Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #625
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, July 21 2001           Volume 01 : Number 625

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 17:49:06 +0200
From: Robin Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: It can be worse (Re: [ga] VeriSign complains...)

Hi Marc,

Pretty disgusting, isn't it?

I just wanted to add, that my webhoster was bought by a CORE partner. They gave
us the option of staying with NSI or switching to CORE. Since the ISP is listed
as the billing contact, they initiated the transfer to CORE on my domain.

Now, they were a bit late with the transfer, because NSI is habitually late
with the notice that the payment is due. The hosting company told us that they
wait until they receive the bill to initiate the domain transfer (makes sense,
no point in paying more than one has to) But NSI delayed it just enough to make
sure my domain expired, then used it as an excuse not to transfer, even though
it was only just over the expiration date. I ended up having to pay the expired
domain on my own because my hosting company didnt get on the ball fast enough
to correct the problem. Then I had to make sure that my hosting company didn't
bill me for renewing my domain registration. Thats when the problems with NSI
not wanting to take our money occurred. Really seemed suspicious to me, even
though it was probably typical NSI screwups.

I don't have a problem with notifying the registration contact before the
transfer, but in my case, we knew we wanted to transfer our domain even though
our hosting company initiated the transfer. And in the case of my hosting
company, they are "supposed" to handle those things anyway - they are the
billing contact. Most people do not have a clue how NSI works (or doesn't work,
as the case may be) or even what a domain registrar is or what it does. That's
why webhosters like mine take care of it for the customer. If they want to use
a registrar that is more responsive to them, go for it. They are paid to take
care of it for the customer - and when they are the billing contact as in my
case - I would think its their choice to recommend whichever service that works
best for them.

Personally, I think NSI should look a bit harder at itself and think 'why are
these webhosters moving their business away from us'.

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 09:41:12 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign complains...

- --------------E29E879C44A771DAF71DC1B4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

That's good stuff, Jefsey! And the more Verisign can screw up transfers,

bill late, set 72 hour response times (starting after the end of
business
hours on Friday), etc., the more they can make domain names become
"available," and the more of that turnover there is -- i.e., that they
themselves create -- the more $$ they will make.  There seems to
be no limit whatever to what NSI/Verisign will do for a buck. And
that will continue so long as Verisign/ICANN can continue having
Verisign be the "single authoritative root."

(Anyone who wants to punch holes in what was just said is welcome
to do so -- that is my perspective right now, but like all good ga
denizens, I always look for further wisdom from my co-denizens.)

(I'd thought of popping  this over into ga-roots, since it seemed more
appropriate to be there, but on second thought this ISSUE has a broad
enough ICANN-wide policy significance that I didn't.  Specifically, it
relates to the whole Verisign/ICANN relationship, and hence if there
is anything that we ga types could do about it, perhaps one of us might
make a SUGGESTION along that line.)

Bill Lovell

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>  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
>
>
>
>

- --
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

- --------------E29E879C44A771DAF71DC1B4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<br>That's good stuff, Jefsey! And the more Verisign can screw up transfers,
<br>bill late, set 72 hour response times (starting after the end of business
<br>hours on Friday), etc., the more they can make domain names become
<br>"available," and the more of that turnover there is -- i.e., that they
<br>themselves create -- the more $$ they will make.&nbsp; There seems
to
<br>be no limit whatever to what NSI/Verisign will do for a buck. And
<br>that will continue so long as Verisign/ICANN can continue having
<br>Verisign be the "single authoritative root."
<p>(Anyone who wants to punch holes in what was just said is welcome
<br>to do so -- that is my perspective right now, but like all good ga
<br>denizens, I always look for further wisdom from my co-denizens.)
<p>(I'd thought of popping&nbsp; this over into ga-roots, since it seemed
more
<br>appropriate to be there, but on second thought this ISSUE has a broad
<br>enough ICANN-wide policy significance that I didn't.&nbsp; Specifically,
it
<br>relates to the whole Verisign/ICANN relationship, and hence if there
<br>is anything that we ga types could do about it, perhaps one of us might
<br>make a SUGGESTION along that line.)
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;
<p>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;Dear Derek,
<br>On 03:32 20/07/01, Derek Conant said:
<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>

<p><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 "not available". And....
<p>But the best is that:
<br>&lt;quote>
<br><b>icann.org</b> is not available
<br><u><font color="#0000FF">Be first in line to get icann.org - Back Order
it NOW!</font></u>
<p><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!</b>
<br>&lt;/unquote>
<p>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).
<p>Jefsey
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;</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>

- --------------E29E879C44A771DAF71DC1B4--

- --
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 00:39:03 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] What the heck!

