Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #963
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, January 8 2002           Volume 01 : Number 963

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:51:32 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] UDRP questionnaire timelines extended

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

Council members, GA members, Constituency members,

Please note that there has been an extension period granted for the UDRP
questionnaire.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html
The new timelines are noted below:

November 2, 2001 - February 6, 2002

 In addition, please note that the questionnaire is also available on the
ICANN website at the url given below.
Questionnaire submitted to public for response at least via ICANN's website,
and via each UDRP provider's website where permitted.
http://www.icann.org/dnso/udrp-survey-en-06jan02.htm

November 1, 2001 - March 1, 2002

Task Force reviews results of questionnaire, as well as any third party
studies directed to the UDRP including without limitation the Syracuse
University study, the Max Plank Institute study and the Rose Communication
study. Based on the results of the questionnaire and those studies, the Task
Force shall prepare a Report summarizing the areas identified as needing
reform and the recommendations to implement such reform. Again, the Task
Force will attempt to translate this Report from English into as many other
languages as possible.

March 1, 2002 - March 10, 2002

The Task Force's Report forwarded to Names Council for review.

March 10-14, 2002

Names Council votes on Report in Ghana.

March 14, 2002 - April 14, 2002

Task Force creates implementation schedule.

Thank you for your time and consideration in completing this questionnaire.

DNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:50:02 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Fw: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System

Hello,

With regards to the Afternic proposal, it gives all the value of the
domains that are auctioned to the REGISTRARS, but what did they do to
create the value? Nothing. Names like Cheerleaders.com or Bipolar.com
or Infertility.com or Beijing.com have *intrinsic* value, due to
nothing that the registrars did (just like Sex.com has intrinsic value,
just due to the nature of the word).

If individual registrars want to, individually (not as a
non-competitive cartel) take monetary consideration (whether it be
auction-based (Name-Winner), flat-fee (SnapNames-style), monthly access
fee (eNom drop club and others), or variations) for the ATTEMPT at a
name, I don't see that as a problem, as they're charging a fee for a
service (the attempt). This still leaves open the possibility (albeit,
small) that any person could still get the domain, for $6 if they time
things perfectly on a drop through a normal registration (remember, all
registrars can NOT run automated scripts via the non-batch pools
whereas the average consumer can register names manually at the same
time). That's the system we have right now, which is ripe with
competition and consumer choice. 

Replacing one monopoly (Verisign's WLS) with another (a cartel of
registrars doing an auction) isn't a solution which promotes
competition. In my opinion, registrars can, acting individually and in
competition with one another, still make a healthy profit by picking a
business model that offers the consumer some value and service for
going after an expiring name. Some might partner with Snap, some go it
alone with their own systems for a flat-fee, some might introduce
"one-click" registrations to allow registrants faster direct access,
some might auction the attempt, and who knows what other innovations
can occur as long as the market is allowed to flourish and compete.
Introduction of a monopoly or cartel at the REGISTRY interface brings
all this healthy innovation and competition to an end. Consumers want
choice, not more monopolies. We have this in the Status Quo Proposal
(which I hereby name!). :)

While folks are making "Proposals", I'll add a fourth proposal. I'll
call it the "Let's make George Kirikos a Multi-Millionaire" proposal.
With the consent of ICANN, I propose that all expiring names be
auctioned off by George Kirikos, with said proceeds going to the George
Kirikos Retirement Fund. While not a registrar or a registry, he is a
registrant! (the third "r") While he did nothing to create the value of
names such as Cheerleaders.com or Infertility.com, neither did the
registrars or registry, so all three have equal claims.

So, there you have it, folks. Four proposals on the table:

1) Verisign WLS proposal
2) Afternic "auction" proposal in a registrars cartel.
3) Status Quo proposal 
4) Let's make George Kirikos a Multi-millionaire proposal.

