Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #371
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, April 11 2001          Volume 01 : Number 371

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 21:40:06 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Hello Patrick,

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 6:21:24 PM, Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

>> > 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.
>>
>> Hm.  Why don't you tell us how these "speculative efforts" are helping this
>> "industry".

> Perhaps because they generate revenue for the industry. What economic
> incentives could you point to that are gained from the prevention of
> speculation?

> Why is speculation in real estate a long-practiced tradition and
> considered "good business" while people are trying to cast domain
> speculation as "bad?"

Probably because he works for a company that has felt some obligation
to own corresponding domain names for every single term and word they
use in business, and since they were not the first to think of the
domain name using those words, have had to purchase those domains at a
premium.

Nearly every time I hear someone make this argument, the above
paragraph usually ends up being an accurate description of their
experience.

- -- 
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 21:41:34 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Hello gavin,

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 6:16:13 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> The policy proposals for the new TLDs may have been misreported; I wouldn't be surprised.

> What did they actually say?

Some of them have sunrise processes for those with registered
trademarks, who will pay a significant premium for names during that
period.

Having a domain name in another TLD is not sufficient to participate
in that sunrise process, and the price of the registration will be far
above the standard registration fee.

- -- 
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 21:45:25 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: On voting and appeals - Was: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Hello Eric,

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 7:19:44 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Let us ignore the first nomination which was proceeding along before, the
> procedure edict from the secretariat and Harald.

Yes, let's ignore that some people took it upon themselves to start
nominations that not only were premature, but in a format that was not
a part of the GA structure.  And then let's blame those who ran the
election that they didn't let those people get away with that.

> Yes at this time I object and appeal the decision and the election, it is my
> contention that this election was illegitimate.
> It is further my contention
> that the people who voted for me were denied their rights as netizens and all
> that that confers.  If my right to appeal is not honored and handled with
> dignity I will file a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, San Diego,
> Downtown District to enforce my rights and seek injunction and other
> appropriate remedies.

Go for it.

There is no place for sour grapes here, Eric.

- -- 
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 00:48:52 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JandL [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 6:53 PM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency
> >
> >
> > There is a technical collision in the name space.
> 
> I respectfully disagree.  I can only conclude from your comments
> below that it is a marketing collision (or problem), if anything. 
> Here's why I believe this to be so:
> 
> Anyone that has registered a .biz domain name has been forewarned
> that "the new top-level domains require that either you or your ISP
> have UPGRADED from the functionally obsolete ICANN Legacy Namespace
> to the ORSC INCLUSIVE NAMESPACE in order for you and your visitors
> to see the domains you are about to register!".
> (http://www.pacificroot.com/register.shtml)
> 
> Of course, I would suggest that the use of the term "UPGRADED" in
> the quote above is rather misleading to the consumer (FTC anyone?), 

It is an upgrade.  The legacy root is old and lacking.  Too access all
the TLDs you do have to upgrade one way or another.  

but
> putting that aside for the moment, it seems to me that all the
> alternative roots have to do is merely convince all the ISPs, etc.
> to point to their root.  And, if all the ISPs, etc. want to do that,
> fine.  If half want to point to ICANN's root and the other half want
> to point to an alternative root, fine again.  

That's fine, as long as making that choice doesn't cause a problem. 
With a collider, it will.  Marketing the root in this context is not
the issue at all.  If it were the choice it is today, the marketing is
simply to add to what you get from the ICANN root.  Nothing wrong
there.  

I see this as a
> marketing problem for the alternative roots, not a technical one for
> the entire Internet.  And, unless someone can convince me that there
> is indeed a technical problem here, I believe the term "collision"
> is inappropriate in this context.  It conjures up images of failed
> transmissions, data packets colliding, etc., none of which seem to
> be at stake here.

What you have is a fractured internet where that choice must be 
made.  As I said, up to now, carrying the DoC root intact has been
standard.  With a duplicate TLD, it will now have to be a choice
between versions of the TLD and duplicate domain names throughout the
entire tree.  (however, if an ISP wanted to carry the PacificRoot and
still carry the ICANN duplicate of .BIZ, it is easy to do so.  They
just could not carry both).  The choice should not have to be made,
however, and that is the problem.  

Consider a half dozen .coms throughout the world.  Shoot, why not a
dozen?  He with the bucks for marketing causes the most confusion. 
Heck, why not?  ICANN is responsible for only the one root, right? 
And DoC has authority for only its versions of .com/net/org.  If they
can duplicate .BIZ, I guess anyone can duplicate .com - multiple
times.  Sheesh.

