Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1658
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, April 9 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1658

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:43:38 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [Anuncios] 60/8 allocated to APNIC by IANA

How much does each /8 generate in lease revenue each year ?

Do all of the /8 leasees pay the same amount ?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John L Crain" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 3:39 PM
Subject: [Anuncios] 60/8 allocated to APNIC by IANA

> Hi Folks,
> 
> This is a heads up to let you know that the IANA has allocated the following range of IPv4 addresses to APNIC.
> 
> 60.0.0.0/8
> 
> A notation of the allocation has been made at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space>.
> 
> The range 223/8 was at the same time returned to the IANA and it's status marked as IANA Reserved.
> 
> 
> You may wish to adjust your filters accordingly.
>   
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
>  John Crain                      mailto:[email-masked]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anuncios mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/anuncios

- --
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, 09 Apr 2003 00:43:57 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Noncommercial charter revision committee

Milton and all former DNSO GA members,

  Perspective members = ??? At the risk of being overly simplistic
here,  would a active member of the PLO
be a perspective member of the NCUC/NCDNHC?

  Seems to me that the NCUC would be wise to get such "Volunteers"
from it's membership or former members, or better define what
a perspective member is in such a constituency...

Milton Mueller wrote:

> In line with the new governance arrangements of ICANN, the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) must submit a revised charter to ICANN by July 2003. The NCUC sees this as an important opportunity to revitalize its membership growth and improve the effectiveness of its organizational arrangements. It wants to assemble a representative and committed core of volunteers to guide Adcom in the task of rechartering. Volunteers should be current members of NCUC, prospective members, or former members. All three categories of volunteers must display a strong and sincere commitment to becoming active in the constituency, if eligible under GNSO concepts of constituency representation.
>
> The goal of this call is to have a work-team as broadly representative as possible in order to develop a new charter that could represent all the interests and views existing among noncommercial internet users.
>
> Please send name to [email-masked] by April 21.
>
> --
> 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, 09 Apr 2003 03:15:14 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: FC: Bill Purdy's back: Now up against Minnesota Star Tribune

Declan, Bill and all

  Thanks for this interesting information.

  Indeed it seems that yet again ICANN behind the scenes has
been playing it's usual games.  The UDRP, as many now know
is a disaster.  Some of us know this early on.

  Bill, sorry again that you are being so imposed upon unnecessarily.
It's simply disgusting.  Keep after them Bill!  You won before,
you'll win again.  When will ICANN ever learn!

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> It's late and I just skimmed the filing, which I've placed here:
> http://www.politechbot.com/docs/purdy.star.tribune.040903.doc
>
> But it looks like the Minneapolis Star Tribune is going after Bill through
> the UDRP process for allegedly registering startribunes.com,
> startribunesays.com, and startribuneknows.com. It's unclear to me why
> these domains have been registered, who registered them, or what the link
> is between the domains and the Star Tribune's stance on abortion, if it
> even has one.
>
> Background on Bill's earlier travails:
> http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=purdy
>
> -Declan
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:54:27 -0600
> From: William S. Purdy <[email-masked]>
> To: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Paul Levy <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Fw: McClatchy Management Services, Inc. v. William S. Purdy Sr.,
>      William Purdy and Mark Purdy II (a/k/a Please Don't Kill Your Baby )
>
> Dear Declan,
>
> Here we go again, only this time it's the Minneapolis Star Tribune.  I
> wonder if they are filing a complaint with ICAN against as you call him, The
> Italian Domain Name BANDIT, as he has a bunch of Star Tribune names as well.
> This ought to be interesting.
>
> Yours, Bill Purdy
> -----------------------------------------
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wessberg, Ann Dunn" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 3:34 PM
> Subject: FW: McClatchy Management Services, Inc. v. William S. Purdy Sr.,
> William Purdy and Mark Purdy II (a/k/a Please Don't Kill Your Baby )
>
> >
> > As my earlier transmission was evidently too large to be successfully
> > delivered, please see the attached Domain Name Dispute Complaint, pages
> > 1-26, a hard copy of which is also being filed today with the National
> > Arbitration Forum.  Pages 26 to the end of the document will be separately
> > transmitted.
> >
> >
> >  <<Document10.doc>>
> > Sent on behalf of
> > Ann Dunn Wessberg
> > Faegre & Benson, LLP
> > 90 South Seventh Street
> > 2200 Wells Fargo Center
> > Minneapolis, MN  55402
> > Tel.: (612) 766-7105
> > Fax: (612) 766-1600
> >
> > THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS
> > ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL
> AND
> > EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW.  IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
> > RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION,
> OR
> > COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  IF YOU HAVE
> RECEIVED
> > THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE.
> > THANK YOU.
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, 09 Apr 2003 01:45:22 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [Anuncios] 60/8 allocated to APNIC by IANA

