Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #470
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Friday, May 18 2001             Volume 01 : Number 470

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:32:41 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

- --------------D9E8B50EA73AA7C033C36A02
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

>  Bill,I don't have a clue what you are talking about.
>
> Chuck:
>
> And I, you. What "results quarterly?" I don't care about stockholders
> reports
> (at least at the momen). We're talking about the NSI/Verisign monopoly
> (or
> at least a temporary one) on information. How do all other registrars
> have the
> same access as you do?
>
>
> Bill Lovell
>
>
>
>
>
>
> VeriSign reports it's results quarterly and those reports are on the
> VeriSign web site.Chuck
>
>      -----Original Message-----
>      From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
>      Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 1:51 AM
>      To: Gomes, Chuck
>      Cc: [email-masked]
>      Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal
>
>
>      "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
>
>     > What does so called SPAM have to do with separation of
>     > Registry and Registrar?
>     >
>     > Chuck: There is nothing "so-called" about SPAM. I believe
>     > just about every ISP known
>     > now has to spend mucho bucks setting up filters against
>     > it.  If there's anything more
>     > annoying than that it would probably be yellow stickies
>     > and blue fonts.
>     >
>     > What does marketing have to do with separation of Registry
>     > and Registrar?
>     >
>     > Like I said.
>     >
>     > No conclusive evidence has ever been produced to
>     > substantiate the rumor you mention, undoubtedly because it
>     > is just a rumor.  Again, this has nothing to do with
>     > Registry/Registrar separation because the NSI Registrar
>     > has the same exact access to the SRS as all other
>     > registrars.
>     >
>     > Show us the document which says that - or at least that
>     > NSI doesn't have a head start in
>     > which to add to its domain name horde. (How many domain
>     > names does NSI/Verisign
>     > now have registered? Want to tell us? I think the portal
>     > to that information got closed.)
>     > (So how come this isn't blue?)
>     >
>     > I'm still waiting for facts instead of rumors and
>     > suspicions.  I am perfectly comfortable with you having a
>     > your own negative opinions about the current situation but
>     > I am not all comfortable with you making charges that are
>     > false.
>     >
>     > Um, Verisign has the "facts" cuddled to its breast. When
>     > someone has the gumption to
>     > sue and discovery starts, well, then, maybe we'll all
>     > know. The evidence by which NSI
>     > (rightly) won the Lockheed - Martin "skunkworks" case in
>     > the 9th circuit never got into that.
>     >
>     > And thank you for including my whole thing. I can't yet
>     > get my browser to show it!  :-)
>     >
>     > Bill Lovell
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Chuck
>     >
>     >      -----Original Message-----
>     >      From: William S. Lovell
>     >      [mailto:[email-masked]]
>     >      Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 8:31 PM
>     >      To: Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]
>     >      Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal
>     >      The bloody SPAM is enough by itself. And as an
>     >      attorney, I know
>     >      how "Chinese walls" work -- they don't.  How it
>     >      was that "marketing"
>     >      ever got into the purely technical issue of
>     >      running a root and recording
>     >      domain name registrations is beyond me, except
>     >      for the fact that NSI
>     >      has NEVER done anything without first thought to
>     >      its bottom line.
>     >      The "examples" pertinent to this issue itself
>     >      are of course within the walls
>     >      of Verisign, so I would invite you to provide
>     >      any examples which show
>     >      that anything I have suggested is not true.
>     >      Hawking and registering domain
>     >      names is a marketing function, with a bit of
>     >      techno-bit twiddling attached;
>     >      running a registry of who has registered what so
>     >      that the DNS function
>     >      can be authoritatively carried out is pure
>     >      techno-bookkeeping, and should
>     >      never be found in the same basket as marketing.
>     >      They are philosophically
>     >      different functions that have an inherent
>     >      conflict of interest, and any mix of
>     >      them is quite anti-competitive in that every
>     >      registration then ultimately ends
>     >      up with the registry, thereby giving that
>     >      registry an unfair advantage in its
>     >      own hawking efforts if it is permitted then to
>     >      tout its own registration services
>     >      as to every conceivable variation of a "hot"
>     >      name, which Verisign (and, e.g.,
>     >      register.com, but you see register.com does not
>     >      have the whole pile as does
>     >      Verisign) does interminably.  I am not an
>     >      antitrust lawyer, but I've studied
>     >      it, and I was not born yesterday.
>     >
>     >      Rumor has it that Verisign has also tracked
>     >      WHOIS queries, and when one
>     >      looks like a "hot" one (read "marketable") it
>     >      has immediately snatched it up
>     >      for itself, and although this also seems to be
>     >      the practice in a lot of other places,
>     >      a look at the domain names that Verisign/NSI has
>     >      registered to itself would
>     >      make it among the biggest, if not the biggest,
>     >      cybersquatter on the net (were it
>     >      not for the loophole in the law that exempts
>     >      registrars from that law -- a
