Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #802
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, October 20 2001          Volume 01 : Number 802

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

Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 13:36:51 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion

I have re-worded Roeland's motion to better reflect what may be an emerging 
GA consensus view.  Your comments are needed.

Whereas the Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts (adopted 
by the ICANN Board March 4, 1999), state that "The ICANN Board should 
periodically review the status of the constituency groups to determine 
whether all DNSO interests are adequately represented"

Whereas members of the General Assembly have repeatedly expressed their 
concern that the DNSO as currently constituted is not sufficiently 
representative

Whereas problems outlined by the DNSO Review have not been remedied 
internally, and efforts undertaken by the Names Council have failed to 
sufficiently address these concerns

It is therefore

RESOLVED that the ICANN Board be advised that:

1.  Members of the General Assembly believe that DNSO dysfunctionality 
requires direct ICANN Board intervention

2.  The General Assembly seeks to establish a representative balance by being 
placed on equal footing with the current DNSO Names Council, creating a 
bicameral DNSO.

3.  The General Assembly seeks initial budgetary/Secretariat support for the 
DNSO/GA to perform its functions. 

4.  The General Assembly will work with ICANN to develop an appropriate 
funding model to support its activities.

5.  The General Assembly seeks representation on the ICANN Board (to be 
filled by a representitive voting the recorded consensus of the DNSO/GA)

6.  The General Assembly seeks to have both an Advocate and a Consensus 
Leader, both elected positions of the DNSO/GA with budgetary control and 
responsibility for all DNSO/GA staff.

- --
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 13:57:55 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Afternic Auctioning register.com expireds

Paul,

This issue was already brought to the attention of the Names Council on Aug. 
31
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00878.html

The Council did not decide to take up this issue at that time and it is not 
currently on their agenda.   Speculation and warehousing policies need to be 
established, and I support your interest in moving toward a resolution of 
these issues.  Accordingly, I will write once more to the NC-Intake committee 
to try to get this topic on their agenda.
- --
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 11:22:17 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding

|> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 8:23 AM

|> Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> > Hello Erik,
|> 
|>  (Erik is the Scandinavian spelling, I am black Irish, a mix 

Sorry, differing cultural backgrounds. The Dansk spelling always comes to
mind for me. I wont make that mistake again.

|> > Where did you miss the part about MHSC being a registry? 
|> > Go back and reada gain. 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."

Yes, and for ccTLDs, I actually agree with that. If you had met with me last
Summer, like we were supposed to, ....  Oh well. The failure was on your end
and you didn't properly convey, to Tommy, the nature of MHSC and what we
wanted to do. It was a test, you failed.

|> > 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".

Actually, MHSC is >that< far from simply not being here. However we may
regard it, the damned dam is still a dam and the rapids take on more of the
characteristics of Niagra Falls. This was seen over two years ago and is the
reason why some have specifically chosen to not be a part of the ICANN. Some
of my business associates wonder why I waste my time here. Sometimes, I do
too. 

|> > 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.  

In a lottery, one buys a chance to win a major prize, via some sort of
selection process. This selection process can vary from random drawings, to
physical contests, to the output of a political committee. Regardless of
selection process, the purchaser is not guaranteed *any* results and in some
cases, the results can be negative (a "black" lottery can cost you your
life, i.e. Russian Roullette). In all cases, the original purchase is
forfeit and the buyer has little/any opportunity to effect the outcome. 

|> Wow, on reflection I think you may be right.

Arguably, by this definition, NYSE or NASDAQ can be considered lotteries.
Legal definitions argue that some element of player-skill, effecting the
outcome, modifies the game from being a pure lottery. By this argument,
billiards and stud poker aren't lotteries. Rather, they are contests of
skill. IMHO, a small but important difference that applies, as well, to NYSE
and NASDAQ. It is also the difference that pervents the US adversarial legal
systems from being a lottery (it certainly isn't always based on "black
letter" law). I'm sure that you've had this philosophical discussion in law
school. It's a first-year or second-year discussion, isn't it? I can't
remember ... too many decades.

|> 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.

