Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #369
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, April 11 2001          Volume 01 : Number 369

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:10:07 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency

> From: Christopher Ambler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 1:05 PM
> 
> > I don't track something here. I thought that his client 
> is/was in the same
> > boat with you.
> 
> His client is NeuStar, who owns an interest in .biz, and 
> approved registry.

I understand ...

> Their "boat" is decidedly different than mine.

... but, aren't you both nacent registries? Basically, standing outside the
same door?
- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 13:14:28 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency

> From: Christopher Ambler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 1:05 PM
> 
> > I don't track something here. I thought that his client 
> > is/was in the same boat with you.
> 
> His client is NeuStar, who owns an interest in .biz, and 
> approved registry.
> Their "boat" is decidedly different than mine.

I admit that I don't understand his position either. I would think that he'd
have common-cause with your position.
- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 13:27:52 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Dave, arguing with you is a waste of time, and I really don't
have the patience right now. 

The point is clear - the gTLD registry constituency should
include all those with pending applications that have not
been turned down. I've made my points and you've made
yours.

I think it's very clear to all involved, and I have no desire
to argue the point with you any longer. Much like others on
this list, I'm going to take your advice to heart and just
stop replying to obvious baiting and diversion. You go
ahead and keep talking.

Christopher

- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 13:29:03 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

> > His client is NeuStar, who owns an interest in .biz, and 
> > approved registry.
> 
> I understand ...
> 
> > Their "boat" is decidedly different than mine.
> 
> ... but, aren't you both nacent registries? Basically, standing outside the
> same door?

Er, no. They've been invited in (.biz was approved, right?). They have
a vested interest in preventing any further competition. Excluding the
40 "not yet approved" applicants from the constituency would forward
that goal.

Christopher

- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 13:34:35 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency

> From: Christopher Ambler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 1:29 PM
> 
> > > His client is NeuStar, who owns an interest in .biz, and 
> > > approved registry.
> > 
> > I understand ...
> > 
> > > Their "boat" is decidedly different than mine.
> > 
> > ... but, aren't you both nacent registries? Basically, 
> standing outside the
> > same door?
> 
> Er, no. They've been invited in (.biz was approved, right?). They have
> a vested interest in preventing any further competition. Excluding the
> 40 "not yet approved" applicants from the constituency would forward
> that goal.

AFAICT, BIZ is not yet approved by DOC/NTIA. There is some doubt that they
will. Prudent business planning would hope for the best, but modify external
behavior according to middle or worst-case scenarios, and plan/pave
contingency partnerships. He may be doing his client a dis-service.
- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 16:00:24 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Christopher Ambler'" <[email-masked]>; "Roeland Meyer"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 3:10 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency

> > From: Christopher Ambler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 1:05 PM
> >
> > > I don't track something here. I thought that his client
> > is/was in the same
> > > boat with you.
> >
> > His client is NeuStar, who owns an interest in .biz, and
> > approved registry.

.BIZ belongs to Leah Gallagos and AtlanticRoot - Reassignment by DoC is a
violation of the APA and
a violation of the 5th Amendment Takings Clause.

- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 14:10:55 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

At 01:27 PM 4/10/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>The point is clear - the gTLD registry constituency should
>include all those with pending applications that have not
>been turned down. I've made my points and you've made
>yours.

Your PREFERENCE is clear.  The BASIS for it is not, since you have not 
provided one.

>I think it's very clear to all involved, and I have no desire
>to argue the point with you any longer. Much like others on
>this list, I'm going to take your advice to heart and just
>stop replying to obvious baiting and diversion.

Unfortunately this represents a common pattern in discussions on these 
lists:  Someone puts forward a position and then, ultimately, fails to 
engage in serious discussion about the implications and weaknesses of the 
position.

The social contract for problem solving in public discussions is to pursue 
matters for group understanding.  When a participant reacts to criticism of 
their ideas by declaring that a critic is somehow at fault, the participant 
violates their part of the contract, turning the process into one of pure 
power rather than group understanding and consensus.

