Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #924
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, December 13 2001         Volume 01 : Number 924

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

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:41:57 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ad homina

Dear Joseph and those who wrote me personally;

On 04:35 13/12/01, Joseph said:
>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.

True, I take side ... the side of the human rights and of the GA self-respect.

There is a huge difference between opposition someone for what he says and 
for what he is.

Opposing for what he says is your right and sometimes your duty. And this 
is what a mailing list and consensus uncovering and decision processes are 
about.

Opposing for what he is is only acceptable in two cases:
- - conflicts of interest vs the group' charter
- - a unversal reprobation as for nazi

Otherwise this is appartheid. In that case, I am sorry I will be on the 
"wrong" side.

I obviously fully accept that Mr. Williams or Mr. Diecker are defeated in a 
vote. But not that one discuss to change the rules or to be a candidate or 
not because Mr. Williams and/or Mr. Diecker are candidates.

In fact I suppose those who are so vocal here only fear that Mr. Williams 
and Mr. Diecker might be elected and try to avoid a vote they might lose.

When you are a candidate you certainly can be investigated and questionned 
in regards to your conflicts of interes, of your positions, etc... Not 
about your privacy and the use of your legitimate rights.

Jefsey

>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

- --
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 10:50:43 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

On 2001-12-13 00:17:16 -0600, Kristy McKee wrote:

>>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.

>Well, personally, I agree that the Administrative Contact only 
>should have authorization for such a move.

Of course, there's also still the Registrant who should ultimately 
be in charge of the domain, shouldn't he? ,-)

Saying that only the Administrative Contact should be able to 
authorize a change of registrars means that you are focusing on 
implementation details a bit too much.  If I send a written document 
to a local registrar notarized in some way, asking him to transfer 
my domain name to him, possibly add proof of my identity, and, BTW, 
please fix the bad contact information after the transfer has 
happened, that should really be sufficient...

Actually, there are several questions around which all this debate 
is circling around (leaving business interests of typically loosing 
registrars aside):

 - Who should have the authority and ability to authorize a transfer 
   from one registrar to another?  (In terms of real-life entities, 
   and law.)

   The registrars constituency's proposal talks about "apparent 
   authority to legally bind the registered name holder". Christine 
   Russo of Verisign Registry complained on the transfer TF that this 
   is not clear enough, and must be further defined.  Ross Wm. Rader 
   refers to standard (Common Law!) legal theory about this.

 - How can the registrars involved (and, possibly, the registry) 
   learn about this authority?

 - Should the loosing registrar verify transfers, and how?

Let's try to go through these questions: Of course, the registrant 
himself should have the authority to authorize a transfer.  He 
should also be able to explicitly pass this authority to anyone he 
desires, without this individual having to be listed as a contact.

Now, of course, different legal systems know different ways of 
giving authority to a third party, and will consequently produce 
different kinds of proof, in different languages (think "obscure 
Chinese dialect") - in particular when the gaining registrar is a 
local one who speaks the registrant's language and resides in the 
same legal system.

As William pointed out already, we'll hardly expect registrants to 
pay translators and run to consulates for approval.  Also, we don't 
expect registrars or registries to have translation capabilities for 
all languages possibly spoken by registrants.  This means that the 
gaining registrar is the best we have to verify documents of 
authority - because, in quite a few non-US cases, he may be the only 
one to understand these documents.

For this kind of reason alone, it's a very good idea to let the 
gaining registrar verify the registrant's intent (which is what 
Exhibit B, and the registrars' proposal says).  It may even be a 
good thing to use some idea of apparent (and explicit) authority 
which is present in the gaining registrar's or registrant's legal 
system.

(Some of this was discussed on the registrars list in the past, and 
one problem with this approach is that verification of 
authentication becomes hard for loosing registrars and registries. 
Also this approach could possibly create liability and 
indemnification problems. But still, this may be something worth 
looking into more closely on the task force.)

For the reasons given above, it's also a bad idea to let the loosing 
registrar verify transfers with a NACK default (which seems to be 
what currently happens with Verisign): The actual registrant (or his 
Admin-C) may not understand English.  (He may also not understand 
the kind of advertinese used by certain registrars in most of their 
communications.  Or he may just be away from his mail, or the e-mail 
address listed in the whois database may be 
<[email-masked]>.  But that's yet another issue, which 
can be summarized like this: The gaining registrar will generally be 
closer to the registrant, and will have more up-to-date information 
than the loosing registrar.)

Now, what if the gaining registrar is acting under the jurisdiction 
of some warlord somewhere, and the warlord himself wants to hijack a 
domain?

