Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #925
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, December 14 2001          Volume 01 : Number 925

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

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:18:03 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

[I ask other GA members to endorse this appeal to the Chair
by co-signing this message.]

============================================================

Dear GA Chair,

the NC Transfer Task Force, from which you have resigned,
will start their work with a conference call next week.

During the nomination phase of the election, the GA expected
to send one representative. Three candidates have come forward
to become this (single) representative. Now, there is the
possibility that two or three representatives (one voting,
one or two non-voting) can be sent. The election cannot be
changed midway without distorting the GA voters' choice:
It would lead to an automatic election of candidates.
The GA voters should therefore have the right to choose
whether to send any of the candidates to the Task Force.

Since elections during the upcoming holidays would be
very inconvenient and the Task Force work is about to begin,
we ask you to quickly start elections for a GA representative
on the Task Force, following the approach suggested by
Jonathan Weinberg
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03615.html):

  On the ballot, allow GA members to vote YES/NO on each of the
  three candidates.  The rule would be that the candidate with the
  most YES votes is the representative, and the next highest
  vote-getter is the observer, except that a candidate will not be
  deemed elected to *any* position unless he receives YES votes
  on more than half the ballots submitted.  That gives the GA
  the option to elect two people if it chooses, but it also gives a
  majority of the GA the ability to say that it doesn't want
  particular people representing it on the TF (as either
  "representative" or "observer").

Please make sure that the GA is represented on the Task
Force, and please act quickly, so that the Secretariat
can set up the election in time before the holidays!

Regards,
/// Alexander

============================================================
- --
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 14:31:26 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

I endorse this letter.

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
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 14:56:07 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

I endorse this letter.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
Professor of Law, Wayne State University
co-chair, WG-C
[email-masked]

At 08:18 PM 12/13/2001 +0100, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>[I ask other GA members to endorse this appeal to the Chair
>by co-signing this message.]
>
>============================================================
>
>Dear GA Chair,
>
>the NC Transfer Task Force, from which you have resigned,
>will start their work with a conference call next week.
>
>During the nomination phase of the election, the GA expected
>to send one representative. Three candidates have come forward
>to become this (single) representative. Now, there is the
>possibility that two or three representatives (one voting,
>one or two non-voting) can be sent. The election cannot be
>changed midway without distorting the GA voters' choice:
>It would lead to an automatic election of candidates.
>The GA voters should therefore have the right to choose
>whether to send any of the candidates to the Task Force.
>
>Since elections during the upcoming holidays would be
>very inconvenient and the Task Force work is about to begin,
>we ask you to quickly start elections for a GA representative
>on the Task Force, following the approach suggested by
>Jonathan Weinberg
>(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03615.html):
>
>   On the ballot, allow GA members to vote YES/NO on each of the
>   three candidates.  The rule would be that the candidate with the
>   most YES votes is the representative, and the next highest
>   vote-getter is the observer, except that a candidate will not be
>   deemed elected to *any* position unless he receives YES votes
>   on more than half the ballots submitted.  That gives the GA
>   the option to elect two people if it chooses, but it also gives a
>   majority of the GA the ability to say that it doesn't want
>   particular people representing it on the TF (as either
>   "representative" or "observer").
>
>Please make sure that the GA is represented on the Task
>Force, and please act quickly, so that the Secretariat
>can set up the election in time before the holidays!
>
>Regards,
>/// Alexander
>
>============================================================
>--
>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 20:14:12 GMT
From: David Farrar <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

Michael Froomkin wrote:
> I endorse this letter.
I also endorse the letter

DPF

- --
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, 14 Dec 2001 09:31:36 +1300
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

Add my name as a signatory.

Steven Heath

> Dear GA Chair,
> 
> the NC Transfer Task Force, from which you have resigned,
> will start their work with a conference call next week.
> 
> During the nomination phase of the election, the GA expected
> to send one representative. Three candidates have come forward
> to become this (single) representative. Now, there is the
> possibility that two or three representatives (one voting,
> one or two non-voting) can be sent. The election cannot be
> changed midway without distorting the GA voters' choice:
> It would lead to an automatic election of candidates.
> The GA voters should therefore have the right to choose
> whether to send any of the candidates to the Task Force.
> 
> Since elections during the upcoming holidays would be
> very inconvenient and the Task Force work is about to begin,
> we ask you to quickly start elections for a GA representative
> on the Task Force, following the approach suggested by
> Jonathan Weinberg
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03615.html):
> 
>   On the ballot, allow GA members to vote YES/NO on each of the
>   three candidates.  The rule would be that the candidate with the
>   most YES votes is the representative, and the next highest
>   vote-getter is the observer, except that a candidate will not be
>   deemed elected to *any* position unless he receives YES votes
>   on more than half the ballots submitted.  That gives the GA
>   the option to elect two people if it chooses, but it also gives a
>   majority of the GA the ability to say that it doesn't want
>   particular people representing it on the TF (as either
>   "representative" or "observer").
> 
> Please make sure that the GA is represented on the Task
> Force, and please act quickly, so that the Secretariat
> can set up the election in time before the holidays!
- --
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 12:32:52 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

