Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1602
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, February 20 2003         Volume 01 : Number 1602

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:20:15 +0100
From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Vixie Root

On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 11:13:07AM -0800, Jeff Williams took time to write:
> > It may well be possible that ICANN contacted RSOs involved, how could
> > you now ?
> 
>   They didn't, and I DO know. I track any and all ICANN and IANA
> E-Mail addresses.  If they did by phone, than they should not have
> continued to have these sorts of problems.  Yet they continue to
> have them in ever increasing regularity.  Hence your question
> here is answered.

I doubt so, since you are, to my knowledge, neither an RSO, nor
member of the ICANN staff.

> > And to set the record straight I do agree almost entirely with Karl.
> > However I trust the RSO to know what they are doing, and the fact
> > they do not need ICANN to know what to do, even when taking into
> > account such high desires as ``Internet stability''.
> 
>   I think it is very clear that the RSO does not know what they are
> doing all of the time, 

I do not know what you are talking about.

Patrick Mevzek.
- --
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:45:35 -0500
From: "Max Meier" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

WIPO and NeuLevel fail to answer serious questions.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Domain.Disputes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:52:16 +0100
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

> Dear Mr. Meier,
> 
> we have contacted NeuLevel, the .BIZ registry, with regard to your question and will come back to you shortly.
> 
> Sincerely,
> WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
> 
> >>> "Max Meier" <[email-masked]> 11/12/02 02:22PM >>>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
> 
> In the RDRP policy there is no provision which requires the Complainant to hold an identical or a confusing similar trademark to request a transfer of a disputed domain name. 
> How can you as a Dispute Resolution Providers make this a requirement? 
> 
> According to your site... "Single RDRP Complaints can be filed by any person or entity. However, if the Complainant requests transfer of the domain name, it will have to establish, as under the UDRP, that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights."
> http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/gtld/biz/rdrp/index.html 
> 
> There is no such provision in the RDRP policy.
> How can you legitimate this requirement?
> 
> 
> I am waiting for your reply.
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> Max Meier

- -- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

- --
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:33:14 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

Jeff,

Regarding the dispute resolution procedure contemplated in the Transfers 
Final Report -- If, as the language of the recommendation indicates, a 
dispute resolution may be administered by a "pertinent Registry", the 
presumption is that the Registry is entitled to set a fee for such services.  
As in the case of the Redemption Grace Period (where a registry has set an 
initial $85 charge and then registrars proceed to gouge the registrant to the 
full extent of their greed), I fully expect to see registrars continuing to 
screw registrants in similar fashion via the transfers dispute resolution 
process.   

As the cost analysis in the Transfers report fails to address this issue, 
could you perhaps hazard a guess as to the amount of the fee to be set by a 
Registry for such services?  This will then help to determine the level of 
extortion we can ultimately expect from registrars in the transfers dispute 
process.
- --
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:55:46 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

> As in the case of the Redemption Grace Period (where a 
> registry has set an 
> initial $85 charge and then registrars proceed to gouge the 
> registrant to the 
> full extent of their greed), I fully expect to see registrars 
> continuing to 
> screw registrants in similar fashion via the transfers 
> dispute resolution 
> process.   

Danny - I'll let Jeff speak for himself, but as a Task Force member
perhaps I can unofficially shed some clarity on the subject...

The task force envisioned a process whereby a registrant would file a
dispute through a registrar. The registrar would then be able to
determine which party would be best suited to resolve the dispute - the
registry or a third party. There is no reason why the registrar has to
first go to the registry when filing a dispute. The two benefits to this
approach - first, it incents the registries to provide the service
competitively. There is nothing that forces me to pay anything to a
registry that has priced themselves out of the market. In fact, I can
shop the dispute around and pick the recognized third party resolver
that will give me the best price (which comes with some downsides as the
UDRP points out, but I'm not sure that forum shopping will get us much
here other than potentially, a price break.) Second, it ensures that a
non-biased party is hearing the dispute. If, for some reason, the
registry is potentially conflicted, the registry won't be put in a
position where it *must* hear a dispute and be conflicted.

