danny Younger's point about letting the DNSO be the guide is well taken
and I need to reconsider this (particularly in light of my own previous
complaints that the board overrode the DNSO without making a finding, as
required by the by-laws, that such an override was necessary.)

And the comments from Bret F., Rick W. and others about additional safety 
mechanisms has actually had a strong impact.  It isn't particularly the 
additional safety mechanisms themselves but the sense that there are still 
many matters that have not been allowed to coalesce.  (And I have also 
begun to question the assertions that the only place that this kind of 
service can be done is at the registry.  My own preference is for the 
thinnest of thin registries - sort of a microkernel - upon which 
everything else is layered by other, independent, entities.)

I'm in the middle of an office move, so I'll be checking e-mail on and off 
while I still have connectivity.  I am no longer sure which way I will 
vote.

		--karl--

- --
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, 22 Aug 2002 21:01:11 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: General Counsel 2nd WLS analysis

I read the "entire" text of the message.  It is designed to "justify
it" regardless of the downside or the community's (bottoms up)
consensus opposing it.  It appears to be flagrant collusion - bid
rigging.  It is disgustingly lop sided.  I hope Lynn has a high limit
on his Legal Mal coverage, since this could be where he bites that
bullet and needs it.

Thursday, August 22, 2002, 3:53:21 PM, George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote:
GK> Hello,

GK> Comparing WLS to something like the .name optional e-mail system is a
GK> joke. By its very nature, WLS trumps competition. When the General
GK> Counsel of ICANN is engaging in this kind of "stretch" to justify WLS,
GK> things don't look good. Time to get the lawyers ready, methinks....

GK> Sincerely,

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

GK> --- Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>       
>> General Counsel's Second Analysis of VeriSign Global Registry
>> Services' 
>> Request for Amendment to Registry Agreement 
>> (http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-22aug02.htm)
>> 
>> Excerpts:
>> 
>>   Should the VGRS be permitted to offer some form of WLS?
>> 
>>   [...]
>>   The approach followed in the case of .name [second-level domain
>> e-mail
>>   service] suggests that the WLS should be allowed, thereby giving 
>>   consumers an additional option, provided there are appropriate 
>>   safeguards in place to prevent the registry operator from abusing 
>>   its sole-source position to the detriment of consumers.
>>   [...]
>> 
>>   If so, what conditions, if any, should be required?
>> 
>>   Assuming VGRS is permitted to offer some form of WLS, the question 
>>   arises what conditions (if any) should be required. In its report,
>> the 
>>   DNSO task force suggested several, and some others have been agreed
>> 
>>   by VGRS:
>> 
>>   1. The WLS should only be introduced after the Redemption Grace
>> Period 
>>      is in place.  [...]
>>   2. No preferential treatment should be given to existing SnapNames 
>>      "SnapBack" reservations. [...]
>>   3. Avoidance of registrar preferences through advance knowledge of 
>>      deletion. [...]
>>   4. Transparency of reservations [...]
>>   5. Pricing [...]
>>      The price VGRS now proposes to charge for WLS reservations is
>> US$24 
>>      per year (this is reduced from the US$40 it originally
>> proposed), and 
>>      in view of the limited time of the trial, the uncertain volume
>> of 
>>      reservations that will be sold, and need to amortize start-up
>> costs 
>>      over one year, the proposed price appears to be plausibly
>> cost-based 
>>      (accounting for the risk of limited consumer interest). [...]
>>    6. Trial period [...]
>> 

GK> __________________________________________________
GK> Do You Yahoo!?
GK> HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
GK> http://www.hotjobs.com

- ----
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1387
*************************