Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #955
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, January 6 2002           Volume 01 : Number 955

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

Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 15:55:45 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Chuck and all assembly members,

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.

  Why not?  I don't see why with proper oversight from the ICANN
staff that this cannot be more effectively done at the registrar level.
Of course if the ICANN staff is unable or unwilling to do that
oversight than there will be some bad mix-ups of varying types.

  So it would seem to me to be obvious that the ICANN staff
has decided it cannot or will honor it's responsibilities yet again
in it's oversight responsibility and therefore has decided to push
this proposal or acquiesce to it in order to fudge it's contracted
responsibilities.

>  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.

  Nonsense Chuck.  (See my comments above)  I know this sounds
good and authoritative and all that, but it is utter nonsense...  I hope
you don't believe that any knowledgeable registrant is going to buy
it do you?  >;)

>
> 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
> >

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, 5 Jan 2002 14:29:32 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some SnapNames stats

Excellent post, George.  I've taken the liberty of forwarding this
post to the General Assembly mailing list of the DNSO where it may
also be of interest.  Anyone keeping tabs can put me down as 100% in
agreement with George's points.

And I STRONGLY encourage resellers interested in helping to prevent
this asinine proposal by Verisign from going forward to join the
DNSO General Assembly mailing list and make your voice heard there as
well.

The list is a bit disfunctional, but as someone else pointed out to me
this last week, the list IS read by the important staff members at
ICANN, and is referenced by several of the constituency mailing lists
when they discussions on issues like this.  So ignore the
disfunctionality and get your points across.

http://www.dnso.org/listsdnso.html for more information.

- -wxw

Saturday, Saturday, January 05, 2002, 1:27:19 PM, George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,

> Excellent posts, Joseph and Harold.

> I'm glad that folks are finally seeing that Verisign has not proven to
> us that there is a technical problem at the current time with the
> operation of the deletion process. Months ago these same technical
> fixes were proposed to reduce the "check" load on Verisign. Since
> they've not been implemented, or even COMMENTED UPON by Verisign my
> conclusion is that there never was a problem in the first place.
> Verisign simply created the myth that there was a problem to further
> their business interests.

> If there truly is a problem, why have they refused to implement the
> simple technical fixes that so many have proposed? Rate-limiting
> connections, pushing out lists of candidate drop names, and returning
> richer error codes (e.g. new expiration date) so folks don't hammer the
> registry to attempt to catch names that were already caught are MUCH
> simpler to implement than the creation of a Waiting List Service, and
> would solve any fictional problem that Verisign thinks it is
> experiencing.

> If the registry source code was Open Source, I bet folks here would be
> able to patch up the code to implement the above in a matter of DAYS,
> literally. All of the above technologies are so simple, yet Verisign
> hasn't even commented on them. I think they have an obligation to
> comment on them, and explain why they refuse to implement them.

> My background is in economics and finance. It is far easier to explain
> Verisign's behaviour in the context of an abusive monopolist seeking to
> crowd out competitors, exert further control over the registry, and
> maximize its own profits. As Occam's Razor tells us, the simplest
> explanation is most likely to be the truth. Forcing everyone to
> subscribe to a "waiting list" using the SnapNames business model is the
> behaviour of a monopolist seeking to earn more money per registration.
> Verisign says that the "SnapNames" business model is a proven and
> accepted one. I beg to differ. There are currently numerous competing
> firms and registrars attempting to register expired domains now, using
> the existing fair and transparent system. Let me name just a few:

> 1) NameWinner (by Dotster) -- they use an auction methodology, and the
> name is only billed if the name is caught. One can register a name for
> as low as $25, HALF the SnapNames fee. Dotster has been catching a
> similar quantity of names as Snap, thus is a big competitor that will
> be shut out should Verisign monopolize dropped names. Dotster uses at
> least 2 registrar connections.

> 2) NicGenie.com (by Parava) -- similar to Dotster above, but with an
> even lower price of $20, which is 60% below SnapNames. While not as
> successful as NameWinner, they still catch some good names, using only
> a single registrar connection.

