Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #459
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, May 15 2001            Volume 01 : Number 459

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 18:29:58 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 2001-2002 Budget

I think the issue has, in fact, been discussed by many on the GA list 
and it is definitely an area of concern that we should all address.  I see 
no reason why our Chair should have refrained from sending this 
message.

Leah

On 14 May 2001, at 21:36, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> William,
> 
> You wrote:
> >
> >Thursday, May 10, 2001, 11:45:30 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
> >
> > > To the members of the Budget Group and Finance Committee:
> >
> > > The membership of the General Assembly understands that you have
> > > advised 
> >the
> > > President of ICANN with respect to the proposed budget for 2001-2002.  
> >We
> > > are concerned by published reports that this proposed budget has not
> > > allocated any funds for At-Large Elections, in spite of past promises
> > > to choose at least five more Board members through this electoral
> > > process.  
> >We
> > > would appreciate the benefit of your thoughts on this matter.
> >
> >The GA has not expressed any such concern.
> >
> >I suggest that the GA Chair should not indicate to be speaking for the GA
> >unless he has the expressed support from the GA for that statement.
> >
> >In this case, he speaks only for himself, and his comments should be
> >given only that weight as they would from any one individual.
> 
> 
> While I agree on the fact that the GA has not taken a formal position on
> the issue, I believe that the Chair can, on urgent matters, express his
> sense of the Assembly, pending verification in the short term.
> 
> It all depends: if the Chair feels that the GA does not have an opinion on
> the matter, you are right, he should speak as an individual. If, OTOH, he
> feels that this is the position of the GA, he should confirm his message,
> and rapidely call a straw poll of the GA in support of this position.
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 18:34:47 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop's motions

On 14 May 2001, at 21:52, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Bill Lovell wrote:
> >
> >To bring up users is an excellent thing to do. (I was a "mere
> >user" once myself!)  I'd thought about doing the same, but
> >then the point struck me: the GA is a part of the DNSO,
> >and the charter of the DNSO relates to domain names only.
> >There is no USO (other than the famous one that entertains
> >the military), but perhaps there should be -- I correspond
> >with tons of people that don't have domain names, and Jefsey
> >is absolutely correct in indicating that they have legitimate
> >interests as well.  So my only question is whether that is a
> >proper issue for the GA.
> 
> 
> As a user, I will not buy the principle that the DNSO is only for people
> that have a direct professional involvement. Users as well have interests
> at stake, and can add a useful point of view. As a user I am damn
> interested, for instance, if there is a single root or multiple roots. I am
> also damn interested in the way rules are set for Registries and
> Registrars, because those rules will ultimately affect me and my ability to
> eventually become a Domain Name owner or not.
> 
> I would not recommend, for the time being, to create a separate SO for
> users, but to encourage the users that may feel the interest to participate
> in the existing ones.

Which ones, Roberto?  Isn't that the point?  There are no SO's where 
they fit.  There would be the @large if it existed.  IMO, that is the place 
for users to have input.  It would need to be organized and recognized, 
of course and this is precisely the point about which Danny wrote in his 
message.  IMO, it is very pertinent to the GA discussions.

Leah

> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 18:04:56 +0000 (UTC)
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Austerity measures

Hi Michael:

I am agree with you.  I cannot believe the figures shown by Elizabeth.
I also administrate Linux server with several services including mailing
lists and to me only takes 5 minutes to one mailing list and maybe two
hours per week for maintenance but not two hourse per day.  It is
exagerate.

