Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1566
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, January 24 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1566

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:00:42 -0800
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Major NSI screw-up: Mass disclosure of registrant (contact?) e-mail addresses.

Yes - people are reporting the same from all over ISP and techie lists
this morning
and are concerned with Privacy Policies and Netsol mishandling their
contact info

Genie Livingstone

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]> wrote on Thursday,
January 23, 2003 7:10 AM
Subject: [ga] Major NSI screw-up: Mass disclosure of registrant
(contact?) e-mail addresses.

> I just got a 1.7MB e-mail message from Network Solutions
> (registrar). That message (Subject: .ORG Domain Name Update)
> contained about 86,000 e-mail addresses, from R over Z to _, one
> address per line.
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:55:09 -0500
From: "William Stacey [MVP]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Planning for 2007 -- ICANN negotiations over .com wholesale pricing

Hello, new to the group so please be kind :-)  I agree with this George.  From an outsiders and users perspective, there needs to be
some reform IMO.  I'm not so sure about Tucows, but I think an IT services company may be better for many reasons.  I am also not so
sure that the registry should be allowed to also be a registrar as there would seem to be some conflict of interest.  I used to work
for EDS, so I think someone like that would be a great place to host the registry (experience with massive systems, and running and
tracking deliverables.  Also, they may not be looking so much at the money but the opportunity to have presence in the area)   Here
are some thoughts on registry deliverables for the customer (i.e. ultimately the registrant) :

- - Near real time domain name transfers - obviously with email approval (or email redirected to a web page) of the current admin.  I
have been working on a "simple" transfer for over 10 days now (this is Internet time?)  There is 2 registrants and 2 registrars
involved and no transaction system or real tracking measurements.  This, IMO, could be made much better by moving this up to the
registry.  Registry will host the site that originates transfers and performance data, etc.  Original point of entry is the
registry.  Registry sends transfer request to the current registrant for approval.  The registrant can send back email approval or
follow a link to approve transfer with a button.  Done.  Registry can make the change in real time, and let propagation work.  New
Registrant can have piece of mind that it is done and move on to other things.  Same process will work whether your transferring
between registrars (or not), or between registrants (or not).  Registry will also handle cases where there is legal cause for
transfer but current registrant is not conforming or dead, etc.

- - Registry should also have public web display of all performance data and criteria.

- - Registry should also have public exported APIs for automation (i.e. .NET, java, what ever) with registrars and end users.

- - Registry will also publicly track and post each registrar's statistics; such as domain names registered and monthly statistics,
etc.  Maybe even a central place to track "stars" on each registry.

- - Registry will also host a community of ngs, web pages, informational material, etc.  And implement a help desk tracking system to
track emails from registrar's or registrants so things don't get "lost" in the cracks.  Of course, this management data will be
posted as well.

- - Best place for accurate whois information.  Which should also be exported via RPC or .NET, etc.  Can also format this data better
for display on forms and search methods,etc.  More of a sql backend with whois being just one type of client or data consumer.

Can think of more, but that is the general idea.  Having people like IBM and EDS compete on it will raise the quality of services
and service level and drive down the cost.  I am not convinced that smaller companies could bring the economies of scale to the
table needed pull this off (maybe.)  People like IBM and EDS may even operate it at a loss for the "talking points" factor or
industry recognition - which ultimately can turn into profit for them.

Just some thoughts I had as I was reading your mail George.  Thank you :-)

- --William Stacey

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 9:38 AM
Subject: [ga] Planning for 2007 -- ICANN negotiations over .com wholesale pricing

Hello,

Verisign has a stranglehold over the .com registry until 2007. However,
at some point, probably sooner than we expect, negotiations will take
place to renew that contract. Given how we've seen how ICANN has
bungled previous negotiations, I think it's important that consensus
principles be put in place by the community well in advance (i.e. we
should start now, and pass any necessary resolutions/votes), so that
the Board has no doubt what is acceptable and what is not in future
negotiations, to force it to comply with certain standards.

