Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #966
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, January 9 2002          Volume 01 : Number 966

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

Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 08:06:20 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RFC;-)

Dear Mr. Gomes,

I hope with all the hoopla that the new year finds you well and all of
your family prospering.

I request your comments on behalf of your company to the following.

May we in the GA count on your company's' appraisal of a GA
working group regarding the Deletion Matter prior to your taking
further action?
(this would assume that we form a group post haste, form it
in a sublist, assure its' openness and transparency, reach a
valid consensus, allow for dissenting opinion, and deliver a
tentative draft by the end of January)

Of course it is informal, but through openness and transparency,
you could afford it the weight it deserves.  I would ask that Masseurs.
Wesson and Walsh initially chair the group and that Mr. Lovell and
Mr. Roessler act as Co-Secretariat.  I would further ask that Mr.
Steinberg, Mr. Svennson and Ms. McKee informally monitor and
watchdog it. By breaking it up so the workload should not be
too burdensome on any.

Cross posting to the GA main would be allowed and we would
ask the Secretariat to provide updates in summary form to
to the main body, which could be forwarded to other lists.

Mr. Gomes would your company recognize such an endeavor and
consider it?

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: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 07:39:47 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-01.

On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 10:57:01 +0100, Thomas Roessler
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's discussions during 
>the first week of 2002.  List archives are available online at 
><http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/maillist.html>.
>
>Criticism and suggestions on how to improve this are welcome.

What a good idea - very useful.  If this becomes a regular summary
perhaps it may even be suitable to go out on the larger announce lists
as a way of people staying in touch with GA issues but not having to
subscribe to the discussion list due to it's volume?

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: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 19:24:12 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RFC;-)

On 2002-01-08 08:06:20 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:

[...]
>Mr. Roessler act as Co-Secretariat.

No, thanks.

The fact that I'm running for chair and have started putting 
together that summary (yes, I'm planning to do these regularly) does 
NOT mean that I'm volunteering still more of my time for the GA.

However, it would of course be a good idea if Task Forces and, in 
particular, the DNSO's various constituencies could try to post 
regular Comptes Rendus to the GA list...  I found David Farrar's 
summary of the structure task force's work quite helpful.

- -- 
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: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 19:03:46 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

At 15:21 7/01/02, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>So you would also say that his permission is needed for a
>re-registration of his name after he deletes it, is that correct?  There
>is no difference, that is if you care about logic.

Chuck,

You need not be surprised about my nuanced position on DN ownership.

I do hold, and this does not need to threaten Verisign's  business model, 
that Domain Names are Registrants' property, just like long term leases on 
land are (economically) property and can be assets or liabilities in the 
books.
It may be a matter of semantics, but people and companies speak of "owning" 
such leases or similar contractual rights.

There is also the issue of the intellectual property vested in an original 
Domain Name, especially if such a name is also trademarked.
So, to take your extreme example, yes, I can imagine cases where your 
company, or a registrar, would not be at liberty to re-register a name to a 
third party, without opening itself to charges of contributory infringement.

This has not been tested in court, but be prepared that some day, in the 
case of a small company that has been "sold" the same registrations in 
.com, .net, .org, .tv, .cc, .biz, .info, etc. and that wants to prune its 
yearly outgoings a little, may well elect to put a registrar or registry on 
notice that the name is trademarked and cannot be re-registered to any 
third party until its TM rights would expire.

But, as others have pointed out already, this was not the point that I was 
making.