Best Regards
Vany

On Mon, 14 May 2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> I'm sorry, but I simply cannot imagine how it can take this much time to
> maintain a list.  We have dozens here at the law school, and they don't
> take anything close to that amount of time.
>
> On Tue, 15 May 2001, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> >
> > Roberto Gaetano wrote on 14.05.01, 21:11:26:
> > > I would second Roeland's comment below:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>I share the incredulity... the answer is ... not much. Especially
> > >>considering that the ga-full is not moderated. It was the compromise that
> > >>enabled moderation on the GA list.
> > >
> > > I think that the NC should reconsider the matter, because closing down the
> > > GA-full will definitively destabilize the compromise achieved one year ago.
> > > The idea to restart from scratch the whole discussion about monitoring and
> > > censorship, right now that we seem to start making some progress, is
> > > frightening.
> >
> > I have listened to the Names Council teleconference
> > meeting (thanks, Bret!), and it turns out that,
> > according to the Secretariat, the setup time for
> > the five new GA sublists was about *twenty* hours of
> > secretariat work, the typical maintenance costs are about
> > *two* hours per day (Philip Sheppard referring to figures by
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve, DNSO Secretariat; unfortunately it
> > is very much at the end of the 14 MB audio file Bret Fausett
> > recorded).
> >   http://www.lextext.com/nc05092001.html
> >
> > If you listen to the NC discussion of the issue, you
> > will probably /not/ get the impression that this is a ploy
> > to silence the uncomfortable voices or something alike
> > [just to make sure: I'm obviously not addressing Roberto
> > here!]. Philip Sheppard: "As I understand, for reasons of
> > history, there are two main GA lists, one of which was
> > designed to be entirely open, the other one was moderated.
> > The one [list] that is moderated is the one that is used
> > by hundreds, and the one that's entirely open tends to
> > be used as a duplicate list and has a current subscription
> > of about ten; and I was wondering if it was not time, in
> > terms of being pragmatic, to suggest the closure of that
> > list in light of these new five, which would save a
> > little bit of administrative time." The other NC members
> > agreed.
> >
> > This said, I agree with Roberto that the GA-full list should
> > be continued nonetheless. I would assume that any tasks
> > connected with archiving and dealing with subscriptions
> > are much more time-consuming for all the other lists. The
> > GA-full has very few subscribers and, as Roberto mentions,
> > the fact that it is unmoderated should make the administration
> > even easier. There is little to be gained moneywise,
> > but there is a real risk of returning to an earlier point and
> > state of discussion which we had hoped to have gotten past.
> >
> > I ask Philip and the other NC members to reconsider this step,
> > especially as it is indeed the /moderation/ which requires
> > extra work:
> >   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00301.html
> >
> > Best regards,
> > /// Alexander
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
>

- -- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
e-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 18:54:41 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Austerity measures

On 14 May 2001, at 18:21, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> I'm sorry, but I simply cannot imagine how it can take this much time to
> maintain a list.  We have dozens here at the law school, and they don't
> take anything close to that amount of time.

Unless the Secretariat is reading every message (totally unnecessary) I 
cannot see spending more than a few minutes on all the lists combined, 
if at all on a daily basis.  Spending twenty hours to set up six lists 
boggles the mind, IMO.  Unless there is a tremendous amount of 
moderation going on (by the Secretariat and not the list monitors), 
these numbers just don't compute.  Even with list monitoring, it doesn't 
compute.