I endorse this.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Alexander Svensson [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 11:18 AM
|> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> [I ask other GA members to endorse this appeal to the Chair
|> by co-signing this message.]
|> 
|> ============================================================
|> 
|> Dear GA Chair,
|> 
|> the NC Transfer Task Force, from which you have resigned,
|> will start their work with a conference call next week.
|> 
|> During the nomination phase of the election, the GA expected
|> to send one representative. Three candidates have come forward
|> to become this (single) representative. Now, there is the
|> possibility that two or three representatives (one voting,
|> one or two non-voting) can be sent. The election cannot be
|> changed midway without distorting the GA voters' choice:
|> It would lead to an automatic election of candidates.
|> The GA voters should therefore have the right to choose
|> whether to send any of the candidates to the Task Force.
|> 
|> Since elections during the upcoming holidays would be
|> very inconvenient and the Task Force work is about to begin,
|> we ask you to quickly start elections for a GA representative
|> on the Task Force, following the approach suggested by
|> Jonathan Weinberg
|> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03615.html):
|> 
|>   On the ballot, allow GA members to vote YES/NO on each of the
|>   three candidates.  The rule would be that the candidate with the
|>   most YES votes is the representative, and the next highest
|>   vote-getter is the observer, except that a candidate will not be
|>   deemed elected to *any* position unless he receives YES votes
|>   on more than half the ballots submitted.  That gives the GA
|>   the option to elect two people if it chooses, but it also gives a
|>   majority of the GA the ability to say that it doesn't want
|>   particular people representing it on the TF (as either
|>   "representative" or "observer").
|> 
|> Please make sure that the GA is represented on the Task
|> Force, and please act quickly, so that the Secretariat
|> can set up the election in time before the holidays!
|> 
|> Regards,
|> /// Alexander
|> 
|> ============================================================
|> --
|> 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, 14 Dec 2001 07:53:36 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

I endorse and agree to co-sign this letter.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of Alexander Svensson
|> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 6:18 AM
|> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> [I ask other GA members to endorse this appeal to the Chair
|> by co-signing this message.]
|> 
|> ============================================================
|> 
|> Dear GA Chair,
|> 
|> the NC Transfer Task Force, from which you have resigned,
|> will start their work with a conference call next week.
|> 
|> During the nomination phase of the election, the GA expected
|> to send one representative. Three candidates have come forward
|> to become this (single) representative. Now, there is the
|> possibility that two or three representatives (one voting,
|> one or two non-voting) can be sent. The election cannot be
|> changed midway without distorting the GA voters' choice:
|> It would lead to an automatic election of candidates.
|> The GA voters should therefore have the right to choose
|> whether to send any of the candidates to the Task Force.
|> 
|> Since elections during the upcoming holidays would be
|> very inconvenient and the Task Force work is about to begin,
|> we ask you to quickly start elections for a GA representative
|> on the Task Force, following the approach suggested by
|> Jonathan Weinberg
|> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03615.html):
|> 
|>   On the ballot, allow GA members to vote YES/NO on each of the
|>   three candidates.  The rule would be that the candidate with the
|>   most YES votes is the representative, and the next highest
|>   vote-getter is the observer, except that a candidate will not be
|>   deemed elected to *any* position unless he receives YES votes
|>   on more than half the ballots submitted.  That gives the GA
|>   the option to elect two people if it chooses, but it also gives a
|>   majority of the GA the ability to say that it doesn't want
|>   particular people representing it on the TF (as either
|>   "representative" or "observer").
|> 
|> Please make sure that the GA is represented on the Task
|> Force, and please act quickly, so that the Secretariat
|> can set up the election in time before the holidays!
|> 
|> Regards,
|> /// Alexander
|> 
|> ============================================================
|> --
|> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
|> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
|> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
|> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|> 
|> 

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:19:45 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

I endorse this letter.

