Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1567
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, January 25 2003         Volume 01 : Number 1567

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:53:19 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: FC: Denver city councilman buys up his rivals' .com names

Declan and all,

  Thank you for pointing this terrible situation out again.  It is obvious
that the situation is politically overheated ...
I found http://www.enronownsthegop.com/news/cease.htm
to be very interesting...

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> ---
>
> Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 23:26:18 -0700
> To: "Declan McCullagh"<[email-masked]>
> From: Charlie Oriez <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Lanham Act and political campaigns
> Cc: [email-masked]
>
> Declan -
>
> Back in Feb, 2002, you covered a fight in Texas where the Texas Dems
> registered a parody site criticizing the ties between the Texas Republican
> Party and Enron, and the attempt of the Republicans to get the site taken
> down or modified on Lanham act grounds.  The Dems ultimately won since the
> site was fairly obviously protected parody.
>
> http://www.politechbot.com/p-03144.html
>
> A candidate in Colorado has taken a different tact, registering likely
> domain names of his opponents with the sole intent of preventing their
> use.  He's stated his intention to keep the sites blank and merely deny
> there use to the opponents whose names are in the domain names.
>
> The Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 (signed by Clinton
> in November of that year) expanded the Lanham Act to cover bad faith
> registrations of domain names so as to intentionally deny their use to
> trademark owners or owners of personal names.
>
> Story here:
> http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1650692,00.html
>
> The wiggle room is the language of the act that says that the squatter has
> to intend to profit from the act.  My tendency is to interpret that as the
> cybersquatter is intending to sell back the domain to the rightful
> owners.  However, since the person who wins this election gets paid for the
> position at risk, at least one political operative raised the possibility
> that the post election payments might be sufficient to trigger Lanham.
>
> Penalties are $100,000 per violation.
>
>  From the political perspective, if I were an opponent, I would spend the
> spring accusing the candidate of the Lanham Act violations and hammering on
> this action as symptomatic of his lack of ethics.  The candidates are
> running for City Auditor, and the voters at least would want the person
> holding this office to be purer than Ceaser's wife.
>
> News reporter: sanchezr@rockymountain news.com or (303) 892-2231
>
> I've been unable to reach any of the candidates though I've taken the
> liberty of cc'ing the admin contact for Debbie Ortega, one of the victims
> of the Lanham violations, on this note.
>
> I also alerted the reporter to my perceptions of the Lanham act's involvement.
>
> Charles Oriez   [email-masked]
> 39  34' 34.4"N / 105 00' 06.3"W
> **
> The internet views censorship as damage and routes around it
>     -- attributed to John Gilmore
> Opt out of QWEST sharing marketing data on you http://www.qwest.com/cpni/
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
> Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:53:21 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Mansfield Spam on a usenet newsgroup? - Parish the thought..??

On 23 Jan 2003 at 21:18, Andrew S. Mansfield wrote:

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

You can do that, of course, but in the UDRP rules it is still considered 
to be an "administrative procedure" and forced upon so-called 
participants.  Using an academinc definition doesn't change the fact or 
the rules.  Courts are under no obligation to refer to or use the 
decisions made by UDRP panelists.  Many do not consider them at all.

> 
> (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.

In a contract of adhesion, yes.  Hopefully that will change. One cannot, 
at this time, register a domain under the ICANN system without agreeing to 
UDRP, so this is forced or consent under duress.  It is certainly not 
voluntary if one wishes to have an internet presence in the USG root.

> 
> 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
> 
> 

- --
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 14:06:49 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Mansfield Spam on a usenet newsgroup? - Parish the thought..??

At 2:53 PM -0500 1/24/03, L. Gallegos wrote:
>You can do that, of course, but in the UDRP rules it is still considered
>to be an "administrative procedure" and forced upon so-called
>participants.

I've always thought of them as arbiters, many of them practicing in an
arbitrary fashion.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:44:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] inclusive namespace survey

icann is dead - long live the inclusive namespace.

http://www.dot-god.com/surveys/ins/survey.html

and on that note i'm taking a survey.  if your a member help out.  if your
friendly - feel free to participate too.

