Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #473
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Friday, May 18 2001             Volume 01 : Number 473

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 09:46:32 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of Joe Sims 'willing to advocate' e-mail:

Dear Andy,
Good point. Let try to be fair and say that Joe looks a professional doing 
extremely well an ill assigned job. I say that because from what we may 
observe, it appears there are two legal Internet:

- - the one resulting from the source code translated into real life terms 
and conditions or business contract by us all, the real providers/users. 
This first legal Internet aims at business development in stability.

- - the one imagined by Joe Sims to build and defend an iCANN stable monopoly 
protecting a stable Internet management and protecting famous TM. As it is 
nor real nor "natural", Joe tries to translate into laws and fait accompli 
through iCANN agreements and policy.

The divide between these two Internet is wider and wider every day.

If the US retain control, the Joe Sims' legal view of the internet may win 
as the issue will be under the jurisdiction of a single law he has been 
hand picked to relate with. This will lead to drastic limitations of the 
network capacities and to a permanent fight against reality (as in 
coopetitive roots, new.net, multi.bind, etc...).

If the Internet is acknowledged as international in a practical way (there 
are several ways of doing it), common sense will take over and the existing 
Joe Sims legal construction will be dismantled. But, beware, we need the 
iCANN not to be replaced (otherwise next problem would be solved in 
changing it successor, etc..), so its legal internationalization will not 
be easy due to the anti-trust constraints during the transition period.

Jefsey

On 03:58 18/05/01, Andy Gardner said:
>At 7:39 pm -0500 5/17/01, Bruce James wrote:
> >Text of Joe Sims 'willing to advocate' e-mail:
> >
> >
> >
> ><http://www.icannwatch.com/article.php?sid=156&mode=thread&order=0>http:/ 
> /www.icannwatch.com/article.php?sid=156&mode=thread&order=0
> >
>
>Now, I'm getting confused.
>
>Does Joe Sims work for ICANN, or Verisign?
>
>--
>Andrew P. Gardner
>barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
>We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
>Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:40:10 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reviewed motion for three new constituencies  

- --=====================_15364455==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

According to Chair's suggestion I reword my previous motion as follows:

"
1. 80% of the Domain Name holders are Small Medium Enterprises (SME) and 
Individual Domain Name Holders (IDNH). The positions of these registrants 
are not represented through any dedicated constituency at the DNSO.

2. More than 98% of the Internet stakeholders are the Individual Users. The 
positions and trends of these users are not represented at the DNSO while 
they will obviously decide of the DNS and of the iCANN future when - for 
example - they select a authoritative root for their machine among the 
various Root Services Centers (RSC) such as : iCANN, coopetitive RSCs, 
New.net Name.Spaces, etc..; or when they will build it by their own in 
using a MultiBind like product.

3. The DNSO/GA therefore acknowledges the need of three new constituencies:

     - IDNHC for Individual Domain Name Holders. This constituency is 
expected for long enough and nothing prevents it to be accepted. An IDNHC 
Special Interest Group is therefore created within this General Assembly of 
the DNSO (DNSO/GA) to welcome all the individual domain name holders and to 
prepare the structure of the coming constituency.

    - SMEC for Small and Medium Enterprises. This constituency will be 
prepared in cooperation with the Members of the existing DNSO/BC/SME group 
(Business Constituency). They will prepare and present to the approbation 
of he DNSO/GA the request to the BoD described by the bylaws and will then 
create within the DNSO/GA a SME Special Interest Group to prepare the 
structure of this new constituency.

     - IIUC for International Individual Users. This constituency will be 
prepared by a Special Interest Group created by this motion to write, 
promote and make voted the request to the BoD described by the bylaws. To 
that end the Members of the IIU SIG will take contact in their respective 
countries with the various Consumer associations and propose them to be 
technically represented through such a Constituency. They will also contact 
International Users Associations like Radio users, Road Transport 
associations, Health and Charity associations etc... as leading Internet 
user groups with technical skill and representativity.

