Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1480
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, October 21 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1480

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 15:21:38 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Future of .su

At 1:03 PM -0700 10/20/02, Bret Fausett wrote:
">and that the
>deprecated top-level domain will be deleted once the migration is
>completed."

I don't think migration can ever be completed, accurately.

There will be existing links on other websites (yes, and email addresses,
etc), pointing to information at .su sites that is historical and
important. Breaking those links is not conducive to a stable network.

I feel the best thing to do would be to freeze the TLD - no new
registrations allowed, but existing ones remain and if the entity managing
the TLD no longer exists, a volunteer entity continues to manage the TLD,
possibly for free, and restricting changes to NS updates only (ie no
further ownership changes for domains).

- -- 
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: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:24:28 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] [council] Legal Breifing Regarding Implementation of New or Changed Policies (from: [email-masked])

fyi
- -- 
Thomas Roessler	(mobile)	<[email-masked]>

- ----- Forwarded message from Louis Touton <[email-masked]> -----

From: Louis Touton <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 13:09:25 -0700
Subject: [council] Legal Breifing Regarding Implementation of New or Changed Policies
Envelope-to: [email-masked]
Delivery-date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:11:56 +0200

To the Names Council:

Recently the Names Council Transfers and Whois Task Forces have posted
interim reports that raise for consideration new or revised policies
that depend on registrars and registry operators for implementation.
Several of registrars and registry operators have expressed alarm
concerning the effect that implementing these proposed policies would
have on their operations, and have indicated that they presently oppose
some of the requirements being considered.

This opposition presents legal issues that could affect the ability to
implement the policies being considered.  To assist the Names Council,
its task forces, and the DNSO generally, I have prepared a briefing on
legal considerations that should be taken into account in developing
policies that are amenable to effective implementation.  I have posted
that briefing at
<http://www.icann.org/legal/briefing-on-implementation-20oct02.htm>.

Best regards,

Louis Touton

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
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, 20 Oct 2002 22:21:37 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Future of .su

It is not within ICANN's purview to revoke a TLD or a ccTLD.  Show me
the authority granted, if I'm wrong.

This is the same organization who, if I'm not mistaken, is suppose to
assure the stability of the Internet, yet they introduced TLDs which
they knew would collide.

Now, to create more chaos, rather than maintain stability, they are
intent upon turning the lights off on a ccTLD.  I understand that a
transition may be in order, but what difference does it really make.
The change only inconveniences the Registrant who is forced to fit
into someone else's divine mold.

If they want to keep using .su, who really cares.  There are a lot of
ISO country codes which don't naturally fit - if that wasn't true,
then I wouldn't have to go look them up and my IQ is higher than a
rock.

None of this makes any practical sense.  ICANN is out of control.

Sunday, October 20, 2002, 2:44:14 PM, David Farrar <[email-masked]> wrote:
DF> Bret Fausett wrote:
>> I'd be interested in hearing views on what *should* happen with the .su
>> ccTLD. Once a country, always a ccTLD? Or should ccTLD delegations bear some
>> more precise relationship to national identities?

DF> This is a fascinating area.  Just a couple of days ago I said that no 
DF> registrant operating in good faith should lose their domain name due to policy 
DF> changes etc.

DF> However if a country changes it name and hence its ISO3166-1 code it does 
DF> create problems.  An argument *could* be made that as all the businesses and 
DF> individuals will have to be spending money changing their physical and postal 
DF> addresses that the same burden should apply to their internet address.

DF> If you went down this path you would want registrants to be able to go from 
DF> (for example) domainname.su to domainname.ru.  However if the new domain name 
DF> has been operating at the same time as the old one you may end up with 
DF> collisions.  Also the two ccTLDs may have different managers and hence 
DF> different naming policies.

DF> So overall I think it is fairer not to close down a ccTLD just because the 
DF> country disappears.  Close it down for new registrations but allow current 
DF> registrants to stay there as legacy.

DF> The exception may be if the renamed country wants it old TLD deleted.  So if 
DF> New Zealand became Aotearoa and went from .nz to .ao it might one day decide to 
DF> delete .nz.  But when a country splits rather than is renamed such as 
DF> Czechoslovakia and USSR then it is not clear if anyone can speak for the old 
DF> ccTLD.  I suppose the government of whereever the old registry is physically 
DF> located could pass a law closing it down if it really wanted.