- --Joop

- --
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 15:40:44 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: RFC;-)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_009A_01C1985D.0F30A030
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Eric,

We would welcome feedback from such a working group with regard to our
Wait Listing Proposal if it could be provided by the end of January.
Our plan was to seek such feedback from interested constituencies after
we had received it from the registrars.  We started with the registrars
because any such service would have to be offered directly to consumers
by registrars.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:06 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]
> Subject: RFC;-)
> 
> 
> Dear Mr. Gomes,
> 
> I hope with all the hoopla that the new year finds you well and all of
> your family prospering.
> 
> I request your comments on behalf of your company to the following.
> 
> May we in the GA count on your company's' appraisal of a GA
> working group regarding the Deletion Matter prior to your taking
> further action?
> (this would assume that we form a group post haste, form it
> in a sublist, assure its' openness and transparency, reach a
> valid consensus, allow for dissenting opinion, and deliver a
> tentative draft by the end of January)
> 
> Of course it is informal, but through openness and transparency,
> you could afford it the weight it deserves.  I would ask that 
> Masseurs.
> Wesson and Walsh initially chair the group and that Mr. Lovell and
> Mr. Roessler act as Co-Secretariat.  I would further ask that Mr.
> Steinberg, Mr. Svennson and Ms. McKee informally monitor and
> watchdog it. By breaking it up so the workload should not be
> too burdensome on any.
> 
> Cross posting to the GA main would be allowed and we would
> ask the Secretariat to provide updates in summary form to
> to the main body, which could be forwarded to other lists.
> 
> Mr. Gomes would your company recognize such an endeavor and
> consider it?
> 
> Sincerely,
> Eric
> 

- ------=_NextPart_000_009A_01C1985D.0F30A030
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature;
	name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="smime.p7s"

- ------=_NextPart_000_009A_01C1985D.0F30A030--

- --
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 15:46:14 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Archives of VeriSign's Domain Policy Mailing List

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_009F_01C1985D.D43443A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Patrick,

We made it very clear that the decision made with regard to the Domain
Policy List was made for legal reasons.  You may disagree with our
counsel but we pay them to protect us so we listen to them when they
speak.  If that is FUD, so be it.  I call that sound business practice.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 10:35 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: [ga]
> Subject: Archives of VeriSign's Domain Policy Mailing List
> 
> 
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 21:27:12 -0500, Chuck Gomes wrote:
> 
> > Finally, please show me the FUD.
> 
> Hi Chuck
> 
> There's so much of it, I really don't know where to start :-)
> 
> How about Tom Newell's notification of the closure of 
> NetSol's Domain Policy
> List?  As suggested by him I referred the matter to Brian 
> O'Shaughnessy, of
> VeriSign's Corporate Communications Department.  The result?  
> Absolutely
> no response (see below).  A total absence of corporate 
> communication !!
> 
> Perhaps not "FUD" (by definition) but still pretty misinformational.
> 
> So let me ask you whether we can restore the archives.  We 
> could, I'm sure,
> exclude the offending posts which caused the list to be 
> closed down in the
> first place.
> 
> I have 5,000 postings stored as follows:
> 
> [email-masked]    19 May 2000 to 10 Aug 2000
> 
> [email-masked]     12 Aug 2000 to 25 May 2001
> 
> I know a person who has postings going back to 1999.  I'm 
> sure others have
> more comprehensive archives (not to mention VeriSign's own records).
> 
> Best Regards
> Patrick Corliss
> 
> On Tue, 24 May 0101 11:13:49 -0400, Tom Newell wrote:
> Subject: List deactivation
> 
> > This list will be closed effective immediately.  When
> > we started the list many years ago, there were no lists
> > specifically focusing on domain policy issues.  Today
> > there are a wide range of public lists that address
> > this topic.
> >
> > Thank you very much for your participation.
> >
> > Please refer all queries to Brian O'Shaughnessy, of
> > VeriSign's Corporate Communications department at
> > [email-masked].
> >
> >
> > --Tom
> 
> On Fri, 25 May 2001 03:03:43 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> 
> > Dear Brian
> >
> > Verisign's decision to close down the Domain Policy list 
> was both sudden and
> > unexpected.  Personally I think it was inappropriate.  
> Whatever the reasons
> > it is clearly a matter for your own corporate interests.
> >
> > However the Domain Policy archives are a valuable resource 
> which need to be
> > retained for historical reference and research.  My feeling 
> is that most
> > subscribers would take the view that the lists belong to 
> them.  Certainly
> > I'd believe that in relation to my own postings over the past year.
> >
> > At the very least, someone should have been given the 
> opportunity to pick up
> > the archives and subscriber lists.  Historical DNS archives 
> are spotty
> > enough without erasing entire volumes from the encyclopaedic set.
> >
> > I'd therefore ask that Verisign re-consider its decision to 
> remove these
> > archives from the public record.  An alternative solution 
> would be for
> > Verisign to make these records available to be hosted 
> elsewhere.  I am
> > certain that I could make alternative arrangements for such support.
> >
> > I look forward to your kind response.
> >
> > Yours faithfully,
> > Patrick Corliss
> 
> 
> 

