Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #967
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, January 9 2002          Volume 01 : Number 967

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

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 15:33:51 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Tuesday, Tuesday, January 08, 2002, 3:15:13 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> George,

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

Still doesn't work.  The residence existed and had value before the
previous tenant moved in, the domain didn't exist and had no value
until it was registered and used by the registrant.

- -- 
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, 08 Jan 2002 23:38:27 -0000
From: Paul Cotton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

08/01/02 20:58:36, "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?

If that landlord is the ONLY landlord for property then no

If that landlord charges a fee above the cost of actually leasing the property just to get on the list, then no

If that landlord has a history of abusing his tenants, then no

Regards

Paul Cotton

- --
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 17:43:26 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Joop and all assembly members,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> 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.

  There are a couple of problems with you last comments/statement here
Joop.  Those being that any DN could be re-registered given that it
is trademarked if the rights to that trademark were granted, or sold
to the party wanting to re-register that DN that is different from the
original TM holder and DN holder.  And that the DN was abandon
(Not re-registered by the original registrant and TM holder) the
case would exist that the TM to this extent is also being abandon.
Hence allowing for an different party to re-register that same DN.

>
>
> 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

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: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 18:26:11 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Chuck and all assembly members,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

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

  The answer is really bound in yet another question.  That being, whom
is the property manager, the registry or the registrar?  With the WLS
proposal that Verisign seem to favor, their answer would be the Registry.
However with the contracted and ICANN "Accredited" Registrars,
the answer may be the Registrar.  I personally would say that
there is a conundrum here.  I would say that BOTH the Registry
and the original Registrar or Registrar of last record, share the
responsibility of "Property Manager" given this analogy.

  So therefore if BOTH the Registry and Registrar of last record
or original Registrar, if both are the same, must agree on such a
policy process such as WLS.  In fact ALL of the registrars
must agree that this proposed policy method along with the
current registrants by vote, before this policy is accepted and
implemented.

  I know that our members would not be in favor of this proposal
for a number of reasons.  They are as I know them thus far as follows:

1.) A number of our members are stock holders in VRSN.  They
feel this proposal would incur legal disputes for some registrars
and have a potential negative effect on the VRSN stock price.

2.) Our members, DN holders all, do not feel that the service level
      of the registry would or is adequate to adequately effect this
       proposal in a manner that is fair

>
>
> 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/
> >

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: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 20:26:43 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Tuesday, January 08, 2002, 5:15:13 PM, Gomes, Chuck <[email-masked]> wrote:

GC> George,

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

GC> Chuck

Why is everyone even spending the time to debate the mechanics of this
proposal.  AFIC, there are a few fundamental hurdles which need to be
met before anything else is important:

1. The WLS proposal essentially puts monopolistic power in the hands
of one entity (the Registrar) and thwarts all competition. That is
exactly opposite of why, today, there is an ICANN and competing
Registrars.

2. The theory behind this WLS proposal is that it addresses technical
issues, which cannot otherwise be addressed on a technical level. I
arrived late, but I understand that there have been many suggestions
about how those technical issues could best be resolved to the benefit
of all parties, but there has been no detailed discussion about the
exact reasons why those specific suggestions are invalid.

If something is broken, then let's work together to get it fixed. I
have been in the IT biz for about 25 yrs., and an Exec of a Fortune
500, but I've never had a business model changed due to a tech
problem. So, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, as they
say.

Is there some reason why there is not a cooperative effort to
solve these tech issues - particularly when there is so much free
talent available?

3. The name space belongs to the public - not the Registrars, the
Registry or ICANN. Therefore, none of the foregoing have any rights to
any domain name, regardless of its current status, unless they are the
Registrant of that name. The one, and only thing, that confers any
rights to a domain name is its registration and that registration is,
essentially, on the basis of FCFS (let's forego a discussion about TMs
since we all know about it and it will only muddy the water).

