Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1390
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 23 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1390

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 07:31:55 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Karl - let me paint a picture of what WLS is and why it should not be
allowed to progress...

    1)    The WLS system is a method for which an existing registrar can
block the transfer or otherwise control of a piece of IP from its rightful
owner, and this is easily demonstrated.

This is true because any registrar that already has the domain name
registered can perform the WLS process faster than any of its competition
since it and only it will be there  when it expires the name and releases it
for re-registration. Therefore if it resells the publication against that
domain name no other Registrar will be able to beat it to the
re-registration efforts. Hence WLS give the incumbent registrar an unfair
advantage. Further how are you going to stop multiple Registrars from
booking against the same name when clearly the incumbent will be the winner
unless #2 is also dealt with.

    2)    The WLS system clearly violates the constraints of equality at the
bottom line that people like NASD have had to deal with by embargoing
network transactions until all participants have the same equal share/chance
at winning the prize here (in this case the domain name(s) that have been
WLS'ted).

    3)    The WLS system further confuses what is and what is not a
trademarkable instance since by trademark law I do not necessarily have to
continue the use of the marque on the Internet to still have the trademark
status of the word... or in this case the domain name.

    4)    And the biggest problem is that this only controls within the
ICANN Root and that is likewise a serious issue since anyone else can
already publish the same name with another root provider and viola...

Todd

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>
To: "Kristy McKee" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 4:01 PM
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 existence (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-existence 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
>
>

- --
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 17:34:35 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

On 2002-08-23 07:31:55 -0700, todd glassey wrote:

>This is true because any registrar that already has the domain  
>name registered can perform the WLS process faster than any of its 
>competition since it and only it will be there when it expires the 
>name and releases it for re-registration. Therefore if it resells  
>the publication against that domain name no other Registrar will  
>be able to beat it to the re-registration efforts. Hence WLS give  
>the incumbent registrar an unfair advantage. Further how are you  
>going to stop multiple Registrars from booking against the same  
>name when clearly the incumbent will be the winner unless #2 is  
>also dealt with.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean, so I'll try to  
describe WLS in very simple terms, and you tell me where the  
registrar competes unfairly, by benefitting from any information on  
timing, ok?

1. Alice registers a domain through, say, Rick, Alice's registrar.   
   Rick sends information about the domain name to the registry,  
   let's call that player Chuck.

2. Bob is also interested in the domain name.  8 months later, he 
   places a WLS subscription, say, through Ross.  Ross tells Chuck 
   about the reservation.

3. The domain name expires - four months later.  Rick sends a note 
   to Chuck: "Alice's domain has expired and isn't extended. Delete 
   it from your database."

4. Chuck receives that notice and looks up the reservation database. 
   He notes that there is a reservation for Bob, placed through Ross. 
   Instead of deleting the domain name, he changes it, so the domain  
   name is now registered for Bob, through Ross.  Chuck tells Ross  
   about this, Ross tries to tell Bob, but Bob turns out to be Jeff  
   Williams, and there is no house at the address given. Ross places  
   photos of the location on the web. (OK I made up the last part.  
   ;-)

The key point of the whole procedure is that Ross (who could be  
identical to Rick, that doesn't even matter for this scenario) does 
not need _any_ access to timing information at all.  (He should know 
that the domain name has a chance to expire within the next 12 
months, but that's not privileged timing information, but available 
 from the WHOIS.)

The competition problem I have been trying to describe all over the  
time is different.  In that case, steps 3+ look different:

3. Rick sends no note to Chuck, and Chuck extends the registration. 
   He doesn't care that Alice doesn't use the domain name any more.

4. 8 months later, Chuck strikes Bob's reservation from his  
   database.

5. At this point, two mutually exclusive things can happen.

5a. Kristy wants Alice's domain name, too, and places a reservation  
    through Rick.  Rick says "fine", collects the money, and then  
    tells Chuck to delete the comain name.  Chucks looks at the  
    database, changes the domain name, and it now belongs to Kristy.

5b. Karl is interested, and gets a reservation through Ross.  Rick  
    ignores this, and continues to sit on the domain name.  Ten 
    months later, Karl sues.

