Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1680
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Thursday, May 1 2003            Volume 01 : Number 1680

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dotster's latest letter to ICANN re: WLS -- Why hasn't ICANN acknowledged it?

Hello,

- --- Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> wrote:
> But the WLS has already been implemented...

That's not correct. The status quo continues to reign supreme (e.g.
recent drops like Warrior.com and Motherboard.com were caught by
NameWinner, france.net was caught by SnapNames, zdj.com by eNom, all in
the status quo).

WLS cannot be implemented before July 25, 2003 (6 months after RGP)
according to ICANN's Board Decision. The outcome of appeals (by Dotster
and Verisign, and other market participants if/when Verisign ever
announces an Implementation Date) will determine whether WLS will ever
be implemented.

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

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:11:06 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dotster's latest letter to ICANN re: WLS -- Why hasn't ICANN acknowledged it?

- --------------070607020407040105050204
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I could have swore that Verisign was offering the WLS service not long 
ago.  Perhaps I was wrong, I do make mistakes.

Thanks for the correction.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

George Kirikos wrote:

>Hello,
>
>--- Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> wrote:
>  
>
>>But the WLS has already been implemented...
>>    
>>
>
>That's not correct. The status quo continues to reign supreme (e.g.
>recent drops like Warrior.com and Motherboard.com were caught by
>NameWinner, france.net was caught by SnapNames, zdj.com by eNom, all in
>the status quo).
>
>WLS cannot be implemented before July 25, 2003 (6 months after RGP)
>according to ICANN's Board Decision. The outcome of appeals (by Dotster
>and Verisign, and other market participants if/when Verisign ever
>announces an Implementation Date) will determine whether WLS will ever
>be implemented.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>http://www.kirikos.com/
>
>  
>

- --------------070607020407040105050204
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body>
I could have swore that Verisign was offering the WLS service not long ago.
&nbsp;Perhaps I was wrong, I do make mistakes.<br>
<br>
Thanks for the correction.<br>
<br>
Sotiris Sotiropoulos<br>
<br>
George Kirikos wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
 cite="[email-masked]">
  <pre wrap="">Hello,

- --- Sotiris Sotiropoulos <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a> wrote:
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">But the WLS has already been implemented...
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
That's not correct. The status quo continues to reign supreme (e.g.
recent drops like Warrior.com and Motherboard.com were caught by
NameWinner, france.net was caught by SnapNames, zdj.com by eNom, all in
the status quo).

WLS cannot be implemented before July 25, 2003 (6 months after RGP)
according to ICANN's Board Decision. The outcome of appeals (by Dotster
and Verisign, and other market participants if/when Verisign ever
announces an Implementation Date) will determine whether WLS will ever
be implemented.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.kirikos.com/">http://www.kirikos.com/</a>

  </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>

- --------------070607020407040105050204--

- --
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: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:02:41 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "ICANN is still the only entity which can create gTLDs of any kind..." ?

http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00228.html
From: Vittorio Bertola
"ICANN is still the only entity which can create gTLDs of any kind..."
===

TLDs (or gTLDs) are not created, they already exist. Many are not used.

ICANN was created by the U.S. Government, during the Clinton Administration.
With respect to TLDs, the agreement was that a handful of Proof-of-Concept TLDs
would be added to the legacy root servers to prove that there was demand and that
the DNS would not crash. At the time, only a small number of TLDs were considered
to be ready for the Proof-of-Concept. .BIZ, .WEB, .NEWS, .XXX, .INC, and .SHOP
were expected to be approved in a matter of weeks. It took **years** for the I* society to
rework the deals and to let others move to the head of the line. During those years, delays
were introduced with the addition of the artificial Registrar "accreditation" process. Prior
to Registrars, webmasters, ISPs, lawyers, etc. accessed the Registry directly, with no need
for accreditation. In parallel with the ICANN accreditation approach, other companies have
added TLDs to the marketplace in parallel. People are beginning to see that they would rather
have a domain name they prefer, that is reachable by 185,000,000+ users, rather than a domain
name everyone can reach but no one desires or can easily remember.