I believe Tucows/OpenSRS has already stated that they'd be happy to
take over the registry at a wholesale price of $2/name-year, which is
much lower than the current $6/name-year realized by Verisign. Other
parties, if offered the opportunity, might be able to do similar or
better pricing. Lower wholesale pricing of registrations would provide
huge consumer benefits, as the savings by registrars are passed on to
consumers. Registrars themselves would probably also benefit, due to
increased volumes from the new lower prices they can offer.

Thus, maximization of competition for the contract over operation of
the .com registry, in order to provide consumer benefits, should be one
of the cornerstone principles, in my view. Is there a consensus for
this?

How can this be accomplished? I think one obvious way is to prepare, at
an early stage (years in advance), performance and technical standards
for the .com registry (these might already be in place, i.e. for
Verisign. Thus, companies who are interested in operating the .com
registry can begin the process now of achieving or beating those
standards.

I think another important thing to do would be to widely promote those
standards, and invite companies that are interested in competing with
Verisign for the .com registry to begin a dialogue with ICANN, via a
special public discussion list, or other public means (so as not to
advantage any one party, and to enhance transparency) early. I'm sure
many of us can identify parties who'd be interested in operation of the
registry (e.g. possibly other registry operators, Oracle, IBM, Dun &
Bradstreet, Sun, Yahoo, Amazon.com, AOL, EDS, etc.) Perhaps even
consortiums of companies would emerge to create best-of-breed
solutions, if they had early enough notice of the opportunity.

This is a starting point....hopefully some creative brainstorming will
lead us to a document that can be voted upon at some point, to give the
Board proper direction. Otherwise, we're apt to see the Board presented
with a 'done deal' one day, negotiated behind closed-doors, which might
not be in the community's best interests.

Putting things to a 'vote' in the Names Council/GNSO eventually, I
think we might even get unanimity over these principles (the only
constituency that might be against competition in the .com registry is
the gTLD constituency, but I don't think Verisign has a majority of the
votes there; even then, they'd likely have to abstain).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.Kirikos.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

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:55:25 -0500
From: "William Stacey [MVP]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Planning for 2007 -- ICANN negotiations over .com wholesale pricing

Hello, new to the group so please be kind :-)  I agree with this George.  From an outsiders and users perspective, there needs to be
some reform IMO.  I'm not so sure about Tucows, but I think an IT services company may be better for many reasons.  I am also not so
sure that the registry should be allowed to also be a registrar as there would seem to be some conflict of interest.  I used to work
for EDS, so I think someone like that would be a great place to host the registry (experience with massive systems, and running and
tracking deliverables.  Also, they may not be looking so much at the money but the opportunity to have presence in the area)   Here
are some thoughts on registry deliverables for the customer (i.e. ultimately the registrant) :

- - Near real time domain name transfers - obviously with email approval (or email redirected to a web page) of the current admin.  I
have been working on a "simple" transfer for over 10 days now (this is Internet time?)  There is 2 registrants and 2 registrars
involved and no transaction system or real tracking measurements.  This, IMO, could be made much better by moving this up to the
registry.  Registry will host the site that originates transfers and performance data, etc.  Original point of entry is the
registry.  Registry sends transfer request to the current registrant for approval.  The registrant can send back email approval or
follow a link to approve transfer with a button.  Done.  Registry can make the change in real time, and let propagation work.  New
Registrant can have piece of mind that it is done and move on to other things.  Same process will work whether your transferring
between registrars (or not), or between registrants (or not).  Registry will also handle cases where there is legal cause for
transfer but current registrant is not conforming or dead, etc.

- - Registry should also have public web display of all performance data and criteria.

- - Registry should also have public exported APIs for automation (i.e. .NET, java, what ever) with registrars and end users.

- - Registry will also publicly track and post each registrar's statistics; such as domain names registered and monthly statistics,
etc.  Maybe even a central place to track "stars" on each registry.

- - Registry will also host a community of ngs, web pages, informational material, etc.  And implement a help desk tracking system to
track emails from registrar's or registrants so things don't get "lost" in the cracks.  Of course, this management data will be
posted as well.

- - Best place for accurate whois information.  Which should also be exported via RPC or .NET, etc.  Can also format this data better
for display on forms and search methods,etc.  More of a sql backend with whois being just one type of client or data consumer.