As a result of that scenario, Rick is the one with whom you want to  
place a reservatino on the name which used to belong to Alice.  Ross 
goes out of business.

According to General Counsel's report, 5a becomes no longer  
possible, since Chuck won't accept a reservation from Rick at that  
point of time.  Thus, Rick's failure to send the expiration notice  
to Chuck isn't rewarded, and becomes more unlikely.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:48:57 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Registrar debate

An interesting exchange of thoughts is occuring on the registrar list.  
Excerpts:

David Wascher:  I do not understand - if the RC voted NO and the DNSO voted 
NO but ICANN is still going to allow WLS - then what the hell are we here 
for. The RC and the DNSO might as well pack up and go home because ICANN and 
VeriSign are going to do what they want.

Rick Wesson:  A better question is, "why is ICANN there" and why did you all 
sign a document telling the DoC how great it is that ICANN is there. If the 
WLS moves forward it is partly our own fault.

Michael Palage:  What the letter states is that the registrars recognize that 
ICANN is not perfect and there are outstanding issues, but we will work 
within the frame work of our existing contractual relations to resolve these 
issues. TUCOWS has been working on advocating a parallel argument where 
contracting parties can have their disputes resolved in a commercial manner. 
Something I have advocated since last February in Dulles.

Bhavin Turakhia:  I am in full agreement with Rick. Maybe I should withdraw 
my support for the ICANN letter. In fact on second thoughts now I am 
wondering if it was the peer movement that made me sign it. For I have not 
seen ICANN move towards reforming any issue. Its funny how decisions that 
favour Verisign (read WLS) got taken right away while we are still 
deliberating on the Transfers issue, or the Delete hoarding issue of 
Verisign, without any assistance/resolution there.

The thread begins at 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02993.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:01:42 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS: ICANN should approve it (and be sued for that).

[cc's clipped]

Thomas,

ICANN is obligated to promote competition where ever possible.
Approving WLS is diametrically opposed to that mission.

WLS "will" (not "may") put those already in the market out of that
business, because the Registry will have exclusive control over the
source of supply. Frankly, to argue otherwise is simply unrealistic.

If existing market participants are violating the RAA by participating
in this market, then ICANN is obligated to redress them. They have
not. So, similar to your statement below, they must have
rubber-stamped it. Of course, I really don't believe that failing to
enforce the terms of the RAA waives the right to enforce them later.
However, the key statement you make is that no one can prove there has
been a breach. So, that, in and of itself, makes all of that dialog
totally irrelevant to anything.

Approving WLS is approving a sole source provider and that puts all of
the existing competitors out of business. That's plain wrong, unfair
and it is most probably a breach of the RAA by ICANN. In this case,
however, that's a breach which "can" be readily proven.

About the only thing in your post to which I agree is that ICANN will
most probably be sued, and rightfully so, if they approve WLS. ICANN
will also be providing the DoC with an overwhelming example of how
they are ignoring their obligations under the MoU to promote
competition where ever possible and to be a bottoms-up organization.
Even ignoring the V$ hate motivated messages, the community's disdain
for WLS is clear.

When you put perfume on a hog, you still have a hog in the final
analysis.

Thanks,

Friday, August 23, 2002, 4:27:51 AM, Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> wrote:
TR> On 2002-08-22 21:45:16 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:

>>To: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
>>Cc: [email-masked]
>>Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion
>>
>>OK, you (and everyone else) convinced me.

TR> I'm not so sure you should be convinced.  

TR> At least my most important concerns about WLS are actually resolved 
TR> in the general counsel's report:

TR>  - The perverse incentives for registrars created by WLS - namely,  
TR>    not extending existing registrations, and letting a WLS  
TR>    subscription ripen - are kind of mitigated by the redemption grace 
TR>    period.

TR>  - The business model to hoard domain names in order to later sell  
TR>    them off through WLS subscriptions (and subsequent "deletion") is  
TR>    addressed by the agreement to prevent sponsoring registrars from 
TR>    placing WLS subscriptions on a domain name in the 60 days before 
TR>    the name expires.  (Note that this restriction is messy and  
TR>    entirely unnecessary when the current registrant wants to place  
TR>    the subscription!)

