Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #978
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, January 11 2002           Volume 01 : Number 978

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

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:28:30 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mailing List Participation

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:32:55 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> The pity is that by responding to you, I am actually damaging the list
(which
> is, of course, suiting your objective of wrecking the lists).
>
> Shame, William

On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:36:12 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:

> All you've done by sending this was to show I was right  :)

Sometimes you are right, William, but not when claiming to speak on behalf of
the GA list participants.  As somebody well known to you once said.

*** Until you do a survey, you can only speak for yourself. ***

> Consider yourself lucky you aren't residing in the US, I'd have your
> ass in court for slander and own what little of your pension you must
> have left.

William, the war-hardened flame warrior, can dish it out but not take it.

'Nuff said.

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: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 01:30:30 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Friday, Friday, January 11, 2002, 1:19:28 AM, Ron Wiener wrote:

> for certain groups just in order to get ahead of the competition.  BTW,
> while most of the conversation on this board wrt competition has been
> focused on registrar-registrar competition, the real crux of the debate
> amongst speculators - between those for and those against WLS - is the
> competition between speculators to grab names - and the total lack of
> ability for mainstream users to compete at all.  

The WLS does not address this concern at all, however, Ron.  It just
moves the competition up to the Registry level, at an exorbitant
markup, and eliminates what has become a growing industry in the
domain registration business.  Of course, since those companies are
your competition in the current system, eliminating one of their
business models is obviously not a concern for you, since your company
is protected by this backroom deal with Verisign.

> Freedom of Choice

> To quote Peter Girard, Afternic/Register.com:

>  "The 'Status Quo Proposal' suggested by George Kirikos may be intended
> humorously, but it must be pointed out that this is not an option. The
> system will change. Allowing dozens of companies to competitively game the
> registry's delete system does not constitute consumer choice and
> competition. It only forces the consumer to subscribe to innumerable
> 'attempts' to snatch a name, all but one (and usually all) of which must
> fail to provide a trace of value." 

It (the Status Quo) does no such thing, and there is nothing to
suggestion Peter is correct in this regard.  You know it as well as I
do. 

> Dotsplash's quote (from registrant POV):

Sorry, but your quoting him as a reliable source just made me lose
interest in anything else you have to say.

Your vested interest defense of the WLS is meaningless.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
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: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 01:35:18 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: WLS pricing proposal

Hello,

- --- "Lee Hodgson, DomainGuru.com" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> In principle I am comfortable with the WLS proposal. What I am not
> comfortable with is the current revenue sharing model i.e. splitting
> it between wholesale (which guarantees Verisign / Snapnames $40 per
> subscription), and retail, which if the 'competition' between ICANN
> registrars for domain registration business is any indicator, will
> lead to registrars fighting over a few dollars per subscription.
<snip>
> So why not guarantee registrars and their resellers a fairer split?
> Set the price of the service at $69.95 and give registrars a 30%-40%
> cut of that. It's all very well saying that competition is good for

That's an illegal cartel. It's anti-competitive for the monopolist
registry to enforce price controls on the retailers. It's like a music
company telling CD retailers that they have to all charge $20 per CD.
Simply illegal in most countries. In the US, one can start one's
research on the antitrust issue at:

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/overview.html

"The antitrust laws apply to virtually all industries and to every
level of business, including manufacturing, transportation,
distribution, and marketing. They prohibit a variety of practices that
restrain trade, such as price-fixing conspiracies, corporate mergers
likely to reduce the competitive vigor of particular markets, and
predatory acts designed to achieve or maintain monopoly power." 

Note the words "price-fixing conspiracies" above, as well as "predatory
acts designed to achieve or maintain monopoly power".

I find it amazing that so many would openly make proposals that will
certainly draw the attention of these government agencies.

> In closing, the current proposal will inevitably lead to thin margins
> amongst ICANN registrars and their resellers / expiring names
> services, and this will in turn kill off the innovation which should
> be an integral part of any market. Innoviation benefits everyone -
> consumers, registrars, and the registry!

Indeed, that's why the entire WLS as proposed is in the scrap heap.
There already exist innovative competitors in the registrar space (I
enumerated at least 10 in prior posts) serving the expired names
market, and I'm sure even more innovation is ahead, as long as Verisign
doesn't interfere in this market. Verisign registrar is open to
compete, but not at the registry level which would stifle competition.