Please choose #4! Pretty please! Pretty please with sugar on top! As
your new OVERLORD ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H, KING ^H^H^H^H humble servant, I
promise to use the funds for noble purposes. I plan to travel the
world, to spread the word about the virtues of the internet to such
under-developed places like the Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Monaco,
Tuvalu, the beaches of Greece, the beaches of Brazil, and other
hotspots. While I am drinking champagne surrounded by buxomy beauties
in tiny bikinis, errr, I mean bringing the gospel of the internet to
certain blondes who don't know how to use computers, I will think of
all of you with such fondness for allowing me to serve such an
important public role. It's a tough job, I know, but I think I am
qualified and will serve you all well!

I remain always, your most humble and obedient servant, :)

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

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
- --
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: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 07:58:13 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] 
|> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
|> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 6:39 AM
|> To: Discuss-List@Opensrs. Org; [email-masked]
|> Subject: Fw: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System
|> 
|> 
|> This was recently posted to the icann-deletes mailing list as a
|> counter-proposition to the VRSN/Snapnames WLS proposal.
|> 
|> I haven't reviewed it 100% yet (just got it), but a quick scan does
indicate
|> that it is a serious proposal worthy of consideration by the DNSO. At
the
|> very least, it demonstrates the viability of a model alternative to
the
|> current VRSN proposition.
|> 
|> -rwr

Personally I can't see any reason for Registrars or the Registry to be
benefiting from the consumer market value for renewed/deleted domains.

To me, all expired domains should automatically be deleted and the
hostnames become available for registration in the normal manner.  With
automatic renewal procedures available, consumers would only loose a
domain through their own negligence. 

With regard to the hammering, the simple solution is to not make the
expiration date publicly available and to delete the names at random
times. 

Seems simple to me.  All the rest of it is just people trying to make
more profit.  Registrars and Registries get paid a fee for the service
they provide, they should not be trying to inflate those fees by
climbing into the consumer market for deleted domains.  Rather steps
should be taken to ensure all parties have an equal chance of obtaining
the domain names, including the do it yourself mom and pop individuals.
At the same price as any other domain name that may not already be
registered.

If consumers are that keen to obtain a specific domain name, let them
contact the domain holder and negotiate a price.  Whether the domain be
about to expire or not. 

My two cents worth.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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 13:29:51 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System

Hello,

> With regard to the hammering, the simple solution is to not make the
> expiration date publicly available and to delete the names at random
> times. 

This wouldn't work, as folks would pound the registry 24 hours a day,
365 days a year. The current system (albeit with greater certainty as
to the exact day a name will drop) works fine, as they get deleted at 2
pm on a certain day (+/- 1 day). Verisign knows how to solve their
"hammering" problem, by introducing rate-limiting ("throttling") and
other technical fixes proposed by numerous parties. Simple use of the
ANSI C sleep() library function would allow Verisign to introduce a
response delay, so that registrars can't flood connections with
requests at a pace faster than Verisign registry's physical capacity.

Here's some code for their server:

#define Verisign_is_a_monopolist TRUE

while (Verisign_is_a_monopolist)
{
    get_registrar_request(); //(accepts request)
    available = check_Verisign_database_for_availability();
    if (available) // (available = TRUE)
    {
        register_domain_for_registrar();
        report_success_to_registrar();
        chaching_6_dollars_to_Verisign();
        sleep(100_MILLISECONDS); // (inserts time delay)
    }
    else // (not available)
    {
        report_failure_to_registrar();
        sleep(100_MILLISECONDS);
    }
    // goes back to top of "while" loop
}

Of course, I'm sure the real Verisign code is slightly more complex,
but the principle is still the same. If NASA can send man to the moon
and design the space shuttle, I'm sure that Verisign can add 2 lines of
code to their server. Even if they want to use standard "government"
billing models, where $5,000 toilet seats are not unusual, I think they
can get it done cheaply and efficiently.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
- --
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: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 08:54:12 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of George Kirikos
|> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:30 AM
|> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry 
|> Re-circulation System
|> 
|> 
|> Hello,
|> 
|> > With regard to the hammering, the simple solution is to not make
the
|> > expiration date publicly available and to delete the names at
random
|> > times. 
|> 
|> This wouldn't work, as folks would pound the registry 24 hours a day,
|> 365 days a year. The current system (albeit with greater certainty as
|> to the exact day a name will drop) works fine, as they get 
|> deleted at 2 pm on a certain day (+/- 1 day). 
<snip>

The same throttling you put forward for the drop times could be
implemented over the whole period.  The argument doesn't support having
a fixed drop time as that increases the hammering.  

