Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #954
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, January 5 2002          Volume 01 : Number 954

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

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:36:06 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

>
> Could it be that the deal is really already done and the proposal is just
a
> distraction?  Draw your own conclusion after reading this exciting press
> release from VeriSign:
>
> http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2002/pr_20020104.html
>

Not if the registrars have anything to do with it. The proposal is neither
comprehensive enough, nor focused enough for anyone to endorse it at this
point.

More info here:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01727.html

I would also like to hear more from all of you concerning what you think
about the NSI proposal - feel free to continue with the discussion here or
within the ICANN General Assembly mailing list as you see fit.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Brown" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 5:30 PM
Subject: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

>
> Could it be that the deal is really already done and the proposal is just
a
> distraction?  Draw your own conclusion after reading this exciting press
> release from VeriSign:
>
> http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2002/pr_20020104.html
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA       Internet Concepts, Inc.
> [email-masked]            http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55                  (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>

- --
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, 05 Jan 2002 15:39:08 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:36:06 -0500, "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>>
>> Could it be that the deal is really already done and the proposal is just
>a
>> distraction?  Draw your own conclusion after reading this exciting press
>> release from VeriSign:
>>
>> http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2002/pr_20020104.html
>>
>
>Not if the registrars have anything to do with it. The proposal is neither
>comprehensive enough, nor focused enough for anyone to endorse it at this
>point.
>
>More info here:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01727.html
>
>I would also like to hear more from all of you concerning what you think
>about the NSI proposal - feel free to continue with the discussion here or
>within the ICANN General Assembly mailing list as you see fit.

I don't disagree much with the points you make in the URL above.

The registry side of a TLD has to be a monopoly - we can not avoid
that.  However I believe one should try to minimise the role of the
registry and have as much as possible dealt with at registrar level
where there is competition.  Ideally the registry should only be
focused on one thing - providing a reliable service to registrars (and
upholding its contractual obligations of course).

The Verisign proposal IMO muddies the role of the registry and I can
see little of benefit for the wider internet community (especially at
the outrageous price level suggested).  However I welcome input from
Verisign as to what benefits they see this bringing.

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, 4 Jan 2002 19:16:12 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Friday, Friday, January 04, 2002, 6:39:08 PM, DPF wrote:

> The Verisign proposal IMO muddies the role of the registry and I can
> see little of benefit for the wider internet community (especially at
> the outrageous price level suggested).  However I welcome input from
> Verisign as to what benefits they see this bringing.

You mean besides the obvious financial benefit they would accrue?

- -- 
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: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 16:24:17 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:16:12 -0800, William X Walsh
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Friday, Friday, January 04, 2002, 6:39:08 PM, DPF wrote:
>
>> The Verisign proposal IMO muddies the role of the registry and I can
>> see little of benefit for the wider internet community (especially at
>> the outrageous price level suggested).  However I welcome input from
>> Verisign as to what benefits they see this bringing.
>
>You mean besides the obvious financial benefit they would accrue?

I meant for the internet community rather than to Verisign :-)

The benefits for Verisign are rather obvious indeed!

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, 04 Jan 2002 10:45:17 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN policy result

Interesting ...		
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/cn/20020102/tc/internet_shrinks_to_fit_1.html	

This might be a result from the ICANN misunderstanding of its mission. 
Adressing is not a way to regulate but a way to serve. In mixing the 
service and usage layers and in using the TLDs as a way to make petty money 
rather than the netsigns of new cyber areas ICANN has strangled innovative 
uses and confused both users and webmasters.