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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:21:22 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

You're right, Dave.

Christopher

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

> At 01:27 PM 4/10/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >The point is clear - the gTLD registry constituency should
> >include all those with pending applications that have not
> >been turned down. I've made my points and you've made
> >yours.
> 
> Your PREFERENCE is clear.  The BASIS for it is not, since you have not 
> provided one.
> 
> 
> >I think it's very clear to all involved, and I have no desire
> >to argue the point with you any longer. Much like others on
> >this list, I'm going to take your advice to heart and just
> >stop replying to obvious baiting and diversion.
> 
> Unfortunately this represents a common pattern in discussions on these 
> lists:  Someone puts forward a position and then, ultimately, fails to 
> engage in serious discussion about the implications and weaknesses of the 
> position.
> 
> The social contract for problem solving in public discussions is to pursue 
> matters for group understanding.  When a participant reacts to criticism of 
> their ideas by declaring that a critic is somehow at fault, the participant 
> violates their part of the contract, turning the process into one of pure 
> power rather than group understanding and consensus.
> 
> 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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:28:42 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Thanks to everyone for jumping on that one.  I expected a boatload of objections, and some support.  So far we see both.  People making the point about equating a domain with a Web site have a good point.  That does further complicate the determination of what hoarding is.  But how about simply disallowing resale of domains by anyone but a registrar, at a standard price?  The complexities of this (based on transfer of trademarks and what have you) are probably far less significant than determining "hoarding."

That said, let's talk about the juvenile responses.  It seems that when a list member doesn't have any real point to make, he resorts to an analysis of someone's E-mail address as a basis for ridicule.  I'm sure we all remember the elementary-school jibes about jo-uk being some kind of joke, with people going so far as to check on the participant's employment.  A real contribution to our purpose here and very fair to the holder of that E-mail address, don't you think?

Thousands upon thousands of people work at Autodesk, most of whom have nothing to do with legal activities.  A lot of them (me included) would strongly disapprove of any bullying behavior.  Unfortunately, nobody called me to ask for permission.  I suggest that those of you who want to go after bullies send some messages to IBM, which is reviled throughout the industry as the biggest bully in the world, thanks to its  pummeling of competitors with specious patent claims.

I took a look at that list of domains registered to Autodesk, thinking that I would probably agree that they were bogus.  But as far as I can see, every one is relevant to Autodesk's businesses.  I don't see things like ICECREAM.COM, or LEATHERCARE.COM in there.  I typed a few into my browser; some worked, and some didn't.  And I still say, use it or lose it.  They should lose any of them that they don't use, but admittedly this may be impossible to enforce.

And what about misuse of NET and ORG?  I sent a message to Network Solutions last year asking them why they were suggesting ORG and NET domains to everyone, when you're supposed to be a non-profit organization or a network-services provider to use those domains.  They said they don't enforce those anymore, because they couldn't.  So your apparent complaint against the Autodesk names has all the same weaknesses as my argument against domain-name hoarding: It's way too subjective and can't be enforced.  I agree with you; these domains had a stated purpose and were supposed to be enforced.  But the registrar simply gave up.

So, if you want to keep this organization from being a bigger joke than it already is in the minds of many (thanks to recent press coverage), stop making fun of people's E-mail addresses.

Gavin Stokes
Ambitious Productions
Chicago, IL
- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 14:28:16 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:28:42PM -0700, [email-masked] wrote:
[...]
> That said, let's talk about the juvenile responses. 

Let's not.

[...]

> like ICECREAM.COM, or LEATHERCARE.COM in there.  I typed a few into my
> browser; some worked, and some didn't.  And I still say, use it or lose
> it.  They should lose any of them that they don't use, but admittedly
> this may be impossible to enforce. 

The most interesting and original post in a long time on this topic was
made by, I think Michael McNulty(?), discussing the similarities between
concerning water rights in arizona and rights concerning domain names. 
Water rights have a "use it or lose it" character -- if you don't use
the water that flows through your property, you obviously lose it.  
It isn't so obvious that you lose the *right* to use it, but if the 
person downstream does start to use it, then *they* develop a right to 
the water that flows through *your* property.

