Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #624
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, July 20 2001            Volume 01 : Number 624

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 02:48:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "as is the case in some locations outside of the United States"

[http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cochetti-to-lynn-16jul01.htm]

"As a consequence, we believe that it is now time for the ICANN
community to address this problem..."

"Accordingly, until ICANN has developed new mandatory customer
safeguards from improper transfers, the VeriSign Registrar will
operate under a new set of interim transfer practices..."

"Under the new interim practices, the VeriSign Registrar will enter
into new Registrar-to-Registrar Transfer Agreements with other
ICANN-accredited registrars who mutually maintain..."

"The ICANN community" = VeriSign and the registrars that work with it?

"Any gaining registrar participating in these mutual agreements who do
not wish to have their proposed transfers autoACK'd by the losing
registrar must agree that it will provide, within five days
of a request from a losing registrar, a notarized statement from the
registrant involved corroborating the registrant's desire to transfer
(failure to do so voids the transfer.) If the registrant is in a
location where there are no notary public services available, as is
the case in some locations outside of the United States, ..."

Maybe those outside the US are getting fed up with this CARTEL
(sanctioned by the US Government until this very day), if only for
practical reasons?

This is a warning, not a threat at all. You do not want the European
Union to get interested in this. Really. You over there in the US, do
something about this before some member of the European Parliament
wakes up. Please?

- -- 
[email-masked]

- --
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 02:57:38 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On the Agenda

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, at 20:04 [=GMT-0400], [email-masked] wrote:

> 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.

And thanks to you.

What sort of input is expected from the GA? Both topics are connected
with quite principal issues: First come, first serve, as well as the
great goal of competition on the domain name market. How will we
discuss the issues here?

- -- 
[email-masked]

- --
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 18:16:16 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Verisign hoarding? (was Re: [ga] Verisign Spam)

- --------------E0B452485A09FA5CA634C169
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sandy Harris wrote:

[snip]

> 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.

And the so-called Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act was
written precisely to allow them to do that.  They could not possibly
be a "cybersquatter," but what else you'd call that (given the invention
of that atrocious term in the first place) I've no idea.

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

- --
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

- --------------E0B452485A09FA5CA634C169
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>Sandy Harris wrote:
<p>[snip]
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>What I found seems much worse:
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Don't settle for your second choice domain.
Find your
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; first choice in our catalog of more than 2
million
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; pre-registered domains for sale.
<p>As I read that, they are hoarding domains in a horrendous way.</blockquote>
And the so-called Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act was
<br>written precisely to allow them to do that.&nbsp; <i>They</i> could
not possibly
<br>be a "cybersquatter," but what else you'd call that (given the invention
<br>of that atrocious term in the first place) I've no idea.
<p>Bill Lovell
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></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>

- --------------E0B452485A09FA5CA634C169--

- --
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 21:17:22 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "as is the case in some locations outside of the United States"

I believe that you are seeing the ICANN community address the problem.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> [http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cochetti-to-lynn-16jul01.htm]
>
> "As a consequence, we believe that it is now time for the ICANN
> community to address this problem..."
>
> "Accordingly, until ICANN has developed new mandatory customer
> safeguards from improper transfers, the VeriSign Registrar will
> operate under a new set of interim transfer practices..."
>
> "Under the new interim practices, the VeriSign Registrar will enter
> into new Registrar-to-Registrar Transfer Agreements with other
> ICANN-accredited registrars who mutually maintain..."
>
> "The ICANN community" = VeriSign and the registrars that work with it?
>
> "Any gaining registrar participating in these mutual agreements who do
> not wish to have their proposed transfers autoACK'd by the losing
> registrar must agree that it will provide, within five days
> of a request from a losing registrar, a notarized statement from the
> registrant involved corroborating the registrant's desire to transfer
> (failure to do so voids the transfer.) If the registrant is in a
> location where there are no notary public services available, as is
> the case in some locations outside of the United States, ..."
>
> Maybe those outside the US are getting fed up with this CARTEL
> (sanctioned by the US Government until this very day), if only for
> practical reasons?
>
> This is a warning, not a threat at all. You do not want the European
> Union to get interested in this. Really. You over there in the US, do
> something about this before some member of the European Parliament
> wakes up. Please?
>
> --
> [email-masked]
>
> --
> 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, 20 Jul 2001 00:13:49 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] White Elephant

