Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #801
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, October 19 2001           Volume 01 : Number 801

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

Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:56:55 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Task Force appointees, MOTION

This is a well reasoned post as it regards the GA. (I venture not opinion
on the issue of the IDNO)  We are still in the process of building a
structure for ICANN and the GA.  We are just establishing the foundation
and that takes tough decisions by persons in authority.  Demanding that we
want everything perfect right now is not conducive to progress.  I do not
think the William or I like this method of selecting delegates but we
realize that for now it is a good process.  And far better than a stalemate
while we demand total democracy but have not yet achieved it - if we
should.

It is important to remember we are on a bit of mission creep extending into
these policy issues and we should be mindful that generally a sophisticated
technical body/professional body is not run democratically except in the
election of their rulers - not delegates.

Peace

Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

> Thursday, Thursday, October 18, 2001, 4:35:57 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > It is one of the problems of cyber democracy that we run the risk of
> > nominating and electing people that we barely know.
>
> There are certain circumstances that lend themselves to being decided
> by direct voting, and others that don't.
>
> We don't have to vote on each and every little thing.  The chair is
> there for a reason, we don't rule the GA by majority vote, but by
> consensus.  The Chair's job is to appoint those whose will represent
> the GA's views in those positions.
>
> If he decides that, time permitting, he will open the process up for
> nominations and/or a vote, that is great, but to claim that we must
> vote on every single appointment and every single decision, turns us
> into the worst kind of bureaucracy, the kind where nothing gets done
> because the process becomes to onerous.
>
> The IDNO charter is a perfect example of that kind of a process.
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 01:09:56 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding

{on this matter I welcome any and all attacks both personal and professional,
here you may kill the messenger for I truly believe that my brethren have been
wronged and it is personal}

Dear Members,

We have a bigger problem than we took in at first look at this problem.  Mr.
Meyer and MHSC faces the same problem as Mr. Hernand and NewNet, however they
are facing a disease that has metastasized in different areas of the same body -
ICANN.  Due not worry cancer is curable if caught in time and treated
aggressively.

MHSC belongs in the BC and has been excluded by legalism and discriminatory
practices.

While NewNet has been excluded by the BC, I do not believe they belong there.

NewNet has been excluded by the Registry Constituency into which they truly
belong.  They are a registry and belong in that constituency.  We believe that
is where any petition belongs.

Verisign acting alone has developed a rule that excludes any Registry not
approved by ICANN.  In other words they exclude all who are not them.

Mr. Hernand has been reflecting his company policy of openness and transparency
and my new research assistant, Brooks has worked overtime on this issue.  Thank
you both.

Brooks informs me that we have until sunday the 21st to submit this for an
actual (virtual?) vote by the NC at their next grouping.  But I add a caveat, we
have until 5pm on Monday due to queer Sabbath laws in California.

Dotcommoners and members of different persuasions I beg of the thusly;

Petition our NC promptly.  Ask for consideration of your denied application for
membership, in any constituency.

Review our Registry membership provisions.

Support and engage in dialogue your other members on this critical subject.

MHSC petition in good order and within time parameters, be the leader we know
you are with Mr. Meyer at the helm.

NewNet petition in good order and within time parameters, focus upon what your
are - a registry - and demand inclusion.  The only alternative is exclusion and
that is unacceptable as the status quo.  Please also petition my BoD
representative Mr. Karl for he is a good man and a trusted servant of right.

We are meeting at a confluence of raging waters, those who fight the consensus
to flow downhill will soon be caught in an eddy where the float scum gathers.

May you silently and privately giggle and reflect on the silliness of bickering.

Sincerely,
Eric

- --
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, 19 Oct 2001 10:54:47 +0200 (MET DST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Fwd: Morals 

>>Oh, yes, let's hunt down all the small 
people who want to make some
money too on INFO.<<
Those small people cheated the small "landrush" people. Most of them paid money for getting a chance to register a domain name. But if those small people you mentioned stole this domain names. So the small "landrush" people paid money for nothing, not even a chance to get a domain name!

