Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #970
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, January 10 2002          Volume 01 : Number 970

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

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 09:40:02 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Future of sub-lists

Wednesday, Wednesday, January 09, 2002, 9:25:17 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:03:43 +1300, David Farrar wrote:

>> I note that there has not been a single post on any of the sub lists
>> for around three months.  Thus it is probably fair to conclude they
>> are now redundant
>>
>> It is a pity because I actually thought they were potentially useful
>> but for whatever reasons they haven't worked.

> William X. Walsh killed off the idea with a barrage of criticism.  This was
> part of the reason I resigned as Alt Chair.

Ah, yes, passing responsibility for your failures now, Patrick?

The fact is that you tried to MANDATE the use of those lists and
forcibly move discussions from the GA list to these lists, and THAT is
what killed your lists.  People do not want to be subscribed to many
lists, and people do not want to discussion issues with just a small
subgroup of those involved.

That is why your lists failed.

- -- 
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: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:08:41 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Future of sub-lists

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 09:40:02 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:

> Wednesday, Wednesday, January 09, 2002, 9:25:17 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:03:43 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
>
> >> I note that there has not been a single post on any of the sub lists
> >> for around three months.  Thus it is probably fair to conclude they
> >> are now redundant
> >>
> >> It is a pity because I actually thought they were potentially useful
> >> but for whatever reasons they haven't worked.
>
> > William X. Walsh killed off the idea with a barrage of criticism.  This
was
> > part of the reason I resigned as Alt Chair.
>
> Ah, yes, passing responsibility for your failures now, Patrick?

LOL, William, you're a card.

> The fact is that you tried to MANDATE the use of those lists and
> forcibly move discussions from the GA list to these lists, and THAT is
> what killed your lists.

Sorry, William, most people on the list couldn't give a shit one way or the
other.  All they wanted was an effective method of communication.

The truth is that if you weren't subscribed the sub-lists would have
succeeded.  You really can take comfort in knowing that you torpedoed the
whole plan.

> People do not want to be subscribed to many
> lists, and people do not want to discussion issues with just a small
> subgroup of those involved.

Spin, William.  They were small because they never had the chance to get off
the ground.

> That is why your lists failed.

Everybody on the GA list knows you are a bully and a wrecker.  Just look at
your latest effort.  On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 08:42:28 -0800, William X. Walsh
wrote:

> I assure you, Ron, you will know who I am before this up, as I have
> made killing this deal one of my primary goals right now.

Like you killed IDNO and the sublists ?

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 19:37:41 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Using the Sub-Lists

On 2002-01-10 04:14:38 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:

>Perhaps you would like to assist in setting up a working group? If 
>so, the better list is [ga-sys] as this relates to Registration 
>Systems.

I'd strongly suggest not to try to revive the sublists.

They are dead, let them rest in peace.

- -- 
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: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:48:58 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Using the Sub-Lists

Hi Thomas

> They are dead, let them rest in peace.

The Names Council has set up Task Forces with little input from the GA.  In
fact the GA will be disbanded before the end of the year, imo.

We should be driving domain policy issues but we are not.

As a prospective Chair, could you tell me why not?

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 11:12:40 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Future of sub-lists

Wednesday, Wednesday, January 09, 2002, 10:08:41 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

>> I assure you, Ron, you will know who I am before this up, as I have
>> made killing this deal one of my primary goals right now.

> Like you killed IDNO and the sublists ?

You can step spreading your lies, Patrick.

The IDNO is alive and well, and you killed the sublist plan before it
started by taking such a heavy handed approach to it, and not
recognizing that in fact there was very little interest in your
sublist plan except from those who saw it as a way to get rid of some
unpopular topics of discussion so they wouldn't have to see them
anymore.

Stick to the facts, Patrick, you make a poor liar.

- -- 
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: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 20:21:00 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Structure Taskforce Update

Dear David,

thanks for your work in the TF!
The dual role model -- ALSO elects Directors, but works
on domain name policy issues within the DNSO framework
- -- is, as Elisabeth has put it, elegant. The main problem
I see is the relation of domain name holders and other
individual participants. (Note: problem, not unsolvable 
problem!)

The ALSC "proposed individual domain name holders as one 
such defined community, and is soliciting ideas for additional 
definitions". (http://www.atlargestudy.org/statement_of_work.shtml).

The ALSO is supposed to play a *dual* role according to 
'option four' and Philip Sheppard's new discussion paper draft v3
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00008.doc).
For *DNSO* purposes, an individual domain name holders
constituency is fine and needed. But the second role is 
the At Large for *ICANN* purposes. Which means: If the ALSO 
became an Domain Name Holders Org., it would be fitting for 
the DNSO, but too small for ICANN. If the ALSO became 
bigger and encompassed additional individual stakeholders, 
it /may/ become too big for the DNSO.

I could think of several possible answers: 

- -- It doesn't matter, because people will care about "their" 
issues and interests anyway. It doesn't hurt the DNSO if
people not holding domains (yet interested in domain issues)
are participating in the ALSO part.

- -- It doesn't matter, because most people care only about 
domain name issues. (Not so sure about that -- this might
change, so we should think about it.)