When one builds a case, or any kind of structure, it is built from the
base up. Therefore, in MHO, there needs to be a solid, strong and
plausible basis for this proposal, before anything else is worthy of
consideration. Right now, IMHO, there is no foundation which warrants
any further time.  That is ditto for the AfterNic counter-proposal, as
well.

When the above three basic items have been satisfactorily addressed,
it will be the time when the proposal merits further time and effort
to examine it.

Thanks,

p.s. I live in Dallas, Texas and consider myself a Texan -- I've been
here a long time. My roots, however, are in Missouri, where I was born. So,
as Missourian's say, "Show Me!"

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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 18:50:26 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[5]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Tuesday, Tuesday, January 08, 2002, 6:26:43 PM, Don Brown wrote:

> Tuesday, January 08, 2002, 5:15:13 PM, Gomes, Chuck <[email-masked]> wrote:

GC>> George,

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

GC>> Chuck

> Why is everyone even spending the time to debate the mechanics of this
> proposal.  AFIC, there are a few fundamental hurdles which need to be
> met before anything else is important:

I completely agree with Dan here.  Chuck, is Verisign ready to address
this concerns?

- -- 
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 18:59:50 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Hello,

- --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> George,
> 
> Let me change the analogy.  Is it okay for a property manager to have
> a
> waiting list?

I've noticed that Chuck never actually ANSWERS a question (I'm still
waiting patiently for the answers to prior questions), but simply
answers a question with his own question. I shall set the example,
though, by answering his question.

Is it ok for a property manager to have a waiting list?

The answer is: MAYBE.

IF the LANDLORD allowed such a thing in their contract with the
property manager, it would be perfectly legitimate. HOWEVER (and read
this part, as it's important), it is NOT OK for the property manager to
create a waiting list on their own volition and keep all the money for
themselves, behind the back of the landlords!!!!!!!!!!

We actually had a case like this in Toronto, where a property manager
charged a bunch of people money to be on a waiting list, and then they
skipped town with all the cash. The landlord knew nothing (but was
ultimately responsible for providing a refund).

In most cases where there's a waiting list, though, there's a definite
end to the lease term (i.e. the prior tenants don't usually rent homes
or commercial real estate for 40 years), and it's mostly just a
"security deposit", which goes to the rent itself. The waiting list
security deposit isn't used a profit-center in itself.

By the way, continuing with your analogy, are you saying that Verisign
property manager intends to now have fixed lease terms (similar to
commercial real estate), and that the prior tenant can get kicked out
at the end of the non-renewable term? I'd like to be put on the waiting
list for Sex.com, Music.com, MP3.com, X.com, etc.. I can wait the 10
years or so when their leases expire, so that I can secure them for
$46. 

Sincerely,

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

> > -----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/
- --
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 19:03:43 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[5]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Hi William,

- --- William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I completely agree with Dan here.  Chuck, is Verisign ready to
> address
> this concerns?

I predict Chuck will answer your question with another question, or
just ignore it. :) 

It's kind of funny to really "have them on the ropes" debate-wise, but
then they stay in their corner when the bell rings for the next round,
and refuse to get off their chair and fight.... :)

Sincerely,

George

__________________________________________________
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 19:08:11 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Tuesday, Tuesday, January 08, 2002, 6:59:50 PM, George Kirikos wrote:

> By the way, continuing with your analogy, are you saying that Verisign
> property manager intends to now have fixed lease terms (similar to
> commercial real estate), and that the prior tenant can get kicked out
> at the end of the non-renewable term? I'd like to be put on the waiting
> list for Sex.com, Music.com, MP3.com, X.com, etc.. I can wait the 10
> years or so when their leases expire, so that I can secure them for
> $46. 

And this is the problem.  Verisign is creating a situation in which a
domain name has more value to the Registry and Registrar if the
registrant does NOT renew the domain, and creates a problem in that
the Registrar will be incentivized to not provide as strong a renewal
notification service as they would otherwise be under incentive to do.

They would be more inclined to meet the bare minimum requirement and
cross their fingers that the registrant doesn't pay attention to it.