DF> DPF

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

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:40:20 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [fwd] [council] Legal Breifing Regarding Implementation of New or Changed Policies (from: [email-masked])

The bottom line on this one is that a certain losing Registrar, or
losing Registrars, want to be able to deny a transfer in order to
thwart the loss of market share.

It's a big political game - I've never seen a politician or a
political organization who didn't want to keep their big contributors
happy.

I do, however, resent apparent authority not being vested in the
Technical contact. It is us geeks who built NetSol (for free) and who
handle domain names for our customers everyday.  Most of our customers
still can't spell DNS, but most can spell AOL.  If the customer
doesn't want us to be the Tech Contact, that's o.k. - they are on
their own.  In our piece of reality, however, most want us to simply
take care of it for them.

Sorry for the rant, but it sticks in my crawl.  The bottom line on
this particular post is that it is nothing more than politics put
forth by a lawyer - we all best well take it as such and follow the
money to the truth.

Thanks,

Sunday, October 20, 2002, 3:24:28 PM, Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> wrote:
TR> fyi

- ----
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 00:43:21 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [fwd] [council] Legal Breifing Regarding Implementation of New or Changed Policies (from: [email-masked])

Don and all assembly members, stakeholders/users or other interested parties,

  Don as you likely know I am in agreement with your comments/observations
below.  It would also appear from Karl's comments in the past that he
as a BoD member, also is in agreement with you as well.

  My particular concern with this Legal briefing centers around the
following excerpt from http://www.icann.org/legal/briefing-on-implementation-20oct02.htm:

"Losing registrars would be limited to only seven possible reasons for
denying a transfer request –
 fraud, UDRP action, court order, identity dispute, non-payment
for current or previous registration term with domain on "Registrar Hold,"
express objection from the registrant or administrative contact, or failure
of the gaining registrar to follow the minimum required transfer procedures
(TTF  §§ 3.5, 5.21). "

  This presupposes that 1.) The transferring Registrant if a UDRP is filed
at or about the time a transfer to a different registrar, is automatically guilty
or will be found so, and 2.) That if a court order is obtained via nefarious
means during or close to the time from that the registrant has requested
a transfer of his/her/their DN, is automatically guilty before a hearing
to challenge such a court order can be heard, 3.) that if any claim of fraud
by the than registrar has been, or is filed on or about the time the registrant
requested the transfer that he/she/they are automatically guilty, without due
process and based just on a claim of fraud.  This is particularly egregious
from a legal and ethical standpoint and is therefore I believe extralegal
as a result; 4.) that the registrant if on or about the time of a request for
transfer is made that the registrar complains or claims that they
as the registrar believe that there is an identity problem (Identity dispute)
than again the registrant is presumed automatically guilty without due
process or even perhaps just cause of any kind.  This also is no doubt
egregious, unethical and displays favoritism for the loosing registrar, as to
this legal brief regarding implementation of new or changed policies.

  The other even broader problem and question still remains is the
process in which policy changes are being determined with respect
to the White Paper and MoU (New version) regarding consensus
that is unknown as it is yet to be measured in any real way by the
stakeholders/users, regardless of the Name Space in which said
policies effect or otherwise pertain to.

Don Brown wrote:

> The bottom line on this one is that a certain losing Registrar, or
> losing Registrars, want to be able to deny a transfer in order to
> thwart the loss of market share.
>
> It's a big political game - I've never seen a politician or a
> political organization who didn't want to keep their big contributors
> happy.
>
> I do, however, resent apparent authority not being vested in the
> Technical contact. It is us geeks who built NetSol (for free) and who
> handle domain names for our customers everyday.  Most of our customers
> still can't spell DNS, but most can spell AOL.  If the customer
> doesn't want us to be the Tech Contact, that's o.k. - they are on
> their own.  In our piece of reality, however, most want us to simply
> take care of it for them.
>
> Sorry for the rant, but it sticks in my crawl.  The bottom line on
> this particular post is that it is nothing more than politics put
> forth by a lawyer - we all best well take it as such and follow the
> money to the truth.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sunday, October 20, 2002, 3:24:28 PM, Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> TR> fyi
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> [email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 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, 20 Oct 2002 22:20:23 -0400
From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Future of .su

- --On Sunday, 20 October, 2002 13:03 -0700 Bret Fausett
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> 
>> Besides, I recall John Klensin explaining several times that
>> country codes such as .SU or .GB will remain preserved in the
>> DNS for stability purposes.
> 
> I don't believe that's IANA's current practice:
> 
> "When an alpha-2 code for a country is changed on the ISO
> 3166-1 list, the IANA's historical practice has been to set up
> a top-level domain with the new code and to delegate it to the
> same manager as the existing top-level domain, with the
> expectation that a transition will occur and that the
> deprecated top-level domain will be deleted once the migration
> is completed."
> 
> http://www.iana.org/reports/zr-report-20jun01.htm

Bret,

I'm not in a position to comment on IANA's current practice in
this area (or in several others).  In some cases, I find those
practices obscure to the point of unfathomable.

