Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1419
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Monday, September 16 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1419

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:48:06 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Open letter to the .US Policy Council

Danny, Nancy and all assembly members,

  It is and has been obvious sense '99 that the ICANN BOD and most
especially the ICANn staff seeks and often does stack "Councils",
"Task Forces", and the like.  This sort of practice cannot adequately
or even accurately reflect the stakeholder/users and in this instance
the .US Domain Name registrants.  Hence it is just as obvious
that the .US Council (See below) is a near Rubber Stamp group.

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear members of the .US Policy Council:
>
> Jonathan Hudis, American Intellectual Property Law Association
> Tom Cunningham, Bulk Register, Inc.
> Juan Otero, National League of Cities
> Michael D. Palage, Attorney
> Joe Rubin, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
> Larry J. Singer, National Association of State Chief Information Officers &
> Georgia Technology Authority
> Claudette W. Tennant, American Library Association
> David Wascher, Delegated Manager, The Registry at Info Avenue
> James Casey, NeuStar, Inc.
> Tom McGarry, NeuStar, Inc.
>
> I am writing to you through the vehicle of the discussion list provided by
> the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain Names Supporting Organization because
> you have not seen fit to provide a discussion list whereby members of the .US
> Community can directly pose their concerns to you.
>
> Having attended the Senate hearings in Washington yesterday on S2537/HR3833,
> the Dot Kids implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002, it was my expectation
> that the policy advice of your Council would have been tendered for
> evaluation by the Committee.  I am not aware of any such advice being
> publicly submitted, nor do I recall seeing any members of the Council present
> at this session (with the exception of NeuStar staff such as Jim Casey, the
> NeuStar Director of Policy and Business Development that served as a panelist
> at the hearing).
>
> In the four months since you were convened as a policy body, I have yet to
> find on the NeuStar website any indication that your Council has ever met,
> and no minutes of any meetings have ever been posted.  You have not seen fit
> to provide the ccTLD manager with policy guidance relative to reserved names,
> nor to the currently undelegated name spaces (which prompted a recent
> amendment to the DoC SOW invoking an "interim policy"), and clearly you have
> offered no publicly-posted guidance at all with respect to policy
> considerations on how to best govern the kids.us namespace.
>
> You have not posted any schedule for your meetings, nor are your names on the
> NeuStar website linked to contact email addresses so that you might be
> accessible and responsible to the public that you serve.
>
> Is it your intent to actually be communicative and get some work done, or is
> this Council (half of which is populated by members of the registrar
> community) just another hoax and sham?
>
> regards,
> Danny Younger
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 23:55:47 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] RIRs on the Second Interim Report

To:  Vint Cerf, Alejandro Pissanty, Stuart Lynn
 
From:  APNIC, ARIN, RIPE NCC
 
Subject:  The ICANN Reform Process
 
This message is being sent to the Chair of ICANN Board, the Chair of the
ICANN ERC, and the ICANN President and CEO.  It is also being sent to
the ERC comment list.
  
This is to acknowledge the teleconference that occurred on 10 September
2002.  Participants were ICANN (Stuart Lynn, Louis Touton) and APNIC
(Geoff Huston, Paul Wilson).  While the APNIC participants were not
speaking on behalf of ARIN and RIPE NCC, they were conveying the intent
of the RIRs as stated in the two carefully prepared and coordinated
papers commenting on ICANN reform.  The APNIC participants of the call
did not hear any indication that ICANN was reading these papers nor did
they get any specific response to any of the points raised in those
position papers.  Therefore the RIRs make the following statement:
 
1.  The RIRs are dismayed with the second interim report of the ICANN
E&R Committee in terms of the lack of consideration and response to the
submissions of the RIRs to ICANN. 
 
2.  In the light of this, the RIRs are unwilling to accept the proposed
changes to the composition of the ASO, the proposed changes to the
support mechanisms of the ASO and proposed changes to the role of the
ASO within ICANN.
 
