Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #938
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, December 22 2001         Volume 01 : Number 938

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

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 10:55:18 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: DNSO NC TF on Structure-Discussion paper

On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:39:33 EST, [email-masked] wrote:

>David Farrar wrote:  "Please note it is not a position paper of the Taskforce 
>but a paper drafted by the TF Chair as a starting point."
>
>I would ask why are we even discussing this paper if the Terms of Reference 
>upon which it is predicated haven't even been voted upon by the members of 
>this TF?
>
>I would also ask to see the record of the vote taken to ratify Phil Sheppard 
>as the Chair of this TF.  NC procedures state:  (3.2)  "In the case of a task 
>force the NC typically chooses to ratify the election of a chair by the task 
>force itself."  So far, no vote has been held of which I am aware.  Why?
>
>If the Chair has not been ratified and the Terms of Reference have not been 
>voted upon, why are we then even bothering at this point to discuss Phil's 
>opinions on the At-Large?

On the Taskforce list I raised the issue of the Chairmanship and was
told the Names Council had appointed Philip as Chair.  I did point out
that this is not minuted anywhere and haven't had a response to this.

However having made this point I did not consider it was in the GA's
best interests for me to refuse to participate until such proof was
provided.  I have no doubt that if push came to shove the Names
Council would back Philip to be the Chair of the Taskforce.  With very
tight deadlines for response I chose to move on and contribute on more
substantive issues.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 21 Dec 2001 14:05:59 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Registrar domain deletion policies

I'd like to get some feedback here.

A registrar is currently testing a service where rather than outright
deleting domain names that are expiring without payment, they are
creating a premium service where, for a monthly fee, you can get
access to have these names transferred to you, without any interaction
or approval from the prior registrant, and in a way that totally
bypasses the normal deletion/drop process.

What would you feedback be on the creation of such a service.  It in
effect creates a monopoly, where domains registered at a registrar
must be reregistered with that registrar (though they can, after 60
days, be transferred to another registrar).

I'm very much opposed to this, on the grounds that I think the
registrant has rights which are being trampled by this, including an
assumption that their registrar will follow normally accepted
processes and not actually solicit someone to purchase their domain
name in such a direct fashion and outside the normal process.

I'd like your feedback though, and I'll forward it on to them, but I
also know they are on this list and reading it as well.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:20:42 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Accepting the nomination - Response and questions for this candidate..

Thomas and all assembly members,

  First let me say Merry xmas to you Thomas, and a happy new year
as well.  >:)

  More comments in response to your acceptance comments and remarks
below...

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> (I'm asking for your pardon if this message's formatting is awful - I'm
> on the train currently.)
>
> 1a.  Full name of nominee: Thomas Roessler
> 1b.  E-mail address of the nominee: [email-masked]
>
> 1c.  Background information about the nominee:
>
> In real life, I'm a student of mathematics who's almost done.  Besides
> that, I'm interested in network security, and I'm the current maintainer
> of the mutt mail user agent. Finally, I've been interested in internet
> governance for quite some time now, and have been following ICANN
> matters rather closely since mid-2000.  One of my first ICANN-related
> activities was to start the icann-europe mailing list, which was
> reasonably successful at its time, but is rather inactive right now.
>
> Conflicts of interest: I've co-edited a minor standards track RFC, I'm a
> .org domain name holder, and I'm maintaining the icann-europe mailing
> list.
>
> 1d.  Statement of the nominee's objectives in the role as GA Chair
>
> My primary objective is to make the GA mailing list a place where
> reasonable and intelligent discourse can take place.  I believe that the
> GA will and should have a place in the ICANN process if and only if it
> manages to produce coherent and intelligent output, and if it becomes an
> environment which may be attractive even to those who do have a live
> besides the net.

