Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #956
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, January 6 2002           Volume 01 : Number 956

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

Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 23:17:05 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Actually, what is happening is that Verisign is
effectively trying to sell a domain name TWICE.  First,
there's the original registration and now this proposal
(if effected) will amount to the RESALE of any given
already registered domain name with absolutely NO
guarantees whatsoever that the second registrant will ever
get anything for their money.  Isn't this akin to a
LOTTERY?  If you're lucky you will "win" the registration,
if not you will lose your $40... in both cases there's
really only one true beneficiary: VERISIGN!  Forgive me
for saying so, but this so called "proposal" is a load of
horseshit!  It's another lottery schema in disguise. 

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-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: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 17:29:25 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 16:22:03 -0800, 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.

C'mon, Bret, that's crap and you know it.  What is the basis, FCFS?

So you join a queue of 20 people all waiting for the domain name?  What, they
climb up the queue like in a customer service call centre -- "You are fourth
in the queue" ??

Do you really believe that Verisign, which has the world's worst reputation
for managing expired and released domain names, is going to manage such a
process sensitively?

Especially at registry level where there is less "customer service" to begin
with.

Don't you think that some people will want to pay more leading to a
degeneration of the system from FCFS to the "highest bidder" ?  For example,
if you know who is in the queue above you, what's to stop you from contacting
them and buying out their interest?  Or VeriSign revising their proposals?

And how do you manage those who give up?  It's like when you are in a lift
(elevator to you guys) and press the wrong floor, how do you cancel the
incorrect depression?  Anwer is you don't and the lift stops anyway with
nobody getting in or out.

Of course, the validity cannot be forever, it would be too intensive, so there
will be a limited time (if not at first then later when the waiting list for a
popular domains gets longer).  Why do I say that?  Simple, it would generate
even more income.

> 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.

I'm amazed that you fall for VeriSign's FUD.  There are no guarantees.

Best 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: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 17:37:07 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 23:17:05 -0800, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Actually, what is happening is that Verisign is
> effectively trying to sell a domain name TWICE.

Why only twice?  What about others in the queue?

In fact, there's nothing to stop VeriSign selling the
same domain umpteen times.

> First,
> there's the original registration and now this proposal
> (if effected) will amount to the RESALE of any given
> already registered domain name with absolutely NO
> guarantees whatsoever that the second registrant will ever
> get anything for their money.  Isn't this akin to a
> LOTTERY?  If you're lucky you will "win" the registration,
> if not you will lose your $40... in both cases there's
> really only one true beneficiary: VERISIGN!  Forgive me
> for saying so, but this so called "proposal" is a load of
> horseshit!  It's another lottery schema in disguise. 

That, Sotiris, is hitting the nail squarely on the head !!
It is a money making proposal pure and simple.
 
Best 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: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 01:06:02 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Patrick and all assembly members,

  I think they call this method of profiteering, bilking...

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 23:17:05 -0800, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > Actually, what is happening is that Verisign is
> > effectively trying to sell a domain name TWICE.
>
> Why only twice?  What about others in the queue?
>
> In fact, there's nothing to stop VeriSign selling the
> same domain umpteen times.
>
> > First,
> > there's the original registration and now this proposal
> > (if effected) will amount to the RESALE of any given
> > already registered domain name with absolutely NO
> > guarantees whatsoever that the second registrant will ever
> > get anything for their money.  Isn't this akin to a
> > LOTTERY?  If you're lucky you will "win" the registration,
> > if not you will lose your $40... in both cases there's
> > really only one true beneficiary: VERISIGN!  Forgive me
> > for saying so, but this so called "proposal" is a load of
> > horseshit!  It's another lottery schema in disguise.
>
> That, Sotiris, is hitting the nail squarely on the head !!
> It is a money making proposal pure and simple.
>
> Best 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

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 23:22:10 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

>> 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.
> 
> C'mon, Bret, that's crap and you know it.  What is the basis, FCFS?

Yes. My understanding of the proposal, is that it's first-come,
first-served, just as in registering a new domain name.
 
> So you join a queue of 20 people all waiting for the domain name?

If I read the proposal correctly, it's not certain whether there will be
more than one person allowed to take a subscription. I believe that's still
under discussion.

> For example, if you know who is in the queue above you, what's to stop you
> from contacting them and buying out their interest?

Nothing that I can see. So what? Nothing to stop you from contacting any
domain name owner and buying out their registration contract either.
 
>> 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.
> 
> I'm amazed that you fall for VeriSign's FUD.  There are no guarantees.