Very strange indeed.

Why did they do what they did?

e

Jim Fleming wrote:

> How much does each /8 generate in lease revenue each year ?
>
> Do all of the /8 leasees pay the same amount ?
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John L Crain" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 3:39 PM
> Subject: [Anuncios] 60/8 allocated to APNIC by IANA
>
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > This is a heads up to let you know that the IANA has allocated the following range of IPv4 addresses to APNIC.
> >
> > 60.0.0.0/8
> >
> > A notation of the allocation has been made at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space>.
> >
> > The range 223/8 was at the same time returned to the IANA and it's status marked as IANA Reserved.
> >
> >
> > You may wish to adjust your filters accordingly.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >  John Crain                      mailto:[email-masked]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Anuncios mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > http://www.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/anuncios
>
> --
> 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, 9 Apr 2003 11:10:58 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [Anuncios] 60/8 allocated to APNIC by IANA

On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 01:45:22AM -0700,
 [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 56 lines which said:

> Why did they do what they did?

APNIC returned the 223/8 for (bad, IMHO) reasons explained at the
bottom of this message.

I will not comment on Fleming's delirium. Anyone who regards Fleming's
writings as carrying a meaning will be ignored as well.

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:55:25 +1000 (EST)
From: John Tran <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], Anne Lord <[email-masked]>
Subject: handback of 223/8

Dear Michelle,

APNIC was allocated 223.255.255.0/8 by IANA on 12 February 2003.
RFC3330.txt states that 223.255.255.0/24 is RESERVED.  At this point in
time, the reservation means that the network cannot be further assigned or
allocated. The reservation of this network impacts the sparse allocation
system used by APNIC for managing allocations, limiting the amount of
potential aggregation. Furthermore, the status of RESERVED is potentially
confusing for APNIC members, the majority of whom do not have English as
a first language. APNIC therefore is returning this block to IANA and
cordially requests that IANA delegate a block with no such reservation.

APNIC regards the status of this address block as a matter for
resolution by the IETF and IANA.  Once the status has been finally  
resolved however, APNIC would be willing to receive this block in a
future IANA allocation.

Regards

Son

____________________________________________________________________
Resources Services Manager                      <[email-masked]>
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre       phone: +61 7 3858 3100
http://www.apnic.net                          fax:   +61 7 3858 3199
Helpdesk                                      phone: +61 7 3858 3188
                                              email: [email-masked]
Please send Internet Resource Requests to <[email-masked]>
_____________________________________________________________________

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:15:39 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Two Questions for the Deletes Task Force

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C2FE89.5A0D7040
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HelpI am writing to you as a member of the Deletes Task Force, to ask =
you if you could give me an update on the state of play with regard to =
Deletes policy, and implementation dates.

Specifically, when does WLS come into play? Is there a date or rough =
date set for its introduction?

And secondly, I've been following the process of .com names releases =
after expiry in the past months, and there seems no consistency. Some =
names appear to go on hold for the minimum period provided, and then =
become available to the public (to date, many of those names put "on =
hold" between January and about 3rd March have so far become available).

On the other hand, a large number (thousands) of Net Sol names, =
including names put on hold in January and the whole of February, remain =
"on hold" and are still no available.