First, the actual registrant should be able to NACK a transfer to 
the loosing registrar if he wishes so.

Second, the actual registrant could start a transfer back to the 
originally loosing registrar, who would now turn into the gaining 
one.  But, ok, that's cumbersome.

Third, why not make auto-NACK or auto-ACK on the loosing registrar's 
end configurable for registrants, with the default for old domains 
being auto-ACK (which is what ICANN policy says), and the default 
for new domains being set when they are initially registered?

The security level for a registrant-caused change of policy should 
match the one used for a change of, say, the Admin-C. The 
introduction of this feature could be announced via e-mail.  As a 
side effect, all domains managed by <[email-masked]> 
would have auto-ACK (which is probably the best thing in this case), 
while registrants with valid e-mail addresses could quite easily get 
the kind of protection Verisign so eagerly wants to force upon them.

Of course, all this is just my personal take of the problem, and I 
may quite easily have made some mistakes, or missed important 
points.  If so, corrections are welcome. ;-)

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
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 11:07:59 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

On 2001-12-13 16:13:02 -0500, John Berryhill wrote:

>No, it isn't.  Not by a long shot.  The main obstacle to obtaining 
>a decent solution is the fact that the ICANN process puts policy 
>making power into the hands of people who do not face the 
>technical realities on a daily basis, and generally have no idea 
>of what is really going on out there in the real world.

It's a pity you don't seem to be interested to participate in the 
TF.

>There is a flip side to NSI's alleged "stickiness" in not letting 
>domain names go, and that is the real problem of hi-jacking 
>(forget "slamming" for the moment).  Asking Company B to verify 
>that I am the authorized customer of Company A is an idea so 
>dopey, that it could only have come from an ICANN "consensus" 
>process.

The problem begins at Company A - which doesn't have reliable 
information on the customer, either.  All they _actually_ know is 
that someone pays for the domain. This someone could, however, be 
quite different from the actual customer (occasionally, he is indeed 
different from that customer - think hotmail.com).

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
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 11:33:36 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ad homina

On 2001-12-13 10:41:57 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>I obviously fully accept that Mr. Williams or Mr. Diecker are 
>defeated in a vote. But not that one discuss to change the rules 
>or to be a candidate or not because Mr. Williams and/or Mr. 
>Diecker are candidates.

Check your facts.

<broken record>

All I'm asking for is that this be a vote in which it is at least 
_possible_ that Jeff Williams and Eric Dierker are both defeated. 
This would not have been possible according to the rules originally 
proposed by Danny (and it's not compatible with his idea that - if 
at all possible - everyone who's interested in the matter should 
serve on the task force as a GA rep).  It would, however, be 
possible according to the rules proposed by Jon Weinberg yesterday.

In particular, I'm NOT trying to change the rules - just the 
opposite: I'm insisting that this vote be performed according to 
those rules which had to be expected when the original call for 
candidatures was published.  This call mentioned a SINGLE 
representative.  It did NOT ask for candidatures for observers.

I'm also NOT saying that I don't want to be a candidate just because 
Jeff and Eric are candidates, too: I'm saying that I expect that I 
won't be able to represent the GA on the task force in a meaningful 
way together with either of them.  Thus, I won't spend my time on 
the futile effort to try it.

As a corollary, I am not going to serve on the task force based on a 
vote where it's GUARANTEED that at least one of the two will be sent 
to the task force.

</broken record>

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
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 17:46:03 -0500
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Domain Transfers

> It's a pity you don't seem to be interested to participate in the
> TF.

I find it much more preferable for my input to be ignored on a public list
than on a private one.

- --
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 18:07:55 -0500
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Domain Transfers

>
> The problem begins at Company A - which doesn't have reliable
> information on the customer, either.

Incorrect, except for an extremely small number of cases.

>think hotmail.com

Think VISA.

Just how do you think Company A's customer paid for that domain name?  I
don't care whether the customer has a hotmail email address, a Nevada
corporation, a geocities website and a Swiss bank account.  Company A is the
only clown at the circus who knows who bought the popcorn.

And it is worth mentioning that the first step to the current hi-jacking
scenario is to use a stolen credit card number to pull off the initial
registrar transfer.  The object of the game is to delete the domain name
registration before anyone can catch up with the unauthorized charge.

Very simple fix.  Do not allow a deletion or another registrar transfer
(yes, I've seen it done in more than one hop) within a sufficient reasonable
time after an initial registrar transfer for the crows to come home to
roost.

