Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #994
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, January 16 2002         Volume 01 : Number 994

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:23:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the  Few

Ron,

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Ron Wiener wrote:

> Ross,
>
> A few clarifications to your last post...  First, I did not mischaracterize
> the Registrars Constituency call.  I stated that on that call there were a
> small minority of registrars - 21 out of 96.  That is fact.  You are
> therefore incorrect in stating to me that my "comment that the call
> represented only a handful of interests is therefore inaccurate."   The call
> *did* represent only a relative handful of registrars, which was exactly
> what I said.   That "the call represented a majority of *member*
> registrars," as you say, is of no relevance whatsoever.

gosh I really hate to get involved in conversations like this but I must...

The call that you refer to was restricted to paid-up ICANN Accredited
registrars that are members in good standing of the Registrars
Constituency.

By definition the call was limited to a subset of all accredited
registrars. If you want to look at representative volume I'd say over 90%
of all domains registered by registrars were represented. Another way to
look at it is that over 90% of the RRP transactions generated by
Registrars were in attendance on the call.

I'd appreciate it if you and ross would get back to dealing with
subsinative arguments then these tepid distractions.

thanks,

- -rick

Rick Wesson
CTO, Registrars Constituency

- --
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: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:29:03 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the  Few

Tuesday, Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 4:24:33 PM, Ron Wiener wrote:

> No person in this debate, not you, nor I, nor VGRS or even ICANN can "know"
> what the best price point will be up-front... the only way to resolve it is
> to offer it the market and see how customers respond.   From an economic

This is true, in markets that are not monopolies.  This would be a
monopoly, so there is no market force to resolved the price issue.

As a result, if this thing were to ever fly, it should be on a STRICT
cost recovery along the same lines as the registry contract for
com/net/org.

- -- 
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: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:44:29 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the  Few

Hello,

- --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Ross,
> 
> Nothing has changed with the statements I made. On what basis did you
> conclude that we would "arbitrarily launch the service without
> appropriately consulting the community?"
> 
> Chuck

From:

http://portland.bcentral.com/portland/stories/2001/12/03/story2.html

my curiosity is raised at the statement:

"The company expects to close 2001 with $3 million in revenue, and is
projecting sales of more than $20 million in 2002, based on contracts
that have already been signed."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Notice the story was dated December 3, 2001. Perhaps SnapNames is
referring to other "contracts", but it's clear that one possibility is
that this is referring to a "done deal" with Verisign, given that the
"test period" revenues would be on the order of $60 million, split
between Verisign and Snapnames. To go from $3 million to $20 million
without WLS would be difficult, in my opinion, as other registrars
continue to launch competitive systems. Also, when I go to acquire a
SnapBack today, I am only allowed to register it via NameScout, whereas
previously I could choose from 6 or 7 registrars.

They also said the following: "Owen ran NameWinner for Dotster, which
is a viable competitor of ours" 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(for those interested in the anti-competitiveness nature of the
proposal)

And in:

http://portland.bcentral.com/portland/stories/2001/12/31/daily37.html

"The deal with VeriSign will bring SnapNames more than $20 million in
revenue this year, said Ron Wiener, CEO of SnapNames. "This is a huge
deal," he said, "a five-year exclusive licensing agreement. We consider
it will have a total value of $100 million to $150 million over the
term of the contract." In 2001, SnapNames took in $2.98 million in
revenue."

Note the language "The deal with Verisign WILL...." (not might or
could)

Also, that article confirmed that SnapNames is not profitable as a
whole.

Since Verisign and SnapNames seem to be perpetuating the myth of
"abusive speculation" existing in the current system (to the detriment
of the "Greatest Good", please identify exactly which registrars and/or
registrants are responsible for this activity, as well as a definition
of "abusive speculation".