>>The whole sunrise was a fake from the start<<
You're right! 
Afilias earns on bogus sunrise registrations and on every single challenge. Cool money making system.

simon
http://nic.info.xs2.net

>>In law this problem is called 'ex post 
facto' I think, but IANAL. I
am sure 
lawyers will be happy to assist both sides 
in the disputes to be
expected.<<
You need no lawyer! Proof that you have a valid TM and the domain is yours.

> Great services i sent some marks to them.
> sanjeev.
> =============
> --- Cees Rindmarsch <[email-masked]> 
> wrote:
> > Reply-to: [email-masked]
> > From: 'Cees Rindmarsch' <rindmarsch@hotmail.
> com>
> > To: [email-masked]
> > CC: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Morals (Re: [ga] Fwd: Noble Cause)
> > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:34:54 +0200
> > 
> > Oh, yes, let's hunt down all the small 
> people who want to make some
> > money 
> > too on INFO. Only the Afilias CARTEL was 
> approved by icann for making
> > big $$ 
> > and scr*wing up things (from non responding 
> servers to delays, data 
> > [nameservers, rather relevant for WORKING 
> domains) not updateble etc
> > etc). 
> > The whole sunrise was a fake from the start 
> (and also a wrong idea in
> > 
> > itself, merely implemented to appease 
> lawyers and organizations that
> > protect 
> > those who need no 'political' protection 
> (read WIPO)).
> > It was known all over the internet that the 
> trademarks were not going
> > to be 
> > checked by Afilias. Only if challenged by 
> THIRD PARTIES (paying a
> > fee) they 
> > would be, by WIPO.
> > Now they seem to have changed their minds 
> and go hunting themselves
> > so they 
> > can save their face and sell the same name 
> again, big business?
> > Good luck to you in assiting them. Maybe 
> they reward you by
> > appointing you 
> > as Afilias office manager in Goa, Calcutta 
> or Jabulpur.
> > 
> > My daughter (8 in two weeks, please God) 
> gave up attempts to chaneg
> > rules 
> > *during* a game about 9 months ago. Afilias 
> is much younger of
> > course.
> > 
> > In law this problem is called 'ex post 
> facto' I think, but IANAL. I
> > am sure 
> > lawyers will be happy to assist both sides 
> in the disputes to be
> > expected.
> > 
> > This message is delibarately sarcastic.
> > 
> > [email-masked]
> > --- Arbitrator Online <info@arbitratoronline.
> org> wrote:
> >        > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:52:28 
> +0530
> >        > From: Arbitrator Online 
> <[email-masked]>
> >        > Reply-to: Arbitrator Online 
> <[email-masked]>
> >        > Organization: Arbitrator Online
> >        > To: [email-masked]
> >        > Subject: Noble Cause
> >        >
> >        > Hello Sanjeev,
> >        >
> >        > We are offering free service to all 
> Sunrise Challengers for
> > any
> >        > Indian Trademark search. We will 
> pay all expenses regarding
> > the
> >        > search performed at TM office in 
> India. It will be a free
> > service 
> > to
> >        > all of you. And you will get email 
> response in Two working
> > days.
> >        >
> >        > This is a small gesture we can show 
> to all those who want to
> >        > challenge the bogus and fraudulent 
> Registrant in .info.
> >        >
> >        > And we also expect the similiar 
> response, If anybody can
> > provide 
> > from
> >        > their country to all of us where 
> the online TM checking is
> > not
> >        > possible.
> >        >
> >        > You can avail this facility at :
> >        >
> >        > http://www.arbitratoronline.org
> >        >
> >        > or email us with your TM to be 
> checked details at:
> >        >
> >        > [email-masked]
> >        >
> >        > Waiting for your response.
> >        >
> >        > Your Friend in India.
> >        >
> >        > Arbitrator Online.
> >        >
> >        >
> >        >                        mailto:
> [email-masked]
> >        >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> __________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > 
> =====
> Visit Us at http://www.mitsuonline.com
> http://www.schoolstationery.com
> _______________________________________________
> ___
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> http://personals.yahoo.com
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.
> org 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, 19 Oct 2001 03:16:04 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding

Hello Erik,

Where did you miss the part about MHSC being a registry? Go back and read
again. This is exactly why we aren't in the DNSO/BC. The MHSC root zone is
on ROOT-SERVICE.NET. The only difference is that MHSC.NET does not run a
publically available registration service on the web. We never have. All VPN
registrations are done  as a part of an MHSC Engagement Agreement and MHSC
never sells a registration unbundled from a development project. The zone
file entries are done manually. No, we don't sell as many names that way.
But, selling names is incidental to our main business and the names would be
useless without the rest of the architecture. But, MHSC is still a registry.
Our AboveNet-based servers show a steady 1.5Mbps throughput, each. The Web
is not the whole Internet. It is only a very small part.

New.Net has reached exactly the same impasse that MHSC reached years ago. I
was actually quite vocal about it at the last MdR meeting. According to the
rules of the DNSO/RC neither MHSC nor New.Net are accredited ICANN
registries. I don't know about New.Net, but MHSC will not sign the ICANN
contracts as written. The DNSO/BC is a different matter, but they're being
their normal pig-headed selves. I might point out that the ORSC,
AtlanticRoot, and PacificRoot are also in this same boat, except that they
choose to not be involved with the ICANN.

Whilst I'm on the topic of the DNSO/RC, if MHSC pays out $50K then MHSC
expects to see guaranteed results. MHSC does not buy lottery tickets. MHSC
would be better served buying me a Porsche Boxter and keeping the change
(not quite enough for a Jag XK8 <sigh>). At least, one can kick the tires
after having spent the money.

- --
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
tel: +1 925 373 3954
cel: +1 925 352 3615
fax: +1 925 373 9781 
http://www.mhsc.com

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 1:10 AM
|> To: Roeland Meyer
|> Cc: 'William X Walsh'; Joanna Lane; [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding
|> 
|> 
|> {on this matter I welcome any and all attacks both personal 
|> and professional,
|> here you may kill the messenger for I truly believe that my 
|> brethren have been
|> wronged and it is personal}
|> 
|> Dear Members,
|> 
|> We have a bigger problem than we took in at first look at 
|> this problem.  Mr.
|> Meyer and MHSC faces the same problem as Mr. Hernand and 
|> NewNet, however they
|> are facing a disease that has metastasized in different 
|> areas of the same body -
|> ICANN.  Due not worry cancer is curable if caught in time and treated
|> aggressively.
|> 
|> MHSC belongs in the BC and has been excluded by legalism and 
|> discriminatory
|> practices.
|> 
|> While NewNet has been excluded by the BC, I do not believe 
|> they belong there.
|> 
|> NewNet has been excluded by the Registry Constituency into 
|> which they truly
|> belong.  They are a registry and belong in that 
|> constituency.  We believe that
|> is where any petition belongs.
|> 
|> Verisign acting alone has developed a rule that excludes any 
|> Registry not
|> approved by ICANN.  In other words they exclude all who are not them.
|> 
|> Mr. Hernand has been reflecting his company policy of 
|> openness and transparency
|> and my new research assistant, Brooks has worked overtime on 
|> this issue.  Thank
|> you both.
|> 
|> Brooks informs me that we have until sunday the 21st to 
|> submit this for an
|> actual (virtual?) vote by the NC at their next grouping.  
|> But I add a caveat, we
|> have until 5pm on Monday due to queer Sabbath laws in California.
|> 
|> Dotcommoners and members of different persuasions I beg of 
|> the thusly;
|> 
|> Petition our NC promptly.  Ask for consideration of your 
|> denied application for
|> membership, in any constituency.
|> 
|> Review our Registry membership provisions.
|> 
|> Support and engage in dialogue your other members on this 
|> critical subject.
|> 
|> MHSC petition in good order and within time parameters, be 
|> the leader we know
|> you are with Mr. Meyer at the helm.
|> 
|> NewNet petition in good order and within time parameters, 
|> focus upon what your
|> are - a registry - and demand inclusion.  The only 
|> alternative is exclusion and
|> that is unacceptable as the status quo.  Please also petition my BoD
|> representative Mr. Karl for he is a good man and a trusted 
|> servant of right.
|> 
|> We are meeting at a confluence of raging waters, those who 
|> fight the consensus
|> to flow downhill will soon be caught in an eddy where the 
|> float scum gathers.
|> 
|> May you silently and privately giggle and reflect on the 
|> silliness of bickering.
|> 
|> Sincerely,
|> Eric
|> 
- --
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, 19 Oct 2001 14:21:42 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Afternic Auctioning register.com expireds