Leah

> 
> On Tue, 15 May 2001, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Roberto Gaetano wrote on 14.05.01, 21:11:26:
> > > I would second Roeland's comment below:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>I share the incredulity... the answer is ... not much. Especially
> > >>considering that the ga-full is not moderated. It was the compromise
> > >>that enabled moderation on the GA list.
> > >
> > > I think that the NC should reconsider the matter, because closing down
> > > the GA-full will definitively destabilize the compromise achieved one
> > > year ago. The idea to restart from scratch the whole discussion about
> > > monitoring and censorship, right now that we seem to start making some
> > > progress, is frightening.
> > 
> > I have listened to the Names Council teleconference
> > meeting (thanks, Bret!), and it turns out that,
> > according to the Secretariat, the setup time for 
> > the five new GA sublists was about *twenty* hours of 
> > secretariat work, the typical maintenance costs are about 
> > *two* hours per day (Philip Sheppard referring to figures by
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve, DNSO Secretariat; unfortunately it 
> > is very much at the end of the 14 MB audio file Bret Fausett 
> > recorded).
> >   http://www.lextext.com/nc05092001.html
> > 
> > If you listen to the NC discussion of the issue, you 
> > will probably /not/ get the impression that this is a ploy
> > to silence the uncomfortable voices or something alike
> > [just to make sure: I'm obviously not addressing Roberto
> > here!]. Philip Sheppard: "As I understand, for reasons of
> > history, there are two main GA lists, one of which was
> > designed to be entirely open, the other one was moderated.
> > The one [list] that is moderated is the one that is used 
> > by hundreds, and the one that's entirely open tends to 
> > be used as a duplicate list and has a current subscription 
> > of about ten; and I was wondering if it was not time, in 
> > terms of being pragmatic, to suggest the closure of that 
> > list in light of these new five, which would save a 
> > little bit of administrative time." The other NC members 
> > agreed.
> > 
> > This said, I agree with Roberto that the GA-full list should 
> > be continued nonetheless. I would assume that any tasks 
> > connected with archiving and dealing with subscriptions 
> > are much more time-consuming for all the other lists. The 
> > GA-full has very few subscribers and, as Roberto mentions, 
> > the fact that it is unmoderated should make the administration
> > even easier. There is little to be gained moneywise, 
> > but there is a real risk of returning to an earlier point and 
> > state of discussion which we had hoped to have gotten past.
> > 
> > I ask Philip and the other NC members to reconsider this step,
> > especially as it is indeed the /moderation/ which requires 
> > extra work:
> >   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00301.html
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > /// Alexander
> > 
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
>   Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                        -->It's hot here.<--
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:16:23 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop's motions

- --------------095F34184667B8FA424E58AF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Bill Lovell wrote:
> >
> >To bring up users is an excellent thing to do. (I was a "mere
> >user" once myself!)  I'd thought about doing the same, but
> >then the point struck me: the GA is a part of the DNSO,
> >and the charter of the DNSO relates to domain names only.
> >There is no USO (other than the famous one that entertains
> >the military), but perhaps there should be -- I correspond
> >with tons of people that don't have domain names, and Jefsey
> >is absolutely correct in indicating that they have legitimate
> >interests as well.  So my only question is whether that is a
> >proper issue for the GA.
>
> As a user, I will not buy the principle that the DNSO is only for people
> that have a direct professional involvement. Users as well have interests at
> stake, and can add a useful point of view.

It was not my intent to suggest that the DNSO was only for people that
have a direct professional involvement, if I interpret what you say
correctly.  A number of my clients have domain names and web pages
on which they are "hawking their goods," so to speak, and I would not
classify them as "having a direct professional involvement" in any of the
professional aspects of Internet operation. They have domain names,
which automatically gives them an interest in everything the DNSO does.

> As a user I am damn interested, for instance, if there is a single root or
> multiple roots. I am also damn interested in the way rules are set for
> Registries and Registrars, because those rules will ultimately affect me and
> my ability to eventually become a Domain Name owner or not.

And me, too -- not as a domain name holder but as a user. So long as one
distinguishes domain names from the technical aspects of roots, however,
it seems that would be a PSO issue (?) and not one for the DNSO at all.
This suggests that the user needs something broader than some subset
within the DNSO, and presumably that's what the "At Large" bit is good
for, but today's hours don't allow me to get into that can of worms.

> I would not recommend, for the time being, to create a separate SO for
> users, but to encourage the users that may feel the interest to participate
> in the existing ones.

And I agree. (And/or the At-Large. ???)