Cheers
Joe Baptista

- --
Planet Communications & Computing Facility
a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited

- --
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 18:47:00 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Mansfield Spam on a usenet newsgroup? - Parish the thought..??

Leah, John, Andrew and all former DNSO GA members,

  I will chime in here on a few points of interesting that I started this
thread...
( More below)

L. Gallegos wrote:

> On 23 Jan 2003 at 21:18, Andrew S. Mansfield wrote:
>
> > John:
> >
> > I stick by the simple, non-US law-based definitino of
> > arbitration.
>
> You can do that, of course, but in the UDRP rules it is still considered
> to be an "administrative procedure" and forced upon so-called
> participants.  Using an academinc definition doesn't change the fact or
> the rules.  Courts are under no obligation to refer to or use the
> decisions made by UDRP panelists.  Many do not consider them at all.

  Good point here Leah.  This is what I tried to directly point out to
Andrew from the already known documentation on Wipo's own web site
under a search on Andrews name in PCT documents.  However it should
be noted that a number of US jurisdictions do recognize and give
consideration to the non-us based definition on arbitration.  But most
still don't, and given the current political atmosphere, won't in the future.

>
>
> >
> > (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.
>
> In a contract of adhesion, yes.  Hopefully that will change. One cannot,
> at this time, register a domain under the ICANN system without agreeing to
> UDRP, so this is forced or consent under duress.  It is certainly not
> voluntary if one wishes to have an internet presence in the USG root.

  Also another good point here Leah.  And one argument that has been
used in court recently as you likely know.  To me e this type of poor
contractual formulation has led and still creates, a worse problem that
we started out with and creates also another area of legal morass
by which some segments of the legal community such as Andrew
seem to be advertising for, to sell his services to.  That's not
good policy or good for business IMHO.

>
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>

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: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 00:59:37 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Why is it impossible to change .com.cn nameservers?

I have been trying for over a month to change my nameservers for
www.scotland.com.cn

Namescout tell me that the registry won't do this at the moment.

This is inconvenient and delays my business plan.

Can anyone from Neustar tell me why this lock on nameservers should occur?

Surely registries exist to make the DNS work, not to lock it up?

Richard Henderson

- --
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 20:58:48 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Why is it impossible to change .com.cn nameservers?

Richard and all former DNSO GA members,

  It seems that CNNIC has locked out access Nuestars access to
their servers for the moment.  After doing a brief debacle regarding
registration practice from Nuestar.  An inquiry to
mailto:[email-masked]
might be a good step for you to consider at this point...

  I would strongly personally suggest discontinue using Nuestar
as your registrar of choice for registrations in the .CN name space.

Richard Henderson wrote:

> I have been trying for over a month to change my nameservers for
> www.scotland.com.cn
>
> Namescout tell me that the registry won't do this at the moment.
>
> This is inconvenient and delays my business plan.
>
> Can anyone from Neustar tell me why this lock on nameservers should occur?
>
> Surely registries exist to make the DNS work, not to lock it up?
>
> Richard Henderson
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 22:28:58 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Mansfield Spam on a usenet newsgroup? - Parish the thought..??

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

Oh, I understand that.

In general the UDRP itself and the dispute resolution providers try to avoid
the word because of the legal baggage it may carry elsewhere.  Hence, the
preferred usage is to call it an "administrative proceeding" and to call the
people who decide them "panelists" instead of calling it an "arbitration"
done by "arbitrators".

The reason some people are sensitive to the use of the word "arbitration" in
connection with the UDRP is:

> UDRP participants manifest
> consent when registering a domain name and by not
> choosing to go to national courts.

A growing number of UDRP participants are indeed choosing to go to national
courts, and to US courts in particular.  Just off the top of my head, I can
think of traditions.com, weber-grills.com, corinthians.com, strick.com, and
several others listed at udrplaw.net.