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
"William S. Lovell" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<p>Sandy Harris wrote:
<p>[snip]
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>What I found seems much worse:
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Don't settle for your second choice domain.
Find your
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; first choice in our catalog of more than 2
million
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; pre-registered domains for sale.
<p>As I read that, they are hoarding domains in a horrendous way.</blockquote>
And the so-called Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act was
<br>written precisely to allow them to do that.&nbsp; <i>They</i> could
not possibly
<br>be a "cybersquatter," but what else you'd call that (given the invention
<br>of that atrocious term in the first place) I've no idea.</blockquote>
I am of the opinion that it is in fact a malicious slander and libel.&nbsp;
Aren't there laws against this sort of thing?&nbsp; But, then again, look
at what the lawmakers of the day are passing off as law...
<p>Who/what has authority over domain names?&nbsp; What is the definition
of domain names as property?&nbsp; For that matter, what is a domain name?&nbsp;
It's funny... how the most glaring questions/issues can be ignored.&nbsp;
It's like the White Elephant in a Room story.&nbsp; You see, we're all
in this room, along with a great big White Elephant in the centre.&nbsp;
The beast is so large, we're all pressed up against the very walls due
to its presence.&nbsp; We have to literally squeeze around the elephant
to cross the room...&nbsp; BUT, nobody ever talks about the elephant...
not one of us...&nbsp; Well, when someone comes along and points the White
Elephant out and asks about its presence, what will our answer be?
<p>Sincerely,
<p>Sotiris Sotiropoulos</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, 20 Jul 2001 14:29:59 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign & Domain Slamming

From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
To: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 13:17:18 -0700

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: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:09:20 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign Spam

John Chomeau
Vice President, Customer Experience
VeriSign, Inc.

Dear John

You sent me unsolicited email, so you are getting this document, a standard
piece of text I keep around for people who inflict unsolicited mail on me.

Unsolicited email is an unacceptable misuse of the recipients' resources. To
put it mildly, bugger off.

I do not mean just take me off your list. I mean stop sending unsolicited
email to anyone, ever.

Like most net users, I find unsolicited email highly offensive.  However,
you appear to be only clueless rather than actually malicious, so I'm
sending you this message.

Of course I am also complaining to your system administrators.  If you are
getting this message, the complaint has already been sent.

Sending unsolicited mail is generally regarded as abuse of the network. The
normal penalty for such abuse is disconnection of the email account used. If
a web site is advertised, that often goes too.

Nearly all ISPs have something in their terms of service contracts that lets
them disconnect you for abuse. Nearly all consider sending unsolicited email
to be abuse, and rightly so.

Have you read the terms of service at your ISP?

You should expect your system administrators to give you some flack about
this. Likely mine was not the only complaint. Most system administrators
hate spam as much as I do. It wastes the resources they manage and annoys
their customers.

Of course, they may not disconnect you this time. Like any business, they
are naturally reluctant to act against their customers and are unlikely to
do so without strong evidence.  Moreover, most system admins are willing to
give "clueless newbie" first offenders a second chance.

The IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force, the standards body for the net)
have Working Group on "Responsible Use of the Network". A couple of
documents it has produced:

   "Netiquette Guidelines" (network etiquette)
   http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/rfc/rfc1855.txt

  "DON'T SPEW A Set of Guidelines for Mass Unsolicited
    Mailings and Postings (spam*)"
  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2635.txt

You might also want to look at documents on how to advertise on the net
without offending people:

http://ep.com/faq/webannounce.html
http://www.landfield.com/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1/

If some alleged "marketing service" has taken advantage of you and sold
you unsolicited email as something that will help your business, I would say
they're guilty of fraud and you should be talking to your lawyer. This
action may have seriously damaged your business.