I agree, though, that there is every chance that DoC will defy 
stability, Congress and everyone else and duplicate the TLD.  When
things start getting messy and there is a lot of screaming, it will be
too late.

> 
> As for creating problems for the ISP and keeping track of two
> different .biz names they might be hosting, well, tough...the ISPs
> are just going to have to pick a horse to ride.  

If it were quite that simple, fine.  Let the ISPs scream bloody 
murder, I guess.  ( I don't really feel that way)  If I were an ISp
and my cost for customer service went through the roof over it, I'd
scream loud.  When they start with the lawsuits, it'll get more
interesting, I'm sure.  You see, it's not the root choice that they
will be fighting.  It's the mass confusion over how to host the
domains.  Most domain name holders haven't a clue and many ISPs don't
either.

Do they want to ride the
> one that currently has the most viewers or do they want to ride the
> new kid on the block with potential but less viewers.  IMHO, it's a
> business decision for the ISPs, etc., plain and simple.  It might
> even be likened to the VHS/Betamax dilemma for VCR manufacturers,
> tape manufacturers, etc. a couple decades ago.  Did they want to
> ride the less used but supposedly more technically advanced Betamax
> horse or did they want to ride the more popular but less technically
> advanced VHS horse. (Note: My comment on whether VHS or Betamax was
> more technically advanced should not be construed as a comment on
> the technical capabilities of either the ICANN root or the
> alternative roots.)
> 
> Anyway, my suggestion to the alternative roots is to think and do
> marketing, marketing, marketing.  And if they don't get busy real
> soon, somebody new with deep marketing pockets just might show up
> right around the corner, steal all the thunder, and create a third
> .biz.  Oops, too late!  They already did!  New.Net, anyone?  (Okay,
> okay...so new.net isn't offering .biz...yet!  Sorry to scare some of
> you out there.  But there is not a thing in the world preventing
> them from doing so if they wanted to.)

This is true - today.  After all, New.net did it in abundance with 17
colliding TLDs.  We haven't seen too much trouble yet, but wait until
.biz is duplicated in the root with the 90 % market share.  That's
when we might see it hit the fan in a big way.  Marketing is important
for the Inclusive Name Space, for sure.  However, the collisions will
become apparent if DoC does its thing.  

In the meantime, we watch and we keep moving on.  It's still wrong for
the US government to take a business product from an existing business
and hand it over to someone else.  We'll see...

Leah

> 
> Anyway, I think I proved my point...I have way too much time on my
> hands these days.  Phew!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeff
> --
> jeff field
> 925-283-4083
> [email-masked]
> 
> > Even though it is quite possible to have the same TLD in different
> > roots, there will be a nightmare for hosting companies who will
> > have no idea which is which, whether they already have a zone set
> > up for an identical domain name...
> >
> > It also fragments the net irrevocably because you will then HAVE
> > TO choose one root over another and keep switching to see each
> > version of .BIZ.  Now it doesn't matter which root you point to.
> > They all carry the USG root TLDs as well as their additional non-
> > colliding TLDs.  If DoC enters a dupe, then there is no way to do
> > this any more.  Roots will then have to choose which .BIZ to
> > carry. The name space is fractured, period.
> >
> > In addition, how will it be determined who's domain name is the
> > legitimate one?  (hint:  both).  So how do businesses market their
> > sites/names?  Will the roots always carry the same version of the
> > TLD?
> >
> > DoC will introduce not only a collider, but will be instrumental
> > in wreaking havoc on the ISP industry as well as the TLD industry
> > - all because ICANN has decided these TLDs don't matter and the
> > only root is the DoC root.  The precedent is set.  The US
> > government can just take your business product if it chooses to
> > not acknowledge you. Great.  This is maintaining the stability of
> > the net?
> >
> > Leah
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> > > > [email-masked] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:00 PM To:
> > > > [email-masked] Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituenc> .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.
> > >
> > > While we're on this topic, can anyone define what seems to be
> > > the popular term "collision" when referring to .biz and the
> > > presence of two .biz's on the Internet?  Is there a technical
> > > collision that will actually occur if we have two .biz's?  Or
> > > can both reside, each listed in different roots, without
> > > affecting the other?  If that's the case, then it seems to me
> > > that what we have here is more a marketing collision than a
> > > technical one. Anyone?
> > >
> > > 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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 22:37:14 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:42 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Hello gavin,

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 6:16:13 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> The policy proposals for the new TLDs may have been misreported; I wouldn't be surprised.

> What did they actually say?

Some of them have sunrise processes for those with registered
trademarks, who will pay a significant premium for names during that
period.