I thought the intention was for one, consistent policy for the industry. =
Why are the NetSol names being held back?

I'd be grateful for your insights, both on WLS dates, and on the second =
issue, and thank you for your assistance.

Kind regards,

Richard Henderson
(IcannatLarge.org)

- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C2FE89.5A0D7040
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>I am writing to you as a member of the Deletes Task Force, to ask =
you if=20
you could give me an update on the state of play with regard to Deletes =
policy,=20
and implementation dates.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Specifically, when does WLS come into play? Is there a date or =
rough date=20
set for its introduction?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>And secondly, I've been following the process of .com names =
releases after=20
expiry in the past months, and there seems no consistency. Some names =
appear to=20
go on hold for the minimum period provided, and then become available to =
the=20
public (to date, many of those names put "on hold" between January and =
about 3rd=20
March have so far become available).</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>On the other hand, a large number (thousands) of Net Sol names, =
including=20
names put on hold in January and the whole of February, remain "on hold" =
and are=20
still no available.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I thought the intention was for one, consistent policy for the =
industry.=20
Why are the NetSol names being held back?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I'd be grateful for your insights, both on WLS dates, and on the =
second=20
issue, and thank you for your assistance.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Kind regards,</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Richard Henderson</DIV>
<DIV>(IcannatLarge.org)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C2FE89.5A0D7040--

- --
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, 9 Apr 2003 11:47:55 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Could you fill me in on these Deletes questions?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C2FE8D.DC1B0F80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HelpHi Danny, Ross, Chuck -

I've been trying to get an update on the state of play with regard to =
Deletes policy, and implementation dates.

Specifically, when does WLS come into play? Is there a date or rough =
date set for its introduction? Has it been passed by the ICANN =
Board/Verisign etc.

And secondly, I've been following the process of .com names releases =
after expiry in the past months, and there seems no consistency. Some =
names appear to go on hold for the minimum period provided, and then =
become available to the public (to date, many of those names put "on =
hold" between January and about 3rd March have so far become available).

On the other hand, a large number (thousands) of Net Sol names, =
including names put on hold in January and the whole of February, remain =
"on hold" and are still not available. I can send you hundreds of =
examples if you needed them, but how can Netsol hold these names back, =
in some cases 7 weeks after they were supposed to be released? Don't the =
normal rules apply to them? Is the new deletion process just optional?

I thought the intention was for one, consistent policy for the industry. =
Why are the NetSol names being held back?

I'd be grateful for your insights, both on WLS dates, and on the second =
issue, and thank you for your assistance. I've also posted a version of =
this letter to the GA list and the Deletes Task Force members. I haven't =
followed this issue closely enough, and maybe I'm asking stupid =
questions. I just don't "get" why NetSol are acting differently to many =
other registrars.

If I had a name with Tucows which was placed on hold on 3rd March (I did =
indeed have one) then that name was finally released and made available =
for registration yesterday (9th April). If I had a name with NetSol (I =
don't but I've been tracking some) there are still names put on hold =
back in January which remain on hold.

Where's the consistency in that? Maybe there's not meant to be any =
consistency. Maybe anything goes.

Kind regards,

Richard Henderson
(IcannatLarge.org)

- ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C2FE8D.DC1B0F80
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>Hi Danny, Ross, Chuck -</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I've been trying to get an update on the state of play with regard =
to=20
Deletes policy, and implementation dates.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Specifically, when does WLS come into play? Is there a date or =
rough date=20
set for its introduction? Has it been passed by the ICANN Board/Verisign =