TR>    At the same time, this removes part of registrars' incentives to
TR>    hoard domain names in order to unfairly compete about WLS  
TR>    subscriptions - delete the name when a subscription is placed  
TR>    through the sponsoring registrar, don't delete it when the  
TR>    subscription is placed through a competitor.  
   
TR>    (Actually, the version of this argument given by Louis in his 
TR>    report is not accurate.)

TR>    Once again, this is not the perfect solution - the correct  
TR>    approach would be to mandate the point of time when registrars  
TR>    send the DELETE command to the registry.

TR> Note that these are genuine policy matters, and clearly within 
TR> ICANN's scope.

TR> The single most important concern which remains - and it's the one  
TR> George and friends are emphasizing - is that WLS may put existing 
TR> registrar-based approaches out of business.  The existing  
TR> used-domain dealers demand that their business models be protected.  
TR> I'm sorry to say this, but they are pretty close to Hollywood's  
TR> crusade against the net in that - I think Bruce Schneier paraphrased 
TR> the latest legislation around intellectual property like this: "They 
TR> are creating a new crime, interference with a business model."

TR> ICANN should not get into the business of prosecuting this "crime"  
TR> in the registy/registrar market - and that's precisely what not  
TR> accepting WLS would mean.  Don't let George's argument fool you,  
TR> when he says that "changing the contract" amounts to "action" and  
TR> "not changing the contract" amounts to a hands-off approach.  I'm 
TR> sorry, George - this is (good, and, it seems, effective ;)  
TR> rhetorics, and not an argument: Hands-off means that you let others  
TR> do what they want.  Normally, that's equivalent to "do nothing".   
TR> However, when to "do nothing" means to forbid an activity, a  
TR> hands-off approach implies rubber-stamp approval.

TR> Of course, this was only half of the argument, so far: I didn't  
TR> address the fact that existing competition would be replaced by a  
TR> _monopoly_.  It's the context in which I believe that protecting  
TR> business models is a good idea and a requirement: When existing,  
TR> lawful business models would be threatened by a new business model  
TR> which can only be implemented as a monopoly.  There are two tests in 
TR> this:

TR>  - Does the new business model necessarily imply a monopoly service? 
TR>    The answer is obviously yes.

TR>  - Are the existing business models lawful?  Can current  
TR>    expired-domain registration services compete without registrars  
TR>    violating their accreditation agreements by letting others  
TR>    control "their" transactions with the registry?  I'm not sure  
TR>    that this question will ever be answered based on information  
TR>    easily accessible to ICANN and the public.  But there are some  
TR>    indications that the answer is "no".  Ups.
   
TR> Given the lack of information, and given that this is a classical  
TR> question for governments and courts to address, I believe that ICANN 
TR> should do precisely that: Leave the question to governments and  
TR> courts, i.e., do not address it in your decision.

TR> Thus, ultimately, I would strongly recommend that ICANN approves  
TR> this service - fully aware of the perspective that it will quite  
TR> likely be sued for this decision.

TR> Finally, there is one relatively deep point to this, well worth the  
TR> board's attention - for the future, because it's too late to address 
TR> this for WLS: It's Steven Heath's question whether new monopoly  
TR> services based on the registry's data should automatically be the  
TR> registry's privilege, or whether these services should be subject to 
TR> a public bidding process.  

TR> I'm not entirely sure whether Louis' argument that the .name 
TR> services set a precedent for this actually works: After all, with 
TR> .name the new service was introduced from the very beginning.  There 
TR> may be some merit to treating services to be added later differently 
TR> than services included in the original TLD concept.

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:01:08 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS: ICANN should approve it (and be sued for that).

Thomas and all assembly members,

  Very good points here Thomas.  Well done!

  The crux of the problem can be simply put that the TR TF did not
address one of the two primary concerns it was supposed to
to begin with and got overly distracted with WLS.  That being to
find or come up with a solution for handling Deletes of expired
domain names.

  Now WLS was offered by Verisign as a potential solution, but
really was not in that it did not entirely handle that problem and
created some other problems as well.