The issue of whether the UDRP was "binding" took up all of about ten seconds
in the strick.com case:

18            MR. OPPEDAHL:  -- the UDRP proceeding with ICAN
19   (ph.) that was decided in our client's favor.
20            Just to touch on a few points --
21            THE COURT:  Apparently that's not binding.
22            MR. OPPEDAHL:  Oh, no, I don't mean to suggest it's
23   binding, but it certainly gave our client some renewed
24   feeling that maybe he wasn't a criminal, that they thought he
25   was -- that it was okay for him to own the domain name.
http://www.strick.com/june22.txt

Judge Kauffman had apparently done his homework prior to the hearing, but the
word "arbitration", if loosely applied to administrative proceedings under
the UDRP, may give another less studious judge a false impression.

- --
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, 25 Jan 2003 05:32:12 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Why is it impossible to change .com.cn nameservers?

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, at 00:59 [=GMT-0000], Richard Henderson wrote:

> I have been trying for over a month to change my nameservers for
> www.scotland.com.cn

Are you sure Scotland is not on some ISO list of country names you cannot
register, as with .info? I think Jersey and Guernsey are, so Scotland
might be too.

> This is inconvenient and delays my business plan.

But Scotland doesn't belong to you, does it? So why should you have it?
It belongs to the Crown. Be careful, since the Queen already filed a WIPO
complaint for one of her dominions. And that was the furthest away from
her throne. She may fight harder this time since Scotland is so close, and
brings in more tax.

Who has northernireland.com.cn?

> Surely registries exist to make the DNS work, not to lock it up?

I will put the last line in my 'Quotes' file!

- --
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, 25 Jan 2003 00:18:20 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Why is it impossible to change .com.cn nameservers?

At 5:32 AM +0100 1/25/03, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>But Scotland doesn't belong to you, does it? So why should you have it?
>It belongs to the Crown. Be careful, since the Queen already filed a WIPO
>complaint for one of her dominions. And that was the furthest away from
>her throne. She may fight harder this time since Scotland is so close, and
>brings in more tax.

So the Monarchy should have control of a domain in China's part of the name
space?

That's an interesting argument.

- -- 
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: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 11:36:23 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Why is it impossible to change .com.cn nameservers?

No Marc, Scotland is NOT on the country names list, as it is a REGION of the
UK, not a separate country (at least, that's the political reality although
I would personally prefer Scotland to be independent under the right
circumstances).

You ask why should I have this domain?

Well, if it's available (and it was) then I just exercised the same right as
anyone else in the world to register it on a first come-first serve basis
(which is the basis for most domain names, as you know).

I have business interests in Scotland, and China is a huge market, and so I
decided I would develop the site. I can't see that her majesty can object to
the normal use of a domain available to the general public. I am also a
Scottish citizen from one of the historic families of the Highlands.

However, my original point is still this:

Surely registries exist to make the DNS work, not to lock it up?

I've worked hard on the site. It will attract business to Scotland. It will
build good relations and understanding between Scotland and China.

Surely, it is wholly unacceptable for a registry to say: "We will not update
your nameservers" ?

Is this a general policy at the moment? Has Neustar administered a product
which then locks out the customers who paid for it?

I'd be very pleased to hear from anyone involved in this, for an
explanation. (And of course, my registrar may be mistaken themselves - they
claim the registry won't update the nameservers. What's the truth?)

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
To: Richard Henderson <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 4:32 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Why is it impossible to change .com.cn nameservers?

> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, at 00:59 [=GMT-0000], Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> > I have been trying for over a month to change my nameservers for
> > www.scotland.com.cn
>
> Are you sure Scotland is not on some ISO list of country names you cannot
> register, as with .info? I think Jersey and Guernsey are, so Scotland
> might be too.
>
> > This is inconvenient and delays my business plan.
>
> But Scotland doesn't belong to you, does it? So why should you have it?
> It belongs to the Crown. Be careful, since the Queen already filed a WIPO
> complaint for one of her dominions. And that was the furthest away from
> her throne. She may fight harder this time since Scotland is so close, and
> brings in more tax.
>
> Who has northernireland.com.cn?
>
> > Surely registries exist to make the DNS work, not to lock it up?
>
> I will put the last line in my 'Quotes' file!
>

- --
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, 25 Jan 2003 06:46:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Why is it impossible to change .com.cn nameservers?