Bill Lovell

- --------------095F34184667B8FA424E58AF
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>Roberto Gaetano wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Bill Lovell wrote:
<br>>
<br>>To bring up users is an excellent thing to do. (I was a "mere
<br>>user" once myself!)&nbsp; I'd thought about doing the same, but
<br>>then the point struck me: the GA is a part of the DNSO,
<br>>and the charter of the DNSO relates to domain names only.
<br>>There is no USO (other than the famous one that entertains
<br>>the military), but perhaps there should be -- I correspond
<br>>with tons of people that don't have domain names, and Jefsey
<br>>is absolutely correct in indicating that they have legitimate
<br>>interests as well.&nbsp; So my only question is whether that is a
<br>>proper issue for the GA.
<p>As a user, I will not buy the principle that the DNSO is only for people
<br>that have a direct professional involvement. Users as well have interests
at
<br>stake, and can add a useful point of view.</blockquote>
It was not my intent to suggest that the DNSO was only for people that
<br>have a direct professional involvement, if I interpret what you say
<br>correctly.&nbsp; A number of my clients have domain names and web pages
<br>on which they are "hawking their goods," so to speak, and I would not
<br>classify them as "having a direct professional involvement" in any
of the
<br>professional aspects of Internet operation. They have domain names,
<br>which automatically gives them an interest in everything the DNSO does.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>As a user I am damn interested, for instance, if
there is a single root or
<br>multiple roots. I am also damn interested in the way rules are set
for
<br>Registries and Registrars, because those rules will ultimately affect
me and
<br>my ability to eventually become a Domain Name owner or not.</blockquote>
And me, too -- not as a domain name holder but as a user. So long as one
<br>distinguishes domain <i>names</i> from the technical aspects of roots,
however,
<br>it seems that would be a PSO issue (?) and not one for the DNSO at
all.
<br>This suggests that the user needs something broader than some subset
<br>within the DNSO, and presumably that's what the "At Large" bit is good
<br>for, but today's hours don't allow me to get into that can of worms.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>I would not recommend, for the time being, to create
a separate SO for
<br>users, but to encourage the users that may feel the interest to participate
<br>in the existing ones.</blockquote>
And I agree. (And/or the At-Large. ???)
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------095F34184667B8FA424E58AF--

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Austerity measures

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> I have listened to the Names Council teleconference
> meeting (thanks, Bret!), and it turns out that,
> according to the Secretariat, the setup time for
> the five new GA sublists was about *twenty* hours of
> secretariat work, the typical maintenance costs are about
> *two* hours per day (Philip Sheppard referring to figures by
> Elisabeth Porteneuve, DNSO Secretariat; unfortunately it
> is very much at the end of the 14 MB audio file Bret Fausett
> recorded).
>   http://www.lextext.com/nc05092001.html

Alexandar,

Did you get a sense of what that 20 hours was spent on exactly? The reason
I ask is that I run several mailing lists and it takes about 5 minutes to
set one up, so there must be a lot more to what the Secretariat is doing
in setting up a list.

Perhaps Elisabeth could let us know?

Thanks.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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, 15 May 2001 02:34:15 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

On 2001-05-14 18:21:40 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of 
Law wrote:

>I'm sorry, but I simply cannot imagine how it can take this much 
>time to maintain a list.  We have dozens here at the law school, 
>and they don't take anything close to that amount of time.

Agreed, completely.

In particular, ga-full should have been a no-brainer, and should 
have consumed close to NO time - the very design of this list was to 
leave it alone.  Thus, it seems unlikely to me that removing ga-full 
will help to lower the bill.  However, on the other hand, it takes 
away part of a carefully-crafted equilibrium from which the "normal" 
ga list profits.

I'd be really curious to learn how the DNSO secretariat manages to 
spend two hours per day on mailing list maintenance.

PS: I've been running mailing lists with several hundred subscribers 
for some years now, using various kinds of mailing list software. 
Even with majordomo, which is a nightmare in terms of bounce 
handling, the time spent couldn't be measured in terms of hours per 
day.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:21:31 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Commerce Dept. Has 'Concerns' About VeriSign Pact

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0DCB3.76BBA6C0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0006_01C0DCB3.76BBA6C0"

- ------=_NextPart_001_0006_01C0DCB3.76BBA6C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

      May 14, 2001

        Dow Jones Newswires
      Commerce Dept. Has 'Concerns' About VeriSign Pact
      By PETER LOFTUS

    Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
      NEW YORK -- The Department of Commerce has some "concerns" about a
proposal to extend VeriSign Inc.'s (VRSN) monopoly on operating the central
database of Internet addresses, department spokesman Jim Dyke said.

      Commerce department officials were scheduled to meet with VeriSign
executives at 4 p.m. EDT Monday to discuss the concerns.

      Dyke declined to elaborate on the department's concerns, but said no
final decision would be made Monday.