The Proof-of-Concept expansion of the namespace continues. ICANN is no longer needed.

http://new.chat.new.net/viewtopic.php?t=118
DAY 9 (Thursday 05/01/03) 
.INC 

DAY 10 (Monday 05/05/03) 
.SHOP 
=============================

Once the 32-bit DNS is used to do the market tests (Proof-of-Concept) and to attract users who
desire names, the 128-bit DNS services can be started to build on those existing customer bases.
TLDs that are not popular will fade from the scene. They still exist, they are just not used. Eventually,
a working set of 2,048 Premium TLDs will emerge, based on selections (votes) in the free marketplace.
Those TLD managers can then divide up all of the management of the address spaces to increase their
revenues, to help make sure that TLDs are supported and funded.

ICANN and the RIRs are then simply the managers of the 0:0 .ARPA TLD and IN-ADDR.ARPA.
There can be 2,047 other competitors. The I* society does not want any competition. The world is
ignoring that and routing around the I* society.

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: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:54:53 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?

Richard and all former DNSO GA members,

  Indeed Richard you are essentially correct.  The ALAC an indirect creature
from the old ALSC has no creditability as to a representation structure
for the stakeholders/users.  It is plain and simple a "Trade Association"
without individual stakeholder/user members.  The spin that Esther,
Denise, and now Vittorio have been applying in the name of the ALAC
for stakeholders/users individually is a simple canard...

Richard Henderson wrote:

> Denise, you are discredited.
>
> There are so many people sincerely and methodically working for user
> representation, democratic accountability, and integrity in the running of
> the DNS.
>
> Your spin is a top down process/initiative with no mandate from the people
> the ALAC is supposed to be about.
>
> Nobody outside of the ICANN Board asked you to do this.
>
> Nobody elected you to work for the internet user community.
>
> You are simply working as a paid stooge of the very Board which chose to
> expel elected At Large representatives.
>
> This is so sick, it is truly insulting to the intelligence of sincere
> people.
>
> ICANN and its crass manipulation of power (on behalf of the US government)
> is a shame and a disgrace to the reputation of America (ordinary, decent
> Americans I mean). It is an embarrassment, and your fake, mock, top-down,
> Board-driven "at large" is an embarrassment.
>
> Who are you representing? The Board which pays you.
>
> Says it all.
>
> ALAC does not represent individual internet users.
>
> ALAC exists because it was in the interests of the Board to make it exist.
>
> Individual internet users will organise and represent themselves.
>
> sincerely,
>
> Richard Henderson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Denise Michel <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 11:41 PM
> Subject: RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?
>
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >
> > >From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
> > >Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 05:05:48 -0400
> > >
> > >Denise,
> > >Thank you for the reply. As you were permitted by Stuart Lynn to use the
> > >2000 Election list, perhaps uniquely, would you please expand on
> > >the numbers
> > >for the benefit of the public in general, including but not limited to:-
> > >
> > >1) The number of Announce messages generated by ICANN from which the
> 5,000
> > >positive responses resulted.
> >
> > A single message was sent to the list.
> >
> > >2) The number of Announce messages that were returned undelivered and
> their
> > >geographical diversity.
> >
> > The bounced messages were neither preserved nor analyzed; only positive
> > responses were used.
> >
> > >3) The geographical diversity of the 5,000 positive responses.
> >
> > That wasn't analyzed either.  In general, email addresses only give you
> > hints as to geography; for example, an email address ending in .com, or
> > course, could be used by anyone, anywhere.  One could do an analysis by
> > domain, but that wasn't done.  It's just an email list for At-Large
> > announcements, completely distinct from the old election list.  No names,
> > addresses, or other data is associated with these email addresses.
> >
> > >4) The number of responses invalidated and methodology used.
> >
> > I don't know what you mean by "invalidated".  People could respond and
> > opt-in to the announce list by email, or they could sign-up by going to
> the
> > web site.  If they responded to the email, their address was put on the
> > announce list.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Denise
> >
> > Denise Michel
> > [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

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: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 23:08:16 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "ICANN is still the only entity which can create gTLDs of any kind..." ?