3.  The RIRs will be providing a substantive blueprint for reform within
the next several days.
 
Sincerely yours,

Paul Wilson
Director General
APNIC

Raymond A. Plzak
President & CEO
ARIN
 
Axel Pawlik
Managing Director
RIPE NCC

http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/implementation/msg00018.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: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 04:31:16 GMT
From: David Farrar <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RIRs on the Second Interim Report

> To:  Vint Cerf, Alejandro Pissanty, Stuart Lynn
>  
> From:  APNIC, ARIN, RIPE NCC
>  
> 1.  The RIRs are dismayed with the second interim report of the ICANN
> E&R Committee in terms of the lack of consideration and response to the
> submissions of the RIRs to ICANN. 
>  
> 2.  In the light of this, the RIRs are unwilling to accept the proposed
> changes to the composition of the ASO, the proposed changes to the
> support mechanisms of the ASO and proposed changes to the role of the
> ASO within ICANN.

ICANN Management have managed to alienate many of the key stakeholders.  This 
move by the RIRs can only be considered a huge blow to ICANN especially when 
coupled with their failed divide and conquer tactics with the ccTLDs and almost 
no progress with the root server operators.

If ICANN had adopted a less arrogant and adverserial style (I am staggered that 
staff members are allowed to attack Directors in public) then a lot of problems 
could have been avoided.  The blackmail over the ccTLD Database has done 
nothing except create hostility and suspicion.

Surely it is time for senior management and officers to step aside.  It is 
obvious to many that ICANN will never suceed without a dramatic culture change.

DPF

- --
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: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 01:24:02 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RIRs on the Second Interim Report

Danny and all assembly members,

  It is and has been clear for sometime for the astute observer or
active stakeholder/user - Participant, that ICANN intends through
the ERC to swallow whole some of the policy role, if not all, of the
ASO and the RIR's.  This is borne as has been known for some time
now also that the RIR's are short on cash, most especially ARIN and
APNIC.  Hence in that ICANN itself is seeking funding from the
USG predominantly, further centralizing policy decisions for
RIR's is the direction in mind by Louis and Stuart Lynn...

[email-masked] wrote:

> To:  Vint Cerf, Alejandro Pissanty, Stuart Lynn
>
> From:  APNIC, ARIN, RIPE NCC
>
> Subject:  The ICANN Reform Process
>
> This message is being sent to the Chair of ICANN Board, the Chair of the
> ICANN ERC, and the ICANN President and CEO.  It is also being sent to
> the ERC comment list.
>
> This is to acknowledge the teleconference that occurred on 10 September
> 2002.  Participants were ICANN (Stuart Lynn, Louis Touton) and APNIC
> (Geoff Huston, Paul Wilson).  While the APNIC participants were not
> speaking on behalf of ARIN and RIPE NCC, they were conveying the intent
> of the RIRs as stated in the two carefully prepared and coordinated
> papers commenting on ICANN reform.  The APNIC participants of the call
> did not hear any indication that ICANN was reading these papers nor did
> they get any specific response to any of the points raised in those
> position papers.  Therefore the RIRs make the following statement:
>
> 1.  The RIRs are dismayed with the second interim report of the ICANN
> E&R Committee in terms of the lack of consideration and response to the
> submissions of the RIRs to ICANN.
>
> 2.  In the light of this, the RIRs are unwilling to accept the proposed
> changes to the composition of the ASO, the proposed changes to the
> support mechanisms of the ASO and proposed changes to the role of the
> ASO within ICANN.
>
> 3.  The RIRs will be providing a substantive blueprint for reform within
> the next several days.
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
>
> Paul Wilson
> Director General
> APNIC
>
> Raymond A. Plzak
> President & CEO
> ARIN
>
> Axel Pawlik
> Managing Director
> RIPE NCC
>
> http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/implementation/msg00018.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

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: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:26:48 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ERC's Second Implementation Report

On 2002-09-14 18:28:45 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>Under the ERC's plan, the votes of those under contract are  
>equivalent to the votes of the remaining constituencies.  If the  
>registries and registrars do not support a proposal (perhaps  
>because it will cost them money), the consensus policy  
>recommendation will never be passed because a two-thirds vote is  
>now theoretically unattainable, and even the additional votes of  
>the NonCom selected members are insufficient to reach that  
>two-thirds level.