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_00A8_01C158A9.600D82A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"With this in mind, Afternic is launching a test bed. The concept is =
simple: When a registrar's names expire, they become Afternic auctions. =
During the auction, members can claim any names they find valuable. =
Those unclaimed at the end of the auction are returned to the pool of =
available names. The first registrar participating in the test bed will =
be Register.com. We hope to add more registrars in the coming weeks." =
(Taken from the Afternic "Urly Indicator" Friday 10.19.01)

Is it me, or does this appear to be a violation the registrar =
accreditation agreement insofar as unpaid domains should be cancelled:

"3.7.5 Registrar shall register Registered Names to Registered Name =
Holders only for fixed periods. At the conclusion of the registration =
period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to pay a =
renewal fee within the time specified in a second notice or reminder =
shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in =
cancellation of the registration. In the event that ICANN adopts a =
specification or policy concerning procedures for handling expiration of =
registrations, Registrar shall abide by that specification or policy."

By auctioning the domains, aren't Afternic transferring the original =
domain to a new owner and thus the original registrar retains the domain =
registration outside of the period paid for by the original registrant?

Also, what rights do afternic have (and register.com for that matter) in =
auctioning the domain rather than selling at a fixed price (even though =
this too would appear a violation)?  The additional value in the domain =
over and above the registration fee is surely a product of the original =
registrants efforts and not those of afternic/register.com - so what =
happens to this and where has the registrant consented to allow this?

I know afternic and greatdomains have for some time sold at fixed price  =
the neverpaids with a view to recovering the admin costs, but this is =
the *auctioning* of expireds where the domain was indeed paid for and =
the contract period ended.

Regards

Paul Cotton

- ------=_NextPart_000_00A8_01C158A9.600D82A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"With this in mind, Afternic is =
launching a test=20
bed. The concept is simple: When a registrar's names expire, they become =

Afternic auctions. During the auction, members can claim any names they =
find=20
valuable. Those unclaimed at the end of the auction are returned to the =
pool of=20
available names. The first registrar participating in the test bed will =
be=20
Register.com. We hope to add more registrars in the coming weeks." =
(Taken from=20
the Afternic "Urly Indicator" Friday 10.19.01)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Is it me, or does this appear to be a=20
violation&nbsp;the registrar accreditation agreement insofar as unpaid =
domains=20
should be cancelled:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"3.7.5 Registrar shall register =
Registered Names to=20
Registered Name Holders only for fixed periods. At the conclusion of the =

registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name =
Holder to=20
pay a renewal fee within the time specified in a second notice or =
reminder=20
shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in =
cancellation of=20
the registration. In the event that ICANN adopts a specification or =
policy=20
concerning procedures for handling expiration of registrations, =
Registrar shall=20
abide by that specification or policy."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>By auctioning the domains,&nbsp;aren't =
Afternic=20
transferring the original domain to a new owner and thus the original =
registrar=20
retains the domain registration outside of the period paid for by the =
original=20
registrant?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Also, what rights do afternic have (and =