>     >      loophole about which I would like to know -- and
>     >      intend to find out -- just
>     >      how much Verisign/NSI had a hand in getting into
>     >      that abominable law.
>     >
>     >      Chuck, no one out here with half a brain can
>     >      fail to figure out what
>     >      Verisign/NSI -- of whom I am forced against my
>     >      will to be a customer
>     >      if I'm to have a domain name -- does.
>     >      Verisign/NSI past practices have,
>     >      I suspect, conditioned a good bit of the public
>     >      to accept at once the idea
>     >      that Verisign/NSI would in fact be carrying out
>     >      exactly what I've said.
>     >      And thank you for the email; it has moved me to
>     >      respond, and suggested
>     >      that, since this issue is before the Congress
>     >      right now, I should immediately
>     >      copy this whole thing off to Sen. Ron Wyden
>     >      (D-OR), so excuse me
>     >      while I take care of that chore. Maybe that will
>     >      help put an end to this
>     >      farce.
>     >
>     >      Bill Lovell
>     >
>     >
>     >      "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
>     >
>     >      > Bill,Please give me an example that proves that
>     >      > the current separation between Registry and
>     >      > Registrar does not work.Chuck
>     >      >
>     >      >      -----Original Message-----
>     >      >      From: William S. Lovell
>     >      >      [mailto:[email-masked]]
>     >      >      Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 12:43
>     >      >      PM
>     >      >      To: Bruce James
>     >      >      Cc: GA
>     >      >      Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch
>     >      >      Domain Deal
>     >      >      Well, let's hope so.  To begin with,
>     >      >      paper work "separation" between
>     >      >      registry and registrar
>     >      >      functions has always been a gross
>     >      >      fiction -- it never works and should
>     >      >      never have been
>     >      >      contemplated. What do you think
>     >      >      happens when the registry type says
>     >      >      to the registrar type,
>     >      >      "Let's do lunch?" I never deal
>     >      >      directly with NSI (Verisign) in
>     >      >      registering a domain name,
>     >      >      but only when the necessary paper
>     >      >      work trickles out of my registration
>     >      >      application to some
>     >      >      other registrar.
>     >      >
>     >      >      Even so, I guess that makes me a
>     >      >      "customer" of Verisign and gives them
>     >      >      a crack in the law
>     >      >      that allows them to send me their
>     >      >      SPAM. That's one reason why there's
>     >      >      an incompatibility
>     >      >      between registry and registrar
>     >      >      functions -- registries should
>     >      >      twiddle bits, and that's all --
>     >      >      a registry should be hawking nothing.
>     >      >      (For our nonUSA people to whom the
>     >      >      slang term
>     >      >      "hawking" is not familiar, it just
>     >      >      means aggressive marketing and that
>     >      >      sort of thing.)
>     >      >
>     >      >      (Once our current more important
>     >      >      issues get resolved, SPAM, privacy,
>     >      >      security, etc., will
>     >      >      be my next projects.)
>     >      >
>     >      >      (The concession in par. 2 below
>     >      >      solves nothing as to the problem in
>     >      >      par. 1.)
>     >      >
>     >      >      Bill Lovell
>     >      >
>     >      >      Bruce James wrote:
>     >      >
>     >      >     >  ""The major sticking point arose
>     >      >     >  from a letter that the Justice
>     >      >     >  Department sent to the Department
>     >      >     >  of Commerce warning that the deal
>     >      >     >  would harm competition in the
>     >      >     >  nascent business of registering
>     >      >     >  Internet names, people familiar
>     >      >     >  with the negotiations said. The
>     >      >     >  letter opposed the so-called
>     >      >     >  vertical integration of VeriSign's
>     >      >     >  managing of the ".com" database and
>     >      >     >  registering new names in the
>     >      >     >  database, sources said.""
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >  ""Commerce officials were said to
>     >      >     >  be asking for more concessions from
>     >      >     >  VeriSign, such as giving up control
>     >      >     >  of the ".net" domain sooner than
>     >      >     >  2005.""
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >  /Bruce
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >       ----- Original Message
>     >      >     >       -----
>     >      >     >       From: Bruce James
>     >      >     >       To: GA
>     >      >     >       Sent: May 16, 2001 07:46
>     >      >     >       Subject: [ga] VeriSign
>     >      >     >       May Ditch Domain Deal
>     >      >     >       VeriSign May Ditch Domain
>     >      >     >       Deal
>     >      >     >       By Aaron Pressman
>     >      >     >       May 15 2001 04:57 PM PDT
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >       The Commerce Department's
>     >      >     >       review of the agreement
>     >      >     >       that extends the computer
>     >      >     >       security firm's control
>     >      >     >       of the '.com' domain has
>     >      >     >       the company thinking
>     >      >     >       twice, sources say.
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >       MORE at:
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >       ttp://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,24500,00.html
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >       /Bruce
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >
>     >      >     >

