Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #356
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, April 7 2001           Volume 01 : Number 356

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

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:31:41 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:56:09PM -0400, Russ Smith wrote:
> Registrar competition was put in place by the US Department of Commerce.

Nope.  DoC gave the go-ahead, but ICANN did most of the work.

In fact, ICANN was absolutely instrumental in the creation of registrar
competition -- registrars are *ICANN-accredited*, after all.  The
accreditation agreement was developed by ICANN, not DoC, and that
development work took place before any agreements were signed; the
accreditation process was developed by ICANN; the accreditation process
is and always has been managed by ICANN. 

> According to ICANN's general counsel Loius Touton, ICANN is not responsible
> for any events prior to November 1999 when ICANN was officially put in place
> (http://www.icann.org/nsi/coopagmt-amend19-04nov99.htm).

ICANN existed long before that.  It was incorporated in Novermbe 1998,
and there was a tremendous amount of work involved in negotiating the
agreements w/ NSI and DOC before they were ever signed.  The supporting
organizations had to be formed, etc etc. 

> Mr. Touton told me that ICANN would not take any responsibility for
> assisting in clearing up the incident with Races.com
> (http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,32974,00.html) because it
> happened prior to ICANN's existence.

Different issue.

> I do not remember the exact date the shared registry system went into place
> but the amendment to the NSI cooperative agreement was in April 1999,
> several months before ICANN officially existed
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/amendment13.htm.

ICANN existed in Nov 1998.

> I guess you can say that some of the people who eventually formed ICANN were
> involved in registrar competition but, according to ICANN's general counsel,
> ICANN is not responsible for those events which took place prior to November
> 1999 even though Vint Cerf and ICANN made this claim in recent congressional
> testimonies.
> 
> To summarize, that one doesn't count.

Of course it does.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 15:51:47 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Privacy/WHOIS

I certainly hope you are right about RICO.  My point was that the continued intentional
violation of rules and regulations in a money oriented business, regardless of non-profit
status, i.e. churches, starts to become identifiable as a pattern when it happens so often
that it cannot be accidental or negligent.
    When we add up that the boardsquatters and lack of membership, and refusal to disclose
ownership of the corporation and obviously paid for disruption of the process (internet
Union busters).  Then add the monopolistic status of both the contractor and the main
subcontractor we begin to see a pattern of racketeering and or corruption the, element of
influence is already there and it is clearly an organization. We have to keep in mind RICO
is not a dirty word it is simply intitials for the essential elements of stating the case.
Note also that RICO can now be a civil action in Federal Court. When filed civily it usually
includes a Qui Tam action.  California does not have a state cause of action for civil rico.

    My point on this latest subject coming so close behind how the Verisign matter was
handled and not far after the new gTLD announcement and clear violation of privacy laws and
the DoC's requirements for confidentiality. WE see a pattern developing.  There is also a
provision in the contract that prohibits the changing of policy regarding re-delegation,
perhaps this problem can be cured with DoC Approval.
    Keep in mind I do not practice law, but for lawyers I have drafted three filed RICO
complaints and have committed probably over a year's time investigating them. All this
amounts to is a historical research opinion.
    I guess what we really have to ask ourselves is why doesn't ICANN just do it right? The
only explanation I can come up with is that they don't want to do it right.

Sincerely,

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all remaining assembly  members,
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > > > The Names Council WHOIS Committee is not due to start it's work of soliciting
> > > > comments on the WHOIS issue until the ICANN Staff WHOIS Committee publishes its
> > > > report, which is due out in about two weeks.
> > >
> > >   This seems terribly backwards.  Any report should include input from
> > > the stakeholder community BEFORE the WHOIS Committee even convenes.
> > > So much for open process again...  :(
> >
> > If you think about it, it is really down right funny.  However I do not believe that a
> > subcommitte looking for transparency and bottom-up process is going to be laughing.
>
>   Not subcommittee, but full committee...  Otherwise, yes I agree...
>
> >
> > In that the current WHOISdata base policy is in direct violation of the DoC contract
> > for IANA function, and the proposed Verisisign contract in larger violation of
> > Subcontractor status via the APA it is starting to look like a design and practice of
> > violations - ccan anyone spell RICO. IMnlHO
>
>   Well I don't know if RICO would apply here.  Certainly though APA does,
> and purposeful and before hand knowledge of a violation of contract with
> DOC/NTIA, as is now evident in this instance would tend to be something
> that DOC should look at very closely...  Our members certainly hope
> they (DOC) will...
>
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
>
> 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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:40:04 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] List Decorum - Propogation