If you have your own expired names service, you're free to launch such
a system in the current competitive market (for instance, you can
associate with one or more of the registrars, or SnapNames, or
ExpireFish, NameWinner, NicGenie, eNom, AWRegistry, IArRegistry, etc.
or go it alone).

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: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 03:48:57 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stuart Lynn wants restricted TLDs only

WXW and all assembly members,

  I see nothing wrong or bad about having restricted TLD's
for special purposes or types of organizations.  What is bad
is how the process for selection determination for new TLD's
is, and has been conducted thus far.  It is also not a good idea
to have restricted or specialized TLD's at the expense of
unrestricted TLD's or gTLD's as they are generally known.

  The big test is in progress with the divestiture of .ORG (dotORG)
as there are some ICANN officials that are pushing for it to be
a Restricted TLD when it has been a unrestricted TLD for
some time now.  This will be a dress rehearsal for .NET (dotNET)
as well...

William X Walsh wrote:

> http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020110/n10212356_2.html
> The president of the group that oversees the Internet's naming system
> said Thursday that he favored creating new members-only suffixes, such
> as .edu and .museum, over unrestricted domains like .com and .info.
>
> M. Stuart Lynn, president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned
> Names and Numbers, told Reuters that restricted ``top level'' domains
> open only to members of a select group such as schools or museums
> would likely pose fewer problems than unrestricted top-level domains
> open to the general public.
>
> ``A lot of the problems surrounding the new TLDs (top-level domains)
> are less in a sponsored environment,'' he said.
>
> Has to be the lamest reason I've ever heard.
>
> Sounds more like trying to find an excuse to do what the Corporate/IP
> interests would like, which is to see NO new unrestricted TLDs.  They
> fought hard during Workgroup C to prevent open TLDs from being
> introduced, arguing for no expansion of the namespace.
>
> I think the quote in my sig reflects quite appropriately on this
> situation.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
>
> "There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
> the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
> interprets the truth."
> -- Jean Giradoux
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:53:10 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Poll for Verisign WLS proposal

In favor of WLS proposal [ ]
Not in favor of WLS proposal [X]

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: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 02:31:45 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: WLS pricing proposal

Hello,

- --- "Lee Hodgson, DomainGuru.com" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hello George,
> 
> > That's an illegal cartel. It's anti-competitive for the monopolist
> > registry to enforce price controls on the retailers. It's like a
> music
> > company telling CD retailers that they have to all charge $20 per
> CD.
> > Simply illegal in most countries. In the US, one can start one's
> > research on the antitrust issue at:
> 
> What I am proposing is that Verisign themselves launch the service at
> $69.95, and registrars become 'partners' or 'affiliates' who get
> rewarded
> for referring clients. That practice exists on virtually every
> commercial
> web site on the Net. If it's not possible for the registry to launch
> their
> own service, then fine, the proposal is a non-starter. I'm just
> trying to
> think of ideas the same as everyone else.

Those other commercial websites with affiliate programs have a lot of
competition already (e.g. Amazon.com and BN.com are competitors, and
have affiliate programs; that's fine). For instance, at the *registrar*
level, I'm sure Verisign, Register.com and others have affiliate
programs or the equivalent, to use as marketing tools in competitive
markets for domain registration.

However it's a much different thing to take an existing market which is
already competitive (domain drops), and transform it into a monopoly,
killing off the existing competitors, and turning them forcibly into
"affiliates".

It's equivalent to suggesting that Verisign eliminate competition in
the registrar market, by forcing all existing registrars to be
marketing partners of Verisign, and get affiliate fees as a percentage
of the $35 that Verisign charges retail. Killing off a competitive
market and replacing it with a monopoly (even one with "affiliates") is
unacceptable behaviour.

> > Indeed, that's why the entire WLS as proposed is in the scrap heap.
> > There already exist innovative competitors in the registrar space
> (I
> > enumerated at least 10 in prior posts) serving the expired names
> > market, and I'm sure even more innovation is ahead, as long as
> Verisign
> > doesn't interfere in this market. Verisign registrar is open to
> > compete, but not at the registry level which would stifle
> competition.
> 
> Which scrap heap is that in? Do you think WLS won't go ahead, and
> registrars
> will be free to continue name grabbing after March 20th?

Yes, it's dead. If it's not, I'm sure ICANN, the US Department of
Justice and the FTC will hear complaints.
 