Several US states have anti-spam laws. For example, for every copy of your
message delivered to a Washington resident:

the recipient can sue you for $500
the ISP can sue you for a thousand
the State attorney general can charge you

http://www.wa-state-resident.com/walaw.htm

Finally, spam messages are frequently forwarded to "hacker" newsgroups
and mailing lists with some comment along the lines of "Have fun with this
slimeball".  Personally I don't agree this would be equally irresponsible.

However, I am a member of the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain Name
Supporting Organisation ("DNSO") and have brought the matter to their
attention through their [ga] mailing list.

In fact, I can thank a member of this list for providing the above comments.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Network Solutions <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:09:05 -0400
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, the #1 infrastructure services company
for the Internet. Since then, we've taken significant steps to
improve our customer experience. Now, we are about to take a bold,
next step -- launching a new Web site.

The new site will carry the VeriSign® name and includes major
improvements to offer you more choices, better selection and
improved navigation in a fast, easy-to-understand format.

Over the next few weeks, if you click on an advertisement for
Network Solutions or VeriSign, it's possible you could be sent
to the new site. Consider this a sneak preview of our efforts
to offer you one complete online solution for your presence on
the Web.

Some highlights of the new site include:

* A straightforward, user-friendly design

* Enhanced shopping features such as shopping carts
   to customize your order and useful wizard tools

* The ability to order VeriSign's online security
   and e-commerce products and services

* Improved account management to make handling your
   account simple and flexible

* More Web-based support including online chat and
   enhanced FAQs

Both the current site and the new site are fully functional
and all of your customer information is protected.

In the coming months, expect to see more exciting changes as
our site evolves. These improvements will make getting on the
Web easier than ever before. Stay tuned!

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.

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

[[CI7I-WLBK-JIKX9V-D]]

- --
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 22:26:32 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: White Elephant

- --------------F918A5DB7D3E93D8B0E8DBB8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sandy Harris wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> And the so-called Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act was
>> written precisely to allow them to do that.  They could not possibly
>>
>> be a "cybersquatter," but what else you'd call that (given the
>> invention
>> of that atrocious term in the first place) I've no idea.
>
> I am of the opinion that it is in fact a malicious slander and libel.

So what was the malicious slander and libel?  What Sandy said,
what I said, or what?

Bill Lovell

- --------------F918A5DB7D3E93D8B0E8DBB8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>"William S. Lovell" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<p>Sandy Harris wrote:
<p>[snip]
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>What I found seems much worse:
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Don't settle for your second choice domain.
Find your
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; first choice in our catalog of more than 2
million
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; pre-registered domains for sale.
<p>As I read that, they are hoarding domains in a horrendous way.</blockquote>
And the so-called Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act was
<br>written precisely to allow them to do that.&nbsp; <i>They</i> could
not possibly
<br>be a "cybersquatter," but what else you'd call that (given the invention
<br>of that atrocious term in the first place) I've no idea.</blockquote>
I am of the opinion that it is in fact a malicious slander and libel.</blockquote>
So what was the malicious slander and libel?&nbsp; What Sandy said,
<br>what I said, or what?
<p>Bill Lovell</html>

- --------------F918A5DB7D3E93D8B0E8DBB8--

- --
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 01:14:47 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: White Elephant

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> So what was the malicious slander and libel?  What Sandy said,
> what I said, or what?

The term "cybersquatter" is libellious in nature.  It is an engineered term,
used for a purpose.  I was not referring to either yourself, or Sandy,
William.

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: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 10:51:17 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign complains...

- --=====================_6601960==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Derek,
On 03:32 20/07/01, Derek Conant said:
>I can support VeriSign's efforts to require its customers to acknowledge
>and approve transfer-away requests

This would be acceptable if the demands of transfer of a VerSign customer 
to another Registrar were also approved by VeriSign. They delay until it is 
overdue, then the DN becomes "not available". And....