Can think of more, but that is the general idea.  Having people like IBM and EDS compete on it will raise the quality of services
and service level and drive down the cost.  I am not convinced that smaller companies could bring the economies of scale to the
table needed pull this off (maybe.)  People like IBM and EDS may even operate it at a loss for the "talking points" factor or
industry recognition - which ultimately can turn into profit for them.

Just some thoughts I had as I was reading your mail George.  Thank you :-)

- --William Stacey

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 9:38 AM
Subject: [ga] Planning for 2007 -- ICANN negotiations over .com wholesale pricing

Hello,

Verisign has a stranglehold over the .com registry until 2007. However,
at some point, probably sooner than we expect, negotiations will take
place to renew that contract. Given how we've seen how ICANN has
bungled previous negotiations, I think it's important that consensus
principles be put in place by the community well in advance (i.e. we
should start now, and pass any necessary resolutions/votes), so that
the Board has no doubt what is acceptable and what is not in future
negotiations, to force it to comply with certain standards.

I believe Tucows/OpenSRS has already stated that they'd be happy to
take over the registry at a wholesale price of $2/name-year, which is
much lower than the current $6/name-year realized by Verisign. Other
parties, if offered the opportunity, might be able to do similar or
better pricing. Lower wholesale pricing of registrations would provide
huge consumer benefits, as the savings by registrars are passed on to
consumers. Registrars themselves would probably also benefit, due to
increased volumes from the new lower prices they can offer.

Thus, maximization of competition for the contract over operation of
the .com registry, in order to provide consumer benefits, should be one
of the cornerstone principles, in my view. Is there a consensus for
this?

How can this be accomplished? I think one obvious way is to prepare, at
an early stage (years in advance), performance and technical standards
for the .com registry (these might already be in place, i.e. for
Verisign. Thus, companies who are interested in operating the .com
registry can begin the process now of achieving or beating those
standards.

I think another important thing to do would be to widely promote those
standards, and invite companies that are interested in competing with
Verisign for the .com registry to begin a dialogue with ICANN, via a
special public discussion list, or other public means (so as not to
advantage any one party, and to enhance transparency) early. I'm sure
many of us can identify parties who'd be interested in operation of the
registry (e.g. possibly other registry operators, Oracle, IBM, Dun &
Bradstreet, Sun, Yahoo, Amazon.com, AOL, EDS, etc.) Perhaps even
consortiums of companies would emerge to create best-of-breed
solutions, if they had early enough notice of the opportunity.

This is a starting point....hopefully some creative brainstorming will
lead us to a document that can be voted upon at some point, to give the
Board proper direction. Otherwise, we're apt to see the Board presented
with a 'done deal' one day, negotiated behind closed-doors, which might
not be in the community's best interests.

Putting things to a 'vote' in the Names Council/GNSO eventually, I
think we might even get unanimity over these principles (the only
constituency that might be against competition in the .com registry is
the gTLD constituency, but I don't think Verisign has a majority of the
votes there; even then, they'd likely have to abstain).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.Kirikos.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

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:26:35 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Mansfield Spam on a usenet newsgroup? - Parish the thought..??

>
> 5. The footnote below is just plain wrong.  Dr.
> Berryhill appears to confuse enforcement of an
> "arbitration" award in a US Court as a formal
> arbitration with the definition of "arbitration."  Any
> binding decision making process in which both sides
> make a presentation and a third party renders a
> decision based on principles of equity or law is an
> arbitration.

Someone had better bring this to the attention of the folks who wrote the
UDRP, as they seem to make a distinction between an administrative proceeding
under the UDRP and an arbitration in UDRP Paragraph 8. (and, of course, the
word "binding" is right out in accordance with Rule 4)  No court has applied
a standard of review less than _de novo_ to a UDRP decision, because a
"challenge" to a UDRP decision is not really a challenge to the UDRP
decision, but an independent determination under the Lanham Act (see, e.g.
the 1st Circuit's analysis of the corinthians.com case, or the Ontario
Court's determination that the canadian.biz decision was right screwy).  The
standard of review applied to a binding arbitration is much different than
the manner that any court has treated a UDRP decision, which by its own terms
is not binding on the parties.  In point of fact, a UDRP decision is not
directed at the parties at all - it is directed to the registrar, since the
registrar is the ONLY party who is ordered by a UDRP panel to do, or refrain
from doing, anything at all.

