Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #964
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, January 8 2002           Volume 01 : Number 964

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

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 03:29:16 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfer TF / deletions / WG

Sounds like a most reasonable proposition, one that might actually bare some 
fruit for the "problem" at hand instead of fast marketing ideas, to which i 
might add we can add another 10 if need be with likewise "funny" results for 
the registrars or the registry and even some in which the re-sellers (i know 
they don't exits) can make some pennies, but of course never the "inventor" 
of said domain.

Did we btw, ever emphasise that due to the "difficulties" and "barriers" to 
"proof" ownership of a domain AND the lack of a decent registry with actual 
correct addresses and or email-addresses, people loose domains no matter 
what? Did we know that often they happen to be the most sought after domains?
Do we honestly think that those "valuable" domains are only valuable to some 
speculator or us?  Do we really think that had the owner been able, or had he 
existed, that he would not "cash in" on this domain, once he no longer wanted 
it?  Or are we so blind in seeking for more money making ways that we simply 
forget these facts?

I have yet to see one person asking why such "vauable" domains get on a 
deletion list.
But once i saw someone (sorry forgot who) mention one of the few "facts" that 
passed by, once an owner no longer wishes to renew his domain, it becomes 
non-existant.<period>
non existant means that anyone in the world can register said domain, without 
any additional cost, it becomes a "normal" new registration.

NO ONE owns the domain BUT the registrant until he drops it.
Domains can have added value, due to the nature of their name or due to the 
work of the previous registrant, but in both cases it remains HIS or HERS 
until deletion, after that it no longer exist.

considering this, can we please drop all these great "auction", "subscription 
(without telling the owner)" ideas,  you are trying to sell air, very thin 
air.

There is one basis in trade: in order to sell something, you must first own 
it, or have the permission from the owner to sell it. I see neither covered 
in all of these fancy proposals.

And finally, the problems of Verisign may be known to (some?) registrars, 
they are not known to the community at large, hence not to the full GA 
subscribers and participants, NOR do i see any action taken from the side of 
Verisign to address these problems or to explain as to WHY they do not take 
any action. All that is known is the information that resulted in the batch 
drop method, after hording millions of domains (didn't mr. Gomes state that 
never a domain was dropped late?) and this information clearly indicates two 
things: 1. verisign has a TECHNICAL problem (the registry) and 2. Verisign is 
looking for more revenue.

Again i emplore, let's get to basics of the problems, and this idea/proposal 
from mr. Dieker seems a good start.

abel wisman

On Tuesday 08 January 2002 1:55 am, Eric Dierker wrote:
> 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

- -- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
- --
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 22:38:09 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System

Ron asked me to pass this on to the Registrars list for the benefit of those
that aren't subscribed to the ICANN-Delete list. I've taken the liberty of
posting this additionally to GA and discuss-list - apologies to those that
receive all four copies.

Thanks,

- -rwr
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Wiener" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Peter Girard'" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:08 PM
Subject: RE: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System