  To me anyway, this experience like the .ORG TF, shows why
the TF approach to determining policy solutions for these types
of problems does not work as well as the WG approach...

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-08-22 21:45:16 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> >To: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
> >Cc: [email-masked]
> >Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion
> >
> >OK, you (and everyone else) convinced me.
>
> I'm not so sure you should be convinced.
>
> At least my most important concerns about WLS are actually resolved
> in the general counsel's report:
>
>  - The perverse incentives for registrars created by WLS - namely,
>    not extending existing registrations, and letting a WLS
>    subscription ripen - are kind of mitigated by the redemption grace
>    period.
>
>  - The business model to hoard domain names in order to later sell
>    them off through WLS subscriptions (and subsequent "deletion") is
>    addressed by the agreement to prevent sponsoring registrars from
>    placing WLS subscriptions on a domain name in the 60 days before
>    the name expires.  (Note that this restriction is messy and
>    entirely unnecessary when the current registrant wants to place
>    the subscription!)
>
>    At the same time, this removes part of registrars' incentives to
>    hoard domain names in order to unfairly compete about WLS
>    subscriptions - delete the name when a subscription is placed
>    through the sponsoring registrar, don't delete it when the
>    subscription is placed through a competitor.
>
>    (Actually, the version of this argument given by Louis in his
>    report is not accurate.)
>
>    Once again, this is not the perfect solution - the correct
>    approach would be to mandate the point of time when registrars
>    send the DELETE command to the registry.
>
> Note that these are genuine policy matters, and clearly within
> ICANN's scope.
>
> The single most important concern which remains - and it's the one
> George and friends are emphasizing - is that WLS may put existing
> registrar-based approaches out of business.  The existing
> used-domain dealers demand that their business models be protected.
> I'm sorry to say this, but they are pretty close to Hollywood's
> crusade against the net in that - I think Bruce Schneier paraphrased
> the latest legislation around intellectual property like this: "They
> are creating a new crime, interference with a business model."
>
> ICANN should not get into the business of prosecuting this "crime"
> in the registy/registrar market - and that's precisely what not
> accepting WLS would mean.  Don't let George's argument fool you,
> when he says that "changing the contract" amounts to "action" and
> "not changing the contract" amounts to a hands-off approach.  I'm
> sorry, George - this is (good, and, it seems, effective ;)
> rhetorics, and not an argument: Hands-off means that you let others
> do what they want.  Normally, that's equivalent to "do nothing".
> However, when to "do nothing" means to forbid an activity, a
> hands-off approach implies rubber-stamp approval.
>
> Of course, this was only half of the argument, so far: I didn't
> address the fact that existing competition would be replaced by a
> _monopoly_.  It's the context in which I believe that protecting
> business models is a good idea and a requirement: When existing,
> lawful business models would be threatened by a new business model
> which can only be implemented as a monopoly.  There are two tests in
> this:
>
>  - Does the new business model necessarily imply a monopoly service?
>    The answer is obviously yes.
>
>  - Are the existing business models lawful?  Can current
>    expired-domain registration services compete without registrars
>    violating their accreditation agreements by letting others
>    control "their" transactions with the registry?  I'm not sure
>    that this question will ever be answered based on information
>    easily accessible to ICANN and the public.  But there are some
>    indications that the answer is "no".  Ups.
>
> Given the lack of information, and given that this is a classical
> question for governments and courts to address, I believe that ICANN
> should do precisely that: Leave the question to governments and
> courts, i.e., do not address it in your decision.
>
> Thus, ultimately, I would strongly recommend that ICANN approves
> this service - fully aware of the perspective that it will quite
> likely be sued for this decision.
>
> Finally, there is one relatively deep point to this, well worth the
> board's attention - for the future, because it's too late to address
> this for WLS: It's Steven Heath's question whether new monopoly
> services based on the registry's data should automatically be the
> registry's privilege, or whether these services should be subject to
> a public bidding process.
>
> I'm not entirely sure whether Louis' argument that the .name
> services set a precedent for this actually works: After all, with
> .name the new service was introduced from the very beginning.  There
> may be some merit to treating services to be added later differently
> than services included in the original TLD concept.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:22:04 +0200
From: daftjack <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:WLS.

