Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #983
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, January 13 2002           Volume 01 : Number 983

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:51:11 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .SHEESH

Saturday, Saturday, January 12, 2002, 6:04:39 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:02:20 -0800 (PST), Rick H Wesson wrote:

>> Since the GA has nothing to do with alternative roots, please take this
>> discussion to a more apporpiate frum

> However, I don't agree that alternate roots is off topic for the [ga] list.

Sure it is, you have your "ga-roots" sublist to discuss that crap.

:)

- -- 
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: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:41:21 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:07:02 +1100, "Patrick Corliss"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>A la Jeff Williams, I propose a poll:
>
>In relation to setting up a GA working group on domain name registration
>systems to address important issues such as domain name expirations and
>deletions:
>
>In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]
>Against setting up a GA working group [ ]
>No opinion on setting up a GA working group [ ]
>
>I'd appreciate if those with "no opinion" would vote accordingly.  Thanks.

Could I suggest both this poll and the previous one while well
intentioned lead to the GA being more dysfunctional.  Many do not
subscribe here to see 40 people vote on a list.

I know we are basically without a GA Chair for now which doesn't help
but the way I see it is that when polls are needed the GA Chair should
arrange these through the Secretariat.

However in both the recent cases no poll was needed IMO.  It was
obvious there was next to no support for the WLS proposal and as not a
single Registrar is supporting it, it is basically dead in the water.
A good GA Chair would have felt confident concluding the GA does not
support the proposal on the basis of the excellent discussion we have
had here.

Likewise wrt setting up a WG.  The GA Chair should be able to read the
mood of the GA and either set up a GA Working Group or preferably ask
the NC to set up a DNSO Working Group on the issue.

We should reserve votes to when they are really needed, and let the GA
Chair call them.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:07:31 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

Saturday, Saturday, January 12, 2002, 8:41:21 PM, DPF wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:07:02 +1100, "Patrick Corliss"
> <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>A la Jeff Williams, I propose a poll:
>>
>>In relation to setting up a GA working group on domain name registration
>>systems to address important issues such as domain name expirations and
>>deletions:
>>
>>In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]
>>Against setting up a GA working group [ ]
>>No opinion on setting up a GA working group [ ]
>>
>>I'd appreciate if those with "no opinion" would vote accordingly.  Thanks.

> Could I suggest both this poll and the previous one while well
> intentioned lead to the GA being more dysfunctional.  Many do not
> subscribe here to see 40 people vote on a list.

> I know we are basically without a GA Chair for now which doesn't help
> but the way I see it is that when polls are needed the GA Chair should
> arrange these through the Secretariat.

> However in both the recent cases no poll was needed IMO.  It was
> obvious there was next to no support for the WLS proposal and as not a
> single Registrar is supporting it, it is basically dead in the water.
> A good GA Chair would have felt confident concluding the GA does not
> support the proposal on the basis of the excellent discussion we have
> had here.

> Likewise wrt setting up a WG.  The GA Chair should be able to read the
> mood of the GA and either set up a GA Working Group or preferably ask
> the NC to set up a DNSO Working Group on the issue.

> We should reserve votes to when they are really needed, and let the GA
> Chair call them.

Very well articulated, and I support this point 110%.

- -- 
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: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:18:42 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:41:21 +1300, David Farrar wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:07:02 +1100, "Patrick Corliss"
> <[email-masked]> wrote:

<snip>

> Could I suggest both this poll and the previous one while well
> intentioned lead to the GA being more dysfunctional.  Many do not
> subscribe here to see 40 people vote on a list.

True.  But even now people are arguing whether the issue should be
referred to DNSO Secretariat to conduct a formal vote.

It is, of course, true that sending issues to a fomal vote via the DNSO
Secretariat is most time-consuming and laborious method of proceeding.

OTOH, a poll runs the risk of not being acceptable by those who insist on
strict compliance with the rules.  Many on this list take a strict approach.
 