However, note that there are two separate, and quite distinct,
things that can induce changes in the 3166-1 list (there are
others too, but I think only these are relevant to what I gather
is the question at hand):

	(1) The country changes its official or preferred name,
	requests that 3166/MA make a code change to correspond,
	and 3166/MA does that.  At least to a first-order
	approximation, national boundaries and other properties
	remain the same.
	
	(2) The country goes out of business or transforms
	itself into something else, thereby generating a new
	name for which 3166/MA is requested to assign a code.
	Political boundaries and the like usually change in this
	situation, either to expand or contract.

Now, in the first instance, the historical IANA practice has
been, I believe, to say, more or less "look, people are used to
the old code, and switching will be disruptive.  Perhaps you
would like to retain it, rather than switching, to promote
stability.  But, if you do want to switch, we will delegate the
new code to the same administration, but with the expectation
that there will be a serious effort at a rapid transition of
names out of the old code, and that we will then be able to
retire the old domain".  That model is more or less consistent
with the quotation above.   If the United Kingdom decided to
retire the .UK TLD in favor of .GB (something I wouldn't
expect), I would assume that similar rules would apply.

.SU is, by contrast, a member of the second category.  It
included, geographically and politically, a number of areas that
are now independent states and that are using their own TLDs.
That situation doesn't happen very often.  It is probably
infrequent enough that it would be hard to argue that there are
established precedents with a significant number of cases behind
them.  Automatic allocation of a new domain "to the same manager
as the existing top-level domain" may be neither feasible nor
appropriate, but, without it, it is difficult to think about how
to manage a transition without heavy-handed interference in the
local affairs of individual countries.  Remembering that
stability is almost always in the best interest of the
international internet community, it may be quite sensible to
let such domains linger for a long time while, e.g.,
discouraging new registrations in them.

regards,
     john

- --
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, 21 Oct 2002 09:29:10 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Future of .su

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 19:44:14 GMT, you wrote:

>So overall I think it is fairer not to close down a ccTLD just because the 
>country disappears.  Close it down for new registrations but allow current 
>registrants to stay there as legacy.

Agreed. No one should be forced to change its domain name if it can be
avoided. And besides that, legacy domains (and presumably, legacy
sites and services who would survive there) have some historical
value.
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- ----------------------> http://bertola.eu.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: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:21:36 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Future of .su

Does anyone have some kind of statistics on the number of active  
current registrations in .su?  About how many active registrations  
is this discussion?

Also, is .SU still open for registration, or is it in "lingering  
state"?

Just wondering,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/

On 2002-10-20 19:31:41 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>Envelope-to: [email-masked]
>Delivery-date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 19:47:45 +0200
>Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 19:31:41 +0200
>To: DNSO General Assembly <[email-masked]>
>From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [ga] FYI: Future of .su
>X-No-Spam: whitelist
>
>
>Dear all,
>
>It seems ICANN has to deal with the former Soviet Union's
>.su ccTLD -- it's no longer on the ISO 3166-1 list
>(http://shorl.com/bustypugyleju), but it's on the list of 
>"reserved code elements" since September 1992.
>(http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/iso3166-res.pdf - 632 kB)
>
> From a Wired News article :
>> (...)
>>When ICANN spokesman Herbert Vitzthum announced at the Moscow conference 
>>in late September that dot-su would be revoked, the situation got stickier.
>>
>>While it was reported in some Russian media outlets that it was an 
>>unofficial -- and therefore unbinding -- statement, Vizthum made it clear 
>>at the time that ICANN's position would not change.
>>
>>Later, however, Vitzthum denied making any official statement. And Mary 
>>Hewitt, ICANN's director of communications, wrote that the future of 
>>dot-su as a top-level domain is still under consideration.
>>
>>Those involved await a decision on dot-su's fate, which will likely 
>>be announced at the ICANN meeting in Shanghai at the end of October.
>
>("Russia May Say 'See Ya' to Dot-Su", 
>http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,55687,00.html)
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander
>
>--
>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, 21 Oct 2002 10:33:20 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Future of .su

On 2002-10-21 10:21:35 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>Also, is .SU still open for registration, or is it in "lingering  
>state"?

