Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #980
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, January 12 2002          Volume 01 : Number 980

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

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:37:39 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] Concerns about "trademarking" domain names and giving priority to one TM holder out of hundreds

Richard and all,

  This is indeed a huge and still growing problem.

Richard Henderson wrote:

>    I question the wisdom of the priority given by Afilias to Trademark
> holders, particularly when it comes to generic names.
>
> If you want to post a site on helping cancer sufferers, then you are
> NOT "infringing" anyone's Trademark if you wished you had the right to
> register www.cancer.info (but you can't because priority's been given
> to Trademark holder)
> If you want to post a site to help raise money for orphans, then you
> are NOT "infringing" anyone's Trademark if you wished you had the
> right to register www.orphans.info
>
> You are just trying to act as a free human being, sharing in the use
> of the internet which should be shared by all.
>
> But instead, these names and thousands like them (generics) have been
> reserved as Trademarks (mostly fraudulently).
>
> It does make me question: what right does a US government quango like
> ICANN have, to authorise a system which gives prior use of thousands
> of names like these (in public use and in the public domain) to
> businesses who have their own Trademarks anyway.
>
> The cybersquatting, in the case of these generic names, is done by
> businesses who claim the right to deprive the rest of humanity the use
> of their own languages.
>
> I don't hold particularly strong views on this issue but I ask you:
>
> Who's doing the cybersquatting, once you reserve generic domains for
> trademark holders?
>
> I have spoken English all my life. What gives a US-appointed quango
> the right to block me from running a site like cancer.info or
> orphans.info?
>
> (Luckily, I managed to get www.prisoner.info - I'm a former prison
> governor, I think you call it "warden" in the States. I'm hoping I can
> develop a constructive site for families of prisoners. But I'm only
> able to because by luck, business did not reserve THAT trademark. Do I
> have to live in fear that my site will be taken down by any of the
> scores of Trademark holders of the word 'prisoner' all over the
> world?)
>
> We, the people of the world, have the right to use our own language,
> and share in the address systems of the Net, providing (like anyone
> else) we do not abuse other people's rights in the process.
>
> Why shouldn't people be allowed to write complaints about Ford Motors
> on a site called FordMotors.info?
>
> People used to fight for freedom of speech.
>
> If the complaints are lies, then Ford can take legal action.
>
> Whether the complaints are published on www.FordMotors.info or
> www.IhaveacomplaintaboutFordMotorsnowondertheyarelayingoffsomanyworkers.com...
> the fact remains, we have the right to express that complaint, and
> Ford has the right to contest it.
>
> The "trademarking" of domain names (and particularly of generic names
> belonging to everyone's language) has the potential to restrict large
> areas of the Internet address system to vested interests and big
> business.
>
> And even if you uphold the interests of business over everyone else,
> it has become clear that thousands of names are Trademarked by
> different businesses in different countries all over the world - so
> the system seems deeply-flawed. What gives ONE business the right to
> squat on a name, at the expense of the other businesses?
>
> And when it comes to generics, what gives ANY business the right to
> squat on a name, which is in the common usage of all people, who ALL
> have legitimate interests in... prisoners, cancer, orphans, railways
> (in every country!), recipes, childcare, etc etc
>
> What incredible ARROGANCE to think that anyone has a prior right over
> everyday words like these - and what a travesty, when you consider how
> well all these sites could be used for humanity, instead of being
> "trademarked" by one business out of hundreds, in one country out of
> hundreds.
>
>
>
>
>
>

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 18:01:46 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WG for Delete was: Re: [ga] Poll for Verisign WLS proposal

A few things here you may help with.

Where are the rules requiring your proper and appropriate requests.

I can read the best practices and GA rules but I find no rules for the
GA setting up an internal working group.

What is the logical problem with using an already existing list.

I find no suggestions even that indicate asking the Secretariat is
appropriate.

WXW absolutely does not want anything on any other forum within the GA.

Patrick insists we use the lists that are pre-established and call them a sub-list.

You insist on the nearly impossible - getting the secretariat and NC to act, and
formal voting, and a gratuitous list for a WG.  (you might as well ask code writers
to show up to work in tuxedos)

I do not see one of you having as a primary agenda, putting together a group
that can correlate existing comments, provide relevant questions and come up
with consensual and dissenting positions.

We know VRSN will be back and unilaterally act.  Please drop your old agendas for a
little bit and back a compromise on using an existing sublist which will cease to
function
as a sublist, feel free to cc the main list (although it will count toward your
five).  Do not think
of this as moving any discussion but more of a clearing house for Ideas.  By
definition this will
be an informal consensus.  The necessity of votes is up to participants.