Hi Kristy

Jeff William has been suspended from the [ga] list by the list monitor.

I can't believe that anybody would take Jeff Williams seriously.  If you examine
his postings you will find that most are content-free.  However they are copied
to everybody he can think of whether they had anything to do with the original
post or not.  For example:

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
To: Kristy McKee <[email-masked]>
Cc: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>; Kevin Connolly <[email-masked]>;
Danny Younger <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 8:51 AM (AEST)
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

If any of those addressed replies using "Reply All" then the message is
propogated further.  As Jeff William includes the [ga] list in the addressees,
his original email makes it to the list from which he has been suspended.

On top of that Jeff Williams posts [ga] messages to Netsol's Domain Policy List
in a manner that gives the impression that they are [ga] postings.  As the
Netsol list does not allow cross-postings, and he knows that, he must make a
separate posting.  An example is as follows:

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 9:52 AM (AEST)
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
<snip>
> > Friday, April 06, 2001, 1:50:46 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:

I agree that people have the choice of killing mail from Jeff Williams but his
propogation techniques makes this very difficult.  I believe that he has no
genuine interest in domain policy issues but that his main objective is to
propogate his sigfile as widely as possible.  Almost all of his claims are quite
false as is demonstrated in his sigfile which I won't bother to repeat --
everybody has seen it thousands of times.   One example created a stir:

> Two other candidates DO support these basic principals....

Although he claims to respect people's privacy, he actually has no regard for
that of others.  Jeff will also use all sorts of threats and innuendos (and I
have ample evidence of this).  Other tricks include forging email headers and
using alter egos like "Bob Davis".  As well as driving people away from the
list, this behaviour lowers the trust that we have in each other.

In fact, I am sure I am not the only person checking a suspicious posting to
make sure it is not another forgery or Jeff Williams alter ego.  At least one
other list member raised a similar concern recently.  The right to privacy of
genuine posters to the list then becomes compromised as a side-effect.

Dealing with with the side-effects is time-consuming and most distracting.  For
example, it has been suggested that I breached Jeff's own rights by reposting
his private email.  In this connection,  I advise that I had his publicly posted
permission as follows:

> Anything I have stated privately or publicly has my permission to be posted
> anywhere anytime.  I don't have two agendas, Patrick....  >;)

I do not wish, at this time, to tackle other issues of list decorum but do
suggest the following:

(1)    Members of the [ga] list consider amending the list rules and protocols
to clarify exactly what behaviour is acceptable.  In my view the above should be
subject to sanctions by the list monitors.

(2)    Meanwhile I would ask that respondents be selective in their replies to
any postings by persons suspended from the [ga] list.   In particular that they:

(a) respect the decision of the list monitor and not post replies to the list
(b) do not use "reply all" and eliminate any unnecessary cc's in reply.

I can sympathise with well-meaning people who are opposed to censorship of any
kind but I submit that others have rights too.  Personally I object to people
who deliberately and continually abuse other people's rights whilst claiming
those rights for themselves.  By that I mean the list rules need to be
clarified.

I would love to see the day when people understand that Jeff Williams delights
in seeing his postings propogated far and wide on the internet.  I would
ordinarily just killfile his postings but I don't think it's as easy as that.

The truth is that he is in a category of his own.  Jeff Williams is far and away
the best example I know of what can be described as a human internet virus.