~k

At 08:18 PM 12/13/2001 +0100, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>[I ask other GA members to endorse this appeal to the Chair
>by co-signing this message.]
>
>============================================================
>
>Dear GA Chair,
>
>the NC Transfer Task Force, from which you have resigned,
>will start their work with a conference call next week.
>
>During the nomination phase of the election, the GA expected
>to send one representative. Three candidates have come forward
>to become this (single) representative. Now, there is the
>possibility that two or three representatives (one voting,
>one or two non-voting) can be sent. The election cannot be
>changed midway without distorting the GA voters' choice:
>It would lead to an automatic election of candidates.
>The GA voters should therefore have the right to choose
>whether to send any of the candidates to the Task Force.
>
>Since elections during the upcoming holidays would be
>very inconvenient and the Task Force work is about to begin,
>we ask you to quickly start elections for a GA representative
>on the Task Force, following the approach suggested by
>Jonathan Weinberg
>(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03615.html):
>
>   On the ballot, allow GA members to vote YES/NO on each of the
>   three candidates.  The rule would be that the candidate with the
>   most YES votes is the representative, and the next highest
>   vote-getter is the observer, except that a candidate will not be
>   deemed elected to *any* position unless he receives YES votes
>   on more than half the ballots submitted.  That gives the GA
>   the option to elect two people if it chooses, but it also gives a
>   majority of the GA the ability to say that it doesn't want
>   particular people representing it on the TF (as either
>   "representative" or "observer").
>
>Please make sure that the GA is represented on the Task
>Force, and please act quickly, so that the Secretariat
>can set up the election in time before the holidays!
>
>Regards,
>/// Alexander
>
>============================================================
>--
>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 16:18:06 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Why no sanctions?

Chuck and all assembly members,

  As you know Chuck, you are one of the few NSI/Veristign folks
that in my opinion alone has good creditability.

  Ok you contend that Verisign did not violate any part or their
registrar contract in any way.  Others, including even ICANN
have an opposite point of view.  It is also OK that you tried to act
in verisign best interest, which you indicate below in your comments.
Where I fail to see the proper conclusion is that you CLAIM to have
acted in the best interest of ALL parties concerned, and that if indeed
Verisign feels it did not violate it's registrar contract.  How can
Verisign speak for all interested parties, and why would Verisign
feel it should "mitigate/Negotiate" a different solution in this light
at all?   I am also confused why ICANN would negotiate with you if
they really felt that Verisign had violated it's Registrar contract?

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

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 16:28:01 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

John and all assembly members,

John Berryhill wrote:

> >
> > 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.

  Exactly!  Or Mastercard, ect., ect.
I am continually amazed by the lack of how the present skewed system
works, that those that object can than know so little about and yet
feel they are too superior to allow for observers on the Transfer
TF.  Simply amazing!  And Disgusting!  :(

>
>
> 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

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 17:47:34 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

I endorse this letter.

Leah

On 13 Dec 2001, at 20:18, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> 
> [I ask other GA members to endorse this appeal to the Chair
> by co-signing this message.]
> 
> ============================================================
> 
> Dear GA Chair,
> 
> the NC Transfer Task Force, from which you have resigned,
> will start their work with a conference call next week.
> 
> During the nomination phase of the election, the GA expected
> to send one representative. Three candidates have come forward
> to become this (single) representative. Now, there is the
> possibility that two or three representatives (one voting,
> one or two non-voting) can be sent. The election cannot be
> changed midway without distorting the GA voters' choice:
> It would lead to an automatic election of candidates.
> The GA voters should therefore have the right to choose
> whether to send any of the candidates to the Task Force.
> 
> Since elections during the upcoming holidays would be
> very inconvenient and the Task Force work is about to begin,
> we ask you to quickly start elections for a GA representative
> on the Task Force, following the approach suggested by
> Jonathan Weinberg
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03615.html):
> 
>   On the ballot, allow GA members to vote YES/NO on each of the
>   three candidates.  The rule would be that the candidate with the
>   most YES votes is the representative, and the next highest
>   vote-getter is the observer, except that a candidate will not be
>   deemed elected to *any* position unless he receives YES votes
>   on more than half the ballots submitted.  That gives the GA
>   the option to elect two people if it chooses, but it also gives a
>   majority of the GA the ability to say that it doesn't want
>   particular people representing it on the TF (as either
>   "representative" or "observer").
> 
> Please make sure that the GA is represented on the Task
> Force, and please act quickly, so that the Secretariat
> can set up the election in time before the holidays!
> 
> Regards,
> /// Alexander
> 
> ============================================================
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:29:37 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

I endorse this letter

- --
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 18:46:32 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

While it may be more cumbersome, I still believe that the only way to 
safely handle transfers is with proper identification via fax or some other 
mail delivery.  When I transferred domains from NSI to Dotster, I had to 
provide copies of ID's via fax along with other information, including 
current phone (which they verified), etc.  Since then I believe they have 
changed things so that it can be done via web interface, but that does 
bother me.

IMO, changing registrars is as critical as changing registrants and 
should be handled just as securely.  It may mean an additional cost, 
but it seems worth it to ensure safe transfer and eliminate hi-jacking.  I 
would rather have it take an extra couple of days and know for certain 
that my domains are protected.  In addition, if a domain is lost in transit 
and the original registrant can show a paid invoice for it, it should be 
automatically recovered whether it was deleted or not.  This, IMO, is a 
fatal flaw in the process that allows hi-jacking and wrongly protects both 
the gaining registrar and the hijacker.  It's an error in the system and 
should be handled as such.