> 3) eNom "Drop Club" -- using at least 2 registrar connections, they
> rent out fractional usage for a set monthly fee, for unlimited usage.
> So, names can be caught for essentially the $6 wholesale fee. eNOM is a
> serious challenger to SnapNames and NameWinner, catching a high
> quantity of names monthly.

> 4) IARegistry -- not sure of the precise details, but from what I can
> tell it's a drop club similar to eNom, but with a single license.

> 5) AWRegistry -- similar to IARegistry and eNOM from what I can tell,
> although most of the names seem to go to one major client.

> 6) Signature Domains -- uses entire registry for its own portfolio,
> from what I can tell.

> 7) INWW, OnlineNic.com, AddressCreation, AllDomains.com, Eastcom.com,
> PayCenter.com -- all successfully using "drop club" style systems, from
> what I can tell.

> 8) ExpireFish.com (new, don't know too much about them; looks like a
> SnapNames clone).

> SnapNames hasn't been in business even a year, if I'm not mistaken.
> None of their "SnapBacks" has ever expired worthless, as they've not
> gone to maturity. I would not want to be them (or a registrar under the
> Waiting List System) when a registrant is told at the end of the year
> that they paid $49 or $89 or whatever for nothing, as the name got
> renewed. If we want a true "test bed", let us wait until SnapNames has
> been in business for more than a year, to see how they handle to
> customer support issue of thousands of customers seeking out refunds,
> for not having received the name they were going for. That would be a
> learning experience everyone would benefit from, before making such a
> drastic change to a functioning system. By the way, in any "Waiting
> List System", existing SnapBack holders should not be grandfathered or
> given priority -- there should be a landrush period (this goes without
> saying, but some folks have suggested this will sneak through, as few
> people have noticed this situation). I'd also like to see
> Verisign/SnapNames explain how the Waiting List System itself won't be
> hammered, as people try to catch names while holders are switching
> their slots.

> The fact is, we have a healthy and competitive market now, much to the
> dismay of SnapNames and Verisign, who would like to exert control and
> dominance over the system as monopolists, and reduce consumer choice.
> It's the duty of ICANN, and the registrar community to watch over the
> behaviour of Verisign (a monopolist) and SnapNames (a monopolist
> wanna-be). I've used SnapNames on occasion, and have nothing against
> their business model. The only problem with them is that they want to
> become a monopolist themselves, and shut out consumer and registrar
> choice.

> I'd also like to point out the "myth" of SnapNames' success. Given the
> above, it's clear that there are a lot of competitors to SnapNames. The
> majority of registrars are NOT SnapNames partners (when it comes to
> numbers of connections being used to catch drops). Also, if you count
> the number of domains that are actually caught, SnapNames doesn't have
> a majority there either. The above 7 groups (and there are many that
> I'm not aware of) catch quite a few names. The only area where
> SnapNames dominates is in the issuance of self-serving press releases.
> None of the above 7 groups can hold a candle to SnapNames in that
> regard.

> The typical SnapNames "mythology" about deleted names is that their
> clients are pure and noble, and everyone else is an "abusive
> speculator" that must be stopped. SnapNames publishes a list of names
> they've caught, at:

> http://www.snapnames.com/hot100.html

> In case they decide to remove that list, I've saved a copy at:

> http://www.loffs.com/images/hot100.txt

> Let us analyze this list, and see who some of SnapNames's "pure and
> noble" clients are:

> a) UltSearch.com owns 19 of the 100 names (participates on many other
> drop systems too). 
> b) BuyDomains.com - 16 of the 100 names (all for sale, too!)
> c) DirectSeek/PTI Networks/Frank and Michelle Schilling -- 6 names
> (participants on other drop systems too).
> d) 5 other names were explicitly for sale in the WHOIS info, or were
> pointed at Afternic, a domain auction site.
> e) Michele Dinoia -- 2 names (a high volume domain registrant via
> AWRegistry, among others)
> f) 7 names seem to raise some trademark issues:
> i) advil.net (and the domain is for sale!)
> ii) xeroxprinters.com 
> iii) wall-mart.com (redirecting to Amazon.com for now, using the
> "hotdealsweb-20" affiliate tag)
> iv) NokiaTunes.com
> v) HondaAccord.com
> vi) VolkswagonParts.com -- redirects to an "abortion is murder" site,
> with a picture of a headless fetus (gruesome)
> vii) UnitedAir.com (nice use of Flash in the WHOIS; see the WHOIS at
> www.netsol.com for this one)