> > If you have your own expired names service, you're free to launch
> such
> > a system in the current competitive market (for instance, you can
> > associate with one or more of the registrars, or SnapNames, or
> > ExpireFish, NameWinner, NicGenie, eNom, AWRegistry, IArRegistry,
> etc.
> > or go it alone).
> 
> Why would I launch a service today that will probably become obsolete
> by
> March 20th?

Business is always a gamble. "No guts, no glory."

Actually, just as you suggest for your own service, this proposal in
itself has already affected the market in an anti-competitive way, 
through the creation of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). I'm sure
Verisign has learned well by studying Microsoft in pre-announcing
products, to stifle competition and upset existing competitors and
new-entrants like yourself.

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: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 02:52:35 -0800
From: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: WLS scrapheap proposal

At 04:32 PM 1/11/2002 +0700, Lee Hodgson, DomainGuru.com wrote:
>Hello George,
>
>> That's an illegal cartel. It's anti-competitive for the monopolist
>> registry to enforce price controls on the retailers. It's like a music
>> company telling CD retailers that they have to all charge $20 per CD.
>> Simply illegal in most countries. In the US, one can start one's
>> research on the antitrust issue at:
>
>What I am proposing is that Verisign themselves launch the service at
>$69.95, and registrars become 'partners' or 'affiliates' who get rewarded
>for referring clients. That practice exists on virtually every commercial
>web site on the Net. If it's not possible for the registry to launch their
>own service, then fine, the proposal is a non-starter. I'm just trying to
>think of ideas the same as everyone else.

That idea is even worse than the proposal as it stands now, can you say
"complete monopolistic control"? The registry is contracted with the USG to
do one thing, they are the custodians of the registry.  For this, they
recieve $6 per name.  ANY plan that attempts to bypass this contract should
be viewed in a very dim light by the DoC, in my opinion. Remember, the NSI
monoply was broken up for a reason - to create fair business practices and
healthy competition.

>> Indeed, that's why the entire WLS as proposed is in the scrap heap.
>> There already exist innovative competitors in the registrar space (I
>> enumerated at least 10 in prior posts) serving the expired names
>> market, and I'm sure even more innovation is ahead, as long as Verisign
>> doesn't interfere in this market. Verisign registrar is open to
>> compete, but not at the registry level which would stifle competition.
>
>Which scrap heap is that in? Do you think WLS won't go ahead, and registrars
>will be free to continue name grabbing after March 20th?

Well, not one of the registrars supports it. Do you really think that ICANN
will just "rubber stamp" it and ignore the Registrar's constituency?

>> If you have your own expired names service, you're free to launch such
>> a system in the current competitive market (for instance, you can
>> associate with one or more of the registrars, or SnapNames, or
>> ExpireFish, NameWinner, NicGenie, eNom, AWRegistry, IArRegistry, etc.
>> or go it alone).
>
>Why would I launch a service today that will probably become obsolete by
>March 20th?

I would also like to thank you, Lee.  If it wasn't for you, we probably
would not even be dealing with this at this time.  You should be proud.

Harold Whiting
- --
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: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:14:06 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

On Friday 11 January 2002 9:19 am, Ron Wiener wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> There have been many good points made on this discussion thread which most
> of us would agree with.  For example:

Ron & Assembly,

How much more can one agree with this statement then with anything posted 
before that.

A lot of good points are brought accross from all angles, even the registrars 
made some decent points on this (ga) list.

None of them however, despite the picture painted in above quoted email, 
painted a positive picture for the WLS or Afternic's proposal.

Very few of them addressed the core of the matter

Most were aimed at "getting the best angle" in self-interest.

I am not weary of self-interest, I am not weary of making money and I am not 
a proverbial kettle.
However I look elsewhere, f.i. in the open market, instead of trying to get 
an deadlock on one item and thus become a monopolist.

Though I have now asked this question on several lists and to several people 
in person, none has yet given me an answer, which this question deserves, 
perhaps Ron Wiener, who is all for openess, can answer it:

What exactly are you trying to gain the excusive rights over other then thin 
air?

My stance: domains are "owned" by the registrant, when they no longer are the 
registrants domain because of non payment, then, according to the letter of 
all agreements, they should be deleted.
What you delete is gone, it no longer exists. Thus whoever next registers 
that domain registers a new domain.
He does not buy a secondhand car, a rundown company, stocks, food, whatever. 
The new registrant registers a new domain.

All domains out there consist of strings of letters that have been used 
before, some of those strings are trademarks, some not, yet all of them have 
been used before, yet we speak of new domain when they get first registered, 
when they get registered a second time, because the first registration was 
deleted, they remain a new domain, a new registration.

