Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #569
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, June 27 2001           Volume 01 : Number 569

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:31:25 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New domain name policy issue + + + DNDEF

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> <snip>
> Are there other ways to compel registrars to co-operate with transfer
> requests?<snip>

The issue of what exactly *is* being transferred is of seminal importance here.  If
we could get that cleared up, the rest could be dealt with according to a uniform
code.

BTW Joanna Lane sent me the following to add to our list Joop:

>Domain Names are assigned through a registration process that identifies,
>publishes and sells the physical contact details of registrants.

I think I'd like to add a few more myself at this time:

Domain Names can be transferred from registrar to registrar (usually).

Domain Name prices vary, as do the ancillary services provided with registration by
the various registrars.

Domain Names are publications, as they allow for communication of information to
the public.

Domain Names are created by the original registrant.

Domain Names can be registered from one up to ten years.

Domain Names are convenient points of reference.

Domain Names that exactly resemble natural language words or phrases are generally
the most coveted.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:37:53 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The latest...

From cybersquatting to "typosquatting":

http://www.ecompany.com/articles/web/0,1653,12501,00.html

Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:49:46 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New domain name policy issue

Danny (or whomever this may really be?) and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Jeff Williams writes:  "Yes I reviewed these to which you point to.  Seems
> that last post
> even related to transfer policies was on July 6th 2000".
>
> As Jeff is having a hard time locating the appropriate URLS, perhaps this
> will help... The thread begins with
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00631.html (dated 6 June
> 2001) and continues with over 75 posts on the same topic.

  Yes I already reviewed them.  So no problem.  But thanks for the
concern although unwarranted.  And not one of them has a proposal
or suggestion of a proposal to address the issues to which you or
whomever this really is, posted on.  As such, the remaining only
proposal that was referenced I have already provided the archived
URL link to.  That was:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00058.html
If you read this one closely, at the bottom was a referenced .DOC
file which is a proposal...  All of the rest of the posts that you
referenced here as well as those that Ross referenced at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/mail13.html
which only contain eight (8) posts suggesting a potential
proposal or even a suggestion or idea contained in any,
but lots of rhetoric!  >;)
Here are the threads:
2001 Jun 15
                Re: [registrars] Would NSI/Verisign indicate auto-nack
percentage? Rob Hall
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00720.html
                [registrars] 1001 Transfer Failure Reasons Larry Erlich
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00721.html
                Re: [registrars] Tucows Position On Transfer Policies Larry
Erlich
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00723.html
                RE: [registrars] Tucows Position On Transfer Policies Bhavin
Turakhia
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00723.html

                Re: [registrars] Tucows Position On Transfer Policies Larry
Erlich
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00724.html
                RE: [registrars] Tucows Position On Transfer Policies Paul
Stahura
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00725.html
                Re: [registrars] Tucows Position On Transfer Policies Robert F.
Connelly
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00727.html
                RE: [registrars] Tucows Position On Transfer Policies Robert F.
Connelly
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00726.html

  Hence it would seem that the interest level as I earlier stated in my
response
on this thread was accurate.  It is very low on the part of the registrars....

>
>
> Best regards,
> Danny
> --
>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:06:47 +0200
From: Stefan Probst <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination for representative to the NC Review TF - Eric Dierker (fwd)

Dear Jeff,

I am not sure, whether this is the right venue to discuss .vn issues.

I forwarded the URLs and the mails to some other people who are working on 
the Net in Vietnam, and their comments were much more harsh than mine. An 
absolutely misleading domain like "vnnic.com" for somebody who maybe 
provides some SW for the registry, or will be a future registrar or 
whatever, is IMHO everything else than honest business behaviour.

I still don't know what hi-tek is really doing. Their flashy intro is 
inadequate for Vietnam (needs too much scarce bandwidth for slow modem 
connections) and is another gross misleader for everybody who doesn't know 
the real setup.

Finally, an on-line, credit-card based registration like it is done for the 
gTLDs would indeed turn the present setup on its head.