4. The DNSO/GA acknowledges the creation of new TLDs as a step towards the 
million TLDs announced by the BoD at the GAC open meeting in Marina del 
Rey. It considers that time has come to review the gTLD constituency and to 
accept the new gTLDs in that constituency, as well as all the declared 
candidates to the management of a new TLD. It favors the enlargement of the 
gTLD constituency to the Specialized TLDs rather than the creation of a new 
Constituency.
"

I thank you for every suggestion to enhance this motion.
Jefsey

- --=====================_15364455==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
According to Chair's suggestion I reword my previous motion as
follows:<br>
<br>
<br>
&quot;<br>
1. 80% of the Domain Name holders are Small Medium Enterprises (SME) and
Individual Domain Name Holders (IDNH). The positions of these registrants
are not represented through any dedicated constituency at the DNSO. 
<br>
<br>
2. More than 98% of the Internet stakeholders are the Individual Users.
The positions and trends of these users are not represented at the DNSO
while they will obviously decide of the DNS and of the iCANN future when
- - for example - they select a authoritative root for their machine among
the various Root Services Centers (RSC) such as : iCANN, coopetitive
RSCs, New.net Name.Spaces, etc..; or when they will build it by their own
in using a MultiBind like product.<br>
<br>
3. The DNSO/GA therefore acknowledges the need of three new
constituencies:<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -<b> IDNHC</b> for Individual Domain Name Holders.
This constituency is expected for long enough and nothing prevents it to
be accepted. An IDNHC Special Interest Group is therefore created within
this General Assembly of the DNSO (DNSO/GA) to welcome all the individual
domain name holders and to prepare the structure of the coming
constituency.<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp; - <b>SMEC</b> for Small and Medium Enterprises. This
constituency will be prepared in cooperation with the Members of the
existing DNSO/BC/SME group (Business Constituency). They will prepare and
present to the approbation of he DNSO/GA the request to the BoD described
by the bylaws and will then create within the DNSO/GA a SME Special
Interest Group to prepare the structure of this new constituency.<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - <b>IIUC</b> for International Individual Users. This
constituency will be prepared by a Special Interest Group created by this
motion to write, promote and make voted the request to the BoD described
by the bylaws. To that end the Members of the IIU SIG will take contact
in their respective countries with the various Consumer associations and
propose them to be technically represented through such a Constituency.
They will also contact International Users Associations like Radio users,
Road Transport associations, Health and Charity associations etc... as
leading Internet user groups with technical skill and
representativity.<br>
<br>
4. The DNSO/GA acknowledges the creation of new TLDs as a step towards
the million TLDs announced by the BoD at the GAC open meeting in Marina
del Rey. It considers that time has come to review the <b>gTLD</b>
constituency and to accept the new gTLDs in that constituency, as well as
all the declared candidates to the management of a new TLD. It favors the
enlargement of the gTLD constituency to the Specialized TLDs rather than
the creation of a new Constituency. <br>
&quot;<br>
<br>
I thank you for every suggestion to enhance this motion.&nbsp; <br>
Jefsey<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
&nbsp;<br>
<br>
</html>

- --=====================_15364455==_.ALT--

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

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 08:33:37 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] VeriSign Runs Into Increasing Resistance

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C0DF75.3BE6C100
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

VeriSign Runs Into Increasing Resistance
[May 17, 2001] Opposition to the agreement between the world's largest
registry/registrar and ICANN is mounting, with Congress and the Justice
Department looking into possible anti-competitive and anti-trust violations.

 http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,,8_768181,00.html

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C0DF75.3BE6C100
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>
<P><FONT face=3D"Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Lucida Sans"><B><A=20
href=3D"http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,2171,8_768181,00.h=
tml">VeriSign=20
Runs Into Increasing Resistance</A></B> </FONT><BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Lucida Sans" size=3D-1>[May 17, 2001] =
Opposition=20
to the agreement between the world's largest registry/registrar and =
ICANN is=20
mounting, with Congress and the Justice Department looking into possible =

anti-competitive and anti-trust violations.=20
</FONT></FONT></P></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><BR>&nbsp;<A=20
href=3D"http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,,8_768181,00.html"=
>http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,,8_768181,00.html</A></DI=
V>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C0DF75.3BE6C100--

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

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 08:00:48 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell, PhD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga-roots] [ga] Gigalaw poll on "domain names not sanctioned by ICANN"

"Stability of the Internet"

Can anyone out there tell me what is meant when someone talks of new domain
names (and let's say that this means new TLDs for the sake of argument)
affecting the "stability" of the Internet? Can anyone give me even one
example of how the introduction of a new TLD could affect such "stability"
in the slightest way?