>Just wondering,

I should have read the complete Wired article before writing that 
e-mail.  Sorry...

- -- 
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:38:37 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Legal Briefing

Dear Louis, 

In your "Briefing Concerning Implementation of Policies by Registrars and 
Registry Operators" you wrote:

"Several of the registrars and registry operators have expressed alarm 
concerning the effect that these proposed requirements would have on their 
operations, and have indicated that they presently oppose some of the 
requirements being considered."

also,

"Many of the policy proposals in the interim reports of the Transfers and 
Whois Task Forces contemplate implementation by registrars and registry 
operators, yet many of those entities have expressed strong opposition to 
them. If these proposals are intended to be adopted as ICANN policies that 
will be binding on registrars or registry operators, it is necessary, for the 
reasons outlined here, to proceed in a manner that addresses the reasoned 
objections and concerns of these entities."

Having followed both constituency list and Task Force discussions on 
transfers and WHOIS over the course of the last year, I have not noted the 
"strong opposition" on these lists to proposed policies that you have cited, 
nor opposition on the part of "many of those entities".  Similarly, no 
expressions of "alarm" have been raised within the formal policy-development 
venues, and there have been no comments posted "on the record" through 
constituency representatives directly to these venues nor through the open 
conference call opportunities provided by the Task Forces that would indicate 
such strong present opposition and reasoned objections to some of the 
requirements being considered. 

To the same degree that registrars and registry operators seek protections 
that ensure that the environment under which they operate is predictable, so 
too do other stakeholders seek predictability in the policy development 
process.  So far the only thing that has been predictable is the fact that 
certain entities, rather than fully participating in the policy development 
process and making their sentiments known therein, seek to thwart the process 
by deliberately withholding their input (knowing that they can run to Staff 
at the last minute to bitch and moan and cut a deal).

I take issue with Staff countenancing this type of behavior.  We have an 
obligation as a Corporation to protect against abuse of the policy 
development process.  We are entitled to predictability.  Even the 
Reconsideration Committee will dismiss requests "where the affected party had 
an opportunity, but was unwilling, to participate in the public comment 
period relating to the contested action".  

I would ask you to specifically identify the entities that have flagged such 
concerns so that discussions may be held on the record and in full public 
view with these parties.

Best regards,
Danny Younger

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

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:05:59 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Legal Briefing

Danny:

With regard to the Whois Task Force recommendations I have had several
registrars raise significant reservations to me, and the constituency will
be addressing this matter during the upcoming Shanghai meeting. Listed below
is the Executive Summary of my "personal" comments which I hope to submit to
the Whois Task Force prior to leaving for Shanghai:

The Names Council Whois Task Force should be commended for the unenviable
task of attempting to tackle the global and complex issues surrounding the
access and accuracy of Whois data. As the former chair of ICANN’s Working
Group B, I know first hand, the frustration in attempting to tackle a
complex problem in which no simple solution exists, and the second guessing
that one must endure by nay Sayers. However, I would encourage the Task
Force to avoid a growing trend within the DNSO to manufacture consensus on
complex issues when in fact none exists. For the reasons set forth below,
most of the Whois Task Force’s interim recommendations should be rejected
because they are:

·	inconsistent with ICANN’s existing contractual obligations;
·	would violate ICANN’s mission and core values as set forth in both the
current and proposed by-laws;
·	conflict with existing technical and market realities; and
·	would threaten the stability of the Internet and cause undue harm and
damages to businesses and users.

Regarding the Transfer Task Force, the registrars voted in Stockholm 22 to 3
to advance an auto-ack policy. The three no votes where VeriSign,
Register.com and Namescout. Based upon the current discussion within the
Registrar Constituency the following registrars have also expressed concerns
about certain provisions within the current Transfer's Task Force document:
BulkRegister, Joker.com, 007 Names and GoDaddy.

It is my personal belief that the majority of the Constituency is still
supportive of Task Force Report. However, there are emerging a growing
number of dissenting voices as the final recommendations become clearer (see
email thread below). The Constituency will be taking a vote on the final
document when it is prepared, and the result of this vote will be made
public.

I hope this was helpful.

