Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #623
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, July 20 2001            Volume 01 : Number 623

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 08:15:17 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] jeff williams / this list.

On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 09:23:28AM -0400, tc lewis wrote:
> 
> well, i'm aware of the options of how it's technically possible.  my
> question is more of: why is he doing it that way, instead of sending it to
> the list like everyone else does?

Because he has been banned from the list for for a time for willful
misuse.  Bcc's are a way for him to continue his harassment.  I
recommend that you simply delete unread all mail from Jeff Williams, or
any of his numerous other fake identities. 

> like i said, sorting is much easier
> with the proper headers (not that this list has "mailing-list:" anyway,
> but hey, at least "sender:" is something).
> 
> it's definitely not just this message, but rather almost all (if not all)
> that i see from him.  and it surely wasn't sent to me in particular -- i
> would assume he sent it to everyone on the list, just not through the
> actual list.  i'm curious as to the motivation behind such an activity.

The motives are obscure.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 12:39:44 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Letter from Roger Cochetti to Stuart Lynn

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cochetti-to-lynn-16jul01.htm
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:12:53 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] observations from the peanut gallery

- --------------085F1B57DF93BB05DEFFDF56
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello William,
>
> Wednesday, July 18, 2001, 11:10:54 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > Chairs do not abandon their rights to do so just by accepting that office. Any
> > member of the GA could be a PROPONENT of anything that the GA is
> > willing to consider, I should think.
>
> Yes, but they shouldn't (ab)use their position to advocate for it. By
> posting messages using the name of their "Title" in the from address
> of messages supporting their proposals and positions.
>

Although I myself don't see much in the way of "(ab)use" here -- most of us will
know who Danny Younger and Patrick Corliss are, whether the titles are there
or not, but then again newly arrived folks may not know that, so technically you
are probably correct and I'd have to agree with you to that extent.  However,
this does not say that either of them would be precluded from "using" the title:
the position(s) of a Chair or Alternate Chair as such on some ISSUE is something
that the rest of us would want to know. (Would this be something like noting when
or when not the Pope was speaking ex cathedra?)

Bill

>
> --
> 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

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm

- --------------085F1B57DF93BB05DEFFDF56
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>"William X. Walsh" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Hello William,
<p>Wednesday, July 18, 2001, 11:10:54 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
<br>> Chairs do not abandon their rights to do so just by accepting that
office. Any
<br>> member of the GA could be a PROPONENT of anything that the GA is
<br>> willing to consider, I should think.
<p>Yes, but they shouldn't (ab)use their position to advocate for it. By
<br>posting messages using the name of their "Title" in the from address
<br>of messages supporting their proposals and positions.
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
Although I myself don't see much in the way of "(ab)use" here -- most of
us will
<br>know who Danny Younger and Patrick Corliss are, whether the titles
are there
<br>or not, but then again newly arrived folks may <i>not</i> know that,
so technically you
<br>are probably correct and I'd have to agree with you to that extent.&nbsp;
However,
<br>this does not say that either of them would be precluded from "using"
the title:
<br>the position(s) of a Chair or Alternate Chair <i>as such</i> on some
ISSUE is something
<br>that the rest of us would want to know. (Would this be something like
noting when
<br>or when not the Pope was speaking <i>ex cathedra</i>?)
<p>Bill
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>--
<br>Best regards,
<br>William X Walsh &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>Userfriendly.com Domains
<br>The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
<br>DNS Services from $1.65/mo</blockquote>

<p>--
<br>Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
<br>to the reader may possibly be explained at:
<br>"WHAT IS": <A HREF="http://whatis.techtarget.com/">http://whatis.techtarget.com/</A>
<br>GLOSSARY: <A HREF="http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm">http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------085F1B57DF93BB05DEFFDF56--

- --
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, 20 Jul 2001 03:04:40 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign Spam

Can anyone tell me:

(a)    Why Verisign is spamming people?  and
(b)    How to stop them from doing it?

Note the message saying not to reply.  There is no "opt-in" or "opt-out"
provision.
I am positive that this message breaks all rules against spamming.

Anybody know John Chomeau's email address.
It cannot be [email-masked] surely?

