Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #987
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, January 14 2002           Volume 01 : Number 987

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 16:50:51 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Secondary market - criteria?

Dear WXW,
The more things go, the more the ICANN and the GA with it seems to become 
the association of the Registrars Industry directed by VRSN and to fully 
forget about its IANA duties.

Thomas' position seems to be well structured in the interest of the 
Registrars and to some extent of a reasonable Registry. But I doubt that 
Versign can now afford being a reasonable Registry - as any other Registry 
under ICANN contract. And frankly I fail to see the interest to the network 
of the Registrars.

The only two interested parties are the internet users and the internet 
domain owners. They are only interested in the IANA functions and will 
decide at the end of the day. So I think it is of no real help to Verisign 
to make them believe things can be negotiated/arranged. This is only making 
VRSN spend money, resource, users trust they will soon desperately need.

Reality is that today that kind of practice, added to the Staff, to the 
BoD, to the sunrise, etc... is  heartsickening an increasingly large number 
of people round the planet. What is new is that these people are no more 
alternative knights or vindicative dreamers. They are governments, 
international institutions, multinational companies, internet 
professionnals more and more ill at ease with this illness of a part of the 
US citizens consisting in tying to sell everything which belongs to 
everyone (life and human genome, corn seeds, fresh air and smoke, names and 
privacy, etc.). Sept 11th has given a respite everyone supporting the 
hurted USA, but that respite will not stay for ever.

The outcome is quite well known. It has been explained by an European 
Member of the GAC in MdR 2001: "as long as the AmerICANN Joke is not 
disserving Europe we will let it go but if the situation changes we will 
put an end to that fun". I suppose Japan and China think the same. TLDs, 
IPv6, privacy issues are starting to be too much. When the IANA is managed 
by the ITU/T or EDIFACT things will be clearer, but I am not sure Verisign 
will financially take the transition easily.

So the real good advice to Verisign is to tell them: respect ICP-1, fullfil 
your share in the IANA functions, reduce your costs, respect the users, 
disengage from the Staff, be cautious about the DoC, dont spend $M 80 to 
show you need money, stabilize your business and keep yourself credible, 
keep yourself out of any "Locckheed suspicion". And if you want to start 
something new of no interest to the Internet user (ask Eric first), make 
the ICANN BoD to take the risk and to ask the DNSO. Banning the IDNO from 
the DNSO, starting your own GA and taking over the ALSC may hide the 
reality a while, but it does not change it.

Frankly, what all this merchandizing has to do with the DNS?
Jefsey

On 14:28 13/01/02, William X Walsh said:
>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

- --
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: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 07:56:42 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Working Groups

Jeff and Assembly,

let me snip a few parts, thanks for agreeing in part.

On Monday 14 January 2002 9:11 am, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Abel and all assembly members,

>   None the less for the most part here I am in agreement with you.
> However there are a few caveats where problems arise in this
> creation of a delete WG.

let's tackle them

>You also
> say below that ISP's can provide the resources for such a WG
> with ML for this purpose.  Yes they can, but at a price in most
> instance unless you want to use the Yahoo method, 

I also said i would provide if no one else offers, servers plenty and a few 
webistes and maillists have yet to kill me, just shout what you want and i'll 
set it up. no doubt i will have an appropriate domain available.
(how does woes.org sound ? (jk))

>   The most important reason for making a formal request, as I
> several times have tried to articulate here and to Eric on the phone
> three times is that it would put the onus of responsibility on the
> NC and the secretariat to create such a forum (ML and WG).

Considering my age, and experience in life i see no reason to let someone 
else take responsibility for my actions and or opinions, certainly not if i 
thus also give way to possible interference with free speech and forming of 
opinions. In that case i rather host it and let someone here monitor it.