I think this is a genuine phenomena which needs to be dealt with by the rules.

Sincerely
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Kristy McKee <[email-masked]>
To: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Cc: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 8:34 AM (AEST)
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

> Thank you Jeff for stating more clearly.
>
> At 03:13 PM 4/6/2001 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >Kristy and all remaining assembly members,
> >
> >   I have to agree that in some ways ICANN has been a destructive and
> >disruptive imposition on the Internet as a whole.  The Market's have
> >shown this lately, as have the money folks (Read Venture Capital).
> >
> >   Some of the areas that have declined or been made worse as a
> >direct result of ICANN policy are as follows:
> >
> >1.) Domain Names have been relegated or equated directly to
> >      Trademarks.
> >
> >2.) Registration policy for Domain names has become a murky
> >      proposition and overly restrictive.
> >
> >3.) No longer is there a standardized Whois.
> >
> >4.) Privacy has been trampled upon directly.
> >
> >5.) Registry security has gotten worse and this is escalating as a result of
> >       lack of Registrants to be able to adequately exercise their privacy
> > rights.
> >
> >6.) the UDRP has been a terribly destructive tool against small
> >      ecommerce business.
> >
> >7.) Inconsistency in standardization practice and policy.
> >
> >Kristy McKee wrote:
> >
> > > I guess I've only been participating since 1995, so that doesn't make me
an
> > > old timer.
> > >
> > > There should have been an option C, so that modifications could have
> > been made.
> > >
> > > The Internet worked better when there was a monopoly.  The rules were
> > > simple:  first come first serve.  Problems were easily resolved over
> > > trademark and copyright issues within the courts, etc.  I think ICANN is
> > > several steps backwards.
> > >
> > > You did not list any good thing they have done as far as I'm concerned.
> > >
> > > Thanks for trying.
> > >
> > > :)
> > >
> > > ~k
> > >
> > > At 08:08 PM 4/6/2001 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > > >Kristy,
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>Please list the "good things" ICANN has done so all of us are made
> > aware of
> > > >>their good behavior.  I think it's important to note because ICANN
> > appears
> > > >>to not be interested in the good of the public; but only their direct
> > > >>sponsors and if they are infact doing good things I for one would like
to
> > > >>know about it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Once upon a time there was a company that had the complete monopoly over
> > > >the generic TLDs, as Registry and as Registrar ;>).
> > > >It seems ages, but it was just a couple of years ago when five new
> > > >Registrars were allowed to compete with NSi at the Registrar level, and
> > > >just few months ago the basis for the introduction of new generic TLDs
has
> > > >been put.
> > > >
> > > >To the people like me, that have been fighting for years to achieve this
> > > >result, it seems an achievement. And it does not seem to me that it was
so
> > > >obvious that ICANN could have achieved it: still in Cairo (one year ago)
I
> > > >was discussing with other old-timers about what could have been the next
> > > >roadblock.
> > > >
> > > >We do (at least some of us do) criticize the "OptionB" contract, but we
> > > >have to admit that it is still a long way from the "OptionZero", which
was
> > > >basically "NSi has it all".
> > > >
> > > >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
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 16:44:29 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Privacy/WHOIS

Jeff Williams wrote:

Eric wrote;
  I guess what we really have to ask ourselves is why doesn't ICANN just do it right? The

> > only explanation I can come up with is that they don't want to do it right.
>
>   Or they don't know HOW to "Do it right"!  Which ever the reason(s)
> is/are, it is obvious in the extreme that this current ICANN BoD and staff
> isn't doing it right, ergo, not abiding by the White Paper and the MoU,
> thereby in stark violation of their own bylaws and contract with DOC/NTIA.
>

No Jeff, no rational man can come to that conclusion with all the input the WG-REVIEW gave them.
You must consider Karls' input on the board.  You must consider the highly paid staff of, at least
I believe, Ivory league type lawyers.  The boardsquatter situation is direct evidence of intention
and not negligence.  The recent testimony before congress subcommittees, is both evidence of
knowledge of the correct way to handle the matters and evidence of directly trying to cover up
past improprieties.