Regards
Patrick Corliss

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:09:05 -0400, John Chomeau wrote:
From: Network Solutions <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Network Solutions Improves Web Site; Integrates VeriSign Name

Dear Patrick,

As you probably know, last year Network Solutions became part
of the VeriSign® family . . .

<SNIP>

Sincerely,

John Chomeau
Vice President, Customer Experience
VeriSign, Inc.

- ------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this message. Any replies to this
message will not receive a response. For any Network
Solutions customer service inquiries, please click here:
http://info1.networksolutions.com/ud/SBFB/HDE6/PR3Z/HK/JIKX9V

Copyright© 2001 Network Solutions, Inc.,
A VeriSign Company. All rights reserved.

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 19:15:10 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] HOW MUCH

It is surprising. This GA counts many good English reading people, 
accountant and lawyers.

Yet no one seems to be able to tell from the gTLD countrats (.biz, info, 
.name);
- -  here is the minimum yearly return to the iCANN
- -  here is the return on 1st, 2nd... year when x, y,z DN have been registered
- -  here is the maximum return per DN per year
Just a nice (Excell) table or a curve?

Also to understand the same about the VeriSign gTLD and how iCANN and 
VerSign may change the value of the DNs and Registrars Margins. I suppose 
Ben Elderman would enjoy making a study on that.

I would also be interested in understanding how this compares with New.net 
and with ccTLDs and how a  competitive action could be used to block their 
development (after all a smart ccTLD Manager is real competition to the 
iCANN/VerSign duopoly)  IMHO it is of importance to everyone to understand 
the economics and the risk for some in that international DN Business.

Jefsey

PS. One actually ran a review. But his results are too surprizing for 
needing to be checked and cross checked. 

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:34:42 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Focus on DNS Policy Issues

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:10:54 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > A pretty good list of major policy issues that are presently being ignored
> was
> > posted some time in the last week or so, but I don't recall exactly when,
> or by
> > whom.
>
> As you were one of those who undertook to post on the [ga-rules] mailing
> list, could I ask you to voluntarily comply.

Patrick: If "major policy issues" is not pertinent to the GA list, and not to
the more
narrow and specific focus of ga-rules, I don't know what would be. Having been
long active in promoting use of ga-rules, and having actively used it myself, I
find
this post of yours to be both absurd and counterproductive to the goal that we
are
seeking to achieve here. "Lectures" like this I don't need, and I don't think
the
GA wants to see them.  Quoting from down below, while this post of yours I
would not call a "diversionary tactic," it is certainly a distraction that takes
away
from all of what we are trying to do. A list of outstanding policy issues on ga
would certainly be worth doing, as is the comparable topic list being generated
on ga-rules, but you dilute and discredit those reasonable efforts by pausing to

take a whack at me.  I think you need to keep the players straight here, since
it precisely "major policy issues" that was being addressed in my text that you
quoted above. You are shooting yourself in the foot.

Bill

> Please note that you have
> clearly demonstred why the motion needs to be put to a vote.
>
> Just about every post by the Chair has foccussed on DNS policy issues.
> Other members, such have raised issues also.  The more recent examples from
> the Chair are:
>
> [ga] Comments from Vint Cerf
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03608.html
>
> [ga] Comments from Karl Auerbach
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03609.html
>
> [ga] Comments from Louis Touton
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03610.html
>
> [ga] Comments from Milton Mueller
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03611.html
>
> [ga] Comments from Danny Younger
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03613.html
>
> [ga] Hearings in Washington
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03662.html
>
> [ga] UDRP -- View from The Register
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03664.html
>
> [ga] Time table for ICANN Board election this year -- (proposed)
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03669.html
>
> [ga] ALSC Discussion Paper #1
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03670.html
>
> [ga] Request to suspend the DOC's .us RFQ posted
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03702.html
>
> [ga] Losing the Right to Vote
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03704.html
>
> [ga] Motion Accepted
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03753.html
>
> [ga] Questions for the next ICANN Board Director
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03772.html
>
> [ga] Re: Observations from the Peanut Gallery
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03821.html
>
> It would be worthwhile if the Chair, and GA members generally, could assist
> me in producing a proper list of important policy issues that need to be
> debated.  Perhaps we can then move away from these diversionary tactics.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 12:12:41 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign Spam

At 3:04 am +1000 7/20/01, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>John Chomeau
>Vice President, Customer Experience
>VeriSign, Inc.