> If they ignore such a request and the opinion of the GA members
> from Patrick's Poll, than you would have it documented that
> the NC and the secretariat are being specifically disruptive to
> a open and transparent process to adequately deal with an issue
> in a reasonable manner.  And it would be clear that the NC
> does not act in a manner that meets that White Paper and the MoU
> and are not representative of the GA members or the predominance
> of participating stakeholders.

seeing how the setup is at the moment i think most of the aforementioned is 
some sort of a foregone conclusion.

as i said, i offered it already, see below

again: now is the time we have the resources, the people and the topics that 
justify our actions, what more do we need ?  written permission ?

let's count those votes and announce the workgroup, asking for a ML, if they 
do not provide, i do, as simple as that.

once the workgroup, now under serious time contraints, though mr. Gomes said 
end of January  in his mail to eric and the assmebly, has reached a consensus 
proposal for the GA, the WG can motivate that draft and send it to the GA for 
first appraisal, take suggestions, re-drafts and after either another 
appraisal or not, takes it to a vote on the GA.

simple enough one would say.

regards

abel wisman

> Abel Wisman wrote:

> > We do not need the NC or anyone to supply us with maillists, we can set
> > our own up at any given moment in time, I am sure there are enough ISP's
> > here to provide whatever we need, I for one would have no problem in
> > giving the GA or any workgroup ample space on one of our servers, to do
> > exactly what the GA wants to do.

- -- 
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: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 00:26:38 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Working Groups

Mr. Williams believes in top down contrary to our White and Green papers and our
by-laws.

Because he is a corporate exec, he cannot think out of the box.

But all of this is irrelevant because due to time and our concluded GA chair
elections Ms. Kristy will have to deal with this problem.  You ask how I know who
won, it is because I have faith in this assembly's' good judgment.

Note WXW i am no longer attempting to reach consensus but relaxing back to end
fighting because I am no longer working toward consensus.  Let the new chair handle
that stuff.