Jim and all former DNSO GA members,

  Vittorio is well known for his exclamatory and frequently
less than accurate statements in this specific
area amongst others..

I guess it is akin to Mousilinni's saying he made the trains run
on time...

Jim Fleming wrote:

> http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00228.html
> From: Vittorio Bertola
> "ICANN is still the only entity which can create gTLDs of any kind..
> ===
>
> TLDs (or gTLDs) are not created, they already exist. Many are not used.
>
> ICANN was created by the U.S. Government, during the Clinton Administration.
> With respect to TLDs, the agreement was that a handful of Proof-of-Concept TLDs
> would be added to the legacy root servers to prove that there was demand and that
> the DNS would not crash. At the time, only a small number of TLDs were considered
> to be ready for the Proof-of-Concept. .BIZ, .WEB, .NEWS, .XXX, .INC, and .SHOP
> were expected to be approved in a matter of weeks. It took **years** for the I* society to
> rework the deals and to let others move to the head of the line. During those years, delays
> were introduced with the addition of the artificial Registrar "accreditation" process. Prior
> to Registrars, webmasters, ISPs, lawyers, etc. accessed the Registry directly, with no need
> for accreditation. In parallel with the ICANN accreditation approach, other companies have
> added TLDs to the marketplace in parallel. People are beginning to see that they would rather
> have a domain name they prefer, that is reachable by 185,000,000+ users, rather than a domain
> name everyone can reach but no one desires or can easily remember.
>
> The Proof-of-Concept expansion of the namespace continues. ICANN is no longer needed.
>
> http://new.chat.new.net/viewtopic.php?t=118
> DAY 9 (Thursday 05/01/03)
> .INC
>
> DAY 10 (Monday 05/05/03)
> .SHOP
> =============================
>
> Once the 32-bit DNS is used to do the market tests (Proof-of-Concept) and to attract users who
> desire names, the 128-bit DNS services can be started to build on those existing customer bases.
> TLDs that are not popular will fade from the scene. They still exist, they are just not used. Eventually,
> a working set of 2,048 Premium TLDs will emerge, based on selections (votes) in the free marketplace.
> Those TLD managers can then divide up all of the management of the address spaces to increase their
> revenues, to help make sure that TLDs are supported and funded.
>
> ICANN and the RIRs are then simply the managers of the 0:0 .ARPA TLD and IN-ADDR.ARPA.
> There can be 2,047 other competitors. The I* society does not want any competition. The world is
> ignoring that and routing around the I* society.
>
> 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

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, 30 Apr 2003 08:25:31 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] http://www.NewZealand.com $500,000 ?...http://www.NewZealand.travel ?

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/29/1312248&mode=thread
"very recently newzealand.com had changed registrant details. The details now have a company called The New Zealand Way Ltd as the
registrant. A check of the New Zealand Companies Office shows that this company is an arm of the NZ Government. Now comes the
interesting bit. Today a question was asked in Parliament of the Minister of Tourism about how much the name cost."..."The response
was $500,000 USD (over $1 Million NZD)."
=====

http://www.NewZealand.com $500,000
http://www.New-Zealand.com ?

http://www.NZ.travel
http://www.NewZealand.travel
http://www.New-Zealand.travel

http://www.New.Net

new-zealand.travel is owned by:
Bruce Clarke
[email-masked]

59 Blackwell Drive
Tryphena
Great Barrier Island, Hauraki Gulf 1236
NZ
+64.94290520

Record created on 2001-03-26T08:09:39Z
Record expires on 2003-03-26T08:09:39Z
=================================
newzealand.travel is owned by:
Mandip Sandhu
[email-masked]

6547 - 196 Street

Surrey, BC V4N 3G6
CA
+1.6045301813

Record created on 2001-03-06T02:44:26Z
Record expires on 2004-03-06T02:44:26Z
==================================

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, 30 Apr 2003 15:19:12 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dotster's latest letter to ICANN re: WLS -- Why hasn't ICANN acknowledged it?