Notice how quick the Snapnames CEO pounced and attacked the idea of
letting the current registrant know that some one has requested to be
placed on the waiting list or has done a "back order" on their domain
name?

- -- 
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 22:38:47 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System

<Car>

Folks - a general comment - single yourself out if you wish ;)

I'd like to point out that there are several stakeholders that need to be
heard on this issue. Based on my best guess, I'd say that today, these
various groups include;

- - law enforcement interests,
- - intellectual property holders,
- - non-com's,
- - registrars,
- - public interest/advocacy groups,
- - big business, small business, medium business and going out-of-business,
- - individuals,
- - infrastructure providers,
- - registries, both generic and iso-3166
- - network operators and ISPs,
- - resellers,
- - a bunch that I've missed and,
- - speculators.

Each person or interest from each of these different camps will have a
slightly different spin on the situation and a slightly different interest
to protect/advance. In other words, we are here and participating because we
are self-interested. This holds true for me, ChuckG, Mr. Whiting, the gang
from SnapNames, AfterNIC et al and everyone on the sidelines trying to make
up their minds. Try and keep this in mind lest you be tempted to single
people out based on their interests and agenda.

A unique thing about the ICANN process is that loose agreement on the
principles and way forward is a pre-requisite to getting anything done. Only
by inclusively and maturely analysing the ideas and proposals will we get
there.

<Game on>

- -rwr

- --
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 03:51:10 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

assembly, 

sorry to intrude again, but.....

in the analogy, even if the property manager IS allowed, this subscription is 
never more then one month lease, iow 1/12 of $ 6  and not equal to 7 years 

however, while you are going to answer a few question mr Gomes, perhaps the 
following ones can be taken to answer to:

1. I do read the proposal right, where it says the $ 40 is for ONE year 
waitlist, and has to be renewed after that year ?

2. where does the registry obtain the right to sell these domains, after they 
are deleted, or perhaps we have a different dictionary ? mine states that 
deletion means: 

Pronunciation:	di-'lEt, dE-
Function:	transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):	de·let·ed; de·let·ing
Etymology:	Latin deletus, past participle of delEre to wipe out, destroy
Date:	circa 1605
: to eliminate especially by blotting out, cutting out, or erasing

now as far as i know, the registry is supposed to delete any name that is not 
paid for (renewal) or otherwise offered for deletion.
from that I conclude that the sale of the domain is illegal, since while it 
is owned prior to deletion, by a registrant, the registry has no power over 
the domain and once it is deleted it no longer exists, henceforth this 
question.

Should the plan be based on transfer (XFER) then the direct permission of the 
owner is needed nad needs to be paid for (assumption)

Since these are basic questions on all proposals, i would like to see these 
answered, since being a part of any illegal transaction is something my 
council has advised against, on grounds they understand better then I do, but 
it had to do with penal institutions, which does not sound as being a 
comfortable hotel.

Of course even if the above were answered in a way that some rights could be 
obtained from somewhere, then i still believe that (and i would like this 
hypothesis answered to) the additional value  placed upon the domain could 
influence the current registrant to re-evaluate his/her position in the 
decision of not renewing, keeping that knowledge from the registrant shoudl 
then make way for a nice lawsuit 

thank you for the time to answer

regards

abel 

On Wednesday 09 January 2002 2:59 am, George Kirikos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > George,
> >
> > Let me change the analogy.  Is it okay for a property manager to have
> > a
> > waiting list?
>
> I've noticed that Chuck never actually ANSWERS a question (I'm still
> waiting patiently for the answers to prior questions), but simply
> answers a question with his own question. I shall set the example,
> though, by answering his question.
>
> Is it ok for a property manager to have a waiting list?
>
> The answer is: MAYBE.

- -- 
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: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 23:20:14 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Archives of VeriSign's Domain Policy Mailing List

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> So let me ask you whether we can restore the archives.

Methinks this archive should be made available somewhere. I don't understand
why you feel it is necessary to ask permission. Are there any volunteers to
host it?

