Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #922
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, December 13 2001         Volume 01 : Number 922

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:36:24 +0100 (MET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

see some additional information: http://nic.info.xs2.net 
(if you use name.space, pacificRoot or ORSC, simply type in www.nic.info ;-))

> FYI: WXW - your  WXW...info domain is no good - mail keeps bouncing. 
> You registered your domain with the collider version of .INFO.
> FYI, Name.Space has the only legitimate version of .INFO. You will
> need to register your domain there.
> --
> 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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:40:24 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

I have wondered for a long time, William, how you will feel when "they" 
intentionally harm your ability to do business?  Because it won't stop, it 
hasn't stopped, it has only gained momentum, especially in the USA.  Since 
"they" are not adhering to normal US law, there is no reason for anyone to 
think at some point in the process, their business won't be harmed.

~k

At 02:03 PM 12/12/2001 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
>Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 1:49:42 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > The fragmentation has started. ICANN deliberatly created those colliders,
>
>Come on, end the comedy.
>
>The "fragmentation" as you call it effects less than a fraction of a
>percent of internet users.  The ones who have deliberately created
>this situation are those operating outside the system.
>
>It's an insignificant issue anyway.  I'm not particularly bothered
>that John Palmer has difficulty resolving my domain name  :)
>
>--
>Best regards,
>William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
>--
>Webcertificates.info
>SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea
>
>--
>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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:56:26 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

><snip>
>
>These forums are populated more with folks putsching a politcal agenda than
>trying to solve a problem. As a direct result, we can't even get the problem
>stated correctly.
>--

AGREED.

- --
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 17:08:31 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

Try 7 to 12 percent, last time I checked 7.0% to 12.0% is not a fraction

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 4:03 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

> Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 1:49:42 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > The fragmentation has started. ICANN deliberatly created those
colliders,
>
> Come on, end the comedy.
>
> The "fragmentation" as you call it effects less than a fraction of a
> percent of internet users.  The ones who have deliberately created
> this situation are those operating outside the system.
>
> It's an insignificant issue anyway.  I'm not particularly bothered
> that John Palmer has difficulty resolving my domain name  :)
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
> Webcertificates.info
> SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:20:18 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 3:08:31 PM, John Palmer wrote:

> Try 7 to 12 percent, last time I checked 7.0% to 12.0% is not a fraction

7 to 12% of 1% perhaps.

Your methodology is very flawed.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Webcertificates.info
SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

- --
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:40:08 -0800
From: Peter Forman <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] unsubscribe ga

unsubscribe ga
- --
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:45:20 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?/obscenity

I agree that this is a relevant subject to the GA but it seems like back about
twenty posts ago it just got vicious and lacks any redeeming social quality -
Yes that happens to be part of a definition of obscenity/pornography

If I recall, the spam was pointed out, through a series of communiqu�s the
perp was identified.  One dotcommoner expressed concern and asked for guidance
which he got.  Thank you.

Then it took off sideways.  My review of the thread shows that nasty mean
personal and professional attacks got it off the good road and into the
gutter.

I am now of the opine that we should get the monitors up and running.  I also
can see that if a member has anything important to add they can do it through
a fellow member whether they can themselves post or not.

No I hate censorship, but I would rather see it by monitors than by fear to
speak due to vicious attacks.

It was quite amusing when WXW suggested/implied that people who are real would
not post to me off list that if they did not subject themselves to the current
abuse they had no right to be considered.  Well guess what that is censorship
by fear of exposure to obscenity and that is bad.

Please consider how abuse effects funding and note the unsubscribe just
posted.

Sincerely,
Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

> Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 3:08:31 PM, John Palmer wrote:
>
> > Try 7 to 12 percent, last time I checked 7.0% to 12.0% is not a fraction
>
> 7 to 12% of 1% perhaps.
>
> Your methodology is very flawed.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:48:19 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] EU Organization plans ICANN Study on TLD's and At-Large

All assembly members,

  I just read this from the NCDNHC forum.  FYI
See: http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/data/ray-11.12.01-000/

Is the ITU again raising it's ugly head?