- --------------D9E8B50EA73AA7C033C36A02
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
&nbsp;
<p>"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;<span class=439344416-17052001>Bill,</span><span class=439344416-17052001></span><span class=439344416-17052001>I
don't have a clue what you are talking about.
<p>Chuck:
<p>And I, you. What "results quarterly?" I don't care about stockholders
reports
<br>(at least at the momen). We're talking about the NSI/Verisign monopoly
(or
<br>at least a temporary one) on information. How do all other registrars
have the
<br>same access as you do?
<br>&nbsp;
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<p>VeriSign reports it's results quarterly and those reports are on the
VeriSign web site.</span><span class=439344416-17052001></span><span class=439344416-17052001>Chuck</span>
<blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div class="OutlookMessageHeader" dir="ltr"><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1>-----Original
Message-----</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>From:</b> William S. Lovell [<A HREF="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</A>]</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 17, 2001
1:51 AM</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Cc:</b> [email-masked]</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ga] VeriSign
May Ditch Domain Deal</font></font>
<br>&nbsp;</div>

<p>"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE="CITE"><span class=445282004-17052001><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>What
does so called SPAM have to do with separation of Registry and Registrar?</font></font></font></span>
<p><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Chuck: There
is nothing "so-called" about SPAM. I believe just about every ISP known</font></font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>now has to spend
mucho bucks setting up filters against it.&nbsp; If there's anything more</font></font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>annoying than
that it would probably be yellow stickies and blue fonts.</font></font></font>
<p><span 
    class=445282004-17052001></span><span class=445282004-17052001><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>What
does marketing have to do with separation of Registry and Registrar?</font></font></font></span>
<p><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Like I said.</font></font></font>
<p><span 
    class=445282004-17052001></span><span class=445282004-17052001><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>No
conclusive evidence has ever been produced to substantiate the rumor you
mention, undoubtedly because it is just a rumor.&nbsp; Again, this has
nothing to do with Registry/Registrar separation because the NSI Registrar
has the same exact access to the SRS as all other registrars.</font></font></font>
<p>Show us the document which says that - or at least that NSI doesn't
have a head start in
<br>which to add to its domain name horde. (How many domain names does
NSI/Verisign
<br>now have registered? Want to tell us? I think the portal to that information
got closed.)
<br>(So how come this isn't blue?)
<p></span><span class=445282004-17052001></span><span 
    class=445282004-17052001><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>I'm
still waiting for facts instead of rumors and suspicions.&nbsp; I am perfectly
comfortable with you having a your own negative opinions about the current
situation but I am not all comfortable with you making charges that are
false.</font></font></font></span>
<p><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Um, Verisign
has the "facts" cuddled to its breast. When someone has the gumption to</font></font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>sue and discovery
starts, well, then, maybe we'll all know. The evidence by which NSI</font></font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>(rightly) won
the Lockheed - Martin "skunkworks" case in the 9th circuit never got into
that.</font></font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>And thank you
for including my whole thing. I can't yet get my browser to show it!&nbsp;
:-)</font></font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Bill Lovell</font></font></font>
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<p><span 
    class=445282004-17052001></span><span class=445282004-17052001><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Chuck</font></font></font></span>
<blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1>-----Original
Message-----</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>From:</b> William S. Lovell [<a href="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</a>]</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 16, 2001
8:31 PM</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ga] VeriSign
May Ditch Domain Deal</font></font></div>
The bloody SPAM is enough by itself. And as an attorney, I know
<br>how "Chinese walls" work -- they don't.&nbsp; How it was that "marketing"
<br>ever got into the purely technical issue of running a root and recording
<br>domain name registrations is beyond me, except for the fact that NSI
<br>has NEVER done anything without first thought to its bottom line.
<br>The "examples" pertinent to this issue itself&nbsp; are of course within
the walls
<br>of Verisign, so I would invite you to provide any examples which show