> We could, I'm sure, exclude the offending posts which caused the list to be
> closed down in the first place.

I wasn't on that list and don't know what those posts contain.

However, if there's any doubt at all about whether suppressing them is justified,
I'd say include them in the archive.

> 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).
>
- --
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 17:19:06 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 19:03:46 +1300, Joop Teernstra
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>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.

This is confusing two types of ownership here.  If you have a
long-term lease on land you own the lease, you do not own the land.

Likewise for domain names a registrant does not (IMO) own a domain
name.  They arguably may own a contractual right to use the name and
transfer or sell the use of the name but that is different to actually
owning the name.

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: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 17:41:38 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Archives of VeriSign's Domain Policy Mailing List

On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:47:59 -0800, William X Walsh
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>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.
>
I think the reference is at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02067.html

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 21:55:22 -0800
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Hello Group,

I would like to offer some of our data for consideration:
We monitor and re-register expiring domains for consumers.
We have been offering this service since August 2000 - at that time expiring
domain market was a ' virgin ' one.

While expiring domain monitoring is just one aspect of our operations,
I can offer some insights, for whatever they are worth.

Here are some interesting data from our stats and data tracking :
Most dropped domains in 2001 were originally registered at Netsol Registrar
99.9% of dropped domains are NOT re-registered at NetSol Registrar.
On certain drops I have reviewed lists of hundreds of domains being
re-registered
and not one by NetSol Registrar.

This might be one interesting premise motivating Verisign to try to
recapture the monopoly.
If 1,000,000 of usable domains drop out of Netsol Registrar and they are
virtually all
re-registered by competing Registrars -  Verisign is probably looking to
recapture some of
these lost revenues, obviously the $6,000,000 Verisign already gets on these
domains
for running the Registry is not enough.

CONCERN 1 - EXPIRED DOMAINS HOARDING
- - There is a significant number of domains that were not expired by
VerisignNetSol  dating back to 1999, 2000 and 2001.  There is no rhyme and
reason
to Verisign expiration policy - some domains are simply skipped over and
not expired while others follow relatively reliable drop schedule.
Consumers and other parties have been consistenly
protesting this practice of expired domain hoarding since 1999 !
REPORTS OF EXPIRED DOMAIN HOARDING BY NSI / Verisign reported by
consumers and competing registrars for HOARDING EXPIRED domain names - the
industry seems to agree that NSI is hoarding more valuable domains with
intention of selling/reselling/auctioning those domains. Most other
Registrars delete a domain within 40 days of domain expiration date in case
of non-payment/non-renewal - except Verisign -
they seem have a "special" need to hoard expiring domains for months or
years in some cases.  Our monitoring list contain expiry dates to 1999 and
2000  !
CASE LINKS :
http://nsihorrorstories.com/archive.shtml -
A large number of consumer, registration provider complaints against
Verisign/NSI on hoarding expired domains routed to ICANN since July 2000.
http://www.eyeondomain.com/NSIcase.pdf
Class Action Lawsuit against NSI for hoarding Expired Domain Names - more
info here: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2644260,00.html
dating October 2000 -
The issue has been brought in front of ICANN Chief Compliance Officer, US
Dept of Commerce
and discussed over and over in many internet discussion boards - It has been
2 years and
we do not seem to be able to even get standarized expiration time lines out
of Verisign Registrar.