It may be interesting to compare this negative stagnation in numbers but a 
real relative dicrease to three elements :
- - the private sites webmasters (or individual registrants) are still 
unrepresented
- - the world's large and SME businesses are represented by ... 50 members of 
the BC with an unique target: to avoid that New.net might become a member 
and endanger AT&T
- - the Internet users are denied representation: the @large quality being 
reserved to US gTLD customers.
With the resulta that more than 97% of the users are barred from the 
governance by the ICANN strategy, ie to my understanding by Joe Sims', 
Louis Touton's and Mike Roberts concepts. I may be wrong about Joe and 
Louis, but I made this belief of mine clear enough in direct, private and 
public mails they did not respond for me to believe they do not think I am 
wrong.

Last week's report about 14 majors sharing 60% of the internet usage 
instead of 110 two years ago only confirms that tendency.

I do not object that the ICANN pursues its mission creep in supporting 
Verisign's and its registrars' survival and as one of the acknowledged fora 
to discuss Internet governance issues, but I do think that the IANA 
functions should be transfered to a neutral international registration 
secretariat (three persons to manage the TLD registration directory, the IP 
block list and the Protocol sequence) under the UN EDIFACT or the ITU/T or 
maybe attached to the Wien office managing the ISO 3166 list. There is no 
policy involved in registring names and numbers in a database on a 1st 
come/1st serve basis and in maintaining a WHOIS database on TLD Managers, 
IP Blocks owners and Protocol organisers. I am even ready to organize that 
for $ 150.000 a year including one or two international meetings. This 
money could come from a $ 5 TLD database registration/maintenance free per 
entry (with a discount for developping countries).

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: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 19:11:28 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Rise of Internet 'Borders' Prompts Fears for Web's Future

By Ariana Eunjung Cha
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 4, 2002; Page E01

". . . governments and private businesses increasingly try to draw boundaries
around what used to be a borderless Internet to deal with legal, commercial
and terrorism concerns.  "It used to be that a person sitting in one place
could get or send information anywhere in the world," said Jack Goldsmith, a
professor of international law at the University of Chicago. "But now the
Internet is starting to act more like real space with all its limitations."

These new barriers take many forms. One method is to simply restrict who has
access to computers and gateways to the Internet. Another is to make all
communications pass through filters that seek to weed out objectionable
content, such as pornography or information deemed to endanger national
security. Growing in popularity is software that attempts to match a
computer's unique Internet address with a general geographic location, a
technology that is becoming more precise every day.

The debate is no longer about if we can create these barriers, but rather
whether we should. Even those who support the idea in theory disagree on who
should erect and maintain the electronic fences, whether it should be done by
nation-states or by the Web site operators.

The new borders provide what some call a neat solution to the vexing problem
of how to resolve the often-conflicting policies of the roughly 200
independent states of the world on matters such as gambling, commerce,
copyright and speech.

But critics fear that the barriers will create an Internet that's balkanized.
And civil rights groups warn that freedom of speech will suffer, that the
technology will make it easier for oppressive governments to stifle
nonconformist viewpoints, and that people's privacy will be eroded, especially
because some technologies can pinpoint one's location." [MORE]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59227-2002Jan3.html

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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, 5 Jan 2002 19:30:27 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Last Stand of Oz Domain Fight

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,48973,00.html

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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, 5 Jan 2002 11:06:35 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Election process outline: GA vote for GA Chair and Alternate chair 

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

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-b11-outline.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           DNSO General Assembly
                    Basic outline of the election process
  b11, Vote by the GA to advise the Names Council of its preferences for a
            Chair and an Alternate Chair to the General Assembly

5 January 2002

BASIC OUTLINE OF THE ELECTION PROCESS, b11,
Vote by the GA to advise the Names Council of its preferences for a Chair
and an Alternate Chair to the General Assembly

  1. Timeline:

        Opens:  Saturday 05 January 2002, 17:00 UTC (18:00 Paris),
        Closes: Saturday 12 January 2002, 17:00 UTC (18:00 Paris)
        (For local time in other places see
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

     The results are due no later than Monday 14 January 2002, at 23:00 UTC
     (24:00 Paris), and will be published in
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-chair-election-ranking.html

  2. A ballot is prepared.

     A ballot starts with line "BEGIN" and ends with line "END__".