I was just at the DNSO.ORG site and can't find the sub-list  stuff that used
to be there.

- --
R O E L A N D   M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
t:01 925 373 3954
c:01 925 352 3615
f:01 925 373 9781 
- --
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 13:22:11 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What the heck!

on 7/19/01 3:39 AM, Roeland Meyer at [email-masked] wrote:

> I was just at the DNSO.ORG site and can't find the sub-list  stuff that used
> to be there.
> 
> --
> R O E L A N D   M J  M E Y E R
> Managing Director
> Morgan Hill Software Company
> t:01 925 373 3954
> c:01 925 352 3615
> f:01 925 373 9781
> --
> 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
>

Do you mean the ga-rules sub-lists etc.? These are half way down the page at
http://www.dnso.org/archives.html, between ga-full the and names council
list. I know, it's not an easy site to navigate.

Regards,
Joanna

Archives at glance:-

GA announce list

GA ga list with rules

GA ga-full list

GA Specific Purposes Lists, setup on 30 April 2001, modifications in list
names on 21 May 2001. ga-org added 7 June 2001.
1.    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-icann/Arc00/, (former ga-ext),
External Relationships
2.    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-rules/Arc00/, (former ga-int),
Internal Processes 
3.    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/, Systems
4.    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-roots/Arc00/, Competitive Roots
5.    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-udrp/Arc00/, (former ga-tm), Trade
Marks-IP 
6.    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-review/Arc00/, GA DNSO Review
7.    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-org/Arc00/, Dot org referral

*    

Names Council list etc....

- --
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 12:08:40 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The latest Verisign bit

- --------------15BB34C67049F09C2D6110E7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The letter below evidently did not get posted to [email-masked], so
I am posting it on behalf of William X. Walsh.  I have responded,
asking that I be added as a co-signer, and all of you might review
the letter and consider doing the same.

Bill Lovell

> Subject:
>             Re: Please pass this message on to the GA list
>        Date:
>             Fri, 20 Jul 2001 10:14:55 -0700
>       From:
>             "William X. Walsh"
>         To:
>             "William X. Walsh"
>         CC:
>             "Patrick Corliss" , [email-masked], [email-masked],
>             , ,
>  References:
>             1
>
>
>
>
> If you don't mind passing this along also.
>
> Over the last day, myself and other ISP/IPP operators have drafted a
> letter to Stuart Lynn in response to Cochetti's letter that we
> was referenced yesterday in the Newsbytes article.
>
> Dozens of ISP/IPPs have asked to be signatories to the letter, as well
> as the chair of the Internet Service Provider's Consortium (ispc.org).
>
> The draft letter is at
> http://www.userfriendly.com/transferletter.html
>
> The letter will be sent to Stuart Lynn and Roger Cochetti, as well as
> others who have been designated to receive a CC of the letter,
> sometime shortly after 1pm Pacific Time (UTC-8) today.
>
> The HTML copy will be available there, and I'll have links to a Word
> document and PDF version once it has been sent.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh
> 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

- --------------15BB34C67049F09C2D6110E7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
The letter below evidently did not get posted to [email-masked], so
<br>I am posting it on behalf of William X. Walsh.&nbsp; I have responded,
<br>asking that I be added as a co-signer, and all of you might review
<br>the letter and consider doing the same.
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<pre>Subject:&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Re: Please pass this message on to the GA list
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Date:&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 10:14:55 -0700
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; From:&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "William X. Walsh"&nbsp;<[email-masked]>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; To:&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "William X. Walsh"&nbsp;<[email-masked]>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; CC:&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "Patrick Corliss"&nbsp;<[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked],
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<[email-masked]>,&nbsp;<[email-masked]>,&nbsp;<[email-masked]>
&nbsp;References:&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1

If you don't mind passing this along also.