It would appear that building bridges between cultures is the most noble use 
of the internet at this time.
ICANN related seervers should be fully accountable and available for the 
needs of the users.
ccTLD related servers should follow the law of the sovereign.
The fun part is the gray area!!!
e

> No Marc, Scotland is NOT on the country names list, as it is a REGION
> of the UK, not a separate country (at least, that's the political
> reality although I would personally prefer Scotland to be independent
> under the right circumstances).
> 
> You ask why should I have this domain?
> 
> Well, if it's available (and it was) then I just exercised the same
> right as anyone else in the world to register it on a first come-first
> serve basis (which is the basis for most domain names, as you know).
> 
> I have business interests in Scotland, and China is a huge market, and
> so I decided I would develop the site. I can't see that her majesty can
> object to the normal use of a domain available to the general public. I
> am also a Scottish citizen from one of the historic families of the
> Highlands.
> 
> However, my original point is still this:
> 
> Surely registries exist to make the DNS work, not to lock it up?
> 
> I've worked hard on the site. It will attract business to Scotland. It
> will build good relations and understanding between Scotland and China.
> 
> Surely, it is wholly unacceptable for a registry to say: "We will not
> update your nameservers" ?
> 
> Is this a general policy at the moment? Has Neustar administered a
> product which then locks out the customers who paid for it?
> 
> I'd be very pleased to hear from anyone involved in this, for an
> explanation. (And of course, my registrar may be mistaken themselves -
> they claim the registry won't update the nameservers. What's the
> truth?)
> 
> Richard Henderson
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
> To: Richard Henderson <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 4:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Why is it impossible to change .com.cn nameservers?
> 
> 
>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, at 00:59 [=GMT-0000], Richard Henderson wrote:
>>
>> > I have been trying for over a month to change my nameservers for
>> > www.scotland.com.cn
>>
>> Are you sure Scotland is not on some ISO list of country names you
>> cannot register, as with .info? I think Jersey and Guernsey are, so
>> Scotland might be too.
>>
>> > This is inconvenient and delays my business plan.
>>
>> But Scotland doesn't belong to you, does it? So why should you have
>> it? It belongs to the Crown. Be careful, since the Queen already filed
>> a WIPO complaint for one of her dominions. And that was the furthest
>> away from her throne. She may fight harder this time since Scotland is
>> so close, and brings in more tax.
>>
>> Who has northernireland.com.cn?
>>
>> > Surely registries exist to make the DNS work, not to lock it up?
>>
>> I will put the last line in my 'Quotes' file!
>>
> 
> --
> 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: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:17:18 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Round-robin process... a Registry leader joins the debate

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C2C47C.782B7D20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HelpLast week I posted my arguments for equal *minimum* queue lengths =
for all registrars in round-robin processes at landrush.

Each registrar would submit a minimum of 5000 applications. If a =
registrar did not fill up those application spaces with customers =
orders, then the remaining unused applications up to five thousand would =
simply be "Blank Applications". My argument for this was that it would =
prevent registrars hijacking the process with very short lists for a few =
friends/clients.

For example, we saw in .biz2B some incredibly short queues from certain =
registrars, designed to "game" the system - against the public interest =
- - for the benefit of the registrar themselves or a favoured client.

For example: Signature Domains effectively "queue-jumped" their rivals =
by applying with a tiny list - they got just 9 registrations for Joshua =
Blacker, a Signature partner, but what outstanding domains they were. =
They registered NO other domains for any other customer. They had simply =
used their registrar privilege to help themselves.

Other registrars operated similar lists.

After .biz2B, ICANN and Afilias were both warned that the same use of =
short queues by registrars would occur again in the .info LR2. Afilias =
refused to do anything about this, and ICANN - approached through Dan =
Halloran - would not even enter into dialogue over the problem.