     It is like this:

     REQUEST: Please mark a preference, using '1' for the most favored
     REQUEST: candidate, '2' for the second, and so on.
     REQUEST: There is no requirement to mark all names.
     REQUEST: This ballot is From: [email-masked]' -- please reply
without CC to any list.
     IMPORTANT: Please do not strip ballot,
     IMPORTANT: it  MUST start with line BEGIN:
     IMPORTANT: it  MUST end   with line END__:.
     IMPORTANT: and MUST contain all lines in between.

      BEGIN:b11:KabcdZ:FirstName_LastName:[email-masked]:SVP-reply
      b11:KabcdZ:[ ] Kristy McKee
      b11:KabcdZ:[ ] Thomas Roessler
      b11:KabcdZ:[ ] Alexander Svensson
      b11:KabcdZ:[ ] Eric Dierker
      END__:b11:KabcdZ:FirstName_LastName:[email-masked]:SVP-reply

  3. Ballot is assigned a number (first field in a line), here "b11" --
     ballot number 11 (it is the eleventh ballot submitted to the GA vote
     since January 2000).

  4. Ballot is personalised. Each line indicates who is voting.

  5. The second field, here between "b11" and "FirstName_LastName", indicate
     a personalised code given for this ballot to this person. A
     personalised code is 6 caracteres, starting with "K", ending with "Z",
     here "KabcdZ".

  6. Do not edit a ballot. Just put a number between square brackets [ ] to
     rank candidates.

     You cast one vote, no more.

  7. A ballot will arrive From: "[email-masked]" -- please reply without
CC
     to any list.

  8. You will receive an aknowledgement of your ballot within 48 hours.

  9. "Election Rules for the DNSO GA V0.2" approved on 23 March 2001
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Information from:  © DNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 04:22:41 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: GA Ballots

Dear secretariat,

  Well I did not get a ballot for the GA chair.  So could you please
resend it.  Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

DNSO Secretariat wrote:

> Ballots for the GA chair are only sent out on Saturday 05 December at 17:00
> UTC
>
> DNSO Secretariat

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: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 07:25:37 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

- --------------852D5C0A68EF179B13761FD2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ross,

I do not see any SEC/EDGAR on this, maybe I missed it.

See;
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/srch-edgar?text=verisign&mode=Simple&amp;start=1&amp;count=80&amp;first=1993&amp;last=2002

Sorry about the wierd link but that is the sec for you.

"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:

> >
> > Could it be that the deal is really already done and the proposal is just
> a
> > distraction?  Draw your own conclusion after reading this exciting press
> > release from VeriSign:
> >
> > http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2002/pr_20020104.html
> >
>
> Not if the registrars have anything to do with it. The proposal is neither
> comprehensive enough, nor focused enough for anyone to endorse it at this
> point.
>
> More info here:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01727.html
>
> I would also like to hear more from all of you concerning what you think
> about the NSI proposal - feel free to continue with the discussion here or
> within the ICANN General Assembly mailing list as you see fit.
>
> -rwr
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Brown" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 5:30 PM
> Subject: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
>
> >
> > Could it be that the deal is really already done and the proposal is just
> a
> > distraction?  Draw your own conclusion after reading this exciting press
> > release from VeriSign:
> >
> > http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2002/pr_20020104.html
> >
> > ----
> > Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA       Internet Concepts, Inc.
> > [email-masked]           http://www.inetconcepts.net
> > PGP Key ID: 04C99A55                  (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> > Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> > ----
> >
>
> --
> 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

