Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #294
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, March 19 2001            Volume 01 : Number 294

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 01:28:58 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] competition ?

thank you, joanna!  you make some excellent points with this posting!

The .com will probably always have more value, real or perceived!

peter

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joanna
Lane
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 1:03 AM
To: '[GA]'; Peter de Blanc
Subject: RE: [ga] competition ?

Peter de Blanc wrote:-
Does anyone think their (VeriSign's) market share will decrease with new
gTLDs in the marketplace?

- - Not me, and to back this up, let me quote a Domain rookie:-

"Good Dot Coms are not getting any cheaper.  

Personally, I would never purchase anything but DOT COMs because I want
emails sent to me.  A couple of DOT net owners I know are having this exact
problem.  Their customers are sending email to DOT coms.  And now the DOT
COM owners are threatening to sue for infringement.      

However, if you have a domain that a drunk man can remember the next
morning, you've got yourself an asset.

Domain names are no different from any other commodity.  The right buyer
will beat down doors to find the owner of a good name.  And this person
will pay any price.  

This can be related to books, personal electronics, apparel, even real
estate.  For a nonbuyer it is a price issue.  For a targeted buyer, it's
how soon you can sell it.  

Infomercials don't sell goods for $129, not 99, not 59, in fact not even
49, but just two payments of 24.95.

A piece of real estate could be appraised for 100K, and sold for 90k-110K. 
To the right buyer, he might just pay 150K.  Why?  Because he likes the
extra sunlight in the living room. 

I tend to agree that mortgage.com is worth more than
several million dollars.  The current owner has assets over 500 billion. 
Anytime someone types in emortgage, imortgage, abcmortgage, greatmortgage,
or anything else mortgage, they will be advertising for mortgage.com.  

Similarly, greatloans.com, abcloans, anything else loans.com will send
traffic to loans.com.

Regards,
Joanna

To view this thread:
http://www.afternic.com/index.cfm?a=th&fid=1005&tid=27337&mid=34832#34832

- --
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:01:02 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Role of US Government

Peter and all remaining assembly members,

  I must agree with Peter here.  In fact not only is competitive registry's
germane to this discussion, but also other root structures as well, whether
or not they are ICANN Friendly....

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Roberto, et all..
>
> I think the part about competition is germane to this discussion, and our
> recommendations.
>
> I beleive that when the new gTLDs come on line, VeriSign's market share will
> decrease, and that the competition issue will be less of an issue.
>
> peter de Blanc
> (NC Member ccTLD)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roberto
> Gaetano
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 5:58 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Role of US Government
>
> Patrick, William,
>
> > > > setting up another competing root which is not subject to USG laws
> >except
> > > > as it relates to internet use within its jurisdiction.
> > >
> > > But that would not be relevant in this forum, since this forum is
> > > dealing exclusive with matters under ICANN's area of control.
> >
> >......
> >
> >And I'd suggest that it is the Chair who should adjudicate on where the
> >line
> >should be drawn.  It's like saying we can't discuss the competition.
>
> The issue of alternater roots is clearly on the border line, and
> historically the discussion has taken place also in this forum because the
> matter is of true interest, even if from a strict point of view is not
> related to ICANN.
>
> This said, I would personally recommend (i.e. as a participant, not as
> Chair) that we focus in the next few days specifically on the contribution
> to give to ICANN + NC on the specifics of the contract, and on the
> elections. We have already so many posts to read without engaging in
> theoretical discussions on competition and alternate roots, that are not at
> all out of order, but possibly badly timed.
>
> Just a personal opinion.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 23:54:49 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] competition ?

>Personally, I would never purchase anything but DOT COMs because I want
>emails sent to me.  A couple of DOT net owners I know are having this exact
>problem.  Their customers are sending email to DOT coms.  And now the DOT
>COM owners are threatening to sue for infringement.

This is one thing that REALLY annoys me.

The .net or .org owner has settled for a 2nd-rate domain, often knowing
full well that a certain amount of their traffic is going to be lost to the
.com, then the greedy dotCom goes after the .net and .org names "because
they can".

Often, the catalyst for this action is the "buy the .net and .org to
protect your identity" crap that people like NSI have been stuffing down
people's throats.

If I had a great .com name I wouldn't give a shit who owned the .net or
.org. Good luck to them.