Besides that it would de-facto sell-out the .vn domain to foreigners 
(because very few Vietnamese have credit cards), there are several other 
issues:
- - until now only natural or legal persons *inside Vietnam* were allowed to 
register a domain....
- - until now no generic domains were allowed (e.g. "computers.vn"), but only 
brandnames, company names etc.
- - until now all .vn domains had to be hosted within Vietnam (with very few 
historical exceptions)
- - special licenses were needed to host webcontent ...

Due to their limited experience, the people at the gateway in Vietnam were 
in the past already pulled over the table, e.g. concerning the firewall SW. 
I hope this will not be the case again.

On-line registration will need some kind of whois. Are there privacy rules 
in place?
Do they have a Domain Dispute Resolution Policy? Arbitrators?

On-line credit-card payments need https protocol, which includes 
encryption. Encryption is by the letter of the rules usually illegal (all 
the customers would need a permission). Will Hi-Tek get the rules changed 
first, or just produce again another factum which defies the rules?

Finally, you continue to state that the .vn ccTLD will be launched. (to be 
precise: you say "I still, as of now, stand by that original statement.", 
which was "[he is] actively involved in the Registry business with the up 
and coming launching of the .VN ccTLD.). This is plain nonsense. 
Registrations in the .vn were done previously off-line, with that 
registration engine maybe soon also on-line. But an additional registration 
procedure doesn't mean that the ccTLD is launched now, when it has been up 
an running since years already.
Hi-Tek might do their internal launch, but this is not what you said. You 
either were informed quite wrongly, or were trying to make a big 
impression, hoping that nobody would discover the bluff.

Rgds,
Stefan

At 17:55 25.6.2001 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Stefan, all interested parties and assembly members,
>
>Stefan Probst wrote:
>
> > Dear Jeff,
> >
> > Eric might be right now working with the registry people. He might work
> > with them on policy or technics. I do not know and am open for your or his
> > explanations.
>
>   Yes this is what I understand to be the case.  But in addition vinic.com
>and Hi-tek.com also are preparing to launch the registration engine for
>registering Domain Names for .VN very soon.  This wi what I was
>referring to in my original post and I thought stated clearly though not
>in these exact terms.  Hence the possible confusion?
>
> >
> > I was only writing against the claim in the original post about the "up and
> > coming launching of the .VN ccTLD".
>
>   I was referring to the registration of Domain Names for the .VN ccTLD.
>(See above as well as in my original post).  Possibly you misunderstood
>or there is some other confusion?
>
> > And this is plain wrong. The .vn ccTLD
> > is up and running since years. And without some kind of registry, there
> > wouldn't be any registrations in the .vn domain, which is of course 
> also wrong.
>
>As I understand it, Hi-Tek.com and vinic.com will be launching the
>registration engine (HTML Interface Web Page) soon.  This is what
>I was referring to.  In essence the link you provided has no such
>registration engine available.  Is this incorrect?  If so, could you please
>provide the URL that provides for registration of Domain Names
>for the .VN ccTLD?  If my statement is correct than I submit that
>there was a confusion as to how you may have interpreted what I
>stated.  I still, as of now, stand by that original statement.
>
> >
> > This does not say anything about the other qualifications etc. and I do not
> > say anything about that. If my post was perceived as anything against Eric,
> > then this perception was wrong. I was only posting concerning the claim
> > about the .vn ccTLD.
>
>   Well they are very much linked here Stefan.  So, I am wondering if
>such a comment was either necessary or advisable.
>
> >
> >
> > Several registrars are interested in the .vn domain. Register.com contacted
> > me indirectly some months ago, whether I could introduce them....
> > Frankly, I think this is too early, and the Vietnamese have to decide first
> > by themselves, what they want.
>
>   My understanding is the the Vietnamese have already decided what
>they want.  Is this also no correct?  If so, than is the launching of taking
>registrations
>and Hi-Tek's registration engine premature?  I don't think it is, but it might
>be.
>
> >
> >
> > I think, the .vn registry needs first and foremost a clear policy. And in
> > fact not only about the domains, but about hosting etc. This however is
> > beyond their authority. The technicalities come only after that. And IMHO,
> > as long as it is difficult for Vietnamese to sign up for a .vn domain (e.g.
> > because they cannot use credit cards),. then I for myself am reluctant to
> > open up that door for outsiders.
>
>   I can understand you reluctance to a degree.  However I am under the
>understanding that is may be unwarranted given Hi-Tek's pending launching
>of taking registrations for the .VN ccTLD.  I hope that nothing here being
>stated or discussed would impact that in any way though...  If in fact
>however that there is some concern that would be a "Show Stopper"
>for this to occur I am sure that Hi-Tek (Eric, Thomas, and Lee) would
>be interested to know of it ASAP.  If not, than the launching should
>proceed as currently decided, and as scheduled.
>
>   I am only slightly aware of Register.com's interest, and was told that
>the Vietnamese authorities on this matter were not interested for several
>reasons.  Is this incorrect?
>
> >
> >
> > Rgds,
> > Stefan
> >
> > At 14:52 25.6.2001 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >Stefan and all assembly members,
> > >
> > >   Excuse me, I was referring to the .VN registry...  The reference you
> > >provided,
> > >although very interesting is not the .VN registry...
> > >
> > >Stefan Probst wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Jeff, All,
> > > >
> > > > you wrote ...
> > > >
> > > > >He seems to IMHO have a good grasp of much of the history
> > > > >of the DNSO NC as well as is actively involved in the Registry 
> business
> > > > >with the up and coming launching of the .VN ccTLD.
> > > >
> > > > There is either a major typo or plain nonsense.
> > > > The .vn (Vietnam) ccTLD is up an running since about four years.
> > > >
> > > > I know the "father" of the Internet in Vietnam, Rob Hurle,
> > > > as well as some of the people who work now in the registry.
> > > > Their website, since quite a while, is http://www.vnnic.net.vn/
> > > >
> > > > Stefan,
> > > > Hanoi, Vietnam.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >--
> > >Jeffrey A. Williams
> > >Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > >E-Mail [email-masked]
> > >Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>Regards,
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>E-Mail [email-masked]
>Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:23:34 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New domain name policy issue