Like I said before we don't need no stinking badges.  If we produce the best product
that
is license enough.  Fancy Pants WGs have been completely ignored before, the ALSC is
completely sanctioned and they came up with absolute crapp.

E

Jeff Williams wrote:

>
>   I can't say one way or the other until a proper and appropriate
> request is made to the secretariat and the DNSO NC as well
> as the General assembly members.  However it would seem
> reasonable that there should be an election within the yet
> to be formed and approved WG for Delete, a chair for
> such a  WG.
>

- --
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 13:04:28 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Working Group -- Verisign WLS proposal

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:31:32 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:

> I can't say one way or the other until a proper and appropriate
> request is made to the secretariat and the DNSO NC as well
> as the General assembly members.  However it would seem
> reasonable that there should be an election within the yet
> to be formed and approved WG for Delete, a chair for
> such a  WG.

Hi Jeff

Thanks for your polling suggestion.  It was most welcome.

I agree there should be a working group and would appreciate it if anyone
could suggest a Terms of Reference.  For completeness, these ToR should
include transfers and expirations.

Meanwhile perhaps other GA members should signal their views on a WG.

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: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:39:55 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WG for Delete was: Re: [ga] Poll for Verisign WLS proposal

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> A few things here you may help with.
>
> Where are the rules requiring your proper and appropriate requests.

  Is this a question or a statement?  What is the purpose for either
statement or question such as this.  As you know that practice and
common courtesy has been to make such a request.  You know this.
We talked about this on the phone.  You agreed in that conversation
after some tantrum making on your part.

>
>
> I can read the best practices and GA rules but I find no rules for the
> GA setting up an internal working group.
>
> What is the logical problem with using an already existing list.

  The logical problem is obvious.  Again we chatted about this on the
phone as well.  Also, is this a question of a statement?  And again,
what is the purpose for rehashing this yet again in less than three
days?

>
>
> I find no suggestions even that indicate asking the Secretariat is
> appropriate.
>
> WXW absolutely does not want anything on any other forum within the GA.

  WXW is not relevant to what the GA members have done in the past
as part of practice with WG's.  Hence his single opinion is not that
important.

>
>
> Patrick insists we use the lists that are pre-established and call them a sub-list.

  I have not seen him "INsist" on this for a WG yet to be formed.  Can you
perhaps provide some URL archive resource that would show this
clearly?

>
>
> You insist on the nearly impossible - getting the secretariat and NC to act, and
> formal voting, and a gratuitous list for a WG.  (you might as well ask code writers
> to show up to work in tuxedos)

  Formal voting on what?  Please advise.  If the secretariat does not wish
to act, than you can conduct or create a Yahoo WG list for this purpose.
However I doubt that it will be recognized by the GA members in any real
sense.  If you are not willing ot do the work Eric, than step aside for those
of us that will.

>
>
> I do not see one of you having as a primary agenda, putting together a group
> that can correlate existing comments, provide relevant questions and come up
> with consensual and dissenting positions.

   Well you are grossly incorrect there.  You need to do more research.

>
>
> We know VRSN will be back and unilaterally act.

  They may indeed.  That is of course their decision.  However if they
know that there is a lack of interest and disagreement with WLS, which
thus far it seem that is.  They may reconsider doing so.  But there are
of course no guarantees.  That's life and business...

> Please drop your old agendas for a
> little bit and back a compromise on using an existing sublist which will cease to
> function
> as a sublist, feel free to cc the main list (although it will count toward your
> five).  Do not think
> of this as moving any discussion but more of a clearing house for Ideas.  By
> definition this will
> be an informal consensus.  The necessity of votes is up to participants.

  What agenda's are you referring to in this possible request for a WG
for Delete list/forum?

>
>
> Like I said before we don't need no stinking badges.  If we produce the best product
> that
> is license enough.  Fancy Pants WGs have been completely ignored before, the ALSC is
> completely sanctioned and they came up with absolute crapp.

  Yes but the ALSC did get several polls that shows that their report was
not inline with the participants or other stakeholders.  That is why such
a forum is helpful and useful.  If ignored the consequences will sooner
or later be felt and very well recognized.

>
>
> E
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >
> >   I can't say one way or the other until a proper and appropriate
> > request is made to the secretariat and the DNSO NC as well
> > as the General assembly members.  However it would seem
> > reasonable that there should be an election within the yet
> > to be formed and approved WG for Delete, a chair for
> > such a  WG.
> >

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 21:56:22 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Poll for Verisign WLS proposal

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

Leah

- --
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 01:47:27 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] RE: Concerns about "trademarking" domain names and giving priority

Steve and all,

  Good overall battle plan Steve.  I can tell you first hand it can
work.
The bigger problem is maintaining momentum.  You must remember
most people are sheep...  Many are to lazy to stay the course or
do the work the you battle plan requires.  The other thing you need
is $$.  Lots of it!