From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>

> I could have swore that Verisign was offering the WLS service not long
> ago.  Perhaps I was wrong, I do make mistakes.

No, you are confusing that with the Redemption Grace Period.  That started
two months ago, and is the marketing program under which expired domain names
go to the first person to make a deal with an expired domain name registrant,
so that they can beat the WLS if and when it is implemented.

- --
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, 30 Apr 2003 22:10:15 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ALAC posts draft comments on WIPO2.

A draft of the ALAC's planned comments on the WIPO2 recommendations
on IGO names and acronyms and country names has been posted for
public comment at

       <http://alac.icann.org/drafts/draft-wipo-29apr03.htm>.

(A plain-text version is included with this message below the
.signature.)

Comments (both in support of ALAC's draft position or otherwise)
would be extremely welcome; please direct them to the ALAC's forum
address <[email-masked]>.

Comments will be archived at
<http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/wipo/>.

Regards,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler				<[email-masked]>

	  ALAC Statement on WIPO Recommendations Regarding
		       IGOs and Country Names

			    29 April 2003

			    Introduction

The Interim At-Large Advisory Committee thanks the Board for the
opportunity to comment on the recommendations concerning the protection
of the names and acronyms of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)
and of country names in the DNS, communicated to ICANN by the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on February 21, 2003.

The present comments focus on the ALAC's basic concerns with the subject
matter of these recommendations, which appears to be out of scope of
ICANN's limited mission. We would submit a more detailed analysis of the
recommendations proper if and when WIPO's recommendations are subject
to policy-development processes.

		       Subject Matter Concerns

ICANN's mission and core values have a clear focus on the organization's
technical coordination function -- ICANN is clearly not intended to be
an international law-making body. Rather, ICANN acts within a framework
of national and international laws. It serves to provide architectural
support for existing laws, not to make new laws.

Both ICANN and WIPO have followed this principle relatively successfully
in the past, when establishing the UDRP as an inexpensive method to
address the bad faith registration of others' trademarks as domain names,
while deferring to the courts in situations in which several parties
may have legitimate claims to a domain name. Underlying the UDRP is a
body of law which is reasonably uniform, internationally.

In the Committee's view, two key features of the UDRP help to keep ICANN
out of any lawmaking role.

First, the UDRP addresses only situations where a complainant has rights
under existing trademark laws. Decisions are specifically required to
be made in accordance with the rules and principles of law that the
panel finds applicable. The UDRP implements existing law which has been
developed by well-established governmental law-making mechanisms. It
does not create new trademark law.

Second, parties dissatisfied with UDRP rulings can obtain judicial review
in an appropriate court. This helps to ensure that the UDRP does not
supersede applicable national law.

The Committee is concerned to observe that WIPO's recommendations on
the protection of the names of IGOs and countries seem to contemplate
creation of rights in names without support in existing law. Indeed,
WIPO's September 2001 Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name
Process (The Recognition of Rights and the Use of Names in the Internet
Domain Name System, September 3, 2001, "WIPO Report") recognizes that
there is no basis in existing law for the rights in domain names that
the current recommendations seek to have implemented through forced
cancellation or transfer of domain names.

In the case of the WIPO recommendations on IGOs, paragraph 138 of the
WIPO Report describes the limited nature of rights of IGOs in their
names and abbreviations under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention. In
paragraph 168, the WIPO Report recognizes that cancellation or transfer
of domain names through an ICANN-mandated administrative procedure:

    would involve, at least in cases not involving the use of domain
    names as trademarks, the creation of new international law. It would
    represent an extension of the principles in Article 6ter of the Paris
    Convention, the Trademark Law Treaty and the TRIPS Agreement. While
    it is believed that such an extension is desirable, it would require
    a legitimate source in international law. It would be for States to
    determine the appropriate basis for such an extension of law, either
    in the form of a resolution of a competent treaty organ, a memorandum
    of understanding duly accepted by national authorities or a treaty.