But this particular exercise in "consensus building" has nothing to do with
protecting domain name registrars, and much more to do with prying the cold
dead fingers of NSI off of domain name transfers.  The end result is going
to be easier transfers and more hi-jackings.  The agendas of the parties
practically determine that result, so there is no need to get worked up
about it.

- --
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 12:57:07 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

On 2001-12-13 18:07:55 -0500, John Berryhill wrote:

>>think hotmail.com

>Think VISA.

>Just how do you think Company A's customer paid for that domain 
>name?

Find some friend with a credit card, and arrange for the payment 
that way, for instance?  While credit cards may be entirely 
ubiquituous in the US, they are not in other parts of the world.

(Which is another reason to choose a local registrar who can be paid
through the domestic banking system.)

>I don't care whether the customer has a hotmail email address, a 
>Nevada corporation, a geocities website and a Swiss bank account. 
>Company A is the only clown at the circus who knows who bought the 
>popcorn.

Company A is the only one who may know who _paid_ for the domain.

>Very simple fix.  Do not allow a deletion or another registrar 
>transfer (yes, I've seen it done in more than one hop) within a 
>sufficient reasonable time after an initial registrar transfer for 
>the crows to come home to roost.

Note taken.

>But this particular exercise in "consensus building" has nothing 
>to do with protecting domain name registrars, and much more to do 
>with prying the cold dead fingers of NSI off of domain name 
>transfers.  The end result is going to be easier transfers and 
>more hi-jackings.  The agendas of the parties practically 
>determine that result, so there is no need to get worked up about 
>it.

Maybe you're right and this TF is an entire waste of time for anyone 
but registrar and registry representatives. But wouldn't it still be 
worth trying to get something reasonable out of it?

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
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 08:22:49 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
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.

Which doesn't help those in parts of the world where notaries aren't common,
are overly expensive or aren't used at all. It also really complicates
things where the Admin or Tech contact have left the company leaving the
Registrant (the business) without their name...

- -rwr

- --
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 08:28:33 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Why no sanctions?

Danny,

Not only was there any willful violation, it is my opinion that there was no
violation at all.  That is where ICANN and VeriSign disagree.  Therefore,
rather than prolonging a dispute that would have negatively impacted our
customers, we worked with ICANN to modify the promotion in a way that we
believe is in the best interests of all parties involved. 

Chuck  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 10:34 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [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
> 
- --
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 22:36:12 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ad homina

Hi Jeffsey and all,

	I would like to retract my last post on this subject.  I have confused
Jefsey's statement with another issue and have posted in haste. My
appologies to all involved. Please accept my appologies.

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

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jefsey
Morfin
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 5:42 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] ad homina

Dear Joseph and those who wrote me personally;

On 04:35 13/12/01, Joseph said:
>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.

True, I take side ... the side of the human rights and of the GA
self-respect.

There is a huge difference between opposition someone for what he says and
for what he is.

Opposing for what he says is your right and sometimes your duty. And this
is what a mailing list and consensus uncovering and decision processes are
about.

Opposing for what he is is only acceptable in two cases:
- - conflicts of interest vs the group' charter
- - a unversal reprobation as for nazi

Otherwise this is appartheid. In that case, I am sorry I will be on the
"wrong" side.

I obviously fully accept that Mr. Williams or Mr. Diecker are defeated in a
vote. But not that one discuss to change the rules or to be a candidate or
not because Mr. Williams and/or Mr. Diecker are candidates.

In fact I suppose those who are so vocal here only fear that Mr. Williams
and Mr. Diecker might be elected and try to avoid a vote they might lose.

When you are a candidate you certainly can be investigated and questionned
in regards to your conflicts of interes, of your positions, etc... Not
about your privacy and the use of your legitimate rights.

Jefsey

>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

- --
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: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 06:42:30 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

Going from the problems from the registrars tug of war to the problems outlined
here and then down to the end user problems, it appears fairly obvious we have
at least three distinct layers in which to establish balanced protocol.  (if one
weren't so gun-shy from the efficacy, or lack thereof, of the UDRP, one may look
there for procedural answers or perhaps at least we can learn from it)

We also have what appear to be R2C, R2B2C, R2B, B2B and strictly B2C
complications.
R = Registrar
B = ISP or an equivalent middle man, or self providers.
C = registrant when it is the ultimate Consumer
2 = to  (as are used in B2B)

Priorities certainly lie in some order of Fairness, minimizing confusion and
thereby maximizing efficiency, and cost effectiveness.  Stability and Security
go without saying.

