Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #926
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, December 14 2001          Volume 01 : Number 926

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

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:42:23 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] Domain Transfers

Thursday, Thursday, December 13, 2001, 6:18:19 PM, L Gallegos wrote:

> 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.

Well, it is really easy to make claims that are not backed up by real
facts. It is not a good idea to claim that incidents are occuring, and
not be willing to provide facts to back that claim up.

As far as I am aware, I have seen no reports of domains lost "in
transfer" that have not ended up being a case of registrant to
registrant transfers at NSI.

I >>HAVE<< seen domains lost during Registrant to Registrant transfers
at NSI (ala Races.com).  And I've seen people use those cases to
mistakenly say that Registrar to Registrar transfers are not safe,
when in fact this was a problem that was internal to NSI, and had
nothing to do with the Registrar transfer system.  The other time
people claim a domain was lost in a registrar to registrar transfer is
when the domain had already been hijacked at the existing registrar,
and then the hijacker transferred the domain name to another registrar
(or reset the billing data and then registered the name when it was
deleted for non-payment).  Again, this is not a problem with Registrar
to Registrar transfers, but a problem with poor security at the
original registrar (which, not surprisingly enough is almost always
NSI Registrar).

And I'm aware some claim that Registrars tell them that transfers have
security issues, but usually that ends up being a case of a C.S. rep
who is uninformed, misinformed, or a company who is just C.Y.A. so
they can blame someone else if there is a problem.

- -- 
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 22:05:33 -0500
From: Craig Simon <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

William X Walsh wrote:
> Some specific examples please?

Though it's not recent, isn't races.com a classic example? 

How did that finally turn out? Looks like a reseller has it now.

Craig Simon

- --
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 22:12:00 -0500
From: Craig Simon <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

Please add my name as an endorser.

Craig Simon

- --
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 21:40:20 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

WXW and all assembly members,

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"

  True.  They just can't or "Won't" be found...

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

  Present company not included I suppose?  Of course many people do not
understand the transfer process.  That is one of many reasons why a
TF is needed and being called for...

>
>
> --
> 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

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 22:37:46 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [ga] Domain Transfers

I have emailed the person who had the domain fall into the vortex and 
that person may email you personally.  It is not up to me to relate that 
individual's incident here.  Let's just say it was a monumental screw up, 
and not unusual, incident.  

I have received many emails (because of one of my websites) regarding 
domains being lost.  I do not feel it is my privilege to post personal 
information on a public list and will not do so.  However, I cannot 
discount the fact that these incidents do occur and I have followed up on 
many of them just for my own education.

In any case, say what you will, but I know first hand that it happens and 
also know which registrars told me that it could happen and has 
happened AND that there is no guarantee that transfer will be without 
such an incident.  To me, as a registrant, it makes no difference 
whether it is NSI or another registrar that is involved, or which person at 
those registrars are involved or why it happens.  The only thing of 
interest to the registrant is that it DOES happen.

Just because all incidents are not made public on this list, does not 
make it a non issue.  Out of millions of registrants, there are around 900 
subscribed to this list, not all of whom are domain name holders. This is 
a rather small group of people.  It is highly unlikely that registrars will 
make such incidents known here either.  It's not exactly in their best 
interests.

IMO, the bottom line is that in such a case, there has to be a guarantee 
that the domain will, in fact, not be lost to the registrant if transfer is 
initiated - for any reason.

Leah

On 13 Dec 2001, at 18:42, William X Walsh wrote:

> Thursday, Thursday, December 13, 2001, 6:18:19 PM, L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Well, it is really easy to make claims that are not backed up by real
> facts. It is not a good idea to claim that incidents are occuring, and not
> be willing to provide facts to back that claim up.
> 
> As far as I am aware, I have seen no reports of domains lost "in
> transfer" that have not ended up being a case of registrant to
> registrant transfers at NSI.
> 
> I >>HAVE<< seen domains lost during Registrant to Registrant transfers at
> NSI (ala Races.com).  And I've seen people use those cases to mistakenly
> say that Registrar to Registrar transfers are not safe, when in fact this
> was a problem that was internal to NSI, and had nothing to do with the
> Registrar transfer system.  The other time people claim a domain was lost
> in a registrar to registrar transfer is when the domain had already been
> hijacked at the existing registrar, and then the hijacker transferred the
> domain name to another registrar (or reset the billing data and then
> registered the name when it was deleted for non-payment).  Again, this is
> not a problem with Registrar to Registrar transfers, but a problem with
> poor security at the original registrar (which, not surprisingly enough is
> almost always NSI Registrar).
> 
> And I'm aware some claim that Registrars tell them that transfers have
> security issues, but usually that ends up being a case of a C.S. rep who is
> uninformed, misinformed, or a company who is just C.Y.A. so they can blame
> someone else if there is a problem.
> 
> -- 
> 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 19:41:24 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Domain Transfers

Thursday, Thursday, December 13, 2001, 7:05:33 PM, Craig Simon wrote:

> William X Walsh wrote:
>> Some specific examples please?

