Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #961
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, January 7 2002           Volume 01 : Number 961

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 00:27:28 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Openness and Transparency

Every WTO, GTA and BTA deal has provision for openness and transparency.

However the GA elections are held in secret by cadres.

I endorsed two candidates but I revoke that due to their apparent
desire to do election matters in private.

This is wrong and makes the GA a laughing stock.

If this is truly how the GA operates then the NC and BoD and Staff are
correct
in ignoring it and it's leaders.

How can we as members of the great world wide democratic movement
endorse
behind the scene deal making and vote getting.

Show me one post on list by the candidates in the last 20 days!!!

But I guarantee they have been posting privately in order to garner
votes.
That is wrong!

And two of the candidates openly declare their inability to do the job
financially.
http://dnso.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc05/

This sickness cannot be funded by anyone with a conscience.

Oh I am sorry you want research and reference, see;
Argentina.

Sincerely,
Eric

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 22:11:10 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 20:24:40 -0500 , "Gomes, Chuck"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>David,
>
>The suggestion of a $1-$2 price reminds me of those who claimed that a
>registry could be run for 50 cents a name. Knowing first hand what it
>costs to run a registry and do so in a quality way, I was always curious
>about what service would be provided by such a registry.  

As one of those involved in moving .nz towards a registry using the
SRS model I have some idea of the costs also of registries.

I presume that Verisign manage to make at least a small margin from
the $250 million or so per annum you receive from registry fees at
$6/name.  So lets presume the cost of providing the registry is less
than $6/name.

>In this
>particular case, we couldn't even come close to licensing the technology
>for such an amount, let alone integrate it into our systems.

I'm not sure there is a great need for any huge technology is there?
At the moment entries in the register have around a dozen fields -
registrant, registrar, registrar URL, expiry date and name servers
IIRC.  Surely to implement this scheme all one needs to do is provide
for two extra fields being waiting registrant name and waiting
registrar name.  Registrars that wish to use the service will using
normal transactions place an entry in the waiting fields and mange the
relationship with the registrant to be.

This should be an extremely easy change to make I would have thought.

>One of things I have learned is that processes need to be simple and
>well defined, minimizing the need for manual processes, to ensure that
>processes scale with increased volume.  In light of this, I would like
>to know how you would envision more than one registrant competing for
>the same name.

I am actually quite a fan of random allocation amongst those who have
registered an interest in a name.  Fair to everyone.

>I agree that WLS subsribers should only interface with registrars.  That
>is what is proposed.

Good - that is important. 

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: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 01:25:05 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Openness and Transparency

Thank you for confirming that you insiders have already decided the
election.

I guess you folks should have a lock on it.  But your confirmation is
very helpful.

Did it ever occur to you to approach issues rather than attacking
people?

My issues still stand even if you do not like the messenger.

Sincerely,
Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

> Monday, Monday, January 07, 2002, 12:27:28 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > This sickness cannot be funded by anyone with a conscience.
>
> The sickness would have been electing you.  Get over it, no one wants
> you as chair or anything else here except participant.
>
> Excepting Jeffrey Williams, no other candidate would represent more of
> a mockery of legitimacy than you.
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 01:48:06 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] voting

A fine man that I am starting to consider a good friend, wrote to me;

"Do you want each GA member's vote to be recorded on a public tally
sheet
so that everyone can see how each person voted?

(I suspect that if that's what you want that you are going to get a lot
of
resistance - there a lot of equities on both side of the equation, pro
and
con.)"

My immediate response was no, just more transparency in the process.

but this kept me from sleep.  Secret ballots may be good in Uruguay but,

are they good here?

Damn fine food for thought! And debate!

E

- --
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: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 12:19:51 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

From a recent post:

>
>I know they pay you the big bucks Chuck.  But for what
>exactly?
>

Since this matter might get out of hand quickly, may I respectfully propose 
that we discuss the issue, not the people involved?

Also, it seems to me that Chuck has to answer single-handed all the comments 
against the proposal.
As we did in the past in similar situations, for the benefit of the debate, 
may we recommend the Chair and the List Monitors to allow Chuck to exceed 
his posting limit?

Thanks
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 05:31:22 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Openness and Transparency

Eric and all assembly members,

  Good points here Eric, and nicely but simply articulated as well.
Unfortunately this assembly still has it's perpetually disgruntled
members.  Many of us realize this and have for some time
and therefore deal with it accordingly.  Perhaps that is not
always adequate, but it is appropriate given that openness
and transparency is apparent.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Thank you for confirming that you insiders have already decided the
> election.
>
> I guess you folks should have a lock on it.  But your confirmation is
> very helpful.
>
> Did it ever occur to you to approach issues rather than attacking
> people?
>
> My issues still stand even if you do not like the messenger.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> William X Walsh wrote:
>
> > Monday, Monday, January 07, 2002, 12:27:28 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > This sickness cannot be funded by anyone with a conscience.
> >
> > The sickness would have been electing you.  Get over it, no one wants
> > you as chair or anything else here except participant.
> >
> > Excepting Jeffrey Williams, no other candidate would represent more of
> > a mockery of legitimacy than you.
> >
> > --
> > 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: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 05:35:13 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] voting