register.com for that matter)&nbsp;in auctioning the domain rather than =
selling=20
at a fixed price (even though this too would appear a violation)?&nbsp; =
The=20
additional value in the domain over and above the registration fee is =
surely a=20
product of the original registrants efforts and not those of=20
afternic/register.com - so what happens to this and where has the =
registrant=20
consented to allow this?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I know afternic and greatdomains have =
for some=20
time&nbsp;sold at fixed price &nbsp;the neverpaids with a view to =
recovering the=20
admin costs, but this is the *auctioning*&nbsp;of expireds where the =
domain was=20
indeed paid for and the contract period ended.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Regards</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Paul Cotton</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_00A8_01C158A9.600D82A0--

- --
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, 19 Oct 2001 10:33:44 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Afternic Auctioning register.com expireds

Of course it's a violation.  Does tha make any difference?  ICANN 
has not enforced any contractual obligations yet, so why would 
you think they would do so now?  Since the only enforcement 
would have to come from ICANN based on its own contracts with 
the registries, it's rather moot, unless ICANN can be forced to 
enforce its own contracts.  DoC could probably do that, but it won't.

Leah

On 19 Oct 2001, at 14:21, Paul Cotton wrote:

> "With this in mind, Afternic is launching a test bed. The concept is
> simple: When a registrar's names expire, they become Afternic
> auctions. During the auction, members can claim any names they find
> valuable. Those unclaimed at the end of the auction are returned to
> the pool of available names. The first registrar participating in the
> test bed will be Register.com. We hope to add more registrars in the
> coming weeks." (Taken from the Afternic "Urly Indicator" Friday
> 10.19.01)
> 
> Is it me, or does this appear to be a violation the registrar
> accreditation agreement insofar as unpaid domains should be cancelled:
> 
> "3.7.5 Registrar shall register Registered Names to Registered Name
> Holders only for fixed periods. At the conclusion of the registration
> period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to pay a
> renewal fee within the time specified in a second notice or reminder
> shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in
> cancellation of the registration. In the event that ICANN adopts a
> specification or policy concerning procedures for handling expiration
> of registrations, Registrar shall abide by that specification or
> policy."
> 
> By auctioning the domains, aren't Afternic transferring the original
> domain to a new owner and thus the original registrar retains the
> domain registration outside of the period paid for by the original
> registrant?
> 
> Also, what rights do afternic have (and register.com for that matter)
> in auctioning the domain rather than selling at a fixed price (even
> though this too would appear a violation)?  The additional value in
> the domain over and above the registration fee is surely a product of
> the original registrants efforts and not those of
> afternic/register.com - so what happens to this and where has the
> registrant consented to allow this?
> 
> I know afternic and greatdomains have for some time sold at fixed
> price  the neverpaids with a view to recovering the admin costs, but
> this is the *auctioning* of expireds where the domain was indeed paid
> for and the contract period ended.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paul Cotton
> 

- --
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, 19 Oct 2001 08:23:10 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding

Thank you Roeland,
Today we specifically review your matter.  You have a great illustration
between
the technical aspects of a registry versus the political. I have come to
realize
they are not always combined.

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Hello Erik,

 (Erik is the Scandinavian spelling, I am black Irish, a mix of Basque
and
 Irish and Italian, do not let the Dierker fool you I am adopted, both
bio
 parents in Arizona illegally)

> Where did you miss the part about MHSC being a registry? Go back and read
> again. This is exactly why we aren't in the DNSO/BC. The MHSC root zone is
> on ROOT-SERVICE.NET. The only difference is that MHSC.NET does not run a
> publically available registration service on the web. We never have. All VPN
> registrations are done  as a part of an MHSC Engagement Agreement and MHSC
> never sells a registration unbundled from a development project. The zone
> file entries are done manually. No, we don't sell as many names that way.
> But, selling names is incidental to our main business and the names would be
> useless without the rest of the architecture. But, MHSC is still a registry.
> Our AboveNet-based servers show a steady 1.5Mbps throughput, each. The Web
> is not the whole Internet. It is only a very small part.