Despite these observations, WIPO has now transmitted recommendations
calling for creation of a mandatory administrative procedure, disregarding
existing law's limitations on rights in IGO names and abbreviations. The
recommendations would also remove the current UDRP's assurancethat
existing legal principles will be observed. Instead, the recommendations
replace the right to review in a national court applying national law
with only a binding arbitration mechanism applying the "extension of
principles" of established law, as described in the WIPO Report.

In the case of the WIPO recommendations on country names, the WIPO Report
is even more direct about the lack of basis in existing law. It states
in paragraphs 286 and 287:

    286. . . . Rather than expressing agreement or disagreement with
    this position [favoring exclusive rights in country names], we draw
    attention to the following fundamental characteristics of the debate,
    as they have emerged from the Second WIPO Process:

    (i) The question of the appropriateness of the registration of country
    names in the gTLDs is inextricably linked by some governments to
    what they perceive to be their national sovereign interest.

    (ii) Protecting country names in the gTLDs would require or amount to
    the creation of new law, a function traditionally reserved for States.

    287. Both points lead us to conclude that we have reached the limits
    of what can be achieved legitimately through consultation processes,
    such as the WIPO Internet Domain Name Processes or any similar ICANN
    processes. In other words, we agree with those commentators who
    are of the view that this particular question is more appropriately
    dealt with by governments.

Despite this clear recognition that there is no basis in current law
for recognition of exclusive rights to country names, the current WIPO
recommendations propose amendment of the UDRP to implement those "rights."

We believe that it would be inappropriate for ICANN to assume the role of
an international legislator, and to try to establish such new law through
its contracts and policy processes. For this reason, any policy-making
processes which are based upon WIPO's recommendations in the areas of
the protection of IGOs' and countries' names must pay close attention
to staying within the confines of supporting existing, internationally
uniform law.

In view of these new difficulties -- which are less evident in the
trademark-centric review of the UDRP currently underway -- the Committee
supports the GNSO Council's recommendation to separate the UDRP's review
from discussions about implementation of WIPO's recommendations, and to
address the additional WIPO requests in a separate policy-making process.

The Committee also recommends to the Board that any separate policy-making
process begin with a careful review of the legal basis for rights that
are proposed to be created or implemented. The September 2001 WIPO Report
strongly indicates that the current WIPO recommendations propose to
implement "rights" that are not supported by existing law. The Board,
in common with other ICANN bodies, has a responsibility to take care
that ICANN adhere to its limited mission. The Committee urges the Board
to ensure that ICANN's policy development proceed only where there is a
solid legal foundation and a full understanding of the limits of existing
legal consensus.

	 Annex: Preliminary Analysis of the Recommendations

We note that a more precise analysis will be necessary for a
final assessment of the extent to which an implementation of WIPO's
recommendations would indeed amount to the creation of new international
law. We do not provide that analysis in this document, but will focus
on a number of remarks on the merits of the individual recommendations.

We would ask in the first instance whether there is any real problem of
mis-registration of names of IGOs and Countries, or whether perceived
problems can be solved without new ICANN intervention, for example through
use of the existing restricted .int TLD and countries' own ccTLDs. Where
such a minimally disruptive alternative is available, that should be
examined thoroughly before more extensive regulation is proposed.

Names and Acronyms of IGOs

* The committee notes that the WIPO Report disparages the .int
  top-level domain for its internal limitations and lack of public
  awareness. Rather than reshaping the rest of the domain name
  system to solve those deficiencies, the Committee proposes that
  the .int TLD should be re-examined as a dedicated TLD for IGOs.
  The language proposed by WIPO seems to apply to past and future
  registrations.