We have had this conversation before, I want ICANN to succeed.  As you well know I have put
hundreds of hours trying to raise awareness of Outreach, Education and Multilingualism matters. I
perceive that we must build that structure in order to allow ICANN to use it and thereby fulfill
the requirements of the white paper, and thereby save itself.

If any group wants to save ICANN they can give the WG-REVIEW enough money to formulate a program,
lobby the board, to impliment it and start increasing internetstakeholders participation to a
level where the legitimacy of ICANN cannot be denied, absent that the RICO scenario is inevitable.

Sincerely,

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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 20:00:54 -0400
From: "Russ Smith" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Either ICANN was responsible for events prior to November 1999 or not.  This
includes all issues whether it be Races.com, registrar competition, or
anything else.  Louis Touton says they are not responsible for anything
prior to November 1999 because ICANN did not have the authority or an
agreement in place.  You need to argue with Louis Touton, not me.  (I am
sure the answers to your question will result in ICANN being responsible for
all the good things but not any of the bad things.)

Registrars were ICANN accredited only after ICANN had authority to do so in
November 1999.  Again, talk to Louis Touton.

You response to my posting is a terrific example of why there is so much bad
feelings about ICANN.  Everything is a game of loopholes.  As a result,
many, many people simply do not believe anything that comes out of ICANN.
As a result you may win a few battles (in your mind) while alienating the
majority.

Russ Smith
http://consumer.net

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
Crispin
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 6:32 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:56:09PM -0400, Russ Smith wrote:
> Registrar competition was put in place by the US Department of Commerce.

Nope.  DoC gave the go-ahead, but ICANN did most of the work.

In fact, ICANN was absolutely instrumental in the creation of registrar
competition -- registrars are *ICANN-accredited*, after all.  The
accreditation agreement was developed by ICANN, not DoC, and that
development work took place before any agreements were signed; the
accreditation process was developed by ICANN; the accreditation process
is and always has been managed by ICANN.

> According to ICANN's general counsel Loius Touton, ICANN is not
responsible
> for any events prior to November 1999 when ICANN was officially
put in place
> (http://www.icann.org/nsi/coopagmt-amend19-04nov99.htm).

ICANN existed long before that.  It was incorporated in Novermbe 1998,
and there was a tremendous amount of work involved in negotiating the
agreements w/ NSI and DOC before they were ever signed.  The supporting
organizations had to be formed, etc etc.

> Mr. Touton told me that ICANN would not take any responsibility for
> assisting in clearing up the incident with Races.com
> (http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,32974,00.html) because it
> happened prior to ICANN's existence.

Different issue.

> I do not remember the exact date the shared registry system went
into place
> but the amendment to the NSI cooperative agreement was in April 1999,
> several months before ICANN officially existed
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/amendment13.htm.

ICANN existed in Nov 1998.

> I guess you can say that some of the people who eventually formed
ICANN were
> involved in registrar competition but, according to ICANN's
general counsel,
> ICANN is not responsible for those events which took place prior
to November
> 1999 even though Vint Cerf and ICANN made this claim in recent
congressional
> testimonies.
>
> To summarize, that one doesn't count.

Of course it does.

- --
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 17:16:37 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN benefits

At 01:50 PM 4/6/2001, Kristy McKee wrote:
>The Internet worked better when there was a monopoly.  The rules were 
>simple:  first come first serve.  Problems were easily resolved over 
>trademark and copyright issues within the courts, etc.  I think ICANN is 
>several steps backwards.

Not only are you wrong, but you are completely wrong.  And unfortunately 
this is the sort of thread that gets in the way of looking at substantial 
criticism, since we must debate basic matters of fact rather than 
significant opportunities for improvement.