I am sorry that I cannot accomodate you. All the required material is on the
IFWP, ORSC, NSI, and ICANN, domain-policy discussion list archives. I simply
don't have the time to dig up the research. Rather, to put that much effort
into a low-probability trajectory.

|> How is it that you are a GA member?  

Because no one cares who is a member of a body that has no voting power, no
political weight, no say, and is designed to corral and defuse the
opposition. Arguably, the DNSO/GA is outside of ICANN. An appropriate
analogy is the servants's entrance. Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of
it.

|> What remedies have you tried to date?

DNSO/BC and DNSO/RC memberships are a matter of black-letter requirements.
Registries and registrars are simply not allowed in the DNSO/BC. Other
activities simply do not modify that clause. The DNSO/RC requires members to
be ICANN accredited or to be bound by ICANN contracts. Alternatively MHSC,
by no stretch, runs a ccTLD and we have recently declined the opportunity to
run one (the business case simply could not be made, therefore funding
wasn't available) and we have deliberately chosen not to bid for US, due to
the poison-pills [multiple] built into US registry requirements. 

|> Will you attend MDR this year?

At this time, I am uncertain. The possibility is very high that I won't be
there. As a sales event, last year was a bust. As a marketing event
(mind-share), it is marginal at best. As a point in a process that in any
way enhances MHSC corporate interests, the ICANN produces none to negative
results. I've had clients ask me why MHSC wastes time on ICANN affairs (the
negative results. There is a reason that DNSO.NET is a separate site and
that there are no links, from either MHSC.NET and MHSC.COM, to DNSO.NET).
Other MHSC shareholders have asked me similar questions, especially after
last year's expenditure. Times are tougher this year and MHSC needs to
expend its resources more on activities that are more deterministic, wrt
revenue generation, and less on non-revenue-effecting activities (ICANN).
Basically, third-quarter sux, fourth-quarter is going to sux harder, and
first-quarter 2002 isn't looking real good. At least, MHSC hasn't followed
Scient, MARCHfirst, Viant, Lavastorm, et al, down the drain.

|> > --
|> > 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 18:05:46 +0200
From: "BC secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Complaint by J. Morfin to the Names Council

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C158C8.AD34B2A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Complaint by J. Morfin to the Names Council
=20
Further to the communication from J. Morfin addressed to the Names =
Council, the Business Constituency and copied widely, we would like to =
let the Council and others know that the issue will be referred to the =
membership of the Business Constituency. We regret taking the time of =
the Council over this.
=20
BC Secretariat

- ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C158C8.AD34B2A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Complaint by J. Morfin to the Names Council</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Further to the communication from J. Morfin addressed to&nbsp;the =
Names=20
Council,&nbsp;the Business Constituency and&nbsp;copied widely, we would =
like to=20
let the Council and others know that the issue will be&nbsp;referred to =
the=20
membership of the Business Constituency. We regret taking the time of =
the=20
Council over this.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>BC Secretariat</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C158C8.AD34B2A0--

- --
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 12:12:29 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion

[email-masked] wrote:
> I have re-worded Roeland's motion to better reflect what may be an emerging
> GA consensus view.  Your comments are needed.

Danny, Roeland's motion circulated, for the first time, yesterday. It's
inconceivable to me that there has been sufficient time and comment to
pronounce it an emerging GA consensus view. For my part, I think we need
great reform in the current DNSO structure to ensure that all persons and
companies have a place within the constituency structure, ensuring that
their voices are heard and their interests served, but I am not convinced
that making the General Assembly an equal chamber is the right answer.

The better solution, in my opinion, is to add constituencies as necessary to
represent the entire range of interests in the DNS and allow the GA to serve
the function for which it was designed: a place for cross-constituency
dialogue and consensus building.

      -- Bret

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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 13:17:14 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion

Hello Bret,

How many times or how long, do we have to continue trying something that is
patently not working. At some time, one has to admit to reality.After two
years of trying to fix this, we have still have the status quo. The
confidence behind an internal repair has long sice eroded and partial
repairs are often worse than no repairs. 