Third parties have quoted roughly $1500 per dispute to sort these things
out - I am sure the registries could be persuaded to do this on a cost
recovery basis which would make them substantially cheaper than this...

Perhaps someone that actually runs a registry could answer this question
more specifically ;)

Lastly, it wasn't envisioned that this would be a chargable service for
registrars any more than processing UDRP complaints is - therefore your
concerns that Registrars would surcharge the community to death are not
likely to come into play. I understand why you feel this way, but I
don't see it really coming into play on this particular point...time
could prove me wrong however.

Regards,

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:33 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> Regarding the dispute resolution procedure contemplated in 
> the Transfers 
> Final Report -- If, as the language of the recommendation 
> indicates, a 
> dispute resolution may be administered by a "pertinent Registry", the 
> presumption is that the Registry is entitled to set a fee for 
> such services.  
> As in the case of the Redemption Grace Period (where a 
> registry has set an 
> initial $85 charge and then registrars proceed to gouge the 
> registrant to the 
> full extent of their greed), I fully expect to see registrars 
> continuing to 
> screw registrants in similar fashion via the transfers 
> dispute resolution 
> process.   
> 
> As the cost analysis in the Transfers report fails to address 
> this issue, 
> could you perhaps hazard a guess as to the amount of the fee 
> to be set by a 
> Registry for such services?  This will then help to determine 
> the level of 
> extortion we can ultimately expect from registrars in the 
> transfers dispute 
> process.
> --
> 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: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:24:27 +0100
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO WHOIS Task force incorporating final set of comments

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked];[email-masked]]

Please find  the Final Report of the GNSO Council’s WHOIS Task Force on
Accuracy and Bulk Access which incorporates the final set of comments.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030219.WhoisTF-accuracy-and-bulkaccess.html

Please see the transmittal letter from the WHOIS task force which was sent
to you separately and earlier, so that you would be reminded to read the
additions in the comment sections.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc12/msg00080.html

GNSO Secretariat

- --
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:19:07 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

> In the RDRP policy there is no provision which
>requires the Complainant to hold an identical or a
>confusing similar trademark to request a transfer of a disputed domain name.

Welcome to the "big joke" of the RDRP, and the reason why you do not see many
RDRP filings (unless combined with a UDRP).

The RDRP says that the panel can order transfer or cancellation.  There are
no criteria provided in the RDRP for one remedy or the other.  Clearly, it
would seem stupid to entitle anyone to "transfer" merely because they were
the first one to complain that a registrant was not following the
registration restrictions on .biz names (i.e. you can't sell them, absent
sale of an associated business).  If that were the case, then the RDRP would
be a wonderful vehicle for setting up "straw disputes" wherein a complainant
(who is actually a cybersquatter) cooperates with a respondent in order to
have the respondent violate the RDRP, then file a complaint, and then obtain
a transfer that would cloak the subsequent registration in a veneer of
legitimacy.

Clearly as well, the idea of paying for an RDRP proceeding merely to obtain
cancellation of a domain name is.... stupid... since the only practical
effect is to make the domain name available to anyone who is quick enough to
grab it when it is cancelled.

The RDRP was put into the .biz proposal as mere eyewash to suggest that .biz
names would be free of speculation.  Anyone who thinks about the RDRP for
more than a few minutes will recognize what a silly thing it is.

- --
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:39:53 +0100
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO Council Transfers Task Force Final Report - technical error

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked];[email-masked]]

Please find  the Transfers Task Force Final Report & Recommendations
Policies and Processes for Gaining and Losing Registrars
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030212.NCTransferTF-gaining-and-losing-regi
strars.html

Please see the transmittal below which explains the problem.

 Transmittal to council:  "The Transfers Task Force was advised on
02/19/2003 at
 09:00 EST that due to a technical error, the version of the transfers
 report that was originally transmitted to Council on 2/14/2003 was not the
correct version.