Over the last day, myself and other ISP/IPP operators have drafted a
letter to Stuart Lynn in response to Cochetti's letter that we
was referenced yesterday in the Newsbytes article.

Dozens of ISP/IPPs have asked to be signatories to the letter, as well
as the chair of the Internet Service Provider's Consortium (ispc.org).

The draft letter is at
<A HREF="http://www.userfriendly.com/transferletter.html">http://www.userfriendly.com/transferletter.html</A>

The letter will be sent to Stuart Lynn and Roger Cochetti, as well as
others who have been designated to receive a CC of the letter,
sometime shortly after 1pm Pacific Time (UTC-8) today.

The HTML copy will be available there, and I'll have links to a Word
document and PDF version once it has been sent.

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

</pre>
</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>

- --------------15BB34C67049F09C2D6110E7--

- --
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 15:09:05 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: It can be worse (Re: [ga] VeriSign complains...)

I had to pay for registrar transfers also, but I don't object to that.  It 
takes personnel time to do it and it has to be paid by someone.  
To me it was a small price to pay to go to a registrar I could trust.  
I transferred all my domains from NSI before all this mess because 
I saw it coming.  NSI had screwed up so many change requests 
that I finally gave up on them.  I'm glad I did.

Leah

On 20 Jul 2001, at 16:42, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, at 15:59 [=GMT+0200], Robin Miller wrote:
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> Today I discovered to my disgust, that to change registrar for .NL
> domains costs some $9 per domain at the registry. This doesn't make
> things better for VeriSign etc. It shows just once more how sick this
> market is because of 'self regulation'. I asked nic.nl what this $9
> was for. The answer: 'Determined by the Board in consulation with the
> participating registrars.' Yeah.
> 
> -- 
> [email-masked]
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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 22:08:34 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: It can be worse (Re: [ga] VeriSign complains...)

It doesn't take $9 per domain. And for the record: the NL-registrY
is charging this. Would you accept this from VeriSign as RegistrY?

On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, at 15:09 [=GMT-0400], L Gallegos wrote:

> I had to pay for registrar transfers also, but I don't object to that.  It 
> takes personnel time to do it and it has to be paid by someone.  
> To me it was a small price to pay to go to a registrar I could trust.  
> I transferred all my domains from NSI before all this mess because 
> I saw it coming.  NSI had screwed up so many change requests 
> that I finally gave up on them.  I'm glad I did.
> 
> Leah
> 
> 
> On 20 Jul 2001, at 16:42, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, at 15:59 [=GMT+0200], Robin Miller wrote:
> > 
> > > 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. 
> > 
> > Today I discovered to my disgust, that to change registrar for .NL
> > domains costs some $9 per domain at the registry. This doesn't make
> > things better for VeriSign etc. It shows just once more how sick this
> > market is because of 'self regulation'. I asked nic.nl what this $9
> > was for. The answer: 'Determined by the Board in consulation with the
> > participating registrars.' Yeah.
> > 
> > -- 
> > [email-masked]
> > 
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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 17:00:33 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: It can be worse (Re: [ga] VeriSign complains...)

I think I paid $10 for each transferred name to Dotster.  I personally 
think that it may be a dollar or two higher than necessary, but then 
they are in business, not charity.  I have no objection to a gaining 
registrar who is willing to accept the transfer and credit the 
customer with all existing registration years charging a fee to do 
so.  

For instance, many of my domains were registered for multiple 
years.  Dotster accepted them and gave me those pre-paid years 
even though they did not receive those renewal fees.  They charged 
me $10 per transfer plus one additional registration year.  I think 
that is fair.

I would not separate one registrar from another in that opinion.  If 
the gaining registrar is performing a service that the customer feels 
is a good service, then a fee for that service is warranted and 
acceptable to me.  NSI would be no different in that aspect.  I 
transferred out of of NSI because of their extremely poor service 
and attitude. When I was dealing with a client's domain, I had no 
end to problems.  I have had excellent service from Dotster and 
never have a problem with obtaining assistance if (rarely) there is a 
glitch or I need additional information.