> Though it's not recent, isn't races.com a classic example? 

> How did that finally turn out? Looks like a reseller has it now.

That was a case of a Registrant to Registrant transfer that was
botched by NSI.

- -- 
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: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 04:43:05 +0100
From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

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.]

I endorse this letter. 
> ============================================================
> 
> 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 20:00:44 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[8]: [ga] Domain Transfers

Thursday, Thursday, December 13, 2001, 7:37:46 PM, L Gallegos wrote:

> Just because all incidents are not made public on this list, does not 
> make it a non issue.  Out of millions of registrants, there are around 900 
> subscribed to this list, not all of whom are domain name holders. This is 
> a rather small group of people.  It is highly unlikely that registrars will 
> make such incidents known here either.  It's not exactly in their best 
> interests.

It's not just this list where I would expect to hear it. There are
news websites that deal with domain related issues quite extensively
where cases like this would be a GREAT story if they existed, plus
many other forum where people post problems relating to their domains.

There has been nothing public anywhere that I have ever found.

All the ones that people have put forward in the past ended up being
something very different, as I said earlier (e.g. races.com).

Actually it is in the registrars best interests, as it would be
something they would be harping on to get Verisign Registrar to fix it
, since that is the ONLY place where such a problem could exist if it
existed at all.   And even if there were issues with particular
registrars and transfers, believe me, the other registrars, in a
highly competitive industry, would be making those cases public.

There is no incentive for the registrars to keep quiet on these kinds
of cases if they existed.

Like Hugh, I've been a party to hundreds of domain transfers in the
last year, and never once have I seen or heard of a single thing like
this accusation.  And knowing the way the system works, there is
really no way that I can envision this problem existing.  The system
doesn't work that way.

> IMO, the bottom line is that in such a case, there has to be a guarantee
> that the domain will, in fact, not be lost to the registrant if transfer is 
> initiated - for any reason.

And that is the current bottom line, there is no such issue.

- -- 
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 20:34:39 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

After careful consideration, I endorse this.

Thursday, Thursday, December 13, 2001, 11:18:03 AM, 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

- -- 
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 22:42:11 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Transfer

Thank you all for endorsing the letter to help the Chair move forward.
This is consensus of those who vote.

Let me put it this way.  There are many factors and simplistic one level
opinions will not help this problem.

I appreciate your points of view but I cannot recommend any so far
presented because they deal in a single platform. (agreed there are some
that realize the many levels)

This task may be beyond us unless we form a WG within the GA to assist
the TF member.

I endorsed the letter and i want us to move appropriately forward.  This
task is suited to a diplomat and not a purist or engineer.  in my humble
opinion it is only suited to consensus among us.

So let it be known that if I am the rep on the TF for transfers i will
do all in my power to get this groups latitude on every move and project
it onto the TF.

WXW thank you for your measured responses they shall put forward.

What are your measured responses Mr. TR?

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: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:05:26 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

I am just not concerned with the nicety of language.  Heck I got a degree in
linguistic philosophy. NAU 1980.
I learned above all that words taken out of common usage or context mean little to
helpful conversation.

I understand WXWs' comments for what he means and I see the protagonism with Leahs'
comments.

We must be aware that the difference lies in perspective.

I agree with both but yet see the faults in both.  ( and what if we do not reach a
consensus here on their respective positions -- then a compromise would be in
order?

Comments?

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> WXW and all assembly members,
>
> 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"
>
>   True.  They just can't or "Won't" be found...
>
> >
> >
> > Some people here appear to have a real lack of understanding of the
> > transfer process and how it works.
>
>   Present company not included I suppose?  Of course many people do not
> understand the transfer process.  That is one of many reasons why a
> TF is needed and being called for...
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> 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

- --
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 23:24:44 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] consensus

Isn't it normally a compromise of differing positions?  A workable
position between two opposing sides.

Is it a give and take between solar opposite positions?

The pain caused in the GA comes from an intolerance to listen and
modify.

We are talking human stuff here not computers and certainly not
perceived inalienable rights.

that requires some getting along for the sake of getting along.

Do you guys always have to one up each other.  This is the baddest ass
most intellectual group in the world,
doesn't just being a member even with differences make you the top of
your persuasion.  It does in my book.

If there is anything I can do to move you from arguing antogonistist and
hateful professionals to be contributing members of a contributing group
of caring professionals, just let me know.  That would be Outreach!

sincerely,
eric

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 03:17:43 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] consensus

Eric,

The point I was trying to make is that one cannot state categorically that
there are and will not not be errors in tranfsers that cause a domain to be
lost to the registrant.  Therefore, there is a necessity to protect the
registrant if it should occur.