[email-masked] wrote:
> What is apparent to many of us is that as a result of recent activities, the
> consumer is being hurt.

Or protected. Fraudulent transfer requests are the main way that domain
names are stolen or 'hijacked' from registrants. I appreciate that a number
of registrars and registrants would like to make it easy to transfer domain
name registrations, but that's not necessarily in the best interest of all
registrants. The hard problem is finding a way to honor a consumer's choice
to change registrars while protecting against fraud at the same time. There
are authentication issues, language barriers, and a host of other problems
that make this a very difficult issue.

I don't have an answer, but having worked with individuals and companies who
have lost their domain names by fraud, I know it's a difficult and costly
problem to solve. I'd probably strike the balance in favor of security over
ease of transfer.

      -- Bret 

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

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:23:43 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Nomination for representative to the NC Review TF -  Eric Dierker (fwd)

Hello Stefan,

While I agree with your analysis of hi-tek's misleading statements
about their relationship with .vn (I've been in private correspondence
also with Erik also, where I know for a fact he made several
misrepresentations of the actual facts of the .vn situation),
remember, the .vn registry is the one who has decided (like over 60
other ccTLDs) to permit foreign registrations.  Hi-tek can't be
faulted for that.

> On-line credit-card payments need https protocol, which includes
> encryption. Encryption is by the letter of the rules usually illegal (all 
> the customers would need a permission). Will Hi-Tek get the rules changed 
> first, or just produce again another factum which defies the rules?

Where do you get this from?

Encryption is not illegal.  It think you have a misunderstanding here.
High grade encryption was illegal to export from the US, but
SSL/https protocols were still available, and are still available.
And in any event, the US has relaxed the export controls extensively.
With the exception of a few countries now, the browser makers can
distribute high level encryption with their products to anyone (And
do).

But in any event, .vn is merely loosening the restrictions on their
domain, and I can't say that I would blame hi-tek for that, if you
choose to want to blame anyone.

The registry makes that decision.

They do not need a dispute policy, most ccTLDs say they abide by
rulings of courts of competent jurisdiction over the registry or the
registrant, and that's it.  This UDRP nonsense in gTLDs is something
supralegal that shouldn't be encouraged for ccTLDs to use.