The basic point of Mr McNulty's post, I believe, was that there is 
indeed a well-developed body of law that operates on a "use it or lose 
it" basis, and that it might be profitably studied.

On the point of forbiding resale: tricky.  If I sell my business,
Songbird, the domain name would pretty much have to go with it, and it
isn't reasonable to forbid it.  Moreover, I think it would be really 
difficult to control.

- -- 
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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:41:57 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Hello Dave,

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 2:10:55 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Unfortunately this represents a common pattern in discussions on these
> lists:  Someone puts forward a position and then, ultimately, fails to 
> engage in serious discussion about the implications and weaknesses of the 
> position.

Boy this sure describes both Kent's and your "discussions" with the
list regarding the Verisign contract.

It is rather amusing to see you try and accuse someone else of this,
all the while trying to claim that your not biased by your
relationships to relevant parties.

- -- 
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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:49:58 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

First off, nobody's making fun of anyone's email address (I sure wasn't).

[email-masked] wrote:

> Thanks to everyone for jumping on that one.  I expected a boatload of objections, and some support.  So far we see both.

I didn't see any support.

> People making the point about equating a domain with a Web site have a good point.  That does further complicate the determination of what hoarding is.  But how about simply disallowing resale of domains by anyone but a registrar, at a standard price?

What exactly is your problem here?  I suppose you'd also like to see this `rationale' of yours applied to diamond mines and diamond merchants, or any other commodity in the marketplace for that matter?  Gavin, I've read some far out things on these Lists, but this takes the cake!  Sounds like johnny-come-lately whining and snivelling to me.  Take it like a man, son!  So, you missed the boat on .COM...  Don't worry, there will be others.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual

- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 14:51:12 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Reminder: NC telecon 10 April 2001, agenda

Hello Bruce,

Pardon me for responding to your request for info on the list, but I
wanted to add to the list just how simple, not to mention cheap, it
would be to provide this kind of coverage of the NC meetings and
indeed ANY of the teleconferences used by ICANN and its bodies.

All you need to do is go to http://www.speakfreely.org/ and download
the software.

It's free.

Get someone else to get it also, and then give that person your IP
Address to connect to (or you get their IP address to connect to), and
its connected.

I've used this with associates.  The better the net connections, the
better the connection quality.

It has a conference mode, and it would be trivial to have a number of
listeners connected, as well as a multicast setup.
http://www.speakfreely.org/doc/multicast.html

The documentation is pretty simple.
http://www.speakfreely.org/manual.html

If anyone would like to test it after you install it, let me know in
advance and I'll load it up and give you the address to connect the
call to.

I tested it last night by running a cable from the speaker/headphone
jack on my voice modem to the line-in port on my sound card, and
broadcasted a call to 2 users who connected to me using speakfreely.
It worked like a charm.

The same could be done to stream mpeg audio in real time, using
something like Icecast with the same setup (running an audio cable
between the voice modem and the line-in port, and having the voice
modem dialed into the conference call).  All of these are free
solutions.  Icecast streaming mp3 may even be the best solution,
really.

It is appreciated by all that Bret makes an mp3 recording of the
meeting (and the above solution could be used to do the same) and in
fact I think it should be required that a digital recording of these
meetings be preserved for archival purposes. However, it would be nice
to provide a real time solution as well. The DNSO and indeed ICANN
itself should embrace these kinds of free solutions and remove
themselves from the more expensive and proprietary options whose costs
and difficulty have been used as convenient excuses for not providing
this kind of real time access in the past.

- -- 
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: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:05:25 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] And these mean?

Hi Jeff

I couldn't find any reference to LASC and think it may have been a typo for
ALSC.

ALSC    At Large Membership Study Committee
http://www.atlargestudy.org/

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Field <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 4:03 AM
Subject: [ga] And these mean?