[email-masked] wrote:

>   Rich,
>
> About stopping Sunrise periods
> for generic trademark holders.
>
> We need a battle plan.
>
> Some random thoughts.
>
> 1.)  Let everyone know what's going on.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> purpose:
>
>      -build a large base of angry people
>
>      -the people in power can't stop it if
>       they don't know about it
>
> means:
>
> -explanations on web sites
> (www.theinternetchallenge.com is a good start)
>
> -newsgroup messages
> (not just limited to techie newsgroups -
> get general population involved)
>
> -emails to news organizations
> (do the leg work for the news organization -
> don't leave it up to the news organization
> to find relevant information)
>
> -emails to politicians
> (priority given to politicians in your voting district -
> they are more likely to pay attention to you
> if you can vote "for or against" and can mobilize
> others to do the same)
>
> 2.)  Get this angry base of people to:
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> -contact their congressman, senator, etc.
> (make it easy for these people -
> supply these people with email addresses, etc.)
>
> -contact news organizations
> (the news organizations will be more likely to
> report the story if a large no. of people contact
> them)
>
> -chip in for litigation
>
> 3.) If all else fails, litigate.
>
> Steve Feibish
>
> In a message dated 1/11/02 8:13:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [email-masked] writes:
>
>
> > I question the wisdom of the priority given by Afilias to Trademark
> holders,
> > particularly when it comes to generic names.

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: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:45:14 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Addressing the Problems

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:01:46 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:

> I can read the best practices and GA rules but I find no rules for the
> GA setting up an internal working group.

Formal rules have been established by ICANN in their Bylaws.  However, I think
we all agree that formal procedures are up to the GA within the framework
established by the Names Council.

What that means is that the GA should get its act together.

> What is the logical problem with using an already existing list.

The existing lists were established at the GA Chair's request to the DNSO
Secretariat following my suggestion as Alt Chair.  They do not, therefore,
have the approval of the GA as a body.  As a result, members can argue that
the Chair did not have the proper authority of the GA.

Should the GA decide that it is appropriate to set up a Working Group for any
reason, the special purpose mailing lists are available for use.

I do wish, however, that people would not ascribe bad motivations to what I
have been trying to achieve viz an effective body to formulate domain name
policy.

> I find no suggestions even that indicate asking the Secretariat is
> appropriate.

The DNSO Secretariat effectively follows instructions from the NC.  Unless
there is general consent, it is difficult to persuade the DNSO Secretariat to
do anything.

> WXW absolutely does not want anything on any other forum within the GA.

I can't speak for William but my understanding is that he will not countenance
procedures that have not been properly approved.  Whilst I understand his
approach, I find that a little inflexible when gaining that approval is so
burdensome.

What it means, in my view, is that we spend more time than necessary debating
procedural issues at the expense of substantive issues which we need to
address.  I have expressed that point to the list on many occasions.

In other words, if the list is there I would rather just use it.

> Patrick insists we use the lists that are pre-established and call them a
sub-list.

My own concept was to have the GA develop "terms of reference" which they
could refer to working groups on relevant subjects like transfers and
expiries.  The working group would then report back to the main body of the GA
for final approval.

Whilst this is administratively convenient, there is a danger of creating a
group that is not representative of the main body.  I see that as not an issue
as the final approval will rest with the GA as a whole.  It is also in line
with similar methods used throughout the world.

> You insist on the nearly impossible - getting the secretariat and NC to act,
and
> formal voting, and a gratuitous list for a WG.  (you might as well ask code
writers
> to show up to work in tuxedos)

I don't always understand your comments but agree there are difficulties.

> I do not see one of you having as a primary agenda, putting together a group
> that can correlate existing comments, provide relevant questions and come up
> with consensual and dissenting positions.

That, Eric, is the problem which we are trying to address.

<snip>

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: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:53:57 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Battle Plan --- About Stopping Sunrise Periods for Generic Names

Hi Jeff

>   Good overall battle plan Steve.  I can tell you first hand it can
> work.

True.

> The bigger problem is maintaining momentum.  You must remember
> most people are sheep...  Many are to lazy to stay the course or
> do the work the you battle plan requires.

Exactly.  So you need . . . what?

> The other thing you need is $$.  Lots of it!