> I know we are basically without a GA Chair for now which doesn't help
> but the way I see it is that when polls are needed the GA Chair should
> arrange these through the Secretariat.

When Danny was Chair he basically ignored my own request for a vote
on the GA rules despite it being well supported.  And the DNSO Secretariat
flatly refused to accept even simple requests from me as Alt Chair unless
they were approved by the GA as a whole.  That meant a vote !!

Please don't assume that I am doing this stuff because I like bureacracy.

> However in both the recent cases no poll was needed IMO.  It was
> obvious there was next to no support for the WLS proposal and as not a
> single Registrar is supporting it, it is basically dead in the water.

You really don't want to give the ICANN Board a loophole like we did the last
time a VeriSign proposal was formulated by Joe Sims and pushed through the
ICANN Board via the Names Council.

> A good GA Chair would have felt confident concluding the GA does not
> support the proposal on the basis of the excellent discussion we have
> had here.

Sorry, David, we have not had a "good" GA Chair for over a year.  And at
the moment we haven't got any at all.  So we make do as best we can.
 
> Likewise wrt setting up a WG.  The GA Chair should be able to read the
> mood of the GA and either set up a GA Working Group or preferably ask
> the NC to set up a DNSO Working Group on the issue.

No, sorry.  Every time the Chair takes an initiative it is firmly opposed by
almost everybody on the list.  You know that very well.

Just look at what happened to my initaitive on the special purpose mailing
lists to be used by task forces !!!

Actually we don't even need to take a poll as the former Chair has already
set them up.  But I am 110% certain that William X. Walsh will not allow us
to use them.  Or not accept any output from the working group.

Despite his stated expression of support for your views.

Nevertheless, I would truly love to be proved wrong.
 
> We should reserve votes to when they are really needed, and let the GA
> Chair call them.

When we have a GA Chair, perhaps.  Until then . . . . 
 
> DPF

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: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:26:27 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:07:31 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:

> Saturday, Saturday, January 12, 2002, 8:41:21 PM, DPF wrote:

> > Likewise wrt setting up a WG.  The GA Chair should be able to read the
> > mood of the GA and either set up a GA Working Group or preferably ask
> > the NC to set up a DNSO Working Group on the issue.
>
> > We should reserve votes to when they are really needed, and let the GA
> > Chair call them.
>
> Very well articulated, and I support this point 110%.

Hi William

Quick questions:

(1)    So you support the creation of a working group on registration systems
with a present focus on deletions and expirations ?

(2)    Who would you recommend as Chair of that working group?

(3)    Does that mean you are prepared to allow that working group to use the
[ga-sys] mailing list for their deliberations?

If so, I think we can say we have general consensus without a poll.

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: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:41:05 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Addressing the Problems

Hi Abel

I am impressed with your analysis of these difficult issues.  Thank you.

However, there has been a history of conflict on the GA list which you
cannot understand.   Some of the key figures are Jeff Williams, Eric Dierker
and myself.  And, of course, William X. Walsh !!!

You are very close to understanding, imo, but you are not quite there yet.
Have a look at my recent post to DPF which clarifies the issue as I see it.

Unfortunately, "the personalities" are more important than "the issues".

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

> The GA has the final vote on all matters concerning the GA

No, the NC does.

> A representative is a representative

Debatable.

> The GA (IF) approves the WG, then let's do the work and stop falling in
> these traps to do things completely by the book that was written to
> prevent anything ever getting done.

No.  It is misused by some people to prevent things getting done.

> Further, I have yet to see the GA or the NC make objections, so let's not
> put hurdles in our way that may not be there

Oh, the objections will be there, you have my word on that.

> Finally in my opinion anyone can make suggestions to the GA, and if the GA
> accepts such suggestions they become GA decisions

True.  But bush lawyers will argue about the process by which the suggestions
were accepted by the GA.   It is an argument of "form" over "substance".