I'm sure there's an oxymoron lurking somewhere in that sig.

- -- 
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.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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:56:39 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for Action - ALSC Questionnaire

- --------------833FEE2C9854CD17F0135493
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 7/19/01 2:37 AM, Patrick Corliss at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > [ga] ALSC Discussion Paper #1
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03670.html
>
> Given that the GA is the only body that is both active and representative of
> the interests of individuals within the ICANN structure at this time, it
> seems that we have a particular responsibility to assist the ALSC by
> answering questions posed in their discussion paper.

I would agree 100%, and for the record I believe that the DISCUSSION
thereon, as it pertains to the GA - At Large relationship, should be carried
out on [email-masked], where this now is.  Since there has long been no "At-
Large"  (AL) to speak of, the GA has been playing that role, and very often
going way outside the bounds of matters that actually fall within the DNSO
charter, those matters, of course, being Domain Names. The General Assembly
has not been chartered to give advice on the operation of ICANN as a whole,
and a clearly defined  policy that delineates what matters it should take up
and what it should not should be established. (At least until any reorganization

of ICANN changes the structure.)

Consequently, along with Joanna I think that we as individuals would serve
our cause well to return comments to the ALSC as its paper requests, while
at the same time use this opportunity as Joanna suggests to help define how
the GA and the At-Large might best work together. The matter of the
Individual's Constituency (or IDNHO or by whatever alphabet soup one
wants to call it) is particularly an ISSUE on which coordination might well
be worked out -- that ISSUE is one of deep concern to both the GA and
the AL, and perhaps by working together on it we could find out what, if
anything, the Names Council intends to do about it.

Bill Lovell

- --------------833FEE2C9854CD17F0135493
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>Joanna Lane wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>on 7/19/01 2:37 AM, Patrick Corliss at [email-masked]
wrote:
<p>> [ga] ALSC Discussion Paper #1
<br>> <a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03670.html">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03670.html</a>
<p>Given that the GA is the only body that is both active and representative
of
<br>the interests of individuals within the ICANN structure at this time,
it
<br>seems that we have a particular responsibility to assist the ALSC by
<br>answering questions posed in their discussion paper.</blockquote>
I would agree 100%, and for the record I believe that the DISCUSSION
<br>thereon, as it pertains to the GA - At Large relationship, should be
carried
<br>out on [email-masked], where this now is.&nbsp; Since there has long been
no "At-
<br>Large"&nbsp; (AL) to speak of, the GA has been playing that role, and
very often
<br>going way outside the bounds of matters that actually fall within the
DNSO
<br>charter, those matters, of course, being Domain Names. The General
Assembly
<br>has <i>not</i> been chartered to give advice on the operation of ICANN
as a whole,
<br>and a clearly defined&nbsp; policy that delineates what matters it
should take up
<br>and what it should not should be established. (At least until any reorganization
<br>of ICANN changes the structure.)
<p>Consequently, along with Joanna I think that we as individuals would
serve
<br>our cause well to return comments to the ALSC as its paper requests,
while
<br>at the same time use this opportunity as Joanna suggests to help define
how
<br>the GA and the At-Large might best work together. The matter of the
<br>Individual's Constituency (or IDNHO or by whatever alphabet soup one
<br>wants to call it) is particularly an ISSUE on which coordination might
well
<br>be worked out -- that ISSUE is one of deep concern to both the GA and
<br>the AL, and perhaps by working together on it we could find out what,
if
<br>anything, the Names Council intends to do about it.
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------833FEE2C9854CD17F0135493--

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] observations from the peanut gallery

- --- "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> [...] and I would hazard to predict the following:
as
> to any matter of substance that has gone through the
> Best Practices process, there will be no VOTES in 
> which such head counting will really matter: the
> notion will either be so bad as to be rejected
> overwhelmingly, or in the final analysis it will 
> make so much sense that only the habitual naysayers
> will have the nerve to speak out against it. 