> Peter,
>
> I enjoyed reading your proposal, and have admired the way you continue to
> carry the flag for a variable-priced auction mechanism.  If you please, I
> have a couple of questions followed by a few general comments:
>
> 1. If you are requiring the permission of the former registrant in
> order for the auction to "close"...
>
>
> a. ...are you not then in effect alerting him or her to the fact that
> their name may have some value, and encouraging them to renew rather than
> allow the name to expire?  This may be a brilliant scheme for goosing up
> renewal rates, but how does it help registrars and registries gain any
> upside that they would presumably only enjoy if the name actually changed
> hands?
>
>
> b. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the reason you NEED the current
> registrant's permission is that in order to circumvent the registry, you
> want to be able to use the XFER command instead of actually deleting the
> name.  I suspect the IP constituency might have some serious heartburn
over
> this as it creates all sorts of liability problems when the creation date
of
> a domain name record is not reset upon a new registrant receiving the
name.
> Using the XFER command in this way exposes the new registrant to potential
> litigation from the prior registrant who may claim the registrar did a
lousy
> job of tracking him down with a renewal notice "because they'd make a lot
> more money auctioning off my name than letting me renew it."  The original
> transfer date matching his filed invoices could imply that the name is
still
> his since apparently it was never deleted.
>
>
> c. It's also not clear to me that registrars Terms & Conditions extend
> the current registrant's rights to the domain name past the actual
> expiration date and into the grace period.  If this is the case that the
> current registrant's rights have already ended then the registrar would
> essentially be warehousing and speculating with this name during the grace
> period.  Perhaps someone from ICANN or VGRS can clarify this for us.  Dan
or
> Chuck?
>
>
> 2. It seems to me that there is a distinction between the WLS (as
> proposed) and the RRS (as proposed), in that the WLS allows registrars to
> capture "backup demand" for any name throughout the entire year.  The RRS
> only allows the capture of demand during a portion of the 45-day grace
> period window, which inherently means it would be primarily of interest
to,
> and accessible to, speculators, not mainstream consumers.
>
> Mainstream customers are unlikely to happen to discover a need for a
domain
> name during any particular 45-day period, learn how to search for it from
> about 1.5M names that would presumably be up for auction during such
period,
> learn how the bidding mechanism works, dig in their pockets for a credit
> card to pay a $2 fee (smacks a bit too much of $2 .biz lottery fees -
yikes
> - bad memories!), and sit around to monitor the whole thing.  Odds are 9:1
> that the discovered need for a name would happen sometime other than that
> 45-day window.  (I'm simplifying this by assuming the average registration
> is about one year in term anyway.)  The RRS proposal states that consumers
> would have "open, fair access to deleting domain names in an environment
> free from high-tech gaming and first-mover advantage" but the method
> described doesn't seem to meet this definition.
>
>
> Consumers are not likely to want to participate in an auction process
which
> can easily be gamed, much like eBay auctions often are, with shill bids.
> Witness the thick file at the FTC and the number of lawsuits that were
> generated.  In fact, a savvy speculator could whip up a robotic algorithm
to
> outbid others milliseconds before auction close, or to pump fraudulent
bids
> into the system using stolen credit card numbers - a problem already
> plaguing too many registrars and secondary name sites.
>
> Consumers are also not likely to wait anywhere from 1 to 344 days to then
> have to monitor an auction process, and then be prepared to spend an
> undefined amount of money to get the name.  I can see speculators being
> willing to do this all day long - they're good at it - but mainstream
> consumers?  For them I believe this type of mechanism would be deemed yet
> another "game of chance" with $2 betting fees, and could become a
lightning
> rod for litigation against registrars, ICANN, VeriSign, et al.
Speculators
> may be just fine with the game of change (some seem to even thrive on it)
> but mainstream customers would be anything but enamored by the prospect of
> it.
>
> Further, while I fundamentally agree that variable-pricing makes a lot of
> sense in the long run, it's extraordinarily tricky getting it right when
it
> comes to domain names, and now doesn't seem the right time to implement
such
> an advanced marketplace concept.  Witness the number of different models
> that have been tried and abandoned by some of the ccTLDs - a perfect one
is
> yet to be found.   One concern from an FTC standpoint is that uninitiated
> domain name buyers might be goaded into paying unwarranted prices for
domain
> names because of the heated action of an auction.  This is where sites
like
> NameWinner are actually safer, because everyone there is at least a
> quasi-professional speculator and knows how to appraise the value of a
name.
> If unwitting consumers are successfully drawn into an active bidding event
> for domain names, they could potentially be misled into paying exorbitant
> prices.  One benefit of the flat pricing of the WLS structure is that it
> eliminates the possibility of this sort of complex and problematic
consumer
> experience.  Again, you might ask the FTC how many such complaints they've
> received from eBay customers over this sort of thing.
>
> Finally, putting on my Wall Street hat for a moment, the RRS lacks two
> especially nice financial features of the WLS which is that it provides no
> forward visibility on certain revenues (i.e. if 60% of my registrants do
not
> renew next year I know that x% of the names in question would
automatically
> go to a wait listed customer) and no growth in deferred revenue, a key
> valuation driver.  For public companies (there are currently six
> publicly-held registrars) this is particularly important, as it is for the
> valuation of any registrar that hopes to be acquired someday.
>
> Cheers,
> Ron
>
>
> Ron Wiener, Chairman and CEO
> SnapNames.com, Inc.
> 115 NW First Avenue, Third Floor
> Portland, OR 97209
> tel: 503-219-9990 x222
> cell: 503-502-5016
> fax: 503-274-9749
>  <mailto:[email-masked]> mailto:[email-masked]
>  <http://www.SnapNames.com> http://www.SnapNames.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Girard [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:27 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System
>
> With the help of several members of the registrar community, we have
> migrated our dynamically priced delete proposal to a registry-level
service
> in which the bulk of the revenue opportunity goes to the registrars. This
> system would be cheaper, fairer, more transparent, and better for Internet
> growth than earlier proposals. Perhaps most important, it would reward the
> sector of this industry (registrars) that faces market risks and creates
> value.
> I have attached a Word document. If this is problematic, I will happily
> provide an alternative format.
> Peter Girard, Afternic.com
>
>   _____
>
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/tag/?http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/>
emails
> in Yahoo! <http://rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/tag/?http://mail.yahoo.com/>  Mail.
>

- --
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 22:43:51 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfer TF / deletions / WG

As much as this would be an interesting issue to tackle, I'd have to say
that it is squarely out-of-scope for the Transfers TF.