NSI had a long and painful history of very poor operations and very 
capricious decision-making.  First come, first serve was the rule, except 
when NSI decided it wasn't.  Some examples are being cited in this thread, 
but it was a massive and well-documented problem.  Sorry you seem unaware 
of it.

Trademark conflicts were ambiguous and expensive.  In fact, NSI gave 
trademark holders much more power than they have in law.  Now we have the 
UDRP and things are vastly more straight-forward and vastly cheaper.

A registration cost US$35/year.  Administrative interactions were 
impressively painful and frustrating.  Now you can get a domain for about 
US$12, with many sources of easy administrative interaction.

So, things are cheaper, easier, more consistent and more reliable.

Definitely a step backward.

At 03:34 PM 4/6/2001, Kristy McKee wrote:
>Thank you Jeff for stating more clearly.

It's too bad that "clearly" has nothing to do with "correctly", since very 
assertion in the list is incorrect.

>At 03:13 PM 4/6/2001 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
>>1.) Domain Names have been relegated or equated directly to Trademarks.

THis pre-dates ICANN.  ICANN instituted the UDRP and that actually gives 
trademark more power than they had under the horrible, earlier NSI policy.

>>2.) Registration policy for Domain names has become a murky proposition 
>>and overly restrictive.

Vastly more explicit and consistent than before ICANN.

>>3.) No longer is there a standardized Whois.

First the design choices you are probably commenting on were made by NSI, 
not ICANN.  ICANN had no control over NSI's choice, in spite of warnings 
from the technical community.

Second, Whois was broken before that, by the RIRs.  Nothing to do with NSI 
or ICANN.

>>4.) Privacy has been trampled upon directly.

ICANN has not affected this issue, with respect to domain name.s.

>>5.) Registry security has gotten worse and this is escalating as a result of
>>       lack of Registrants to be able to adequately exercise their 
>> privacy rights.

Either this is a repetition of point 4 or it is unclear what the heck it is 
referring to.

>>6.) the UDRP has been a terribly destructive tool against small
>>      ecommerce business.

Less destructive than the mechanisms that were in place beforehand.

>>7.) Inconsistency in standardization practice and policy.

Less inconsistent than what was in place before.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:38:57 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Hello Russ,

My understanding was that ICANN was delegated the SPECIFIC task of
setting up an accreditation process that was subject to DoC approval,
and then selecting and accrediting testbed registrars, as well as
post-testbed registrars once that point was reached.

The mandate to split the registry was a result of DoC agreements with
NSI to which ICANN was a part of the talks, but certainly not the
party who can take responsibility for the creation of the shared
registration system or its coming into being.

Their role was relatively minor on that point.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:49:14 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

Hello Dave,

Friday, April 06, 2001, 5:16:37 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 01:50 PM 4/6/2001, Kristy McKee wrote:
>>The Internet worked better when there was a monopoly.  The rules were 
>>simple:  first come first serve.  Problems were easily resolved over 
>>trademark and copyright issues within the courts, etc.  I think ICANN is 
>>several steps backwards.

> Not only are you wrong, but you are completely wrong.  And unfortunately 
> this is the sort of thread that gets in the way of looking at substantial 
> criticism, since we must debate basic matters of fact rather than 
> significant opportunities for improvement.

> NSI had a long and painful history of very poor operations and very 
> capricious decision-making.  First come, first serve was the rule, except 
> when NSI decided it wasn't.  Some examples are being cited in this thread, 
> but it was a massive and well-documented problem.  Sorry you seem unaware 
> of it.

ICANN can't take credit for any improvements here.  DoC can, but
ICANN really can't.

> Trademark conflicts were ambiguous and expensive.  In fact, NSI gave 
> trademark holders much more power than they have in law.  Now we have the 
> UDRP and things are vastly more straight-forward and vastly cheaper.

Yes, things are much more straightforward.  Trademark owners have an
almost absolute right, many times the additional rights than the NSI
DDP gave them, they can actually hijack names under the UDRP that they
would never have gotten in a court room.   And it is vastly cheaper
for them to attempt it.