See <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00034.html>.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/
- --
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: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 10:22:15 -0400
From: "Jeffrey J. Neuman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ERC's Second Implementation Report

Before I get any flack on this response, let me state up from that this
is NOT a response from NeuStar or the Registry Community, but my own
personal response.

Danny, how can there ever be "consensus" without the support of either
of those constituencies that have to implement a change?  I know some
believe that a 2/3 vote would establish consensus, but how fair would it
be to stack up the user constituencies, add more of them (i.e., the
academics, civil society groups, etc.), in order to attain this 2/3
number.  I would submit that there could never be a "consensus" in the
Internet community without the support of at least one of those
constituencies that have contracts with ICANN.  

Danny, please explain to us how you can have real consensus among the
Internet community without the support of at least one of those
constituencies.  Also, please try to give a real life example of a
policy that was blocked by both of the "contracted party constituencies"
because as you cite "cost." 

Remember that the Registries and Registrars (I.e., those under contract
with ICANN) have to implement any "consensus policy".  It would not be
fair to encourage a process that would effectively make them
insignificant (and always able to be outvoted) in the process especially
when they have to implement it.

As a person who is attempting to start a "small business constituency",
Danny, please let me know how many of your small businesses would agree
to your recommendation if they were a registry or registrar (which most
of the registries and registrars are small businesses).  Tell me how
many small businesses (or even large businesses) would agree to
implement any policy (for whatever the cost) without being able to have
significant input into the policy.  I would submit that the answer is
zero.

Remember, the registries and the registrars are businesses too (although
for whatever reason, they cannot be members of the business
constituency).  They are users of domain names and IP owners as well as
providers of the domain name services.  Yet for too long now, they have
been forced to endure the political games and coalition building.

The time for politics on both sides should come to an end.  Real
consensus building should take place.  In order to achieve true
consensus in the ICANN Community, there should be agreement between
those that are under contract with ICANN and those that are not.  It's
truly perplexing to me, how you can argue that there can be consensus
without the support of at least one of the contracted parties.  

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 6:29 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ERC's Second Implementation Report

The ERC's Second Implementation Report contains a really bad idea.
Consider 
the following example:

Under the current system, a policy could be proposed that might not be 
supported by the registrars and registries (perhaps because such policy
might 
cost them money).  Currently the remaining five constituencies could
outvote 
these two groups and pass the recommendation in the public interest by a
vote 
of 15 to 6 (attaining more than the two-thirds majority required to
establish 
a consensus policy).

Under the ERC's plan, the votes of those under contract are equivalent
to the 
votes of the remaining constituencies.  If the registries and registrars
do 
not support a proposal (perhaps because it will cost them money),  the 
consensus policy recommendation will never be passed because a
two-thirds 
vote is now theoretically unattainable, and even the additional votes of
the 
NonCom selected members are insufficient to reach that two-thirds level.

This ERC plan does not serve the public interest.   

I encourage those constituencies not under contract to vehemently oppose
this 
recommendation.  

- --
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: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:17:41 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ERC's Second Implementation Report

Jeff,

I sat across from you at the Washington Senate hearings on dot kids listening 
to your Policy and Business Development spokesman argue that the Registry 
should not pursue public interest goals if they couldn't be met in a 
cost-effective manner.  I take issue with your point of view, as did the 
members of the Senate.

Registries and registrars perform a function in the public interest.  There 
will be times when the pursuit of that public interest will carry a price 
that registries and registrars may not be inclined to pay.  Nevertheless, it 
remains your obligation to bear such burden if that is what the public 
interest demands.  As such, you have no right to be in a position to 
effectively veto the will of the remainder of the community (which is what 
the ERC plan provides).

You have asked for a real life example of an action that could have been 
blocked by both of the "contracted party constituencies" because of cost 
considerations.  Both of your constituencies on 13 December 2001 acted to 
oppose the approval of $170,000 in funding to support the activities of our 
own DNSO Secretariat.  The following is an excerpt of a letter sent to the 
registrar constituency by Ken Stubbs on this topic:

Fellow Registrars....
 