But the best is that:
<quote>
icann.org is not available
Be first in line to get icann.org - Back Order it NOW!

Is the name you want already taken? Now you can back-order that domain name 
and thereby acquire it as soon as it becomes available. We watch it for 
you, every day, 24/7, so you don't have to. And we register it for you for 
one year the moment it becomes available — all for the low cost of $49. TRY 
IT NOW!
</unquote>

If 100 people wants to get icann.org they will get $ 4900 for NOTHING - 
except possibly to fight the interest of their own customers...  Some 
people are really cute at VeriSign at making money out of Roberto Gaetano, 
Louis Touton, Stuart Lynn and als. (all this would not exist with one 
million TLD or with a more serious DN registration system).

Jefsey

- --=====================_6601960==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
Dear Derek,<br>
On 03:32 20/07/01, Derek Conant said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>I can support VeriSign's efforts to
require its customers to acknowledge<br>
and approve transfer-away requests</blockquote><br>
This would be acceptable if the demands of transfer of a VerSign customer
to another Registrar were also approved by VeriSign. They delay until it
is overdue, then the DN becomes &quot;not available&quot;. And....<br>
<br>
But the best is that:<br>
&lt;quote&gt;<br>
<b>icann.org</b> is not available <br>
<font color="#0000FF"><u>Be first in line to get icann.org - Back Order
it NOW!</u></font> <br>
<br>
<b>Is the name you want already taken? Now you can back-order that domain
name and thereby acquire it as soon as it becomes available. We watch it
for you, every day, 24/7, so you don’t have to. And we register it for
you for one year the moment it becomes available — all for the low cost
of $49. TRY IT NOW!<br>
</b>&lt;/unquote&gt;<br>
<br>
If 100 people wants to get icann.org they will get $ 4900 for NOTHING -
except possibly to fight the interest of their own customers...&nbsp;
Some people are really cute at VeriSign at making money out of Roberto
Gaetano, Louis Touton, Stuart Lynn and als. (all this would not exist
with one million TLD or with a more serious DN registration 
system).<br>
<br>
Jefsey<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</html>

- --=====================_6601960==_.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, 20 Jul 2001 15:01:29 +0100
From: Alex Kells <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] VeriSign complains...

Personally, I like the idea of the losing Registrar confirming the transfer
request - the only problem I have with it, is that NetSol only give 72 hours
to respond. I've returned to work on a Monday morning to find my mailbox
filled with these - only to discover that the 3 days has already expired
(the email having been received after close of business on the Friday).

Currently the onus is on the receiving Registrar to confirm the transfer
request... I have experienced unauthorised transfers - the Registrant had no
idea that a transfer request had been initiated - the domain was returned
after numerous trans-atlantic phone calls and shouting - the receiving
Registrar put it all down to an "administrative error".

- -- 
Alex Kells - Hostmaster - Frontier Internet Services Ltd
Tel: 020 7510 4713 Fax: 020 7531 9930 http://www.frontier.net.uk
Statements made are at all times subject to Frontier's Terms and 
Conditions of Business, which are available upon request.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Derek Conant [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 20 July 2001 02:32
To: Marc Schneiders
Cc: [email-masked]; [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
- --
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 15:59:33 +0200
From: Robin Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign complains...

Derek,

I can support WXW's story, because it happened to me and this very domain. I
ended up having to pay NSI for another year because of the delay of the
transfer request to another registrar put it over the date of the domain
expiring. My ISP for this domain changed owners and they were transferring
domains (including mine) to the registrar they prefer to work with. NSI delayed
the request so the domain expired, then said they couldnt process it because
the domain was expired and we had to pay again. Then, when I found I was forced
to pay the domain for another year, it took 2 tries to do so, and 2 weeks for
them to actually take the charges from our cc. I was calling long distance from
Germany, asking why they haven't booked the charges from our cc. I was angry,
to say the least.