 The Task Force had accepted the Implementation Committee recommendations in
large part,
 with only minimal exceptions, and had portrayed that acceptance in a chart,
embedded in the transmitted report,
 "Detailed Implementation Analysis and Task Force Comments". Regrettably,
the version of the report transmitted did not include the embedding of these
accepted changes in the text of the report.
 It was our intent to provide you with a redlined version, with the changes
in the chart above, embedded in the text for your convenience in seeing what
the version would look like with the recommendations incorporated.
 We apologize for this technical error.   Our intentions were to make this
simpler for you. Once again the chart in the version you received on
2/14/2003 was correct.
 We have providing the correct version of the report which has the text of
the changes in italic and strikethrough font and once again, includes the
chart described above which summaries the accepted clarifications of
language and notes in the chart any modifications.
 We apologize for this error and thank the Council and constituency members
who called this to our attention.

 The Task Force is fully prepared to respond to any questions during the
GNSO Council meeting scheduled for 02/20/2003."

GNSO Secretariat

- --
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:28:37 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

On 19 Feb 2003 at 14:55, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> > As in the case of the Redemption Grace Period (where a 
> > registry has set an 
> > initial $85 charge and then registrars proceed to gouge the 
> > registrant to the 
> > full extent of their greed), I fully expect to see registrars 
> > continuing to 
> > screw registrants in similar fashion via the transfers 
> > dispute resolution 
> > process.   
> 
<snip>

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions...  "

> 
> The task force envisioned a process whereby a registrant would file a
> dispute through a registrar. The registrar would then be able to
> determine which party would be best suited to resolve the dispute - the
> registry or a third party. 

In such a dispute, both the registry and registrar are interested parties 
and should have nothing to do with choosing an arbitrator or mediator.  
There should also be no forced arbitration such as UDRP which screws the 
consumer and is biased in its very structure and rules.

There is no reason why the registrar has to
> first go to the registry when filing a dispute. The two benefits to this
> approach - first, it incents the registries to provide the service
> competitively. There is nothing that forces me to pay anything to a
> registry that has priced themselves out of the market. In fact, I can shop
> the dispute around and pick the recognized third party resolver that will
> give me the best price (which comes with some downsides as the UDRP points
> out, but I'm not sure that forum shopping will get us much here other than
> potentially, a price break.) Second, it ensures that a non-biased party is
> hearing the dispute. If, for some reason, the registry is potentially
> conflicted, the registry won't be put in a position where it *must* hear a
> dispute and be conflicted.
> 

The RGP, in concept, was a reasonable idea until it was perverted with 
totally outrageous fees.  I can't see where this forced dispute 
arbitration would be any different.  It's certainly a boon to providers, 
but does nothing at all for anyone else, except perhaps registrars and 
registries.

If there is a dispute over a transfer, providers (registrars/registries) 
should be expected to handle it, period.  If they do not, there are legal 
avenues.  If there is a dispute method to be determined, it should be, in 
all cases, handled by a third party and be non-binding.  There have been 
many errors made by registrars and "glitches" in the system(s).  I would 
like to know how many of these are caused by registrant error and how many 
are caused by registrars/registries.   Why should a registrant have to 
spend hundreds or thousands of dollars when there is a transfer mess?  Who 
will benefit?  Registrars should be held accountable for transfers, as 
should registries.  If an error is made - fix it.

> Third parties have quoted roughly $1500 per dispute to sort these things
> out - I am sure the registries could be persuaded to do this on a cost
> recovery basis which would make them substantially cheaper than this...

Like RGP?  Ludicrous.

> 
> Perhaps someone that actually runs a registry could answer this question
> more specifically ;)

That's pretty simple.  If a registrant files a complaint about a transfer, 
follow the trail and fix the problem.  If it was fraud, get law 
enforcement involved.  If it was an error, reverse it and refund any money 
collected.

> 
> Lastly, it wasn't envisioned that this would be a chargable service for
> registrars any more than processing UDRP complaints is - therefore your
> concerns that Registrars would surcharge the community to death are not
> likely to come into play. I understand why you feel this way, but I don't
> see it really coming into play on this particular point...time could prove
> me wrong however.

I think time (a short time) will prove you very wrong.

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: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:19:38 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

Yes it is a stupid policy.
But I think the point was: How can WIPO request a Trademark, when there is
no requirement for a Trademark according to RDRP!? Is this legal?

'Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:52:16 +0100 ...we [WIPO] have contacted NeuLevel,
the .BIZ registry, with regard to your question and will come back to you
shortly.'
Wow, that's short ;-)

Simon

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
To: "Max Meier" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Christian Wichard" <[email-masked]>; "Tsutomu Takahashi"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

>
> > In the RDRP policy there is no provision which
> >requires the Complainant to hold an identical or a
> >confusing similar trademark to request a transfer of a disputed domain
name.
>
> Welcome to the "big joke" of the RDRP, and the reason why you do not see
many
> RDRP filings (unless combined with a UDRP).
>
> The RDRP says that the panel can order transfer or cancellation.  There
are
> no criteria provided in the RDRP for one remedy or the other.  Clearly, it
> would seem stupid to entitle anyone to "transfer" merely because they were
> the first one to complain that a registrant was not following the
> registration restrictions on .biz names (i.e. you can't sell them, absent
> sale of an associated business).  If that were the case, then the RDRP
would
> be a wonderful vehicle for setting up "straw disputes" wherein a
complainant
> (who is actually a cybersquatter) cooperates with a respondent in order to
> have the respondent violate the RDRP, then file a complaint, and then
obtain
> a transfer that would cloak the subsequent registration in a veneer of
> legitimacy.
>
> Clearly as well, the idea of paying for an RDRP proceeding merely to
obtain
> cancellation of a domain name is.... stupid... since the only practical
> effect is to make the domain name available to anyone who is quick enough
to
> grab it when it is cancelled.
>
> The RDRP was put into the .biz proposal as mere eyewash to suggest that
.biz
> names would be free of speculation.  Anyone who thinks about the RDRP for
> more than a few minutes will recognize what a silly thing it is.
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:57:12 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

> 
> "The road to hell is paved with good intentions...  "

'tis quite possible - but I think trying is a far sight better than
doing nothing. Its impossible to fix problems under the current regime
and the legal system is not accessible enough to enough people for
economic, not to mention jurisdictional reasons.

I can't say that you're wrong, but I hope you are. I just don't see the
situation being as black as you paint it - or at least, I don't see the
downside as being as drastic relative to the current situation. 

BTW - a large part of the reason why I advocate this position is because
I lost my domain name not too long ago. It was nearly impossible to get
it back (and would have been if an angel hadn't intervened). I think I
got special treatment which implies that were it not for my employer, I
would have been screwed out of a domain name that I've had for many,
many moons and no recourse to make it better. From that standpoint, I
think this is a move in the right direction. 

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/

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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:46:07 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Appendix G

Chuck,

Has appendix G been amended to allow VGRS to charge for RGP services?  I 
don't recall any Board meeting that authorized such amendments, only a Board 
resolution that instructed the President to initiate negotiations.  If so, 
where has the amendment been posted?

Best regards,
Danny
- --
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, 20 Feb 2003 01:07:32 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

Why can't the UK's Nominet approach be employed? If a registrant wants to
transfer their domain, say from one registrar to another, they can simply
direct the registry (Nominet) to carry out that transfer, change the tag,
and it's done. The registry overrules the registrar, and a priority is
placed on the registrant's wishes. If, thereafter, a registrar or anyone
else had grounds for complaint, it is then left for the complaining party to
initiate normal legal action if they wish.

It seems to me that this approach, carried out in UK, puts the proper
priority on the consumer who has actually bought the product/service in the
first place.

Nominet does not set out to make profit, and has no particular reason to
court any of its registrars. It acts in the capacity of providing a service
for the public. Maybe the whole concept of basing domain name distribution
on the profit motivation and the marketplace is skewed in the first place.
Your DNS industry seems obsessed with giving importance to people who
basically just act as go betweens, but too often seem to get in the way. I
accept that registrars also offer a range of other services, and I respect
their right to try to earn a living like anyone else. However, the consumer,
the ordinary internet user, the At Large, the actual people of the net, get
marginalised in all kinds of ways.

I'm afraid I think that ICANN is incestuously involved with the registry and
registrar industries, and the whole thing seems artificially imposed, when
viewed from outside (for example from the UK).

Here in the UK, with Nominet administering the .uk namespace,  it seems to
me we enjoy a more straightforward and less muddied set up. As I say. If
you, the registrant want to transfer, Nominet will do it for you. It's easy.
It's quick.