Sure enough, LR2 saw the same "gaming" of the system. For example, Moshe =
Fogel operates two registrars. Through ONE of these registrars he =
submitted a normal list for most of his ordinary customers. Through his =
second company, he submitted a short list for himself and a few favoured =
clients. As a result, his applications effectively queue-jumped most of =
his rivals, and Moshe himself obtained www.domains.info

In a private response to my GA-list post, the leading figure of one of =
the NewTLD registries challenged my argument. I am not disclosing which =
registry it was, but you can read his e-mail below, and my own response =
to him below that.

I personally think that the Registries should come out into the open and =
engage in dialogue on lists like this one. In the stone-cold silence =
from Dan Halloran, and the refusal of ICANN to answer serious concerns, =
I believe issues such as registrar exploitation of process HAS to be =
discussed, and discussed openly. We are talking about the unfair =
distribution of the DNS and letting down consumers. There are questions =
which need answering, and answering in public.

Richard Henderson

(The Registry "private response" below...)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: 'Richard Henderson'=20
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 8:29 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal for fairer round-robin process in future =
landrush events - Mk2

Richard,
=20
Without commenting on the merit of your proposal, you seem to believe =
that these issues are incredibly simple to figure out.  Well, your =
proposal completely discriminates against the small registrar that does =
not do that many applications.  For example, if a small registrar has =
1000 customers and submits 1000 applications to reflect the marks that =
their customers have.  Under your system then they would have to have =
4000 blank applications.  This means that 4/5 of their applications are =
blank.  Which means that there is a high probability that none (or a =
very few) of their customers would be able to get their domian names =
simply because their registrar is small. =20
=20
Please explain in detail how that would be any more fair than the =
existing systems that were in place.=20
=20
These issues are not as easy to solve as you make it out to be.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

And MY response to him, rebutting his arguments:

From: Richard Henderson
20th January 2003

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thanks for your comments. Of course things are not simplistic. But the =
CUSTOMER will have exactly as much chance of getting the name through a =
list with 20 applications and 4980 blank applications as he/she would =
have through a list with 5000 applications and 0 blank applications.

The CUSTOMERS interests would therefore be served.

I do not believe the distribution of the DNS should be administered for =
the sake of the distributor, but even if I did, the small registrar =
would at least get a proportion of their applications registered in =
relation to the scale of their outfit.

Why should the system be set up to damage the fair distribution of the =
DNS, just in order to subsidise small outfits? How can that possibly be =
justified?

Nobody is "owed a living" by the world.

The fairest possible method of distribution TO consumers should be =
executed. That underlies ICANN's mandate.

It may be good to have a variety of registrars offering a range of =
services, but none of them are essential, and the Internet is not being =
run as a charity to registrars.

Indeed, the incentive to attract more customers to fill up the 5000 =
applications (and get proportionately more actual registrations) should =
have the effect of driving down prices, which is good for the consumer, =
instead of driving up prices which was the effect of the short list =
game.

It would be hard indeed to justify to DoC or the worldwide public a =
policy which unnecessarily inflated prices when there is clear consensus =
that domain prices should be reduced wherever possible.

The DNS is a worldwide resource which should be made available to the =
world in the fairest way possible, without interference and harm to the =
process by those entities (Registries and Registrars) who are, after =
all, merely suppliers who should accept the public dimensions and =
responsibilities of their industry as a condition of their involvement =
and commerce.

The public interest has to be served first.

It is NOT in the public interest to allow an "unfair distribution" of =
the DNS.

If you still beg to differ, I have a few final words to say to you, as =
the executor of one of these round robins:

Joshua Blacker Signature Domains .biz2B=20
Moshe Fogel .info LR2

kind regards - and genuine thanks for engaging in dialogue -

Richard Henderson

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *=20
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Copy of my original mail posted on this GA list:
    : Richard Henderson [mailto:[email-masked]]
    Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 10:39 AM
    To: [email-masked]
    Subject: [ga] Proposal for fairer round-robin process in future =
landrush events - Mk2

    With reference to Landrush queues, submitted by registrars, I =
believe they should make them equal length.

    This could be largely achieved by giving each registrar a mandatory =
queue of (say) 5000 applications.