etc.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>And secondly, I've been following the process of .com names =
releases after=20
expiry in the past months, and there seems no consistency. Some names =
appear to=20
go on hold for the minimum period provided, and then become available to =
the=20
public (to date, many of those names put "on hold" between January and =
about 3rd=20
March have so far become available).</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>On the other hand, a large number (thousands) of Net Sol names, =
including=20
names put on hold in January and the whole of February, remain "on hold" =
and are=20
still not available. I can send you hundreds of examples if you needed =
them, but=20
how can Netsol hold these names back, in some cases 7 weeks after they =
were=20
supposed to be released? Don't the normal rules apply to them? Is the =
new=20
deletion process just optional?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I thought the intention was for one, consistent policy for the =
industry.=20
Why are the NetSol names being held back?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I'd be grateful for your insights, both on WLS dates, and on the =
second=20
issue, and thank you for your assistance. I've also posted a version of =
this=20
letter to the GA list and the Deletes Task Force members. I haven't =
followed=20
this issue closely enough, and maybe I'm asking stupid questions. I just =
don't=20
"get" why NetSol are acting differently to many other registrars.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>If I had a name with Tucows which was placed on hold on 3rd March =
(I did=20
indeed have one) then that name was finally released and made available =
for=20
registration yesterday (9th April). If I had a name with NetSol (I don't =
but=20
I've been tracking some) there are still names put on hold back in =
January which=20
remain on hold.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Where's the consistency in that? Maybe there's not meant to be any=20
consistency. Maybe anything goes.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Kind regards,</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Richard Henderson</DIV>
<DIV>(IcannatLarge.org)</DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C2FE8D.DC1B0F80--

- --
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, 9 Apr 2003 08:44:56 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Could you fill me in on these Deletes questions?

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2FE95.D2FA33B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Richard,
 
Please note my responses below.
 
Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Richard Henderson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 6:48 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Could you fill me in on these Deletes questions?

Hi Danny, Ross, Chuck -
 
I've been trying to get an update on the state of play with regard to
Deletes policy, and implementation dates.
 
Specifically, when does WLS come into play? Is there a date or rough date
set for its introduction? Has it been passed by the ICANN Board/Verisign
etc.
[Gomes, Chuck] The ICANN Board did pass a resolution authorizing staff to
conduct negotiations to provide for offering the WLS under six conditions.
One of those conditions is that the soonest WLS could happen would be six
months after the Redemption Grace Period (RGP)was implemented.  We
implemented RGP for .com and .net on 25 January 2003.  Under this condition,
the soonest WLS could happen would be 25 July 2003. To date no negotiations
have taken place.  Also, two reconsideration requests were submitted,
neither of which has been resolved. 
 
And secondly, I've been following the process of .com names releases after
expiry in the past months, and there seems no consistency. Some names appear
to go on hold for the minimum period provided, and then become available to
the public (to date, many of those names put "on hold" between January and
about 3rd March have so far become available).
[Gomes, Chuck] With the implementation of RGP for .com and .net on 25
January, here is what happens to all names for which we receive a Delete
command except those during the 5-day Add Grace period: 1) the names
immediately enter a 30-day redemption period during which the registrar of
record may restore a name for a fee; 2) if the names are not restored during
the redemption period, they are put into a 5-day Pending Delete Period,
during which no actions are allowed and registrars are notified of the names
that will be deleted at the end of the Pending Delete Period; 3) the names
are deleted at the end of the Pending Delete Period. 
 
On the other hand, a large number (thousands) of Net Sol names, including
names put on hold in January and the whole of February, remain "on hold" and
are still not available. I can send you hundreds of examples if you needed
them, but how can Netsol hold these names back, in some cases 7 weeks after
they were supposed to be released? Don't the normal rules apply to them? Is
the new deletion process just optional?
[Gomes, Chuck] I have no visibility into any registrar's procedures are with
regard to deletes other than with regard to the commands we receive from
them, but I can tell you that seven weeks in Hold status is quite possible.
Under current policy, there are up to 80 days after a name's expiration date
before a name is deleted if it is not renewed; as you can figure for
yourself, that is over 11 weeks.  If a name is not renewed prior to its
expiration date, it enters a 45-day Auto Renew Grace period during which the
registrar may delete it and receive a credit for the $6 Auto Renew fee.
Registrars have varying policies during this period.  Many put the name on
Hold at some point during this period as a last ditch effort to let the
registrant know that the name needs to be renewed.  Also, during the
redemption period (30 days) and the Pending Delete Period (5 days), all
names are on Registry Hold unless they are restored.  Therefore, if a
registrar put a name on Registrar Hold two weeks (14 days) before the end of
the 45-day Auto Renew grace period, that would mean that it would be on Hold
for a total of seven weeks (14 + 30 + 5 = 49 days).  If a registrar put the
name on Hold sooner, it could be on Hold longer than seven weeks before
being deleted. 
 