The sooner this attitude is adopted by the IP community, the better.

I guess they never will, though, as lawyers and the UDRP providers survive
on creating conflict. That is probably the biggest problem we have, now
that the IP community has got control of the system.

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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:33:35 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] competition ?

Peter, Joanna and all remaining assembly members,

  I tend to agree with Joanna's assessment as well.  This shall remain
true for some time to come.  How long, is a matter of conjecture
however.  Should .WEB ever become a "Legacy TLD" or other
root structures gain popularity, this could change...  But this would
take allot of marketing $$....

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> thank you, joanna!  you make some excellent points with this posting!
>
> The .com will probably always have more value, real or perceived!
>
> peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joanna
> Lane
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 1:03 AM
> To: '[GA]'; Peter de Blanc
> Subject: RE: [ga] competition ?
>
> Peter de Blanc wrote:-
> Does anyone think their (VeriSign's) market share will decrease with new
> gTLDs in the marketplace?
>
> - Not me, and to back this up, let me quote a Domain rookie:-
>
> "Good Dot Coms are not getting any cheaper.
>
> Personally, I would never purchase anything but DOT COMs because I want
> emails sent to me.  A couple of DOT net owners I know are having this exact
> problem.  Their customers are sending email to DOT coms.  And now the DOT
> COM owners are threatening to sue for infringement.
>
> However, if you have a domain that a drunk man can remember the next
> morning, you've got yourself an asset.
>
> Domain names are no different from any other commodity.  The right buyer
> will beat down doors to find the owner of a good name.  And this person
> will pay any price.
>
> This can be related to books, personal electronics, apparel, even real
> estate.  For a nonbuyer it is a price issue.  For a targeted buyer, it's
> how soon you can sell it.
>
> Infomercials don't sell goods for $129, not 99, not 59, in fact not even
> 49, but just two payments of 24.95.
>
> A piece of real estate could be appraised for 100K, and sold for 90k-110K.
> To the right buyer, he might just pay 150K.  Why?  Because he likes the
> extra sunlight in the living room.
>
> I tend to agree that mortgage.com is worth more than
> several million dollars.  The current owner has assets over 500 billion.
> Anytime someone types in emortgage, imortgage, abcmortgage, greatmortgage,
> or anything else mortgage, they will be advertising for mortgage.com.
>
> Similarly, greatloans.com, abcloans, anything else loans.com will send
> traffic to loans.com.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> To view this thread:
> http://www.afternic.com/index.cfm?a=th&fid=1005&tid=27337&mid=34832#34832
>
> --
> 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 - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 01:30:21 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] competition ?

From:  Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 4:06 PM

The GAC is an advisory group, not an approval authority.

- - Do we treat their advises less seriously then ? 
Regards,
Joanna
- --
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 01:09:47 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] competition ?

Andy and all remaining assembly members,

  Good point Andy!  I am a bit surprised to read this from you however
given your past record on this issue...  I am glad to see a change in
attitude here however.  Well done!  >;)

  Your point also again points out one of several significant problems
with the UDRP in handling Domain Name disputes, as well as the
questionable wisdom or the the USPTO adding additional classes
of Trademarks in '99 to include domain name related .??? as
viable classes of Trademarks.  It has been our [INEGroup's]
position, and still remains so, that DN's cannot adequately
equate to a TM.  The problems that we have seen thus far sense
Jan '99 have shown this to be quite evident....

Andy Gardner wrote:

> >Personally, I would never purchase anything but DOT COMs because I want
> >emails sent to me.  A couple of DOT net owners I know are having this exact
> >problem.  Their customers are sending email to DOT coms.  And now the DOT
> >COM owners are threatening to sue for infringement.
>
> This is one thing that REALLY annoys me.
>
> The .net or .org owner has settled for a 2nd-rate domain, often knowing
> full well that a certain amount of their traffic is going to be lost to the
> .com, then the greedy dotCom goes after the .net and .org names "because
> they can".
>
> Often, the catalyst for this action is the "buy the .net and .org to
> protect your identity" crap that people like NSI have been stuffing down
> people's throats.
>
> If I had a great .com name I wouldn't give a shit who owned the .net or
> .org. Good luck to them.
>
> The sooner this attitude is adopted by the IP community, the better.
>
> I guess they never will, though, as lawyers and the UDRP providers survive
> on creating conflict. That is probably the biggest problem we have, now
> that the IP community has got control of the system.
>
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 08:35:54 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] competition ?