- -- It does matter, and the ALSO members should have "tags":
The ICANN Board is elected by the wider group, the DNSO
issues are left to individual domain name holders. If you
are neither a member of any existing constituency nor an
individual domain name holder, you could still participate
via the GA, but not via the NC.

Philip Sheppard wants feedback latest January 15, so we
should give David some guidance what the GA thinks about
this.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

DPF wrote on 06.01.02, 21:28:11:
  [...]
> The TF Chair responded
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00070.html) and has
> put forward a scenario which is:
>
> 1. ALSO is formed and directly elects 5/6/9 Board members (as ALSC
> proposal but lets not argue about the number here)
> 2. ALSO also elects 10/12 member Administrative Council (as ALSC
> proposal but with an administrative role to organise the SO and
> outreach downwards on policy)
> 3. ALSO Administrative Council selects 3 members (or the 3 top
> geographically diverse of the directly-elected council election list)
> appointed to Names Council to input on policy matters. The 3 AL Names
> Council reps get full voting rights on policy issues on the NC (but do
> not vote at the annual election for DNSO Board members).
> 4. The individuals petitioning for an individual domain name holders
> constituency within the DNSO are encouraged to participate in the ALSO
> and become AL Administrative Council members and reps to the NC.
> 5. The GA reverts to its intended role of uniting all DNSO
> constituencies (and expands to include at least the AL Administrative
> Council and NC reps).
  [...]
- --
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 11:30:25 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Using the Sub-Lists

Right now sublists are not an issue and closure of the GA is not an issue.

Right now setting up a working group in the ga to handle these matters is
an issue.

Let us not think of ga-sys as sublist let us look at it as a wg-delete forum.

Let us not think of final results but let us move forward in an open and
transparent manner, the results will only reflect our dayly work.

Sincerely,
Eric

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Thomas
>
> > They are dead, let them rest in peace.
>
> The Names Council has set up Task Forces with little input from the GA.  In
> fact the GA will be disbanded before the end of the year, imo.
>
> We should be driving domain policy issues but we are not.
>
> As a prospective Chair, could you tell me why not?
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 11:29:50 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Using the Sub-Lists

Wednesday, Wednesday, January 09, 2002, 11:30:25 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Right now sublists are not an issue and closure of the GA is not an issue.

> Right now setting up a working group in the ga to handle these matters is
> an issue.

> Let us not think of ga-sys as sublist let us look at it as a wg-delete forum.

> Let us not think of final results but let us move forward in an open and
> transparent manner, the results will only reflect our dayly work.

Without it being a formal workgroup, following process, call it a
workgroup is pointless and couterproductive.

The discussion is on this list, where it belongs, and where it should
stay.

End of story.

- -- 
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: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 21:19:03 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: NC Structure Taskforce: At Large Discussion Paper v3

[3rd draft, 8-Jan-02, by Philip Sheppard, converted from Word doc
at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00072.html,
for comment until January 15.  /// Alexander]

=================================================================
DNSO NC TF on Structure   Discussion paper
=================================================================
Draft outline analysis of and recommendations on the
ALSC final report proposals -- draft version3
=================================================================

Record of input
 Constituency  | version 1/2 | version 3   |
 BC            | Yes         |             |
 IPC           |             |             |
 gTLDs         |             |             |
 ccTLDs        |             |             |
 Registrars    |             |             |
 Non- coms     | Yes         |             |
 ISP           | Yes         |             |
 GA            | Yes         |             |

1. Summary of key proposals within the ALSC November 2001 report
    -- for information only

- -> Define potential electorate as individual domain name holders
   (and outreach beyond in future)
- -> Establish an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSC) to
   organise that electorate
- -> Fund the ALSO via membership dues as a condition of voting
- -> Establish 6 ICANN regions (or give Asia-Pacific two seats)
- -> Elect 6 At-Large Board directors with 3 year term
- -> Elect one 12 member ALSO Council (two per region)
- -> Hold regional elections for 3 international posts and 3
   regional posts
- -> Post no 1 (most votes) elected as At-Large Board director
- -> Post no 2 and 3 (second and third highest votes) elected to
   ALSO Council.
- -> No 2 through no 6 regional winners form 5 member Regional
   Council.
- -> Hold first elections in 2002.
- -> ALSO provides consensus-based policy advice within ICANN's
   mission.
- -> Use Registrars as conduit to reach the potential electorate.
- -> Review after two election cycles (6 years or 2008).