Hello Everybody, I have just joined this list (about a week ago)But i
would like to say i think the WLS is a BAD idea.

 -
Best regards,
 daftjack                          mailto:[email-masked]

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5i

iQA/AwUBPWZEddKhYvA4Gd/oEQKRhwCfbjR+Q4aCGuE6R+czRYRbZWeMV48An3+T
WiiZfIH+vKSf2DGMmPVw/613
=KMcQ
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
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 13:47:50 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] General Counsel vs. DNSO

Has General Counsel now usurped the role of the DNSO as a policy advisory?  
Is this second "analysis" that has been put forth strictly in keeping with 
the role of a legal counsel, or has it "crossed the line" to the detriment of 
the DNSO?  What legal issues are implicated now that weren't already present 
after the first such analysis that mandated this new "analysis" from Counsel? 
 I don't see any.  

All I see is a blatant attempt on the part of Staff to unduly influence the 
Board to take a position at odds with the consensus view of the community.  
This raises the question:  of what value is the DNSO if all policy decisions 
will be made by General Counsel only to be rubber-stamped by the Board?  Has 
Louis Touton become the de facto Monarch of ICANN with his decisions alone 
subject to ratification by a compliant House of Lords?

Allow me to add my voice to those calling for the replacement of ICANN's 
legal counsel.

- --
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 20:24:20 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: WLS Suggestion ... and results

http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23aug02.htm

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

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN Board caves in to Verisign over WLS -- let the lawsuits begin

See the minutes of the meeting at:

http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23aug02.htm

It's a bit hilarious reading them, including such lines as:

"Whereas, although the range of opinions regarding the WLS in the
community has significantly narrowed during the discussions of the
issues, there remains a disparity of opinions"

I think the Board needs to be reminded that a 2/3 majority is a
"consensus", and that WLS was rejected by the Names Council by a bigger
margin than 2/3.

Thankfully, the registrars can challenge, based on:

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

and I'm sure they will.

Point "c" is pretty funny, and full of loopholes (which is what happens
when cowboys are making up the rules as they go along, instead of
consulting with the stakeholders):

"c) No registrar sponsoring the registration of a domain name in the
.com and .net top-level domains shall be permitted to obtain (in its
own name or for another, directly or indirectly) a WLS subscription on
that name at any time after a date sixty days before the registration
of the name is DELETED; "

Notice the word is "DELETED" and not "EXPIRED". This means hoarding of
names by Verisign is encouraged. 

All the rest is pretty much a joke as well, but instead of picking it
apart, it is time to begin working on the appeal process.

Sincerely,

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

P.S. At least a few Board members weren't lemmings, and voted against
it or abstained. They'll be vindicated in the end, after the appeals, etc.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:47:05 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] General Counsel vs. DNSO

Danny and all assembly members,

 First let me thank you Danny for adding your voice to the replacement
of the ICANN legal Council, as belated as it may be...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Has General Counsel now usurped the role of the DNSO as a policy advisory?

  No, not really.  I think that Louis is just putting forth his advice as legal
council on the WLS issue.  That should be expected.  What is troubling
is that in part, Louis made some factual errors in that advice that Thomas
rightly pointed out, ad did others...  Hence it shows that Louis is
not following close enough to provide good advice to the BoD and
therefore again has shown that perhaps he needs to be replaced.

>
> Is this second "analysis" that has been put forth strictly in keeping with
> the role of a legal counsel, or has it "crossed the line" to the detriment of
> the DNSO?

  I think the former is true.

> What legal issues are implicated now that weren't already present
> after the first such analysis that mandated this new "analysis" from Counsel?
>  I don't see any.

  Perhaps you didn't read George's post on the potential legal implications.
One could be Restraint of trade for instance.

>
>
> All I see is a blatant attempt on the part of Staff to unduly influence the
> Board to take a position at odds with the consensus view of the community.

  Agreed here.  However I don't think that the term "Blatant" is accurate...

>
> This raises the question:  of what value is the DNSO if all policy decisions
> will be made by General Counsel only to be rubber-stamped by the Board?