* The committee notes that, given that most IGOs' acronyms are
  short, there is a high likelihood that these might be used as
  good-faith acronyms for other entities, and may have been
  registered in good faith. The settled expectations of existing
  domain name holders should not be upset. 
  
* Recommendation 1.A suggests a complaint system based on
  "registration or use" of a domain name which need to be of a
  certain "nature" in order to justify a complaint. This wording,
  and the subjectivity of the determination it entails, bears a
  considerable risk of extending policy-based dispute resolution
  mechanisms to areas touching upon the regulation of net content.
  We recommend that such disputes be left to regular courts. 
  
* Recommendation 1.B's wording is rather comprehensive -- as
  presented, this recommendation would not be limited to IGOs' names
  and acronyms as registered according to Paris Convention art.
  6ter, but may cover any names and acronyms covered by any
  international contract. The right to complain would be given to
  any IGO. This recommendation may be misread as an attempt to use
  ICANN policies as an instrument for the enforcement of arbitrary
  international contracts. The Committee suggests that ICANN should
  seek clarification of this recommendation from WIPO.

Country Names

* The language on country names once again relies upon criteria
  applied to the "registration or use" of domain names. The same
  concerns as above apply.
    
* Once again, it seems more appropriate to give each country control
  of its name (and any other character strings it chooses) in its
  unique ccTLD, not to grant it monopoly rights in strings across
  all TLDs.

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

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

Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 12:08:33 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dotster's latest letter to ICANN re: WLS -- Why hasn't ICANN acknowledged it?

From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>

> go to the first person to make a deal with an
> expired domain name registrant,

I beg the collective pardon.  I should have said "registrant of an expired
domain name".  Snagging domain names from dead people involves a completely
different set of techniques (and, yes, there are ways to do that - remember,
dead people do not complain or respond to email).

Some of the new rules of "the game" are becoming clearer as we approach the
anticipated WLS launch.  For example, there are already some websites that
have sprung up to tout various WLS snagging services.  An important component
of WLS strategy will be to avoid wasting one's slots on names that will not
drop (or proper allocation of bulk WLS credits, per Mr. Cole's comments on
volume pricing of WLS subscriptions last year).  If one is sufficiently
skilled in taking "good" WLS positions, then the secondary market in those
WLS slots provides a good alternative to running the risk of actually
registering domain names.

To those of you who think I'm joking, go take a look at "SnapBack"
re-selling, as at www.domainsnaps.com, for example.  Now, they sell SnapNames
SnapBacks for $39.95, while if you went to SnapNames directly, you'd pay $69.
If that leaves you scratching your head, then you have not had your eye on
the ball, and probably still believe the propaganda about WLS pricing floated
by certain folks here last year.

Premium pre-allocated wholesale WLS subscriptions can be sold *above* the
retail price for non-allocated WLS subscriptions, if you think about it long
enough.  A non-allocated WLS credit is just as good as any other.  But if it
is allocated to a particular domain name, it is now the *only* WLS credit
that will snag that name.

The RGP/WLS combination will increase the value of a skill set known as
"skip-tracing" - the types of techniques used to find deadbeats, heirs, or
other people who've gone missing from official records of one kind or
another.  If you can't get the WLS slot on the name you want, then the RGP
gives you a thirty-day window to find the registrant and make a deal whereby
they exercise the redemption mechanism before the domain name goes to the WLS
holder.  Alternatively, if you are convinced that you've got a dead or
seriously out-of-action party on your hands, then you can use the time to
come up with whatever simulacrum of that person's former identity is the
threshold level for getting the name redeemed.

The nice thing about using RGP to beat out a WLS position, if you are
successful, is that it is a certainty that there is at least one other party
who is known to want the domain name - i.e. the WLS subscriber.

Welcome to the vulture business.  Enjoy your stay.

- --
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 #1680
*************************