In the Names Council meeting Today i Voted against a request to have ICANN 
fund approx $170,000 of the DNSO budget for the next year… Today's actions 
only reinforces my concerns that there may be attempts this year to impose 
additional financial burdens for ICANN operations & outreach (i.e. at large 
outreach) on us and we Registrars need to be even more pro-active. 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01649.html

I would love to be able to cite actual registry discussion on this topic, but 
as you well know, the registries have chosen not to abide by ICANN 
requirements on transparency and still have no publicly archived discussion 
list.  

You have also asked how many businesses would agree to implement any policy 
(for whatever the cost) without being able to have significant input into the 
policy.  No one seeks to deny your input (significant or otherwise).  At 
issue is your new ability to effectively veto the decisions of the remainder 
of the Internet Community.  The mere fact that you are contractors does not 
warrant granting you either veto power or greater voting rights than those 
enjoyed by others.  

You complain that your constituencies for too long now have been forced to 
endure the political games and coalition building.  Pardon me if I don't shed 
a tear.  Some of us (members of the At-large, individual domain name holders, 
small businessmen) have absolutely no representation in the process, having 
been denied such opportunity by the rest of you.  You too are culpable for 
this lack of representation, and now you seek even greater voting rights at 
the continued expense of the rest of the Community.  Don't expect me to 
tolerate this approach.
- --
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: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 19:42:31 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Poor registrars can be putvoted by consumers? (RE: [ga] ERC's Second Implementation Report)

Your complaint seems to me to stem from a very one-sided view of the
situation and perhaps therefore smelling of selfpity.

For three reasons:

1. You have a contract with ICANN. If you do not like the changes they
make, you can quit as registrar/-try.

2. Those who have a domain have not more choice: Either accept your
(registry/-rar) changes or cancel their domain name.

3. You are operating in a regulated market. You have the benefits of the
fact that consumers have little choice. Accept also the hardships. If you
operate in a free market, consumers can vote you out with their money. In
a regulated market, they should have other means to tell you that you do
it wrong.

And additionally: Has ICANN ever passed a pro-consumer decision against
the registrars/-tries?

On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, at 10:22 [=GMT-0400], Jeffrey J. Neuman wrote:

> Before I get any flack on this response, let me state up from that this
> is NOT a response from NeuStar or the Registry Community, but my own
> personal response.
>
> Danny, how can there ever be "consensus" without the support of either
> of those constituencies that have to implement a change?  I know some
> believe that a 2/3 vote would establish consensus, but how fair would it
> be to stack up the user constituencies, add more of them (i.e., the
> academics, civil society groups, etc.), in order to attain this 2/3
> number.  I would submit that there could never be a "consensus" in the
> Internet community without the support of at least one of those
> constituencies that have contracts with ICANN.
>
> Danny, please explain to us how you can have real consensus among the
> Internet community without the support of at least one of those
> constituencies.  Also, please try to give a real life example of a
> policy that was blocked by both of the "contracted party constituencies"
> because as you cite "cost."
>
> Remember that the Registries and Registrars (I.e., those under contract
> with ICANN) have to implement any "consensus policy".  It would not be
> fair to encourage a process that would effectively make them
> insignificant (and always able to be outvoted) in the process especially
> when they have to implement it.
>
> As a person who is attempting to start a "small business constituency",
> Danny, please let me know how many of your small businesses would agree
> to your recommendation if they were a registry or registrar (which most
> of the registries and registrars are small businesses).  Tell me how
> many small businesses (or even large businesses) would agree to
> implement any policy (for whatever the cost) without being able to have
> significant input into the policy.  I would submit that the answer is
> zero.
>
> Remember, the registries and the registrars are businesses too (although
> for whatever reason, they cannot be members of the business
> constituency).  They are users of domain names and IP owners as well as
> providers of the domain name services.  Yet for too long now, they have
> been forced to endure the political games and coalition building.
>
> The time for politics on both sides should come to an end.  Real
> consensus building should take place.  In order to achieve true
> consensus in the ICANN Community, there should be agreement between
> those that are under contract with ICANN and those that are not.  It's
> truly perplexing to me, how you can argue that there can be consensus
> without the support of at least one of the contracted parties.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 6:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] ERC's Second Implementation Report
>
> The ERC's Second Implementation Report contains a really bad idea.
> Consider
> the following example:
>
> Under the current system, a policy could be proposed that might not be
> supported by the registrars and registries (perhaps because such policy
> might
> cost them money).  Currently the remaining five constituencies could
> outvote
> these two groups and pass the recommendation in the public interest by a
> vote
> of 15 to 6 (attaining more than the two-thirds majority required to
> establish
> a consensus policy).
>
> Under the ERC's plan, the votes of those under contract are equivalent
> to the
> votes of the remaining constituencies.  If the registries and registrars
> do
> not support a proposal (perhaps because it will cost them money),  the
> consensus policy recommendation will never be passed because a
> two-thirds
> vote is now theoretically unattainable, and even the additional votes of
> the
> NonCom selected members are insufficient to reach that two-thirds level.
>
> This ERC plan does not serve the public interest.
>
> I encourage those constituencies not under contract to vehemently oppose
> this
> recommendation.
>
> --
> 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
>