- --------------852D5C0A68EF179B13761FD2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Ross,
<p>I do not see any SEC/EDGAR on this, maybe I missed it.
<p>See;&nbsp; <a href="http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/srch-edgar?text=verisign&mode=Simple&amp;start=1&amp;count=80&amp;first=1993&amp;last=2002">http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/srch-edgar?text=verisign&amp;mode=Simple&amp;amp;start=1&amp;amp;count=80&amp;amp;first=1993&amp;amp;last=2002</a>
<p>Sorry about the wierd link but that is the sec for you.
<p>"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>>
<br>> Could it be that the deal is really already done and the proposal
is just
<br>a
<br>> distraction?&nbsp; Draw your own conclusion after reading this exciting
press
<br>> release from VeriSign:
<br>>
<br>> <a href="http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2002/pr_20020104.html">http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2002/pr_20020104.html</a>
<br>>
<p>Not if the registrars have anything to do with it. The proposal is neither
<br>comprehensive enough, nor focused enough for anyone to endorse it at
this
<br>point.
<p>More info here:
<br><a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01727.html">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01727.html</a>
<p>I would also like to hear more from all of you concerning what you think
<br>about the NSI proposal - feel free to continue with the discussion
here or
<br>within the ICANN General Assembly mailing list as you see fit.
<p>-rwr
<p>----- Original Message -----
<br>From: "Don Brown" &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>To: &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 5:30 PM
<br>Subject: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
<p>>
<br>> Could it be that the deal is really already done and the proposal
is just
<br>a
<br>> distraction?&nbsp; Draw your own conclusion after reading this exciting
press
<br>> release from VeriSign:
<br>>
<br>> <a href="http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2002/pr_20020104.html">http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2002/pr_20020104.html</a>
<br>>
<br>> ----
<br>> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Internet Concepts, Inc.
<br>> [email-masked]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.inetconcepts.net">http://www.inetconcepts.net</a>
<br>> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
(972) 788-2364&nbsp; Fax: (972) 788-5049
<br>> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
<br>> ----
<br>>
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>
</html>

- --------------852D5C0A68EF179B13761FD2--

- --
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, 05 Jan 2002 12:42:39 -0700
From: Earl Heather <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: GA-TransferTF-election

REQUEST: Please mark a preference, using '1' for the most favored
REQUEST: candidate, '2' for the second, and so on.
REQUEST: There is no requirement to mark all names.

REQUEST: This ballot is From: [email-masked]' -- please reply without CC to any list.
IMPORTANT: Please do not strip ballot,
IMPORTANT: it  MUST start with line BEGIN:
IMPORTANT: it  MUST end   with line END__:
IMPORTANT: and MUST contain all lines in between.

 BEGIN:b10:K67f8Z:Earl_Heather:[email-masked]:SVP-reply
 b10:K67f8Z:[2] Dan Steinberg
 b10:K67f8Z:[1] Eric Dierker
 b10:K67f8Z:[3] Jeffrey A Williams
 END__:b10:K67f8Z:Earl_Heather:[email-masked]:SVP-reply

Election Rules are in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.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, 5 Jan 2002 14:43:26 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C195F9.EB94AFF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Since 1996, there have been potential domain name holders who have
requested some sort of wait list service in case domain names are
released into the available pool.  The service at the registrar level
was a response to this demand.  Putting the service at the registry
level improves the value of the service for potential registrants.

The value to the Internet community therefore seems rather obvious to
me. But, if there is none as you suggest, then the service will be a
failure.  On the other hand, if there is demand and hence value, it will
succeed.  The level of success will depend on how much demand and value
there is.  The best way to test it is to let the market prove it one way
or other.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 10:24 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
> 
> 
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:16:12 -0800, William X Walsh
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> >Friday, Friday, January 04, 2002, 6:39:08 PM, DPF wrote:
> >
> >> The Verisign proposal IMO muddies the role of the registry 
> and I can
> >> see little of benefit for the wider internet community 
> (especially at
> >> the outrageous price level suggested).  However I welcome 
> input from
> >> Verisign as to what benefits they see this bringing.
> >
> >You mean besides the obvious financial benefit they would accrue?
> 
> I meant for the internet community rather than to Verisign :-)
> 
> The benefits for Verisign are rather obvious indeed!
> 
> 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
> 

- ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C195F9.EB94AFF0
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature;
	name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="smime.p7s"

- ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C195F9.EB94AFF0--

- --
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, 5 Jan 2002 14:48:19 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C195FA.99ECA530
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David,

The fact is that this service offered at the registrar level can never
be as effective as the same service would be at the registry level.  So
if you want the best service for the ultimate customers, it must be done
at the registry level.  The alternative is an inferior service for the
potential registrants.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 9:39 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
> 
> 
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:36:06 -0500, "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Could it be that the deal is really already done and the 
> proposal is just
> >a
> >> distraction?  Draw your own conclusion after reading this 
> exciting press
> >> release from VeriSign:
> >>
> >> http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2002/pr_20020104.html
> >>
> >
> >Not if the registrars have anything to do with it. The 
> proposal is neither
> >comprehensive enough, nor focused enough for anyone to 
> endorse it at this
> >point.
> >
> >More info here:
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01727.html
> >
> >I would also like to hear more from all of you concerning 
> what you think
> >about the NSI proposal - feel free to continue with the 
> discussion here or
> >within the ICANN General Assembly mailing list as you see fit.
> 
> I don't disagree much with the points you make in the URL above.
> 
> The registry side of a TLD has to be a monopoly - we can not avoid
> that.  However I believe one should try to minimise the role of the
> registry and have as much as possible dealt with at registrar level
> where there is competition.  Ideally the registry should only be
> focused on one thing - providing a reliable service to registrars (and
> upholding its contractual obligations of course).
> 
> The Verisign proposal IMO muddies the role of the registry and I can
> see little of benefit for the wider internet community (especially at
> the outrageous price level suggested).  However I welcome input from
> Verisign as to what benefits they see this bringing.
> 
> 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
> 

- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C195FA.99ECA530
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature;
	name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="smime.p7s"

- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C195FA.99ECA530--

- --
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, 5 Jan 2002 14:27:28 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

At 2:48 PM -0500 1/5/02, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>David,
>
>The fact is that this service offered at the registrar level can never
>be as effective as the same service would be at the registry level.  So
>if you want the best service for the ultimate customers, it must be done
>at the registry level.  The alternative is an inferior service for the
>potential registrants.

The registry is a monopoly, which is why its services are (supposedly)
defined and controlled by ICANN.

Why has this extra level been developed with no consensus, no opportunity
for inout from affected parties, and weird extra's like a licensing of some
unknown snapnames technology.

I thought new protocols came to us via the IETF?

From what I understand of the registry system, no client data is stored on
it other than the sponsoring registrar and name server info.

Why then, is this new verisign system built as a seperate database? surely
the obvious thing to do here is add just ONE MORE field to the current
registry database - an entry detailing the registrar who holds the current
"reservation" for this name. That, along with a few extra functions added
to the current registrar-registry interface, would allow Verisign to offer
a reservation system at the same price as their current registration cost.
$6.

This would benefit Verisign, as (from what they've told us - if they're to
be believed) the big problem with the current system is the server load
involved. The above simple change would reduce server load dramatically,
and so there would be no need for charging a higher price than $6 wholesale.

A reservation costs $6 wholesale (and the registry simply places the
sponsoring registrar's code in the reservation field of that domain). And
the registrars are left to develop registration interfaces, etc and set
their own retail price for the service.

Why is the wholesale price going to be so high? It's not due to the
technical requirements - very little involved there. How much is Snapnames
being paid per reservation? Why?

Then again, if the current SRS isn't coping, let's fix the problems with
the current system (probably very easily done if the right people are told
exactly what the problem is, instead of it being hidden under Verisign
marketspeak), rather than bring in a new, biased, system which lines the
pockets of a number of private companies, to the detriment of registrants.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
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 #954
************************