I will switch registrars halfway through the year, so I can give NSI a good 6
months to finally get it right. But I feel very angry about how they tried to
keep a customer against the customers wishes, just to be able to suck another
year's registration fees out of me. We have had many other problems with NSI as
well, which prompted me to transfer this domain away from them so the
administrative contact can FINALLY be put into my name. (NSI screws that up as
well, the experience on another domain name is enough to just make me want to
transfer this one and be done with the problems) They always find a way to
screw it up, as usual. And make me pay extra, of course.

As a secondary note, I have not had these problems with Tucows. I have two
domains there.

take care, Robin
- --
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 15:39:17 +0100
From: Alex Kells <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] VeriSign complains...

Absolutely, William, I just want to see some kind of
notification/confirmation going to the Registrant *prior* to the transfer -
not after the fact as is the case now.

- -- 
Alex Kells - Hostmaster - Frontier Internet Services Ltd
Tel: 020 7510 4713 Fax: 020 7531 9930 http://www.frontier.net.uk
Statements made are at all times subject to Frontier's Terms and 
Conditions of Business, which are available upon request.

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 20 July 2001 15:30
To: Alex Kells
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] VeriSign complains...

Hello Alex,

Friday, July 20, 2001, 7:01:29 AM, Alex Kells wrote:

> Personally, I like the idea of the losing Registrar confirming the
transfer
> request - the only problem I have with it, is that NetSol only give 72
hours
> to respond. I've returned to work on a Monday morning to find my mailbox
> filled with these - only to discover that the 3 days has already expired
> (the email having been received after close of business on the Friday).

> Currently the onus is on the receiving Registrar to confirm the transfer
> request... I have experienced unauthorised transfers - the Registrant had
no
> idea that a transfer request had been initiated - the domain was returned
> after numerous trans-atlantic phone calls and shouting - the receiving
> Registrar put it all down to an "administrative error".

Doesn't it make much more sense to adopt a policy like the the Tucows
policy on outgoing transfer notifications, which rather than requiring
the ack at the losing registrar, provides a mechanism for the domain
registrant to be notified and block any transfer attempts, or to
expedite their transfer request.

- -- 
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: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:55:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "as is the case in some locations outside of the United States"

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, at 21:17 [=GMT-0700], Derek Conant wrote:

> I believe that you are seeing the ICANN community address the problem.

Where should I look for it?

- -- 
[email-masked]

> 
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
> 
> Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 
> > [http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cochetti-to-lynn-16jul01.htm]
> >
> > "As a consequence, we believe that it is now time for the ICANN
> > community to address this problem..."
> >
> > "Accordingly, until ICANN has developed new mandatory customer
> > safeguards from improper transfers, the VeriSign Registrar will
> > operate under a new set of interim transfer practices..."
> >
> > "Under the new interim practices, the VeriSign Registrar will enter
> > into new Registrar-to-Registrar Transfer Agreements with other
> > ICANN-accredited registrars who mutually maintain..."
> >
> > "The ICANN community" = VeriSign and the registrars that work with it?
> >
> > "Any gaining registrar participating in these mutual agreements who do
> > not wish to have their proposed transfers autoACK'd by the losing
> > registrar must agree that it will provide, within five days
> > of a request from a losing registrar, a notarized statement from the
> > registrant involved corroborating the registrant's desire to transfer
> > (failure to do so voids the transfer.) If the registrant is in a
> > location where there are no notary public services available, as is
> > the case in some locations outside of the United States, ..."
> >
> > Maybe those outside the US are getting fed up with this CARTEL
> > (sanctioned by the US Government until this very day), if only for
> > practical reasons?
> >
> > This is a warning, not a threat at all. You do not want the European
> > Union to get interested in this. Really. You over there in the US, do
> > something about this before some member of the European Parliament
> > wakes up. Please?
> >
> > --
> > [email-masked]
> >
> > --
> > 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #624
************************