Many people feel that registrars should simply accept transfers 
and not charge for them.  They do not take into consideration the 
man hours used to effect those transfers and provide customer 
support for them.  It's great to be able to shop for price and service, 
but we should all expect to pay for services rendered.  The problem 
with NSI, as I see it, is that they are going beyond simply providing 
a service for which they charge.  They are greedy and seem to be 
willing to do anything they can to prevent an exodus.  I have seen 
no evidence that they are concerned with customer service and 
have shown by their actions that they will sacrifice that service and 
still use underhanded means to retain customers.  In the end, they 
will lose even more.

That's my two cents. 

Leah

On 20 Jul 2001, at 22:08, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> It doesn't take $9 per domain. And for the record: the NL-registrY is
> charging this. Would you accept this from VeriSign as RegistrY?
> 
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, at 15:09 [=GMT-0400], L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > I had to pay for registrar transfers also, but I don't object to
> > that.  It takes personnel time to do it and it has to be paid by
> > someone.  To me it was a small price to pay to go to a registrar I
> > could trust.  I transferred all my domains from NSI before all this
> > mess because I saw it coming.  NSI had screwed up so many change
> > requests that I finally gave up on them.  I'm glad I did.
> > 
> > Leah
> > 
> > 
> > On 20 Jul 2001, at 16:42, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, at 15:59 [=GMT+0200], Robin Miller wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 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. 
> > > 
> > > Today I discovered to my disgust, that to change registrar for .NL
> > > domains costs some $9 per domain at the registry. This doesn't
> > > make things better for VeriSign etc. It shows just once more how
> > > sick this market is because of 'self regulation'. I asked nic.nl
> > > what this $9 was for. The answer: 'Determined by the Board in
> > > consulation with the participating registrars.' Yeah.
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > [email-masked]
> > > 
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send
> > > mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga-full"
> > > 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 23:42:45 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: It can be worse (Re: [ga] VeriSign complains...)

Again, a registrAR can charge what it wants. The registrY should not
charge $9 for a registrAR transfer. That is anti-competitive. Also one
does get nothing for those $9, no extra year or anything.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, at 17:00 [=GMT-0400], L Gallegos wrote:

> I think I paid $10 for each transferred name to Dotster.  I personally 
> think that it may be a dollar or two higher than necessary, but then 
> they are in business, not charity.  I have no objection to a gaining 
> registrar who is willing to accept the transfer and credit the 
> customer with all existing registration years charging a fee to do 
> so.  
> 
> For instance, many of my domains were registered for multiple 
> years.  Dotster accepted them and gave me those pre-paid years 
> even though they did not receive those renewal fees.  They charged 
> me $10 per transfer plus one additional registration year.  I think 
> that is fair.
> 
> I would not separate one registrar from another in that opinion.  If 
> the gaining registrar is performing a service that the customer feels 
> is a good service, then a fee for that service is warranted and 
> acceptable to me.  NSI would be no different in that aspect.  I 
> transferred out of of NSI because of their extremely poor service 
> and attitude. When I was dealing with a client's domain, I had no 
> end to problems.  I have had excellent service from Dotster and 
> never have a problem with obtaining assistance if (rarely) there is a 
> glitch or I need additional information.
> 
> Many people feel that registrars should simply accept transfers 
> and not charge for them.  They do not take into consideration the 
> man hours used to effect those transfers and provide customer 
> support for them.  It's great to be able to shop for price and service, 
> but we should all expect to pay for services rendered.  The problem 
> with NSI, as I see it, is that they are going beyond simply providing 
> a service for which they charge.  They are greedy and seem to be 
> willing to do anything they can to prevent an exodus.  I have seen 
> no evidence that they are concerned with customer service and 
> have shown by their actions that they will sacrifice that service and 
> still use underhanded means to retain customers.  In the end, they 
> will lose even more.
> 
> That's my two cents. 
> 
> Leah
> 
> 
> On 20 Jul 2001, at 22:08, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 
> > It doesn't take $9 per domain. And for the record: the NL-registrY is
> > charging this. Would you accept this from VeriSign as RegistrY?
> > 
> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, at 15:09 [=GMT-0400], L Gallegos wrote:
> > 
> > > I had to pay for registrar transfers also, but I don't object to
> > > that.  It takes personnel time to do it and it has to be paid by
> > > someone.  To me it was a small price to pay to go to a registrar I
> > > could trust.  I transferred all my domains from NSI before all this
> > > mess because I saw it coming.  NSI had screwed up so many change
> > > requests that I finally gave up on them.  I'm glad I did.
> > > 
> > > Leah
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 20 Jul 2001, at 16:42, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, at 15:59 [=GMT+0200], Robin Miller wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > 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. 
> > > > 
> > > > Today I discovered to my disgust, that to change registrar for .NL
> > > > domains costs some $9 per domain at the registry. This doesn't
> > > > make things better for VeriSign etc. It shows just once more how
> > > > sick this market is because of 'self regulation'. I asked nic.nl
> > > > what this $9 was for. The answer: 'Determined by the Board in
> > > > consulation with the participating registrars.' Yeah.
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > [email-masked]
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send
> > > > mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga-full"
> > > > in the body of the message). Archives at
> > > > http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 19:35:00 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] VeriSign adds voice-activation service