I just don't know what to do with this.  Yes you are a registry.  Did
you know
that in many countries the registry service is mandated to a department
and that
department is tasked with the approval of naming and the coordination
with
foreign bodies, but is not tasked with running the architecture of the
Internet
for that country so the ccTLD lie dormant.  All because; "why would the
politicians know the difference."

>
> New.Net has reached exactly the same impasse that MHSC reached years ago. I
> was actually quite vocal about it at the last MdR meeting. According to the
> rules of the DNSO/RC neither MHSC nor New.Net are accredited ICANN
> registries. I don't know about New.Net, but MHSC will not sign the ICANN
> contracts as written. The DNSO/BC is a different matter, but they're being
> their normal pig-headed selves. I might point out that the ORSC,
> AtlanticRoot, and PacificRoot are also in this same boat, except that they
> choose to not be involved with the ICANN.

It probably will be important to note the ccTLDs also will not sign the
contract.  Let us not regard it as an impasse yet, not that you are
wrong, just
that we are now in a process, let us look at this as a rapid in a long
river not
a dam.  You know I am most distressed with your language that "they
choose not
to".

>
> Whilst I'm on the topic of the DNSO/RC, if MHSC pays out $50K then MHSC
> expects to see guaranteed results. MHSC does not buy lottery tickets. MHSC
> would be better served buying me a Porsche Boxter and keeping the change
> (not quite enough for a Jag XK8 <sigh>). At least, one can kick the tires
> after having spent the money.

If it boils down to this {not the car} then we have more than a major
problem.
Are you suggesting that the recent court injunction regarding illegal
lottery
scams and domain names, carries the same truth to the 50 grand thrown
down for
the right to be a registry.  Wow, on reflection I think you may be
right.

Please help me with the following;

Petition in proper fashion for both of the constituencies.

Be mindful of the timing.

I know you have been through it all before but please provide us with
some
historical links and further thought.

How is it that you are a GA member?  What remedies have you tried to
date?  Will
you attend MDR this year?

Sorry Roeland if it is not a Citroen, it is just another car.

Sincerely,
Eric

>
> --
> R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
> Managing Director
> Morgan Hill Software Company
> tel: +1 925 373 3954
> cel: +1 925 352 3615
> fax: +1 925 373 9781
> http://www.mhsc.com
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 1:10 AM
> |> To: Roeland Meyer
> |> Cc: 'William X Walsh'; Joanna Lane; [email-masked]
> |> Subject: Re: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding
> |>
> |>
> |> {on this matter I welcome any and all attacks both personal
> |> and professional,
> |> here you may kill the messenger for I truly believe that my
> |> brethren have been
> |> wronged and it is personal}
> |>
> |> Dear Members,
> |>
> |> We have a bigger problem than we took in at first look at
> |> this problem.  Mr.
> |> Meyer and MHSC faces the same problem as Mr. Hernand and
> |> NewNet, however they
> |> are facing a disease that has metastasized in different
> |> areas of the same body -
> |> ICANN.  Due not worry cancer is curable if caught in time and treated
> |> aggressively.
> |>
> |> MHSC belongs in the BC and has been excluded by legalism and
> |> discriminatory
> |> practices.
> |>
> |> While NewNet has been excluded by the BC, I do not believe
> |> they belong there.
> |>
> |> NewNet has been excluded by the Registry Constituency into
> |> which they truly
> |> belong.  They are a registry and belong in that
> |> constituency.  We believe that
> |> is where any petition belongs.
> |>
> |> Verisign acting alone has developed a rule that excludes any
> |> Registry not
> |> approved by ICANN.  In other words they exclude all who are not them.
> |>
> |> Mr. Hernand has been reflecting his company policy of
> |> openness and transparency
> |> and my new research assistant, Brooks has worked overtime on
> |> this issue.  Thank
> |> you both.
> |>
> |> Brooks informs me that we have until sunday the 21st to
> |> submit this for an
> |> actual (virtual?) vote by the NC at their next grouping.
> |> But I add a caveat, we
> |> have until 5pm on Monday due to queer Sabbath laws in California.
> |>
> |> Dotcommoners and members of different persuasions I beg of
> |> the thusly;
> |>
> |> Petition our NC promptly.  Ask for consideration of your
> |> denied application for
> |> membership, in any constituency.
> |>
> |> Review our Registry membership provisions.
> |>
> |> Support and engage in dialogue your other members on this
> |> critical subject.
> |>
> |> MHSC petition in good order and within time parameters, be
> |> the leader we know
> |> you are with Mr. Meyer at the helm.
> |>
> |> NewNet petition in good order and within time parameters,
> |> focus upon what your
> |> are - a registry - and demand inclusion.  The only
> |> alternative is exclusion and
> |> that is unacceptable as the status quo.  Please also petition my BoD
> |> representative Mr. Karl for he is a good man and a trusted
> |> servant of right.
> |>
> |> We are meeting at a confluence of raging waters, those who
> |> fight the consensus
> |> to flow downhill will soon be caught in an eddy where the
> |> float scum gathers.
> |>
> |> May you silently and privately giggle and reflect on the
> |> silliness of bickering.
> |>
> |> Sincerely,
> |> Eric
> |>
- --
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, 19 Oct 2001 08:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Afternic Auctioning register.com expireds