    If a registrar did not fill up those application spaces with =
customers orders, then the remaining unused applications up to five =
thousand would simply be "Blank Applications".

    In this way, the majority of registrars would have identical chances =
in the round-robin process.

    There would be a problem for the registrars who submitted even =
larger queues than 5000, but they would still have the same chance as =
everyone else for their first 5000 applications and only after 5000 =
would their chances diminish. In other words, ALL registrars would have =
the same chance for their first 5000 applications - in the phase where =
the domains most in demand would be taken.

    Alternatively, you simply increase the threshold from 5000 to a =
higher number.

    IN CONTRAST...

    What we saw in .biz2B were incredibly short queues from certain =
registrars, designed to "game" the system - against the public interest =
- - for the benefit of the registrar themselves or a favoured client.

    For example: Signature Domains effectively "queue-jumped" their =
rivals by applying with a tiny list - they got just 9 registrations for =
Joshua Blacker, a Signature partner, but what outstanding domains they =
were. They registered NO other domains for any other customer. They had =
simply used their registrar privilege to help themselves.

    Others (like the Lubsens' secondary registrar DomainPro) also played =
the short list game.

    After .biz2B, ICANN and Afilias were both warned that the same use =
of short queues by registrars would occur again in the .info LR2. =
Afilias refused to do anything about this, and ICANN - approached =
through Dan Halloran - would not even enter into dialogue over the =
problem.

    Sure enough, LR2 saw the same "gaming" of the system. For example, =
Moshe Fogel operates two registrars. Through ONE of these registrars he =
submitted a normal list for most of his ordinary customers. Through his =
second company, he submitted a short list for himself and a few favoured =
clients. As a result, his applications effectively queue-jumped most of =
his rivals, and Moshe himself obtained www.domains.info

    The fact that Moshe Fogel is a Director, close to the heart of =
Afilias, and was acting CEO for a period, with a close involvement in =
Afilias policies, makes this easily-abused process all the more =
disappointing.

    So yes - I strongly advocate that future landrushes would benefit =
from equal-length queues if the round-robin process is used again.

    Why is it left to ordinary members of the public to express these =
obvious principles? Do you suppose the industry insiders could not think =
of these solutions themselves?

    Of course they could. The "anything goes" approach was conscious =
policy. But it was NOT "the fair distribution of the DNS" that ICANN was =
mandated to uphold and oversee.

    Ordinary consumers, as usual, came low down the list of priorities.

    Richard H

- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C2C47C.782B7D20
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Help</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><BASE=20
href=3Dfile://C:\WINDOWS\>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Last week I posted my arguments for =
equal *minimum*=20
queue lengths for all registrars in round-robin processes at=20
landrush.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Each registrar would submit a minimum =
of 5000=20
applications. If a registrar did not fill up those application spaces =
with=20
customers orders, then the remaining unused applications up to&nbsp;five =

thousand would simply be "Blank Applications". My argument for this was =
that it=20
would prevent registrars hijacking the process with very short lists for =
a few=20
friends/clients.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>For example, we saw in .biz2B&nbsp;some incredibly short queues =
from=20
certain registrars, designed to "game" the system - against the public =
interest=20
- - for the benefit of the registrar themselves or a favoured =
client.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>For example: Signature Domains effectively "queue-jumped" their =
rivals by=20
applying with a tiny list - they got just 9 registrations for Joshua =
Blacker, a=20
Signature partner, but what outstanding domains they were. They =
registered NO=20
other domains for any other customer. They had simply used their =
registrar=20
privilege to help themselves.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Other registrars operated similar lists.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>After .biz2B, ICANN and Afilias were both warned that the same use =
of short=20
queues by registrars would occur again in the .info LR2. Afilias refused =
to do=20
anything about this, and ICANN - approached through Dan Halloran - would =
not=20
even enter into dialogue over the problem.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Sure enough, LR2 saw the same "gaming" of the system. For example, =
Moshe=20
Fogel operates two registrars. Through ONE of these registrars he =
submitted a=20
normal list for most of his ordinary customers. Through his second =
company, he=20
submitted a short list for himself and a few favoured clients. As a =
result, his=20
applications effectively queue-jumped most of his rivals, and Moshe =
himself=20
obtained <A href=3D"http://www.domains.info">www.domains.info</A></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>In a private response to my GA-list post, the leading figure of one =
of the=20
NewTLD registries challenged my argument. I am not disclosing which =
registry it=20
was, but you can read his e-mail below, and my own response to him below =