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:50:21 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

John Palmer wrote:
> 
> Try 7 to 12 percent, last time I checked 7.0% to 12.0% is not a fraction

Evidence, please.
- --
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:56:30 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Danny and all assembly members,

  Nice piece of work here Danny!  Well done!

  Indeed Vint has his opinion and others may have theirs that are not
in agreement with Vints.  That is why Vint is working for the stakeholders,
all of them, not just spewing forth his personal opinions, or at least this
is what as a good BoD member Vint should be doing...

[email-masked] wrote:

> In a closed-door session of the Board:
>
> "I don't want a bunch of net.kooks like Karl and Andy spewing their garbage
> and sullying our credibility."  "Agreed.  We can't have Andy on any
> committee, even as an observer, because he might embarrass us with his
> comments about our procedural bullshit."  "But how will we deal with the fact
> that only Karl, Andy and Vint have expressed any interest in participating on
> this committee?"  "Perhaps we can use some procedural bullshit to deny Karl
> and Andy the opportunity to join, then we can stack the committee with those
> that have absolutely no interest in participating".  "Better yet, those of us
> that aren't interested and aren't willing to work can hold a vote that will
> determine that as a group we have decided not to send any interested
> observers to the committee".
>
> "Question… I know that everyone in this room understands Vint's position on
> inter-galactic transfers, but shouldn't he at least state his position during
> an election?"  "Don't be ridiculous, this is only a beauty contest… why
> should those of us that don't care ask any candidate to actually state his
> position?"  "We all know that we don't want Karl and Andy to be on the
> Committee… that's the only thing that matters, so let's just ask the Chair to
> come up with a procedural way to make sure that they aren't included."
> "Sounds good to me.  Do we a second?"  "Seconded."  "The motion is passed.
> Next order of business… dealing with those troublemakers in the GA… if only
> they could start acting like responsible members of the Board…"
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:10:24 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Jeanette and all assembly members,

  I might agree with your comments but isn't your response only
more noise?  I would disagree that either Karl and Andy or Myself
and Eric are guilty of  political nonsense.  But I do agree however
despite your contention, the noise level increases from time to time
to a very high level...

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> On 12 Dec 2001, at 12:52, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> I find it somewhat misleading to compare the role of Karl and Andy with that of Jeff and
> Erik. In fact, the lack of a common understanding of the difference between political
> nonsense and political diversity leads to so much noise on this list.
>
> jeanette
>
> > In a closed-door session of the Board:
> >
> > "I don't want a bunch of net.kooks like Karl and Andy spewing their garbage
> > and sullying our credibility."  "Agreed.  We can't have Andy on any
> > committee, even as an observer, because he might embarrass us with his
> > comments about our procedural bullshit."  "But how will we deal with the fact
> > that only Karl, Andy and Vint have expressed any interest in participating on
> > this committee?"  "Perhaps we can use some procedural bullshit to deny Karl
> > and Andy the opportunity to join, then we can stack the committee with those
> > that have absolutely no interest in participating".  "Better yet, those of us
> > that aren't interested and aren't willing to work can hold a vote that will
> > determine that as a group we have decided not to send any interested
> > observers to the committee".
> >
> > "Question… I know that everyone in this room understands Vint's position on
> > inter-galactic transfers, but shouldn't he at least state his position during
> > an election?"  "Don't be ridiculous, this is only a beauty contest… why
> > should those of us that don't care ask any candidate to actually state his
> > position?"  "We all know that we don't want Karl and Andy to be on the
> > Committee… that's the only thing that matters, so let's just ask the Chair to
> > come up with a procedural way to make sure that they aren't included."
> > "Sounds good to me.  Do we a second?"  "Seconded."  "The motion is passed.
> > Next order of business… dealing with those troublemakers in the GA… if only
> > they could start acting like responsible members of the Board…"
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 17:14:01 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Out and In reach

Well over time I have figured what hurts GA progress and what helps it.