A valid and optimistic prediction, IMO.  But, methinks
it will be difficult to qualify "habitual naysayers"
on any given issue.  It has been my observation that
the majority of posters harbor their own pet issues,
with positions so cosseted as to be closed to
alternative.

I fear that the pool of "naysayers" will change with
each discussed issue, and that the resolution of their
concerns will never be possible, under the auspices of
consensus.

I hope I am wrong.

Sincerely,
Jason Graff

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 22:37:04 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] VeriSign complains...

A most interesting story, forwarded to you on the request of WXW.

- -- 
[email-masked]

Verisign is accusing its competitors of "domain slamming" and
inappropriately transferring names from the NSI Registrar to them.

http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/168146.html

Of course, those of us who have had to deal with NSI over the past
years know the depths to which NSI will go when it is backed into a
corner, and will tell out and out lies, by making things appear to be
vastly different than they are in fact.

They are doing this now to justify their unwarranted change in policy
for out going transfers which has made it prohibitively difficult to
transfer domain names away from NSI.  Their new policy requires a
response to an email from them within 72 hours, but they have only 5
days to deny the transfer, and they regularly send out these emails
late, thus if the person doesn't respond within the first 24 hours,
it is quite possible their domain transfer will fail.  Also, they tend
to send the bulk of these messages out late on Fridays, which gives
people till Monday to respond, provided that NSI didn't wait longer
than 2 days to send out the message.

Recently I transferred 2 domains of my own from NSI, the last 2 I had
with them.  One of the domains I got the message 2 days after the
request had been submitted, which meant there was no way I would have
had the full 72 hours NSI claims to give you to respond, and the other
one I only got after I complained about not receiving one.  It was
sent on the FOURTH day after the request, giving less than 24 hours
before NSI auto NAK'd the transfer.

Tucows adopted an excellent solution to outgoing transfers from their
Registration Service Providers.  The admin contact of a domain
receives a notice, much like the one NSI sends out (but Tucows sends
it out automatically when the transfer messages are actually
received) and the owner is given a URL where they can block the
transfer.  They are also given one where they can explictly approve
the transfer (and which results in Tucows sending an ACK to the
registry, speeding up the transfer process for the customer), but they
are NOT required to ACK it in order for the transfer to go through.
If they do not NAK it the approval is assumed, and the transfer goes
through on the fifth day.

This is sufficient since under the accreditation agreements the
winning registrar was also required to verify the authenticity of the
transfer requests.

As the article pointed out, every one of the "domain slamming" cases
Verisign is using to attacks its fastest growing competitors have been
the result of cases where a registrant, who was probably never aware
of NSI in the first place, registered their domain through a third
party registration provider, who simply switched suppliers to one of
these other registrars.  In these cases, that kind of service is what
the domain registrant was paying these ISPs/IPPs/RSPs to do for them,
to manage their domain registration needs.  These ISPs/IPPs/RSPs moved
the domains to registrars that they were switching to as their primary
suppliers.  These are perfectly valid transfers, and are certainly not
cases of rampant "domain slamming."

That so many ISPs/IPPs are abandoning NSI as their registration source
is a direct result of NSI's long standing abuse of ISPs/IPPs (who
prior to the competitive registrar system were perhaps most
responsible for the massive growth in domain registrations while NSI
had the monopoly, and brought the VAST majority of business into NSI)
and absolute disregard for their needs and their concerns.

I find Verisign's charges offensive, but in light of their track
record, offensive behavior is what can be expected of them.

- -- 
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: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:22:52 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Verisign hoarding? (was Re: [ga] Verisign Spam)

Patrick Corliss wrote:
> 
> Can anyone tell me:
> 
> (a)    Why Verisign is spamming people?  and
> (b)    How to stop them from doing it?

I've answered that offlist, since nuking spammers may not be on-topic
here.
 
> From: Network Solutions <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Network Solutions Improves Web Site; Integrates VeriSign Name

In the process, thougfh, I visited www.nsi-direct.com. I knew they
were up to some fairly sleazy things, like spamming and selling whois
info to marketers, but ...

What I found seems much worse:

     Don't settle for your second choice domain. Find your
     first choice in our catalog of more than 2 million
     pre-registered domains for sale. 

As I read that, they are hoarding domains in a horrendous way.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 18:32:06 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign complains...