  This seems to be contrary to you statements regarding the consideration
of the GA Transfer TF "Objection" post Thomas.  Perhaps you would
like to retract those comments or clarify these in that light?  It is fairly

obvious that you do not wish to work and play well with others,
as the saying goes...  Or so it seems at least.  We need a chair
that CAN, and MUST do so, regardless of the personalities
or members agenda's or interests involved.

>
>
> I don't believe that I'd be able to achieve this all alone: Indeed, by
> submitting this acceptance, I hope that I will be elected as chair or
> alternative chair (alternative chair-preferred) together with Alexander
> Svensson, so we can work as a team.  Even more importantly, what's
> needed is the goodwill and activity of the GA's members.  We'll need
> volunteers who are willing to help as list monitors, and election
> watchdogs.  We'll need volunteers who are willing to represent the GA on
> names council task forces, and help to tunnel important discussions and
> insights back and forth between the GA and the respective task forces.
> We may also need volunteers to chair physical GA sessions if the chair
> and the alternative chair are unable to attend such meetings due to time
> and budget constraints.
>
> Some initial steps to make the GA a better place include:
>
> * Back the list monitors' decisions.  There's a lot of slander,
> off-topic postings, and generally bad manners going on on the GA list.

  Can you define in your own words what you consider "Bad Manners"
as it relates to political commentary as is common in DNSO or ICANN forums?

>
>   This has to stop, even if it means that some members of this mailing
> list have to be banned from posting to it for some time.

  Ok, well I agree that this should and needs to stop.  I do not
agree that Selective Censorship is the way in which to achieve that
goal.  Censorship is wrong in any of it's forms!

>
>
> * Try to help structuring discussions, so they lead to actual results.

  Yes, as long as such structuring attempts  or efforts are not used as
a means to project any agenda of any political position that cannot be
argued on both sides or the issue(s) involved.

>
>   This can just mean asking the right questions, but it can also mean
> that a formal drafting and decision-making process is established.

  The only WRONG question is the one not ask...  I hope you subscribe
to that.  Do you?

>  The
> Best Practices or, for instance, some process derived from the W3C
> working group process could be applied - or some combination of these
> (the aspects from the W3C process I'm thinking of are kind of orthogonal
> to the Best Practices).

  Sure this could be considered and crafted into a motion(s) for the
members to vote upon as one of perhaps several choices...
However the W3C process, which I am quite familiar with, should
not be imposed and may need some modification to fit the unique
aspects of the DNSO GA and DNS issues of various types that
the GA has a vested interest in.

>
>
> * Try to make it easier to follow the list by producing summaries of
> discussions on a more or less regular basis.  Take a look at the kernel
> cousins web page to see what I have in mind.

  Ok.  Now it this part of your proposed agenda or a suggestion?
Will you be imposing this in various ways (Politically inclined) upon
the DNSO GA members or will you be presenting it as a possible
method?

>  Note that this is not
> something the chairs have to do - indeed, just about every member of
> this list could volunteer.  Also note that such summaries would only
> make sense when there are actually interesting discussions to be
> summarized.

  Agreed here.  However defining what is interesting to some members
may not be interesting to others.  I hope that as a chair candidate
you would agree with that.  Do you?

>
>
> * Do some housekeeping: We have quite a few defunct sublists, some of
> which have been unused since July.  We should get rid of these.

  Good point.  But it may also be that some topics or issues need
to be segmented out through the use or sublists or WG lists..

>
>
> Finally, a word of warning: I most likely won't be able to attend
> in-person meetings of the GA at annual ICANN meetings. I certainly will
> not be able to attend such meetings without funding.

  This is indeed unfortunate.  Depending on whom is elected, and how
the candidates answer questions put to them, such as I have done here,
we will be helping fund the DNSO GA Chair...

>
>
> PS: An explanation for the timing of this acceptance may be in order, in
> particular because I have declined the nomination in a private message
> to Elisabeth Porteneuve some time ago.  I had hoped that some candidate
> I could support would show up on the list of possible candidates.  In
> this case, I would have happily refrained from being a candidate myself,
> and would have volunteered to help as a list monitor. This hope also was
> the reason for the slew of nominations I sent last night.  Bad enough,
> it seems that things didn't work out this way.