<br>that anything I have suggested is not true.&nbsp; Hawking and registering
domain
<br>names is a marketing function, with a bit of techno-bit twiddling attached;
<br>running a registry of who has registered what so that the DNS function
<br>can be authoritatively carried out is pure techno-bookkeeping, and
should
<br>never be found in the same basket as marketing. They are philosophically
<br>different functions that have an inherent conflict of interest, and
any mix of
<br>them is quite anti-competitive in that every registration then ultimately
ends
<br>up with the registry, thereby giving that registry an unfair advantage
in its
<br>own hawking efforts if it is permitted then to tout its own registration
services
<br>as to every conceivable variation of a "hot" name, which Verisign (and,
e.g.,
<br>register.com, but you see register.com does not have the whole pile
as does
<br>Verisign) does interminably.&nbsp; I am not an antitrust lawyer, but
I've studied
<br>it, and I was not born yesterday.
<p>Rumor has it that Verisign has also tracked WHOIS queries, and when
one
<br>looks like a "hot" one (read "marketable") it has immediately snatched
it up
<br>for itself, and although this also seems to be the practice in a lot
of other places,
<br>a look at the domain names that Verisign/NSI has registered to itself
would
<br>make it among the biggest, if not the biggest, cybersquatter on the
net (were it
<br>not for the loophole in the law that exempts registrars from that law
- -- a
<br>loophole about which I would like to know -- and intend to find out
- -- just
<br>how much Verisign/NSI had a hand in getting into that abominable law.
<p>Chuck, no one out here with half a brain can fail to figure out what
<br>Verisign/NSI -- of whom I am forced against my will to be a customer
<br>if I'm to have a domain name -- does. Verisign/NSI past practices have,
<br>I suspect, conditioned a good bit of the public to accept at once the
idea
<br>that Verisign/NSI would in fact be carrying out exactly what I've said.
<br>And thank you for the email; it has moved me to respond, and suggested
<br>that, since this issue is before the Congress right now, I should immediately
<br>copy this whole thing off to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), so excuse me
<br>while I take care of that chore. Maybe that will help put an end to
this
<br>farce.
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;
<p>"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE="CITE"><span class=901571521-16052001><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Bill,</span><span 
        class=901571521-16052001></span><span class=901571521-16052001>Please
give me an example that proves that the current separation between Registry
and Registrar does not work.</span><span 
        class=901571521-16052001></span><span 
        class=901571521-16052001>Chuck</font></font></font></span>
<blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1>-----Original
Message-----</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>From:</b> William S. Lovell [<a href="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</a>]</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 16, 2001
12:43 PM</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>To:</b> Bruce James</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Cc:</b> GA</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ga] VeriSign
May Ditch Domain Deal</font></font></div>
Well, let's hope so.&nbsp; To begin with, paper work "separation" between
registry and registrar
<br>functions has always been a gross fiction -- it never works and should
never have been
<br>contemplated. What do you think happens when the registry type says
to the registrar type,
<br>"Let's do lunch?" I never deal directly with NSI (Verisign) in registering
a domain name,
<br>but only when the necessary paper work trickles out of my registration
application to some
<br>other registrar.
<p>Even so, I guess that makes me a "customer" of Verisign and gives them
a crack in the law
<br>that allows them to send me their SPAM. That's one reason why there's
an incompatibility
<br>between registry and registrar functions -- registries should twiddle
bits, and that's all --
<br>a registry should be hawking <i>nothing</i>. (For our nonUSA people
to whom the slang term
<br>"hawking" is not familiar, it just means aggressive marketing and that
sort of thing.)
<p>(Once our current more important issues get resolved, SPAM, privacy,
security, etc., will
<br>be my next projects.)
<p>(The concession in par. 2 below solves nothing as to the problem in
par. 1.)
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>Bruce James wrote:
<blockquote TYPE="CITE"><style></style>
<b><font size=-1>""The major sticking
point arose from a letter that the Justice Department sent to the Department
of Commerce warning that the deal would harm competition in the nascent
business of registering Internet names, people familiar with the negotiations
said. The letter opposed the so-called vertical integration of VeriSign's
managing of the ".com" database and registering new names in the database,
sources said.""</font></b>
<p><b><font size=-1>""Commerce officials were said to be asking for more
concessions from VeriSign, such as giving up control of the ".net" domain
sooner than 2005.""</font></b>
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<p><b><font size=-1>/Bruce</font></b>
<blockquote dir=ltr 
            style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----</div>