> abel

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: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:09:05 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

Saturday, Saturday, January 12, 2002, 11:26:27 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Quick questions:

> (1)    So you support the creation of a working group on registration systems
> with a present focus on deletions and expirations ?

If the GA Chair decided there was a need for one.

Frankly, if I were GA Chair, I would say one is not necessary.

Consensus is pretty clear on this issue.

A work group should only be created when there is a need to develop a
consensus, in this case, the consensus is already plain to see.

- -- 
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: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:36:20 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Or is that it, then ?   The issue is closed ???

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:09:05 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:

> Saturday, Saturday, January 12, 2002, 11:26:27 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > (1)    So you support the creation of a working group on registration
systems
> > with a present focus on deletions and expirations ?
<snip>

> Frankly, if I were GA Chair, I would say one is not necessary.
> Consensus is pretty clear on this issue.
>
> A work group should only be created when there is a need to develop a
> consensus, in this case, the consensus is already plain to see.

Thanks, William.

Ok, so with the straw poll, we have the following consensus:

        Not in favor of WLS proposal [X]

Should anyone wish to declare that they are "in favour" of the WLS proposal, I
would ask them to speak up.  Chuck Gomes is one that comes to mind.

However, surely the whole issue of expired names requires some further
analysis and debate.  The expiry dates, pool, auction, registry-registrar,
price, etc.

Or is that it, then ?   The issue is closed ???

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: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 02:41:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Addressing the Problems

Patrick and all assembly members,

  Personalities are of little of any importance to me.  Never have been.
How and what someone presents is of importance, and in that sense
alone does the person doing that presentation, become relevant.

  The Poll that you initiated is important to get an idea if a WG
for Delete is desired by a majority of participating GA members.
In this way we can than show the NC and the Secretariat that
a special WG ML forum and group can be formed.  This has been
the practice in the past, and has to one extent or another worked
fairly well except that many in the past were restricted from
participating in such working groups.  This must not continue
or be allowed for this WG if formed.

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Abel
>
> I am impressed with your analysis of these difficult issues.  Thank you.
>
> However, there has been a history of conflict on the GA list which you
> cannot understand.   Some of the key figures are Jeff Williams, Eric Dierker
> and myself.  And, of course, William X. Walsh !!!
>
> You are very close to understanding, imo, but you are not quite there yet.
> Have a look at my recent post to DPF which clarifies the issue as I see it.
>
> Unfortunately, "the personalities" are more important than "the issues".
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> > The GA has the final vote on all matters concerning the GA
>
> No, the NC does.
>
> > A representative is a representative
>
> Debatable.
>
> > The GA (IF) approves the WG, then let's do the work and stop falling in
> > these traps to do things completely by the book that was written to
> > prevent anything ever getting done.
>
> No.  It is misused by some people to prevent things getting done.
>
> > Further, I have yet to see the GA or the NC make objections, so let's not
> > put hurdles in our way that may not be there
>
> Oh, the objections will be there, you have my word on that.
>
> > Finally in my opinion anyone can make suggestions to the GA, and if the GA
> > accepts such suggestions they become GA decisions
>
> True.  But bush lawyers will argue about the process by which the suggestions
> were accepted by the GA.   It is an argument of "form" over "substance".
>
> > abel
>
> 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

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: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 02:46:38 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

WXW and all assembly members,

William X Walsh wrote:

> Saturday, Saturday, January 12, 2002, 11:26:27 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > Quick questions:
>
> > (1)    So you support the creation of a working group on registration systems
> > with a present focus on deletions and expirations ?
>
> If the GA Chair decided there was a need for one.
>
> Frankly, if I were GA Chair, I would say one is not necessary.
>
> Consensus is pretty clear on this issue.

  COnsensus cannot be clear, as you have said yourself unless
it can be measured.  It has not been measured yet.  Ergo
in an open and transparent manner as put forth in the White
Paper and MoU as well as the ICANN Bylaws. Therefore
it would seem prudent and reasonable that such a WG for
Delete be formed.  It seems that Verisign via one Chuck
Gomes is also willing and ready to participate in such a WG
by his own statements on this GA forum.  Hence than to
arrive at a measurable, fair, open, and transparent
consensus such a WG is in order.