It is time to either fix it or junk it. I kindly refer you to the WG-Review
archives. The general feeling there was that no one knows how to define a
constituency. To a large extant, the requirements for a constituency are
market-driven and the ICANN doesn't even know how to do that, let alone have
the mechanisms in place. Yes at that time, MHSC used that factiod to make
the argument for abolishing constituencies altogether. MHSC still feels that
way, but bows to the political reality that the extant constituencies will
successfully resist organizational death. That same factoid has been also
used to argue against creating more constituencies. Thus, freezing the
current situation in amber ... forever, unless we do something different.
Bicamerality routes around the impasse and eliminates the Single Point Of
Failure (SPOF), that is the Names Council. The Names Council can continue to
exclusively serve its constituent vested interests, as they do now, and the
GA can continue to represent all domain name registrants, from all root
zones, inclusively. I can't see any reason for one group to have any more
"say" than the other.

In US Federal terms, the analogy is that the NC is like the Senate and the
GA is like the House of Representitives. All have a vested interest in DNS
policies, simply by being registrants. Non-registrants are already supposed
to be a part of the AtLarge (ALSO), at ICANN BoD level. Both Hamilton and
Jefferson may prevail equally.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:12 PM
|> To: [ga]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Roeland's Motion
|> 
|> 
|> [email-masked] wrote:
|> > I have re-worded Roeland's motion to better reflect what 
|> may be an emerging
|> > GA consensus view.  Your comments are needed.
|> 
|> Danny, Roeland's motion circulated, for the first time, 
|> yesterday. It's
|> inconceivable to me that there has been sufficient time and 
|> comment to
|> pronounce it an emerging GA consensus view. For my part, I 
|> think we need
|> great reform in the current DNSO structure to ensure that 
|> all persons and
|> companies have a place within the constituency structure, 
|> ensuring that
|> their voices are heard and their interests served, but I am 
|> not convinced
|> that making the General Assembly an equal chamber is the 
|> right answer.
|> 
|> The better solution, in my opinion, is to add constituencies 
|> as necessary to
|> represent the entire range of interests in the DNS and allow 
|> the GA to serve
|> the function for which it was designed: a place for 
|> cross-constituency
|> dialogue and consensus building.
|> 
|>       -- Bret
|> 
|> --
|> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
|> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
|> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
|> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|> 
- --
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 22:56:35 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Complaint by J. Morfin to the Names Council

- --=====================_18455732==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Last but not the least. A peace proposal becomes a complaint.

At 18:05 19/10/01, BC secretariat wrote:
>Complaint by J. Morfin to the Names Council
>
>Further to the communication from J. Morfin addressed to the Names 
>Council, the Business Constituency and copied widely, we would like to let 
>the Council and others know that the issue will be referred to the 
>membership of the Business Constituency. We regret taking the time of the 
>Council over this.
>
>BC Secretariat

BTW Jefsey is an other way to spell my initials which JFC not J. Thx.

- --=====================_18455732==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Last but not the least. A peace proposal becomes a complaint. <br>
<br>
At 18:05 19/10/01, BC secretariat wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><b>Complaint by J. Morfin to the
Names Council</b><br>
&nbsp;<br>
Further to the communication from J. Morfin addressed to the Names
Council, the Business Constituency and copied widely, we would like to
let the Council and others know that the issue will be referred to the
membership of the Business Constituency. We regret taking the time of the
Council over this.<br>
&nbsp;<br>
BC Secretariat</blockquote><br>
BTW Jefsey is an other way to spell my initials which JFC not J.
Thx.<br>
</html>

- --=====================_18455732==_.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, 19 Oct 2001 14:53:56 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Afternic Auctioning register.com expireds

At 10:33 AM -0400 19/10/01, L Gallegos wrote:
>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.

I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression, that ICANN's mandate was to
introduce competition at the registrar level, to ensure customers are
supplied domain names at appropriate fee levels.

This move by register.com is anti-competitive (other registrars cannot
supply names previously supplied by register.com), and certainly jacks up
the price of a domain name for registrants, with no one benefiting except
for RCOM stockholders.