I thought the intention was for one, consistent policy for the industry. Why
are the NetSol names being held back?
[Gomes, Chuck] The policy is consistent from the point of time a Delete
command is issued, but registrars are free to implement their own procedures
for how they treat names that have not been renewed by registrants during
the 45-day Auto Renew grace period.  Under RGP, all names that are
ultimately deleted outside of the 5-day Add Grace period would be on
Registry Hold status for at least five weeks (35 days). 
 
I'd be grateful for your insights, both on WLS dates, and on the second
issue, and thank you for your assistance. I've also posted a version of this
letter to the GA list and the Deletes Task Force members. I haven't followed
this issue closely enough, and maybe I'm asking stupid questions. I just
don't "get" why NetSol are acting differently to many other registrars.
[Gomes, Chuck] I don't know what Network Solutions' specific practice is now
with regard to names that have not been renewed, but I can tell you that
clear back to 1996 there was a practice of putting names on Hold if
registrants did not renew by a certain time.  If a registrant changed
contact information and didn't update their records, putting the name on
Hold was often the only way of notifying the registrant that there was a
problem.  I also have been told that some registrars actually put names on
Hold if they are not renewed by the expiration date.  If that is the case,
those names would be on Hold for up to 80 days before being deleted.
 
If I had a name with Tucows which was placed on hold on 3rd March (I did
indeed have one) then that name was finally released and made available for
registration yesterday (9th April). If I had a name with NetSol (I don't but
I've been tracking some) there are still names put on hold back in January
which remain on hold.
[Gomes, Chuck] I am guessing that the name you are referring to went into
the Pending Delete Period on 3 March and then was deleted 5 days later
according to policy.  But it would have had to be on Hold for 30 days prior
to that, during the redemption period. 
 
Where's the consistency in that? Maybe there's not meant to be any
consistency. Maybe anything goes.
 
Kind regards,
 
Richard Henderson
(IcannatLarge.org)