No, if the system works the way it's intended, you should be guaranteed the
name. Of course, on the registrars list, you can already see companies
exploring the idea of using the window of time after the customer has lost
rights in the names for non-renewal but before the name actual deletes to
offer their own service. If that's permitted, it would significantly devalue
the WLS. 

Guarantees and predictability are generally good for registrants.

If you've tried to pick up a deleting name over the last year, you've faced
two problems:

   1. knowing when it was going to drop
      (expiration date seems to have virtually nothing to do with
      when a name is actually deleted); and

   2. knowing how to get it first, when it dropped
      (before Snapnames and other commercial services, this was
      a dark art that bordered on the occult)

Even with Snapnames or some of the other registrar offerings, you were
playing the odds. $49.00 got you a Snapback. Dotster's Namewinner service
was an auction, which cost another $25.00 minimum to play. eNom and some
other registrars had their own services. All of those services were
competing against each other for the name you wanted. As a consequence, if
you REALLY wanted a name, you had to play all the games to maximize your
chances. Add up all the fees and you're well over whatever it is that VGRS
and the registrars will charge for this WLS.

So from the perspective of someone who has paid for these services in the
past, I don't particularly care what system the registrars adopt, but I do
think these two features are important:

   (a) the person first-in-line with a subscription always gets the domain
name when it deletes; and

   (b) change of ownership always happens at a defined time after the
previous owner's registration has lapsed (i.e. no more random periods
between expiration and deletion).

I hope the registrars will keep those in mind as they are evaluating the
VGRS proposal.

         -- 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 23:43:40 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Pyramiding?

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Patrick and all assembly members,
>
>   I think they call this method of profiteering, bilking...
>
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 23:17:05 -0800, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, what is happening is that Verisign is
> > > effectively trying to sell a domain name TWICE.
> >
> > Why only twice?  What about others in the queue?
> >
> > In fact, there's nothing to stop VeriSign selling the
> > same domain umpteen times.
> >
> > > First,
> > > there's the original registration and now this proposal
> > > (if effected) will amount to the RESALE of any given
> > > already registered domain name with absolutely NO
> > > guarantees whatsoever that the second registrant will ever
> > > get anything for their money.  Isn't this akin to a
> > > LOTTERY?  If you're lucky you will "win" the registration,
> > > if not you will lose your $40... in both cases there's
> > > really only one true beneficiary: VERISIGN!  Forgive me
> > > for saying so, but this so called "proposal" is a load of
> > > horseshit!  It's another lottery schema in disguise.
> >
> > That, Sotiris, is hitting the nail squarely on the head !!
> > It is a money making proposal pure and simple.
> >
> > Best 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
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 23:53:30 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Saturday, Saturday, January 05, 2002, 11:22:10 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:

> Nothing that I can see. So what? Nothing to stop you from contacting any
> domain name owner and buying out their registration contract either.

That should be the ONLY way that a person should be able to acquire a
guarantee they will get a domain name in advance of its expiration.

The registry should not be pre-re-selling domain names in advance of
their registration, or guaranteeing those names to any one registrar,
company, or person.

The uncertainty in the current system is VASTLY more fair, in that it
really is possible for just about ANYONE to acquire one of these
names.

Snapnames and the other services CAN BE AND ARE beat out for names,
every day.

There is nothing which will convince me that a registry level program
like this is in any way in the best interests of the internet
community.

This is even worse than the plan I spoke of on here a week ago, where
a Registrar was considering bypassing the drop process altogether and
reselling its dropped names itself without ever returning them to the
registry.

- -- 
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: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 21:28:11 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Structure Taskforce Update

An update and request for feedback from those interested in the DNSO
Structure Taskforce.

An initial discussion paper was published (v2) on 3 December at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00003.doc

I posted some feedback on 15 December at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00056.html

The TF Chair followed up at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00057.html on the issue
of where policy making on domain name issues should happen and posted
four models, being :

1. Status quo - no ALSO, no individuals domain name holders
constituency (IDNHC) within the DNSO. Result: lack of individuals'
representation.
 
2. ALSO, no change DNSO. 
Result: Board may get contradictory advise, DNSO role in policy
weakened, relevance of today's GA uncertain.
 
3. ALSO, new IDNHC within DNSO
Result: Board may get contradictory advise, DNSO role in policy
weakened, GA reverts to its intended role as a unifying assembly,
duplication of individuals voice in policy making.
 
4. Different ALSO (direct elections to board, but policy directed via
the DNSO), otherwise no change DNSO
Result: Board gets consistent advise, DNSO role in policy
strengthened, GA reverts to its intended role as a unifying assembly.