Excerpt:  (IDG) -- As if controlling the most popular domain names on the Web 
were not enough, VeriSign has decided it wants to move into voice-activated 
telephone service as well. 

The Mountain View, Calif.-based company, which maintains the registry for the 
".com," ".net" and ".org" domains, announced a pilot program Thursday for a 
system called Global Voice Registry that would enable users to speak a 
business name into their conventional or mobile telephone and be connected 
automatically. The service will be free to customers and the phone companies 
that offer it; VeriSign would charge businesses to be included in the 
registry, just as it now charges holders of Internet domain names. The actual 
call would be charged as usual by the phone-service provider. 

http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/07/20/verisign.to.phone.idg/index.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 19:40:03 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign complains...

My position is that VeriSign's "default no-acknowledgement" policy is necessary in
the domain name industry.

I believe that the real issue here is VeriSign's 5 day processing period
requirement concerning transfer requests. If transfer requests are not processed
within 5 days, the transfer requests are automatically barred.  This may be the
trap you and other Registrants have fallen into time and time again.

I believe that the 5 day period for transfer requests should be extended to at
least 7 days.  This allows batch processes time to complete their functions
including transfer authentication processes.  I believe that it is also the
responsibility of Registrars (including their affiliates and resellers) to indicate
to Registrants that problems may occur during the transfer request process,
suggesting that Registrants should not wait until the very end of a domain name
registration to initiate a transfer request.

What may not appear fair here is VeriSign's 5 day processing period requirement
concerning transfer requests.  It does not appear fair when you realize that
VeriSign's "default no-acknowledgement" position is coupled with VeriSign's 5 day
processing period requirement concerning transfer requests.

It seems that the Administrative Contact to a domain name currently does not have
enough time to authenticate a transfer request, thus causing the transfer request
to be barred, which appears calculated and predictable.

An argument could be that the winning Registrar has a duty to inform a Registrant
of VeriSign's "default no-acknowledgement" process concerning transfer requests.
However, it does not seem correct to place this burden on competing Registrars.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Robin Miller wrote:

> 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: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 01:42:30 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] TLDA ELECTIONS - JULY 2001 - LIST OF CANDIDATES HAS BEEN PUBLISHED

A list of candidates for the July 2001 elections for the Board of Directors
and the six
committees of the Top Level Domain Association has been published on the
TLDA
website at http://www.tlda.org
The Top Level Domain Association Inc. is a trade association of Internet Top
Level Domain (TLD) holders. This organization represents the interests of
TLD Holders and will seek to foster cooperation among TLD holders and all of
the Internet's various DNS root-level service providers to advance the cause
of building a stable namespace. All eligible TLD holders are welcome to
become members of the TLDA

- --
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: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 08:18:03 -0400
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: It can be worse (Re: [ga] VeriSign complains...)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 5:43 PM
> To: L Gallegos
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: It can be worse (Re: [ga] VeriSign complains...)
> 
> 
> Again, a registrAR can charge what it wants. The registrY should not
> charge $9 for a registrAR transfer. That is anti-competitive. Also one
> does get nothing for those $9, no extra year or anything.

The VeriSign registry charges a registrar $6 for a transfer BECAUSE the
domain gets one year added to it's registration period as part of the
transfer.