As for whois, that is also optional for the registry.  There is
nothing binding them to do it, but I'm sure they will, after all,
whois is one of the easiest things to implement.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:54:31 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] New domain name policy issue

Hello Bret,

Tuesday, June 26, 2001, 11:23:34 PM, Bret A. Fausett wrote:

> [email-masked] wrote:
>> What is apparent to many of us is that as a result of recent activities, the
>> consumer is being hurt.

> Or protected. Fraudulent transfer requests are the main way that domain
> names are stolen or 'hijacked' from registrants.

That is simply not true.  I Challenge you to back this up with some
evidence and cases.

EVERY time that this has been accused, research has shown that the
REAL hijacking took place at the original registrar, and that it was
only after getting control of the name at the original registrar did
they succeed in transferring the domain name to a different registrar.

These unnecessary losing registrar acks are meant to confuse and delay
the transfer process.  Nothing more.

The responsible way to do it is the way that Tucows does it.

When a registrar transfer request comes in, the admin contact receives
an email where they are given the opportunity to block the transfer.

They do NOT have to explicitly approve the transfer for it to go
through (since the receiving registrar is REQUIRED under their
agreements to properly authenticate the transfer request), but they
have the chance to explicitly block it from going through.

So far there have not been ANY cases of "domain" slamming or
unauthorized transfers that would have been prevented by these
policies at NSI and Register.com, since in every case control of the
domain at already been lost at the original registrar anyway.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 02:34:05 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination for representative to the NC Review TF -  Eric Dierker (fwd)

WXW, all interested parties and assembly members,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Stefan,
>
> While I agree with your analysis of hi-tek's misleading statements
> about their relationship with .vn (I've been in private correspondence
> also with Erik also, where I know for a fact he made several
> misrepresentations of the actual facts of the .vn situation),
> remember, the .vn registry is the one who has decided (like over 60
> other ccTLDs) to permit foreign registrations.  Hi-tek can't be
> faulted for that.

  I have not seen or heard of any misrepresentitive statements regarding
.VN coming from Eric.  If you are aware of any WXW. why not
share them with everyone here if you can substantiate them.  If not,
than you accusation here in a public forum is tantamount to defamation,
and commonly referred to as FUD in Internet parlance.  I for one would
appreciate you discontinuing such abusive comments.  I am quite sure
Eric, Lee, Thomas, Sheldon and other GA participants would as well...

  In that vain, I would like to thank you for your cooperation in
advance....

>
>
> > On-line credit-card payments need https protocol, which includes
> > encryption. Encryption is by the letter of the rules usually illegal (all
> > the customers would need a permission). Will Hi-Tek get the rules changed
> > first, or just produce again another factum which defies the rules?
>
> Where do you get this from?
>
> Encryption is not illegal.  It think you have a misunderstanding here.
> High grade encryption was illegal to export from the US, but
> SSL/https protocols were still available, and are still available.
> And in any event, the US has relaxed the export controls extensively.
> With the exception of a few countries now, the browser makers can
> distribute high level encryption with their products to anyone (And
> do).
>
> But in any event, .vn is merely loosening the restrictions on their
> domain, and I can't say that I would blame hi-tek for that, if you
> choose to want to blame anyone.
>
> The registry makes that decision.
>
> They do not need a dispute policy, most ccTLDs say they abide by
> rulings of courts of competent jurisdiction over the registry or the
> registrant, and that's it.  This UDRP nonsense in gTLDs is something
> supralegal that shouldn't be encouraged for ccTLDs to use.

  It is my understanding that a dispute policy will be provided when the
public announcement is released and the registration page is available
in the very near future.  Not before...  I believe this is a wise policy...

>
>
> As for whois, that is also optional for the registry.  There is
> nothing binding them to do it, but I'm sure they will, after all,
> whois is one of the easiest things to implement.

  Yes and some privacy will be default as and Opt-in as I understand it...