I think a lot of this we just have to give up to courts.  A B2C fraud or
bankruptcy is probably beyond our scope for example.

It would appear that we have formed an informal working group here, if we just
organized it better it would mean that we could lesson the importance of the
personality that went to the task force.

Sincerely,
Eric

"Ross Wm. Rader" 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.
>
> Which doesn't help those in parts of the world where notaries aren't common,
> are overly expensive or aren't used at all. It also really complicates
> things where the Admin or Tech contact have left the company leaving the
> Registrant (the business) without their name...
>
> -rwr

- --
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 07:04:32 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Why no sanctions?/Compromise

Chuck,

I know this is supposed to be a consensus based group but a word of caution.

Even suggesting compromise around a group of people that have at their center of
training/education in
engineering is like the N word in the OJ trial.  The last time I saw anything
close around here was when
Roberto engineered the list rules compromise, and that left half of the group
leaving for good.

You can attack anyone personally but suggest compromise and you are dead meat.
And I would not have it any other way, I don't want these folks building
compromised systems ;-}

By the way it looks to me that Verisgn should have thrown in a couple of
"sanction" bucks as a compromise to public opinion, you guys need some work in
that area. Watch how Gates does it and all it does is help him.

Eric

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> Danny,
>
> Not only was there any willful violation, it is my opinion that there was no
> violation at all.  That is where ICANN and VeriSign disagree.  Therefore,
> rather than prolonging a dispute that would have negatively impacted our
> customers, we worked with ICANN to modify the promotion in a way that we
> believe is in the best interests of all parties involved.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 10:34 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [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
> >
> --
> 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: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:29:02 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Domain Transfers

Thursday, Thursday, December 13, 2001, 1:35:16 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

|>> You are no safer at NSI Registrar, in fact the argument can easily be
|>> made that you are in the most danger at NSI Registrar, who have had
|>> the largest incidences of domain hijackings, even to this day.
|>> Further, you are no safer with them as a result of Verisign 
|>> owning the
|>> NSI Registrar and the Registry, since the NSI Registrar uses 
|>> the EXACT
|>> same interface as all other registrars, with no inside advantage.
|>> There is no inherent benefit at all, except in your imagination.

> That is where you are wrong. As has been documented in this very forum,
> changing registrars is fraught with risk. Risk that MHSC is not prepared to
> add onto the risks that we are already taking. I pay a whole lot more than
> $35US for Liability, Errors, and Omissions coverage. We've had our primary
> domain since 1995, it isn't going anywhere (although, Adam keeps asking to
> buy it). An error in transfer will take MHSC down for the duration of that
> error. This time period is typically measured in weeks. That costs
> significantly more than $35US. The status quo is stable and I'd like to keep
> it that way.

That is blatantly false.  There is no risk at all in the Registrar
Transfer process.  Please back this up with some hard facts.

There are no errors that can occur in the transfer process that will
cause your domain to not work.

To call NSI stable is rather a joke, btw.

- -- 
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 19:35:34 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Sandy Harris wrote:

>
>Second, the people playing silly games on this list are the ones trying
>to change the election procedures in mid-stream and introduce the notion
>that runners up become observers, not the ones trying to just have a
>normal election of a representative.

I agree with Sandy here, the election should proceed according to the rules 
stated (i.e. one representative).
Two additional comments.

1. I appreciate the effort of Danny to get more GA people onboard, and the 
consideration that participation should be open anyhow, but I would like to 
stress that participation means "individual participation", not 
participation as representative of a group.
In other words, nobody would object on any GA member to participate in an 
open WG, but objection to participation of individuals "as representatives 
of the GA" following elections whose rules have been changed while ongoing, 
is in order. In other words, I disagree that the end justifies the means: we 
should apply our own procedures.

2. We have the election rules, we have an election process going on, let's 
go. If the watchdog committee (that is providing a safety net exactly 
against abuses in the election process) believes that the ballots are 
irregular, they will act according to their mandate.

In the meantime, we are only losing time. I am for going on, immediately, 
according to the initially established rules, i.e. one GA representative. 
Let it be either Thomas, or Eric, or Jeff. A second one will not be 
according to the rules, and until the new rules are not voted in, should not 
be done.

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

- --
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 19:57:14 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] MP3 recording of NC Teleconf Dec. 13 now available

[To: [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

The Mp3 recording of the Names Council Teleconference, today, 
December 13, 2001 is now available at:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20011213.NCteleconf.mp3 

DNSO Secretariat

- --
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 #924
************************