2. Evaluation against established criteria

- -----------------------------------------------------------------|
Criteria                 |Evaluation                             |
- -----------------------------------------------------------------|
a. the efficacy of policy making within the DNSO                 |
- -----------------------------------------------------------------|
- - degree of formal       |Uncertain. But compared with an        |
interaction between      |individual domain name holders         |
stakeholders             |constituency WITHIN the DNSO, the      |
                         |degree of interaction between At-large |
                         |and the DNSO is clearly lower.         |
- -----------------------------------------------------------------|
- - quantity of predicted  |Low. There will be high overlap between|
unique issues of a new SO|issues discussed by an ALSO with those |
outside the competence of|of the DNSO.                           |
DNSO versus issues within|                                       |
competence of DNSO       |                                       |
- -----------------------------------------------------------------|
- - mechanisms for cross-SO|Uncertain. No mechanisms are proposed. |
communication            |There will be membership overlap and so|
                         |informal cross communication. There    |
                         |will probably be a need for formalised |
                         |mechanisms.                            |
- -----------------------------------------------------------------|
- - effect on the DNSO     |High. The ALSO provides the            |
consensus process.       |organisation of individuals and is an  |
                         |enabler of consensus. The DNSO could   |
                         |use this input as part of its consensus|
                         |process but a mechanism is needed.     |
- -----------------------------------------------------------------|
b. the efficacy of ICANN decision making                         |
- -----------------------------------------------------------------|
- - the ability of each    |Uncertain. The ALSO would be expected  |
proposal to generate     |to enhance consensus within itself but |
valid consensus-based    |not per se within the ICANN community. |
policy making            |                                       |
- -----------------------------------------------------------------|
- - possibility of the     |High. Today the policy areas of the    |
Board receiving          |three SOs are distinct. With an ALSO   |
contradictory advice from|feeling able to comment on all ICANN   |
its SOs and the impact on|policy areas they may conflict with    |
resolution mechanisms    |each of the three existing SOs. What is|
                         |required is a means of coherence for   |
                         |policy input to the DNSO to make name- |
                         |related policy input to the Board      |
                         |coherent.                              |
- -----------------------------------------------------------------|
- - likely financial and   |Uncertain. The real test of individuals|
representational         |interest in at-large will be when      |
robustness of any SO     |members are asked to pay to vote. The  |
                         |choice of fee and the degree of self-  |
                         |funding will be a highly significant   |
                         |determinant of success or failure of   |
                         |the ALSO.                              |
- -----------------------------------------------------------------|
- - likelihood of the      |--> High. The proposed ALSO structure  |
proposal to achieve      |    should produce better at-large     |
adequate, balanced and   |    representation than the status quo |
fair stakeholder         |    (subject to the financial question |
representation on the    |    above.) There will be one          |
Board                    |    additional at-large member than the|
                         |    status quo. (But three less at-    |
                         |    large members than envisaged in    |
                         |    the by-laws).                      |
                         |--> Setting up a sixth ICANN region    |
                         |    uniquely for ALSO is not           |
                         |    recommended. If a sixth region is  |
                         |    needed then it should relate to all|
                         |    ICANN activities.                  |
                         |--> To avoid capture and ensure        |
                         |    plurality there will need to be a  |
                         |    minimum threshold for participation|
                         |    in the ALSO before elections could |
                         |    start.                             |
- -----------------------------------------------------------------|

3. Recommendations of the Structure TF based on evaluation

 1. Board directors. Against an objective to create a means of
    electing ICANN at-large board directors the TF endorses the
    ALSC proposals to create an ALSO.
 2. Policy consensus. Against an objective to outreach and develop
    policy consensus among individual domain name holders, the TF
    endorses the structural proposals of the ALSC.
 3. Policy support to the Board. Against an objective to provide
    policy input to the Board, the TF recommends that the three
    members of the proposed At-large administrative council are
    given membership of the DNSO Names Council, and participate
    within that body exercising voting and other policy-related
    privileges in the same way as the three representatives of the
    DNSO constituencies. (The three ALSO reps would have no vote
    in the election of DNSO Board members).

    This solves at a stroke three issues:
    --> the likelihood of contradictory or confusing advise
        reaching the Board from the DNSO and the ALSO
    --> creating a clear mechanism for ALSO/DNSO policy
        interaction.
    --> avoiding duplication by DNSO constituencies in policy
        work in both the DNSO and ALSO.

Mechanistic details:
 1. ALSO is formed and directly elects 6 Board members.
 2. ALSO also elects 12 member Administrative Council (as ALSC
    proposal but with an administrative role to organise the SO
    and outreach downwards on policy)
 3. ALSO Administrative Council selects 3 members (or the 3 top
    geographically diverse of the directly-elected council
    election list) appointed to Names Council to input on policy
    matters.
 4. The individuals petitioning for an individual domain name
    holders constituency within the DNSO are encouraged to
    participate in the ALSO and become AL Administrative Council
    members and reps to the NC.
 5. The GA reverts to its intended role of uniting all DNSO
    constituencies (and expands to include the AL Administrative
    Council and NC reps).

4. Threshold for ALSO membership before elections could start.

The ALSC report there were 143,789 on the first At-Large e-mail
list, that 76,183 were validated to vote and that 34,035 voted.
A threshold of 30,000 seems reasonable for the proposed ALSO
membership before elections can begin.
=================================================================

- --
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 20:23:00 GMT
From: David Farrar <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Registrar Market Share

ICANN Blog has a link to the latest registrar invoices (at 
http://www.icann.org/financials/gtld-contribution-chart-01-02.htm) which are 
based on each registrar's market share.