Having a domain name in another TLD is not sufficient to participate
in that sunrise process, and the price of the registration will be far
above the standard registration fee.

- -- 
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 22:53:44 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...a scalper's license

"Probably because he works for a company that has felt some obligation
to own corresponding domain names for every single term and word they
use in business, and since they were not the first to think of the
domain name using those words, have had to purchase those domains at a
premium."

I couldn't care less about the domains that my employer registers, and neither could most of the other 3000 people who work here.  It also wouldn't cost me a dime if they bought a domain name from someone.  This case confirms the "nearly" in your "every time" assertion.

You know, ticket scalping is illegal.  Why's that?  Someone made a strong enough argument to get that law passed in many municipalities, and you can make a similar one here.

- --
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 22:43:41 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 06:21:24PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> Perhaps because they generate revenue for the industry. What economic
> incentives could you point to that are gained from the prevention of
> speculation?
> 
> Why is speculation in real estate a long-practiced tradition and
> considered "good business" while people are trying to cast domain
> speculation as "bad?"

Why is speculation in real estate good while speculation in human body
parts bad? I don't know -- might have something to do with the commodity
in question and how it's used, and what people think about it, don'cha
think? Speculation in itself is neither good or bad, but if people 
think that speculation in a particular commodity is bad, then it's bad.

- -- 
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 23:02:38 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...a scalper's license

Hello gavin,

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 10:53:44 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> "Probably because he works for a company that has felt some obligation
> to own corresponding domain names for every single term and word they
> use in business, and since they were not the first to think of the
> domain name using those words, have had to purchase those domains at a
> premium."

> I couldn't care less about the domains that my employer registers, and neither could most of the other 3000 people who work here.  It also wouldn't cost me a dime if they bought a domain name from
> someone.  This case confirms the "nearly" in your "every time" assertion.

> You know, ticket scalping is illegal.  Why's that?  Someone made a
> strong enough argument to get that law passed in many
> municipalities, and you can make a similar one here.

Actually it's not.

It's only illegal on the day of the event outside the event in those
cities or states.

It is NOT illegal to buy the tickets and sell them elsewhere for
vastly more than you paid for them.

There are some websites making some nice money doing just that.

- -- 
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 22:57:48 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 12:05:37AM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
[...]
> The only technical difference between creating xyz.com and creating a new TLD
> .xyz are:
> 
> 	where you put the pointer to it, in records for .com or in the root
> 	whether people can find it directly from the root or root->.com->.xyz.com
> 
> So there is no technical reason we cannot create new TLDs as fast as we are
> currently creating .com domains.

Right.  But .com is popular, and sld registries are not.  Moreover,
other TLDs are not popular -- people constantly forget that there are
240 odd other TLDs out there.

That is, the popularity of .com is a sociological phenomenon.  There is 
no guarantee whatsoever that new TLDs will lessen the popularity of 
.com -- in fact they might have exactly the reverse effect, and make 
.com even more desirable.

Thus, the argument that there is an "artificial scarcity" that would be
relieved if only there were more TLDs is completely unsubstantiated.  

- -- 
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 23:10:36 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Do we need TLDs at all?

Maybe this is a technical question, but the collision discussion prompted it:

Is there a reason that we can't have any old string as the last component of a domain name?  Does the administration of various name servers require a finite collection of TLDs?

If the intended meaning of many TLDs is not being enforced (or isn't enforceable), why have a limited set of them?

Regards,
Gavin
- --
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 23:25:42 -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 6:35 PM
> 
> How about shortage?  How about inflation?
> 
> There are many commercial laws in this country designed to 
> prevent things that "harm the consumer", and generally that 
> harm is financial.  

> Last year we had congressional action when the price of gas 
> in Chicago went above $2 for no good reason.  Ineffectual, 
> sure.  But this idea isn't foreign.

Yes and this year we have Congress and the Prez refusing to act when the
price of power goes up by over 700% and TX generators are reaping windfall
profits. That's not just hurting consumers, it's destroying the economy of
an entire State.

Now ... what was your point?
- --
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 08:36:46 +0200
From: Robin Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Gavin,

I think EVERYONE here knows what sunrise is, and KNOWS sunrise is just for TM
holders, not for domain holders per se... It was NOT misreported, anywhere that
I read. In both English and German. I've read many points of view on the
subject, but never did I read a corporate type whining around about Sunrise
taking their right to domains away - heck it was written JUST FOR THEM to horde
them easier!