  Ah, I see here that you are still an advocate of the politics or
personal preference and/or destruction.  Indeed that is a shame...
Perhaps you would reconsider you PS comment above?

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

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: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 14:29:20 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar domain deletion policies

I agree with you. Additionally, the registrar, being a re-seller for the
registry, does NOT own the license to the name. The registrant does. If the
registrant lets the domain lapse (as I have recently done with two of mine)
they should revert to the registry's pool for everyone to be able to access.
This gives an unfair edge to the registrars for expiring names.

But then, I think that the registrar system is seriously flawed anyway. This
is yet another flaw.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 2:06 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Registrar domain deletion policies
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> I'd like to get some feedback here.
|> 
|> A registrar is currently testing a service where rather than outright
|> deleting domain names that are expiring without payment, they are
|> creating a premium service where, for a monthly fee, you can get
|> access to have these names transferred to you, without any 
|> interaction
|> or approval from the prior registrant, and in a way that totally
|> bypasses the normal deletion/drop process.
|> 
|> What would you feedback be on the creation of such a service.  It in
|> effect creates a monopoly, where domains registered at a registrar
|> must be reregistered with that registrar (though they can, after 60
|> days, be transferred to another registrar).
|> 
|> I'm very much opposed to this, on the grounds that I think the
|> registrant has rights which are being trampled by this, including an
|> assumption that their registrar will follow normally accepted
|> processes and not actually solicit someone to purchase their domain
|> name in such a direct fashion and outside the normal process.
|> 
|> I'd like your feedback though, and I'll forward it on to them, but I
|> also know they are on this list and reading it as well.
|> 
|> -- 
|> Best regards,
|> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
|> --
|> 
|> --
|> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
|> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
|> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
|> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|> 
- --
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, 21 Dec 2001 14:32:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrar domain deletion policies

William,

I don't have the authortative refrence on this, maybe dan does. But there
is a policy on deleteing domains, stated in the contracts registrars have
with ICANN.

- -rick

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, William X Walsh wrote:

>
> I'd like to get some feedback here.
>
> A registrar is currently testing a service where rather than outright
> deleting domain names that are expiring without payment, they are
> creating a premium service where, for a monthly fee, you can get
> access to have these names transferred to you, without any interaction
> or approval from the prior registrant, and in a way that totally
> bypasses the normal deletion/drop process.
>
> What would you feedback be on the creation of such a service.  It in
> effect creates a monopoly, where domains registered at a registrar
> must be reregistered with that registrar (though they can, after 60
> days, be transferred to another registrar).
>
> I'm very much opposed to this, on the grounds that I think the
> registrant has rights which are being trampled by this, including an
> assumption that their registrar will follow normally accepted
> processes and not actually solicit someone to purchase their domain
> name in such a direct fashion and outside the normal process.
>
> I'd like your feedback though, and I'll forward it on to them, but I
> also know they are on this list and reading it as well.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
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, 21 Dec 2001 17:32:31 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrar domain deletion policies

William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> I'd like to get some feedback here.
> 
> A registrar is currently testing a service where rather than outright
> deleting domain names that are expiring without payment, they are
> creating a premium service where, for a monthly fee, you can get
> access to have these names transferred to you, without any interaction
> or approval from the prior registrant, and in a way that totally
> bypasses the normal deletion/drop process.
> 
> What would you feedback be on the creation of such a service.  It in
> effect creates a monopoly, where domains registered at a registrar
> must be reregistered with that registrar (though they can, after 60
> days, be transferred to another registrar).

This idea completely flies in the face of the entire
principle of the existing deletion/drop process.  

I am totally against any such initiative.  First past the
post is the only truly fair process in registration and
re-registration.  Any attempt to mess with this idea is
due to encounter stumbling blocks.  The recent .biz and
.info fiascoes are good examples of bad ideas like this
one.  I think it would be best if registrars stick to
other business models and means/services to bring in
money, and not to go here...