> A registration cost US$35/year.  Administrative interactions were
> impressively painful and frustrating.  Now you can get a domain for about 
> US$12, with many sources of easy administrative interaction.

> So, things are cheaper, easier, more consistent and more reliable.

But nothing that ICANN can take credit for, and still be honest.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:04:34 -0400
From: "Russ Smith" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes 

>My own situation might be unique (is it?) but nonetheless frustrating ... I
>was the first to register "edu.com" And we owned and operated the site for
>some months before getting a matter-of-fact letter from NSI telling us that
>they had reconsidered issuing this domain name.

Your situation sounds somewhat unique in that they told you that you would
get the domain again if it were reissued.  However, there are a number of
similar problems such as domain hijackings, domains released in error then
registered by another party, etc.  I was involved in 12 different incidents
of this type back with NSI where NSI gave me a free domain but gave me no
other recourse.  NSI released Example.com and took it back and ICANN lost
e.com and took it back.

More recently there have been a number of cases where domains were
incorrectly dropped by one registrar and then registered by someone else
through another registrar.  Some of these have resulted in conflicting
claims by the different parties.  Generally the registrars are left to
handle these matters between themselves.  Most of the cases I have heard of
involved NSI registrar and payment processing (since they were the only
registrar with renewals until recently) where the domain is released even
though the owner claims payment was made.  The losing person complains to
NSI, NSI then checks for an error (maybe), NSI notifies the new registrar
and asks for the domain to be returned (maybe).

Since there is no standard for handling these cases the response by the
registrars has varied.  Some request different levels of verification from
NSI.  Some allow the new domain owner to file a rebuttal.  Others simply
take the domain away without any other action.  At least one case with
races.com the new registrar refused to relinquish it.  Not long after this a
number of high profile domains were released by NSI and were owned by CNet
(I believe welcome.com was one of them).  as a result many people see the
system as unfair, capricious, and favoring big business because the
registrars may base their decisions on who is more likely to sue.  Here is
one story about some of the shared registry cases:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,33753,00.html

Where people have contacted ICANN in these cases the staff says that ICANN
does not get involved.  However, many domain holders expected that ICANN
would be the main arbiter of such cases.  Certainly I expected ICANN to
develop a process to review such matters since the registrars often have an
interest in the outcome.  I view this function as a very high priority in
managing a shared registry system and is particularly important in the thin
registry model we now have.  At the same time ICANN is seen as getting
involved in issues which are viewed as well beyond their mandate.

If we are keeping score I will give ICANN 0.5 points for getting involved
with the shared registry system prior to their official designation of
authority in Nov. 1999 and -1 point for not setting up a system to handle
these situations for a total of -0.5.

Russ Smith
http://consumer.net

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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:46:02 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell, PhD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes 

Russ

Thanks. That helps. But it seems our situation is somewhat unique: there
being a few cases where ICANN or NSI took back a domain (example.com and
e.com) but no other case I know of where they just changed their mind again
and put it back in the general pool. Or am I wrong?

Tim

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Russ Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