Small wonder if ccTLDs look in at the ICANN morass, and start thinking that
they'd be better off administering their own affairs.

I applaud Nominet. ICANN I view with the greatest scepticism. Look at the
Australian code of conduct for registrars. How refreshing. Logical and
reasonable consumer protection. Look at ICANN. Unresponsive to consumer
concerns. Laissez faire in the extreme. Obsessed with a market model for the
administration of a resource which should be virtually free for everyone,
and which is basically the distribution of strings of numbers. And yet, they
have made it a feeding frenzy for all kinds of sharks, and they seek to
extend their control to other countries and the much clearer and more honest
dealings that many of them want to enjoy.

What can possibly justify some of these ludicrous fees? Who thinks up these
schemes? Who presides over them?

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: L. Gallegos <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 10:28 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

>
>
> On 19 Feb 2003 at 14:55, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> > > As in the case of the Redemption Grace Period (where a
> > > registry has set an
> > > initial $85 charge and then registrars proceed to gouge the
> > > registrant to the
> > > full extent of their greed), I fully expect to see registrars
> > > continuing to
> > > screw registrants in similar fashion via the transfers
> > > dispute resolution
> > > process.
> >
> <snip>
>
> "The road to hell is paved with good intentions...  "
>
> >
> > The task force envisioned a process whereby a registrant would file a
> > dispute through a registrar. The registrar would then be able to
> > determine which party would be best suited to resolve the dispute - the
> > registry or a third party.
>
> In such a dispute, both the registry and registrar are interested parties
> and should have nothing to do with choosing an arbitrator or mediator.
> There should also be no forced arbitration such as UDRP which screws the
> consumer and is biased in its very structure and rules.
>
> There is no reason why the registrar has to
> > first go to the registry when filing a dispute. The two benefits to this
> > approach - first, it incents the registries to provide the service
> > competitively. There is nothing that forces me to pay anything to a
> > registry that has priced themselves out of the market. In fact, I can
shop
> > the dispute around and pick the recognized third party resolver that
will
> > give me the best price (which comes with some downsides as the UDRP
points
> > out, but I'm not sure that forum shopping will get us much here other
than
> > potentially, a price break.) Second, it ensures that a non-biased party
is
> > hearing the dispute. If, for some reason, the registry is potentially
> > conflicted, the registry won't be put in a position where it *must* hear
a
> > dispute and be conflicted.
> >
>
> The RGP, in concept, was a reasonable idea until it was perverted with
> totally outrageous fees.  I can't see where this forced dispute
> arbitration would be any different.  It's certainly a boon to providers,
> but does nothing at all for anyone else, except perhaps registrars and
> registries.
>
> If there is a dispute over a transfer, providers (registrars/registries)
> should be expected to handle it, period.  If they do not, there are legal
> avenues.  If there is a dispute method to be determined, it should be, in
> all cases, handled by a third party and be non-binding.  There have been
> many errors made by registrars and "glitches" in the system(s).  I would
> like to know how many of these are caused by registrant error and how many
> are caused by registrars/registries.   Why should a registrant have to
> spend hundreds or thousands of dollars when there is a transfer mess?  Who
> will benefit?  Registrars should be held accountable for transfers, as
> should registries.  If an error is made - fix it.
>
> > Third parties have quoted roughly $1500 per dispute to sort these things
> > out - I am sure the registries could be persuaded to do this on a cost
> > recovery basis which would make them substantially cheaper than this...
>
> Like RGP?  Ludicrous.
>
> >
> > Perhaps someone that actually runs a registry could answer this question
> > more specifically ;)
>
> That's pretty simple.  If a registrant files a complaint about a transfer,
> follow the trail and fix the problem.  If it was fraud, get law
> enforcement involved.  If it was an error, reverse it and refund any money
> collected.
>
> >
> > Lastly, it wasn't envisioned that this would be a chargable service for
> > registrars any more than processing UDRP complaints is - therefore your
> > concerns that Registrars would surcharge the community to death are not
> > likely to come into play. I understand why you feel this way, but I
don't
> > see it really coming into play on this particular point...time could
prove
> > me wrong however.
>
> I think time (a short time) will prove you very wrong.
>
> 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
>

- --
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:50:24 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

> Small wonder if ccTLDs look in at the ICANN morass, and start thinking
that
> they'd be better off administering their own affairs.