that.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I personally think that the Registries should come out into the =
open and=20
engage in dialogue on lists like this one. In the stone-cold silence =
from Dan=20
Halloran, and the refusal of ICANN to answer serious concerns, I believe =
issues=20
such as registrar exploitation of process HAS to be discussed, and =
discussed=20
openly. We are talking about the unfair distribution of the DNS and =
letting down=20
consumers. There are questions which need answering, and answering in=20
public.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Richard Henderson</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>(The Registry "private response" below...)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *</DIV>
<DIV>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]"=20
title=[email-masked]>'Richard Henderson'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 20, 2003 =
8:29=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [ga] Proposal for =
fairer=20
round-robin process in future landrush events - Mk2</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D964152420-20012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =

size=3D2>Richard,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D964152420-20012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D964152420-20012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =

size=3D2>Without commenting on the merit of your proposal, you seem to =
believe=20
that these issues are incredibly simple to figure out.&nbsp; Well, your =
proposal=20
completely discriminates against the small registrar that does not do =
that many=20
applications.&nbsp; For example, if a small registrar has 1000 customers =
and=20
submits 1000 applications to reflect the marks that their customers =
have.&nbsp;=20
Under your system then they would have to have 4000 blank =
applications.&nbsp;=20
This means that 4/5 of their applications are blank.&nbsp; Which means =
that=20
there is a high probability that none (or a very few) of their customers =
would=20
be able to get their domian names simply because their registrar is =
small.&nbsp;=20
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D964152420-20012003></SPAN><SPAN =
class=3D964152420-20012003><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D964152420-20012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Please=20
explain in detail how that would be any more fair than the existing =
systems that=20
were in place. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D964152420-20012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D964152420-20012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2>These=20
issues are not as easy to solve as you make it out to =
be.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *</DIV>
<DIV>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>And MY response to him, rebutting his arguments:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>From: Richard Henderson</DIV>
<DIV>20th January 2003</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks for your comments. Of course =
things are not=20
simplistic. But the CUSTOMER will have exactly as much chance of getting =
the=20
name through a list with 20 applications and 4980 blank applications as =
he/she=20
would have through a list with 5000 applications and 0 blank=20
applications.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The CUSTOMERS interests would therefore =
be=20
served.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I do not believe the distribution of =
the DNS should=20
be administered for the sake of the distributor, but even if I did, the =
small=20
registrar would at least get a proportion of their applications =
registered in=20
relation to the scale of their outfit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Why should the system be set up to =
damage the fair=20
distribution of the DNS, just in order to subsidise small outfits? How =
can that=20
possibly be justified?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Nobody is "owed a living" by the=20
world.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The fairest possible method of =
distribution TO=20
consumers should be executed. That underlies ICANN's =
mandate.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It may be good to have a variety of =
registrars=20
offering a range of services, but none of them are essential, and the =
Internet=20
is not being run as a charity to registrars.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Indeed, the incentive to attract more =
customers to=20
fill up the 5000 applications (and get proportionately more actual=20
registrations) should have the effect of driving down prices, which is =
good for=20
the consumer, instead of driving up prices which was the effect of the =
short=20
list game.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It would be hard indeed to justify to =
DoC or the=20
worldwide public a policy which unnecessarily inflated prices when there =
is=20
clear consensus that domain prices should be reduced wherever=20
possible.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The DNS is a worldwide resource which =
should be=20
made available to the world in the fairest way possible, without =
interference=20
and harm to the process by those entities (Registries and Registrars) =
who are,=20
after all, merely suppliers who should accept the public dimensions and=20
responsibilities of their industry as a condition of their involvement =
and=20
commerce.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The public interest has to be served=20
first.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It is NOT in the public interest to =
allow an=20
"unfair distribution" of the DNS.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If you still beg to differ, I =
have&nbsp;a few final=20
words to say to you, as&nbsp;the executor of one of these round=20
robins:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Joshua Blacker Signature Domains .biz2B =