>
>However, if you have a domain that a drunk man can remember the next
>morning, you've got yourself an asset.
>

whis.ky?

;>)

Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 08:45:04 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Chuck,

>3. There have been areas in the existing agreement where there is 
>sufficient
>ambiguity that it has made it difficult to take action.  A recent example 
>of
>this relates to the Multilingual Testbed.  We have been unable to take
>certain actions that I believe would have been very beneficial to the
>community at large because of disagreements between us and ICANN regarding
>current contractual language.  I think we could have avoided many 
>complaints
>especially from the Asia Pacific region if the agreement was more specific.

I believe that, if there is the need to improve or better clarifie some 
specific points in the current contract, this can be achieved just by 
agreement of the parties without necessarily changing at the same time the 
decision about separation between Registry and Registrar.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 02:52:08 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] competition ?

 Roberto Gaetano wrote:-
>However, if you have a domain that a drunk man can remember the next
>morning, you've got yourself an asset.
>
whis.ky?

:>)

Nope. whisky.com or more likely, tylenol.com
:-)

Joanna
- --
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:35:07 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Draft Resolution

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 6:26 PM
|> Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Draft Resolution
|>
|>
|> At 21:57 17/03/01 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
|>
|> >I can't support that kind of a model.  Registries should be
|> >competitive as well.
|> >
|> I agree with that.
|> A "non-profit" bureaucracy running the registries is not going to benefit
|> anyone except little empire builders.

Two points here, competition at the Registry level and what entities may be
responsible for them are two different issues.  There can still be competition
between non-profit entities.  Such competition would drive efficiency.

I also feel there may be some confusion by what is meant by a non-profit entity.
These are run on corporate lines and have similar structures to commercial
entities.  However, the difference is in the disbursement of any income excess
and the mentality behind the management.  Do not confuse what I mean by
non-profit organisations with some of the bureaucracies you may be familar with.

With non-profit entities, there would not be a garnering of profit for localised
consumption as we currently see with the commercial entities.  You would rather
we have large commercial empire builders?

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 09:31:37 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Special Attention Vinton Cerf to:Re: [ga] Verisign Agreement

Dear Patrick and Jeff,
We are here at a time when the whole future of the internet is
really at stake. Positions taken today will certainly have a final
impact on the people, the companies, the technologies (through
the M$ 200 R&D) DNS development, access costs,and therefore
on business alliances and corporations survivals. If I judge from
the Chinese case: also on international policies.

On 07:50 19/03/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Patrick and all remaining assembly members,
>It seems from this article that Vint Cerf is either ignoring the vast majority
>of comments regarding these "Options" or he has a reading impairment
>problem...  I wonder which one it is???

Jeff, there is also the possibhilty that Vint is playing tricky fox
with them all, as he did for ".web". Would he do it or not, our interest
is that people do not know, and that he may claim that he is under vox
populi's pressure.

>Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > ICANN defers VeriSign decision
> > By Stephen Withers, ZDNet Australia
> > 13 March 2001
> > These comments can be lodged through ICANN's Web site or sent to
> > [email-masked] until March 31.

Looks like our only to interfaces are Chuck Gomes and Louis Touton.
I am not sure which one is the Internet Community best ally?

> > The board's discussion today suggested the weight of opinion favours 
> "Option B".

Weight in term of stakeholder number, country Govs or added bucks?

> > As happened at the public forum, most of the concerns expressed seemed 
> to be
> > about due process, rather than either of the options facing the board.
> >
> > "My view is that [Option B] is an improvement and a benefit," said 
> Cerf, shortly
> > before he left the meeting prior to the close of business.

May be Vint's list of con and pros would be more convincing than
this view. "Prior to the close of business" might be an appropriate
formula for many.

> > Following the discussion, Elliot Noss, president and CEO of registrar 
> Tucows,
> > said "This deal [Option B] is much preferred to the previous deal," 
> although
> > ICANN had missed "an opportunity to get concessions that would have 
> been good

We need all the elements to be put on the table.
I wish to know when press quotes one Registrar against the
others or one stakeholder in favor of VeriSign, who is what,
who is related to SAIC/VeriSign.