<div 
              style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:[email-masked]" title="[email-masked]">Bruce James</a></div>

<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:[email-masked]" title="[email-masked]">GA</a></div>

<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> May 16, 2001 07:46</div>

<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain
Deal</div>
<span class=ph><b><font size=+2>VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal</font></b></span>
<br><span 
              class=byline><b><i><font size=-1>By Aaron Pressman</font></i></b></span>
<br><span class=time><b><font color="#666666"><font size=-1>May 15 2001
04:57 PM PDT</font></font></b></span>
<p><span class=bbt2><b><font size=-1>The Commerce Department's review of
the agreement that extends the computer security firm's control of the
'.com' domain has the company thinking twice, sources say.</font></b></span>
<p><b><font size=-1>MORE at:</font></b>
<p><b><font size=-1><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,24500,00.html">http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,24500,00.html</a></font></b>
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<p><b><font size=-1>/Bruce</font></b>
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

</body>
</html>

- --------------D9E8B50EA73AA7C033C36A02--

- --
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: Thu, 17 May 2001 14:00:06 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

Hello William,

Thursday, May 17, 2001, 12:32:41 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

>>  Bill,I don't have a clue what you are talking about.
>>
>> Chuck:
>>
>> And I, you. What "results quarterly?" I don't care about stockholders
>> reports
>> (at least at the momen). We're talking about the NSI/Verisign monopoly
>> (or
>> at least a temporary one) on information. How do all other registrars
>> have the
>> same access as you do?