William can argue that it has not happened and I can argue that it has
until we are both blue in the face.  However neither one of us can
guarantee it one way or the other, so take steps to allow for the error and
correct it.  No system is perfect.  There is always human error (garbage
in, garbage out) and equipment or communications failure.  If those
contingencies are not covered, there is no protection for the registrant
and the registrar can simply say "tough" as they have done.

Leah

On 13 Dec 2001, at 23:24, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Isn't it normally a compromise of differing positions?  A workable
> position between two opposing sides.
> 
> Is it a give and take between solar opposite positions?
> 
> The pain caused in the GA comes from an intolerance to listen and
> modify.
> 
> We are talking human stuff here not computers and certainly not
> perceived inalienable rights.
> 
> that requires some getting along for the sake of getting along.
> 
> Do you guys always have to one up each other.  This is the baddest ass
> most intellectual group in the world, doesn't just being a member even
> with differences make you the top of your persuasion.  It does in my
> book.
> 
> If there is anything I can do to move you from arguing antogonistist and
> hateful professionals to be contributing members of a contributing group
> of caring professionals, just let me know.  That would be Outreach!
> 
> sincerely,
> eric

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:37:19 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] consensus

Friday, Friday, December 14, 2001, 12:17:43 AM, L Gallegos wrote:

> Eric,

> The point I was trying to make is that one cannot state categorically that
> there are and will not not be errors in tranfsers that cause a domain to be
> lost to the registrant.  Therefore, there is a necessity to protect the
> registrant if it should occur.

It does occur. In the event of the hijacking related incidents I've
already related, the domains were returned to their original owners,
after the two registrars investigated what happened an made sure that
it was in fact a real case of a hijacking.  The registrars actually
seem to work well together on fixing these kinds of issues.

Nothing I can see indicates that it is even POSSIBLE to lose a domain in a
registrar transfer (and the person you had contact me off list was not
an example of a domain being lost during transfer, but was a result of
a registrar not processing domain transfer requests in a timely
fashion, causing the transfer to be denied by the losing registrar
when it was done past the expiration date, and the gaining registrar
refusing to refund the money (unlawfully in my opinion) and requiring
her to pay again to transfer the same domain).

But in the event something like this did in fact happen to occur (like
Hell froze over or something  :) I'm confident the registrars would
work to deal with it appropriately.  It is in their best interests to
do so, and they have shown a history of doing so in similar
situations.

I really think this is a red herring issue.

The Registrars are addressing important issues already that related to
this, such as data escrow, and procedures for dealing with the closure
of a registrar, etc.  The parts of the issue I've seen show that the
registrars are setting a higher standard for themselves than ICANN has
required, and I think that shows a real commitment by the registrars
to provide for registrant protection in areas like this.

- -- 
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: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 09:17:44 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

On 2001-12-13 15:29:37 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:

>I endorse this letter

So do I.

Jeff: How about joining the club?  That would be immensely helpful 
for the GA.

- -- 
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: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 09:35:22 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Domain Transfers

The only true solution to this is to materialize the domain name holding 
through a "title" remitted to the registrant and that title to be 
universally accepted in any place and in any registration service as a 
proof of the holdership and of the right to change parameters.

This is the main and best escrow service: the escrow at the concerned 
party. This what everyone does everywhere to demonstrate a property (the 
domain name or the use of the domain name depending on what you understand 
what a domain name is).

That title should actually be a smart card and will eventually be a smart 
card. However for practical operations the domain name must be acknowledge 
as a name of the Internet part of a domain belonging to someone.

1. the name cannot be sold without the domain it qualifies (cf. France). 
End of cybersquatting.
2. the name cannot pass before the domain it qualifies. Domain names are 
domain life long.
3. the name is registered for free or for a fee once for all.
4. usage fee may be collected making the name usable only when paid
5. anyone may pay for it - advertising, charities, family, state, etc...
6. names are for user convenience. They must relate to the web site. TM 
issues are not at the domain name level but at the domain level where the 
local laws apply.
7. the only reason why a name may be reassigned is when it does not fit 
with the domain it leads to (like putting a road sign "New York" on the 
road to Tipperary). This may only be decided by the users through a 
randomly chosen large jury of the concerned culture.
8. there is no reason why the real/cover owner of a domain should disclose 
himself more than he wants. End of the WHOIS, welcome to the QuiEst ( 
http://quiest.net ).
9. the user is free to chose a name for his domain and to register it under 
the flag (TLD) he wants.
10. There are as many flags as the users may want and there should be no 
discrimination between flag (TLD) managers. However the interest of the 
user is that Flags (TLDs) provide them with secure, stable and attractive 
services. So TLD squatting should be treated through netiquette and market 
best practices as documented under the RT/BP ( http://boroon.net ).