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2FE95.D2FA33B0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>Help</TITLE>
<BASE 
href=file://C:\WINDOWS\>
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=424170212-09042003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Richard,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=424170212-09042003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=424170212-09042003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Please 
note my responses below.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=424170212-09042003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=424170212-09042003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Chuck</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Richard Henderson 
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, April 09, 
  2003 6:48 AM<BR><B>To:</B> [email-masked]<BR><B>Cc:</B> [email-masked]; 
  [email-masked]; [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> Could you fill me in 
  on these Deletes questions?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>
  <DIV>Hi Danny, Ross, Chuck -</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>I've been trying to get an update on the state of play with regard to 
  Deletes policy, and implementation dates.</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>Specifically, when does WLS come into play? Is there a date or rough date 
  set for its introduction? Has it been passed by the ICANN Board/Verisign 
  etc.<BR><SPAN class=424170212-09042003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
  size=2>[Gomes, Chuck]&nbsp;The ICANN Board did pass a resolution authorizing 
  staff to conduct negotiations&nbsp;to provide for offering&nbsp;the 
  WLS&nbsp;under six conditions.&nbsp; One of those conditions is that&nbsp;the 
  soonest WLS could happen would be six months after the Redemption Grace Period 
  (RGP)was implemented.&nbsp; We implemented RGP for .com and .net on 25 January 
  2003.&nbsp; Under this condition, the soonest WLS could happen would be 25 
  July 2003.&nbsp;To date no&nbsp;negotiations have taken place.&nbsp; Also, two 
  reconsideration requests were submitted, neither of which has been 
  resolved.&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>And secondly, I've been following the process of .com names releases 
  after expiry in the past months, and there seems no consistency. Some names 
  appear to go on hold for the minimum period provided, and then become 
  available to the public (to date, many of those names put "on hold" between 
  January and about 3rd March have so far become available).<BR><SPAN 
  class=424170212-09042003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>[Gomes, 
  Chuck]&nbsp;With the implementation of RGP for .com and .net&nbsp;on 25 
  January, here is what happens to all names for which we receive a Delete 
  command except those during the 5-day Add Grace period: 1) the names 
  immediately enter a 30-day redemption period during which the registrar of 
  record may restore a name for a fee; 2) if the names are not restored during 
  the&nbsp;redemption period, they are put into a 5-day&nbsp;Pending Delete 
  Period, during which no actions are allowed and&nbsp;registrars are notified 
  of the names that will be deleted at the end of the Pending Delete Period; 3) 
  the names are deleted at the end of the Pending Delete 
  Period.&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>On the other hand, a large number (thousands) of Net Sol names, including 
  names put on hold in January and the whole of February, remain "on hold" and 
  are still not available. I can send you hundreds of examples if you needed 
  them, but how can Netsol hold these names back, in some cases 7 weeks after 
  they were supposed to be released? Don't the normal rules apply to them? Is 
  the new deletion process just optional?<BR><SPAN 
  class=424170212-09042003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>[Gomes, 
  Chuck]&nbsp;I have no visibility&nbsp;into any registrar's procedures are with 
  regard to deletes other than with regard to the commands we receive from them, 
  but I can tell you that seven weeks&nbsp;in Hold status is quite 
  possible.&nbsp; Under current policy, there are up to 80 days after a name's 
  expiration date before a name is deleted if it is not renewed; as you can 
  figure for yourself, that is over 11 weeks.&nbsp; If a name is not renewed 
  prior to its expiration date, it enters a 45-day&nbsp;Auto Renew Grace period 
  during which the registrar may delete it and receive a credit for the $6 Auto 
  Renew fee.&nbsp; Registrars have varying policies during this period.&nbsp; 
  Many put the name on Hold at some point during this period as a last ditch 
  effort to let the registrant know that the name needs to be renewed.&nbsp; 
  Also, during the&nbsp;redemption period (30 days) and the Pending Delete 
  Period (5 days),&nbsp;all names are on Registry Hold unless they are 
  restored.&nbsp; Therefore, if a registrar put a name on Registrar 
  Hold&nbsp;two weeks (14 days) before the end of the 45-day Auto Renew grace 
  period, that would mean that it would be on Hold for&nbsp;a total of seven 
  weeks (14 + 30 + 5&nbsp;= 49 days).&nbsp; If a registrar put the name on Hold 
  sooner,&nbsp;it&nbsp;could be on Hold longer than seven weeks 
  before&nbsp;being deleted.&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>I thought the intention was for one, consistent policy for the industry. 
  Why are the NetSol names being held back?<BR><SPAN 
  class=424170212-09042003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>[Gomes, 
  Chuck]&nbsp;The policy is consistent from the point of time a Delete command 
  is issued, but registrars are free to implement their own procedures for how 
  they&nbsp;treat names that have not been renewed by registrants during the 
  45-day Auto Renew grace period.&nbsp; Under&nbsp;RGP, all names that 
  are&nbsp;ultimately deleted&nbsp;outside of the 5-day&nbsp;Add Grace period 
  would be on Registry Hold status for at least&nbsp;five weeks (35 
  days).&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>I'd be grateful for your insights, both on WLS dates, and on the second 
  issue, and thank you for your assistance. I've also posted a version of this 
  letter to the GA list and the Deletes Task Force members. I haven't followed 
  this issue closely enough, and maybe I'm asking stupid questions. I just don't 
  "get" why NetSol are acting differently to many other registrars.<BR><SPAN 
  class=424170212-09042003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>[Gomes, 
  Chuck]&nbsp;I don't know what Network Solutions' specific practice is now with 
  regard to&nbsp;names that have not been renewed, but I&nbsp;can tell you 
  that&nbsp;clear back to 1996 there was a practice&nbsp;of putting names on 
  Hold if registrants did not renew by a certain time.&nbsp; If a registrant 
  changed contact information and didn't update their records, putting the name 
  on Hold was often the only way of notifying the registrant that there was a 
  problem.&nbsp; I also have been told that some registrars actually put names 
  on Hold if they are not renewed by the expiration date.&nbsp; If that is the 
  case, those names would be on Hold for up to 80 days before being 
  deleted.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>If I had a name with Tucows which was placed on hold on 3rd March (I did 
  indeed have one) then that name was finally released and made available for 
  registration yesterday (9th April). If I had a name with NetSol (I don't but 
  I've been tracking some) there are still names put on hold back in January 
  which remain on hold.<BR><SPAN class=424170212-09042003><FONT face=Arial 
  color=#0000ff size=2>[Gomes, Chuck]&nbsp;I am guessing that the name you are 
  referring to went into the Pending Delete Period on 3 March and then was 
  deleted 5 days later according to policy.&nbsp; But it would have had to be on 
  Hold&nbsp;for&nbsp;30 days prior to that,&nbsp;during the redemption 
  period.&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>Where's the consistency in that? Maybe there's not meant to be any 
  consistency. Maybe anything goes.</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>Kind regards,</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>Richard Henderson</DIV>
  <DIV>(IcannatLarge.org)</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2FE95.D2FA33B0--
- --
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, 9 Apr 2003 07:47:36 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 3:207     FR   (FRANCE)...IN-ADDR.FR...NXDOMAIN