If the names were dropped at random times throughout the 24/365 period
with no indication of when a specific name may be dropped (no known
expiry date/time) then any hammering becomes ineffective and redundant.
Limitations built into the system would also ensure no hammering can
occur and would put all players onto a more equal field where network
infrastructure would play a minimal part.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch. 

- --
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 13:57:40 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Verisign buys .TV

Monday, Monday, January 07, 2002, 1:43:57 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> It's interesting to see that Verisign can buy and own
> TLDs...  

They buy and own the companies that operate the TLDs.

They bought E-Nic, the .CC operator, in Decemeber.

- -- 
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, 7 Jan 2002 14:04:22 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System

Hello,

- --- Dassa <[email-masked]> wrote:
> If the names were dropped at random times throughout the 24/365
> period
> with no indication of when a specific name may be dropped (no known
> expiry date/time) then any hammering becomes ineffective and
> redundant.

Exactly the opposite -- as long as you continue to hammer the system
24x365 more than competitors, the greater the chance that you will be
successful while your opponents would be unsuccessful. Consider the
case this way: suppose you reduce your "checks" to only once 5 times a
day, under your random drop time method. If I instead check 500 times a
day, I'll have a much better chance at getting the name. Think of this
as going after fish -- would you want to use a net with mesh with 10
feet spaces (corresponding to infrequent checks), or 1 inch spaces
(corresponding to frequent checks)? The finer mesh will catch a lot
more fish! By restricting fishing to only 1 hour a day, we reduce the
load on our boat engines.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
- --
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 18:03:09 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 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.

  Good point here Thomas.  Well done!  In addition it would
make the potential WLS subscribers also lottery entities
themselves.  This would seem to be a huge departure
from the MoU and White Paper.

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

  Yes.  And such a bias is inconsistent with the MoU and White Paper
as well...

>
>
> >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?

  Good question.

>
>
> --
> 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

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 18:25:19 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign buys .TV

All assembly members,

  It seems that Verisigh is again hedging it's bet...
See: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8393177.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 17:25:36 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stasis is not an option.

Which registrar do you work for?

There is no need for a change in the process for deleted domain names.
There is a need for Verisign to resolve the technical problems that
result during the window of opportunity for dropped domains being made
available, but it is STRICTLY a technical problem, with a  purely
technical solution.

Monday, Monday, January 07, 2002, 3:23:12 PM, Peter Girard wrote:

> The "Status Quo Proposal" suggested by George Kirikos may be intended humorously, but it must be pointed out that this is not an option. The system will change. Allowing dozens of companies to
> competitively game the registry's delete system does not constitute consumer choice and competition. It only forces the consumer to subscribe to innumerable 'attempts' to snatch a name, all but one
> (and usually all) of which must fail to provide a trace of value. Ultimately it perpetuates a system in which registrars earn an ever-smaller margin on domain names, and in which the registry can
> claim the need for system changes that will be passed on to the customer (the registrar). The random drop solution can't work for a number of reasons, one of which concerns reasonable limits on the
> random length of time in which a name is kept from the marketplace after deletion. Indeed there appears to be more than enough value in the delete pool to warrant full-time "hammering."

> The Afternic RRS proposal should be a starting point from which a better solution emerges. To say that it is anticompetitive is to ignore that registrars, its primary benefactors, would compete
> against one another to offer SSR services exactly as they now do to sell domain names. To mislabel a cooperative solution as a cartel is to ignore the fact that without a registrar-friendly
> solution, the registrar arena will grow considerably less competitive, not moreso.

> Peter Girard

> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail.