I can support VeriSign's efforts to require its customers to acknowledge
and approve transfer-away requests.

There may be a problem with relying on competing Registrars to
authenticate transfer requests.  First, the current Registrar is
contractually obligated to the Registrant.  It appears that the current
Registrar has a responsibility to make certain that its customer is aware
that a transfer request has been initiated through a competing Registrar.
You can believe that some Registrants choose established and reliable
Registrars like NSI for registering domain names.  It may be the case that
not all Registrars are as established and as reliable as NSI.  It appears
possible for competing Registrars and their affiliates to cause a real
problem for Registrants and current Registrars if competing Registrars are
relied upon for authenticating transfer requests.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> A most interesting story, forwarded to you on the request of WXW.
>
> --
> [email-masked]
>
> Verisign is accusing its competitors of "domain slamming" and
> inappropriately transferring names from the NSI Registrar to them.
>
> http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/168146.html
>
> Of course, those of us who have had to deal with NSI over the past
> years know the depths to which NSI will go when it is backed into a
> corner, and will tell out and out lies, by making things appear to be
> vastly different than they are in fact.
>
> They are doing this now to justify their unwarranted change in policy
> for out going transfers which has made it prohibitively difficult to
> transfer domain names away from NSI.  Their new policy requires a
> response to an email from them within 72 hours, but they have only 5
> days to deny the transfer, and they regularly send out these emails
> late, thus if the person doesn't respond within the first 24 hours,
> it is quite possible their domain transfer will fail.  Also, they tend
> to send the bulk of these messages out late on Fridays, which gives
> people till Monday to respond, provided that NSI didn't wait longer
> than 2 days to send out the message.
>
> Recently I transferred 2 domains of my own from NSI, the last 2 I had
> with them.  One of the domains I got the message 2 days after the
> request had been submitted, which meant there was no way I would have
> had the full 72 hours NSI claims to give you to respond, and the other
> one I only got after I complained about not receiving one.  It was
> sent on the FOURTH day after the request, giving less than 24 hours
> before NSI auto NAK'd the transfer.
>
> Tucows adopted an excellent solution to outgoing transfers from their
> Registration Service Providers.  The admin contact of a domain
> receives a notice, much like the one NSI sends out (but Tucows sends
> it out automatically when the transfer messages are actually
> received) and the owner is given a URL where they can block the
> transfer.  They are also given one where they can explictly approve
> the transfer (and which results in Tucows sending an ACK to the
> registry, speeding up the transfer process for the customer), but they
> are NOT required to ACK it in order for the transfer to go through.
> If they do not NAK it the approval is assumed, and the transfer goes
> through on the fifth day.
>
> This is sufficient since under the accreditation agreements the
> winning registrar was also required to verify the authenticity of the
> transfer requests.
>
> As the article pointed out, every one of the "domain slamming" cases
> Verisign is using to attacks its fastest growing competitors have been
> the result of cases where a registrant, who was probably never aware
> of NSI in the first place, registered their domain through a third
> party registration provider, who simply switched suppliers to one of
> these other registrars.  In these cases, that kind of service is what
> the domain registrant was paying these ISPs/IPPs/RSPs to do for them,
> to manage their domain registration needs.  These ISPs/IPPs/RSPs moved
> the domains to registrars that they were switching to as their primary
> suppliers.  These are perfectly valid transfers, and are certainly not
> cases of rampant "domain slamming."
>
> That so many ISPs/IPPs are abandoning NSI as their registration source
> is a direct result of NSI's long standing abuse of ISPs/IPPs (who
> prior to the competitive registrar system were perhaps most
> responsible for the massive growth in domain registrations while NSI
> had the monopoly, and brought the VAST majority of business into NSI)
> and absolute disregard for their needs and their concerns.
>
> I find Verisign's charges offensive, but in light of their track
> record, offensive behavior is what can be expected of them.
>
> --
> 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

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 19:20:34 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Reply to Ross Rader - Re: [ga] VeriSign complains...

I will start my reply by stating that it appears VeriSign is claiming that
Tucows has engaged in slamming or poaching VeriSign customers
(http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/168146.html).