>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 02:50:12 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination for representative to the NC Review TF - Eric Dierker (fwd)

Stefan and all assembly members,

Stefan Probst wrote:

> At 22:29 26.6.2001 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >Stefan and all assembly members,
> >
> >Stefan Probst wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Jeff,
> > >
> > > I am not sure, whether this is the right venue to discuss .vn issues.
> >
> >I am quite sure it is not.  My original response on this thread was made
> >to you, Eric, Thomas, Lee ect..  privately.  You choose to post it
> >to this forum.
>
> I did answer to your posts privately. However, before I received them, I
> made a short statement to the list, saying, that the .vn ccTLD is not to be
> launched within a few days, but in fact up and running since years.

  I am sorry, but no you didn't.  Your responded to them publicly.
Not that that bothers me all that much.  It doesn't.  It is only that
I felt that it would be better not to as others that are involved are
not participants to the DNSO GA list.  And I see now again that
you have yet again decided to respond again publicly.  That's fine,
I shall also do so here...

>
> You responded to that post and thus it was continuing here on this list. I
> did not drag this thread to the list, but merely continuing it.

  No that is not correct.  But really it doesn't matter....

>
>
> >If any forum is a good one for this sort of exchange
> >it would be the [email-masked] Forum.  However sense you choose
> >to again respond on this forum I am obliged to respond as well here.
>
> OK, let's stop this "escalation" here on the list. Everybody interested,
> pls. announce it, and we'll do a c/c list.

  Of course I am interested.  As spokesman for our members some of which
are from the region in question but living in the US and other countries...

>
>
> > > I forwarded the URLs and the mails to some other people who are working on
> > > the Net in Vietnam, and their comments were much more harsh than mine. An
> > > absolutely misleading domain like "vnnic.com" for somebody who maybe
> > > provides some SW for the registry, or will be a future registrar or
> > > whatever, is IMHO everything else than honest business behaviour.
> >
> >Whom exactly did you send the URL's you mention to?  E-Mail addresses please.
>
> It is meanwhile posted (forwarded by somebody else) to the "[VN IT
> discussion group]" <[email-masked]>.

  Ok thank you!  I am glad you finally answered this question openly...

>
> This list contains people who are in development and/or IT in Vietnam. It
> is not yet put on "[VN IT I discussion group]" <[email-masked]>,
> a list for internet techies in Vietnam (techies of several ISPs and
> others). On the latter list we helped e.g. the VDC people to sort out their
> messy DSN setup last year. Both lists run on a server of Rob Hurle.

  Is there and on-line archive?  If so, what is the URL?  Is this a public
forum?

>
>
> >I also do not see any business behavior on the part of vnnic.com or
> >hi-tek.com thus far.  If you could be a bit more specific please?
>
> What does the domain "vnnic.com" imply? Since when does a contracted
> marketing company assume the name of the marketed product?
> You judge.

  I am not passing judgment.  I don't feel there is enough known for me
to do so.  I believe that you don't have enough info to do so either.
In fact in your previous post on this thread you admitted as much...
See your comment just below...

>
>
> > > I still don't know what hi-tek is really doing.
> >
> >   Yes this seems obvious to me...  Thank you for admitting it...
>
> If their website would be more about detailled facts, not so much about
> wishful dreaming (at least as of this time), I would know better....

  Dreaming?  That sounds a bit off base if you don't know...

>
> For now I have to live on the bits and pieces, which I get from your/their
> mails and from their websites.
>
> Rgds.
> Stefan

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 21:01:39 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New domain name policy issue

At 23:23 26/06/01 -0700, Bret A. Fausett wrote:

>I don't have an answer, but having worked with individuals and companies who
>have lost their domain names by fraud, I know it's a difficult and costly
>problem to solve. I'd probably strike the balance in favor of security over
>ease of transfer.

Some registrars take that line as well. I just came across one who asks for 
a written signature and a copy of a photo-ID.
The balance swings further away from privacy to security.

Joop Teernstra LL.M.,
councillor
InternetNZ

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 04:33:57 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New domain name policy issue

Bret and all assembly members,

Bret A. Fausett wrote:

> [email-masked] wrote:
> > What is apparent to many of us is that as a result of recent activities, the
> > consumer is being hurt.
>
> Or protected. Fraudulent transfer requests are the main way that domain
> names are stolen or 'hijacked' from registrants.