- ------=_NextPart_000_009F_01C1985D.D43443A0
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature;
	name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="smime.p7s"

- ------=_NextPart_000_009F_01C1985D.D43443A0--

- --
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 15:58:36 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_00CA_01C1985F.8E132920
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Joop,

How would you answer the question I asked?  For a re-registration of a
released name, is the permission of the previous registrant needed?

On a different note, let me try an analogy.  Is it okay for a landlord
to have a waiting list for a house in case the current rentors do not
renew their lease?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 1:04 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]'; Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
> 
> 
> At 15:21 7/01/02, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >So you would also say that his permission is needed for a
> >re-registration of his name after he deletes it, is that 
> correct?  There
> >is no difference, that is if you care about logic.
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> You need not be surprised about my nuanced position on DN ownership.
> 
> I do hold, and this does not need to threaten Verisign's  
> business model, 
> that Domain Names are Registrants' property, just like long 
> term leases on 
> land are (economically) property and can be assets or 
> liabilities in the 
> books.
> It may be a matter of semantics, but people and companies 
> speak of "owning" 
> such leases or similar contractual rights.
> 
> There is also the issue of the intellectual property vested 
> in an original 
> Domain Name, especially if such a name is also trademarked.
> So, to take your extreme example, yes, I can imagine cases where your 
> company, or a registrar, would not be at liberty to 
> re-register a name to a 
> third party, without opening itself to charges of 
> contributory infringement.
> 
> This has not been tested in court, but be prepared that some 
> day, in the 
> case of a small company that has been "sold" the same 
> registrations in 
> .com, .net, .org, .tv, .cc, .biz, .info, etc. and that wants 
> to prune its 
> yearly outgoings a little, may well elect to put a registrar 
> or registry on 
> notice that the name is trademarked and cannot be 
> re-registered to any 
> third party until its TM rights would expire.
> 
> But, as others have pointed out already, this was not the 
> point that I was 
> making.
> 
> 
> 
> --Joop
> 

- ------=_NextPart_000_00CA_01C1985F.8E132920
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature;
	name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="smime.p7s"

- ------=_NextPart_000_00CA_01C1985F.8E132920--

- --
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 15:52:01 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

At 3:58 PM -0500 1/8/02, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>On a different note, let me try an analogy.  Is it okay for a landlord
>to have a waiting list for a house in case the current rentors do not
>renew their lease?

Bad analogy. A landlord owns a house.

YOU DO NOT OWN THE DOMAIN NAME - OR FOR THAT MATTER, .COM. You are
contracted to run a registry.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:18:39 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Hello,

- --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On a different note, let me try an analogy.  Is it okay for a
> landlord
> to have a waiting list for a house in case the current rentors do not
> renew their lease?

Are you suggesting that Verisign is the LANDLORD for dot-com? Yes or no
would be nice.

Landlords have ownership, and simply rent out names. As far as I am
aware (please correct me if I am mistaken), Verisign registry is simply
the property manager on behalf of the true owners (be it ICANN, the US
Government, internet society at large, who really knows, etc.),
managing the registration database. Having been the property managers
for so long, Verisign might feel that they can do what they want....but
some day the absentee landlords might wake up and decide to replace the
property managers, or at a minimum remind them that they have a
property manager's contract and code of behaviour.

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: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 11:44:25 +1300 
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Gomes, Chuck said:

> On a different note, let me try an analogy.  Is it okay for a landlord
> to have a waiting list for a house in case the current rentors do not
> renew their lease?