But, if there is an explanation for the distinction between condition (a) and
condition (b) in Paragraph 8, I'm all ears:

- ---------
8. Transfers During a Dispute.

a. Transfers of a Domain Name to a New Holder. You may not transfer your
domain name registration to another holder (i) during a pending
administrative proceeding brought pursuant to Paragraph 4 or for a period of
fifteen (15) business days (as observed in the location of our principal
place of business) after such proceeding is concluded; or (ii) during a
pending court proceeding or arbitration commenced regarding your domain name
unless the party to whom the domain name registration is being transferred
agrees, in writing, to be bound by the decision of the court or arbitrator.
- ----------

Now, under Par. 8 of the UDRP, is a UDRP proceeding itself an arbitration?
If it is, then it sure makes one hash of that paragraph.  Why use two
different words for the same thing?

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:33:16 -0500
From: "William Stacey [MVP]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Planning for 2007 -- ICANN negotiations over .com wholesale pricing

Thanks Ray.  I would agree.  My intention was not to emphasize the cost factor but to point out that a larger player could benefit
*us (the consumer) by leveraging their economies of scale in not only the passed on cost, but the added features and value add they
could bring to the table.  They are big boys and can figure out what they need to charge in a bid war.  And no, they do not need
subsidizing and I did not mean to suggest that.  I guess I meant that you can gain leverage (both features and cost) from getting
the big players bidding and wanting to "win".

Moving past the cost issue, I think the real value (and need) is to have some of the new services, service levels, and features I
listed.  That IMO should be the focus.  I guess the conversation should be what are the new minimum requirements (i.e. service
levels, features, etc.) that any potential registry would be required to implement and let the players bid on those.

William Stacey

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ray Fassett" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Planning for 2007 -- ICANN negotiations over .com wholesale pricing

"People like IBM and EDS may even operate it at a loss for the "talking
points" factor or industry recognition - which ultimately can turn into
profit for them."

I am not looking to flame suggestions but the registry space is for-
profit.  If the community wants to revert the regsitry role back to that of
non-profit, that's one thing.  It's a decision.   But to masquerade as a
non-profit space for whatever reasons of "goodwill" is to me part of the
problem we have today.  Competition is the crosscheck for the market place
in a for-profit arena.  This has been artificially stunted, not given its
proper chance.  Supporting costs of operations from profits derived by way
of market share from sources totally unrelated is an unstable approach at
best.  Sooner or later Peter wants his money regardless of how many zero's
are on the top line.  This is not the way to properly "subsidize" the space
if indeed it is determined it should be subsidized again.  If the registry
role should be subsidized again, then the reasons for this needs to be
articulated.

Ray

- -- 

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:04:47 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Major NSI screw-up: Mass disclosure of registrant (contact?) e-mail addresses.

Thomas and all Former DNSO GA members,

  I got one of these from what I suspect was a bogus ICANN E-Mail
address three days age.  Seems like perhaps Verisign and ICANN
have been cracked recently.  The E-Mail I received contained
E-Mail address for .ORG domains from M thru Z it appears
as was over 1.8Mb in length...  BUt that pattern was similar.

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> I just got a 1.7MB e-mail message from Network Solutions
> (registrar). That message (Subject: .ORG Domain Name Update)
> contained about 86,000 e-mail addresses, from R over Z to _, one
> address per line.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/
> --
> 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 LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:20:22 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NSI spam

I keep receiving UCE from NSI/Verisign.  This one today:

If you haven't done business with Network Solutions lately, 
you may not know about all the changes we've made to make 
working with us easier.

...

Since I have not been an NSI customer for years, why are they sending me 
spam?  Think it helps their image?

Leah

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 22:41:19 -0500
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Major NSI screw-up: Mass disclosure of registrant (contact?)  e-mail addresses.

Thomas et al.,

That is quite disturbing.  Now, were all the listed email addresses
solely from current customers of NetSol registrar?  Is my email address
in there?  I'm no longer one of their customers, I transferred our
domains at the first available opportunity.  It will be interesting to
find out.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> I just got a 1.7MB e-mail message from Network Solutions
> (registrar). That message (Subject: .ORG Domain Name Update)
> contained about 86,000 e-mail addresses, from R over Z to _, one
> address per line.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 23:21:58 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Major NSI screw-up: Mass disclosure of registrant (contact?)  e-mail addresses.