There is no market in deleted domains, just as there is no market deleted 
data or burned paper.
There is only a market in domainregistrations, one most on this list 
particiapte in.

Whether 1 or 1 million people on the same moment want to register that name 
is irrelevant to this.

Since mr Gomes, nor any of the others here wants to address this, I am asking 
Ron to do so now. Though i must admit that I have high hopes that this is 
just the matter ICANN will address once they are involved, because that is 
exactly what they should be addressing.

I am sure the lawyers will point out that you can not sell something that 
doesn't belong to you, so unless the registry gains an unfair advantage on 
the entire market by registering names at moment of deletion, thus using 
their (public) systems to their own advantage, and then reselling them, there 
is nothing to sell.

abel 

- -- 
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: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 01:45:29 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [icann-announce] Questionnaire on UDRP Review

To: ICANN Announcement List <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 16:39:26 -0800
Subject: [icann-announce] Questionnaire on UDRP Review

The ICANN Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) is conducting a
study of the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP).  The
DNSO's UDRP Review Committee has prepared a questionnaire on experiences
with and opinions about the UDRP, which is being circulated to the
community.  The results of this questionnaire will be used to assist in
evaluating the operation of the UDRP and to develop recommendations for
improvements.

The questionnaire is available as an online form on ICANN's website in
English and Spanish, and will soon be available in French.  It can be
reached by the links below:

English version <http://www.icann.org/dnso/udrp-survey-en-06jan02.htm>

Spanish version <http://www.icann.org/dnso/udrp-survey-es-08jan02.htm>

Please help the UDRP Review Committee by completing the questionnaire. 
Responses will be accepted through 6 February 2002.

======================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, send an e-mail to <[email-masked]> 
with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line.

- --
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: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:24:54 -0800
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Poll for Verisign WLS proposal

 In favor of WLS proposal [ ]
Not in favor of WLS proposal [X]

Regards
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

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

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:14:59 +0000
From: Matthew Pemble <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Poll for Verisign WLS proposal

In favor of WLS proposal [ ]
Not in favor of WLS proposal [X]

- -- 
Matthew Pemble
Eur Ing CEng MIEE MBCS MICAF AIMgt

Technical Director
Idrach Ltd

Tel:	+ 44 (0) 7050 128620
Fax:	+ 44 (0) 1324 826034

Email:	[email-masked]
Web:	www.idrach.com

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

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

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:49:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stuart Lynn wants restricted TLDs only

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, William X Walsh wrote:

> ``A lot of the problems surrounding the new TLDs (top-level domains)
> are less in a sponsored environment,'' he said.
>
> Has to be the lamest reason I've ever heard.
>
> Sounds more like trying to find an excuse to do what the Corporate/IP
> interests would like, which is to see NO new unrestricted TLDs.  They
> fought hard during Workgroup C to prevent open TLDs from being
> introduced, arguing for no expansion of the namespace.

I can't wait for the next "Internet Consensus Policy" which spells out
that we all want restricted TLDs exclusively. :-)

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                     Stealthgeeks,LLC. Operations Consulting
                          http://www.stealthgeeks.net
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:06:53 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Stuart Lynn wants restricted TLDs only

Friday, Friday, January 11, 2002, 7:49:10 AM, Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, William X Walsh wrote:

>> ``A lot of the problems surrounding the new TLDs (top-level domains)
>> are less in a sponsored environment,'' he said.
>>
>> Has to be the lamest reason I've ever heard.
>>
>> Sounds more like trying to find an excuse to do what the Corporate/IP
>> interests would like, which is to see NO new unrestricted TLDs.  They
>> fought hard during Workgroup C to prevent open TLDs from being
>> introduced, arguing for no expansion of the namespace.

> I can't wait for the next "Internet Consensus Policy" which spells out
> that we all want restricted TLDs exclusively. :-)

Stop giving them ideas, Patrick  :)

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
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: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 03:20:20 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:14:06 +0000, Abel Wisman wrote:

> I am sure the lawyers will point out that you can not sell something that
> doesn't belong to you,

Or, perhaps, buy something from sombody who doesn't own it to sell?

Well, yes you can, actually -- in the financial markets (and elsewhere) people
do that stuff all the time.  Let's take a couple of examples:

Bear Trading.  Normally people think in terms of buying stocks (aka shares) on
the stock exchange.  The person who is selling is expected to have them to
sell.  However, it is perfectly possible for a person to sell shares that they
do not own.  Of course, they must deliver shares on the due date (often a few
days into the future) and they will have to buy them in the market on or
before the delivery date.  Naturally the seller hopes the price will go DOWN
before they are required to buy them.   That's sometimes known as "going
bear".