William, please reconsider your candidacy for
participating on the Transfers TF.

> 
> I'm very much opposed to this, on the grounds that I think the
> registrant has rights which are being trampled by this, including an
> assumption that their registrar will follow normally accepted
> processes and not actually solicit someone to purchase their domain
> name in such a direct fashion and outside the normal process.
> 
> I'd like your feedback though, and I'll forward it on to them, but I
> also know they are on this list and reading it as well.
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
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, 21 Dec 2001 14:50:11 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Registrar domain deletion policies

Friday, Friday, December 21, 2001, 2:32:40 PM, Rick H Wesson wrote:

> William,

> I don't have the authortative refrence on this, maybe dan does. But there
> is a policy on deleteing domains, stated in the contracts registrars have
> with ICANN.

Thats the problem with these contracts though, the registrant is not a
party to them, and can't bring action against a Registrar for
violating them, only ICANN can, and we've seen how well they enforce
their contracts.

- -- 
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, 21 Dec 2001 18:26:28 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrar domain deletion policies

Roeland, WXW and all assembly members,

  I am in agreement with both WXW and Roeland here.  WXW is
correct in part in thinking that the the "Normally" accepted, and
BTW contracted process needs to be either enforced, modified
at the contractual level, or completely revamped.  This would also
follow along with Rolands last comment/observation as well.
The current Registrar Accreditation Agreement (Contract) is
not being adequately enforced or overseen which is the ICANN
Staff's responsibility.  In part this is inherent with all forms
of self regulation.  But it can be overcome if diligence is
considered and taken seriously.  Presently it is not.

  This situation highlights the need for coming to a determination
as to a process enhancement that may be needed to address the
problem the WXW has presented here for comment, and rightly so
in this instance, that the Transfer Task Force needs to address,
amongst other related issues regarding Domain Name Transfers
and enforcement.

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> I agree with you. Additionally, the registrar, being a re-seller for the
> registry, does NOT own the license to the name. The registrant does. If the
> registrant lets the domain lapse (as I have recently done with two of mine)
> they should revert to the registry's pool for everyone to be able to access.
> This gives an unfair edge to the registrars for expiring names.
>
> But then, I think that the registrar system is seriously flawed anyway. This
> is yet another flaw.
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 2:06 PM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: [ga] Registrar domain deletion policies
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |> I'd like to get some feedback here.
> |>
> |> A registrar is currently testing a service where rather than outright
> |> deleting domain names that are expiring without payment, they are
> |> creating a premium service where, for a monthly fee, you can get
> |> access to have these names transferred to you, without any
> |> interaction
> |> or approval from the prior registrant, and in a way that totally
> |> bypasses the normal deletion/drop process.
> |>
> |> What would you feedback be on the creation of such a service.  It in
> |> effect creates a monopoly, where domains registered at a registrar
> |> must be reregistered with that registrar (though they can, after 60
> |> days, be transferred to another registrar).
> |>
> |> I'm very much opposed to this, on the grounds that I think the
> |> registrant has rights which are being trampled by this, including an
> |> assumption that their registrar will follow normally accepted
> |> processes and not actually solicit someone to purchase their domain
> |> name in such a direct fashion and outside the normal process.
> |>
> |> I'd like your feedback though, and I'll forward it on to them, but I
> |> also know they are on this list and reading it as well.
> |>
> |> --
> |> Best regards,
> |> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> |> --
> |>
> |> --
> |> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> |> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> |> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> |> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> |>
> --
> 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: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 18:54:27 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Telephony/Voip/and toll free

There are some who adamantly protest any kind of mission creep.

It is very possible with the new generation servers coming on line and
client awareness,
that we will soon be having to deal with the use of Domain Names for all
labeled in the header.