      "This meeting is not to notify them that they are receiving final
approval," Dyke said. "We're just discussing the concerns we have."

      The Commerce Department is considering an agreement VeriSign reached
last month with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or
ICANN, a non-profit organization charged by the federal government with
overseeing the allocation of Internet domain names.

      Under the agreement, VeriSign would exclusively operate the central
database of names ending in .com through 2007 without having to divest
itself of either its wholesale or retail address businesses. In exchange,
VeriSign would give up control of .org addresses in 2002 and open the .net
domain to competition in 2006.

      That proposal would modify a 1999 agreement that requires VeriSign to
divest itself of the wholesale or retail unit in order to retain control of
the databases for .com, .net and .org through 2007.

      Under the original agreement, VeriSign had until May 10 to sell or
spin off one of the units. The Commerce Department last month extended the
deadline to May 31 to give it time to consider the VeriSign-ICANN proposal.

      VeriSign has indicated it would sell its retail address unit, Network
Solutions, if it fails to gain Commerce Department approval of the latest
proposal.

      -By Peter Loftus, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5267;
[email-masked]

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_001_0006_01C0DCB3.76BBA6C0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D473 border=3D0>
  <TBODY>
  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=3Dtop noWrap align=3Dleft><FONT size=3D-1><B>May 14, =
2001</B></FONT>=20
    </TD>
    <TD vAlign=3Dtop align=3Dright><IMG height=3D37=20
      src=3D"http://interactive.wsj.com/media/transpar.gif" width=3D191 =
align=3Dright=20
      border=3D0></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>
<TABLE width=3D464 border=3D0>
  <TBODY>
  <TR>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
      <H2><FONT face=3DArial size=3D+0><SPAN class=3Darttype><U>Dow =
Jones=20
      Newswires</U></SPAN></FONT></H2><!-- article start --><!--=0A=
CODE=3DCOMPANY        SYMBOL=3DVRSN=0A=
CODE=3DINDUSTRY        SYMBOL=3DSOF=0A=
CODE=3DINDUSTRY        SYMBOL=3DXNQ1=0A=
CODE=3DGOVERNMENT        SYMBOL=3DCOM=0A=
CODE=3DGOVERNMENT        SYMBOL=3DUSG=0A=
CODE=3DSUBJECT        SYMBOL=3DDJN=0A=
CODE=3DSUBJECT        SYMBOL=3DDJWI=0A=
CODE=3DSUBJECT        SYMBOL=3DCNW=0A=
CODE=3DSUBJECT        SYMBOL=3DCTC=0A=
CODE=3DSUBJECT        SYMBOL=3DDJRT=0A=
CODE=3DSUBJECT        SYMBOL=3DNET=0A=
CODE=3DSUBJECT        SYMBOL=3DSNEW=0A=
CODE=3DSUBJECT        SYMBOL=3DWEI=0A=
CODE=3DMARKET        SYMBOL=3DNND=0A=
CODE=3DMARKET        SYMBOL=3DTEC=0A=
CODE=3DPRODUCT        SYMBOL=3DDCO=0A=
CODE=3DPRODUCT        SYMBOL=3DDCS=0A=
CODE=3DPRODUCT        SYMBOL=3DDIT=0A=
CODE=3DPRODUCT        SYMBOL=3DDWV=0A=
CODE=3DGEOGRAPHIC        SYMBOL=3DCA=0A=
CODE=3DGEOGRAPHIC        SYMBOL=3DNME=0A=
CODE=3DGEOGRAPHIC        SYMBOL=3DPRM=0A=
CODE=3DGEOGRAPHIC        SYMBOL=3DUS=0A=
CODE=3DGEOGRAPHIC        SYMBOL=3DUSW=0A=
- -->
      <H2 class=3DArtHed>Commerce Dept. Has 'Concerns' About <B><FONT=20
      color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> Pact</H2>
      <P><B>By P<FONT size=3D-1>ETER</FONT> L<FONT =
size=3D-1>OFTUS</FONT></B></P><PRE>    Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES</PRE>
      <P>NEW YORK -- The Department of Commerce has some "concerns" =
about a=20
      proposal to extend <B><FONT color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> =
Inc.'s=20
      (VRSN) monopoly on operating the central database of Internet =
addresses,=20
      department spokesman Jim Dyke said.</P>
      <P>Commerce department officials were scheduled to meet with =
<B><FONT=20
      color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> executives at 4 p.m. EDT =
Monday to=20
      discuss the concerns.</P>
      <P>Dyke declined to elaborate on the department's concerns, but =
said no=20
      final decision would be made Monday.</P>
      <P>"This meeting is not to notify them that they are receiving =
final=20
      approval," Dyke said. "We're just discussing the concerns we =
have."</P>
      <P>The Commerce Department is considering an agreement <B><FONT=20
      color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> reached last month with the =
Internet=20
      Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, a non-profit =