Yes, Autodesk and others will be able to horde the same hordes of domains in
other tlds too, if they applied and got TMs for the names. Which, I think is
not a big problem for them to obtain. They might even be able to snap up new
domains that they have TMs for, that they didn't nail down on the first go
around in dotcom ... Thats what sunrise is for.  

Repeat after me. SUNRISE IS JUST FOR TM HOLDERS. Repeat again. UDRP is JUST FOR
TM HOLDERS TO ATTACK CYBERSQUATTING ON TM DOMAIN NAMES. Hope that is clear by
now. And you are obviously still not satisfied, until the rest of us slobs are
highly restricted from possessing domain names at all... I suppose.

all the best, Robin 

(who does not use 3d Studio Max, and will NEVER use it because it gouges too
much money out of artist wallets)

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> The policy proposals for the new TLDs may have been misreported; I wouldn't be surprised.
- --
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 23:49:27 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Hello Robin,

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 11:36:46 PM, Robin Miller wrote:
> all the best, Robin

> (who does not use 3d Studio Max, and will NEVER use it because it gouges too
> much money out of artist wallets)

Which has nothing to do with the subject.  Let's try and not go down
this route if we can avoid it.

- -- 
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 23:51:40 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

At 09:15 PM 4/10/2001, Jeff Field wrote:
>If half want to point to ICANN's
>root and the other half want to point to an alternative root, fine again.  I
>see this as a marketing problem for the alternative roots, not a technical
>one for the entire Internet.

Deciding whether to drive on the right or left side of the road is, 
therefore, merely a marketing matter, with no technical concerns.

If half the people want to drive on the left and half want to drive on the 
right, that's just fine.

Having cars crashing into each other, or having users unable to connect to 
the systems they seek are of no real concern...

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 23:59:38 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Do we need TLDs at all?

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 11:11 PM

> Is there a reason that we can't have any old string as the 
> last component of a domain name?  Does the administration of 
> various name servers require a finite collection of TLDs?
> 
> If the intended meaning of many TLDs is not being enforced 
> (or isn't enforceable), why have a limited set of them?

BINGO! Now your getting it! That has been the question a whole lot of us
have been asking for over 5 years!
- --
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 23:59:53 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Critics say reading is good

Robin,

I don't care how it was reported where YOU read.  Maybe you should read what we've been saying in this forum before responding.  Anyone with a trademark already has a means of resolution, and it's working fine as far as I know.  In fact, none of this debate has anything to do with trademarks.  You're the only one so far who seems not to understand that.

As far as UDRP is concerned, I NEVER mentioned that.  I know perfectly well what it's for.  If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't even have participated in this debate, since there'd already be an apparent solution.  Duh.

You also seem unable to process the fact that none of this has anything to do with Autodesk or your personal conception about "gouging" of artists.  I don't care what you use, except, perhaps, judgment.

Anyone with enough intelligence to participate here should have noticed that I'm arguing AGAINST the practices that you're alleging of Autodesk.  I WANT to make domains available to "us slobs".

You're welcome.

Gavin

- -----Original Message-----
From: Robin Miller [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 11:37 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Gavin,

I think EVERYONE here knows what sunrise is, and KNOWS sunrise is just for TM
holders, not for domain holders per se... It was NOT misreported, anywhere that
I read. In both English and German. I've read many points of view on the
subject, but never did I read a corporate type whining around about Sunrise
taking their right to domains away - heck it was written JUST FOR THEM to horde
them easier!

Yes, Autodesk and others will be able to horde the same hordes of domains in
other tlds too, if they applied and got TMs for the names. Which, I think is
not a big problem for them to obtain. They might even be able to snap up new
domains that they have TMs for, that they didn't nail down on the first go
around in dotcom ... Thats what sunrise is for.  

Repeat after me. SUNRISE IS JUST FOR TM HOLDERS. Repeat again. UDRP is JUST FOR
TM HOLDERS TO ATTACK CYBERSQUATTING ON TM DOMAIN NAMES. Hope that is clear by
now. And you are obviously still not satisfied, until the rest of us slobs are
highly restricted from possessing domain names at all... I suppose.

all the best, Robin 

(who does not use 3d Studio Max, and will NEVER use it because it gouges too
much money out of artist wallets)

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> The policy proposals for the new TLDs may have been misreported; I wouldn't be surprised.
- --
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 17:07:16 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

At 17:50 10/04/01 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:

>Yes, and of course you can only sell the car at its original value.
>
>One of my neighbor's has a very old jag that he never drives, and I'd
>sure like to force him to get rid of it at what it originally sold for
>so long ago  :)
>

ehhm, could our sitting Chair please call this Assembly to order?