Based on this I've calculated that market share at the moment is (for those 
over 1%) :

Network Solutions, Inc. Registrar	45.45%
register.com, Inc.	                11.17%
Tucows, Inc.	                         8.38%
BulkRegister.com, Inc.	                 5.23%
Melbourne IT, Ltd.                       4.34%
CORE Internet Council of Registrars	 2.66%
Internet Domain Registrars 	         2.45%
eNom, Inc.	                         1.80%
Dotster, Inc.	                         1.51%
iHoldings.com, Inc. 	                 1.33%
Schlund+Partner AG	                 1.16%
Go Daddy Software, Inc.	                 1.07%

The smallest registrar has market share of 0.0000051% and the 81 registrars 
under 1% total 13.45%.

If one assumes 30,000,000 gTLD names at present at a standard rate (I know some 
are cheaper) of $35 each 1% market share is approximate revenue of US$10.5 
million.

DPF

- --
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 22:12:23 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] REMINDER: Two GA votes in operation

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

REMINDER about two GA votes presently in operation:
    1. Election of the GA rep to the NC Transfer Task Force (b10)
    2. Election of the GA Chair and Alternate for year 2002 (b11)

1. Transfer:
   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GA-TransferTF.html

   Last item reads:

   VI. Election by the General Assembly to designate its
       representative to the NC Transfer Task Force.

       The Electorate will be those GA members who subscribed
       to the GA Voting Registry
       http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html.

       Voting opens Thursday 3 January 2002, 16:00 UTC, 17:00 CET (Paris),
       Voting closes Thursday 10 January 2002, 15:00 UTC, 16:00 CET (Paris)
       (For local time in other places see
       http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

       The results are due no later than Friday 11 January 2002,
       at 16:00 UTC, 17:00 CET (Paris), and will be published in
       http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-TransferTF-vote.html

2. GA Chair:
   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.DNSO-GAchair.html

   Last two items read:

   VI. Election of the Chair and Alternate Chair to the General
       Assembly by the General Assembly - this procedure is
       an advisory vote by the GA to advise the Names Council
       of its preferences.

       Opens on Saturday 05 January 2002, 17:00 UTC (18:00 Paris),
       Closes on Saturday 12 January 2002, 17:00 UTC (18:00 Paris)
       (For local time in other places see
       http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

       The results will be announced no later than
       Monday 14 January 2002, at 23:00 UTC (24:00 Paris),
       and will be published on the web site in
       http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-chair-election-ranking.html

   VII. Election of the Chair to the General Assembly by the
        Names Council

        During the NC teleconference, 17 January 2002, 14:00 UTC (15:00
Paris)
        (For local time in other places see
        http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

DNSO Secretariat
- --

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 22:26:44 +0100 (MET)
From: "Elliot Noss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:53:53 -0500

I wanted to take a bit of a "clean-sheet" approach to this discussion as the
points I wish to communicate cut across a number of different threads on a
number of different lists.

There are really four topics I wish to raise as follows:

- - Who has the "right" to deal with expired/expiring names?
- - The mixing in this discussion of two seperate issues, registry load and
the allocation of expired/expiring names;
- - The inefficiency that results from any flat-price solution;
- - A way forward.

Who has the "right" to expired/expiring names?
- -----------------------------------------------
This is an issue that creates an interesting sub-text to this entire
discussion, yet has not been fully examined. There are three potential
claimants for this right and three possible states for these names.
Claimants include registrants, registry and registrars. States include
unexpired, expired in the grace period and expired o/s the grace period.
There are two things that are clear. First, that no one party is clearly
entitled to stake a claim. Registrars are limited by the terms of 3.7.5 of
the RAA which require that names be put back in the pool if not renewed. The
registry is limited by its role as monopoly technical supplier and by the
Registry agreement which entitles it to a fee for the services it is
contracted to perform and confers upon it no property rights beyond that.
Registrants are limited by a number of practical issues including their
limited rights in a name and their diffuse nature.

What is clear to me is that this IS NOT a function of a registrars terms of
service, nor is it an inherent right contained in the registry agreement.

At the same time we must keep our eye on the fact that the role of
registrars and registry is, most purely, to efficiently administer the
allocation and provisioning of domain names. This means that the best
approach is the one that puts names into the hands of those who would put
them to the most use. Names in the hands of those who most desire them will
lead to a fuller utilization of the Internet, more value for users and more
revenue for registrars and registries.

This point should not be seen as at odds with an egalitarian (as opposed to
equitable) view of domain names and first-come-first-served ("FCFS"), but I
realize this is a point that would be the subject of much debate. What is
interesting today is that we are at a unique time and place in the history
of the DNS which makes this less contentious. We have one extremely mature
namespace in .com/.net/.org. It is almost certain to be the largest
namespace throughout the lifecycle of the current DNS. It also has a
secondary market that is more evolved than any other will ever be. We also
have the recent introduction of new gTLDs that provide a fresh supply of
names. This means any solution effected can be tailored to the current
circumstance.

We must also remember that there are two groups of registrants that we must
consider, current registrants and potential registrants. They have distinct
interests. Current registrants have rights around their existing names, both
in terms of security from losing a name through inadvertance and in excess
economic value. Potential registrants benefit from being able to efficiently
obtain names that are currently owned. With the introduction of new gTLDs
potential registrants have, and will continue to have more and better
alternatives. The maximum value in the secondary market exists right now,
today.