      organization charged by the federal government with overseeing the =

      allocation of Internet domain names.</P>
      <P>Under the agreement, <B><FONT =
color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> would=20
      exclusively operate the central database of names ending in .com =
through=20
      2007 without having to divest itself of either its wholesale or =
retail=20
      address businesses. In exchange, <B><FONT=20
      color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> would give up control of .org =
addresses=20
      in 2002 and open the .net domain to competition in 2006.</P>
      <P>That proposal would modify a 1999 agreement that requires =
<B><FONT=20
      color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> to divest itself of the =
wholesale or=20
      retail unit in order to retain control of the databases for .com, =
.net and=20
      .org through 2007.</P>
      <P>Under the original agreement, <B><FONT=20
      color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> had until May 10 to sell or =
spin off one=20
      of the units. The Commerce Department last month extended the =
deadline to=20
      May 31 to give it time to consider the VeriSign-ICANN =
proposal.</P>
      <P><B><FONT color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> has indicated it =
would sell=20
      its retail address unit, Network Solutions, if it fails to gain =
Commerce=20
      Department approval of the latest proposal.</P>
      <P>-By Peter Loftus, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5267; <A=20
      =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A></=
P><!-- article end --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_001_0006_01C0DCB3.76BBA6C0--

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0DCB3.76BBA6C0
Content-Type: image/gif;
	name="transpar.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://interactive.wsj.com/media/transpar.gif

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0DCB3.76BBA6C0--

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:26:31 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Commerce Dept: 'Confident' VeriSign Pact Can Be Reached

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C0DCB4.29C34160
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0011_01C0DCB4.29C34160"

- ------=_NextPart_001_0011_01C0DCB4.29C34160
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

      May 14, 2001

        Dow Jones Newswires
      Commerce Dept: 'Confident' VeriSign Pact Can Be Reached
      Dow Jones Newswires

    By Peter Loftus
    Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
      NEW YORK -- The Department of Commerce said Monday it's confident it
will reach an agreement with VeriSign Inc. (VRSN) that would extend
VeriSign's monopoly on operating the central database of most Internet
addresses.

      Commerce officials met with VeriSign executives Monday evening and
provided feedback on VeriSign's April agreement with the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann, the non-profit
organization charged by the federal government with overseeing the
allocation of Web addresses.

      "We have communicated our general thinking (to VeriSign), are pleased
with the progress, and are confident an agreement can be reached in the
near-term," the department's general counsel, Ted Kassinger, said in a
prepared statement after the meeting.

      Before the meeting, a Commerce department spokesman said the
department had "concerns" about the proposed VeriSign-Icann agreement, but
declined to elaborate.

      VeriSign spokesman Brian O'Shaughnessy said none of the issues under
discussion affect the "core terms" of the proposed VeriSign-Icann agreement.

      "VeriSign and Icann are truly in lock-step, and are extremely
confident we'll get a favorable ruling," he said.

      Neither the Commerce Department nor VeriSign would disclose the issues
that VeriSign must address in order to secure Commerce's approval.

      O'Shaughnessy, the VeriSign spokesman, said any modifications to the
proposed agreement with Icann would be "minor."

      Under the proposed VeriSign-Icann agreement, VeriSign would
exclusively operate the central database, or registry, of Internet addresses
ending in .com through 2007. It would give up control of .org addresses in
2002 and open the .net domain to competition in 2006.