E

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Abel and all assembly members,
>
>   Abel, and I am not singling you out here, but the past influences
> the present and the present influences the future.  That is an age old
> axiom of life.  So it is true with the GA when if comes to process,
> as especially WG's.  Perhaps you should review the WG of the
> past and the archives there unto pertaining for some background.
>
>   None the less for the most part here I am in agreement with you.
> However there are a few caveats where problems arise in this
> creation of a delete WG.
>
>   Eric Dierker had the idea originally of the creation of a delete
> WG to discuss the issue of how deletes should be handled
> when a DN expires or is abandon.  He did so at the understanding
> from Chuck Gomes regarding the WLS proposal as to other
> methods, either currently being used, or in order to come up
> with a consensus (Voted Upon by the GA members) document
> that would be essentially be developed as part of this proposed
> delete WG.  Many of us have already answered the poll that
> Patrick posted http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00390.html
> in order to get an idea that such a WG was desired by the GA
> members.  In the mean time as this poll was underway Eric agreed
> to at my suggestion to ask formally the NC and the secretariat
> to approve and provide for a ML for the proposed delete WG.
> He failed to make that request,  Instead Eric decided by himself
> that such a request was not necessary or was to lazy to do it
> even after I sent to him a wording along with the subject line
> for that request to the NC and secretariat and copy the GA List.
> Sense the past three days have passed when Eric promised to the
> GA members to do this, Dave and WXW seemed to be against
> such a WG being formed and Dave refused to participate in the
> Polls (the one I sent out on WLS and Patrick's) for his own reasons.
> Nothing wrong with Dave doing so, but other members should make
> up their own minds to participate in those polls of their own accord.
> After this Thomas decided for various reasons that Eric had no
> standing to make such a request and Patrick than followed up
> stating the same thing.  My how the worms turn, huh!?
>
>   So now it seems that there is a quagmire of confusion and
> disruption from a grass roots effort to get some GA members
> generated ideas out on the table. None the less it is only reasonable
> that any GA member should and can make such requests of the
> NC and secretariat.  They work for US the GA members in part
> after all.  SO making such a request is certainly reasonable.  But
> Eric never made the request that he promised to make after
> trying to make a good and reasonable issue regarding the delete
> process's.  ANd it is only proper to make such a request of the
> NC if the GA members of the DNSO as part of the DNSO are to
> attain standing on the delete issue.
>
>   Now you Able and a couple of others seem to think that such
> a formal request is not necessary.  Well that is partly true.  But
> if you want the DNSO GA members to have standing such a
> request is reasonable and appropriate.  However if a delete
> WG outside of the DNSO is also acceptable to those interested
> that are DNSO GA members that is also doable and reasonable
> to the extent that interest is there in such a forum.  You also
> say below that ISP's can provide the resources for such a WG
> with ML for this purpose.  Yes they can, but at a price in most
> instance unless you want to use the Yahoo method, which is well
> known to mos of the GA members.  That would be free of course.
> But you must understand that would be a process outside of the
> DNSO GA and therefore would likely have little standing regardless
> of what might be determined from this approach.
>
>   The most important reason for making a formal request, as I
> several times have tried to articulate here and to Eric on the phone
> three times is that it would put the onus of responsibility on the
> NC and the secretariat to create such a forum (ML and WG).
> If they ignore such a request and the opinion of the GA members
> from Patrick's Poll, than you would have it documented that
> the NC and the secretariat are being specifically disruptive to
> a open and transparent process to adequately deal with an issue
> in a reasonable manner.  And it would be clear that the NC
> does not act in a manner that meets that White Paper and the MoU
> and are not representative of the GA members or the predominance
> of participating stakeholders.
>
> Abel Wisman wrote:
>
> > Assembly,
> >
> > On this theme a lot of post has passed us by, a vote is going on and yet we
> > are discussing the rules under which we are allowed to for, such a
> > "workgroup".
> >
> > We are discussing the past ( in which it all went wrong) the future (where we
> > repeat the past) and the present (where we wait for permission to do anything
> > wrong)
> >
> > Lst time i heard we were all consenting adults, members of a larger group (GA
> > Maillist) who like to have our opinion heard in the hope that the forces in
> > power will recon with those opinions while making decisions  or shady deals,
> > whatever comes first and one not excluding the other.
> >
> > With all respect to all given input on the WLS and on the WG, i (not being a
> > chair but a human being running a business) can sense a great deal of
> > consensus on at least two things here:
> >
> > 1. it is the distinct opinion of this assembly (all but one or two) that WLS
> > is a bad idea (tm)
> >
> > 2. A workgroup would be a very handy place to further discuss the matters of
> > "delete" (general term)
> >
> > What stops us from reaching a real consensus ? hmmmm  rules imposed by those
> > who say we can not reach that consensus.
> >
> > Are we a kindergartenclass that needs to be told when to go to the bathroom ?
> > (ok perhaps at times it looks like that but still....)
> >
> > The mentioning by PDF that self erected WG's are grounds for counter WG's can
> > in the exceptional case be true, but by stating such he delivers a power to a
> > WG that no one on this list seeks or wants.
> >
> > In a constituency the size of the GA with the input from so many different
> > angles it is almost impossible for every one to be interested and or
> > particiapting in all subjects, yet some are close to home or touch the
> > interest.
> >
> > Why would any formed WG, be it formal or informal, not be simply @approved@
> > by the GA (there is such a vote underway i believe) and present a "draft" to
> > the GA say in a maximum of 3 instances, then the GA votes aye or nay and we
> > move on.
> >
> > To impose rules upon the intricate workings of the assembly from "above" is a
> > restriction of our basic human rights to congregate and speak up.
> >
> > We as the GA want to be heard? then we need to form opinions!
> > If the GA grows (which we all hope it will do i assume) then it will be
> > harder and harder to "select" on the topics on which we can and want to form
> > an opinion and be heard. If it comes close to the heart enough we can
> > participate in a workgroup in that case.
> >
> > The workgroup reachs a form of consensus (serious majority decision) and
> > makes her proposal to the GA, i can see nothing wrong with that and do not
> > understand (i don't want to) why that shoudl be "permitted"
> >
> > In the end the "opinion" or "final draft advise" comes from the GA to
> > <wherever it has to go> as a consensus opinion of the GA.
> > How the GA got there is of little importance to the higher level of decision
> > makers, no matter what they say.
> >
> > We do not need the NC or anyone to supply us with maillists, we can set our
> > own up at any given moment in time, I am sure there are enough ISP's here to
> > provide whatever we need, I for one would have no problem in giving the GA or
> > any workgroup ample space on one of our servers, to do exactly what the GA
> > wants to do.
> >
> > Let's get real and drop all that "look important" stuff, IF the GA ever has a
> > chance of being heard it needs consensus, how it reaches that consensus is
> > therefore up to the GA and not to anybody else.
> >
> > You have for you a chance to "change the rules and playingfield" act now,
> > before this is only another "bitch"-list.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > 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
>
> 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