I remind you that this question has been asked before, without an
answer. See:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00085.html

in particular:

> The typical SnapNames "mythology" about deleted names is that their
> clients are pure and noble, and everyone else is an "abusive
> speculator" that must be stopped. SnapNames publishes a list of names
> they've caught, at:

> http://www.snapnames.com/hot100.html

> In case they decide to remove that list, I've saved a copy at:

> http://www.loffs.com/images/hot100.txt

> Let us analyze this list, and see who some of SnapNames's "pure and
> noble" clients are:

> a) UltSearch.com owns 19 of the 100 names (participates on many other
> drop systems too). 
> b) BuyDomains.com - 16 of the 100 names (all for sale, too!)
> c) DirectSeek/PTI Networks/Frank and Michelle Schilling -- 6 names
> (participants on other drop systems too).
> d) 5 other names were explicitly for sale in the WHOIS info, or were
> pointed at Afternic, a domain auction site.
> e) Michele Dinoia -- 2 names (a high volume domain registrant via
> AWRegistry, among others)
> f) 7 names seem to raise some trademark issues:
> i) advil.net (and the domain is for sale!)
> ii) xeroxprinters.com 
> iii) wall-mart.com (redirecting to Amazon.com for now, using the
> "hotdealsweb-20" affiliate tag)
> iv) NokiaTunes.com
> v) HondaAccord.com
> vi) VolkswagonParts.com -- redirects to an "abortion is murder" site,
> with a picture of a headless fetus (gruesome)
> vii) UnitedAir.com (nice use of Flash in the WHOIS; see the WHOIS at
> www.netsol.com for this one)

> I'm not saying that any of the above are "abusive speculators" (well,
I
> think I'm safe on the volkswagonparts.com one!), but I personally
would
> like to have SnapNames provde a precise definition of "abusive
> speculator". Does it have to do with a high volume of registrations?
> Does it involve trademark violations? Does it have to do with
offering
> the name up immediately for sale? Does it mean using a non-SnapNames
> system (many of SnapNames' biggest customers use alternatives too).
> Personally, I think any registrant is innocent, until proven guilty
via
> the UDRP process. But, I want to know Verisign and SnapNames' precise
> definition of abusive registrants, as they routinely trash the
clients
> of competing drop systems, and are the ones saying that there is a
> current problem that needs to be "solved". Once we have a clear
> definition, we can see how many of SnapNames' own clients fit that
> profile.

I should note that BuyDomains has recently posted against the WLS
proposal, see:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00514.html

They are equally against a monopoly by one group over the expired
domains industry. They're SnapNames customers, as am I.

Patiently awaiting your reply,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:54:35 -0800
From: Ron Wiener <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefit s of the  Few

George,

I think we'd all appreciate it if you did not regurgitate all the content
everyone has already read.  I've responded to everything here already and
won't do it twice.  

As for why NameScout shows up as your only registrar choice on our site it
is because you linked through to our site from theirs and your cookie was
set.  Delete the cookie and you will see eNom, OpenSRS, NameScout,
DomainsAtCost, Directi, Internic, BulkRegister and Network Solutions as your
choices.

- - Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Kirikos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 4:44 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Ross Wm. Rader'; Ron Wiener; [email-masked]; icann-
> [email-masked]
> Cc: Registrars@Dnso. Org
> Subject: Re: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs.
> Benefits of the Few
> 
> Hello,
> 
> --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Ross,
> >
> > Nothing has changed with the statements I made. On what basis did you
> > conclude that we would "arbitrarily launch the service without
> > appropriately consulting the community?"
> >
> > Chuck
> 
> From:
> 
> http://portland.bcentral.com/portland/stories/2001/12/03/story2.html
> 
> my curiosity is raised at the statement:
> 
> "The company expects to close 2001 with $3 million in revenue, and is
> projecting sales of more than $20 million in 2002, based on contracts
> that have already been signed."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Notice the story was dated December 3, 2001. Perhaps SnapNames is
> referring to other "contracts", but it's clear that one possibility is
> that this is referring to a "done deal" with Verisign, given that the
> "test period" revenues would be on the order of $60 million, split
> between Verisign and Snapnames. To go from $3 million to $20 million
> without WLS would be difficult, in my opinion, as other registrars
> continue to launch competitive systems. Also, when I go to acquire a
> SnapBack today, I am only allowed to register it via NameScout, whereas
> previously I could choose from 6 or 7 registrars.
> 
> They also said the following: "Owen ran NameWinner for Dotster, which
> is a viable competitor of ours"
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> (for those interested in the anti-competitiveness nature of the
> proposal)
> 
> And in:
> 
> http://portland.bcentral.com/portland/stories/2001/12/31/daily37.html
> 
> "The deal with VeriSign will bring SnapNames more than $20 million in
> revenue this year, said Ron Wiener, CEO of SnapNames. "This is a huge
> deal," he said, "a five-year exclusive licensing agreement. We consider
> it will have a total value of $100 million to $150 million over the
> term of the contract." In 2001, SnapNames took in $2.98 million in
> revenue."
> 
> Note the language "The deal with Verisign WILL...." (not might or
> could)
> 
> Also, that article confirmed that SnapNames is not profitable as a
> whole.
> 
> Since Verisign and SnapNames seem to be perpetuating the myth of
> "abusive speculation" existing in the current system (to the detriment
> of the "Greatest Good", please identify exactly which registrars and/or
> registrants are responsible for this activity, as well as a definition
> of "abusive speculation".
> 
> I remind you that this question has been asked before, without an
> answer. See:
> 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00085.html
> 
> in particular:
> 
> > The typical SnapNames "mythology" about deleted names is that their
> > clients are pure and noble, and everyone else is an "abusive
> > speculator" that must be stopped. SnapNames publishes a list of names
> > they've caught, at:
> 
> > http://www.snapnames.com/hot100.html
> 
> > In case they decide to remove that list, I've saved a copy at:
> 
> > http://www.loffs.com/images/hot100.txt
> 
> > Let us analyze this list, and see who some of SnapNames's "pure and
> > noble" clients are:
> 
> > a) UltSearch.com owns 19 of the 100 names (participates on many other
> > drop systems too).
> > b) BuyDomains.com - 16 of the 100 names (all for sale, too!)
> > c) DirectSeek/PTI Networks/Frank and Michelle Schilling -- 6 names
> > (participants on other drop systems too).
> > d) 5 other names were explicitly for sale in the WHOIS info, or were
> > pointed at Afternic, a domain auction site.
> > e) Michele Dinoia -- 2 names (a high volume domain registrant via
> > AWRegistry, among others)
> > f) 7 names seem to raise some trademark issues:
> > i) advil.net (and the domain is for sale!)
> > ii) xeroxprinters.com
> > iii) wall-mart.com (redirecting to Amazon.com for now, using the
> > "hotdealsweb-20" affiliate tag)
> > iv) NokiaTunes.com
> > v) HondaAccord.com
> > vi) VolkswagonParts.com -- redirects to an "abortion is murder" site,
> > with a picture of a headless fetus (gruesome)
> > vii) UnitedAir.com (nice use of Flash in the WHOIS; see the WHOIS at
> > www.netsol.com for this one)
> 
> > I'm not saying that any of the above are "abusive speculators" (well,
> I
> > think I'm safe on the volkswagonparts.com one!), but I personally
> would
> > like to have SnapNames provde a precise definition of "abusive
> > speculator". Does it have to do with a high volume of registrations?
> > Does it involve trademark violations? Does it have to do with
> offering
> > the name up immediately for sale? Does it mean using a non-SnapNames
> > system (many of SnapNames' biggest customers use alternatives too).
> > Personally, I think any registrant is innocent, until proven guilty
> via
> > the UDRP process. But, I want to know Verisign and SnapNames' precise
> > definition of abusive registrants, as they routinely trash the
> clients
> > of competing drop systems, and are the ones saying that there is a
> > current problem that needs to be "solved". Once we have a clear
> > definition, we can see how many of SnapNames' own clients fit that
> > profile.
> 
> I should note that BuyDomains has recently posted against the WLS
> proposal, see:
> 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00514.html
> 
> They are equally against a monopoly by one group over the expired
> domains industry. They're SnapNames customers, as am I.
> 
> Patiently awaiting your reply,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:07:16 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefit s of the  Few

Hello,

- --- Ron Wiener <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think we'd all appreciate it if you did not regurgitate all the
> content
> everyone has already read.  I've responded to everything here already
> and
> won't do it twice.  

Since you only joined the DNSO GA list recently, and I've not seen
Chuck Gomes define an abusive speculator, perhaps you can point me to
the link where either has answered. I don't want you to answer it twice
- -- once will do. I have heard you say that the press "misquotes" you
often, so this provides you with a chance to reveal who these abusive
speculators are, once and for all. Is it NameWinner? Is it NicGenie? Is
it UltSearch? Is it BuyDomains? Is it me, with my fairly small
portfolio of names??? Who exactly is abusing the system, and by what
definition (and of course, show us how that definition does not apply
to SnapNames and its registration partners)?