I guess after paying such a ridiculous price for Afternic in the first
place ($10 million in cash and 4,378,289 RCOM shares), it's only right that
they should use it to circumvent the system in order to prop up their stock
price.

From August 13, 2001 REGISTER COM INC (RCOM) Quarterly Report (SEC form 10-Q):

"Our number of paid domain name registrations, including renewals and
transfers, has decreased sequentially each quarter since the first quarter
of 2000. We believe that the high growth rate experienced in the domain
name registration market in late 1999 and 2000 is not an indication of
anticipated future growth rates."

"We also believe that a large number of the names registered in 1999 and
2000 were registered by domain name speculators who register names with the
intention of reselling them rather than putting them to use. As a result,
we expect that a significant percentage of the currently existing domain
name registrations will not be renewed and will be allowed to lapse. Over
time, as the percentage of names held by speculators decreases, we expect
to see an increase in renewal rates across the industry. Taking into
account all of these market dynamics, we anticipate that revenues from
domain name registrations will continue to be the largest component of our
revenues and will increase over time. "

Must be some tricky logic involved in coming up with the "will increase
over time" bit tacked onto the end of that statement, especially when they
also say...

"This decrease was primarily the result of the decrease in paid new domain
name registrations since March 31, 2000 as compared to the increase in paid
new domain name registrations for the periods prior to March 31, 2000, as
well as the decrease in the average registration term since January 2000."

Of course, if you're planning to hold expired domain names hostage...

It appears (to my non-accountant brain) that register.com only managed to
declare a profit due to "deferred revenue" from it's initial 2 year domain
registrations - which it admits were mostly by speculators and have all but
dried-up.

Also:"Cost of Domain Name Registrations. Cost of domain name registrations
increased 55% from $5.3 million for the three months ended June 30, 2000 to
$8.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2001. The dollar amounts
of registry fees paid were lower in the current period. This decrease was
offset by the recognition of a significantly greater amount of prepaid
registry fees during the three months ended June 30, 2001 as compared to
the amounts recognized for the three months ended June 30, 2000"

What register.com fails to tell its stockholders here is that these
"prepaid registry fees" that it shelled out to verisign.com are for domain
names that the registrant no longer wants. Register.com has paid for all
these names in the hope that it will recover the funds by auctioning the
names off via afternic.com

It astounds me that in they admit that the speculation market has dried up,
but seem to be under the misapprehension that although these speculators
are no longer willing to pay register.com $35 to renew these names, they're
going to flock to afternic.com to buy them up at inflated auction prices -
$35 minimum bid - see http://members.afternic.com/reservations for the
current list of names they will allow you to "reserve" (thus forbidding
other registrars the chance to sell the name). Such doozies as
"ebadcreditloans.net", "clicks-and-mortar.net" and "click2etalk.com" can be
yours!

RCOM's quartely report is chock full of bad news: "We anticipate that our
renewal rates will be affected by the high number of speculative
registrations which occurred during the initial growth stage of the domain
name registration industry in 1999 and 2000. In addition, during the third
and fourth quarters of 2000 we offered one-year registrations at no charge
or at significant discounts to our standard registration fees. Given their
nature, we anticipate low renewal rates for these registrations. If we are
unable to increase our number of new registrations, the combination of our
customers deciding not to renew their registrations through us and the
increase we have experienced in the transfers of registrations to other
registrars will have the cumulative effect of decreasing the number of
domain names under our management. This could cause our revenues from
domain name registrations to decrease and would materially adversely affect
our business, financial condition and results of operations."

My guess is that RCOM is going to have a very sick balance sheet very
shortly, once they've run out of "deferred revenue". If I had RCOM stock
(and hadn't sold it already) I know what I'd be doing with it RIGHT NOW.

On the GA side of things, if the GA wants to get involved in complaining
about their anti-competitive practices, is there any conflict-of-interest
that needs to be declared here?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:50:45 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Conflict of Interest?

Andrew Gardner writes:  "On the GA side of things, if the GA wants to get 
involved in complaining about their (register.com's) anti-competitive 
practices, is there any conflict-of-interest that needs to be declared here?"