Not at all the same.

I would hazard to guess that most names that are let go variants of the
following:

1, active names not renewed by mistake 
2, inactive names not renewed on purpose

The first one would be due to incorrect name holder details or the email not
being processed internal to the registrant to ensure it got paid. Partly as
the cost is so low (in business terms) that some non internet savvy people
don't think it is important.

Thus the comparison of a rental/lease which is non trivial , often monthly,
cost which also has tangible location (which is normally occupied by same
the person that contracted the lease) and a domain name which is a trivial
cost often annual (or less often) is utter rubbish.

This is unless of course Chuck you feel a domain name is tangible property?

At this stage I would like to commend Chuck on his participation on this
list and while I may not agree with his or his employers views the mere fact
he is active on the GA is a benefit to all.

Steven Heath

- --
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 14:45:32 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] For those interested in delete games

Tuesday, Tuesday, January 08, 2002, 6:15:05 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Patrick,

> According to feedback I have seen so far, there are registrars who
> oppose the WLS proposal and those who favor it.  I expect to receive
> feedback from the Registrar Constituency by 18 January or shortly
> thereafter.

Now, Chuck, let's not be disingenuous.  Give a more accurate answer to
Patrick, or I will.

- -- 
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 14:47:59 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Archives of VeriSign's Domain Policy Mailing List

Tuesday, Tuesday, January 08, 2002, 12:46:14 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Patrick,

> We made it very clear that the decision made with regard to the Domain
> Policy List was made for legal reasons.  You may disagree with our
> counsel but we pay them to protect us so we listen to them when they
> speak.  If that is FUD, so be it.  I call that sound business practice.

Ah, but no, Verisign never made that clear.  As a matter of fact,
Verisign REPEATEDLY denied, to both us and to the press, that legal
issues had anything to do with the closure of that list, and insisted
it was a coincidence.

Thanks for the admission that Verisign was lying about that then,
Chuck.

But then we know that Verisign has lied about so many things to us in
the past, but to at least have it on record is nice.

- -- 
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 14:50:11 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: RFC;-)

Tuesday, Tuesday, January 08, 2002, 12:40:44 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Eric,

> We would welcome feedback from such a working group with regard to our
> Wait Listing Proposal if it could be provided by the end of January.
> Our plan was to seek such feedback from interested constituencies after
> we had received it from the registrars.  We started with the registrars
> because any such service would have to be offered directly to consumers
> by registrars.

I'm still waiting for Verisign to publicly state what problems it is
that justifies them seeking a change in operational policy for the
registry operation of these TLDs.

Before more direct feedback can be given, the problems need to be
publicly examined, and then it can be determined if the best way to
solve those problems is being pursued or not.

- -- 
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 18:15:13 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0117_01C19872.A43DECE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

George,

Let me change the analogy.  Is it okay for a property manager to have a
waiting list?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Kirikos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 5:19 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Joop Teernstra'; [email-masked]'
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > On a different note, let me try an analogy.  Is it okay for a
> > landlord
> > to have a waiting list for a house in case the current 
> rentors do not
> > renew their lease?
> 
> Are you suggesting that Verisign is the LANDLORD for dot-com? 
> Yes or no
> would be nice.
> 
> Landlords have ownership, and simply rent out names. As far as I am
> aware (please correct me if I am mistaken), Verisign registry 
> is simply
> the property manager on behalf of the true owners (be it ICANN, the US
> Government, internet society at large, who really knows, etc.),
> managing the registration database. Having been the property managers
> for so long, Verisign might feel that they can do what they 
> want....but
> some day the absentee landlords might wake up and decide to 
> replace the
> property managers, or at a minimum remind them that they have a
> property manager's contract and code of behaviour.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
> 

- ------=_NextPart_000_0117_01C19872.A43DECE0
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature;
	name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="smime.p7s"

- ------=_NextPart_000_0117_01C19872.A43DECE0--

- --
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 #966
************************