Best regards,

Mike

(EMAIL THREAD FROM REGISTRAR MAILING LIST OF TRANSFER TASK FORCE)

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:53 PM
To: [email-masked]; Elana Broitman; 'Michael D. Palage';
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of
gTLD Domain Names 28-31 October 200

> Maybe I've been reading a different mail list. I recall BulkRegister,
> joker.com, 007names, Namescout.com, and of course Go Daddy all voicing
what
> sounded like disagreement and/or concerns with various parts of the
> proposal. Perhaps I misunderstood their comments, but it looks like more
> than two registrars to me.

The concerns, comments and suggestions that Siegfried, yourself, Paul and
Rob have brought forward (amongst others) is called constructive criticism -
it has made the constituency position stronger.

This stands in stark contrast to the obstinate opposition of those
registrars who have refused to cooperate towards a compromise and will most
certainly reserve their "participation" for the public comment period. This
is disappointing, but expected.

But it doesn't make it contentious, and it certainly doesn't mean that the
constituency is being surprised by the ExComm as it relates to the Shanghai
agenda.

                     -rwr

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Ruiz" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>; "Elana Broitman"
<[email-masked]>; "'Michael D. Palage'" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 6:30 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of gTLD
Domain Names 28-31 October 200

> Ross,
>
> Maybe I've been reading a different mail list. I recall BulkRegister,
> joker.com, 007names, Namescout.com, and of course Go Daddy all voicing
what
> sounded like disagreement and/or concerns with various parts of the
> proposal. Perhaps I misunderstood their comments, but it looks like more
> than two registrars to me.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:38 PM
> To: Elana Broitman; 'Michael D. Palage'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of
> gTLD Domain Names 28-31 October 200
>
>
> >...it's always been a contentious issue, and continues to
> > have a number of diff. proposals and different registrar positions, it
is
> > worth a place on the agenda the day before you make a public
presentation.
>
>
> I would strongly beg to differ with your characterization. The
constituency
> position has been loudly opposed by two specific registrars since day one.
> Oddly, it is anything but a contentious issue. It has also been on the
> agenda of every single registrar meeting going back almost two years and
the
> constituency position hasn't changed much. While it does deserve a spot on
> the agenda for Shanghai, I doubt that we will be discussing anything new -
> we are dealing with well-trod ground.
>
> If anyone does want to get up to speed on what the TF has been up to for
the
> last 18 months, please feel free to give me a ring at the office.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>                      -rwr
>
>
>
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
> "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
> thought which they seldom use."
>  - Soren Kierkegaard
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elana Broitman" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:20 PM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of
gTLD
> Domain Names 28-31 October 200
>
>
> > Great to hear - since it's always been a contentious issue, and
continues
> to
> > have a number of diff. proposals and different registrar positions, it
is
> > worth a place on the agenda the day before you make a public
presentation.
> >
> > Thanks, Elana
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:14 PM
> > To: Elana Broitman; [email-masked]
> > Subject: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of gTLD
> > Domain Names 28-31 October 200
> >
> >
> > It has been a topic of conversation for over 18 months and will continue
> to
> > be so until it is resolved.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elana Broitman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:52 PM
> > To: 'Michael D. Palage'; [email-masked]
> > Subject: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of gTLD Domain Names
> > 28-31 October 200
> >
> >
> > Given that the constituency will be asked for a view on Tuesday at the
> ICANN
> > meeting, I hope that this issue is placed on the constituency's Monday
> > agenda.  Thanks, Elana
> >  <<ICANN  Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of gTLD Domain Names  28-31
> > October 2002.htm>>
>
>

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:53 PM
To: [email-masked]; Elana Broitman; 'Michael D. Palage';
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of
gTLD Domain Names 28-31 October 200

> Maybe I've been reading a different mail list. I recall BulkRegister,
> joker.com, 007names, Namescout.com, and of course Go Daddy all voicing
what
> sounded like disagreement and/or concerns with various parts of the
> proposal. Perhaps I misunderstood their comments, but it looks like more
> than two registrars to me.

The concerns, comments and suggestions that Siegfried, yourself, Paul and
Rob have brought forward (amongst others) is called constructive criticism -
it has made the constituency position stronger.

This stands in stark contrast to the obstinate opposition of those
registrars who have refused to cooperate towards a compromise and will most
certainly reserve their "participation" for the public comment period. This
is disappointing, but expected.

But it doesn't make it contentious, and it certainly doesn't mean that the
constituency is being surprised by the ExComm as it relates to the Shanghai
agenda.