Option 4 has been looked at in more detail.  I posted (at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00069.html) that there
could well be advantage in having an ALSO perform a dual role of
electing Board members as an SO does but also function within the DNSO
as a constituency.  I stated that I believed that if one went down
this route the ALSO should get to elect 3 members of the Names Council
as well as directly electing Board members.

The TF Chair responded
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00070.html) and has
put forward a scenario which is:

1. ALSO is formed and directly elects 5/6/9 Board members (as ALSC
proposal but lets not argue about the number here)
2. ALSO also elects 10/12 member Administrative Council (as ALSC
proposal but with an administrative role to organise the SO and
outreach downwards on policy)
3. ALSO Administrative Council selects 3 members (or the 3 top
geographically diverse of the directly-elected council election list)
appointed to Names Council to input on policy matters. The 3 AL Names
Council reps get full voting rights on policy issues on the NC (but do
not vote at the annual election for DNSO Board members).
4. The individuals petitioning for an individual domain name holders
constituency within the DNSO are encouraged to participate in the ALSO
and become AL Administrative Council members and reps to the NC.
5. The GA reverts to its intended role of uniting all DNSO
constituencies (and expands to include at least the AL Administrative
Council and NC reps).

Feedback specifically on the scenario above, but also on any aspects
of the work to date, is welcome.

I see two main benefits of possibly having the ALSO perform a dual
role.  They are:

1) It may cut down on considerable duplication in what may be a
limited volunteer pool of participation in both an ALSO and an IDNHC. 

2) Already the Board and staff ignore the DNSO as the place where
domain name policy should be formulated.  If the ALSO functions
outside the DNSO in terms of advising on domain name policy then it
gives even greater carte blanche for Board and staff to pick and
choose what they do.  

This of course touches on wider issues such as whether the ALSO (and
an IDNHC) should be limited to domain name holders/admin contacts.  

As I said feedback welcome.

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: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 19:52:41 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Jeff Williams Spams Again

Hi Jeff

I trust that we appoint Kristy, Alexander or Thomas as the new GA Chair as I
doubt that any of them will put up with your spamming everyone in sight.

Most of these people subscribe to the GA list so this is quite unnecessary.
Can't you just post to the mailing list like everyone else?  What makes you so
special?

Sheesh !!

Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
To: Don Heath <[email-masked]>
Cc: Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; NameCritic
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; tc louis <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; marc schneiders
<[email-masked]>; simon higgs <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; Jason Graff <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<secretariat@coreni
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-announce] ORG divestiture policy
nears completion!

<snip>

- --
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, 06 Jan 2002 03:11:15 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Jeff Williams Spams Again

Patrick and all assembly members,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Jeff
>
> I trust that we appoint Kristy, Alexander or Thomas as the new GA Chair as I
> doubt that any of them will put up with your spamming everyone in sight.

  Spamming?  How and whom?  My CC list in this instance includes GA
members and also has others that are not GA members as well.  How is
that spam?

>
>
> Most of these people subscribe to the GA list so this is quite unnecessary.

  Most yes, all no.  See my comments above...

>
> Can't you just post to the mailing list like everyone else?  What makes you so
> special?

  What makes you think that I think I am special, Patrick.  Again those
that were included in the posting you are referring to are not ALL
GA members.  Hence the reason in part for cc'ing them.  It is my
E-Mail client, I shall use it once a posting has come to me by whatever
means or method I choose to.  That is not Spam, Patrick...  I am
not advertising anything...  So you improper characterization
here is a form of abuse in and of itself.  Please discontinue it.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation, Patrick...

>
>
> Sheesh !!
>
> Patrick Corliss
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
> To: Don Heath <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; NameCritic
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; tc louis <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; marc schneiders
> <[email-masked]>; simon higgs <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; Jason Graff <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <secretariat@coreni
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 11:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-announce] ORG divestiture policy
> nears completion!
>
> <snip>

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, 06 Jan 2002 03:25:16 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Bret and all assembly members or other interested parties,

Bret Fausett wrote:

> >> 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.
> >
> > C'mon, Bret, that's crap and you know it.  What is the basis, FCFS?
>
> Yes. My understanding of the proposal, is that it's first-come,
> first-served, just as in registering a new domain name.

  Well it isn't Bret.  And if you read it carefully that should be obvious.
This proposal is also at the registry level, not at the Registrar level.

>
>
> > So you join a queue of 20 people all waiting for the domain name?
>
> If I read the proposal correctly, it's not certain whether there will be
> more than one person allowed to take a subscription. I believe that's still
> under discussion.

  Perhaps.  And if this is so than this would change the structure of this
proposal dramatically depending on what is being considered if anything.
However the proposal as it is now does not indicate this.