Another issue is that the Registrant customers are VeriSign's first, and it also
appears that VeriSign is contractually obligated to its customers.  As you know,
there are a lot of creative tactics that can be deployed by competing
Registrars, Registrar Affiliates and Registrar Resellers unbeknownst to the
Registrant.

What exactly does Tucows gain from it opposing VeriSign's "default
no-acknowledgement" position.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:

> > There may be a problem with relying on competing Registrars to
> > authenticate transfer requests.  First, the current Registrar is
> > contractually obligated to the Registrant.  It appears that the current
> > Registrar has a responsibility to make certain that its customer is aware
> > that a transfer request has been initiated through a competing Registrar.
> > You can believe that some Registrants choose established and reliable
> > Registrars like NSI for registering domain names.  It may be the case that
> > not all Registrars are as established and as reliable as NSI.  It appears
> > possible for competing Registrars and their affiliates to cause a real
> > problem for Registrants and current Registrars if competing Registrars are
> > relied upon for authenticating transfer requests.
>
> What facts do you base this opinion on?
>
> -rwr

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 19:22:57 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Roger Cochetti's Letter to Stuart Lynn

Dear Registrar Constituency Representatives,

Roger Cochetti in his letter to Stuart Lynn has raised some very serious 
charges, accusing other members of the registrar community of having engaged 
in the practice of "slamming", the unauthorized transfer of domain name 
registrations from one registrar to another.  

On behalf of all consumers that have previously suffered the nightmare of the 
"slamming wars" in the telecommunications industry, I ask that these charges 
be investigated immediately.  

Fact-finding in this matter is crucial.  

1.  Please advise if other registrars have put forth complaints of slamming, 
or if Mr Cochetti's firm is the sole complainant.  

2.  As the claim has been made that "a professional market research firm" was 
hired "to conduct more detailed, independent surveys of representative 
samples of customers who had recently been transferred out of the VeriSign 
Registrar", please advise if this report and data can be independently 
verified.

It will be necessary to determine whether a problem of "slamming" in fact 
exists, or if this letter is designed to divert attention from Verisign's 
choice to Auto Nack Transfers (note that the registrars' straw poll vote in 
Stockholm was 23 to 2 in favor of an autoACK policy).  It is important that 
the truth be ferreted out.

If at all possible, can you also advise on the results of the straw poll 
regarding transfer policies that was recently conducted on the registrar list.

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:04:02 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] On the Agenda

The NC Intake Committee has agreed to place the issue of expiring domains and 
transfer procedures on their agenda for the August NC teleconference:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00280.html

My thanks to the Intake Committee.
- --
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, 20 Jul 2001 10:36:23 +0800
From: "erica" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Roger Cochetti's Letter to Stuart Lynn

Hi Danny,
thanks for your comment  - I have forwarded you email to the Registrars
constituency for further consideration.

cheers,
erica
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: Roger Cochetti's Letter to Stuart Lynn

> Dear Registrar Constituency Representatives,
>
> Roger Cochetti in his letter to Stuart Lynn has raised some very serious
> charges, accusing other members of the registrar community of having
engaged
> in the practice of "slamming", the unauthorized transfer of domain name
> registrations from one registrar to another.
>
> On behalf of all consumers that have previously suffered the nightmare of
the
> "slamming wars" in the telecommunications industry, I ask that these
charges
> be investigated immediately.
>
> Fact-finding in this matter is crucial.
>
> 1.  Please advise if other registrars have put forth complaints of
slamming,
> or if Mr Cochetti's firm is the sole complainant.
>
> 2.  As the claim has been made that "a professional market research firm"
was
> hired "to conduct more detailed, independent surveys of representative
> samples of customers who had recently been transferred out of the VeriSign
> Registrar", please advise if this report and data can be independently
> verified.
>
> It will be necessary to determine whether a problem of "slamming" in fact
> exists, or if this letter is designed to divert attention from Verisign's
> choice to Auto Nack Transfers (note that the registrars' straw poll vote
in
> Stockholm was 23 to 2 in favor of an autoACK policy).  It is important
that
> the truth be ferreted out.
>
> If at all possible, can you also advise on the results of the straw poll
> regarding transfer policies that was recently conducted on the registrar
list.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
>

- --
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 #623
************************