  Bret, respectfully I don't agree with this and from what has been reported
does not bare your assertion here out.  I would like to see an in depth
study done on this however.  From what our members have reported,
however is that most of the problems they have had with Registrar
transfers and loosing their domain names is from inconsistency, lack
of ability and rudeness from the registrars.

> I appreciate that a number
> of registrars and registrants would like to make it easy to transfer domain
> name registrations, but that's not necessarily in the best interest of all
> registrants. The hard problem is finding a way to honor a consumer's choice
> to change registrars while protecting against fraud at the same time. There
> are authentication issues, language barriers, and a host of other problems
> that make this a very difficult issue.

  The language difficulties may be real.  Authentication and security
methods are not...  Many different authentication methods have been
developed and are widely used in other arena's and some have been adapted
for use in transfer related internet activities between databases...

>
>
> I don't have an answer, but having worked with individuals and companies who
> have lost their domain names by fraud, I know it's a difficult and costly
> problem to solve. I'd probably strike the balance in favor of security over
> ease of transfer.

  Agreed that security is more preferable.  However such a preference should
not predicate, nor is it necessary to predicate ease of transfer...

>
>
>       -- Bret
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 04:59:07 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination for representative to the NC Review TF -  Eric  Dierker (fwd)

Hi Bill,

I think we have basically agreed to take this off line. Except for your little
dig here on misleading statements which I could take great exception to but
will not, I thank you for your interest in our project and would invite you if
you chose to be involved in our further discussions.

I made this on the list so that anyone else interested can follow-up with me if
they chose.  I will make one more post on this subject to give you all a link
to our engine. The reason I will do this is it will have a forum where the true
identity of the poster on issues of the UDRP and Warehousing will be discussed
in anonymity.  I imagine it will be open to abuse but it is a social experiment
which may show positive results. It will emphasize privacy over accountability
- - let us see.  The chat room will also at times become a board room.  There we
will preset times and with strict control conduct meetings showing how Roberts
Rules of Order can work on the net, that is how we will proceed with developing
a voluntary "UDRP".

Bye,
Eric

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Stefan,
>
> While I agree with your analysis of hi-tek's misleading statements
> about their relationship with .vn (I've been in private correspondence
> also with Erik also, where I know for a fact he made several
> misrepresentations of the actual facts of the .vn situation),
> remember, the .vn registry is the one who has decided (like over 60
> other ccTLDs) to permit foreign registrations.  Hi-tek can't be
> faulted for that.
>
> > On-line credit-card payments need https protocol, which includes
> > encryption. Encryption is by the letter of the rules usually illegal (all
> > the customers would need a permission). Will Hi-Tek get the rules changed
> > first, or just produce again another factum which defies the rules?
>
> Where do you get this from?
>
> Encryption is not illegal.  It think you have a misunderstanding here.
> High grade encryption was illegal to export from the US, but
> SSL/https protocols were still available, and are still available.
> And in any event, the US has relaxed the export controls extensively.
> With the exception of a few countries now, the browser makers can
> distribute high level encryption with their products to anyone (And
> do).
>
> But in any event, .vn is merely loosening the restrictions on their
> domain, and I can't say that I would blame hi-tek for that, if you
> choose to want to blame anyone.
>
> The registry makes that decision.
>
> They do not need a dispute policy, most ccTLDs say they abide by
> rulings of courts of competent jurisdiction over the registry or the
> registrant, and that's it.  This UDRP nonsense in gTLDs is something
> supralegal that shouldn't be encouraged for ccTLDs to use.
>
> As for whois, that is also optional for the registry.  There is
> nothing binding them to do it, but I'm sure they will, after all,
> whois is one of the easiest things to implement.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 12:28:17 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Admin note: I have resigned as list monitor

Eric Dierker wrote:

>
>Tierra Firma - on solid ground.  The winds are shifting and it is time for 
>men
>like Harald to step aside.  They do not fit in with the new genre of
>hardworking people with open and transparent agendas who do not care about
>control as much as their ideals.

I concur that Harald, as a person that over the years has built something 
for the Internet (and that is still doing so as IETF Chair), is 
unfortunately out of place in the GA.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #569
************************