At the end of the day the competing claims of registries and registrars are
likely subordinate to those of registrants. Accordingly, any solution should
start with this underpinning.

Registry load and the allocation of expired/expiring names
- -----------------------------------------------------------
It has been noted by a number of people in this debate, and has been my
position for many months, that the issues of registry load and the the
allocation of expired/expiring names are being mixed together unnecessarily.

I wish to add my voice to the chorus saying that these issues are related
only remotely, almost accidentally. There have been a number of very good
suggestions as to simple steps the registry could take to lessen the load.
There are a couple additional points worth noting here. First, the current
solution is no longer broken. While I am not a fan of the status quo, the
registry has weathered the storm and there seems to currently be no
appreciable impact on our day-to-day business (which was not the case a
short time ago). An additional measure or two (a modified check command,
additional, transparent compliance, all names dropping in real time and a
published drop list are the easiest and most effective IMHO) would make this
a non-issue.

It is worth noting my personal dealings with the registry on the question of
load have been positive and I was impressed with their genuine desire to
solve the issues at hand.

This last point leads me to feel comfortable that these issues are not being
presented as being directly connected and can be dealt with seperately. I
would, of course, love to hear Chuck confirm this.

The Inefficiency of flat pricing
- ---------------------------------
The current market for domain names is characterized by flat-priced supply
and variable-priced demand. I do not take a politial position on this, I
merely note it as observation. This market inefficiency (again observation
not position) has lead to the existance of a robust secondary market. It has
also lead to a significant amount of the current CNO namespace sitting
unused.

I have strong reservations about any solution geared at the expiring market
that magnifies that inefficiency. By definition it leaves money on the table
and leaves demand unfulfilled at the same time. The worst of both worlds.
Ideally we could find a solution that was able to create a robust, efficient
secondary market which would benefit registrars and the registry, but if
done properly would most benefit registrants.

A suggested way forward
- ------------------------
Unfortunately, for me, the existing WLS proposal is not acceptable. The
inefficiencies are large and the economics are miles away from either fair
or realistic. With significantly re-worked economics it could be an
acceptable interim step, but I am not sure we need an interim step,
especially given the decoupling of the registry load issue.

It seems to me there is a way forward that addresses all of the above
issues. I would suggest two important modifications to the existing Peter
Girard proposal. An unlimited bidding period and the bulk of the fees going
to existing registrants rather than registrars.

All names should be available to "bid" on at any time. A "bid" by a
prospective registrant would require an administrative fee collected by a
registrar, shared with registry and would be available for acceptance by the
existing registrant at any time. A sucessful transaction would lead to a fee
to both registry and registrars. An example:

- - Potential registrant places a bid of $150 on abcd.com and for doing so
pays a non-refundable administrative fee to registrar x of $10 and in turn
registrar pays registry $5;
- - Original registrant is made aware of his ability to "transfer" the name
and any unexpired term to a potential registrant for $120;
- - If original registrant decides to accept he contacts the existing
registrar of record and informs him of his desire;
- - If the registrars are different the $30 transaction fee is split 1/3 each,
if the same than the split is equal between registrar and registry;
- - The fee would be a % of bid, capped at a relatively low number ($30?).

To be clear, this is described in very brief terms and would need
significant rounding out as well as a champion so please work the principals
not the specifics.

This solution would provide significant benefits to everyone involved in
both an equitable and palatable fashion. It would also keep both registrars
and registries in their role of market makers not market participants and
would create a level of efficiency that would lead to increased revenues,
increased registrant satisfaction and, perhaps most importantly, maximized
use of the namespace.

The original administrative fee would/should act so as to deter nearly all
wasteful behaviour. Technically, it need be no more complicated than an
interface between the SRS and EBay's open APIs (full credit here to Joyce
Lin in Montevideo, if only we would have listened to you then!). It could be
completely done by the registry, by the registry with technical partners,
Peter could do it, or it could be put out to a completely new tender
process. I know we would love to build it (but to be clear we are not
throwing our hat in the ring whatsoever). I know perhaps fifty people
reading this message would love to build it. That kind of excites me,
thinking of all of the extremely capable people who could nail this
technically. Innovation would abound if we let it.

The single largest beneficiary would be the registry. Ok by me. The largest
cumulative benefit would accrue to registrants. Again, that works for me. I
think this would be an absolutely elegant outcome for everyone.

Regards

Elliot Noss
Tucows inc.
416-538-5494

- --
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: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:32:15 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Using the Sub-Lists

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 11:12:06 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
> On Wed, January 09, 2002, 10:08:41 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 08:42:28 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

> > > I assure you, Ron, you will know who I am before this up, as I
> > > have made killing this deal one of my primary goals right now.
> >
> > Like you killed IDNO and the sublists ?
>
> You can step spreading your lies, Patrick.

The list members can make up their own minds, William.  As far as I know, you
are still opposing Joop on the IDNO list.  And I don't see much progress wrt
an Individuals Constituency !!  Why is that, I wonder?