Would some one know the Registrars group enough to either
describe or ask one of them to describe the economic links
between the field players?

Talking of feeling, mine is that we head towards a huge anti-trust
international case in the years to come. But in in the meanwhile
and during its legal and international resolution the Internet will
suffer instability and development delays. This will also affect the
credibility of the iCANN or kill it. I would not bother would the IP
addressing plan not to be at stake. It will also affect SAIC/VeriSign,
and we have no more reason to see them hurt than we have to be
hurt by them.

This to say that we have all the elements to properly advise
the Board and report to the press. Chuck Gomes is obviously trying
to help: but the take it or leave it attitude from VeriSign does not help
him and does not help us.

Jefsey

- --
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 02:40:57 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] competition ?

Joanna and all remaining assembly members,

  Sometime back now there was quite a bit of discussion as to what the
role
of the GAC really was and what powers or influence it has with respect
to
any decision making.  It would seem that although the GAC is an advisory

body primarily, it has considerable influence over the ICANN BoD's
decisions.  The GAC also provides broad perspective input to ICANN
as well.

Joanna Lane wrote:

> From:  Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 4:06 PM
>
> The GAC is an advisory group, not an approval authority.
>
> - Do we treat their advises less seriously then ?
> Regards,
> Joanna
> --
> 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 - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 09:08:52 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Kent,

Just a couple of short comments, because I think that we made our positions 
clear.

>
>Could be, I don't recall from the context above.  However, when you
>think about it, what people are clamoring for is indeed that Verisign
>determine the future of .org, because what they are clamoring for is
>for .org to remain in vsgns hands.

What they are clamoring is that it is better (or at least a lesser evil) 
that .org stays with NSI than the Registrar stays with the Registry.
And I agree with this approach.

>
>I think Mr Sclavos dictated that letter to a secretary mainly as a
>polite message to the chair of the board of a company with whom his
>company has been dealing with.  The letter is not a contract, and indeed
>it is quite possible that Mr Sclavos dictated it in a hurry.

Oh, yes! And we may even think that "it is quite possible" that the 
secretary him/herself drafted the letter and put it in the pile of documents 
to be signed (in a hurry). It's just about the monopoly in the domain name 
business, worthed only few billion dollars, and it's perfectly reasonable 
that it does not deserve more than few seconds of Mr. Sclavos' time.

(Seriously, I thought you made above the assumption that Mr. Sclavos was not 
an idiot! This seems to contradict your assumption.)

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 01:04:30 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] competition ?

> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 11:52 PM
> 
>  Roberto Gaetano wrote:-
> >However, if you have a domain that a drunk man can remember the next
> >morning, you've got yourself an asset.
> >
> whis.ky?
> 
> :>)
> 
> Nope. whisky.com or more likely, tylenol.com
> :-)

Nah, take two ASPRIN.COM before you sleep and you won't have the
HANGOVER.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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 03:35:52 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Chuck,
>
> >3. There have been areas in the existing agreement where there is
> >sufficient
> >ambiguity that it has made it difficult to take action.  A recent example
> >of
> >this relates to the Multilingual Testbed.  We have been unable to take
> >certain actions that I believe would have been very beneficial to the
> >community at large because of disagreements between us and ICANN regarding
> >current contractual language.  I think we could have avoided many
> >complaints
> >especially from the Asia Pacific region if the agreement was more specific.
>
> I believe that, if there is the need to improve or better clarifie some
> specific points in the current contract, this can be achieved just by
> agreement of the parties without necessarily changing at the same time the
> decision about separation between Registry and Registrar.

  Our members along with myself agree with you here Roberto.  I suggested
this with some provisions or potential amendments last week.  This seems
to be a better track to take in order to come up with a Win-Win situation
in terms of a alternative to current contract.

>
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 04:18:54 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions - Versign Contracts considerations

Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Kent,
>
> Just a couple of short comments, because I think that we made our positions
> clear.
>
> >
> >Could be, I don't recall from the context above.  However, when you
> >think about it, what people are clamoring for is indeed that Verisign
> >determine the future of .org, because what they are clamoring for is
> >for .org to remain in vsgns hands.
>
> What they are clamoring is that it is better (or at least a lesser evil)
> that .org stays with NSI than the Registrar stays with the Registry.
> And I agree with this approach.