Well, let's put it this way...  I still get spammed by them, so it is 
quite feasible that both our email addresses were furnished to the 
unsuspecting recipient.  

Leah

On 23 Jan 2003 at 22:41, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Thomas et al.,
> 
> That is quite disturbing.  Now, were all the listed email addresses
> solely from current customers of NetSol registrar?  Is my email address in
> there?  I'm no longer one of their customers, I transferred our domains at
> the first available opportunity.  It will be interesting to find out.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 
> Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
> > I just got a 1.7MB e-mail message from Network Solutions
> > (registrar). That message (Subject: .ORG Domain Name Update)
> > contained about 86,000 e-mail addresses, from R over Z to _, one
> > address per line.
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/ --
> > 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: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 23:23:42 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Major NSI screw-up: Mass disclosure of registrant (contact?)  e-mail addresses.

FYI, I sent a copy of the spam I received from NSI to the FTC with an 
explanation that I have not had a business relationship with them for two 
years and that I have not "opted-in" for their spam.  Perhaps if enough 
people did this, it could be stopped.

Leah

On 23 Jan 2003 at 22:41, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Thomas et al.,
> 
> That is quite disturbing.  Now, were all the listed email addresses
> solely from current customers of NetSol registrar?  Is my email address in
> there?  I'm no longer one of their customers, I transferred our domains at
> the first available opportunity.  It will be interesting to find out.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 
> Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
> > I just got a 1.7MB e-mail message from Network Solutions
> > (registrar). That message (Subject: .ORG Domain Name Update)
> > contained about 86,000 e-mail addresses, from R over Z to _, one
> > address per line.
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/ --
> > 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: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 23:44:41 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Major NSI screw-up: Mass disclosure of registrant (contact?)  e-mail addresses.

Sotiris and all former DNSO GA members,

  I did a search on the list I received and didn't see anything or E-Mail
address that I thought could be yours Sotiris...

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Thomas et al.,
>
> That is quite disturbing.  Now, were all the listed email addresses
> solely from current customers of NetSol registrar?  Is my email address
> in there?  I'm no longer one of their customers, I transferred our
> domains at the first available opportunity.  It will be interesting to
> find out.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > I just got a 1.7MB e-mail message from Network Solutions
> > (registrar). That message (Subject: .ORG Domain Name Update)
> > contained about 86,000 e-mail addresses, from R over Z to _, one
> > address per line.
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/
> > --
> > 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:18:44 -0800 (PST)
From: "Andrew S. Mansfield" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Mansfield Spam on a usenet newsgroup? - Parish the thought..??

John:

I stick by the simple, non-US law-based definitino of
arbitration.

(from Cambridge International Dictionary of English)

arbitrate
verb 
to make a judgment in (an argument), usually because
asked to do so by those involved 

arbitration
noun [U] 
to have the disagreement solved by an outside person
who has been chosen by both sides

arbitrator
noun [C] 
An arbitrator is a person whose official role is to
make a decision between two people or groups who do
not agree. 

The real-world effects of a UDRP decision in the case
of transfer are dramatic.  UDRP participants manifest
consent when registering a domain name and by not
choosing to go to national courts.