Here are a list of inputs that help if they are responded to properly;

Stupid Questions  - are there really any?
Requests for help  -  It is too bad but this usually is answered
offlist, but response is wonderful.
Attacks on the BoD and Staff  -  ;-(

What get Universally negative responses;

edicts by the Staff,
edicts by the BoD
edicts by a WIPO decision
spamming

Not that helpful because they are viciously responded to negatively by a
few;

Requests from our chair.
Requests from the NC
Requests from the BoD
Apparent violations of voting rules - which is quite interesting since
we are consensus based.

During a four month period I tallied what my humble mind saw as attacks
upon another.

Attacks against participating members seem to be 3 times that of against
outside groups or individuals.

Personal attacks cause more to not participate than any other reason
(fear of public writing aside)

I think it would be safe to say that personal attacks are at the
foundation of our inability to fund.  As Roeland and I have pointed out,
we can overcome the top-down problem and possibly even the efficacy
problem but not the distaste for the meanness.

I once told my son that if basic human courtesy had to be enforced in
any given social situation get the heck out of that situation - unless
you have a higher moral purpose for being there.  Well, do we?

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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:27:59 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Domain Transfers

Tucows has prepared a formal response to the 11/29 VeriSign letter on 
transfers.  This document and others are cited at:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01647.html

Perhaps those seeking to represent the GA on the transfers TF would care to 
comment on this document.
- --
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:12:26 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Out and In reach

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Well over time I have figured what hurts GA progress and what helps it.
>
> Here are a list of inputs that help if they are responded to properly;
>
> Stupid Questions  - are there really any?
> Requests for help  -  It is too bad but this usually is answered
> offlist, but response is wonderful.

  I would like to see more of these on-list.

>
> Attacks on the BoD and Staff  -  ;-(

  I prefer to use the term constructive criticism.  The difference
is at times a matter of perception.

>
>
> What get Universally negative responses;
>
> edicts by the Staff,
> edicts by the BoD
> edicts by a WIPO decision
> spamming
>
> Not that helpful because they are viciously responded to negatively by a
> few;
>
> Requests from our chair.
> Requests from the NC
> Requests from the BoD
> Apparent violations of voting rules - which is quite interesting since
> we are consensus based.

  Consensus must be measured to know it it exists.  The GA is a
general assembly.  It has a set of voting rules.  They may need
correcting or improving.  As a general assembly we VOTE on
issues, and candidates for various positions.

>
>
> During a four month period I tallied what my humble mind saw as attacks
> upon another.
>
> Attacks against participating members seem to be 3 times that of against
> outside groups or individuals.
>
> Personal attacks cause more to not participate than any other reason
> (fear of public writing aside)

  One omission here.  Blocking participation by silly rules is the single
biggest hindrance to participation.

>
>
> I think it would be safe to say that personal attacks are at the
> foundation of our inability to fund.

  I would disagree somewhat here.  The lack of proper openness
to participate is the single biggest hindrance to gain funding.

>  As Roeland and I have pointed out,
> we can overcome the top-down problem and possibly even the efficacy
> problem but not the distaste for the meanness.
>
> I once told my son that if basic human courtesy had to be enforced in
> any given social situation get the heck out of that situation - unless
> you have a higher moral purpose for being there.  Well, do we?

  Yes.  But it may be that some are not willing to take the gaff.
Politics is politics.  Sometimes it gets ugly.

>
>
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 13 Dec 2001 11:35:59 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ad homina

Hi Jefsey,

	You are a very respected person but the statement may not be very popular.