> I'm not saying that any of the above are "abusive speculators" (well, I
> think I'm safe on the volkswagonparts.com one!), but I personally would
> like to have SnapNames provde a precise definition of "abusive
> speculator". Does it have to do with a high volume of registrations?
> Does it involve trademark violations? Does it have to do with offering
> the name up immediately for sale? Does it mean using a non-SnapNames
> system (many of SnapNames' biggest customers use alternatives too).
> Personally, I think any registrant is innocent, until proven guilty via
> the UDRP process. But, I want to know Verisign and SnapNames' precise
> definition of abusive registrants, as they routinely trash the clients
> of competing drop systems, and are the ones saying that there is a
> current problem that needs to be "solved". Once we have a clear
> definition, we can see how many of SnapNames' own clients fit that
> profile.

> What makes any registrar think they'll get a share of the above big
> customers should Verisign be given a monopoly is beyond me. Registrars
> would be shooting themselves in the foot, since they no longer have the
> ability to compete in the open process we have now (and many registrars
> are clearly kicking Snapnames' butt in this open competition; no wonder
> SnapNames' would want to no longer compete, as they're worried that
> their model isn't working). Any registrar such as Tucows/Register.com,
> eNom, Dotster, Parava, the Asian registries, itsy-bitsy register, etc.
> should ask themselves "Will the UltSearches and BuyDomains of this
> world be buying from me, if this goes through, or will they seek out
> the lowest cost reseller, with no margin for me?" Will Verisign be
> making all the profit based on its $40 monopolist charge? 

> What's in it for registrants, who are the consumers in all this? ICANN
> needs to be watching out for the end user (since many of the registrars
> can't be trusted, when they openly talk about picking a price to
> maximize profits). When there's a monopoly (and Verisign is clearly
> seeking to create a new and highly lucrative one for itself here), it's
> the consumers that suffer most through higher prices and reduced
> choice. Competitors who are fairly competing now will also suffer.

> In conclusion, I think I speak for many who want:

> 1) Clear and proven definitions of what constitutes "abusive
> behaviour".
> Prove to me and others that this is not an invention of the monopolist
> registry operator Verisign, seeking to maximize profits through a
> self-serving "fix" of its own choosing.

> 2) Clear explanations as to why the numerous simple and inexpensive
> technical solutions that have been proposed to reduce registry load
> have not been implemented.

> 3) Explanations why we need a "test bed" at all, one that will be
> highly profitable to Verisign and SnapNames alone, at the expense of
> both consumers and competing registrars, given that the current system
> seems to be working just fine (competitive business models offered; no
> major complaints from any consumers seen on ICANN message boards,
> except complaining about Verisign not releasing all on-hold names as
> they're required to do).

> 4) The "discussion period" of 3 weeks for such a period should be
> extended to at least 6 to 9 months, to give the opportunity for
> registrars to get input from their clients, for ICANN to get input from
> registrars and registrants, and for Verisign to have time to implement
> the technical fixes that they've refused to do. Verisign's refusal to
> implement fixes such as "rate-limiting" technology and extended
> response codes (and others already proposed by numerous other parties)
> can only be explained by a desire to perpetuate the mythology of having
> "unsolvable problems", so they can try to push through a cash grab ($60
> million/yr by their estimates) and assert dominance over registrars and
> registrants alike. Pushing through a major change as a "done deal" is
> not the behaviour a monopolist should be allowed to get away with. 
 
> Sincerely,

> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/

> P.S. Feel free to forward this email to any other appropriate
> discussion forums.