> FWIW, here are the results to the following previous post:
> <--------------- start post ---------------->
> Kudos to the first person that knows all the below listed (and recently used
> on this list) acronyms:
>
> NADF
> SEI
> LASC
> NGO
> RTFA
> APA
> RSN
> YMMV
> RIR
> IM(nl)HO  <---just the "nl" part)
> CNPB
> MHSC
> STV
> <--------------- end post ---------------->
> I only got two responses...there was agreement on the following 9 acronyms:
>
> NADF -- North American Directory Forum
> SEI -- Software Engineering Institute
> NGO -- Non-Government Organisation
> RTFA -- Read The Freaking Article
> APA -- Administrative Procedures Act
> YMMV -- Your Mileage May Vary
> RIR -- Regional Internet Registry
> MHSC -- Morgan Hill Software Company
> STV -- Single Transferable Vote
>
> and the following 4 acronyms had two different answers or guesses:
>
> LASC -- Lisp and Symbolic Computation and Los Angeles   ????????
> RSN -- Real Soon Now and Root Server Network
> IM(nl)HO -- In My (nl) Humble Opinion and In My No Longer Humble Opinion ??
> CNPB -- CardeoNeuroPulmonaryBypass and California Nonprofit Public Benefit
> Corporation Law ("CNPBCL")
>
> So, sorry!  No kudos this time around.  BTW, I don't know the answers
> myself, just wanted to see if anyone else did.  And, judging from the low
> level of responses recieved (only two) and that neither knew them all,
> perhaps people posting to this list would be a bit more considerate in their
> use of acronyms.  They are definitely a "barrier to entry" for newbies.
> Anyway, just one person's (with too much time on his hands) opinion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff
> --
> jeff field
> 925-283-4083
> [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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:17:20 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Hello gavin,

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 2:28:42 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Thanks to everyone for jumping on that one.  I expected a boatload
> of objections, and some support.  So far we see both.  People making
> the point about equating a domain with a Web site have a good point.
>  That does further complicate the determination of what hoarding is.
>  But how about simply disallowing resale of domains by anyone but a
> registrar, at a standard price?  The complexities of this (based on
> transfer of trademarks and what have you) are probably far less
> significant than determining "hoarding."

Why is reselling a domain name something that should be banned?

That makes absolutely no sense at all.  You assume that this move
would be positive, but in fact, one of the key components in a healthy
environment for an industry is the existence of such speculative
efforts.

> That said, let's talk about the juvenile responses.  It seems that
> when a list member doesn't have any real point to make, he resorts
> to an analysis of someone's E-mail address as a basis for ridicule.
> I'm sure we all remember the elementary-school jibes about jo-uk
> being some kind of joke, with people going so far as to check on the
> participant's employment.  A real contribution to our purpose here
> and very fair to the holder of that E-mail address, don't you think?

A participants employer is a vital issue that should be considered
when taking that participants comments into context.

> And what about misuse of NET and ORG?  I sent a message to Network
> Solutions last year asking them why they were suggesting ORG and NET
> domains to everyone, when you're supposed to be a non-profit
> organization or a network-services provider to use those domains.
> They said they don't enforce those anymore, because they couldn't.
> So your apparent complaint against the Autodesk names has all  the
> same weaknesses as my argument against domain-name hoarding: It's
> way too subjective and can't be enforced.  I agree with you; these
> domains had a stated purpose and were supposed to be  enforced.  But
> the registrar simply gave up.

Where did you get the idea that .org was supposed to be for non-profit
organizations?  And how would you define a "network services
provider"?  .org was the catch all for anything TLD, that it was
reserved for non-profit use is a myth.

- -- 
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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:57:05 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Reminder: NC telecon 10 April 2001, agenda

Thanks for your reply.  I will look into this.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 4:51 PM
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Reminder: NC telecon 10 April 2001, agenda

Hello Bruce,

Pardon me for responding to your request for info on the list, but I
wanted to add to the list just how simple, not to mention cheap, it
would be to provide this kind of coverage of the NC meetings and
indeed ANY of the teleconferences used by ICANN and its bodies.