- --
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: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:33:54 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] Hal Lubsen - the unanswered questions remain, and he refuses to answer

an amateur is someone thinking that if something is worth doing, it is 
worth doing bad,
a professional is someone thinking that if something is worth doing, it is 
worth doing well.
This does not make one necessarily better or worse than the other.
But this is why I think the ICANN is amateurish.

At 05:08 13/01/02, Jeff Williams wrote:
>the ICANN BoD and staff were either ill equipped or
>not interested in doing that oversight as they are contractually
>required to do under the MoU and White Paper.
>
>Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> > If the Afilias Sunrise process permitted "NONE" to be submitted in
> > every single Trademark data field, then what was the point of allowing
> > that, since it simply enabled anyone to register a domain at Sunrise,
> > whether they had a Trademark or not.

<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: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 04:05:56 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Working Groups

Abel and all assembly members or other interested parties,

  As I said, I agree that what you suggest is ONE way of getting a WG
for delete off and running so to speak.  However I also qualified
that if done as you suggest, it will not have the support of the predominance
of the GA members nor could it be a DNSO GA or DNSO recognized
WG.  As such any vote per the DNSO voting system, will likely
not occur and therefore any conclusions from the method you suggest
will be ignored by the rest of the DNSO constituencies and the ICANN
BoD.  Hence Abel why I suggested and urged that a formal request
to the NC  the copying the secretariat FIRST.  Failing a response
or a positive response from the NC in creating the WG/ML for delete,
THAN move forward with your suggestion...

Abel Wisman wrote:

> Jeff and Assembly,
>
> let me snip a few parts, thanks for agreeing in part.
>
> On Monday 14 January 2002 9:11 am, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > Abel and all assembly members,
>
> >   None the less for the most part here I am in agreement with you.
> > However there are a few caveats where problems arise in this
> > creation of a delete WG.
>
> let's tackle them
>
> >You also
> > say below that ISP's can provide the resources for such a WG
> > with ML for this purpose.  Yes they can, but at a price in most
> > instance unless you want to use the Yahoo method,
>
> I also said i would provide if no one else offers, servers plenty and a few
> webistes and maillists have yet to kill me, just shout what you want and i'll
> set it up. no doubt i will have an appropriate domain available.
> (how does woes.org sound ? (jk))
>
> >   The most important reason for making a formal request, as I
> > several times have tried to articulate here and to Eric on the phone
> > three times is that it would put the onus of responsibility on the
> > NC and the secretariat to create such a forum (ML and WG).
>
> Considering my age, and experience in life i see no reason to let someone
> else take responsibility for my actions and or opinions, certainly not if i
> thus also give way to possible interference with free speech and forming of
> opinions. In that case i rather host it and let someone here monitor it.
>
> > If they ignore such a request and the opinion of the GA members
> > from Patrick's Poll, than you would have it documented that
> > the NC and the secretariat are being specifically disruptive to
> > a open and transparent process to adequately deal with an issue
> > in a reasonable manner.  And it would be clear that the NC
> > does not act in a manner that meets that White Paper and the MoU
> > and are not representative of the GA members or the predominance
> > of participating stakeholders.
>
> seeing how the setup is at the moment i think most of the aforementioned is
> some sort of a foregone conclusion.
>
> as i said, i offered it already, see below
>
> again: now is the time we have the resources, the people and the topics that
> justify our actions, what more do we need ?  written permission ?
>
> let's count those votes and announce the workgroup, asking for a ML, if they
> do not provide, i do, as simple as that.
>
> once the workgroup, now under serious time contraints, though mr. Gomes said
> end of January  in his mail to eric and the assmebly, has reached a consensus
> proposal for the GA, the WG can motivate that draft and send it to the GA for
> first appraisal, take suggestions, re-drafts and after either another
> appraisal or not, takes it to a vote on the GA.
>
> simple enough one would say.
>
> regards
>
> abel wisman
>
> > Abel Wisman wrote:
>
> > > We do not need the NC or anyone to supply us with maillists, we can set
> > > our own up at any given moment in time, I am sure there are enough ISP's
> > > here to provide whatever we need, I for one would have no problem in
> > > giving the GA or any workgroup ample space on one of our servers, to do
> > > exactly what the GA wants to do.
>
> --
> 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

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: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 04:08:29 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] Hal Lubsen - the unanswered questions remain, and he refuses to answer

Jefsey and all assembly,

  There is much truth in your words below Jefsey.  And that is terribly
unfortunate as well as disappointing...  :(

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> an amateur is someone thinking that if something is worth doing, it is
> worth doing bad,
> a professional is someone thinking that if something is worth doing, it is
> worth doing well.
> This does not make one necessarily better or worse than the other.
> But this is why I think the ICANN is amateurish.
>
> At 05:08 13/01/02, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >the ICANN BoD and staff were either ill equipped or
> >not interested in doing that oversight as they are contractually
> >required to do under the MoU and White Paper.
> >
> >Richard Henderson wrote:
> >
> > > If the Afilias Sunrise process permitted "NONE" to be submitted in
> > > every single Trademark data field, then what was the point of allowing
> > > that, since it simply enabled anyone to register a domain at Sunrise,
> > > whether they had a Trademark or not.
>
> <snip>
>
> ---------
> Participants on the gTLD Registry Constituency public mailing list are requested to not cross-post messages.

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: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:41:02 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: The GA -- A Respected Forum ?

I said:

>>Since there's no visible benefit in moving these discussions 
>>away from the main GA list at this time (at least, nobody has 
>>pointed one out so far, I think), I'd (again) suggest that the 
>>discussion on the deletion issue remains on the main GA list.

On 2002-01-14 10:43:27 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:

>Have a look around.  When did you last see a post from any of the 
>respected participants other than Chuck Gomes who was arguing for 
>VeriSign's WLS proposal?

Oh, I saw posts from Bret Fausett, from Ross Rader, from Elliot 
Noss, and from quite a few other individuals from the 
registrar/registry communities.  In fact, an interim version of last 
week's summary I produced on Thursday was already longer than the 
summary for the first week of this year.

What I want is more of that stuff.  And less of the proedural 
discussions you seem to like so much.

- -- 
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: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:30:38 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Secondary market - criteria?

On 2002-01-13 22:32:22 -0800, Bret Fausett wrote:

>>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?

>Thomas, don't forget that all this proposal is concerned with is 
>how to handle domain names at, about, and just after the time they 
>expire and are deleted. Registrants interested in testing the 
>value of their domain name in the secondary market can still do so 
>throughout the time that they own the domain name, by posting it 
>on one of the many auction sites or using an appraisal service.