Always a problem :-)

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

> [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> >   Rich,
> >
> > About stopping Sunrise periods
> > for generic trademark holders.
> >
> > We need a battle plan.

<snip>

- --
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 04:40:26 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Battle Plan --- About Stopping Sunrise Periods for Generic Names

Patrick and all assembly members or other interested parties,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Jeff
>
> >   Good overall battle plan Steve.  I can tell you first hand it can
> > work.
>
> True.
>
> > The bigger problem is maintaining momentum.  You must remember
> > most people are sheep...  Many are to lazy to stay the course or
> > do the work the you battle plan requires.
>
> Exactly.  So you need . . . what?

  Vigilance, staying power, conviction, and I personally would suggest
a parallel or new DNS Root structure, with all that that would entail.

>
>
> > The other thing you need is $$.  Lots of it!
>
> Always a problem :-)

  Well some, or perhaps many folks seem to think so.  I think, and have
demonstrated, that getting the dollars is not that big of a problem.
It's
what and how it is used in detail, that becomes difficult...  But this is

just my opinion based on my own experience...

  There are several ways in which registries could begin to collect
these battle funds.  I would be happy to provide my thoughts and
proven methods that could be adapted easily to anyone or any
group off-line if there is an interest...

>
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
>
> > [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > >   Rich,
> > >
> > > About stopping Sunrise periods
> > > for generic trademark holders.
> > >
> > > We need a battle plan.
>
> <snip>

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: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 14:55:21 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Addressing the Problems

Undoubtedly there are a lot of rules to be observed.

Whether you should always do so is a totally diffreent matter.
 In life one sometimes has to act instead of delaying by applying for all the 
right way.

The idea is to have a seperate list to work this out and come to a consensus 
opinion which will then be proposed to the GA, as happens with all workgroups.

I can not see why we can not simply start and file the needed requests at the 
same time, explaining we made use of avaialble resources in the meanwhile.

Division starts wth laying out rules that delay, then you can succesfully 
push anything you want to ignore the GA on in the meantime stating they did 
not reach consensus (in time).

Considering the number of postings makes it clear not everyone enters this 
discussion, perhaps more perhaps less will do so on a seperate list.

If need be we can run a quick questionaire on the GA to see if the GA has 
faith in such an approach.

I for one am for acting instead of waiting for the inevitable.

abel

On Saturday 12 January 2002 9:45 am, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:01:46 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> > I can read the best practices and GA rules but I find no rules for the
> > GA setting up an internal working group.
>
> Formal rules have been established by ICANN in their Bylaws.  However, I
> think we all agree that formal procedures are up to the GA within the
> framework established by the Names Council.
>
> What that means is that the GA should get its act together.
>
> > What is the logical problem with using an already existing list.
>
> The existing lists were established at the GA Chair's request to the DNSO
> Secretariat following my suggestion as Alt Chair.  They do not, therefore,
> have the approval of the GA as a body.  As a result, members can argue that
> the Chair did not have the proper authority of the GA.
>
> Should the GA decide that it is appropriate to set up a Working Group for
> any reason, the special purpose mailing lists are available for use.
>
> I do wish, however, that people would not ascribe bad motivations to what I
> have been trying to achieve viz an effective body to formulate domain name
> policy.
>
> > I find no suggestions even that indicate asking the Secretariat is
> > appropriate.
>
> The DNSO Secretariat effectively follows instructions from the NC.  Unless
> there is general consent, it is difficult to persuade the DNSO Secretariat
> to do anything.
>
> > WXW absolutely does not want anything on any other forum within the GA.
>
> I can't speak for William but my understanding is that he will not
> countenance procedures that have not been properly approved.  Whilst I
> understand his approach, I find that a little inflexible when gaining that
> approval is so burdensome.
>
> What it means, in my view, is that we spend more time than necessary
> debating procedural issues at the expense of substantive issues which we
> need to address.  I have expressed that point to the list on many
> occasions.
>
> In other words, if the list is there I would rather just use it.
>
> > Patrick insists we use the lists that are pre-established and call them a
>
> sub-list.
>
> My own concept was to have the GA develop "terms of reference" which they
> could refer to working groups on relevant subjects like transfers and
> expiries.  The working group would then report back to the main body of the
> GA for final approval.
>
> Whilst this is administratively convenient, there is a danger of creating a
> group that is not representative of the main body.  I see that as not an
> issue as the final approval will rest with the GA as a whole.  It is also
> in line with similar methods used throughout the world.
>
> > You insist on the nearly impossible - getting the secretariat and NC to
> > act,
>
> and
>
> > formal voting, and a gratuitous list for a WG.  (you might as well ask
> > code
>
> writers
>
> > to show up to work in tuxedos)
>
> I don't always understand your comments but agree there are difficulties.
>
> > I do not see one of you having as a primary agenda, putting together a
> > group that can correlate existing comments, provide relevant questions
> > and come up with consensual and dissenting positions.
>
> That, Eric, is the problem which we are trying to address.
>
> <snip>
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss

- -- 
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 15:43:42 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Market research report on WLS pricing

Ron and Assesmbly,

Somewhat interesting reading, but totally non-interesting in a way of 
providing answers

What the document tells me is:

A. price for WLS is based on the assumption/research of what the market 
will/might accept

B. gross margins on average are badly influenced by Verisign-registrar 
pricing and do in the remaining higher priced registrars not deduct the 
additional services offered, which have to be priced as well, thus dropping 
the average retail price.

C. it does mention the increase of subscription during the remaining time the 
"old" snapnames price is effective and draws upon conclusion that are 
erroneus, since buying does not mean you think it is a bargain, it only means 
that one was going to anyway and now considers a lower price better.

D. Latest rises will no doubt be fed by the insinuations that snapnames 
holders will be "grandfathered" in the WLS.

What is does not tell:

A. The cost of the product, build up of cost price, division of revenue 
B. The legal base for the product (my "thin air" theme)
C. The effect on the registry's results
D. Why we have to accept such a scheme
E. For what other reason then becoming the monopolist on thin air this scheme 
was developed.

It seem to me that the most important matters are not addressed because no 
righteous defence can be made.

The strategy is clear; convince the registrars of the profitabillity, thus 
reducing the attention on the important questions they might ask, and then 
(quote mr. Gomes: It seems the price is the main obstacle) distract the 
congregation even more from the real issues by lowering the price shortly 
before introduction and then stating "since the price was the main counter 
argument we reduced that and now start with our trial-period" in the 
knowledge that once that is in place no forces on this earth will be able to 
change the schematics adn even if they threaten to do, the monopoly has been 
established.

Smart, I must admit, however Iif I were you (I 'm not) I would reserve all of 
my profit for some suits against me, since it can be predicted quite easily 
that they will follow in hords.

Come to think of it.............

Go with the scheme, within 24 months the registry will be bankrupted by 
claimants in court and we will be rid of the entity that tries to 
stranglehold the entire internet community.
How do I come to that ? You refusal to answer my theory confirms that it is 
right, henceforth the registry is liable on many counts of fraud if this plan 
will ever get into place, even if ICANN agrees, there will be more breaches 
of law then they can count up.

regards

abel wisman

On Saturday 12 January 2002 8:39 am, Ron Wiener wrote:
> SnapNames has been asked by several constituents to share the market
> research which had been cited wrt VeriSign's proposed WLS pricing.  A
> summary document is attached in response to that request.  
- -- 
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 08:53:00 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WG Delete Progress

We are making great progress here and I personally thank you for all
your input.

Please correct this statement if it is wrong.

The GA has never on its own established a working group.

Establishment of working groups has never been a bottom up approach.

WGs have always been established from the top down.

With these truths it is consistent that we beg for the top to allow us a
WG.

However and with that said;

I believe it is wrong.

It would appear that working groups should be established at this level
and the
results passed up.

Jeff would you please reconcile this with your position regarding notice
and
appropriate approval.  Although I address it below.  I think we are
seeing it
the same way but expressing it differently.  At any rate we will be
moving forward
with your notice demand.

At this point I think we can move forward by;

Giving notice and request input from all the substantial players a
partial list would be:
SEC, NC, BoD, the Pope, DoC all SOs, IETF, All DNSO groups and obviously
VRSN.

Using for the time being ga-sys and remaining open to improvement.

Acknowledging this is not an issue regarding sublists, simply a
convenience for expedience.

I think I can move with Jeffs point if I apply it thusly, "notification
is not about asking, it
is about respect and openness and transparency and if we begin by
showing such respect
then we have a far better chance of receiving it"
(the immediate above is what we all know we need for funding)

Oh and about the Pope, go ahead and laugh, within a few months he
will announce a Saint of the Internet, How many billion Latin American
users do you
think that will effect.  No, I am not, I am an Episcopal lay minister.

This has taken some real effort by real people who want to do what is
right but
disagree on method.  Thank you all again.

Please sign up for the ga-sys list so we can take off on Monday.  If we
lose any participants because
it is going to a sublist, I humbly apologize but I can find no
reasonable compromise that will
please everyone.

Sincerely,
Eric

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #980
************************