I think Bill is under the mistaken impression that the Registry knows
anything at all about domain registrants, and is assuming that the
reason he gets email from NSI is because of some access they have to
his data that is in the registry.

Your data is not in the registry, Bill.

The registry does not maintain any kind of registrant data whatsoever.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

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

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 21:03:08 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

Chuck Gomes wrote:
>
>Please give me an example that proves that the current separation between
>Registry and Registrar does not work.

Let me try.

I think that the current separation between Registry and Registrar does work 
well *under-the-circumstances-it-has-been-created-for* (i.e. as long as it 
is a temporary measure that has allowed introduction of competition at the 
Registrar level within a reasonable timeframe).
It was intended to allow the Registrars who participated in the testbed (and 
in the initial phases of full competitive operations), to operate in a level 
play field (well, in a "not-too-tilted" field).

Outside of the limited timeframe that was intended for this situation, it 
will constitute a bias.
Seen in the long term, it will give the company that owns the Registry *and* 
a Registrar a definitive competitive advantage. And this simply because it 
gives the possibility to NSI/Verisign to plan in advance common strategies 
between the R-y and the R-ar parts, to make full use of synergies, to share 
know-how, and so on.
The competitive advantage of NSI-the-Registrar over the other testbed 
Registrars was not in the possibility of NSI-the-Registry unfairly blocking 
other Registrars or unfairly privilege NSI-the-Registrar (about which I will 
comment below), but in the fact that NSI Registrar had already the knowledge 
of the environment, operations and protocols that would have been put in 
place, knowledge that the others did not have.

This is a situation that cannot continue in the future. Technological 
change, commercial/technical solutions, and what else, can be put in place 
by Verisign-the-Registry after consultation (or at least full awareness) of 
Verisign-the-Registrar, and here lies the competitive advantage. This is why 
vertical integration has been a no-no since the early days (as Director 
Kraaijenbrink put well in MdR).

I would also take this opportunity to comment on the alleged irregularities 
that were brought to the attention of ICANN in Melbourne.
Let me state that I do not believe that any irregularity took place, because 
of two reasons, one subjective, and the other objective.
The subjective reason is that the irregularities would have been made under 
the responsibility of Chuck Gomes, and that I absolutely trust his moral 
integrity (and I am sure not to be alone on this).
The objective reason is that we can claim a lot of bad things about NSI, but 
surely not that they are silly. And to take the risk of badly mess up the 
testbed, under the very eyes of the whole Internet community, and this just 
for registering few hundred names (a drop in the ocean), would have been the 
masterpiece of sillyness.
It would have been like Schumacher to take the risk of landing on the grass 
in Zeltweg to try to pass Montoya ... well, on second thought, maybe that's 
not a good example ;>)

Anyway, in summary, the firewall between R-y and R-ar was good enough as a 
temporary measure. Now we need a more definitive guarantee against vertical 
integration and potential monopoly position: full separation of the business 
interests.
And this not because of the risk of abuses, which will anyway fall under the 
jurisdiction of the courts, but as a guarantee of transparency and good 
health of the competitive marketplace.

Best 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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 21:08:22 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [GA] Gigalaw poll on "domain names not sanctioned by ICANN"

Bill,

>
>  The question was "What do you think of domain names not sanctioned by
>ICANN?"
>
>56.4% say they "threaten the stability of the Internet."
>
>43.59% say they "foster healthy competition."
>

Any indication on what the population was?
I mean, were they maily lawyers? Technical people? Commercial people?Average 
users?

Thanks
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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 21:45:45 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

Vany,

I am specifically answering your post, but have also some general comments 
on the issue.