Paul,

Registrars have asked ICANN to clarify the meaning of the term 'cancel' in
regards to RRP Commands. Registrars have asked formally in no less than 3
instances.

As yet the ICANN staff have not replied. It is my hope that they will make
a clarification to the registrars soon. I know alot is going on over
there, but we expect a statement from staff regarding this issue.

- -rick

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Paul Cotton wrote:

> "With this in mind, Afternic is launching a test bed. The concept is
> simple: When a registrar's names expire, they become Afternic
> auctions. During the auction, members can claim any names they find
> valuable. Those unclaimed at the end of the auction are returned to
> the pool of available names. The first registrar participating in the
> test bed will be Register.com. We hope to add more registrars in the
> coming weeks." (Taken from the Afternic "Urly Indicator" Friday
> 10.19.01)
>
> Is it me, or does this appear to be a violation the registrar
> accreditation agreement insofar as unpaid domains should be cancelled:
>
> "3.7.5 Registrar shall register Registered Names to Registered Name
> Holders only for fixed periods. At the conclusion of the registration
> period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to pay a
> renewal fee within the time specified in a second notice or reminder
> shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in
> cancellation of the registration. In the event that ICANN adopts a
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dan, specificly what does the highlighted statement above mean in terms of
RRP commands. If it does not mean issueing a 'deleteDomain' what does this
term mean, and why do you interpit as such?

> specification or policy concerning procedures for handling expiration
> of registrations, Registrar shall abide by that specification or
> policy."
>
> By auctioning the domains, aren't Afternic transferring the original
> domain to a new owner and thus the original registrar retains the
> domain registration outside of the period paid for by the original
> registrant?
>
> Also, what rights do afternic have (and register.com for that matter)
> in auctioning the domain rather than selling at a fixed price (even
> though this too would appear a violation)?  The additional value in
> the domain over and above the registration fee is surely a product of
> the original registrants efforts and not those of
> afternic/register.com - so what happens to this and where has the
> registrant consented to allow this?
>
> I know afternic and greatdomains have for some time sold at fixed
> price the neverpaids with a view to recovering the admin costs, but
> this is the *auctioning* of expireds where the domain was indeed paid
> for and the contract period ended.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul Cotton
>

- --
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, 19 Oct 2001 17:25:29 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Afternic Auctioning register.com expireds

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_00F1_01C158C3.0CB2DC80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Eric,

The obvious remedy would be for ICANN to look at formlating a set policy =
on speculation and warehousing by the registrars themselves to quash =
this activity.