> --- Joseph McDonald <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> >>Okay, well, how should they solve it, then? If you have an idea,
>> I'd love
>> >>to hear it (and I'm not being sarcastic). I honestly don't think
>> it's 
>> >>solvable -- there is a virtually infinite demand for some names,
>> and the 
>> >>registry/registrars/resellers can't supply virtually infinite
>> connection 
>> >>resources.
>> 
>> HW> Simple. Every registrar has access to the batch-pool.  The
>> registry
>> HW> complains of tens of millions of worthless "checks" during drop
>> times.  An
>> HW> additional response code signifying a name has been registered IN
>> THE LAST
>> HW> 24 HOURS would stop the registrars from continuing to pursue that
>> name.
>> 
>> YES!  I believe Tucows proposed a very similar idea to Verisign:
>> Right now, if you do a "check" command on a domain, and you are not
>> the registrar for that domain, you receive an error message,
>> otherwise
>> you get the expiration date.  The proposal was to have the check
>> command return the expiration date regardless of who was the
>> registrar.  This would eliminate *huge* number of check/add commands
>> and
>> largely solve the problem, just as your IN_THE_LAST_24_HOURS flag
>> would.  Either one is fine by me.
>> 
>> There was another proposal which would also take a huge load off of
>> the registry: The top registrars do millions of check commands
>> against
>> the registry on a daily basis to support normal operations. On
>> average
>> there are less than 50K adds and 50K drops performed at the registry
>> each day. Let's say the top 4 registrars each do 2.5 million checks a
>> day (my guess is that this is a conservative number) for a total of
>> 10
>> million checks a day. The idea is that the registry can push those
>> 100K changes out to the registrars, thus saving 9.6 *million*
>> transactions a day, which is more than 100 per second, and when you
>> figure in the peaks, you may be talking 200 per second during busy
>> times.
>> 
>> I also think that the registry should publish a list of names to be
>> dropped and when they will be dropped to all the registrars.  This
>> would eliminate check/add commands on names that people think are
>> going to drop, but really aren't going to drop.
>> 
>> Implementing those 3 proposals (the first one could probably be
>> implemented in an hour) would probably bring the load on the registry
>> down to record lows.
>> 
>> regards,
>> -joe
>> 

- --
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 14:39:15 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Saturday, Saturday, January 05, 2002, 11:43:26 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.

And kills a rapidly growing, and profitable, industry while giving
your company a monopoly (you're a stockholder too, so I can say "your
company"  :)

- -- 
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, 5 Jan 2002 18:08:20 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Fwd: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

- --part1_15.2089def7.2968e164_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- --part1_15.2089def7.2968e164_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

From: [email-masked]
Full-name: JessWest
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 17:58:43 EST
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]

- --part2_15.2089def7.2968df23_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 1/5/2002 2:04:53 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 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.

Improves it for who?   You, SAIC, NSI, Verisign and other employees and 
executives  and politicians that have already pocketed millions?

- --part2_15.2089def7.2968df23_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=2>In a message dated 1/5/2002 2:04:53 PM Central Standard Time, [email-masked] writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Since 1996, there have been potential domain name holders who have
<BR>requested some sort of wait list service in case domain names are
<BR>released into the available pool. &nbsp;The service at the registrar level
<BR>was a response to this demand. &nbsp;Putting the service at the registry
<BR>level improves the value of the service for potential registrants.</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>Improves it for who? &nbsp;&nbsp;You, SAIC, NSI, Verisign and other employees and executives &nbsp;and politicians that have already pocketed millions?</FONT></HTML>

- --part2_15.2089def7.2968df23_boundary--

- --part1_15.2089def7.2968e164_boundary--
- --
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 17:16:43 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

WXW and all assembly members,

  Well I am a stockholder too and I still disagree strongly with this
proposal even though it might benefit me from a stock price boost
if I sold some of the stock I hold in VRSN.

  The real point is that this proposal aids is helping the ICANN staff
shirk it's responsibilities and allows the Registries to have far too
much control.  It is unnecessary as the Registrars should be doing this
task(s).  It makes for worse registrant assistance.  And it provides
little structural enhancement...

William X Walsh wrote:

> Saturday, Saturday, January 05, 2002, 11:43:26 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> And kills a rapidly growing, and profitable, industry while giving
> your company a monopoly (you're a stockholder too, so I can say "your
> company"  :)
>
> --
> 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

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, 5 Jan 2002 18:15:40 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [GTLD Registries List] What is the  accreditati...