Andrew Mansfield
 
- --- "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D."
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > 5. The footnote below is just plain wrong.  Dr.
> > Berryhill appears to confuse enforcement of an
> > "arbitration" award in a US Court as a formal
> > arbitration with the definition of "arbitration." 
> Any
> > binding decision making process in which both
> sides
> > make a presentation and a third party renders a
> > decision based on principles of equity or law is
> an
> > arbitration.
> 
> Someone had better bring this to the attention of
> the folks who wrote the
> UDRP, as they seem to make a distinction between an
> administrative proceeding
> under the UDRP and an arbitration in UDRP Paragraph
> 8. (and, of course, the
> word "binding" is right out in accordance with Rule
> 4)  No court has applied
> a standard of review less than _de novo_ to a UDRP
> decision, because a
> "challenge" to a UDRP decision is not really a
> challenge to the UDRP
> decision, but an independent determination under the
> Lanham Act (see, e.g.
> the 1st Circuit's analysis of the corinthians.com
> case, or the Ontario
> Court's determination that the canadian.biz decision
> was right screwy).  The
> standard of review applied to a binding arbitration
> is much different than
> the manner that any court has treated a UDRP
> decision, which by its own terms
> is not binding on the parties.  In point of fact, a
> UDRP decision is not
> directed at the parties at all - it is directed to
> the registrar, since the
> registrar is the ONLY party who is ordered by a UDRP
> panel to do, or refrain
> from doing, anything at all.
> 
> But, if there is an explanation for the distinction
> between condition (a) and
> condition (b) in Paragraph 8, I'm all ears:
> 
> ---------
> 8. Transfers During a Dispute.
> 
> a. Transfers of a Domain Name to a New Holder. You
> may not transfer your
> domain name registration to another holder (i)
> during a pending
> administrative proceeding brought pursuant to
> Paragraph 4 or for a period of
> fifteen (15) business days (as observed in the
> location of our principal
> place of business) after such proceeding is
> concluded; or (ii) during a
> pending court proceeding or arbitration commenced
> regarding your domain name
> unless the party to whom the domain name
> registration is being transferred
> agrees, in writing, to be bound by the decision of
> the court or arbitrator.
> ----------
> 
> Now, under Par. 8 of the UDRP, is a UDRP proceeding
> itself an arbitration?
> If it is, then it sure makes one hash of that
> paragraph.  Why use two
> different words for the same thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

=====
Andrew S. Mansfield
[email-masked]

- --
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, 24 Jan 2003 11:19:24 -0500
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: NSI & domain name transfers by bankrupt entities

Recently, I went through a different but ultimately similar scenario with a client who'd had their domain registered by a third party that had put it in their own
name.  The domain expired and my client had not been informed of pending expiration, so my client's web site was down for a week plus.  The domain was renewed but
it took a while for the OnHold Status to be removed and the nameserver information had to be re-entered by the registrant of the domain i.e. not y client but the
party who had acted on his behalf (who was difficult to find, I may add).  My cient's business suffered as a result because they largely rely on the Web for their
marketing purposes.

These kinds of situations are not so uncommon and will likely become even more numerous as time goes on and more people join the Web.  I am wondering if some kind
of Department needs to be established within ICANN to facilitate dealing with such problems.  The reason I say within ICANN is that the registrars cannot very well
b relied upon to provide such a service as they are for-profit organizations.  I believe ICANN is obliged to step into this domain name administration grey zone and
somehow set up some kind of framework wherein such issues may be resolved.

Are you a member of the DNSO General Assembly Mailing List?  Such things are regularly aired there, and often there are helpful recommendations. See:
http://www.dnso.org/mailinglists.html for more details.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Chris Sloan wrote:

> I have a client who is attempting to buy several domain names that are
> registered to a bankrupt entity.  All are registered with Network
> Solutions.  As far as we know, the trustee does not have access to the
> login and password to manage the account.  It also appears that NSI has
> automated the transfer process - i.e. there is no written transfer
> authorization that I can find on their site.  Because, as I'm sure you
> can guess, the administrative contact is a bad email address, we are
> having a difficult time figuring out how to complete the transfer, and
> NSI has been less than helpful.
>
> Anyone out there seen this situation before?  I'm sure we could have
> the judge issue an order to NSI, but it seems there must be an easier
> way to solve this problem.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Chris Sloan
> Boult, Cummings, Conners & Berry, PLC
> 414 Union Street, Suite 1600
> Nashville, TN 37219
> phone: (615) 252-2392
> fax: (615) 252-6392
> [email-masked]
> www.boultcummings.com
>
> ***************************************************************************
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail and any attachments
> are confidential and may also be privileged.  If you are not the
> named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and
> delete the contents of this message without disclosing the
> contents to anyone, using them for any purpose, or storing or
> copying the information on any medium.
> ***************************************************************************
>
> -----
> This e-mail message was sent to you as a subscriber of the GigaLaw.com Discussion List. For further information, go to http://www.GigaLaw.com/discuss/index.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 #1566
*************************