They can, but apparently they don't - or at least, they don't know 
how to easily make use of their knowledge, or they don't want to 
make use of their knowledge.  Because, if registrants knew about 
their domains' value, and if future registrants would just buy 
domains up for expiry, professional dumpster diving would hardly be 
a profitable business model.

But back to your "ignorance postulate" - maybe you could explain in 
a little more detail why you believe this would be a good idea for 
handling domain names around their expiry/deletion?

- -- 
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: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:47:00 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ORG NC Task Force (Final Draft (v 5.4)): Comments?

On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, at 12:40 [=GMT-0800], Eric Dierker wrote:

> Excuse my possibly faulty quick reading.
>
> I do not see a "divestiture clause"
>
> Can Verisgn do what they did with Afilias and just own most
> of a company they form in order to control dotORG?
>
> should not there be a clause that says;
>
> And verisign is prohibited within the next ten years from owning any
> interest in any company that owns any portion of the dotORG
> registry.

Attempts to get something similar to this in the text failed. I will add
it to my supplemental report, which I will send to this list soon.

> Thanks for all your hard work.  You have been a great rep on this TF.

My pleasure!

- -- 
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:58:47 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Supplemental report from the GA-rep on the ORG TF report

Based on the comments I received, I wrote a short supplemental report
about a few remaining issues in the final report to the Names
Council. The text is below.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions! And for letting me be part
of this task force.

- -- 
[email-masked]

- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplementary report from the GA-rep in the ORG TF

1. In general the topics that were important in discussions on the
divestiture of ORG on the GA-list, are dealt with in a satisfactory
way in the report. Important issues like grandfathering, as well as
some form of direct influence of the registrants on the management of
the registry are given ample space in the text.

2. Concerns remain, however, such as the possibility of a price raise
in the registration fee for ORG names, as a result of the guidelines
regarding surplus funds (2c). A better idea would be, to lower prices,
if 'profit' would be made. Or to subsidize registrations in
third-world countries. Hopefully applicants will indicate more
specifically, how they intend to deal with surplus funds, so that they
cannot be used to finance unrelated activities. 

3. Unfortunately the report does not contain any indication, how the
operator of new ORG could and should deal with registrars that
frustrate the marketing policy, which is so important for
new ORG to succeed in the way the report proposes. Some form of
de-accreditation for ORG as far as new registrations are concerned,
if a registrar refuses to implement the marketing strategy of ORG, is
necessary. E.g., if a registrar insists on trying to sell the ORG
domain with every COM domain it sells, and refuses to change its
website, there should be a procedure to 'punish' this registrar. This
is not difficult to implement and control. Registrars will report each
other's transgressions to the ORG operator, no doubt.
It is quite clear, that it is not possible (and not even in any way
desirable) to take existing registrations away from registrars,
including the right to renew them. The above is only concerned with
new registrations.

4. The UDRP should apply to new ORG in a different manner than to e.g.
COM, given the different target users of the TLD. Common words or
acronyms (e.g. 'word' or 'att') should not necessarily be transferred
to the companies that have a trademark in these names, if there is no
actual trademark violation. 

5. Some sort of provision that makes it impossible that VeriSign adds
ORG again to its collection of TLDs is necessary.

Marc Schneiders ([email-masked])
GA-representative in the NC ORG task force

- --
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: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 07:19:35 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WG is up to the new chair

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C19CCB.D2B58490
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"Because the GA is a body politic should not it be able to act
independently?  What we have seen currently is some sort of desire to
ask for permission.  WHAT THE HELL DOES BOTTOM UP MEAN?    The only
permission we need is from the bottom and who is more bottom than the
GA? "
 
you have that right!
 
don't ask,  just  do...
 
peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eric
Dierker
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 2:19 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] WG is up to the new chair

You know we have laid a lot of ground work here and any of the
candidates for chair 
can easily take up the gauntlet should she so desire and make it work. 

But at this point any further actual work is pointless and we should all
throw our weight behind the 
new chair. 