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 11:29:50 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:

> The discussion is on this list, where it belongs, and where it should
> stay.  End of story.

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 04:52:17 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> On Wed, January 09, 2002, 4:24:20 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> > This group is entirely open, because this is a short time working
> >  group all list rules will apply except for posting limits.
>
> A statement and act you have no authority to make.

And your authority comes from where exactly ?

Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 17:28:12 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System

WXW and all assembly members,

  Perhaps WXW, you didn't read Ron's post very closely.  It would
appear from your comments below in part anyway that you didn't.
For instance Ron made it pretty clear that most of snapnames
customers are "Mainstream Users" From below in Rons comments:
"Of our 74,000 active customers, by far and away the majority
are mainstream users." and "I'd say about half our business
 today is from speculators."  Hence WXW, trying to make the case
that Ron's creditability is questionable given his comments and statements
is a bit of a stretch at best.

William X Walsh wrote:

> Well Ron, are you going to accuse me of being a speculator and thus
> biased in sharing Harold's opinion 100%?
>
> Do yourself and your credibility a favor and do be so casual about
> dismissing concerns in this fashion.  It really does not make your
> comments appear to be any more valid.
>
> Not to mention that the VAST majority of your company's income is
> almost certainly from domain speculators anyway.
>
> Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle black.
>
> Tuesday, Tuesday, January 08, 2002, 6:06:53 PM, Ron Wiener wrote:
>
> > Harold,
>
> > Speaking for myself, I appreciate knowing your position on this issue --
> > which is to maintain the status quo, as it favors your current methods --
> > even if your input here and in other forums is caustic.  Though I don't
> > recall the RC inviting professional speculators to this icann-delete
> > listserv, if that is the intent, I don't object but would ask that others be
> > invited in order to provide balanced perspectives.
>
> > Many speculators are in favor of the WLS, but are unwilling to post their
> > sentiments publicly because, here and in other private forums (under your
> > "cartoonz" screen alias, for example) you are infamous for
> > less-than-professional attacks on such postings, and you have to do business
> > with one another.  I understand that.  However, we've been bcc'd on
> > supportive e-mails sent to ICANN and ICANN constituents over the past few
> > days, and of course many of our own customers have contacted us to express
> > their support and hope that the WLS is approved as proposed.   Though it's
> > unfortunate that some are not yet comfortable voicing their support, we have
> > learned that MANY, on all sides of the industry, view 100% efficacy as being
> > far more important than the price of the subscription, since their upside is
> > so significant.
>
> > I can't directly answer your question of how many of our customers are
> > speculators because it is difficult to determine who they are.  Yes, there
> > are some that are quickly identifiable by the number of names they backorder
> > in a single transaction, but others (large companies, law firms, etc.) do
> > this as well.  If you forced me to guess, I'd say about half our business
> > today is from speculators.  For our competitors who cater specifically to
> > this customer segment, of course the percentage is typically 100%.  In terms
> > of our daily site traffic, approximately 95% is generated by registrars
> > sending through mainstream customers.   Of our 74,000 active customers, by
> > far and away the majority are mainstream users.
>
> > To be clear, the WLS deals with names that have already been dropped by
> > their current registrants, and there is NOTHING inherent within the WLS
> > system or proposal that in any way interacts with an existing registrant and
> > somehow encourages abandonment of domain names.  Your allegations on this
> > point are moot.
>
> > I have not edited your comments in this string.  They appear to me to be
> > 100% intact.
>
> > So, since you're unwilling to disclose your true agenda and true identity to
> > this listserv of registrars and registries, I'm pasting in below some
> > postings that have been forwarded to me by fellow members of your private
> > forum that don't necessarily agree with your position or tactics.  There are
> > mentions herein from "toonz" (you), "drewbert" and some of your other
> > colleagues, and I've even included one at the end that is a rare balanced
> > perspective, just to be fair.  After reading through this there should no
> > longer be a question in anybody's mind as to your true views towards
> > fairness, intellectual property rights, mainstream users rights, etc.
>
> > - Ron
>
> > ================================================================
> >>>After March 20th there will be no one grabbing names with scripts and no
> > registrars selling names out the back door.
>
> > Eh? What did I miss? "No registrars selling names out the back door"? That
> > is EXACTLY what will start happening more and more.
>
> > Wicked, get a clue.
>
> > cartoonz,  <http://> http:///
> > Sat Jan 5 20:05:53 2002 - 64.30.193.201 - message #43526
> > =================================================================
>
> >>>>Surely since domain names have to be registered in the central REGISTRY,
> > back-door REGISTRAR deals can be eliminated by automatically deleting domain
> > names from the central REGISTRY the same day they expire.
>
> > Edwin, get a clue.
> > Names cannot be simply "deleted" from the central registry "the day they
> > expire"... even with a 45 day window now, mistakes still happen. There is
> > nothing stopping a registrar from either allowing the current registrant to
> > renew (which is what this time is for) or to actually find a new registrant
> > (which is unethical, dirty, sleazy business - but it will be done more and