Currently, there are registrars that auction a "chase fee" to attempt to =
register domains as they are deleted.  They have customers before they =
attempt to acquire the domains and do not hold the domains in their own =
name looking for a buyer.

The proposed Afternic/register.com scenario means that afternic would be =
gifted the domains to auction by register.com.  This means that the =
auction value is simple speculation on the domains themselves and there =
is no scope for other registrars to sell a new domain registraiton of =
the same character string.

Also, because they would be injected with domains from register.com that =
were originally paid for, they would be, to all intents and purposes, =
warehousing the domains.

If all registrars are equal, then if Verisign were to adopt a similar =
policy using Greatdomains as the auction/sales entity then it would mean =
a reduction in competition and a reduction in registrations made by the =
other registrars that benefit from their share of deleted domain =
registrations.

As a secondary thought, if afternic held these domains for auction, =
couldn't they fall foul of the udrp in regard to intellectual property =
rights too as they would not be offering a registration service and the =
domains would belong to them/register.com during the auction process?

Regards

Paul Cotton
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Eric Dierker=20
  To: Paul Cotton=20
  Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 4:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [ga] Afternic Auctioning register.com expireds

  Dear Mr. Cotton,=20
  Would you please repost and cover the new ground of what you would =
like done and how the GA can help.=20

  I actually have a techie buddy that pulls this stuff up and we all =
gasp and laugh at the absurdity even as names we do not renew go through =
this process.=20

  If you can focus a specific remedy you will get at least some sort of =
consensus here.=20

  As the burden becomes to great may you always have time to rest.=20

  Sincerely,=20
  Eric=20

- ------=_NextPart_000_00F1_01C158C3.0CB2DC80
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi Eric,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The obvious remedy would be for ICANN =
to look at=20
formlating a set policy on speculation and warehousing by the registrars =

themselves to quash this&nbsp;activity.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Currently, there are registrars that =
auction a=20
"chase fee" to attempt to register domains as they are deleted.&nbsp; =
They have=20
customers before they attempt to acquire the domains and do not hold the =
domains=20
in their own name looking for&nbsp;a buyer.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The proposed Afternic/register.com =
scenario means=20
that afternic would be gifted the domains to auction by =
register.com.&nbsp; This=20
means that the auction value is simple speculation on the domains =
themselves and=20
there is no scope for other registrars to sell a new domain registraiton =
of the=20
same character string.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Also, because they would be injected =
with domains=20
from register.com that were&nbsp;originally paid for, they would be, to =
all=20
intents and purposes, warehousing the domains.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If all registrars are equal, then if =
Verisign were=20
to adopt a similar policy using Greatdomains as the auction/sales entity =
then it=20
would mean a reduction in competition and a reduction in registrations =
made by=20
the other registrars that benefit from their share of deleted domain=20
registrations.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As a secondary thought, if afternic =
held these=20
domains for auction, couldn't they fall foul of the udrp in regard to=20
intellectual property rights too as they would not be offering a =
registration=20
service and the domains would belong to them/register.com during the =
auction=20
process?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Regards</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Paul Cotton</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A title=[email-masked] href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">Eric =
Dierker</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=[email-masked] =

  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">Paul Cotton</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 19, 2001 =
4:19=20
  PM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ga] Afternic =
Auctioning=20
  register.com expireds</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>Dear Mr. Cotton,=20
  <P>Would you please repost and cover the new ground of what you would =
like=20
  done and how the GA can help.=20
  <P>I actually have a techie buddy that pulls this stuff up and we all =
gasp and=20
  laugh at the absurdity even as names we do not renew go through this =
process.=20
  <P>If you can focus a specific remedy you will get at least some sort =
of=20
  consensus here.=20
  <P>As the burden becomes to great may you always have time to rest.=20
  <P>Sincerely, <BR>Eric </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_00F1_01C158C3.0CB2DC80--

- --
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 #801
************************