As most of our members know, I have been employed by register.com during the 
course of the last year.  I can now report that as of this last Monday, I was 
one of the 26 employees terminated by the firm (certain customer service 
functions were transferred to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia).  

The GA Chair has no conflict-of-interest to declare. 
- --
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 16:08:35 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Conflict of Interest?

>As most of our members know, I have been employed by register.com during the
>course of the last year.  I can now report that as of this last Monday, I was
>one of the 26 employees terminated by the firm (certain customer service
>functions were transferred to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia).

My condolences.

>The GA Chair has no conflict-of-interest to declare.

Thank you.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:42:09 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Afternic Auctioning register.com expireds

Thanks Danny,

I won't hold my breath waiting on them actually tackling this issue.

The term "toothless" is commonly used with regards to ICANN over its
enforcement of its accreditation agreement and with good reason.

Regards,

Paul Cotton

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 6:57 PM
Subject: [ga] Re: Afternic Auctioning register.com expireds

Paul,

This issue was already brought to the attention of the Names Council on Aug.
31
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00878.html

The Council did not decide to take up this issue at that time and it is not
currently on their agenda.   Speculation and warehousing policies need to be
established, and I support your interest in moving toward a resolution of
these issues.  Accordingly, I will write once more to the NC-Intake
committee
to try to get this topic on their agenda.
- --
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 16:06:07 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Conflict of Interest?

Actually, there might be, depending on how you feel about register.com and
the lay-off.<g>

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 2:51 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Conflict of Interest?
|> 
|> 
|> Andrew Gardner writes:  "On the GA side of things, if the GA 
|> wants to get 
|> involved in complaining about their (register.com's) 
|> anti-competitive 
|> practices, is there any conflict-of-interest that needs to 
|> be declared here?"
|> 
|> As most of our members know, I have been employed by 
|> register.com during the 
|> course of the last year.  I can now report that as of this 
|> last Monday, I was 
|> one of the 26 employees terminated by the firm (certain 
|> customer service 
|> functions were transferred to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia).  
|> 
|> The GA Chair has no conflict-of-interest to declare. 
|> --
|> 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 17:03:20 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Afternic Auctioning register.com expireds

At 11:42 PM +0100 19/10/01, Paul Cotton wrote:
>Thanks Danny,
>
>I won't hold my breath waiting on them actually tackling this issue.
>
>The term "toothless" is commonly used with regards to ICANN over its
>enforcement of its accreditation agreement and with good reason.

I disagree.

Toothless implies they don't have the power to do anything.

I prefer "spineless" or "bought-off"

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 19:19:59 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Afternic Auctioning register.com expireds

Is there any information that shows Register.com using Afternic to
auction expired domain names within the 40 day hold or grace period
VeriSign allots Registrars and Registrants before a domain name is to be
released by the sponsoring Registrar?  

Is there any information that shows Register.com not allowing its
customers a 40 day grace period upon the domain name registration
expiration date (thus preventing Registrants from recouping their
expired domain names)?  Or, does Register.com use Afternic to auction
domain names immediately upon the domain name registration expiration
date?  

In these cases, within the 40 day hold or grace period VeriSign allots
Registrars and Registrants before a domain name is to be released by the
sponsoring Registrar, there would be no out of pocket expenses incurred
by Register.com using Afternic to auction domain names. 

However, these matters appear to be Registry (VeriSign) contractual
enforcement issues.  Not ICANN contractual issues,....yet.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman  