> > more if this goes through).
>
> > Confusing the real issues with "in my perfect world, things would work like
> > this..." is not really addressing the problem, however entertaining it may
> > be.
> > cartoonz,  <http://> http:///
> > Sat Jan 5 20:24:11 2002 - 64.30.193.201 - message #43531
> > =>
>
> > I do not set Registrar's prices, they do.  Registrars are not making
> > "continuous investments in hardware and software to support MY business,
> > they do this to support thier own business. Many are doing this to profit
> > from the deletion business too, without "your help".  The REGISTRY is the
> > only one making the huge cash grab with YOUR proposal, from what I can tell.
> > Oh, yes, SnapNames profits too.  Do Not put words into my mouth, I never
> > said anything about Registrar's making a profit was a crime.  That the
> > Registry is finding a way around the government mandated $6 cap might be a
> > different matter though...
> > 1.      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.
> > Please give us the facts.  What percentage of SnapNames' income is derived
> > from speculators?  Why would the WLS be any less of a percentage?
>
> > SnapNames' site traffic is 100% registrar-driven and as such our customer
> > mix is like registrars' typical customer mix - some speculators, some
> > mainstream, as one might naturally expect.  We physically cannot and
> > ethically will not (were we physically able to) discriminate between them,
> > any more so than any registrar can or would.  The WLS mechanism collects
> > buyer demand all year long, however, not just during the last five days of a
> > batch-deleted name's existence, and as such will create fair and equal
> > access for mainstream customers who are not scouring delete lists looking
> > for opportunities.
>
> > You have edited my question above, I wonder why? You also did not give me a
> > direct answer.  What percentage of SnapName's income is derived from
> > speculators?  Do I need to name the top 5 speculators so that you can get a
> > handle on this?  If it is such an even "blend" of mainstream/speculators,
> > why is this a tough question?
> > Also, have there been ANY "SnapBack" subscriptions that have even gone to
> > term so that you could definitively state the number of subscriptions that
> > failed?  I do not believe that you have been offering the "1 year"
> > subscription for even close to a year now, am I correct?  Your statements
> > the "most SnapBacks 'ripen' within the first 60 days indicates to me that
> > most of your customers must be doing thier homework on which names to
> > choose, is this something that most "mainstream" customers do?  I know that
> > speculators certainly do this...  I also know that most speculators I have
> > spoken with (and you know I talk with a lot of them) do not care for this
> > "100% success for one person" idea either, except for the top five who
> > already know how to game your system.
> > 1.      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.
>
> > I know for a fact that speculators are already "whipping up robotic
> > algorithms" to immediately pounce on WLS slots on names the second they go
> > on hold.  This seems like a red herring to me.
>
> > Which argument are you making Harold?  On the one hand you say that a $69 to
> > $99 retail price for a WLS subscription is too high, but on the other hand
> > you say that you know "for a fact" that speculators are already planning to
> > pounce on these slots.  You can't be making both arguments at once, so just
> > pick ONE, would you?
>
> > Where did I say the RETAIL price was to high? Which hand was that? My
> > argument, or one of them, has consistently been that the WHOLESALE price is
> > way out of line.  Just because your "market reseach" shows that the market
> > will "bear" high Retail prices does not mean that the Registrars will charge
> > that, nor does it remotely justify the wholesale price.  My comment about
> > the top speculators already formulating "pounce plans" are true. That is
> > what speculators do.  You know this, as well as you know just how much
> > income those same speculators bring you today.
>
> > 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.
>
> > The WLS proposal is still a "Game of Chance", in my opinion, due to the fact
> > that it encourages the sale of WLS "positions" on names NOT known to be
> > deleting.  If total market saturation were to occur on 32 million names, how
> > many consumers would recieve absolutely nothing?  The idea of being able to
> > "switch names" 3 times also indicates to me that this is still something
> > that would require the consumer's attention during the subscription period,
> > if only to avoid recieving nothing in return for whatever fees they paid.
> > Why can a consumer buy a WLS on a name that isn't even going to expire
> > during the term of the WLS? If a name were "accidentally" deleted during
> > this term, would it not have to be returned to the original registrant
> > anyway?
>
> > It's a matter of degree, if nothing else, Harold.  If there is a chance that
> > a name will renew and not expire, that's outside the registrar/registry's
> > control.  But if it expires and the efficacy is less than 100% then, from a
> > consumer's perspective, it is a "game of chance" because this is something
> > that seemingly should be within the control of the registrar/registry.  It
> > would be a controllable factor in the instance of the WLS, but not with the
> > status quo, nor with the RRS proposal.  WLS subscribers do not need to
> > "monitor" their subscriptions in the same way as having to monitor an
> > auction to make sure they are not outbid by some swift or robotic
> > counter-bidder.
>
> > I am not too keen on Peter's auction proposal either, but if it is only a
> > "matter of degree" it is still a "Game of Chance".  Again, you failed to
> > address the other questions I posed in the above secion as well.
> > 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.
>
> > What this has to do with anything, I don't know.  The FTC doesn't much care
> > for monopolies either, as far as I can tell.
>
> > You've made your disinterest in mainstream customers' experiences very clear