- --joop
- --
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 00:06:39 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Hello Joop,

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 10:07:16 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 17:50 10/04/01 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:

>>Yes, and of course you can only sell the car at its original value.
>>
>>One of my neighbor's has a very old jag that he never drives, and I'd
>>sure like to force him to get rid of it at what it originally sold for
>>so long ago  :)
>>

> ehhm, could our sitting Chair please call this Assembly to order?

ehhm, the reference was on topic, Joop.

It shows why policies like the one Gavin was advocating are not in
place.

- -- 
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 09:00:28 +0200
From: Robin Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

One word - Proctor and Gamble.

One of the biggest speculators there is. Want to take them on? 

And yes, I remember what happened to that guy, being bullied by your employer.
Until your employer got bullied back and backed down. I have been bullied by
large corps too, over a name we had every right to have, that were every bit
relevant to our business and to the birthname of my fiance. It did not help us
in the slightest.

Sorry, but you wont gain much sympathy on my ear for Autodesk bullying that
artist with The3dStudio.com domain name. Its the same kind of bully behaviour
that so many fan sites have to endure. The letter they sent that guy was simply
atrocious, and I know how those letters are. I happen to know two artists well
that both use 3d Studio Max, neither one can afford the software. But both use
legal copies. At work, copies licensed by their employers. But, I refuse to
ever use it. Its too expensive for an independent artist. I have found other
less expensive software that fits my needs perfectly. But your company thought
it ok to deride that artist for using the software and not being registered,
using that as a basis to steal his domain name. It would surely help with more
registrations if they made the software affordable.

I've gotten these sorry cease and desist letters too, on a domain name that was
simply based on my fiances name, with a viable website concerning his personal
self and business using that name for the last 20 years. 20 years not a
problem... but unfortunately, a large unrelated corporation had green eyes for
the domain, and stopped short of nothing to steal it from us. By both legal and
illegal means. Yes they had a trademark on the initials of his birth name. Yes,
they were able to prevent him from using his birthname in many areas of
business - because he couldnt afford to fight a long expensive legal battle to
keep all the rights to his birthname. Yes, its downright sick. Yes, its the
trend nowadays. We are the nameless masses that you must protect the public
from. Just someone forgot to tell you, we are the public. :)

Robin
- --
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 00:08:26 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Hello Kent,

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 10:43:41 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 06:21:24PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>> Perhaps because they generate revenue for the industry. What economic
>> incentives could you point to that are gained from the prevention of
>> speculation?
>> 
>> Why is speculation in real estate a long-practiced tradition and
>> considered "good business" while people are trying to cast domain
>> speculation as "bad?"

> Why is speculation in real estate good while speculation in human body
> parts bad? I don't know -- might have something to do with the commodity
> in question and how it's used, and what people think about it, don'cha
> think? Speculation in itself is neither good or bad, but if people 
> think that speculation in a particular commodity is bad, then it's bad.

Comparing trade in human body parts to domain names is a far stretch,
Kent, and a very bad one at that.

The ethical considerations are entirely different, and have absolutely
ZERO relation to each other.

One cannot sell body parts at all, Kent.  So there is nothing to
speculate in.

Did you really have to stretch this far to find an example that suits
your position?

- -- 
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 00:17:32 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Do we need TLDs at all?

Hello gavin,

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 11:10:36 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Maybe this is a technical question, but the collision discussion prompted it:

> Is there a reason that we can't have any old string as the last component of a domain name?  Does the administration of various name servers require a finite collection of TLDs?

> If the intended meaning of many TLDs is not being enforced (or isn't enforceable), why have a limited set of them?

I couldn't agree more.  ICANN's approach to namespace expansion is
much too slow for my tastes, as is its focus on building a restricted
TLD structure.

The DNS is not a directory service.  It was never intended to be.

- -- 
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 00:23:41 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Hello Kent,

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 10:57:48 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> Right.  But .com is popular, and sld registries are not.  Moreover,
> other TLDs are not popular -- people constantly forget that there are
> 240 odd other TLDs out there.

> That is, the popularity of .com is a sociological phenomenon.

This argument doesn't stand.  There has been a stigma against those
240 odd other TLDs, in that they are considered "localized" domains,
and when people think of the internet, they don't think of "localized"
things, they think of the international scope.  Sure, you and I know
it's purely semantics, but that's the fact (speaking from real life
experience here Kent).

Whereas new TLDs that are NOT tied to what is considered a localized
naming scheme are not going to suffer from that stigma.

Using popularity of ccTLDs as a baseline for the popularity of new
international open gTLDs is about as fallacious as you can get.

But then you already knew that.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #371
************************