I know that it is more often than not unpleasant to post to this list
because of the critical abuse you receive and I am very appreciative of
the increase in participation lately but we need more voices that are
willing to contribute. 

Look, I just tried to do something new and against a lot of sharpie
opinions, but while I am finding it hard to walk and I feel like I got
run over by an emotional locomotive it was worth it. (the private posts
ran 2 to 1 and were very helpful and sometimes brutal) Certainly it is
worth more than an occasional post from you. 

I have two questions that seem to linger; 

Because the GA is a body politic should not it be able to act
independently?  What we have seen currently is some sort of desire to
ask for permission.  WHAT THE HELL DOES BOTTOM UP MEAN?    The only
permission we need is from the bottom and who is more bottom than the
GA? 

Mr. Whiting is right, why can't we just do it?  Some would like to argue
procedure, but all they do is create a situation where nothing occurs.
But in fact that is a result of lack of support for those of us who just
want to get it done.  Why don't you support the hard work? 

Eric 

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-chair-election-ranking.html 
 <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-chair-election-ranking.html>   

- ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C19CCB.D2B58490
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>

<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2712.300" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D470141811-14012002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>"<FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#000000 size=3D3>Because the GA is a =
body politic=20
should not it be able to act independently?&nbsp; What we have seen =
currently is=20
some sort of desire to ask for permission.&nbsp; WHAT THE HELL DOES =
BOTTOM UP=20
MEAN?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The only permission we need is from the bottom =
and who=20
is more bottom than the GA? "</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D470141811-14012002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#000000 =
size=3D3></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D470141811-14012002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>you=20
have that right!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D470141811-14012002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D470141811-14012002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>don't=20
ask,&nbsp; just&nbsp; do...</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D470141811-14012002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D470141811-14012002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>peter=20
de Blanc<FONT size=3D2></DIV>
<P>&nbsp;</P></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV></DIV>
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr =
align=3Dleft><FONT=20
  face=3DTahoma size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
  [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Eric=20
  Dierker<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 14, 2002 2:19 AM<BR><B>To:</B> =

  [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> [ga] WG is up to the new=20
  chair<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>You know we have laid a lot of ground work =
here and=20
  any of the candidates for chair <BR>can easily take up the gauntlet =
should she=20
  so desire and make it work.=20
  <P>But at this point any further actual work is pointless and we =
should all=20
  throw our weight behind the <BR>new chair.=20
  <P>I know that it is more often than not unpleasant to post to this =
list=20
  because of the critical abuse you receive and I am very appreciative =
of the=20
  increase in participation lately but we need more voices that are =
willing to=20
  contribute.=20
  <P>Look, I just tried to do something new and against a lot of sharpie =

  opinions, but while I am finding it hard to walk and I feel like I got =
run=20
  over by an emotional locomotive it was worth it. (the private posts =
ran 2 to 1=20
  and were very helpful and sometimes brutal) Certainly it is worth more =
than an=20
  occasional post from you.=20
  <P>I have two questions that seem to linger;=20
  <P>Because the GA is a body politic should not it be able to act=20
  independently?&nbsp; What we have seen currently is some sort of =
desire to ask=20
  for permission.&nbsp; WHAT THE HELL DOES BOTTOM UP =
MEAN?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The=20
  only permission we need is from the bottom and who is more bottom than =
the GA?=20

  <P>Mr. Whiting is right, why can't we just do it?&nbsp; Some would =
like to=20
  argue procedure, but all they do is create a situation where nothing=20
  occurs.&nbsp; But in fact that is a result of lack of support for =
those of us=20
  who just want to get it done.&nbsp; Why don't you support the hard =
work?=20
  <P>Eric=20
  <P><A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-chair-election-ranking.htm=
l">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-chair-election-ranking.html</A>=
=20
  <BR><A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-chair-election-ranking.htm=
l"></A>&nbsp;=20
  </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C19CCB.D2B58490--

- --
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 #987
************************