- --part1_149.76354b0.2968e31c_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 1/5/2002 2:18:17 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> ICANN is effectively setting up laws to govern Internet domain name usage 
> and assignment. 

It is NOT ICANN's job to set up laws !   Trademark issues should be settled 
in the courts, and the laws applied fairly and equally  - not in a  back room 
by a few  well paid, biased arbitrators.  ICANN is nothing more than a cover 
or go-between for the DOC and the powerhouse at Verisign and SAIC. 

- --part1_149.76354b0.2968e31c_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=2>In a message dated 1/5/2002 2:18:17 PM Central Standard Time, [email-masked] writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#0000ff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">ICANN is effectively setting up laws to govern Internet domain name usage and assignment. </FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>It is NOT ICANN's job to set up laws ! &nbsp;&nbsp;Trademark issues should be settled in the courts, and the laws applied fairly and equally &nbsp;- not in a &nbsp;back room by a few &nbsp;well paid, biased arbitrators. &nbsp;ICANN is nothing more than a cover or go-between for the DOC and the powerhouse at Verisign and SAIC. </FONT></HTML>

- --part1_149.76354b0.2968e31c_boundary--
- --
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 17:20:52 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

At 6:08 PM -0500 1/5/02, [email-masked] wrote:
>
>In a message dated 1/5/2002 2:04:53 PM Central Standard Time,
>[email-masked] writes:
>
>>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.
>>
>
>
>Improves it for who?   You, SAIC, NSI, Verisign and other employees and
>executives  and politicians that have already pocketed millions?

Except for the fact that you missed out SnapNames, the list appears to be
right on the button.

- -- 
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

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

Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 16:22:03 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

>> Putting the service at the registry level improves the
>> value of the service for potential registrants.
> 
> Improves it for who?

Registrants, for one. The principal improvement of the Waiting List Service
proposed last week is that if you buy a subscription, then you're certain to
get your desired domain name if and when it lapses.

Under a registrar-based model, you'd have to purchase a subscription with
all of the various registrars who offer a competing service in order to get
close to the same guarantee.  It would cost more, in both money and
aggravation, and still not guarantee that you would get the name.

     -- Bret

- --
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 19:19:17 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Bret and all assembly members,

Bret Fausett wrote:

> >> Putting the service at the registry level improves the
> >> value of the service for potential registrants.
> >
> > Improves it for who?
>
> Registrants, for one. The principal improvement of the Waiting List Service
> proposed last week is that if you buy a subscription, then you're certain to
> get your desired domain name if and when it lapses.

  How does buying a subscription to such a service make it "Certain"
that the subscriber to this proposed service is going to get their
desired domain name?  Where is the beef here??

>
>
> Under a registrar-based model, you'd have to purchase a subscription with
> all of the various registrars who offer a competing service in order to get
> close to the same guarantee.  It would cost more, in both money and
> aggravation, and still not guarantee that you would get the name.

  One thing sure in life is that there are NO guarantee's...
You should know this Bret....

>
>
>      -- Bret
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 13:01:10 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Fw: [ga] Re: GA-TransferTF-election

Hi Earl

To make your vote count, it is probably more sensible to follow the voting
instructions.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Earl Heather <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 6:42 AM
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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 22:53:38 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

- --part1_d1.120b8605.29692442_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en

In a message dated 1/5/2002 6:35:07 PM Central Standard Time, [email-masked]=
m=20
writes:

> Registrants, for one. The principal improvement of the Waiting List Servic=
e
> proposed last week is that if you buy a subscription, then you're certain=20=
to
> get your desired domain name if and when it lapses.
>=20

There are no guarantees other than potential lawsuits unless someone decides=
=20
they don't want their site. =20

 It is more like having to pay the mafia protection money for invasion of=20
privacy.   They will even provide notification of any change on the records=20
which would include personal addresses, phone numbers, etc.  Besides=20
anti-trust and monopoly laws, and  invasion of privacy, it borders on=20
conspiracy and  Interference in a business relationship laws of many states.=
 =20
Wire Tap anyone ?

From Snapnames website:

>   =20
Back-order the names you want.
Protect the names you have.