Leah

On 13 Dec 2001, at 8:22, 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:24:11 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Domain Transfers

Thursday, Thursday, December 13, 2001, 3:46:32 PM, L Gallegos wrote:

> that my domains are protected.  In addition, if a domain is lost in transit 
> and the original registrant can show a paid invoice for it, it should be 
> automatically recovered whether it was deleted or not.  This, IMO, is a 
> fatal flaw in the process that allows hi-jacking and wrongly protects both 
> the gaining registrar and the hijacker.  It's an error in the system and 
> should be handled as such.

Domains are never lost "in transit"

Some people here appear to have a real lack of understanding of the
transfer process and how it works.

- -- 
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 19:48:50 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Domain Transfers

I beg to differ, William.  There are warnings to that effect.  It has 
happened many times to many people.  Transfers are initiated and 
somehow disappear into limbo resulting in the loss of the registration.  
Whether it is caused by a glitch in the system or not is immaterial.  It 
happens.  It recently happened to an ISP who was transferring several 
domains.  At least one went into the vortex somewhere.

Leah

On 13 Dec 2001, at 16:24, William X Walsh wrote:

> Thursday, Thursday, December 13, 2001, 3:46:32 PM, L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > that my domains are protected.  In addition, if a domain is lost in
> > transit and the original registrant can show a paid invoice for it, it
> > should be automatically recovered whether it was deleted or not.  This,
> > IMO, is a fatal flaw in the process that allows hi-jacking and wrongly
> > protects both the gaining registrar and the hijacker.  It's an error in
> > the system and should be handled as such.
> 
> Domains are never lost "in transit"
> 
> Some people here appear to have a real lack of understanding of the
> transfer process and how it works.
> 
> -- 
> 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 17:30:13 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Domain Transfers

Thursday, Thursday, December 13, 2001, 4:48:50 PM, L Gallegos wrote:

> I beg to differ, William.  There are warnings to that effect.  It has 
> happened many times to many people.  Transfers are initiated and 
> somehow disappear into limbo resulting in the loss of the registration.  
> Whether it is caused by a glitch in the system or not is immaterial.  It 
> happens.  It recently happened to an ISP who was transferring several 
> domains.  At least one went into the vortex somewhere.

Some specific examples please?

Every time this issue comes up on other lists, it's always a case of
someone who heard from someone else about something that happened to
someone else, but there is never any concrete documented examples to
back up the allegation.

It really sounds like another net urban legend, especially since it
doesn't jive with the process used for domain transfers.

- -- 
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 21:18:19 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Domain Transfers

I will ask the individual (ISP) who had the experience if he or she wishes 
to report the incident(s) to this list.  It was not a chain of people as you 
insinuate, but rather the person who was handling the transfers directly.  
I do not indiscrimately report incidents on this or any other list.  At the 
same time, I do not use names unless I have permission to do so.

Additionally, I have had others relate similar situations to me, but, 
again, do not report them to this list.  I would not have mentioned this 
incident had you not made your comment.  IMO, it is not a good idea to 
make categorical statements such as yours and then not expect to see 
a refutation of that comment.  I also do not really feel compelled to 
provide you with specifics on any one incident that may be the basis for 
possible actions on the part of the parties to it.

I will say this, however.  When I transferred in excess of 20 domains 
from NSI, the gaining registrar warned me that there was always the 
possibility of domains being lost during the transfer and that it had 
happened in past.  I spoke (on the phone) to more than one registrar, all 
of whom told me the same thing.  Domains are inadvertantly lost during 
transfer occasionally and there is a risk.  Gaining registrars will not take 
responsibility in such cases, so you must weigh that knowledge and 
make your own decisions.

Leah

On 13 Dec 2001, at 17:30, William X Walsh wrote:

> Thursday, Thursday, December 13, 2001, 4:48:50 PM, L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > I beg to differ, William.  There are warnings to that effect.  It has
> > happened many times to many people.  Transfers are initiated and somehow
> > disappear into limbo resulting in the loss of the registration.  Whether
> > it is caused by a glitch in the system or not is immaterial.  It happens.
> >  It recently happened to an ISP who was transferring several domains.  At
> > least one went into the vortex somewhere.
> 
> Some specific examples please?
> 
> Every time this issue comes up on other lists, it's always a case of
> someone who heard from someone else about something that happened to
> someone else, but there is never any concrete documented examples to
> back up the allegation.
> 
> It really sounds like another net urban legend, especially since it
> doesn't jive with the process used for domain transfers.
> 
> -- 
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #925
************************