Andy Gardner wrote:
> 
> At 10:33 AM -0400 19/10/01, L Gallegos wrote:
> >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.
> 
> I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression, that ICANN's mandate was to
> introduce competition at the registrar level, to ensure customers are
> supplied domain names at appropriate fee levels.
> 
> This move by register.com is anti-competitive (other registrars cannot
> supply names previously supplied by register.com), and certainly jacks up
> the price of a domain name for registrants, with no one benefiting except
> for RCOM stockholders.
> 
> I guess after paying such a ridiculous price for Afternic in the first
> place ($10 million in cash and 4,378,289 RCOM shares), it's only right that
> they should use it to circumvent the system in order to prop up their stock
> price.
> 
> >From August 13, 2001 REGISTER COM INC (RCOM) Quarterly Report (SEC form 10-Q):
> 
> "Our number of paid domain name registrations, including renewals and
> transfers, has decreased sequentially each quarter since the first quarter
> of 2000. We believe that the high growth rate experienced in the domain
> name registration market in late 1999 and 2000 is not an indication of
> anticipated future growth rates."
> 
> "We also believe that a large number of the names registered in 1999 and
> 2000 were registered by domain name speculators who register names with the
> intention of reselling them rather than putting them to use. As a result,
> we expect that a significant percentage of the currently existing domain
> name registrations will not be renewed and will be allowed to lapse. Over
> time, as the percentage of names held by speculators decreases, we expect
> to see an increase in renewal rates across the industry. Taking into
> account all of these market dynamics, we anticipate that revenues from
> domain name registrations will continue to be the largest component of our
> revenues and will increase over time. "
> 
> Must be some tricky logic involved in coming up with the "will increase
> over time" bit tacked onto the end of that statement, especially when they
> also say...
> 
> "This decrease was primarily the result of the decrease in paid new domain
> name registrations since March 31, 2000 as compared to the increase in paid
> new domain name registrations for the periods prior to March 31, 2000, as
> well as the decrease in the average registration term since January 2000."
> 
> Of course, if you're planning to hold expired domain names hostage...
> 
> It appears (to my non-accountant brain) that register.com only managed to
> declare a profit due to "deferred revenue" from it's initial 2 year domain
> registrations - which it admits were mostly by speculators and have all but
> dried-up.
> 
> Also:"Cost of Domain Name Registrations. Cost of domain name registrations
> increased 55% from $5.3 million for the three months ended June 30, 2000 to
> $8.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2001. The dollar amounts
> of registry fees paid were lower in the current period. This decrease was
> offset by the recognition of a significantly greater amount of prepaid
> registry fees during the three months ended June 30, 2001 as compared to
> the amounts recognized for the three months ended June 30, 2000"
> 
> What register.com fails to tell its stockholders here is that these
> "prepaid registry fees" that it shelled out to verisign.com are for domain
> names that the registrant no longer wants. Register.com has paid for all
> these names in the hope that it will recover the funds by auctioning the
> names off via afternic.com
> 
> It astounds me that in they admit that the speculation market has dried up,
> but seem to be under the misapprehension that although these speculators
> are no longer willing to pay register.com $35 to renew these names, they're
> going to flock to afternic.com to buy them up at inflated auction prices -
> $35 minimum bid - see http://members.afternic.com/reservations for the
> current list of names they will allow you to "reserve" (thus forbidding
> other registrars the chance to sell the name). Such doozies as
> "ebadcreditloans.net", "clicks-and-mortar.net" and "click2etalk.com" can be
> yours!
> 
> RCOM's quartely report is chock full of bad news: "We anticipate that our
> renewal rates will be affected by the high number of speculative
> registrations which occurred during the initial growth stage of the domain
> name registration industry in 1999 and 2000. In addition, during the third
> and fourth quarters of 2000 we offered one-year registrations at no charge
> or at significant discounts to our standard registration fees. Given their
> nature, we anticipate low renewal rates for these registrations. If we are
> unable to increase our number of new registrations, the combination of our
> customers deciding not to renew their registrations through us and the
> increase we have experienced in the transfers of registrations to other
> registrars will have the cumulative effect of decreasing the number of
> domain names under our management. This could cause our revenues from
> domain name registrations to decrease and would materially adversely affect
> our business, financial condition and results of operations."
> 
> My guess is that RCOM is going to have a very sick balance sheet very
> shortly, once they've run out of "deferred revenue". If I had RCOM stock
> (and hadn't sold it already) I know what I'd be doing with it RIGHT NOW.
> 
> On the GA side of things, if the GA wants to get involved in complaining
> about their anti-competitive practices, is there any conflict-of-interest
> that needs to be declared here?
> 
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
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 #802
************************