	If you need to "solidarize" yourself to Jeff, you must also do the same for
the others as from what I read, the exchanges/emotions seems to be mutual.
The only stance you made with the statement is to take side.  Why a sudden
shift from your usual "center" stance?  Of course, I am all in-support for
moderated language in our public postings.

best of regards,
- - Joseph LEE (Fook Heng)
========================

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jefsey
Morfin
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 5:23 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ad homina

I must express my real regrets about the situation which currently develops
at the GA. Most of the posts are considering as an accepted matter that
Members may be personnally criticized and investigated. Until now that kind
of situation never happened. Even in the case of Mr. Walsh or Mr. Younger.

I therefore want to indicate my full and total solidarity with Mr. Jeff
Williams and Mr. Eric Dieker. I am not at this stage interested in any of
the particulars. I am only interested in the shame of our disciminatory
attitudes. I will consider that everything said against any of them only
because they are them will be said against me. Any one willing to join is
welcome: I think it is the only way to stop this.

I also want to tell my concern at the international lack of maturity this
represents in the case of Mr. Jeff Williams. I do not want again to enter
in any detail about what is represented against Mr. Williams. It may be
conceived as an offence by some US people due to the US legal culture. But
it his is a perfect right under the Habeas Corpus and his acknowldged right
under most of the free speach and civil rights in most of the countries
including mine. Teasing is something, hurting ad hominem is not acceptable.

I am in no way to juge the reasons of any action of my fellow members, but
I could not let this continue. We are not the BoD.
Jefsey Morfin

- --
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:34:08 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Why no sanctions?

Having read the Advisory Concerning VeriSign Global Registry Services' 
".com/.net Promotion" cited at 
http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-12dec01.htm I have the following 
question:

Why did ICANN choose to issue an Advisory rather than a Finding of Violation 
of Appendix I (Registry Code of Conduct) under the Sanctions program 
(appendix Y)?  

The advisory states:  "VGRS did not provide the required prior notice to 
ICANN of changes in its registry prices that is required by the .com and .net 
Registry Agreements, nor did it give notice and seek approval for the 
additional terms under which registrations are provided through the program."

It goes on to state:  "after consultation with ICANN, VGRS has agreed to 
modify its program to establish a calculation mechanism that incorporates a 
fixed participation fee and a placement fee based on a series of seven 
different performance levels, ranging from a 5% increase to a 120% increase 
over the baseline performance."

Are we now negotiating and arriving at compromises with those that willfully 
violate the rules instead of laying down the law and imposing sanctions?  
Perhaps Staff could comment on why "ICANN believes that this accommodation is 
the best outcome in the current circumstances."  Will this become Standard 
Operating Procedure?  If so, every registry will feel comfortable breaking 
any rules knowing that they then will have the opportunity to negotiate 
should they ever get caught.

- --
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:04:33 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

Danny Here is a comment on it;

[email-masked] wrote:

> Tucows has prepared a formal response to the 11/29 VeriSign letter on
> transfers.  This document and others are cited at:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01647.html
>
> Perhaps those seeking to represent the GA on the transfers TF would care to
> comment on this document.

These are the August comments regarding this matter by Louis Touton.  Herein
lies the problem.

I would like at this time to ask anyone to step forward and speak of any DN
Holder who has been upset with their ISP for switching from on Registrar to
another.  I think we have transferred thousands and the only time we have
received a complaint is when there was a problem coming from a Registrar
bothering the Holder.

I just have a problem envisioning a Holder objecting to the transfer, that
their ISP desires.

(do not mistake a complaint that is caused by the Registrar due to a request
for transfer)

Eric

 http://www.icann.org/correspondence/touton-to-russo-27aug01.htm

From the language of the policy, it seems apparent that:

         1. The responsibility for ensuring that a Registered Name Holder
authorizes the transfer lies with the gaining registrar, not the losing
registrar.

         2. This allocation of responsibility should not prevent the losing
registrar, as an additional measure, from seeking to inform Registered Name
Holders of impending transfers and affording them an opportunity to express
their objection.