Tim

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
To: "Sandy Harris" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ga-roots] [ga] Gigalaw poll on "domain names not sanctioned by
ICANN"

> Those were the only two -- yea or nay.  I was asked if there
> was any indication of the size of the sample population, so
> I've asked Gigalaw about that and will pass on whatever
> I hear.
>
> (Actually, I  should probably have started this in [ga-roots]
> because collisions and alternative roots, etc., are really what
> it's all about. The question may really have meant roots, TLDs,
> or whatever, although the broader term domain names was in
> fact used -- by "broader" in this context I mean simply that a
> domain name involves all that to the left of the dot as well as
> the TLD.)
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Sandy Harris wrote:
>
> > Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >
> > > >  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?
> >
> > Were those the only two answers allowed? It appears so, since the
percentages
> > sum to almost exactly 100.
> >
> > Remove the word "healthy" and my answer would definitely be "both the
above".
> >
> > Leave it in, or even replace it with "necessary" or "vital", and I'd
still be
> > inclined to give that answer.
> > --
> > 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
>
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 08:55:43 -0700
From: Mike Roberts <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

At 21:03 +0000 5/17/01, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
><snip>

>
>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).

Roberto -  There are many TLDs with no separation between registry 
and registrar(s). There would be a great uproar around the world if 
ICANN even attempted to adopt a consensus policy that TLD registries 
could not include the registrar function.

So a black and white rule on separation is very unlikely to win 
approval.  If ICANN were to have a policy on registry-registrar 
separation, then the policy would have to have some elements of 
discrimination in it to deal with the circumstances when the 
community believes that lack of separation is damaging to other 
registrars and registry operators and to registrants.

As everyone knows from the length and complexity of the original 1999 
agreements, and of the proposed 2001 agreements, there is nothing 
simple about dealing with issues related to market dominance.  It's 
even harder to develop registry agreement language that would be 
acceptable to the operators and to the community at large.  Beyond 
that, such language would very likely run into national laws dealing 
with market dominance, as it has in this case, where both the 
competition directorate of the EC and the US DOJ have been taking a 
close look at the proposed new agreements.

So, bottom line, ICANN as a private sector consensus body should stay 
out of trying to either make or interpret competition law. 
Participants in the ICANN process can (and have) avail themselves of 
recourse to national competition bodies where needed.

- - Mike

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

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 09:21:37 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [ga-ext} Models

. . . and speaking of slapping together an organization, there are four
organizations
or structures to which I belong or in which I participate. One of these
is the National
Writers Union, which has a case before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to
ensure
that publishers cannot spread a writer's work all over CDs and the
Internet without
that writer being compensated.  The second is ASCAP, which looks after
royalty
payments to songwriters, and has just had Lyle Lovett testifying before
Congress.
These two represent organizations that have been able to take up very
complex
issues and work loads and carry out their functions successfully,
without strife.

The next one is the U. S. Patent Office, which also floats balloons --
with respect to
patent examining processes -- by way of Requests for Comment. The
comments so
received are (a) summarized; (b) the action taken (or not) is indicated;
and (c) the
reasons why that action was or was not taken are given.  All of this is
spread out in
the Federal Register for all the world to see.

The last is the Patent Cooperation Treaty, through which one can write a
single
patent application and have it end up in countries all over the world.
The reason
that works is because of the word "treaty": the relevant countries have
all signed
on and agreed to follow the procedures, the applicants pay such and such
fees,
this or that language will be used, and so on.

ICANN does not exhibit the quality of acceptance that characterizes the
National
Writers Union and ASCAP (BMI would be another good example in the music
business); it does not publicize its decision making process; and it has
for its authority
to establish norms all over the world only a few pieces of paper, the
legality of which
is virtually nil.  The rest of the world was never really asked, and the
recent cosmetic
steps of ensuring geographically distributed representation and the like
simply do not
make up the difference, when the horse is already out of the barn.
White and green
papers from the U. S. Government cannot, in any way, convey to ICANN the
authority
to dictate to netizens all over the world, since that is authority that
the U. S. does not
have.

Square one, folks!  (I'd start with a Treaty Working Group, while also
continuing the
current process of internal re-organization, e.g., get names for this
bunch or that office
that will properly convey the function, construct a better
organizational chart, etc., etc.,
all centered on the concept of bottom up governance -- they got that
part right.)

Bill Lovell

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

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:12:39 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

Roberto,

You have identified a potential problem going forward but not one that has
occurred to date and one I think can be avoided in the future as well.  I
know we disagree on this point.  The main purpose of my question of course
was to challenge the assertion that the separation of Registry and Registrar
has not worked.  I still contend that it has worked very well.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 5:03 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [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: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:19:55 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DFB6.5FF7EF60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Jefsey,
 
Please explain to me how one goes about proving that a problem does not
exist.  Logically, that would essentially be impossible.
 
Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 10:01 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

Dear Chuck,
I certainly understand your concern and you being sensitive about the
current situation, since the DNSO/GA may actually be one of the catalysts of
the problems. I am sorry for that: we were only considering our and the
Internet community interests, the way we see them.

On 06:18 17/05/01, Gomes, Chuck 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.