All you need to do is go to http://www.speakfreely.org/ and download
the software.

It's free.

Get someone else to get it also, and then give that person your IP
Address to connect to (or you get their IP address to connect to), and
its connected.

I've used this with associates.  The better the net connections, the
better the connection quality.

It has a conference mode, and it would be trivial to have a number of
listeners connected, as well as a multicast setup.
http://www.speakfreely.org/doc/multicast.html

The documentation is pretty simple.
http://www.speakfreely.org/manual.html

If anyone would like to test it after you install it, let me know in
advance and I'll load it up and give you the address to connect the
call to.

I tested it last night by running a cable from the speaker/headphone
jack on my voice modem to the line-in port on my sound card, and
broadcasted a call to 2 users who connected to me using speakfreely.
It worked like a charm.

The same could be done to stream mpeg audio in real time, using
something like Icecast with the same setup (running an audio cable
between the voice modem and the line-in port, and having the voice
modem dialed into the conference call).  All of these are free
solutions.  Icecast streaming mp3 may even be the best solution,
really.

It is appreciated by all that Bret makes an mp3 recording of the
meeting (and the above solution could be used to do the same) and in
fact I think it should be required that a digital recording of these
meetings be preserved for archival purposes. However, it would be nice
to provide a real time solution as well. The DNSO and indeed ICANN
itself should embrace these kinds of free solutions and remove
themselves from the more expensive and proprietary options whose costs
and difficulty have been used as convenient excuses for not providing
this kind of real time access in the past.

- --
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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:36:41 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

> The most interesting and original post in a long time on this topic was
> made by, I think Michael McNulty(?), discussing the similarities between
> concerning water rights in arizona and rights concerning domain names. 
> Water rights have a "use it or lose it" character -- if you don't use
> the water that flows through your property, you obviously lose it.  
> It isn't so obvious that you lose the *right* to use it, but if the 
> person downstream does start to use it, then *they* develop a right to 
> the water that flows through *your* property.
> 
> The basic point of Mr McNulty's post, I believe, was that there is 
> indeed a well-developed body of law that operates on a "use it or lose 
> it" basis, and that it might be profitably studied.

Wow... someone tell Leah that Kent agrees with her use of .biz!

Christopher

- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 15:39:19 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:29 PM

> Thanks to everyone for jumping on that one.  I expected a 
> boatload of objections, and some support.  So far we see 
> both.  

Funny, I didn't see any support...

> But how about simply 
> disallowing resale of domains by anyone but a registrar, at a 
> standard price?  The complexities of this (based on transfer 
> of trademarks and what have you) are probably far less 
> significant than determining "hoarding."

Not hardly... There are so many ways to sell something, especially an
intangible good, that it is virtually impossible, at least not
cost-effective, to even try.

> That said, let's talk about the juvenile responses.

Let's not...

> I typed a few into my browser; 
> some worked, and some didn't.  And I still say, use it or 
> lose it.  They should lose any of them that they don't use, 
> but admittedly this may be impossible to enforce.

You obviously have no idea how easy it is to make a domain name appear "in
use", for various definitions of "in use". I can do this, for over 10,000
names, on a single Linux box.

> And what about misuse of NET and ORG?  I sent a message to 
> Network Solutions last year asking them why they were 
> suggesting ORG and NET domains to everyone, when you're 
> supposed to be a non-profit organization or a 
> network-services provider to use those domains.  They said 
> they don't enforce those anymore, because they couldn't.  

If you'd read the drelevent RFCs, you'd see for yourself how unenforcible
those charter definitions are. They are REALLY vague. They sound good on the
surface, but you don't have to scratch very deep to see where they start to
overlap.

> So, if you want to keep this organization from being a bigger 
> joke than it already is in the minds of many (thanks to 
> recent press coverage), stop making fun of people's E-mail addresses.

*That* I can agree with.
- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 16:16:09 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

"Sounds like johnny-come-lately whining and snivelling to me.  Take it like a man, son!  So, you missed the boat on .COM...  Don't worry, there will be others."