>
>
> A work group should only be created when there is a need to develop a
> consensus, in this case, the consensus is already plain to see.
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 03:46:25 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

Why did I post in agreement with David's comments?

Because he is exactly right.

And your repeated attempts to use issues before the GA as a means to
make yourself appear to be some grand organizer on the GA list only
contributes to the further disfunction of this list.

BTW, Eric, if you have something to say to me, say it on list.

Saturday, Saturday, January 12, 2002, 10:41:41 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Bull,

> Are you both standing on a track record of achieving nothing?

> We all recognize that when you can you dazzle them with brilliance and when you
> cannot you baffle them with bul-----.

> I love the fact that both of you can post and express views.  And I am sure we
> had great
> Benedict Arnolds in this country before its' full development.

> Are your two last posts completely worthless?

> Yes!!

> But what I really want to know is why the two of you posted them.   $$$$$$?

> William X Walsh wrote:

>> Saturday, Saturday, January 12, 2002, 8:41:21 PM, DPF wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:07:02 +1100, "Patrick Corliss"
>> > <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>> >>A la Jeff Williams, I propose a poll:
>> >>
>> >>In relation to setting up a GA working group on domain name registration
>> >>systems to address important issues such as domain name expirations and
>> >>deletions:
>> >>
>> >>In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]
>> >>Against setting up a GA working group [ ]
>> >>No opinion on setting up a GA working group [ ]
>> >>
>> >>I'd appreciate if those with "no opinion" would vote accordingly.  Thanks.
>>
>> > Could I suggest both this poll and the previous one while well
>> > intentioned lead to the GA being more dysfunctional.  Many do not
>> > subscribe here to see 40 people vote on a list.
>>
>> > I know we are basically without a GA Chair for now which doesn't help
>> > but the way I see it is that when polls are needed the GA Chair should
>> > arrange these through the Secretariat.
>>
>> > However in both the recent cases no poll was needed IMO.  It was
>> > obvious there was next to no support for the WLS proposal and as not a
>> > single Registrar is supporting it, it is basically dead in the water.
>> > A good GA Chair would have felt confident concluding the GA does not
>> > support the proposal on the basis of the excellent discussion we have
>> > had here.
>>
>> > Likewise wrt setting up a WG.  The GA Chair should be able to read the
>> > mood of the GA and either set up a GA Working Group or preferably ask
>> > the NC to set up a DNSO Working Group on the issue.
>>
>> > We should reserve votes to when they are really needed, and let the GA
>> > Chair call them.
>>
>> Very well articulated, and I support this point 110%.
>>
>> --
>> 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

- --
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: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:15:48 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Secondary market - criteria?

Rick Wesson has asked this GA for criteria any proposal for handling 
the deleted domains market has to fulfill.  Even though many who are 
writing here (with the notable exception of Bret Fausett) seem to be 
blantantly opposed to the WLS proposal, this topic is generally 
worth discussing.

Verisign wants input from the registrars constituency on the WLS 
proposal by January 18 (that's next Friday).  This indicates that we 
don't have a whole lot of time.  For this reason, I'd strongly 
suggest that we don't bother debating whether or not we need a 
working group, what mailing list should be used by that working 
group, who should chair it, and whether the Pope needs a 
representative.  Eric's anonymous "friend" is quite right that it's 
that kind of stuff which has ruined the GA in the past.

Instead, let's try to understand the problems on this very list.

In fact, I think that the requirements posted by Bret in 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00194.html> are mostly a 
good starting point for such a debate.

But one of them is particularly interesting: "the current registrant 
should make his or her decision to renew blind to the value placed 
on that domain name by prospective registrants".