OTOH names may become obsolete as we know them.

http://ICBTollFreeNews.Com/

I suggest a steady dose of the above along with your,
http://www.icannwatch.org/
http://www.lextext.com/icann/index.html
http://www.icann.org/
http://www.icannworld.org/

Great season, great time to reflect, great time to love, great time to
be!

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: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 22:22:01 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] I nominate Joop

Jesfey and all,

I appreciate the nomination and the logic behind it.
While a known agenda is preferable over an unknown one,  I think we are 
best off with a Chair who can place his own agenda on the back burner and 
become all ears for the wishes of the GA members.

The GA needs a Chair who is relatively free to spend the two or three hours 
a day and the 20 to 30 days  a year for the physical ICANN meetings.
(Yes, Montevideo became a 15 day journey for me)

The GA needs a Chair who can take abuse and shake it off like a duck shakes 
off water.

I think the deadline for acceptance (or declining) is already past, but 
anyway, I would have respectfully declined.

I am already spread too thin between the different public functions that I 
have taken on.
At this crucial junction I do not want to abandon the IDNO, now in the 
process of (re)organizing itself.

If I can go to Accra, I am willing however to assist the elected Chair, if 
(s)he is unable to make the trip him/herself.

- --Joop

- --
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: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 22:32:01 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrar domain deletion policies

On 14:05 21/12/01 -0800, William X Walsh said:

>I'd like to get some feedback here.
>
>A registrar is currently testing a service where rather than outright
>deleting domain names that are expiring without payment, they are
>creating a premium service where, for a monthly fee, you can get
>access to have these names transferred to you, without any interaction
>or approval from the prior registrant, and in a way that totally
>bypasses the normal deletion/drop process.

This looks like a very slippery slope on which the owner a desirable domain 
can easily lose his rights, merely because he was not alert enough to pay 
his fees (taxes) on time.

>What would you feedback be on the creation of such a service.  It in
>effect creates a monopoly, where domains registered at a registrar
>must be reregistered with that registrar (though they can, after 60
>days, be transferred to another registrar).

I agree. If registrants were properly represented this sort 
of  "experiment"  would quickly be stopped.

- --Joop

- --
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: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 13:59:44 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Registrar domain deletion policies

The main problem of the ICANN is the way they consider the users: nothing. 
Because no part to their contracts. If you read ICP-3 you see that the main 
argument is that the user are too stupid to understand that an 
"alt(sic)tld" is not supported bu he ICANN. When you read the reports 
abuopt ".org" the NC would not believe you if you explained them that a 
non-profit night have he idea bu its oan move to ask for an ".org" domain 
name. etc...

Obvioiusly if the Local Internet Communities were smart enough to form a 
comon international organization, there would be no more need for the ICANN....

Jefsey

On 23:50 21/12/01, William X Walsh said:
>Friday, Friday, December 21, 2001, 2:32:40 PM, Rick H Wesson wrote:
>
>
> > William,
>
> > I don't have the authortative refrence on this, maybe dan does. But there
> > is a policy on deleteing domains, stated in the contracts registrars have
> > with ICANN.
>
>Thats the problem with these contracts though, the registrant is not a
>party to them, and can't bring action against a Registrar for
>violating them, only ICANN can, and we've seen how well they enforce
>their contracts.
>
>--
>Best regards,
>William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
>--
>Webcertificates.info
>SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 13:53:43 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrar domain deletion policies

 From personal experience already quoted in here this leads to a DN 
hijacking. Let say you pay $35 per annum a Registrar and then discover 
around renewal time that you could pay $ 9 under the same terms. You ask to 
transfer the DN. They say no, too late. Your normal move is to wait for the 
DN to expire and to reregister it cheaper. I have my former company name 
pending that way for 2 years and another DN for 3 years. They just holding 
them and waiting for me to pay again not releasing it. Now they would sell 
it to someone else without any chance that I can buy it back.