You've got to be kidding.  First of all, this statement is dead wrong.  In case you weren't paying attention, the proposal for the new TLDs called for something like a 30-day grace period in which holders of current domains could snap up the same URL in the new domains "to avoid confusion".  Give me a break.  The net result?  The very same shortage of domain names, thanks to hoarding.

Second of all, I guessed you missed the response that began with "great points!"

Funny how you didn't respond to the Autodesk detractors with your "whining and sniveling" claim.

Gavin

- -----Original Message-----
From: Sotiris [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

First off, nobody's making fun of anyone's email address (I sure wasn't).

[email-masked] wrote:

> Thanks to everyone for jumping on that one.  I expected a boatload of objections, and some support.  So far we see both.

I didn't see any support.

> People making the point about equating a domain with a Web site have a good point.  That does further complicate the determination of what hoarding is.  But how about simply disallowing resale of domains by anyone but a registrar, at a standard price?

What exactly is your problem here?  I suppose you'd also like to see this `rationale' of yours applied to diamond mines and diamond merchants, or any other commodity in the marketplace for that matter?  Gavin, I've read some far out things on these Lists, but this takes the cake!  

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual

- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 16:19:34 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Hi Kent.

That is an interesting comparison.  In terms of selling a company along with its domain (or any domain-ownership transfer), this could be addressed by handling the transfer through the original registrar, at the standard price for domain registration.

Gavin

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:28 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:28:42PM -0700, [email-masked] wrote:
[...]
> That said, let's talk about the juvenile responses. 

Let's not.

[...]

> like ICECREAM.COM, or LEATHERCARE.COM in there.  I typed a few into my
> browser; some worked, and some didn't.  And I still say, use it or lose
> it.  They should lose any of them that they don't use, but admittedly
> this may be impossible to enforce. 

The most interesting and original post in a long time on this topic was
made by, I think Michael McNulty(?), discussing the similarities between
concerning water rights in arizona and rights concerning domain names. 
Water rights have a "use it or lose it" character -- if you don't use
the water that flows through your property, you obviously lose it.  
It isn't so obvious that you lose the *right* to use it, but if the 
person downstream does start to use it, then *they* develop a right to 
the water that flows through *your* property.

The basic point of Mr McNulty's post, I believe, was that there is 
indeed a well-developed body of law that operates on a "use it or lose 
it" basis, and that it might be profitably studied.

On the point of forbiding resale: tricky.  If I sell my business,
Songbird, the domain name would pretty much have to go with it, and it
isn't reasonable to forbid it.  Moreover, I think it would be really 
difficult to control.

- -- 
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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:24:49 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Okay, I have way too much time on my hands...into the fray goes I...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...
>
> People making the point about equating a domain with a Web site
> have a good point.  That does further complicate the
> determination of what hoarding is.  But how about simply
> disallowing resale of domains by anyone but a registrar, at a
> standard price?  The complexities of this (based on transfer of
> trademarks and what have you) are probably far less significant
> than determining "hoarding."

Why all this talk about cybersquatting or hoarding?  If someone registers a
name, if they don't use it to infringe on someone's trademark, as long as
they pay the annual registration fee, the name is their's...period!  Doesn't
matter if it's a company that might never use it or someone hoping to sell
the name at a profit sometime in the future.  I don't see the problem that
supposedly needs solving.

> I took a look at that list of domains registered to Autodesk,
> thinking that I would probably agree that they were bogus

Please define bogus in this context...did you simply mean they own a name
that you can't see them ever using?

>But as far as I can see, every one is relevant to Autodesk's
> businesses. I don't see things like ICECREAM.COM, or
> LEATHERCARE.COM in there.

There is no rule that says a name has to be relevant to your business, at
least none that I'm aware of.  The only "rule" I'm aware of is that you
don't use a name to infringe on someone else's trademark.

>And I still say, use it or lose it.

What is your rational for this view?

Regards,

Jeff
- --
jeff field
925-283-4083
[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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #369
************************