It's interesting because it's just the opposite of the suggestion 
posted by Elliot Noss.  In fact, what Bret suggests is deliberately 
adding more inefficiency to the domain market by trying to make sure 
that current registrants of a domain will release it to the pool of 
available domains as soon as it's not used.  The philosophy seems to 
be:  You lease a domain at USD such-and-such year, use it, and 
return it to the pool for the next one to use it.

The problem with this approach is, of course, that domains are worth 
more to some than they are to others, and that they cost still less. 
Now, as Noss describes in his message, when you combine this with 
traditional domain pricing, you end up with a price gap which can be 
exploited by speculators - or by those registrars who offer 
back-snapping services for domains, or by the registry.

HOW precisely the money is really distributed is irrelevant from the 
point of view of those domain name owners who actually want to use 
their domain (and don't just want to trade them).

 From this point of view, RRS (afternic), WLS, and the current system 
are all equally bad, and prize-driving.  In fact, figure A of the 
Afternic proposal gives some nice insight in what happens: RRS 
maximizes registrar earning (thus, it's really just a 
make-some-registrars-quite-rich scheme), the WLS scheme splits most 
of the money from the gap between the registry and speculators 
(while making some ways to speculate considerably more expensive at 
the same time), and the current system has the interesting feature 
that the back-order services work best and cheapest when there is 
few competition, but inevitably become expensive as soon as more 
competition arrives, and the chance that any particular player gets 
a domain decreases.  But still, the current approach will shove a 
lot of money into a lot of registrars' pockets.  It's just not good 
for the non-speculating registrants...

Now, what happens when you follow Elliot Noss and drop Bret's 
postulate that current registrants shouldn't know about the value of 
their domain?  First of all, there would be an incentive to keep all 
domains but the most worthless ones - the latter ones being returned 
to the pool of available domains.  This may generate predictable 
revenue for registrars and the registry. It may also put those out 
of business (or at least make business more difficult for them) who 
are currently hunting for deleted domains.  It would, finally, make 
life more difficult (though not impossible) for speculators.

It would, of course, also put some of the money into registrants' 
pockets which ends up with registrars, the registry, or professional 
speculators according to the other proposals, and with the current 
state of affairs, where selling a domain name does not seem to be 
something mainstream registrants do, and where many registrants just 
may not know that their domain has a value.

Quite frankly, the more I think about this, the more I like the idea 
of letting registrants know about their domains' value, and the more 
I dislike ideas like the ones from RRS, or like Bret's postulate, 
which both just make sure that the money does _not_ end up with 
average registrants.

Now, what about WLS?  It would, ultimately, be put out of business,

but it would, on the other hand, probably not do much damage to the 
development of a healthy market.

- -- 
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: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 05:28:56 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Secondary market - criteria?

Thomas,

Very well articulated position.  I find myself agreeing with most
every point you make.  I hope others take the time to read it with an
open mind as well.

Sunday, Sunday, January 13, 2002, 5:15:48 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Rick Wesson has asked this GA for criteria any proposal for handling 
> the deleted domains market has to fulfill.  Even though many who are 
> writing here (with the notable exception of Bret Fausett) seem to be 
> blantantly opposed to the WLS proposal, this topic is generally 
> worth discussing.

> Verisign wants input from the registrars constituency on the WLS 
> proposal by January 18 (that's next Friday).  This indicates that we 
> don't have a whole lot of time.  For this reason, I'd strongly 
> suggest that we don't bother debating whether or not we need a 
> working group, what mailing list should be used by that working 
> group, who should chair it, and whether the Pope needs a 
> representative.  Eric's anonymous "friend" is quite right that it's 
> that kind of stuff which has ruined the GA in the past.

> Instead, let's try to understand the problems on this very list.

> In fact, I think that the requirements posted by Bret in 
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00194.html> are mostly a 
> good starting point for such a debate.

> But one of them is particularly interesting: "the current registrant 
> should make his or her decision to renew blind to the value placed 
> on that domain name by prospective registrants".