>To avoid submissions of non-members it just only takes that the mailing
>list is setted up to be closed.  If you want to avoid a known spammer to
>post (and because the list is closed, of course, it is a member of the
>list) it just take to add him to a list in Sendmail that deny access to
>such spammer.  But this is not a thing done by Elizabeth.  This has to be
>done by the technical staff of AFNIC!!!  The Technical staff of AFNIC is
>payed to dedicate part time job to DNSO (for me part time means four hours
>a day).

In fact, the list is open by design.
Post from non-members are accepted intentionally, to allow archiving of 
contribution from everybody.

>.........  The GA-FULL is
>unmoderated.  Then there's no excuse to close it!!!

Good. I sense consensus here.

>.....  But the issue here is that Elizabeth proposed to close te
>GA-FULL (unmoderated) and not the GA (moderated).   And I don't
>understand why she is monitoring an unmoderated list!

I believe this has been clarified already.
Elisabeth did not propose to close it down.
However, under French law the owner of a Web site is responsible for the 
material published on the Web site, and postings by third parties on a list 
whose archive is public are no exception.
In other words, if a message of pornographic or otherwise offensive or 
unlawful content is sent by a non-member to the GA, the DNSO will be 
responsible for its publication in the archives.
And those among you who were members in late 1999 may remember that this is 
more than an abstract possibility, and my personal opinion is that this can 
happen again any moment.
Hence the need to check.

This said, my general comment is that I do not share the general enthusiasm 
for the new "shoot-AFNIC" wave.
I agree that some of the figures and estimates, in particular about the time 
needed to run the mailing lists, need revision and adjustment, but let me 
note that:
1. the cost of running mailing lists is peanuts in the global DNSO budget, 
and therefore the correct answer to the question on whether mailing lists 
should be closed is that this is a red herring
2. some of the alternatives proposed, like run the MLs on free service 
providers are either not viable (trusted archive?), or would not solve the 
cost problem, if we agree that the cost is not the system or disk space, but 
the time for the monitoring
3. AFNIC has provided for quite a long time all services to the DNSO free of 
charge: it has started to charge because it has become obvious that 
otherwise it would have been taken for granted that they would have done 
everything for free forever
4. to move from a voluntaristic approach to a situation where we have a 
contract with a provider with an agreed level of service is something that 
*we* (DNSO) need, not AFNIC. To pay for it is just fair. Incidentally, about 
the comment of us being "stuck" with AFNIC until end of June (which is only 
six weeks away anyhow) is the fault of none else than *us* (the DNSO), as 
AFNIC has raised the problem of continuation of service in 2001 well in 
advance
5. if we are not happy about the price/performance of AFNIC, there's only 
one thing to do: pick another provider. To suggest AFNIC how they should run 
the business is either offensive or ridiculous, depending on whether the 
suggestions are taken seriously or not

Incidentally, if we pick a new provider, can we please be sensible to the 
geographical distribution issue? The "internationalism" of ICANN is already 
a joke, and the last thing that is needed is to make it even more risible by 
moving to the US one of the few things that is not already in there.

Best 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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:25:09 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell, PhD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [GA] Gigalaw poll on "domain names not sanctioned by ICANN"

Or whether they were correctly informed that there is little chance such
domain names would or could affect the "stability" of the Internet
whatsoever?

It seems someone perhaps forgot to mention that to them ...

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] [GA] Gigalaw poll on "domain names not sanctioned by
ICANN"

> Bill,
>
> >
> >  The question was "What do you think of domain names not sanctioned by
> >ICANN?"
> >
> >56.4% say they "threaten the stability of the Internet."
> >
> >43.59% say they "foster healthy competition."
> >
>
>
> Any indication on what the population was?
> I mean, were they maily lawyers? Technical people? Commercial
people?Average
> users?
>
> Thanks
> 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" 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: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:43:23 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

- --------------E44A682402574DC9771BED77
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> >> And I, you. What "results quarterly?" I don't care about stockholders
> >> reports
> >> (at least at the momen). We're talking about the NSI/Verisign monopoly
> >> (or
> >> at least a temporary one) on information. How do all other registrars
> >> have the
> >> same access as you do?
>
> I think Bill is under the mistaken impression that the Registry knows
> anything at all about domain registrants, and is assuming that the
> reason he gets email from NSI is because of some access they have to
> his data that is in the registry.
>
> Your data is not in the registry, Bill.
>
> The registry does not maintain any kind of registrant data whatsoever.