Scott Hollenbeck
VeriSign Global Registry Services
- --
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: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 05:29:47 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus

Hello Jon,

> From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 8:18 AM

> It may be that, given the current state of the ga, we just 
> can't follow the "rough consensus" approach of RFC 2418; that 
> the members will not recognize any informal decision as
> legitimate, so that nothing can be decided without the
> full trappings of a full-scale, formal vote.  If so, 
> I think it's a shame, though -- it's testimony to the 
> dysfunctionality of this body, and yet another obstacle to
> accomplishing any actual work.

Yes, it is ALL a trust issue. We have all decried the UDRP. The UDRP was
instituted via DNSO/WG-A. Joaquim used the IETF "consensus call" method. The
problem is that it is perceived that he used the "consensus call" to pound
through a result that didn't really have consensus. Regardless of either of
our reletive opinions in that matter you must surely recognise that, lacking
a recorded vote or poll, the entire output of WG-A is forever tainted. There
is no clearly supported work-product.
- --
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: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 14:31:22 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Solemn public question to Peter de Blanc

we are all concerned by the IP lobby policy. Concerned but not doing muach.

The result is that the Internet is going to be blocked into absurd, 
contradictory and complex situations that a few reasonable moves by some of 
us could avoid. In particular by ccTLDs.

Dear Peter,

this mail is to you as the elected, acknowledged, respected and undisputed 
Chair of the ccTLDs organizations.

Today the new ".pe" ccTLD Manager is ... the Constitutional President of 
the Peruvian Republic and the ".pe" registry the Peruvian TM and IP 
Administration. To my knowledge this is - with Andorra - the second country 
in the world to decide that the color of the sky is green.

This is in direct violation with the spirit of the RFC 1591
<quote>
In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the rights to a 
particular name, the registration authority shall have no role or 
responsibility other than to provide the contact information to both 
parties. The registration of a domain name does not have any Trademark 
status. It is up to the requestor to be sure he is not violating anyone 
else's Trademark.
</unquote>

This rises a question to you, so we know what we are to do.

Peter, is your WWccTLD Alliance purely a registry association, whatever the 
registry management, or is it a ccTLD Manager association i.e. of 
organisations with legitimacy from and duties to their National Internet 
Communities?

To get a simple and clear response what are the functions you include or 
not in the ccTLD Manager mission as a trustee of the National Internet 
Community (please just cross the appropriate responses):

1.  [ ] registry of the ISO 3166 TLD
2.  [ ] registry for other national, local, etc TLDs
3.  [ ] IP addresing delivery and management
4.  [ ] DNS servers management
5.  [ ] information of the National Internet Community, Gov. and national 
publics
6.  [ ] animation of the National Internet Community
7.  [ ] local defense of the National Internet Community
8.  [ ] organization/provision of additional services to the National 
Internet Community
9.  [ ] organization/provision of additional national services to the 
foreign users and communities
10.[ ] local defense of the Global Internet Community
11.[ ] international representation of the National Internet Community
12.[ ] common management of the Internet infrastructure as an associated 
Member of the ICANN

Peter, Elisabeth, Oscar, Peter, Jean-Yves, Nigel, etc... if you do not 
intend to protect us but only to lock yourself into the ccSO getho until 
you die of grand age and lack of users, we have to organize ourself to 
represent the Internet Users and our National Communities. Otherwise no 
dialog will be made possible with the "Golden Block" (GIP, Staff, NSI, DoC, 
NSA). Your "ccTLD" business will either be repatriated to the US or 
becoming a public service used by only a few, to the benefit of the global 
US registries. And we will reach a point where the user consensus which 
makes the Internet will fade/blow away.

Nicknaming he iCANN "AmerICANN" is not a joke. It just recalls an 
increasing unbalance and instability (the US DN and TLD are very 
technically poor as we see it through Cochetti's letter and disagreements 
over ".us"  RFP).

Unbalance means further unstability and we all hate that.

No one wants what one of us was fearing yesterday: that a European 
Representatives team starts proposing (irt ".kid" Act, Peruvian Resolucion 
Suprema, Chinese position) a European legislation to protect European 
Internet Industry interests against the AmerICANN's positions.

Time has come to think about network stability rather than about posting 
limits and "current position" describing pertual policies about unique 
authoritative roots.

Before we are commited to your "nuclear" arsenal.

Jefsey

- --
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 #625
************************