CONCERN 2:
Reports of questionable anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices,
disregard for  ICANN rules
SUPPORTING LINKS:
http://www.epinions.com/cmsw-EmailChat-All-networksolutions_com/_redir_att__
~1
whopping 97% consumers do NOT recommend NetSol/Verisign service (As opposed
to Register.Com
who has 41% recommend rating)
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=169
Ex-Verisign employee reports ICANN Agreement violations. predatory practices
against competitors, fraudulent behavior, unfair dealings with
consumers,....
http://www.opensrs.org/archives/discuss-list/0012/0137.html
DOMAIN RENEWAL INVOICES being sent to customers who transferred their
domains out of Verisign / NSI Registry months ago!    to issuance of this
invoice -
link to Netsol Rep answering this issue over a year ago - this dubious
practice still continues we speak... Unless this is practiced intentionally
to invoice a few extra hundred throusand dollars out of unsuspecting
accounting
departments who have no clue that the domain has been moved to another
registrar - I have hard time believing that a world class database company
would take 2 YEARS to design a connector between billing and registrar
record
database.
http://forum.icann.org/regxfer/
Verisign continues to DECLINE DOMAIN TRANSFERS to competing registrars
http://nsihorrorstories.com/cgi-shl/news/news.pl?action=allnews&start=36
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?regxfer;3C0684AA00000073
If a domain is renewed by a customer and transferred to a competing
registrar within 45 days of renewal, NSI/Verisign will obtain a refund of
$6.00 from itself but WILL NOT refund the consumer AND WILL further penalize
the consumer by NOT TRANSFERRING the RENEWAL year to the gaining Registrar.
We are a registration service provider and register domains with
Verisign/NSI as well as other ICANN approved Registrars - our customers
resonate with complaints about Verisign/NSI's poor practices.

The last thing we need is NSI/Verisign
controlling expired domain market!

All we have is the Registrar Accreditation Agreement that states:

<<quote>>5. Registrar shall register SLDs to SLD holders only for fixed
periods. At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on
behalf of the SLD holder to pay a renewal fee WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN A
SECOND NOTICE OR REMINDER shall, in the absence of extenuating
circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration. In the event that
ICANN adopts a policy concerning procedures for handling expiration of
registrations, Registrar shall abide by that policy. <<unquote>>

I cannot find anywhere anything that would give Verisign the right to begin
disposing of expiring domains from Verisign's Registry or Competing
Registrar's
without explicit ICANN approval.

Based on current Verisign double function - Registry and Registrar - there
is enough
of potential opportunities for preferential treatment of a single 'partner'
or a daughter company running
Registrar operations in status quo that would make me skeptical to place my
faith
into fairness of the system if Verisign gets monopoly yet on another aspect
of domain registration market.  Frankly,  I would prefer to see an
independent contractor
handling this industry, should it ever be centralized.

It has taken YEARS of providing evidence and urging ICANN regarding
NSI/Verisign
not releasing expiring domains on a predictable schedule. Are we to
understand
that now Verisign issues and approves it's own proposal for disposition of
expiring domains?

As Verisign/NSI bends ICANN rules and ICANN seems to
have little power in enforcing its rule it further encourages
other smaller Registrars to follow in Verisign's footsteps - further
promoting chaos in our
Wild Wild Web.  This is slowly but surely resulting in NSI/Verisign being
THE namespace Regulator (again).

Considering all reports at hand - Please let's not let the Wolf do the
shepherding!

To conclude on the constructive side, we wholeheartedly suggest that
Verisign focuses on fixing issues
at hand:

1. INSTALL PREDICTABLE 40 DAY DOMAIN EXPIRATION POLICY
2. DO NOT ERRONEOUSLY BILL CUSTOMERS WHO TRANSFERRED THEIR DOMAINS TO
COMPETING REGISTRARS
3. STOP DECLINING TRANSFERS TO COMPETING REGISTRARS IF THE WINNING REGISTRAR
OBTAINED OWNER APPROVAL
4. CLEARLY WARN YOUR CUSTOMER THAT IF THEY TRANSFER THEIR DOMAIN WITHIN 45
DAYS FROM IT'S RENEWAL TO A COMPETING REGISTRAR THAT YOU WILL TAKE THE
RENEWAL DOMAIN YEAR AWAY FROM THEM AND GIVE THE CONSUMER A REFUND

Once you have the above issues implemented and resolved to your customer's
satisfaction, let's talk about new proposals and inventions.

Respectfully,
Genie Livingstone

- --
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 #967
************************