                     -rwr

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Ruiz" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>; "Elana Broitman"
<[email-masked]>; "'Michael D. Palage'" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 6:30 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of gTLD
Domain Names 28-31 October 200

> Ross,
>
> Maybe I've been reading a different mail list. I recall BulkRegister,
> joker.com, 007names, Namescout.com, and of course Go Daddy all voicing
what
> sounded like disagreement and/or concerns with various parts of the
> proposal. Perhaps I misunderstood their comments, but it looks like more
> than two registrars to me.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:38 PM
> To: Elana Broitman; 'Michael D. Palage'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of
> gTLD Domain Names 28-31 October 200
>
>
> >...it's always been a contentious issue, and continues to
> > have a number of diff. proposals and different registrar positions, it
is
> > worth a place on the agenda the day before you make a public
presentation.
>
>
> I would strongly beg to differ with your characterization. The
constituency
> position has been loudly opposed by two specific registrars since day one.
> Oddly, it is anything but a contentious issue. It has also been on the
> agenda of every single registrar meeting going back almost two years and
the
> constituency position hasn't changed much. While it does deserve a spot on
> the agenda for Shanghai, I doubt that we will be discussing anything new -
> we are dealing with well-trod ground.
>
> If anyone does want to get up to speed on what the TF has been up to for
the
> last 18 months, please feel free to give me a ring at the office.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>                      -rwr
>
>
>
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
> "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
> thought which they seldom use."
>  - Soren Kierkegaard
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elana Broitman" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:20 PM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of
gTLD
> Domain Names 28-31 October 200
>
>
> > Great to hear - since it's always been a contentious issue, and
continues
> to
> > have a number of diff. proposals and different registrar positions, it
is
> > worth a place on the agenda the day before you make a public
presentation.
> >
> > Thanks, Elana
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:14 PM
> > To: Elana Broitman; [email-masked]
> > Subject: [registrars] RE: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of gTLD
> > Domain Names 28-31 October 200
> >
> >
> > It has been a topic of conversation for over 18 months and will continue
> to
> > be so until it is resolved.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elana Broitman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:52 PM
> > To: 'Michael D. Palage'; [email-masked]
> > Subject: ICANN Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of gTLD Domain Names
> > 28-31 October 200
> >
> >
> > Given that the constituency will be asked for a view on Tuesday at the
> ICANN
> > meeting, I hope that this issue is placed on the constituency's Monday
> > agenda.  Thanks, Elana
> >  <<ICANN  Shanghai Meeting Topic Transfers of gTLD Domain Names  28-31
> > October 2002.htm>>
>
>

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:39 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Legal Briefing

Dear Louis,

In your "Briefing Concerning Implementation of Policies by Registrars and
Registry Operators" you wrote:

"Several of the registrars and registry operators have expressed alarm
concerning the effect that these proposed requirements would have on their
operations, and have indicated that they presently oppose some of the
requirements being considered."

also,

"Many of the policy proposals in the interim reports of the Transfers and
Whois Task Forces contemplate implementation by registrars and registry
operators, yet many of those entities have expressed strong opposition to
them. If these proposals are intended to be adopted as ICANN policies that
will be binding on registrars or registry operators, it is necessary, for
the
reasons outlined here, to proceed in a manner that addresses the reasoned
objections and concerns of these entities."

Having followed both constituency list and Task Force discussions on
transfers and WHOIS over the course of the last year, I have not noted the
"strong opposition" on these lists to proposed policies that you have cited,
nor opposition on the part of "many of those entities".  Similarly, no
expressions of "alarm" have been raised within the formal policy-development
venues, and there have been no comments posted "on the record" through
constituency representatives directly to these venues nor through the open
conference call opportunities provided by the Task Forces that would
indicate
such strong present opposition and reasoned objections to some of the
requirements being considered.

To the same degree that registrars and registry operators seek protections
that ensure that the environment under which they operate is predictable, so
too do other stakeholders seek predictability in the policy development
process.  So far the only thing that has been predictable is the fact that
certain entities, rather than fully participating in the policy development
process and making their sentiments known therein, seek to thwart the
process
by deliberately withholding their input (knowing that they can run to Staff
at the last minute to bitch and moan and cut a deal).

I take issue with Staff countenancing this type of behavior.  We have an
obligation as a Corporation to protect against abuse of the policy
development process.  We are entitled to predictability.  Even the
Reconsideration Committee will dismiss requests "where the affected party
had
an opportunity, but was unwilling, to participate in the public comment
period relating to the contested action".

I would ask you to specifically identify the entities that have flagged such
concerns so that discussions may be held on the record and in full public
view with these parties.

Best regards,
Danny Younger

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1480
*************************