SnapBack is the only service that helps you secure wanted names and protect=20
the names you already have. For only $49 a year, you can:  =20
>    Back-order a domain name and have the industry's best chance to acquire=
=20
the name the millisecond it becomes available. =20
>    Minimize or avert loss of a domain name, and thus of vital e-commerce=20
functions, due to missed renewal payments, employee or political sabotage,=20
hacker or terrorist cyber-jacking, even registry or clerical errors.=20
   =20
>
FREE! Monitor any domain name.

The FREE SnapShot=E2=84=A2 service alerts you to availability of a domain na=
me for=20
re-sale or auction, as well as to changes to a domain name record. This=20
monitoring tool provides updates to you weekly in our SnapViews=E2=84=A2 new=
sletter. <A HREF=3D"https://www.snapnames.com/newsltr_reg.jsp">
Subscribe!</A> <A HREF=3D"http://www.snapnames.com/products_snapshot.html">L=
earn more</A>
   =20

   =20

   =20

   =20

   =20

=20

- --part1_d1.120b8605.29692442_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=3D2=
>In a message dated 1/5/2002 6:35:07 PM Central Standard Time, [email-masked]=
om writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-=
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Registrants, for one. The p=
rincipal improvement of the Waiting List Service
<BR>proposed last week is that if you buy a subscription, then you're certai=
n to
<BR>get your desired domain name if and when it lapses.
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Ar=
ial" LANG=3D"0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Ar=
ial" LANG=3D"0">
<BR>There are no guarantees other than potential lawsuits unless someone dec=
ides they don't want their site. &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR> It is more like having to pay the mafia protection money for invasion o=
f privacy. &nbsp;&nbsp;They will even provide notification of any change on=20=
the records which would include personal addresses, phone numbers, etc. &nbs=
p;Besides anti-trust and monopoly laws, and &nbsp;invasion of privacy, it bo=
rders on conspiracy and &nbsp;Interference in a business relationship laws o=
f many states. &nbsp;Wire Tap anyone ?
<BR>
<BR>From Snapnames website:
<BR>
<BR><IMG  SRC=3D"http://www.snapnames.com/images/subhead_sb.gif" WIDTH=3D"19=
2" HEIGHT=3D"41" BORDER=3D"0">   =20
<BR>Back-order the names you want.
<BR>Protect the names you have.
<BR>
<BR>SnapBack is the only service that helps you secure wanted names and prot=
ect the names you already have. For only $49 a year, you can:  =20
<BR><IMG  SRC=3D"http://www.snapnames.com/images/bullet.gif" WIDTH=3D"15" HE=
IGHT=3D"10" BORDER=3D"0">    Back-order a domain name and have the industry'=
s best chance to acquire the name the millisecond it becomes available. =20
<BR><IMG  SRC=3D"http://www.snapnames.com/images/bullet.gif" WIDTH=3D"15" HE=
IGHT=3D"10" BORDER=3D"0">    Minimize or avert loss of a domain name, and th=
us of vital e-commerce functions, due to missed renewal payments, employee o=
r political sabotage, hacker or terrorist cyber-jacking, even registry or cl=
erical errors.=20
<BR>   =20
<BR><IMG  SRC=3D"http://www.snapnames.com/images/subhead_ss.gif" WIDTH=3D"19=
2" HEIGHT=3D"41" BORDER=3D"0">
<BR>FREE! Monitor any domain name.
<BR>
<BR>The FREE SnapShot=E2=84=A2 service alerts you to availability of a domai=
n name for re-sale or auction, as well as to changes to a domain name record=
. This monitoring tool provides updates to you weekly in our SnapViews=E2=
=84=A2 newsletter. <A HREF=3D"https://www.snapnames.com/newsltr_reg.jsp">Sub=
scribe!</A> <A HREF=3D"http://www.snapnames.com/products_snapshot.html">Lear=
n more</A>
<BR>   =20
<BR>
<BR>   =20
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>   =20
<BR>
<BR>   =20
<BR>
<BR>   =20
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Ar=
ial" LANG=3D"0">
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT> </HTML>

- --part1_d1.120b8605.29692442_boundary--
- --
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 #955
************************