      A key provision of the proposal is that VeriSign wouldn't have to
divest itself of either its registry unit or retail address unit, Network
Solutions. That modifies a 1999 agreement with Icann, which required
VeriSign to make such a divestiture in order to keep control of all three
domain names through 2007.

      Under the 1999 agreement, VeriSign had until May 10 to sell or spin
off either its registry or Network Solutions. Last month, the Commerce
department extended the deadline to May 31 to give it time to consider the
proposal. VeriSign has indicated it would shed the Network Solutions unit if
the Commerce Department rejected the proposal.

      VeriSign collects $6 annually for each address in its registry, no
matter which company sells the name at the retail level.

      -By Peter Loftus, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5267;
[email-masked]

      Officials from the Commerce Department and VeriSign continued to
negotiate Monday evening, a person familiar with the matter said.

      One outstanding issue is that Commerce wants to specify the precise
date by which VeriSign would divest itself of the database for Web addresses
ending in .org, this person said. So far, VeriSign has publicly said it
would give up its lock on that domain sometime in 2002.

      Commerce also wants to specify the date in 2006 when the database for
.net addresses would be re-opened to competition, the person said.

      -By Peter Loftus, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5267;
[email-masked]

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_001_0011_01C0DCB4.29C34160
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>
<DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D473 border=3D0>
  <TBODY>
  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=3Dtop noWrap align=3Dleft><FONT size=3D-1><B>May 14, =
2001</B></FONT>=20
    </TD>
    <TD vAlign=3Dtop align=3Dright><IMG height=3D37=20
      src=3D"http://interactive.wsj.com/media/transpar.gif" width=3D191 =
align=3Dright=20
      border=3D0></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<TABLE width=3D464 border=3D0>
  <TBODY>
  <TR>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
      <H2><FONT face=3DArial size=3D+0><SPAN class=3Darttype><U>Dow =
Jones=20
      Newswires</U></SPAN></FONT></H2><!-- article start --><!--=0A=
CODE=3DCOMPANY        SYMBOL=3DVRSN=0A=
CODE=3DINDUSTRY        SYMBOL=3DSOF=0A=
CODE=3DINDUSTRY        SYMBOL=3DXNQ1=0A=
CODE=3DGOVERNMENT        SYMBOL=3DCOM=0A=
CODE=3DGOVERNMENT        SYMBOL=3DUSG=0A=
CODE=3DSUBJECT        SYMBOL=3DDJN=0A=
CODE=3DSUBJECT        SYMBOL=3DDJWI=0A=
CODE=3DSUBJECT        SYMBOL=3DCNW=0A=
CODE=3DSUBJECT        SYMBOL=3DDJRT=0A=
CODE=3DSUBJECT        SYMBOL=3DSNEW=0A=
CODE=3DSUBJECT        SYMBOL=3DWEI=0A=
CODE=3DMARKET        SYMBOL=3DNND=0A=
CODE=3DMARKET        SYMBOL=3DTEC=0A=
CODE=3DPRODUCT        SYMBOL=3DDCO=0A=
CODE=3DPRODUCT        SYMBOL=3DDCS=0A=
CODE=3DPRODUCT        SYMBOL=3DDWV=0A=
CODE=3DGEOGRAPHIC        SYMBOL=3DCA=0A=
CODE=3DGEOGRAPHIC        SYMBOL=3DNME=0A=
CODE=3DGEOGRAPHIC        SYMBOL=3DPRM=0A=
CODE=3DGEOGRAPHIC        SYMBOL=3DUS=0A=
CODE=3DGEOGRAPHIC        SYMBOL=3DUSW=0A=
- -->
      <H2 class=3DArtHed>Commerce Dept: 'Confident' <B><FONT=20
      color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> Pact Can Be Reached</H2>
      <P><FONT size=3D-1><I>Dow Jones Newswires</I></FONT></P><!-- Dow =
Jones Newswires --><PRE>    By Peter Loftus
    Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES</PRE>
      <P>NEW YORK -- The Department of Commerce said Monday it's =
confident it=20
      will reach an agreement with <B><FONT =
color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B>=20
      Inc. (VRSN) that would extend VeriSign's monopoly on operating the =
central=20
      database of most Internet addresses.</P>
      <P>Commerce officials met with <B><FONT =
color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B>=20
      executives Monday evening and provided feedback on VeriSign's =
April=20
      agreement with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and =
Numbers, or=20
      Icann, the non-profit organization charged by the federal =
government with=20
      overseeing the allocation of Web addresses.</P>
      <P>"We have communicated our general thinking (to <B><FONT=20
      color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B>), are pleased with the =
progress, and are=20
      confident an agreement can be reached in the near-term," the =
department's=20
      general counsel, Ted Kassinger, said in a prepared statement after =
the=20
      meeting.</P>
      <P>Before the meeting, a Commerce department spokesman said the =
department=20
      had "concerns" about the proposed VeriSign-Icann agreement, but =
declined=20
      to elaborate.</P>
      <P><B><FONT color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> spokesman Brian=20
      O'Shaughnessy said none of the issues under discussion affect the =
"core=20
      terms" of the proposed VeriSign-Icann agreement.</P>
      <P>"<B><FONT color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> and Icann are =
truly in=20
      lock-step, and are extremely confident we'll get a favorable =
ruling," he=20
      said.</P>
      <P>Neither the Commerce Department nor <B><FONT=20
      color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> would disclose the issues that =
<B><FONT=20
      color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> must address in order to =
secure=20
      Commerce's approval.</P>
      <P>O'Shaughnessy, the <B><FONT color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> =