Mind you, they already have a service where they put on line to get any DN 
should it become available...
Jefsey

On 23:05 21/12/01, William X Walsh said:

>I'd like to get some feedback here.
>
>A registrar is currently testing a service where rather than outright
>deleting domain names that are expiring without payment, they are
>creating a premium service where, for a monthly fee, you can get
>access to have these names transferred to you, without any interaction
>or approval from the prior registrant, and in a way that totally
>bypasses the normal deletion/drop process.
>
>What would you feedback be on the creation of such a service.  It in
>effect creates a monopoly, where domains registered at a registrar
>must be reregistered with that registrar (though they can, after 60
>days, be transferred to another registrar).
>
>I'm very much opposed to this, on the grounds that I think the
>registrant has rights which are being trampled by this, including an
>assumption that their registrar will follow normally accepted
>processes and not actually solicit someone to purchase their domain
>name in such a direct fashion and outside the normal process.
>
>I'd like your feedback though, and I'll forward it on to them, but I
>also know they are on this list and reading it as well.
>
>--
>Best regards,
>William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
>--
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 18:20:19 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Endorsements -- and holidays

Dear GA members,

from now on until Friday 04 January 2002, 21:00 UTC
(13:00 L.A., 16:00 New York, 22:00 Paris, Sat 06:00 Tokyo),
the *endorsement* phase of the election is taking place.

Which means that you can now endorse one of the candidates
- -- the template is available at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.DNSO-GAchair.html

BTW: As I see it, there are /four/ candidates:
Kristy McKee, Thomas Roessler, Alexander Svensson
*and* Eric Dierker. Eric has nominated himself
and accepted his nomination, additionally he has
been nominated by Jefsey Morfin. I'm not sure why
his name is missing on the web page mentioned above.
(As I'm a candidate, I'm obviously not part of the
watchdog committee, to which I bcc this message.)

All candidates need at least two endorsements from
members of the GA voting roster. Candidates are
allowed to endorse themselves, and members can
endorse more than one candidate.

And since both Google and Yahoo already are in seasonal
dress: Happy Holidays to all GA participants!
/// 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: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 20:01:34 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The GA Chair election -- Call for Endorsement

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

22 December 2002

Call for Endorsement of candidates for election to the Chair 
of the General Assembly of the DNSO.

The Call for Nominations was closed yesterday, Friday, 21 December 2002,
at 17:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris), and the acceptances of nominees
at 20:00 UTC, 21:00 CET (Paris).
Since 21:00 Paris time any message sent to [email-masked]
is returned with a Delivery-Report "User unknown".

Four (4) nominated candidates accepted to run.
   -------------------------------------------------------------
   Nominees who accepted their nomination for the Chair of the
   General Assembly (GA) (date of reception at the dnso.org,
   CET, Paris)

     * 2001/12/08 Kristy McKee , nominated for the first time 
       by Jean-Francois Morfin 
     * 2001/12/11 Thomas Roessler, nominated for the first time 
       by Elisabeth Porteneuve 
     * 2001/12/21 Alexander Svensson, nominated for the first time 
       by Thomas Roessler 
     * 2001/12/21 Eric Dierker, nominated for the first time 
       by Eric Dierker 
   -------------------------------------------------------------

The endorsement period is:
    Opens on Friday 21 December 2001, 21:00 UTC (22:00 Paris),
    Closes on Friday 04 January 2002, 21:00 UTC (22:00 Paris) 
(For local time in other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

Endorsements must be sent by e-mail to [email-masked].
Please use a Template for endorsement:

       3a. Full name of the endorser:
       3b. E-mail address of the endorser:
       3c. Full name of the accepted nominee
           you wish to endorse:
           (specific statements of endorsements
           may also be submitted and are encouraged)

Archives of endorsements received:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-endorsements/Arc02

Please consult
       http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.DNSO-GAchair.html
for more information on the DNSO GA Chair election.

DNSO Secretariat

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

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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>> 
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- --
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 #938
************************