Mebbe so.  Which is why I try to figure out good questions and let others
(e.g., Robert Gaetano today) who can better answer them (i.e., better
than NSI/Verisign) do so.  I am not a web guru -- all I know is that when
I run a WHOIS on cerebalaw.com I come up with me (a registrant), the
world knows (and in this case likely little cares) that that domain name is
registered, and to whom, and I believe that NSI/Verisign has the data that
permits the WHOIS to function. I understand also that for the DNS to run
all that is really needed is a "table" of domain names and IP addresses, and
if that's all that the registry has, then I stand corrected -- in a sense.  I
add
this latter because even if the registry has no "registrant data," as you
indicate,
I don't see now the DNS could work unless each registered domain name
were in it, and that says it is registered to somebody, and that is a piece
of
information that has commercial value.

And no, that I get SPAM from NSI is not because of that; it is because,
since they're the registry, I have to deal with them in one way or another
in order to hold a domain name, and once I've done that (a) I've become
an NSI "customer" and (b) they have my email address. That is a different
can of worms than the broad information issue and the incompatibility of
registry-registrar functions that I first addressed.

Thanks, "the other William!" (but I go by "Bill").

Bill Lovell

- --------------E44A682402574DC9771BED77
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>"William X. Walsh" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>>> And I, you. What "results quarterly?" I don't
care about stockholders
<br>>> reports
<br>>> (at least at the momen). We're talking about the NSI/Verisign monopoly
<br>>> (or
<br>>> at least a temporary one) on information. How do all other registrars
<br>>> have the
<br>>> same access as you do?
<p>I think Bill is under the mistaken impression that the Registry knows
<br>anything at all about domain registrants, and is assuming that the
<br>reason he gets email from NSI is because of some access they have to
<br>his data that is in the registry.
<p>Your data is not in the registry, Bill.
<p>The registry does not maintain any kind of registrant data whatsoever.</blockquote>
Mebbe so.&nbsp; Which is why I try to figure out good questions and let
others
<br>(e.g., Robert Gaetano today) who can better answer them (i.e., better
<br>than NSI/Verisign) do so.&nbsp; I am not a web guru -- all I know is
that when
<br>I run a WHOIS on cerebalaw.com I come up with me (a registrant), the
<br>world knows (and in this case likely little cares) that that domain
name is
<br>registered, and to whom, and I believe that NSI/Verisign has the data
that
<br>permits the WHOIS to function. I understand also that for the DNS to
run
<br>all that is really needed is a "table" of domain names and IP addresses,
and
<br>if that's all that the registry has, then I stand corrected -- in a
sense.&nbsp; I add
<br>this latter because even if the registry has no "registrant data,"
as you indicate,
<br>I don't see now the DNS could work unless each registered domain name
<br>were in it, and that says it is registered to <i>somebody</i>, and
that is a piece of
<br>information that has commercial value.
<p>And no, that I get SPAM from NSI is not because of that; it is because,
<br>since they're the registry, I have to deal with them in one way or
another
<br>in order to hold a domain name, and once I've done that (a) I've become
<br>an NSI "customer" and (b) they have my email address. That is a different
<br>can of worms than the broad information issue and the incompatibility
of
<br>registry-registrar functions that I first addressed.
<p>Thanks, "the other William!" (but I go by "Bill").
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------E44A682402574DC9771BED77--

- --
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 #470
************************