Options.  Although not quite the same thing, "options" can be used.  Options
work both ways.  You can have an option to buy and you can have an option to
sell.  For example, if I wanted to buy some property and didn't have the
money, I could take out an option to buy.  It is a genuine contract which is
valid for a specified period of time.  Basically, the owner of the property
agrees not to sell the property to anybody else during that time.

Conditional Contracts.  There is nothing to stop someone from formulating a
contract that is conditional on some event occurring.  In a way, this is like
insurance where the insurer agrees to pay you iff your house burns down.

In our case, what these registrars are doing is much like insurance where they
agree to register a domain name iff they manage to snap it up when it is
deleted.  There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that sort of approach and,
despite what Joop says, there is really no obligation to inform the current
registrant.

In fact, you could make a case that a registrar who does NOT perfom the
service might become popular with registrants who would rather not take what
seems like an additional risk.

> so unless the registry gains an unfair advantage on
> the entire market by registering names at moment of deletion, thus using
> their (public) systems to their own advantage, and then reselling them,
there
> is nothing to sell.

That's not really the problem.  The problem arises because VeriSign is the
registry.

> abel

- --
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: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:43:10 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [icann-announce] Questionnaire on UDRP Review

Patrick and all assembly members,

  The survey to which you are referencing Patrick is skewed towards
the constituencies, and there is no place indicated in the check box
for DNSO GA members.  Therefore input from GA members
doesn't seem to be desired.  As such any result from this
survey is inaccurate at best.

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> To: ICANN Announcement List <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 16:39:26 -0800
> Subject: [icann-announce] Questionnaire on UDRP Review
>
> The ICANN Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) is conducting a
> study of the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP).  The
> DNSO's UDRP Review Committee has prepared a questionnaire on experiences
> with and opinions about the UDRP, which is being circulated to the
> community.  The results of this questionnaire will be used to assist in
> evaluating the operation of the UDRP and to develop recommendations for
> improvements.
>
> The questionnaire is available as an online form on ICANN's website in
> English and Spanish, and will soon be available in French.  It can be
> reached by the links below:
>
> English version <http://www.icann.org/dnso/udrp-survey-en-06jan02.htm>
>
> Spanish version <http://www.icann.org/dnso/udrp-survey-es-08jan02.htm>
>
> Please help the UDRP Review Committee by completing the questionnaire.
> Responses will be accepted through 6 February 2002.
>
> ======================================================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, send an e-mail to <[email-masked]>
> with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:47:59 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Policeing/restricted/dotORG

I was working on a free email TOS and rather than reinventing the wheel,
I browsed all
the major players in the game and reviewed their TOSs'.

There is a prevailing notion that goes something like this;

You can use the mail for work but it may not be used as your primary
business mail.

Let us assume I am a hateful, spiteful global internet strategist during
the day.  And
so to atone for my wrongfulness I minister in off hours.

Certainly I can get a dotORG for my ministry but will I be policed if I
use it for my GIS?
<certainly I realize that under the current structure of dotORG, this
would only be a hypo>

I am blessed enough to work with a few wonderful ccTLDs.  At this time
for instance
dotVN is quite restricted.  They are consistent.  they are evenhanded.
The VNNIC people
are dedicated to do their job.  They are growing with their
infrastructure to provide proper
international standards, reliability, stability, security and
accessibility.

Does anyone believe that a commercial restricted TLD can do likewise?
I do not think so!

Happy New Year- the one past and the one coming up.

Eric

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

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

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:09:19 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stuart Lynn wants restricted TLDs only

Oh, you two kidders,

Certainly everyone knows by now that Lynn, Roberts, Joop, Ester, Karl, Louis
and I already signed
off on it last MDR meeting.  Vint and Ellen Rony were holdouts but we got
them to come around.
Joe B. Jim F. and Andrew M. were stuck in the elevator together but gave
their concurrence later.
Marc S. Marilyn C. Phil S. Michael F., Brett F. argued vehemently that we
should give it all back to
the USG.  But Don Evans refused touching it.  If it weren't for WXW and Jeff
Williams we would never
have reached consensus.

Heck it has all been documented for months on www.icanntalk.com.