I would like to see the NC create a separate effort to evaluate this issue
however. If this is truly to be a consensus effort as Chuck has indicated, a
wider net needs to be cast to gather input from interested stakeholders.

- -rwr
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 8:55 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, 07 Jan 2002 19:46:30 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfer TF / deletions / WG

Oh I am sorry on that last post,

I have no Idea about Wisman.

I was referring to Abel.

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 19:44:09 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System

Monday, Monday, January 07, 2002, 7:38:09 PM, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> Ron asked me to pass this on to the Registrars list for the benefit of those
> that aren't subscribed to the ICANN-Delete list. I've taken the liberty of
> posting this additionally to GA and discuss-list - apologies to those that
> receive all four copies.

Hey Ross, might want to send it separately to the GA list, they appear
to be filtering messages on the GA list that are cross posted to the
[email-masked] as well.

- -- 
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 20:14:30 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] For those interested in delete games

Hello,

- --- Eric Dierker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Agreeing with Williams' premise and agreeing with his conclusion,
> are two desperately different matters and Mr. Kirikos you seem
> to agree with his premise but also agree that we need distinct
> policy to correct VRSNs' ability not to implement reasonable
> procedures. Demanding that it is only a technical problem
> does not get us closer to a resolution.

It appears you didn't read my post in full (the first section alone was
on technical; perhaps I should have broken it into 2 emails). I did
answer Rick's request as to requirements of an alternative system to
replace what we have now with 4 requirements. I repeat them below for
your convenience:

> > 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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 21:23:19 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] For those interested in delete games

Fair enough I think I read your initial suggestion and skewed the rest
of
your post based upon that.

Now that I reread it in the light suggested I think I am very closely
aligned with your position.

Thank your for the extra energy that took.  And thank you on behalf of
the
1 or 2 people who do not post but agree with us.

Eric

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Eric Dierker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Agreeing with Williams' premise and agreeing with his conclusion,
> > are two desperately different matters and Mr. Kirikos you seem
> > to agree with his premise but also agree that we need distinct
> > policy to correct VRSNs' ability not to implement reasonable
> > procedures. Demanding that it is only a technical problem
> > does not get us closer to a resolution.
>
> It appears you didn't read my post in full (the first section alone was
> on technical; perhaps I should have broken it into 2 emails). I did
> answer Rick's request as to requirements of an alternative system to
> replace what we have now with 4 requirements. I repeat them below for
> your convenience:
>
> > > 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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 21:25:14 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Precedence/ GA Structure

I would think that we should adopt some adaptation of these rules for
the GA.

They were really quite well worked out.  They could easily be adapted to
our necessary working group models.

I know they are only rfcs' but I think they are good.  I think they
could also work for the TFs and be worked into any best practices.

They certainly could guide us in this deletion and transfer discussion.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1600.html

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2727.html

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: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 18:27:41 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign buys .TV

On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 13:43:57 -0800, Sotiris Sotiropoulos
<[email-masked]> wrote:

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

I suspect what they are buying is the current registry and it would be
possible for the actual ccTLD manager to redelegate it elsewhere in
future if they so wished?

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 21:58:47 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] For those interested in delete games

> 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.

Rick, from the perspective of a registrant, here are some features that
would be nice:

  (a) a registrant's chance at a name should not increase by paying a fee to
more than one registrar or submitting more than one application (with a
single registrar or multiple registrars);

  (b) a registrant should not have to visit a registrar's site multiple
times in order to obtain a deleting domain name. (This places some
constraints around an auction model, which, depending on how it were
implemented, might require a registrant to monitor the auction in order to
place successive higher bids. It doesn't foreclose an auction model though);

  (c) by looking at the expiration date on the whois record of the desired
name, a prospective registrant should have some idea of when it will learn
about whether it has acquired the desired name. In other words, expiration
date should bear some rational relationship to the time when the name is
deleted/re-registered;

  (d) if the scheme agreed upon is such that registrars can compete by
offering differentiated services, then consumers should have some ability to
fairly evaluate the claims made by registrars about their success rates and
how the services are different. (I'd suggest that the current system doesn't
meet this requirement.)

  (e) the current registrant should make his or her decision to renew blind
to the value placed on that domain name by prospective registrants.

  (f) the previous registrant's choice of registrar shouldn't be a factor in
determining what subsequent registrants must do to acquire the name. For
example, the previous registrant's registrar shouldn't enjoy an exclusive
ability to market the name, for any period of time, after the previous
registrant has declined to renew.

I hope that is helpful.