Eric and all assembly members,

  This question or issue has been hotly debated before.  The result
was that the sanctity of the secret ballot should be maintained
here in the GA.  I agree with that consensus.  I do however also
believe that the present voting process that the GA is using
could be vastly improved.  Most especially in the "Watch-Dog"
area.  It would be much better if the "Watch Dogs" or Voting
oversight was done by a completely neutral party.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> A fine man that I am starting to consider a good friend, wrote to me;
>
> "Do you want each GA member's vote to be recorded on a public tally
> sheet
> so that everyone can see how each person voted?
>
> (I suspect that if that's what you want that you are going to get a lot
> of
> resistance - there a lot of equities on both side of the equation, pro
> and
> con.)"
>
> My immediate response was no, just more transparency in the process.
>
> but this kept me from sleep.  Secret ballots may be good in Uruguay but,
>
> are they good here?
>
> Damn fine food for thought! And debate!
>
> E
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:55:02 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

On 2002-01-05 23:53:30 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:

>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.

Basically, EVERY system which is based on drop timing and works 
without direct registry involvement à la WLS means a lottery of 
domain names, which is strongly biased by network conectivity, 
bandwidth, and latency available to players.

When looking at averages, you'll find an auction of expired domain 
names to the bidders with the highest ressources.

>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.

Why should WLS be worse than that?

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/

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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:37:28 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

On 2002-01-06 20:12:26 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>The current proposal does suggest only one on the list at a time.

Wouldn't that re-introduce the race condition you currently have 
with respect to domain name deletions at another place, with people 
starting races for dropped or changed WLS subscriptions?

(I suppose that it's possible to drop a WLS subscription, too, 
although that's currently not in your white paper.)

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 07:06:06 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> >From a recent post:
> 
> >
> >I know they pay you the big bucks Chuck.  But for what
> >exactly?
> >
> 
> Since this matter might get out of hand quickly, may I respectfully propose
> that we discuss the issue, not the people involved?

Sure Roberto, as long as Mr. Gomes quits trying to insult
our collective and individual intelligence(s).  Otherwise
some of us can't help but be offended.

> 
> Also, it seems to me that Chuck has to answer single-handed all the comments
> against the proposal.
> As we did in the past in similar situations, for the benefit of the debate,
> may we recommend the Chair and the List Monitors to allow Chuck to exceed
> his posting limit?
> 
> Thanks
> Roberto
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
> 
> --
> 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: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 07:57:34 -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_0005_01C19753.2E48B080
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thomas,

It would be possible to delete a WLS subscription.

I don't think I understand your point with regard to the race condition.
Whether there is only one subscriber or 20 on the wait list, wouldn't
the race condition still exist?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 6:37 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: 'Jefsey Morfin'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
> 
> 
> On 2002-01-06 20:12:26 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> >The current proposal does suggest only one on the list at a time.
> 
> Wouldn't that re-introduce the race condition you currently have 
> with respect to domain name deletions at another place, with people 
> starting races for dropped or changed WLS subscriptions?
> 
> (I suppose that it's possible to drop a WLS subscription, too, 
> although that's currently not in your white paper.)
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> 

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C19753.2E48B080
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature;
	name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="smime.p7s"

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C19753.2E48B080--

- --
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: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 08:17:54 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some SnapNames stats

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C19756.0582BBC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks George for the helpful answers.  I added a few comments below.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Kirikos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 10:07 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some SnapNames
> stats
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Are you opposed to VeriSign Registry making a profit?
> 
> No, not at all. I don't believe it should be taking over an existing
> industry, one with numerous business models and competitors, 
> to offer a
> system that makes me and many others worse off. Those others *include*
> many registrars who are happy with things the way they are now.
>  
> > How would this put existing market participants out of business? 
> 
> Under this proposed regime, are you saying that I can continue to
> contract with NameWinner to try to catch an expiring premium 
> name (such
> as Cheerleaders.com or Beijing.com or Compare.com), even if someone
> else has the WLS slot on that name? Will NameWinner still be in
> business?

Yes, you could still contract with NameWinner because I would assume
that there will be lots of names that are never wait listed on the WLS.
But I also recognize that it is likely that the most desirable names
would proably be taken, so it might make good sense for you to also
participate in the WLS to more effectively compete for those names.  I
cannot speak for NameWinner but I can tell you that the methods being
used now by many organizations going after deleted names create
unreasonable demands on our systems.