>
>
> > For example, if you know who is in the queue above you, what's to stop you
> > from contacting them and buying out their interest?
>
> Nothing that I can see. So what? Nothing to stop you from contacting any
> domain name owner and buying out their registration contract either.

  True if the Whois data is accurate.  Which we all know it isn't in too
many instances.  In addition this should be the ONLY way in which
a guarantee for getting a particular name should occur.  But only AFTER
it has expired.

>
>
> >> 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.
> >
> > I'm amazed that you fall for VeriSign's FUD.  There are no guarantees.
>
> No, if the system works the way it's intended, you should be guaranteed the
> name.

  Again, how?

> Of course, on the registrars list, you can already see companies
> exploring the idea of using the window of time after the customer has lost
> rights in the names for non-renewal but before the name actual deletes to
> offer their own service. If that's permitted, it would significantly devalue
> the WLS.
>
> Guarantees and predictability are generally good for registrants.

 Glittering generalities!  Bad logic Bret.  None the less again there is
no guarantee in this proposal.  Nor is there any good predictability
either.

>
>
> If you've tried to pick up a deleting name over the last year, you've faced
> two problems:
>
>    1. knowing when it was going to drop
>       (expiration date seems to have virtually nothing to do with
>       when a name is actually deleted); and
>
>    2. knowing how to get it first, when it dropped
>       (before Snapnames and other commercial services, this was
>       a dark art that bordered on the occult)

  They had advance knowledge...  Hare to prove of course, but that is
the only thing that makes any reasonable sense...

>
>
> Even with Snapnames or some of the other registrar offerings, you were
> playing the odds. $49.00 got you a Snapback. Dotster's Namewinner service
> was an auction, which cost another $25.00 minimum to play. eNom and some
> other registrars had their own services. All of those services were
> competing against each other for the name you wanted. As a consequence, if
> you REALLY wanted a name, you had to play all the games to maximize your
> chances. Add up all the fees and you're well over whatever it is that VGRS
> and the registrars will charge for this WLS.

  Yes.  And all one had to do was to be able to look into the registry
database, have a list of the names that one is interested in, and than
look up when they were registered, check their activity, and
in this way use one of the services such as Snapnames to
pick it up if it becomes expired.

>
>
> So from the perspective of someone who has paid for these services in the
> past, I don't particularly care what system the registrars adopt, but I do
> think these two features are important:

  Yes registrars, not registries....

>
>
>    (a) the person first-in-line with a subscription always gets the domain
> name when it deletes; and

  Why is a subscription needed?

>
>
>    (b) change of ownership always happens at a defined time after the
> previous owner's registration has lapsed (i.e. no more random periods
> between expiration and deletion).

  Not true always...

>
>
> I hope the registrars will keep those in mind as they are evaluating the
> VGRS proposal.

  I hope not, as they are not all valid...

>
>
>          -- 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 20:36:53 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Jeff Williams Spams Again

On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 03:11:15 -0800, Jeff William wrote:

>   Spamming?  How and whom?  My CC list in this instance includes GA
> members and also has others that are not GA members as well.  How is
> that spam?

It's still spam.

> It is my E-Mail client, I shall use it once a posting has come to me
> by whatever means or method I choose to.  That is not Spam, Patrick...

Yes it is.

> I am
> not advertising anything...  So you improper characterization
> here is a form of abuse in and of itself.  Please discontinue it.

The abuser's defence -- "it's an 'ad hominem' attack".  LOL.

So innocent . . . :-)

> Thank you in advance for your cooperation, Patrick...

I've reported it to your upstream provider.  Here is the full list:

To: Don Heath <[email-masked]>
CC: Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
[email-masked],
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, NameCritic <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, tc louis <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, marc schneiders <[email-masked]>,
   simon higgs <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   Jason Graff <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   Dan Stienberg <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   Christopher Roosa <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
   Malcolm Miles <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-announce] ORG divestiture
   policy nears completion!

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: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 23:29:29 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 14:48:19 -0500 , "Gomes, Chuck"
<[email-masked]> 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.

Thanks for the reply Chuck.

It depends on what you call effective and whether this is the main
consideration. One can argue that more than one registrant should have
a chance of getting a name once it expires.  Why should it be
guaranteed to one would be person/orgn?

I tend to think that registrants should not even know about if
possible or deal with the registry - their contact should all be
through Registrars and that this proposal has the registry taking on a
role which may negate this.

Even if there is a demand from registrants to be able to guarantee
they are next in line to get a domain name (is there any documented
demand?) I would rather the registrars devise a collective scheme
where this can be done which they could then ask the registry to
implement by addition of a new field in the register.

Incidentally the charge to a registrar for using that field should be
something like $1 - $2 if such a scheme was implemented.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #956
************************