I know this is not what Verisign wants now, but this is what will happen on 
the long range. Verisign may help us getting it soon in cooperating or in 
us getting it back from the Govs long affter they setpped in and Verisign 
lost its business. Them to partly chose. The other part is for us and ccTLD 
to implement.

Jefsey

On 19:48 13/12/01, John Berryhill said:

> > 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.
>
>...and every registrar should speak every language so that they can read
>notarial certificates from any country?
>
>If the registrant is "Xiaolu Chin", what would you expect their name to look
>like, let alone their signature, or the words on the notarial certificate?
>How about "Abdullah Ajami" or "Vladislav Krietskova"?
>
>In any event, of what use is a notarial certificate in any jurisdiction
>outside of the one in which it was issued, unless the notarial certificate
>is legalized by the relevant consulate?
>
>Do you know what notaries in some countries cost?  Most people transfer
>registrars to save money.  $35 per year for a domain name is *nothing* next
>to notary fees in a lot of places.
>
>Registrants are much more secure with something along the lines of a
>password-protected web interface than knowing that any teenager with a
>printer, a pen, and a seal from the stationary store can take any domain
>name they want.
>
> > Only the Technical or Administrative Contact should be allowed to
> > instigate
> > a change like this.
>
>And just how do you propose that anyone OTHER thant the registrant is going
>to be able to bind the registrant to the terms of the receiving registrar's
>domain name registration contract.  That's like saying the only people who
>can sell my house should be my accountant and my plumber.
>
>
>--
>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 09:11:21 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Domain Transfers

On 07:48 13/12/01, Kristy McKee said:
>>This was nothing but an attempt by Verisign to slow the flow of
>>outgoing transfers, by engaging in a practice that made if more
>>difficult to transfer out and has permitted them to collect what must
>>be huge renewal fees from registrants who have had their transfers
>>blocked by this practice (which violates the
>>registry/registrar/accreditation agreements) and have been forced to
>>renew their domains with Verisign against their will.
>
>This issue is indeed something I would prefer not come up again.  I have 
>not accessed any proof of the details; but it seems awfully 
>anti-competitive and mean-spirited.

I can testify of two key DN of mine being blocked by NSI.
- - one I must pay $35 a year while if transfered I would pay $9 to an NSI 
affiliate
- - one was the name of my company hey keep on hold - and still in operations 
- - for more than 2 years. I had to change my company name to clarify with 
the customers.
Jefsey

- --
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 02:13:30 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] consensus

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:37 AM
|> 
|> Friday, Friday, December 14, 2001, 12:17:43 AM, L Gallegos wrote:

|> > The point I was trying to make is that one cannot state 
|> categorically that
|> > there are and will not not be errors in tranfsers that 
|> cause a domain to be
|> > lost to the registrant.  Therefore, there is a necessity 
|> to protect the
|> > registrant if it should occur.
|> 
|> It does occur. In the event of the hijacking related incidents I've
|> already related, the domains were returned to their original owners,
|> after the two registrars investigated what happened an made sure that
|> it was in fact a real case of a hijacking.  The registrars actually
|> seem to work well together on fixing these kinds of issues.

Yes, and how much downtime has the registrant suffered in the meanwhile?

|> Nothing I can see indicates that it is even POSSIBLE to lose 
|> a domain in a
|> registrar transfer (and the person you had contact me off 
|> list was not
|> an example of a domain being lost during transfer, but was a 
|> result of
|> a registrar not processing domain transfer requests in a timely
|> fashion, causing the transfer to be denied by the losing registrar
|> when it was done past the expiration date, and the gaining registrar
|> refusing to refund the money (unlawfully in my opinion) and requiring
|> her to pay again to transfer the same domain).

All the reasons why and all the specifics of how, are irrelevent. The real
fact is that changing something allows Murphy in the side door and that
guy's been having entirely too much fun, at MHSC expense, this year. You've
asked me a number of times why I still have my domains with NSI, that's the
reason why. They ain't broke where they are so, I ain't fixing them by
moving them elsewhere, at the moment. After I find a reliable ISP, maybe.
But, not before.

What I can't get is why you don't understand that changing something that's
working, risks breaking it. Also, there have been registrar screw-ups,
especially in the early daze. A large part of the problem was the
fat-registrar model. It adds all sorts of complications, wrt data sync. QA
on such complicated systems are more work and take a longer shakedown. When
they screwup, they cause more damage. The downside risk is much higher than
on the simpler thin registrar model (which also has its problems, granted).

Before anyone asks, I won't join the TF because it's too sinilar to work
that MHSC normally charges for. MHSC can't afford to work for free this
year, aside from our policy against contributing revenue to ICANN, in its
current form.

- --
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 #926
************************