         3. The allocation of responsibility does indicate, however, that the
losing registrar may not deny a transfer request that the gaining registrar has
verified merely because the losing registrar has not verified it. Thus, a
losing registrar should not deny a transfer request simply because it has
notified the Registered Name Holder of the request and has not received a
response.

         4. The losing registrar may, however, deny the transfer request where
it has an adequate reason for believing that the Registered Name Holder has not
authorized the transfer. In some instances, the failure of the Registered Name
Holder to respond to a notification may form one element of the reason. Because
the policy allocates the verification responsibility to the gaining registrar,
however, the lack of such a response is not by itself an adequate reason to
deny the transfer. Additional elements of an adequate reason may include
information relating to the Registered Name Holder (such as prior
communications) or the authorization practices followed by the gaining
registrar.

- --
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:37:22 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

Anyone who wants to change their Registrar should have to sign a document 
with detailed about, from and to information and this document should be 
notarized.  Any mail service should be allowable.  When digital signatures 
become mainstream they should part of a secure form solution for those who 
prefer using digital media.

Only the Technical or Administrative Contact should be allowed to instigate 
a change like this.

:)

~k

- --
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:01:46 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Domain Transfers

Oh please, you want to make transfers impossible Kristy?

Registrars employ secure means, and for almost all of them, the
Administrative contact is the only one who is allowed to authorize a
domain transfer from one registrar to another.

Also, stop thinking so US Centric.  The domain industry has to work
for registrants from all over the world, access to affordable notary
service is something that is much rarer outside the industrialized
western countries.  Your plan would make the costs of transferring a
domain name prohibitively expensive to gain a security that is really
far and above what is necessary to provide for secure transfers.

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 9:37:22 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:

> Anyone who wants to change their Registrar should have to sign a document 
> with detailed about, from and to information and this document should be 
> notarized.  Any mail service should be allowable.  When digital signatures 
> become mainstream they should part of a secure form solution for those who 
> prefer using digital media.

> Only the Technical or Administrative Contact should be allowed to instigate 
> a change like this.

> :)

> ~k

> --
> 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

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Webcertificates.info
SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

- --
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, 13 Dec 2001 00:17:41 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Why no sanctions?

Danny and all assembly members,

  Yes I read this as well rather carefully.  I have as of earlier today
passed it on to our legal staff for their review and comments.  We
may be planning a letter of concern with DOC/NTIA per their
review and findings given some of what you stated, and I also
observed if our legal staff finds that their may be some potential
long term problems with these violations.

  My personal view after reading this was much the same as
Danny's below.  I had also come to the temporary conclusion
that one potential reason the the ICANN staff did not take
more severe action is related to MONEY rather than any other
reason that I could deduce or otherwise contemplate.

[email-masked] wrote:

> Having read the Advisory Concerning VeriSign Global Registry Services'
> ".com/.net Promotion" cited at
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-12dec01.htm I have the following
> question:
>
> Why did ICANN choose to issue an Advisory rather than a Finding of Violation
> of Appendix I (Registry Code of Conduct) under the Sanctions program
> (appendix Y)?
>
> The advisory states:  "VGRS did not provide the required prior notice to
> ICANN of changes in its registry prices that is required by the .com and .net
> Registry Agreements, nor did it give notice and seek approval for the
> additional terms under which registrations are provided through the program."
>
> It goes on to state:  "after consultation with ICANN, VGRS has agreed to
> modify its program to establish a calculation mechanism that incorporates a
> fixed participation fee and a placement fee based on a series of seven
> different performance levels, ranging from a 5% increase to a 120% increase
> over the baseline performance."
>
> Are we now negotiating and arriving at compromises with those that willfully
> violate the rules instead of laying down the law and imposing sanctions?
> Perhaps Staff could comment on why "ICANN believes that this accommodation is
> the best outcome in the current circumstances."  Will this become Standard
> Operating Procedure?  If so, every registry will feel comfortable breaking
> any rules knowing that they then will have the opportunity to negotiate
> should they ever get caught.
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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 #922
************************