  Exactly!  However I don not agree with this approach, and the vast
majority of our members (Stakeholders all) don't either.  In fact a third
option is obtainable or possibly a much better objective.

  Our position is that the Registry and registrar function for .ORG and .NET
should be separated from Versigh/NSI AND that .ORG and .NET registration
policy not be modified after such a separation is affected. Versign can keep
.COM and the registry function for .COM as well.  Hence providing separate
registries for .Com, .NET, and .ORG in separate organizations, be they
for-profit or non-profit.  In the case of .ORG, it should only be in a
non-profit organizations hands.

  Another point discussed with respect to the Versign contracts is the
$5m and $200m funding and how it should be fiduciary managed
so as to maximize the use of these funds, and yet still provide for
some small flexibility in their use...  I have already forwarded our
position on this issue last week.

  The final issue, and of great interest and importance as well is, the
process in which these issues are to be addressed and finally determined.
The DNSO GA, the @large and the Constituencies must me in a majority
agreement before signing and execution of any contract can be consummated.
The ICANN BoD doesn't seem to agree on this point rather strongly, which
is understandable, but not expectable.

>
>
> >
> >I think Mr Sclavos dictated that letter to a secretary mainly as a
> >polite message to the chair of the board of a company with whom his
> >company has been dealing with.  The letter is not a contract, and indeed
> >it is quite possible that Mr Sclavos dictated it in a hurry.
>
> Oh, yes! And we may even think that "it is quite possible" that the
> secretary him/herself drafted the letter and put it in the pile of documents
> to be signed (in a hurry). It's just about the monopoly in the domain name
> business, worthed only few billion dollars, and it's perfectly reasonable
> that it does not deserve more than few seconds of Mr. Sclavos' time.
>
> (Seriously, I thought you made above the assumption that Mr. Sclavos was not
> an idiot! This seems to contradict your assumption.)
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:11:58 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hello Roberto!

> I believe that, if there is the need to improve or better clarifie some
> specific points in the current contract, this can be achieved just by
> agreement of the parties without necessarily changing at the same time the
> decision about separation between Registry and Registrar.

After having read James Seng's mail
  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01029.html
about a way VeriSign could follow the old agreement to
the letter, but keep their de facto power, I have been
trying to find out more about this. Bret Fausett asked
something similar at the Public Forum in Melbourne:
  http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/scribe-icann-031201-pf.html

I am now doubtful as to whether VeriSign's understanding
of option A is the same as our understanding, and if a
*pseudo divestiture* really worked out, it would be the worst
case scenario IMHO:
- -- VeriSign continues to control com/net/org at least until
   2007, if not longer -- thus remains the dominant *registry*
- -- VeriSign secures a dominant reseller/pseudo registrar
   position by a strategic alliance with the NSI acquirer,
   maybe even using the NSI name
- -- VeriSign pays less than the new TLD registries (which
   additionally all are registry-registrar-separated)
   while having longer contracts

Let me expand:
In the time of the original agreements, it seemed to be
a clean split. There was the company Network Solutions
providing both registry operator and registrar services,
so divestiture meant cutting the company in halves.
Nowadays things have changed: After the purchase of NSI
by VeriSign, there are additional services in question,
some relating more directly, some more indirectly to
domain name registration. You obviously don't have to be
an ICANN-accredited registrar to sell domain names --
e.g. CORE members are registering *via* CORE. If it was
possible to circumvent the divestiture requirements in
the old agreement (II.23) by opening a reselling business,
this could be VeriBad, and there can be no doubt VeriSign
would do it if the courts allowed it to.

It's of course very difficult for someone who isn't into
US contractual law to judge whether this would be possible,
and it seems that the views of lawyers on both sides of
the negotiating table have been differing, too. The lack
of time to tackle these questions thoroughly is frustrating,
but the threat of a pseudo divestiture should probably be
looked at seriously. (This may be one of points VeriSign
wouldn't mention and ICANN cannot mention without
endangering its position in possible future court proceedings.)

To return to your (Roberto's) mail: I'm not sure whether
the "clarification" of II.23 in the current contract
would be resolved amicably. Or in a way that is beneficial
to the Internet at large.

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
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 #294
************************