</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Moshe Fogel&nbsp;.info LR2</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>kind regards - and genuine thanks for =
engaging in=20
dialogue -</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Richard Henderson</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * =
* * *=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * =
* *=20
*</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Copy of my original mail posted on this =
GA=20
list:</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
    <DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
    size=3D2><B>:</B> Richard Henderson=20
    [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, =
January 20,=20
    2003 10:39 AM<BR><B>To:</B> [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> [ga] =
Proposal for=20
    fairer round-robin process in future landrush events -=20
    Mk2<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>
    <DIV>With reference to Landrush queues, submitted by registrars, I =
believe=20
    they should make them equal length.</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>This could be largely achieved by giving each registrar a =
mandatory=20
    queue of (say) 5000 applications.</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>If a registrar did not fill up those application spaces with =
customers=20
    orders, then the remaining unused applications up to&nbsp;five =
thousand=20
    would simply be "Blank Applications".</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>In this way, the majority of registrars would have identical =
chances in=20
    the round-robin process.</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>There would be a problem for the registrars who submitted even =
larger=20
    queues than 5000, but they would still have the same chance as =
everyone else=20
    for their first 5000&nbsp;applications and only after 5000 would =
their=20
    chances diminish. In other words, ALL registrars would have the same =
chance=20
    for their first 5000 applications - in the phase where the domains =
most in=20
    demand would be taken.</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>Alternatively, you simply increase the threshold from 5000 to a =
higher=20
    number.</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>IN CONTRAST...</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>What we saw in .biz2B were incredibly short queues from certain =

    registrars, designed to "game" the system - against the public =
interest -=20
    for the benefit of the registrar themselves or a favoured =
client.</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>For example: Signature Domains effectively "queue-jumped" their =
rivals=20
    by applying with a tiny list - they got just 9 registrations for =
Joshua=20
    Blacker, a Signature partner, but what outstanding domains they =
were. They=20
    registered NO other domains for any other customer. They had simply =
used=20
    their registrar privilege to help themselves.</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>Others (like the Lubsens' secondary registrar DomainPro) also =
played=20
    the short list game.</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>After .biz2B, ICANN and Afilias were both warned that the same =
use of=20
    short queues by registrars would occur again in the .info LR2. =
Afilias=20
    refused to do anything about this, and ICANN - approached through =
Dan=20
    Halloran - would not even enter into dialogue over the =
problem.</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>Sure enough, LR2 saw the same "gaming" of the system. For =
example,=20
    Moshe Fogel operates two registrars. Through ONE of these registrars =
he=20
    submitted a normal list for most of his ordinary customers. Through =
his=20
    second company, he submitted a short list for himself and a few =
favoured=20
    clients. As a result, his applications effectively queue-jumped most =
of his=20
    rivals, and Moshe himself obtained <A=20
    href=3D"http://www.domains.info/">www.domains.info</A></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>The fact that Moshe Fogel is a Director, close to the heart of =
Afilias,=20
    and was acting CEO for a period, with a close involvement in Afilias =

    policies, makes this easily-abused process all the more =
disappointing.</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>So yes - I&nbsp;strongly advocate that future landrushes would =
benefit=20
    from equal-length queues if the round-robin process is used =
again.</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>Why is it left to ordinary members of the public to express =
these=20
    obvious principles? Do you suppose the industry insiders could not =
think of=20
    these solutions themselves?</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>Of course they could. The "anything goes" approach was =
conscious=20
    policy. But it was NOT "the fair distribution of the DNS" that ICANN =
was=20
    mandated to uphold and oversee.</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>Ordinary consumers, as usual, came low down the list of=20
    priorities.</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>Richard =
H</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C2C47C.782B7D20--

- --
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 #1567
*************************