  Very good question here.  As we have seen in the past with similar
policy issues and decisions, it seems obvious that the ICANN BoD
as Karl has repeatedly pointed out, that the ICANN BOD and staff
only pay attention to those that Parrot what they desire in the first
place.  That to me seems perilously arrogant and leads to poor
policy making and decisions.

> Has
> Louis Touton become the de facto Monarch of ICANN with his decisions alone
> subject to ratification by a compliant House of Lords?

  I think the "House of Lords" characterization is a bit extreme, but your point
is still well taken I believe.

>
>
> Allow me to add my voice to those calling for the replacement of ICANN's
> legal counsel.
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:04:56 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] An expedited Names Policy Development Process

1.  The Community raises a policy concern
2.  General Counsel tells us what the policy will be
3.  We all bitch and complain
4.  The Board endorses General Counsel's policy
5.  Repeat procedure as needed

- --
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 12:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN moves to shut off debate -- closes WLS forum

Hello,

Why has the ICANN WLS Forum been set to read-only, without the ability
to post?

http://forum.icann.org/wls/

I think it should be re-opened, to continue the debate over the
operation of the WLS system, and appeals, that are certain to take
place over the next 15 days.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:17:18 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN moves to shut off debate -- closes WLS forum

At 12:10 PM -0700 8/23/02, George Kirikos wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Why has the ICANN WLS Forum been set to read-only, without the ability
>to post?

I trust someone has made a back-up copy of it, just in case it "disappears"?

- -- 
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: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:35:58 -0700
From: Loren Stocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ICANN Board caves in to Verisign over WLS -- let the lawsuits begin]

Hi George,

Great review Geroge! Thanks for all your hard work. Now the real work begins.

But take heart, all, this WLS can easily be circumvented and rendered
ineffective. Nobody who really wants a domain will allow NSI to reassign it.
All actions result in re-action.

Best, Loren

George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote:
See the minutes of the meeting at:

http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23aug02.htm

It's a bit hilarious reading them, including such lines as:

"Whereas, although the range of opinions regarding the WLS in the
community has significantly narrowed during the discussions of the
issues, there remains a disparity of opinions"

I think the Board needs to be reminded that a 2/3 majority is a
"consensus", and that WLS was rejected by the Names Council by a bigger
margin than 2/3.

Thankfully, the registrars can challenge, based on:

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

and I'm sure they will.

Point "c" is pretty funny, and full of loopholes (which is what happens
when cowboys are making up the rules as they go along, instead of
consulting with the stakeholders):

"c) No registrar sponsoring the registration of a domain name in the
.com and .net top-level domains shall be permitted to obtain (in its
own name or for another, directly or indirectly) a WLS subscription on
that name at any time after a date sixty days before the registration
of the name is DELETED; "

Notice the word is "DELETED" and not "EXPIRED". This means hoarding of
names by Verisign is encouraged. 

All the rest is pretty much a joke as well, but instead of picking it
apart, it is time to begin working on the appeal process.

Sincerely,

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

P.S. At least a few Board members weren't lemmings, and voted against
it or abstained. They'll be vindicated in the end, after the appeals, etc.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

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

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Body snatchers from Verisign have taken over Louis Touton, help!

The evidence is here:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg03011.html

"While some consumers may prefer the WLS (since it provides a guarantee

of being effective in obtaining a name if the name is deleted), other 
consumers may prefer Parava's product or those of others (since unlike 
the WLS they mostly require payment only if the name is actually
deleted and successfully obtained).  The choice should be up to the
consumer."

I expect that sort of drivel coming from Chuck Gomes, but not from
Louis Touton. It's been said a million times before, but to summarize,
the demand is for the domain name -- of course people will *have* to
purchase a WLS slot, as only the "leftover" names will be left for
non-WLS capture.

Karl: in your process of obtaining information, are you getting
financial documents as to potential conflicts of interest of Board
members and other ICANN staff, e.g. stockholdings, etc? It would be
nice to hear your comments on today's decision, to the extent you can
say in public, and on the internal deliberations.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1390
*************************