> It's interesting because it's just the opposite of the suggestion 
> posted by Elliot Noss.  In fact, what Bret suggests is deliberately 
> adding more inefficiency to the domain market by trying to make sure 
> that current registrants of a domain will release it to the pool of 
> available domains as soon as it's not used.  The philosophy seems to 
> be:  You lease a domain at USD such-and-such year, use it, and 
> return it to the pool for the next one to use it.

> The problem with this approach is, of course, that domains are worth 
> more to some than they are to others, and that they cost still less. 
> Now, as Noss describes in his message, when you combine this with 
> traditional domain pricing, you end up with a price gap which can be 
> exploited by speculators - or by those registrars who offer 
> back-snapping services for domains, or by the registry.

> HOW precisely the money is really distributed is irrelevant from the 
> point of view of those domain name owners who actually want to use 
> their domain (and don't just want to trade them).

>  From this point of view, RRS (afternic), WLS, and the current system 
> are all equally bad, and prize-driving.  In fact, figure A of the 
> Afternic proposal gives some nice insight in what happens: RRS 
> maximizes registrar earning (thus, it's really just a 
> make-some-registrars-quite-rich scheme), the WLS scheme splits most 
> of the money from the gap between the registry and speculators 
> (while making some ways to speculate considerably more expensive at 
> the same time), and the current system has the interesting feature 
> that the back-order services work best and cheapest when there is 
> few competition, but inevitably become expensive as soon as more 
> competition arrives, and the chance that any particular player gets 
> a domain decreases.  But still, the current approach will shove a 
> lot of money into a lot of registrars' pockets.  It's just not good 
> for the non-speculating registrants...

> Now, what happens when you follow Elliot Noss and drop Bret's 
> postulate that current registrants shouldn't know about the value of 
> their domain?  First of all, there would be an incentive to keep all 
> domains but the most worthless ones - the latter ones being returned 
> to the pool of available domains.  This may generate predictable 
> revenue for registrars and the registry. It may also put those out 
> of business (or at least make business more difficult for them) who 
> are currently hunting for deleted domains.  It would, finally, make 
> life more difficult (though not impossible) for speculators.

> It would, of course, also put some of the money into registrants' 
> pockets which ends up with registrars, the registry, or professional 
> speculators according to the other proposals, and with the current 
> state of affairs, where selling a domain name does not seem to be 
> something mainstream registrants do, and where many registrants just 
> may not know that their domain has a value.

> Quite frankly, the more I think about this, the more I like the idea 
> of letting registrants know about their domains' value, and the more 
> I dislike ideas like the ones from RRS, or like Bret's postulate, 
> which both just make sure that the money does _not_ end up with 
> average registrants.

> Now, what about WLS?  It would, ultimately, be put out of business,

> but it would, on the other hand, probably not do much damage to the 
> development of a healthy market.

- -- 
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: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 13:42:32 +0000
From: Matthew Pemble <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

William X Walsh wrote:
<snip>

> Consensus is pretty clear on this issue.
> 
> A work group should only be created when there is a need to develop a
> consensus, in this case, the consensus is already plain to see.

I think it is pretty clear that there is a general consensus that the
Verisign WLS proposal is "a bad thing (TM)" (i.e. not even Chuck has
voted in favour of it.)  However, there is a significant difference
between that and any consensus on what system(s) should be put into
place for domain deletion and competitive re-registration.

There have been some good statements of both the current position and of
potential ways to remedy both the overloading problem Verisign claim and
the uncertainty and suspicion generated by the lack of timely
deletions.  I do not have enough experience of this community to know
whether a focused working group is a better way to generate consensus
than a general discussion, or how any such group would (should) be
constituted and organised.  This inexperience is also why I did not vote
in the GA Chair election, having insufficient knowledge of the
participants.

Perhaps, once announced, the newly elected Chair could organise a formal
poll on formation of a working party and which members of the GA would
be willing to participate?  The issue of deletions certainly appears to
be the current main focus of the list.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #983
************************