The DNS clearly shows that .FR is not a Premium TLD.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
3:207     FR   (FRANCE)
=========================
; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> in-addr.fr any
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 63149
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;in-addr.fr. IN ANY

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
fr. 10800 IN SOA ns1.nic.fr. nic.nic.fr. 2003040800 21600 3600 3600000 86400

;; Query time: 2166 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.0.1#53(192.168.0.1)
;; WHEN: Wed Apr  9 07:24:57 2003
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 76
===================================================

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 07:52:36 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [Anuncios] 60/8 allocated to APNIC by IANA

You can not easily lease land (cyberspace) which has been used by others or for special purposes...

Consider 1.*.*.* as an example...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.communitywireless.org/
http://www.locustworld.com/
http://wiana.org/faq.php
"What type of addresses and ranges are you allocating? 
Currently, IPv4 style addresses in the 1.x.x.x range."
===================

Note...these Premium TLD Managers map to be the Managers (like RIRs) of 1.x.x.x...
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
0:8  UNDERGROUND
0:9  CORP
0:10 GOLDEN
0:11 Y    (Single Letter TLD)
0:12 TOWN
0:13 NASDAQ
0:14 METER
0:15 TIME
======================

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "John L Crain" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 3:45 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [Anuncios] 60/8 allocated to APNIC by IANA

> Very strange indeed.
> 
> Why did they do what they did?
> 
> e
> 
> Jim Fleming wrote:
> 
> > How much does each /8 generate in lease revenue each year ?
> >
> > Do all of the /8 leasees pay the same amount ?
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> >
> > Jim Fleming
> > http://www.IPv8.info
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John L Crain" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 3:39 PM
> > Subject: [Anuncios] 60/8 allocated to APNIC by IANA
> >
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > > This is a heads up to let you know that the IANA has allocated the following range of IPv4 addresses to APNIC.
> > >
> > > 60.0.0.0/8
> > >
> > > A notation of the allocation has been made at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space>.
> > >
> > > The range 223/8 was at the same time returned to the IANA and it's status marked as IANA Reserved.
> > >
> > >
> > > You may wish to adjust your filters accordingly.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >  John Crain                      mailto:[email-masked]
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Anuncios mailing list
> > > [email-masked]
> > > http://www.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/anuncios
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1658
*************************