> > over and over during the past few months; no need to repeat it again. We all
> > understand your agenda.
>
> > MY AGENDA?  Am I the one trying to form a monopoly?  And when have I
> > disparaged the "mainstream customer"?  All I have done is repeatedly remind
> > you that your biggest customers are the very same speculators that you
> > consistently eviscerate in the press.  For the record, My "agenda", if that
> > is what I have, is for equal access and competition for registrars and
> > registrants alike. My position is that your proposal does neither.
> > Registrars can now choose a number of different models to compete. With your
> > proposal, I see only one.
> > 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.
>
> > While the WLS may indeed provide these nice "Wall Street" benefits for
> > SnapNames and Verisign, it has been stated already by some registrars that
> > the margin on WLS sales by registrars will most likely only be a dollar or
> > two.  All it takes is for ONE registrar to do it and ALL the others will
> > have to follow suit in order to be competitive.  Again, this also seems to
> > be "encouraging domain abandonment" rather than "registration retention",
> > although I agree that a certain percentage will not renew anyway.
>
> > Again, you are espousing two conflicting positions, Harry.  If, as you say,
> > the registrars will inevitably, through some "curse of nature," choose to
> > price their products $1 above cost, then what difference does it make where
> > the product is priced?  The wholesale price proposal was based on a standard
> > healthy margin range predicated upon a retail price that market research
> > indicated the market would bear, producing the 5% market penetration
> > estimate.  By your theory it doesn't matter if VGRS proposed a $0.40 price
> > or a $400 price, the registrars would only charge a $1 or $2 mark-up.
>
> > My name is not "Harry", and you know that too.  I have kept my dialog
> > restricted to the subject and respectful. I strongly suggest that you do the
> > same.
>
> > Again, you conveniently edited my question above too.  I repeat, is it your
> > contention that every registrar "hopes to be aquired someday"? By whom?
> > Verisign?
>
> > As far as the $1 or $2 over cost retail pricing, I was not the one to
> > suggest that. The registrars themselves have stated this several times, and
> > strangely enough "curse of nature" was not one of the reasons given.  From
> > your statement above, am I to read that you arrived at the $40 wholesale
> > cost only because of what you deducted  the "Retail cost" that you decided
> > "the market would bear" and NOT justified by actual cost to produce and
> > operate?  Thank you for confirming one of the most common complaints of all
> > the registrars that I have seen post.  I do not believe it is me espousing
> > two conflicting positions here, Ron.  Perhaps you have me mistaken with
> > somebody else?  By the way, you might have a better chance of selling this
> > proposal to the registrars if the cost was lowered to $0.40, but even then I
> > think you would still find resistance.
>
> > Many registrars would prefer to have the chance of creating a significant
> > new revenue stream, nonetheless.  And in case you hadn't noticed, those
> > registrars who do hold the high water mark on domain name pricing, at $35
> > retail, are by far the most profitable and successful of the lot, despite
> > the continued marketing of $6.50 names at the bottom end of the market.  I
> > know you subscribe to State of the Domain, so I'm somewhat surprised you are
> > not aware of these readily available financial analyses.  This assertion
> > that all registrars would be "forced" to discount the price to $1 above cost
> > is the most absurd thing I've heard since Bin Laden's last videotape.  It's
> > a very poor argument for how to properly price a new product.
>
> > Again, I submit that yours is not the only "true path to enlightenment" for
> > the registrars to "create a new revenue stream".  I never stated that
> > registrars were not interested in more revenues, just that the vast majority
> > of the "revenues" from your offering does not seem to go to the registrars.
> > I do indeed enjoy your "State of the Domain" reports, and those same
> > Registrars you speak of charging the high dollars seem to be the same ones
> > losing maket share.  I am sure that the same registrars that shared thier
> > thoughts on the inevitability of $1 to $2 markups will appreciate your
> > connection to Bin Laden's last videotape as well.
>
> > For the record, while it is true that I do have a vested inerest in the
> > outcome of this, no matter what that may be, my position is and always has
> > been focused.  My Position is equal access to this resource combined with
> > CHOICE for registrars and registrants alike. Your model does not fit my
> > definition of choice in that there is only your model to choose from.
>
> > As far as your model giving "equal access" to the mainstream registrant, it
> > is undeniable that you have the most market exposure but I still submit that
> > it is only a few keen speculators that know how to get the jump on everybody
> > else (and have the bankroll behind them) for the premium names, leaving the
> > "little guy" out in the cold.  At least with the current system, the "little
> > guy" still has a chance by utilizing any of the several other services
> > available.  What happens if your proposal becomes reality? The "little guy"
> > will just get left out in the cold, with nowhere else to turn.
>
> > Honestly, does SnapNames derive a majority of its income from speculators,
> > including a few that spend $50,000 at a time, or is it really just the all
> > the "little guys" that make up the majority?  Would those same High Rollers
> > "spread the wealth" amongst the registrars (as they do now, for the
> > registrars active in the deletion game) or will they just gravitate towards
> > one spot with your proposal, presumably the least expensive, since all other
> > incentives are gone?
>
> > Harold Whiting
> > [email-masked]
> > 805.886.4164
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
>
>

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 #970
************************