- -- 
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, 7 Jan 2002 17:29:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] For those interested in delete games

all:

I request the community to develop a concise list of requirements for
proposals to solve the issues with a registry deleting domains names in
batch.

It would be wonderful if we had a consensus document on the requirements
so that we can effectively evaluate the proposals.

kind regards,

- -rick

- --
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 18:30:32 -0700
From: Earl Heather <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] re:GA-TransferTF-election

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

- --
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 17:43:43 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] For those interested in delete games

Monday, Monday, January 07, 2002, 5:29:47 PM, Rick H Wesson wrote:

> all:

> I request the community to develop a concise list of requirements for
> proposals to solve the issues with a registry deleting domains names in
> batch.

> It would be wonderful if we had a consensus document on the requirements
> so that we can effectively evaluate the proposals.

This is easy.

There is no need for additional proposals, Verisign should resolve the
technical problems they may be having, and the current system should
stand unless and until there is a REAL need for changing it.

Verisign should be required to substantiate the NEED For a change in
the current system, and pointing out PRECISELY what problems exist in
the current system that warrant a change in the way this process
works, and then a process should be developed and approved of that
resolve the problems.

Verisign is instead trying to use the existence of a fictional problem
to justify creating a new program that will make up for the tremendous
loss of market share that their Registrar has experienced in the last
2 years and create a completely new profit center for them.

- -- 
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, 7 Jan 2002 17:47:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] For those interested in delete games

William,

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, William X Walsh wrote:

>
> There is no need for additional proposals, Verisign should resolve the
> technical problems they may be having, and the current system should
> stand unless and until there is a REAL need for changing it.

ok, thanks for the comment.

> Verisign should be required to substantiate the NEED For a change in
> the current system, and pointing out PRECISELY what problems exist in
> the current system that warrant a change in the way this process
> works, and then a process should be developed and approved of that
> resolve the problems.

they have; at least to registrars.

> Verisign is instead trying to use the existence of a fictional problem
> to justify creating a new program that will make up for the tremendous
> loss of market share that their Registrar has experienced in the last
> 2 years and create a completely new profit center for them.

the problem is not fictional. bareing this in mind would you now like to
submit some requirements?

thanks,

- -rick

- --
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 17:55:29 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Transfer TF / deletions / WG

As a candidate for the TF on transfers and as
an interested party on deletions I would ask
if this would not be a proper area for the 
Transfer TF.

(don't think for a second I suggest any reduction
of the great input here - in fact I would hope it
would increase it)

Personally I would like to see our chair use a sublist
and set up a real WG on this issue, all members welcome
and an extra 5 posts a day on that sublist, {or no limit}
for both transfers and deletions.

Earlier today Mr. Gomes stated clearly it was not 
a done deal.

Isn't a deletion really an automated transfer.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

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, 7 Jan 2002 17:54:02 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] For those interested in delete games

Monday, Monday, January 07, 2002, 5:47:40 PM, Rick H Wesson wrote:

> the problem is not fictional. bareing this in mind would you now like to
> submit some requirements?

Sorry, Rick, but until they release the information, it is fictional.

If the problem is technical in nature, then they need to address
TECHNICAL Solutions, not marketing solutions.

If the problem is the load on their servers, then this issue can be
addressed.  Several TECHNICAL solutions to this problem have been
proposed on the OpenSRS discuss list by resellers, for instance.

What needs to be justified is that the technical problem cannot easily
be solved by technical means, and that as a result, another solution
is required.

This sounds to me exactly like the time that Verisign's registry
started charging $199 for "expedited" service on modifications because
their system was having such horrible technical problems that
modifications were taking weeks to be processed.  Rather than solve
the problem, they sought to profit from the problem they created.

We should not permit them to get away with that.

- -- 
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: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 13:33:08 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Jeff Williams Spams Again

On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 16:29:01 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:

> That is not spam, not under any ISP's definition.