   -- 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: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:59:40 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Precedence/ GA Structure

Hello,

- --- Eric Dierker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I would think that we should adopt some adaptation of these rules for
> the GA.
> 
> They were really quite well worked out.  They could easily be adapted
> to
> our necessary working group models.
> 
> I know they are only rfcs' but I think they are good.  I think they
> could also work for the TFs and be worked into any best practices.
> 
> They certainly could guide us in this deletion and transfer
> discussion.

From RFC 1600:

"To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to
standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months before a
proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4 months
before a draft standard can be promoted to standard."

These time standards especially are something that everyone can benefit
from. With all the deletions proposals coming in (and I believe some
registrars and non-registrars are preparing other proposals to be
published soon), it is only reasonable to make sure that certain care
is taken in arriving at the right policy going forward.

It seems inappropriate for the group that is making a proposal to set
their own deadline (e.g. 3 weeks) -- it should be done by an an
impartial third party.

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 22:10:37 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Precedence/ GA Structure

- --------------2158A2BF92B93EED64FDA832
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Let me say I agree with Eric that the rfc's he cites below are examples
of the kinds of organization needed to carry out votes.  Those who may
have been lurking over what's going on in the IDNO right now might
wonder whether its procedures might have been helped by haveing such
a set of unambiguous rules. However, one must not mix apples and oranges
here.

Whether one is referring to "best practices" generically, or the Best
Practices that Joanna Lane and I have been working on, these have
to do with reaching decisions on issues, not candidates for office.
Although both carry out a vote, a vote on an issue is not an election.

That said, the principles that the RFC's below exhibit should likewise
be exhibited in any Best Practices procedure dedicated to the question
of how to reach consensus on issues, and once Joanna and I manage
to overcome some personal hurdles and get the first complete "volume"
published, it will probably be worthwhile to take a look at them with
a view towards whether a BP v 2.0 might be better.

Bill Lovell

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I would think that we should adopt some adaptation of these rules for
> the GA.
>
> They were really quite well worked out.  They could easily be adapted to
> our necessary working group models.
>
> I know they are only rfcs' but I think they are good.  I think they
> could also work for the TFs and be worked into any best practices.
>
> They certainly could guide us in this deletion and transfer discussion.
>
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1600.html
>
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2727.html
>
> 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

- --------------2158A2BF92B93EED64FDA832
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Let me say I agree with Eric that the rfc's he cites below are examples
<br>of the kinds of organization needed to carry out votes.&nbsp; Those
who may
<br>have been lurking over what's going on in the IDNO right now might
<br>wonder whether its procedures might have been helped by haveing such
<br>a set of unambiguous rules. However, one must not mix apples and oranges
<br>here.
<p>Whether one is referring to "best practices" generically, or the Best
<br>Practices that Joanna Lane and I have been working on, these have
<br>to do with reaching decisions on <i>issues</i>, not candidates for
office.
<br>Although both carry out a vote, a vote on an issue is not an election.
<p>That said, the <i>principles</i> that the RFC's below exhibit should
likewise
<br>be exhibited in any Best Practices procedure dedicated to the question
<br>of how to reach consensus on issues, and once Joanna and I manage
<br>to overcome some personal hurdles and get the first complete "volume"
<br>published, it will probably be worthwhile to take a look at them with
<br>a view towards whether a BP v 2.0 might be better.
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>Eric Dierker wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>I would think that we should adopt some adaptation
of these rules for
<br>the GA.
<p>They were really quite well worked out.&nbsp; They could easily be adapted
to
<br>our necessary working group models.
<p>I know they are only rfcs' but I think they are good.&nbsp; I think
they
<br>could also work for the TFs and be worked into any best practices.
<p>They certainly could guide us in this deletion and transfer discussion.
<p><a href="http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1600.html">http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1600.html</a>
<p><a href="http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2727.html">http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2727.html</a>
<p>Sincerely,
<br>Eric
<br>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>

<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------2158A2BF92B93EED64FDA832--

- --
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, 08 Jan 2002 00:17:07 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign buys .TV

Dave and all assembly members,

DPF wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 13:43:57 -0800, Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >It's interesting to see that Verisign can buy and own
> >TLDs...
>
> I suspect what they are buying is the current registry and it would be
> possible for the actual ccTLD manager to redelegate it elsewhere in
> future if they so wished?

  Your question is likely one that we will not get a direct answer
to.  However ins asking it you seem to be suggesting a particular
process future for .TV.  This may be true.  However you can be
assured that wherever or whomever this .TV saga is reassigned to
the fact that Verisign parted with some significant amount of
CASH in the buy out, it will be where ever Versign wishes
and that they shall maintain a majority position in the control
of .TV...

>
>
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #964
************************