Richard - you can't compare apples to oranges. You should be comparing ccTLD
registries to gTLD registries. Big difference.

                     -rwr

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

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

- --
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:41:47 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Vixie Root

Patrick and all former DNSO GA members,

Patrick Mevzek wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 11:13:07AM -0800, Jeff Williams took time to write:
> > > It may well be possible that ICANN contacted RSOs involved, how could
> > > you now ?
> >
> >   They didn't, and I DO know. I track any and all ICANN and IANA
> > E-Mail addresses.  If they did by phone, than they should not have
> > continued to have these sorts of problems.  Yet they continue to
> > have them in ever increasing regularity.  Hence your question
> > here is answered.
>
> I doubt so, since you are, to my knowledge, neither an RSO, nor
> member of the ICANN staff.

  True I am not and RSO nor a member of the ICANN staff.
However had you read carefully what I DID state above, your
doubts would or should have been easily dissuaded as to your earlier
remarks on this thread.  If not, than perhaps your particular "Spin"
is something that seriously challenges very basic reason and
significant already known and documented facts, and likely fits
within the category of apologist...

>
>
> > > And to set the record straight I do agree almost entirely with Karl.
> > > However I trust the RSO to know what they are doing, and the fact
> > > they do not need ICANN to know what to do, even when taking into
> > > account such high desires as ``Internet stability''.
> >
> >   I think it is very clear that the RSO does not know what they are
> > doing all of the time,
>
> I do not know what you are talking about.

  I am sure you don't.  That's unfortunate.

>
>
> Patrick Mevzek.
> --
> 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: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:49:34 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

Max and all former DNSO GA members,

  Nuelevel has been a long time, well documented, and continual plague
upon the Registrants and internet community sense MdR 2000.  Even
Jeff Nueman, doesn't return calls sense my post to this list several days
ago regarding other questionable activities that our members and .BIZ
registrants have reported.

Max Meier wrote:

> WIPO and NeuLevel fail to answer serious questions.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Domain.Disputes" <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:52:16 +0100
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes
>
> > Dear Mr. Meier,
> >
> > we have contacted NeuLevel, the .BIZ registry, with regard to your question and will come back to you shortly.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
> >
> > >>> "Max Meier" <[email-masked]> 11/12/02 02:22PM >>>
> > Dear Sir or Madam,
> >
> > In the RDRP policy there is no provision which requires the Complainant to hold an identical or a confusing similar trademark to request a transfer of a disputed domain name.
> > How can you as a Dispute Resolution Providers make this a requirement?
> >
> > According to your site... "Single RDRP Complaints can be filed by any person or entity. However, if the Complainant requests transfer of the domain name, it will have to establish, as under the UDRP, that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights."
> > http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/gtld/biz/rdrp/index.html
> >
> > There is no such provision in the RDRP policy.
> > How can you legitimate this requirement?
> >
> >
> > I am waiting for your reply.
> > Thank you!
> >
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> > Max Meier
>
> --
> __________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:50:43 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GNSO WHOIS Task force incorporating final set of comments

Hello,

I noticed that in the final comments at:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030219.WhoisTF-accuracy-and-bulkaccess.html

"This comment was submitted by Jeff Williams on behalf of INEGroup. Mr.
Williams identifies privacy and security concerns as being primary
concerns. Mr. Williams also has issues with the processes used by the
Task Force."

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc03/msg00016.html

I think that there should be a rule in the future for task forces that
comments on behalf of "Organizations" provide a link to the website of
that organization, or at least some evidence that said organization
actually exists. It leaves the task force open to ridicule and mockery
that comments from imaginary entities are included in its final report.

See the Jeff Williams FAQ linked at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc12/msg00335.html

and in the ensuing thread.

Otherwise, if I had purported to speak for all 30 million Canadians, as
their "Spokesperson", would I have been allowed to?

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1602
*************************