Don't forget to vote, you all have a full range of leaders to pick from,
exercise and make us strong.

Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

> Friday, Friday, January 11, 2002, 7:49:10 AM, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, William X Walsh wrote:
>
> >> ``A lot of the problems surrounding the new TLDs (top-level domains)
> >> are less in a sponsored environment,'' he said.
> >>
> >> Has to be the lamest reason I've ever heard.
> >>
> >> Sounds more like trying to find an excuse to do what the Corporate/IP
> >> interests would like, which is to see NO new unrestricted TLDs.  They
> >> fought hard during Workgroup C to prevent open TLDs from being
> >> introduced, arguing for no expansion of the namespace.
>
> > I can't wait for the next "Internet Consensus Policy" which spells out
> > that we all want restricted TLDs exclusively. :-)
>
> Stop giving them ideas, Patrick  :)
>

- --
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: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 17:11:56 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

I seem to speak in riddles or foerign tongue (I know my typing is bad).

It is not the selling of an option, this is the selling of thin air.

options : the right to buy or sell the stock (=entity) at given price at 
agreed moment in time

beartrading (see options almost identical again the rights to buy/selll are 
sold it contains rights to an existing entity)

conditional contracts (insurance is such a contract according to law-terms) 
same, IF the conditions is fullfilled a tangible entity is transferred

the point is: a deleted domain is no tangible entity 

if i demolish the house (let's be radicale, we blow it up, pulverise it!) I 
can sell the land, the insurance claim, a building right, the remaining trees 
(if any) I can even sell "a" house to replace the old one (full filling an 
earlire obligation perhaps) but I can and may not sell the house that was 
blown up, main simple reason is the fact that is no longer exists

a deleted domain is deleted, that's it, end of the line, gone, no more, done 
with, out of existence. 
That is the meaning of deletion and that is the terms of the contracts with 
ICANN, resale has not been mentioned, letting it live forever has nt been 
mentioned; they are to delete the domain -eof-

so henceforth the interest in a new registration is what we are discussing.

and we are discussing the actions of the registry, not of any registrar with 
aspirations. just the registry, since they propose the wls.

which company the registry runs is of a lesser importance, though it of 
course is another clash of interests, though they will deny such.

If on the other hand we want to XFER the domain, THEN it is an entity, 
however an entity with rights on it, and we can not exclude the current 
"owner"

abel 

On Friday 11 January 2002 4:20 pm, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:14:06 +0000, Abel Wisman wrote:
> > I am sure the lawyers will point out that you can not sell something that
> > doesn't belong to you,
>
> Or, perhaps, buy something from sombody who doesn't own it to sell?
>
> Well, yes you can, actually -- in the financial markets (and elsewhere)
> people do that stuff all the time.  Let's take a couple of examples:
>
> Bear Trading.  Normally people think in terms of buying stocks (aka shares)
> on the stock exchange.  The person who is selling is expected to have them
> to sell.  However, it is perfectly possible for a person to sell shares
> that they do not own.  Of course, they must deliver shares on the due date
> (often a few days into the future) and they will have to buy them in the
> market on or before the delivery date.  Naturally the seller hopes the
> price will go DOWN before they are required to buy them.   That's sometimes
> known as "going bear".
>
> Options.  Although not quite the same thing, "options" can be used. 
> Options work both ways.  You can have an option to buy and you can have an
> option to sell.  For example, if I wanted to buy some property and didn't
> have the money, I could take out an option to buy.  It is a genuine
> contract which is valid for a specified period of time.  Basically, the
> owner of the property agrees not to sell the property to anybody else
> during that time.
>
> Conditional Contracts.  There is nothing to stop someone from formulating a
> contract that is conditional on some event occurring.  In a way, this is
> like insurance where the insurer agrees to pay you iff your house burns
> down.
>
> In our case, what these registrars are doing is much like insurance where
> they agree to register a domain name iff they manage to snap it up when it
> is deleted.  There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that sort of
> approach and, despite what Joop says, there is really no obligation to
> inform the current registrant.
>
> In fact, you could make a case that a registrar who does NOT perfom the
> service might become popular with registrants who would rather not take
> what seems like an additional risk.
>
> > so unless the registry gains an unfair advantage on
> > the entire market by registering names at moment of deletion, thus using
> > their (public) systems to their own advantage, and then reselling them,
>
> there
>
> > is nothing to sell.
>
> That's not really the problem.  The problem arises because VeriSign is the
> registry.
>
> > abel

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #978
************************