Yes, it is.  See, for example:

http://email.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imc.org%2F
ube-def.html

"Unsolicited Bulk Email, or UBE, is Internet mail ("email") that is sent to a
group of recipients who have not requested it. A mail recipient may have at
one time asked a sender for bulk email, but then later asked that sender not
to send any more email or otherwise not have indicated a desire for such
additional mail; hence any bulk email sent after that request was received is
also UBE.

A common term for UBE is "spam", although that term encompasses a wider range
of intrusive transmissions . . . "

http://mail.freeze.com/help/help_spam.php3

Spam is any message or posting, regardless of it's content, that is sent to
multiple recipients who have not specifically requested the mail. Other common
terms for Spam are UCE (Unsolicited Commercial E-mail) and UBE (Unsolicited
Bulk E-mail).

http://mail-abuse.org/standard.html

"(v) A message need not be offensive or commercial in order to fit the
definition of "spam." Content is irrelevent except to the extent necessary to
determine personal applicability, consent, and benefit."

BTW I have "indicated a desire" not to be subject to bulk email from Jeff
Williams.  He has ignored that request making his email unsolicited, unwelcome
and undesirable.  A similar situation (though harder to prove) would arise in
his use of bulk bccs.

> Sheesh, Patrick, have you sunk that low now?
>
> Attempting to get anyone's internet service shut off should be only
> for the most serious offenses, and to be honest, I take a very dim
> view of those who try and use that means to silence people for
> anything less.  I find it a rather despicable form of attack.

You can have any opinion you like just as I can.  The upstream provider can
make their own determination.  Reporting unsolicited bulk email is well within
my rights as an internet user.

> If my opinion of you could have sunk any lower, it would have with
> this attack by you.

That, William, is a personal attack and at least as offensive.  Reporting your
comments to the List Monitors would be likewise within my rights.

You will, no doubt, remember that you have readily made such reports.  I know
this (outside of any official role) because you were kind enough to notify the
list or otherwise advise the person complained about.

As I did in this case, thank you.

On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 16:12:27 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

> One last thing, wrong action is wrong action, even if it is being used
> against an unpopular person.  And it should never be simply accepted
> because the target is unpopular.  And anyone attempting to that should
> be put down to the same level as their target.

Sending unsolicited bulk email (also known as spam) is the "wrong action".

'Nuff said.

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: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:55:26 -0800
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfer TF / deletions / WG

Eric, I like the idea

Genie
Magi Inc

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 5:55 PM
Subject: [ga] Transfer TF / deletions / WG

> As a candidate for the TF on transfers and as
> an interested party on deletions I would ask
> if this would not be a proper area for the 
> Transfer TF.
> 
> (don't think for a second I suggest any reduction
> of the great input here - in fact I would hope it
> would increase it)
> 
> Personally I would like to see our chair use a sublist
> and set up a real WG on this issue, all members welcome
> and an extra 5 posts a day on that sublist, {or no limit}
> for both transfers and deletions.
> 
> Earlier today Mr. Gomes stated clearly it was not 
> a done deal.
> 
> Isn't a deletion really an automated transfer.
> 
> I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 

- --
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 19:14:51 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] For those interested in delete games

Hello,

- --- Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, William X Walsh wrote:
> > There is no need for additional proposals, Verisign should resolve
> the
> > technical problems they may be having, and the current system
> should
> > stand unless and until there is a REAL need for changing it.
> 
> ok, thanks for the comment.

I concur with William on that point. Numerous technical suggestions
have been made to reduce registry load, and many came from the
registrars themselves. There hasn't been any *proof* that I've seen
that a technical fixed won't reduce their load.
 
> > Verisign should be required to substantiate the NEED For a change
> in
> > the current system, and pointing out PRECISELY what problems exist
> in
> > the current system that warrant a change in the way this process
> > works, and then a process should be developed and approved of that
> > resolve the problems.
> 
> they have; at least to registrars.

Perhaps you can repeat their answers here. I assume they relate to
TECHICAL problems (for Verisign registry, the ICANN-contracted database
operator) and not BUSINESS problems (for Verisign corporation looking
for new products and services). When I previously asked these questions
(in the initial "Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some SnapNames
stats" post) Chuck Gomes only responded in terms of whether I was
opposed to Verisign making a profit! Here were the questions once more:

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.