You might be correct and your position would still not stand: it is not to
us to prove there is a problem. It is to you to prove there is none.
VeriSIgn signed in 1999 a contract where parties took steps against possible
problems (so it means that they believed there could be desired or
undersired cross-subsidization). Now you claim there is not. One, it does
not means there will be any from now on more than you believed in 1999 there
would not be any (what you did not believed since you signed). Two, we might
still think that if there was none it would the result of the 1999
agreement. 

Sorry, Jefsey

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DFB6.5FF7EF60
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

<META content="MSHTML 5.00.3013.2600" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=519483116-18052001>Jefsey,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=519483116-18052001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=519483116-18052001>Please 
explain to me how one goes about proving that a problem does not exist.&nbsp; 
Logically, that would essentially be impossible.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=519483116-18052001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=519483116-18052001>Chuck</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Jefsey Morfin 
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 17, 2001 10:01 
  AM<BR><B>To:</B> [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch 
  Domain Deal<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>Dear Chuck,<BR>I certainly understand your 
  concern and you being sensitive about the current situation, since the DNSO/GA 
  may actually be one of the catalysts of the problems. I am sorry for that: we 
  were only considering our and the Internet community interests, the way we see 
  them.<BR><BR>On 06:18 17/05/01, Gomes, Chuck said:<BR>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite type="cite"><FONT color=#0000ff face=arial 
    size=2>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></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You might be correct and your position 
  would still not stand: it is not to us to prove there is a problem. It is to 
  you to prove there is none. VeriSIgn signed in 1999 a contract where parties 
  took steps against possible problems (so it means that they believed there 
  could be desired or undersired cross-subsidization). Now you claim there is 
  not. One, it does not means there will be any from now on more than you 
  believed in 1999 there would not be any (what you did not believed since you 
  signed). Two, we might still think that if there was none it would the result 
  of the 1999 agreement. <BR><BR>Sorry, Jefsey<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DFB6.5FF7EF60--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 13:24:06 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DFBF.579BF4C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

No wet noodles available at the moment.  :)
 
Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 12:12 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

Well, that's why you're there, Chuck, to straighten me out! :-) 
As I've said before, I'm not a web guru (a hell of an HTML 
guru is another thing!), and it's a good week that I can go 
through anything like this without getting at least something 
wrong. What has come out of this, though, is an excellent 
analysis of the antitrust and anti-competitive results of any 
close registry-registrar tie, and that's the one from Robert 
Gaetano.  I don't mind making public mistakes -- what are 
you going to do to me -- beat me with a wet noodle? 

Bill Lovell 

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote: 

 All registrars have the same access to the SRS.  There is no difference.
The NSI Registrar accesses the SRS via the Internet just like all the
others.Chuck 

- -----Original Message----- 
From: William S. Lovell [ mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ] 
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 3:33 PM 
To: Gomes, Chuck 
Cc: [email-masked] 
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal 

"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]
<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]
<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]
<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 <mailto:[email-masked]> 
To: GA <mailto:[email-masked]> 
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: 

http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,24500,00.html
<http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,24500,00.html>  

/Bruce 

  

  

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DFBF.579BF4C0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

<META content="MSHTML 5.00.3013.2600" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=245433717-18052001>No wet 
noodles available at the moment.&nbsp; :)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=245433717-18052001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=245433717-18052001>Chuck</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> William S. Lovell 
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 18, 2001 12:12 
  AM<BR><B>To:</B> Gomes, Chuck<BR><B>Cc:</B> [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: 
  [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>Well, that's why 
  you're there, Chuck, to straighten me out! :-) <BR>As I've said before, I'm 
  not a web guru (a hell of an HTML <BR>guru is another thing!), and it's a good 
  week that I can go <BR>through anything like this without getting at least 
  something <BR>wrong. What has come out of this, though, is an excellent 
  <BR>analysis of the antitrust and anti-competitive results of any <BR>close 
  registry-registrar tie, and that's the one from Robert <BR>Gaetano.&nbsp; I 
  don't mind making public mistakes -- what are <BR>you going to do to me -- 
  beat me with a wet noodle? 
  <P>Bill Lovell 
  <P>"Gomes, Chuck" wrote: 
  <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">&nbsp;<SPAN class=924464003-18052001>All registrars 
    have the same access to the SRS.&nbsp; There is no difference. The NSI 
    Registrar accesses the SRS via the Internet just like all the 
    others.</SPAN><SPAN class=924464003-18052001></SPAN><SPAN 
    class=924464003-18052001>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 
      3:33 PM</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=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></DIV>"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;</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DFBF.579BF4C0--
- --
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 #473
************************