> 
> > What
> > would prevent you from participating in this?
> 
> Under a current system such as NameWinner, or private systems, I only
> pay for a name if I get it. They're able to make a profit 
> charging only
> $25 RETAIL on many names they catch, yet Verisign's minimum price will
> be $46 WHOLESALE (although, a competitive retail market will probably
> end up being $1 or $2 above WHOLESALE -- great profits for the other
> registrars that have been forced out of their business models). 
> 
> Are you open to Dotster/NameWinner or other market participants making
> a counterproposal to your offer to registrars? If they wish to make a
> proposal, what consensus/conditions do you believe constitute
> "acceptance" of their proposal, that will satisfy you that you should
> abandon your WLS proposal?

These kind of decisions would have to be made by our business people.
And as you probably already know, in order to be able to most accurately
provide a proposal with cost information, we already entered into an
agreement with SnapNames.

> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: George Kirikos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 9:36 PM
> > > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some 
> SnapNames
> > > stats
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > > George,
> > > > 
> > > > VeriSign profit is totally irrelevant as to the competitive
> > market.
> > > > Please help me understand what is noncompetitive?  Every
> > registrar
> > > > would
> > > > have equal opportunity to participate or not participate, their
> > > > individual choice.  It is your perogorative to be opposed 
> > > to VeriSign
> > > > Registry making a profit, but please don't use that as an
> > argument
> > > > related to competitiveness.
> > > 
> > > I'm not opposed to Verisign registrar making a profit, if it
> > offered a
> > > Drop Service that operated at the registrar level, similar to
> > existing
> > > market participants such as Snapnames, eNom, NameWinner, 
> etc. (I've
> > > sent a list in a prior message). My problem is leveraging the
> > monopoly
> > > power of the registry, to enter a "new business", which puts
> > existing
> > > market participants out of business (surely all existing market
> > > participants would not be able to continue in their business with
> > the
> > > proposed regime, but would be forced to only resell WLS
> > subscriptions,
> > > or exit the business entirely. That's anti-competitive, 
> and removes
> > > opportunities for innovation.
> > > 
> > > Sincerely,
> > > 
> > > George Kirikos
> > > http://www.kirikos.com/
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
> 

- ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C19756.0582BBC0
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature;
	name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="smime.p7s"

- ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C19756.0582BBC0--

- --
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: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 08:47:59 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] voting

ummmmmmmm....."Secret ballots may be good for Uruguay but, are they good
here?"

Last time I checked, secret ballots were used in elections in both U.S. and
Canada from the Federal level down to the municipal.  If fact, sometimes it
goes farther. I will be voting on whether my municipality paves the roads in
my development and adds a chunk to my tax bill.
I literallly have to live with (ok beside) my neighbours.  So secret ballots
are basically essential to a functioning democracy at the individual level.
At the representative level, you want to see how your elected representative
did, so they are not only not essential, they are inappropriate.

Now the question is, are GA memeber elected? If so they must represent and
therefore their votes must be public.  If they are not elected, their right
to secret ballot is essential.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> A fine man that I am starting to consider a good friend, wrote to me;
>
> "Do you want each GA member's vote to be recorded on a public tally
> sheet
> so that everyone can see how each person voted?
>
> (I suspect that if that's what you want that you are going to get a lot
> of
> resistance - there a lot of equities on both side of the equation, pro
> and
> con.)"
>
> My immediate response was no, just more transparency in the process.
>
> but this kept me from sleep.  Secret ballots may be good in Uruguay but,
>
> are they good here?
>
> Damn fine food for thought! And debate!
>
> E
>
> --
> 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

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 06:12:26 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some SnapNames stats

Monday, Monday, January 07, 2002, 5:17:54 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>> Under this proposed regime, are you saying that I can continue to
>> contract with NameWinner to try to catch an expiring premium 
>> name (such
>> as Cheerleaders.com or Beijing.com or Compare.com), even if someone
>> else has the WLS slot on that name? Will NameWinner still be in
>> business?

> Yes, you could still contract with NameWinner because I would assume
> that there will be lots of names that are never wait listed on the WLS.
> But I also recognize that it is likely that the most desirable names
> would proably be taken, so it might make good sense for you to also
> participate in the WLS to more effectively compete for those names.

Nice try at skirting the point, Chuck, but you know damn well it would
put them, and the others in that field out of business.  Verisign is
getting around pissing off the biggest player by making it a part of
the deal, and avoiding what I would have assumed would have been a
rather nice lawsuit.

>   I
> cannot speak for NameWinner but I can tell you that the methods being
> used now by many organizations going after deleted names create
> unreasonable demands on our systems.

Sounds like a technical problem that should be addressed instead of
attempting to profit from Verisign's lack of technical competence in
solving this problem.

- -- 
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: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 09:44:57 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some SnapNames  stats

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> 
> 
> These kind of decisions would have to be made by our business people.
> And as you probably already know, in order to be able to most accurately
> provide a proposal with cost information, we already entered into an
> agreement with SnapNames.

In other words, this registry WLS is not really a
"proposal" but a fait accompli? 

This appears to be an illegal _lottery_ schema.  What do
you have to say about that. 

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
- --
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 #961
************************