In addition, Verisign has bandied about this myth of "too many checks
against the registry" being a denial of service attack. If Verisign has
the ability to count the number of requests in aggregate per day/month,
that it used to produce some fancy graphs indicating a "problem", it
can certainly provide a breakdown of the count by registrar. Let us see
once and for all who is doing "too much" and is "abusing" or "gaming"
the system (I use the quotes, since I'm unconvinced abuse takes place
at all).

If simple chat systems (ircd, AOL chat, etc.), with open source code,
are able to disconnect users who are "flooding" too many requests per
second, I am sure that Verisign registry can do the same. If so, please
explain why they can't Hard Code a limit of N requests per second,
either at the registry level or at each of the registrars?

Oh yes, I also can tell Verisign registry that they *do* have this code
already in their system -- try to do too many WHOIS lookups in a
certain time period, and your IP gets banned from doing any further
(I'm banned from NameScout's WHOIS, for checking too many in that "Hot
100" list that SnapNames produced!)

Thus, Verisign has at least 3 sources of "throttling" or
"rate-limiting" source code to draw from: a) freeware chat server
software, b) their own WHOIS server source code or c) NameScout's
WHOIS. They can even adapt the little "code snippet" that I posted to
the list earlier, which had the "sleep()" command clearly visible.

> the problem is not fictional. bareing this in mind would you now like
> to
> submit some requirements?

If Verisign was somehow able to pass the above "sniff" test, that there
is a true technical problem, I think a few requirements (not
exhaustive, as some requirements would require more reflection):

1) Equal opportunity be preserved to allow any registrar to acquire a
deleted name, using any business model of the registrar's choosing (and
not one forced upon them by Verisign registry, either explicitly or
implicitly). No current business model that is in place (I've mentioned
8 groups of existing competitors to SnapNames that use a variety of
business models) must be forcibly required to change their business
model, unless it can be proven that they have caused the abuse through
their choice of business models.

2) Registrants should continue to have the ability to register an
expired name at a registrar's normal price for a brand new registration
for ALL deleted names (including 'premium' ones). Remember, even those
registrars using automated processes are permitted to do so only in the
batch pool, not in the normal or overflow connection pools. Simple
registrants who happen to "time it right" can still hold out a
possibility of getting a name at the normal price of a brand new
registration (which means under $15 from most Verisign competitors).
Thus, no "Verisign surtax" for any name that was previously registered,
as compared to a brand new registration, even so called "premium
names". Verisign might own .tv with their graduated pricing scheme, but
they don't own .com/net, yet.

3) Any system should not grandfather any entity's perceived "ownership"
of a name -- it doesn't belong to the registry, and it doesn't belong
to the registrars, and it doesn't belong to some SnapBack holder who
bought a SnapBack six months ago on a name.

4) Any new system should be whole hog, not a "test bed" that folks want
to tinker with and re-adapt. If you want to run a "test-bed", for proof
of concept, it can be run on dot-net or dot-org.

Those are a few starters. Hopefully others agree that they are
reasonable requirements, as otherwise any new system would give people
fewer options than is available now.

Someone in another post wondered if the "Status Quo Proposal" was
intended in jest -- it was not. I think if "Status Quo" was deemed to
be unacceptable for whatever reason, that the WLS Proposal (which gives
a monopoly to the registry) and the "Afternic auction proposal" (which
gives a monopoly to a cartel of registrars) have as much basis in
reality and fairness as the "Let's make George Kirikos a
Multi-Millionaire" proposal", which gives a monopoly to a single modest
and benevolent registrant. Since ICANN is supposed to be looking after
the interests of registrants, I assume they'll pick Proposal #4 from
the current menu. 

Sincerely,

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

P.S. I'm not on the ICANN-DELETE mailing list, so if never arrives
there, someone should forward it. I think that mailing list was
restricted, so I can't read replies....

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
- --
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 #963
************************