      spokesman, said any modifications to the proposed agreement with =
Icann=20
      would be "minor."</P>
      <P>Under the proposed VeriSign-Icann agreement, <B><FONT=20
      color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> would exclusively operate the =
central=20
      database, or registry, of Internet addresses ending in .com =
through 2007.=20
      It would give up control of .org addresses in 2002 and open the =
.net=20
      domain to competition in 2006.</P>
      <P>A key provision of the proposal is that <B><FONT=20
      color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> wouldn't have to divest itself =
of either=20
      its registry unit or retail address unit, Network Solutions. That =
modifies=20
      a 1999 agreement with Icann, which required <B><FONT=20
      color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> to make such a divestiture in =
order to=20
      keep control of all three domain names through 2007.</P>
      <P>Under the 1999 agreement, <B><FONT =
color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B>=20
      had until May 10 to sell or spin off either its registry or =
Network=20
      Solutions. Last month, the Commerce department extended the =
deadline to=20
      May 31 to give it time to consider the proposal. <B><FONT=20
      color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> has indicated it would shed =
the Network=20
      Solutions unit if the Commerce Department rejected the =
proposal.</P>
      <P><B><FONT color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> collects $6 =
annually for=20
      each address in its registry, no matter which company sells the =
name at=20
      the retail level.</P>
      <P>-By Peter Loftus, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5267;=20
      [email-masked]</P>
      <P>Officials from the Commerce Department and <B><FONT=20
      color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> continued to negotiate Monday =
evening, a=20
      person familiar with the matter said.</P>
      <P>One outstanding issue is that Commerce wants to specify the =
precise=20
      date by which <B><FONT color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> would =
divest=20
      itself of the database for Web addresses ending in .org, this =
person said.=20
      So far, <B><FONT color=3D#660000>VeriSign</FONT></B> has publicly =
said it=20
      would give up its lock on that domain sometime in 2002.</P>
      <P>Commerce also wants to specify the date in 2006 when the =
database for=20
      .net addresses would be re-opened to competition, the person =
said.</P>
      <P>-By Peter Loftus, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5267; <A=20
      =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A></=
P><!-- article end --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>/Bruce</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT></STRONG></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_001_0011_01C0DCB4.29C34160--

- ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C0DCB4.29C34160
Content-Type: image/gif;
	name="transpar.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://interactive.wsj.com/media/transpar.gif

- ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C0DCB4.29C34160--

- --
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 #459
************************