> >My own situation might be unique (is it?) but nonetheless frustrating ...
I
> >was the first to register "edu.com" And we owned and operated the site
for
> >some months before getting a matter-of-fact letter from NSI telling us
that
> >they had reconsidered issuing this domain name.
>
> Your situation sounds somewhat unique in that they told you that you would
> get the domain again if it were reissued.  However, there are a number of
> similar problems such as domain hijackings, domains released in error then
> registered by another party, etc.  I was involved in 12 different
incidents
> of this type back with NSI where NSI gave me a free domain but gave me no
> other recourse.  NSI released Example.com and took it back and ICANN lost
> e.com and took it back.
>
> More recently there have been a number of cases where domains were
> incorrectly dropped by one registrar and then registered by someone else
> through another registrar.  Some of these have resulted in conflicting
> claims by the different parties.  Generally the registrars are left to
> handle these matters between themselves.  Most of the cases I have heard
of
> involved NSI registrar and payment processing (since they were the only
> registrar with renewals until recently) where the domain is released even
> though the owner claims payment was made.  The losing person complains to
> NSI, NSI then checks for an error (maybe), NSI notifies the new registrar
> and asks for the domain to be returned (maybe).
>
> Since there is no standard for handling these cases the response by the
> registrars has varied.  Some request different levels of verification from
> NSI.  Some allow the new domain owner to file a rebuttal.  Others simply
> take the domain away without any other action.  At least one case with
> races.com the new registrar refused to relinquish it.  Not long after this
a
> number of high profile domains were released by NSI and were owned by CNet
> (I believe welcome.com was one of them).  as a result many people see the
> system as unfair, capricious, and favoring big business because the
> registrars may base their decisions on who is more likely to sue.  Here is
> one story about some of the shared registry cases:
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,33753,00.html
>
> Where people have contacted ICANN in these cases the staff says that ICANN
> does not get involved.  However, many domain holders expected that ICANN
> would be the main arbiter of such cases.  Certainly I expected ICANN to
> develop a process to review such matters since the registrars often have
an
> interest in the outcome.  I view this function as a very high priority in
> managing a shared registry system and is particularly important in the
thin
> registry model we now have.  At the same time ICANN is seen as getting
> involved in issues which are viewed as well beyond their mandate.
>
> If we are keeping score I will give ICANN 0.5 points for getting involved
> with the shared registry system prior to their official designation of
> authority in Nov. 1999 and -1 point for not setting up a system to handle
> these situations for a total of -0.5.
>
> Russ Smith
> http://consumer.net
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:14:11 -0400
From: "Russ Smith" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN benefits

>Second, Whois was broken before that, by the RIRs.  Nothing to do with NSI
>or ICANN.

Many users see the WHOIS management as something that should be a high
priority for ICANN who is the manager of the shared registry system.  ICANN
has taken a long time to look at the privacy and standardization issues
while going full steam ahead with issues that are seen to be well beyond
their mandate.

Good or bad, ICANN has been in place long enough where they have full
responsibility for the WHOIS system for .com, .net and .org.

Another -1.  Score -1.5.

Russ Smith
http://consumer.net

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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 18:20:10 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

>At 03:34 PM 4/6/2001, Kristy McKee wrote:
>...
>>At 03:13 PM 4/6/2001 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
>>>1.) Domain Names have been relegated or equated directly to Trademarks.
>
>THis pre-dates ICANN.  ICANN instituted the UDRP and that actually gives 
>trademark more power than they had under the horrible, earlier NSI policy.

sigh.  sorry.  bad typing.

LESS power than under the NSI policy.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:31:16 -0400
From: "Russ Smith" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes 

I believe there were some cases where they issued long domains, rescinded
them, and then they were put back into the general pool when long domains
were allowed about 18 months ago.  There were also the cases of domains that
contained the string "sh**".   NSI filtered these for a time and then
started issuing them after Japanese customers complained.  They did not go
back and issue the domains via first-come, first served but released them
anew.  I am not sure if they actually took any domains away that were
successfully registered.   In the case of fu**.com and some other "dirty"
domains NSI refused to issue them and was sued.  NSI won the case.  After
the case was over the domains were released to the general public and were
registered via registrars who did not censor.

ICANN took away 158 of my "trailing hyphen" domains.  I have asked them to
give me first right to re-register if they are allowed in the future.  ICANN
won't answer me on that request.

Russ Smith
http://consumer.net

- -----Original Message-----
From: Tim Langdell, PhD [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 8:46 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Russ

Thanks. That helps. But it seems our situation is somewhat unique: there
being a few cases where ICANN or NSI took back a domain (example.com and
e.com) but no other case I know of where they just changed their mind again
and put it back in the general pool. Or am I wrong?

Tim

- --
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 #356
************************