- --
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: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 00:54:42 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Slamming:  An Industry Out of Control

Register.com v. Domain Registry of Canada
By ComputerWire
Posted: 13/09/2002 at 07:22 GMT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/27101.html

Register.com Inc is suing a competitor for allegedly using deceptive tactics 
to lure away its domain name registration customers. But defendant Domain 
Registry of Canada Inc seems to think Register.com is using very similar 
tactics itself, Kevin Murphy writes. 

Register.com sued DROC in its native New York this week, alleging unfair 
competition, false advertising, breach of contract and misappropriation of 
trade secrets. The larger firm alleges DROC engages in a "deceptive and 
misleading scheme" - a marketing practice known as "domain slamming" - that 
is costing it thousands of customers. 

Slamming is the name given to the practice when a registrar sends a 
solicitation to a customer of a competitor, asking them to transfer their 
business, but makes the solicitation look like a renewal notice or an 
expiration notice, to confuse them into making the switch. 

"These solicitations do not mention that it was Register.com, and not any of 
the defendants, that originally registered the customers' domain names," the 
complaint reads. "Nor do they explain that customers who accept defendants' 
solicitation will actually be transferring their domain name registrations to 
a direct competitor of Register.com." 

The company said that in a sample week this August, about 15% of all the 
customers that transferred from Register.com to another registrar transferred 
to DROC, which is a reseller for Washington-based eNom Inc and also trades as 
Domain Registry of America Inc. 

This is a large percentage, considering there are 122 accredited registrars 
and thousands of resellers on the market currently. Register.com says it has 
already lost thousands of customers, each of whom pay around $30 a year for a 
domain, and is in danger of losing thousands more if DROC continues its 
mailshots. 

A copy of a DROC letter sent to a rival's customer, seen by ComputerWire, is 
entitled "Important Notice" and encourages the registrant to "renew" their 
domain with the company. It does not use the word "transfer", but explicitly 
says that it is not an invoice, and alludes to the fact that other registrars 
are available. 

But DROC says that it is doing nothing wrong. The company is suing Tucows 
Inc, another rival, for defamation over claims Tucows told customers its 
mailers were misleading and could not be trusted (Tucows is countersuing, 
alleging slamming). DROC also says Register.com engages in similar practices. 

"They were the first company that ever did it," a DROC spokesperson said. 
"This is nothing new." 

A copy of a Register.com mailer seen by ComputerWire is entitled "Domain 
Expiration Notice", and invites the registrant to "renew and transfer" their 
name to Register.com. Like the DROC mailer, it does not mention the original 
registrar by name, but it does use the word "transfer". 

"All the mailers sent out make it very clear it's a transfer," a Register.com 
spokesperson said. "We make sure there are a certain amount of references to 
'transfer'." 

While this may be true, the Register.com notice looks very similar to direct 
mail that VeriSign Inc was enjoined from sending out two months ago, after it 
was sued by two rivals. The notice from VeriSign, the market leader, made 
less references to "transferring" domains to another registrar than the 
Register.com letter. 
- --
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 #1419
*************************