When I go to http://www.snapnames.com/deleteprocess.html to read about
the Deletion Cycle, I see the words "Armies of Speculators" used. Since
you purport to know the the deleted domains industry better than
everyone else, I think the community would benefit from knowing exactly
who you think these abusers are, and relate them to the list in the Hot
100 that your own company provided.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:12:52 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contact points to prevent monopolistic WLS

I did not repost your post but thank you very much for the many helpful
addresses and links.

As we establish a working group either within the GA or outside the GA
these will be a useful source both to give output to and ask for input.

Make no mistake a working group which will involve many members from
here will be formed, but let us give our NC and our new chairs a chance
to
reject the idea or embrace it.

I would say a few hours after endorsing our candidates would be long
enough to
wait. It is not like it is brand new news to any of them.

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:20:17 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the  Few

So, it appears that those who chose to vote represented the majority,
in terms of market share. Clearly, then, Ross's statement was correct
in that sense.

However, I submit that Ross's statement was also correct with respect
to the issue raised by Ron Wiener, about the 75 non-voting/not counted
registrars.

In this country,  TX :), we all have a right to vote, but we must get
involved in the process by registering to vote and actually going to
the polls. It seems to me that these 75 chose not to be involved,
since no one has presented any facts to the contrary.

Therefore, regardless of market share, Ross was correct in his
statement.  When folks don't get involved, register and cast a ballot,
no one counts their vote -- to do so is mere speculation.

Accordingly, Ron Wiener's issue about the 75 other Registrars fails on
its face, making it moot.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there has been no factual
presentation of those who do favor WLS.  Besides Snap and the
Registry, who actually favors and supports WLS?  I mean hard facts,
not conjecture and speculation.

At the very least, those opposed to WLS can be quantified.

Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 4:25:52 PM, genie@ magi <[email-masked]> wrote:
gm> William: 
>>Perhaps you can clear up, Ron, exactly what percentage of new
>>registrations those 75 non-participating registrars are responsible
>>for (exclusing Verisign's own registrar, of course, whose conflict of
>>interest is clear).
>>
>>The number of registrars is less important to me, and probably to
>>most, than the number of registrations they are responsible for.

gm> Using some data available
gm> (bowrrowing David's math from
gm> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00258.html
gm> can anyone please help with the blanks?

gm> EST 
gm> Marketshare
gm> ------Registrar-------------------------WLS
gm>       AW Registry (all west) mike brown opposed 
gm> 1.80% ENOM - Paul       opposed
gm> 1.07% Tim - GoDaddy     opposed
gm>       Ken Stubbs - CORE/NC      
gm>       Bob Connly - PSI Japan    obstain
gm> 11.17% Elona - Register.com     opposed
gm>       Donny Simonton - Intercosmos      opposed
gm>       Steve - DomainBank        opposed
gm>       Margie - Mark Monitor     obstain
gm> 45.45% Bruce Bechwith - Verisign Registrar      n/c
gm>       Mike Paliage      
gm>       Steinrl - Active ISP      obstain
gm> 4.34% Bruce Tonkin - MelborneIT opposed
gm> 5.23% Tom - Bulk Registrar      opposed
gm> 1.51% Geoge - Dotster   opposed
gm>       Sigfried - Joker  opposed
gm> 8.38% Ross - Tucows     opposed
gm> 2.66% Werner - CORE     opposed
gm>       Tom - Slund.de    opposed
gm>       Jason - Media Venture     
gm>       Alice's - Rick    opposed
gm>       David W - IA Registry     opposed
gm>       Speed Names - Nicoli      opposed
gm>       Rob - NameScout   opposed

>>
>>If those 75 are responsible, collectively, for less than 50% of new
>>registrations, and it wouldn't surprise me if the  percentage was
>>VASTLY lower than that, then your points here are really
>>insignificant, and self serving.
>>
gm> Cheers
gm> Genie Livingstone

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

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

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:34:34 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Setting Up A Working Group   (was GA summary 2002-02)

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:25:57 -0800 (PST), George Kirikos wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 04:27:24 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:36:38 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> > As I pointed out in a separate posting, most of this discussion was
> > led by OpenSRS staff supported by a number of OpenSRS resellers.
> > Your summary does not fully specify the respective relationships.
<snip>

> Being a proponent of consumer choice, and against monopolies doesn't
> make me a shill for OpenSRS or any other group.

Sorry, George, my intention was not to denigrate the fine efforts of the
OpenSRS resellers but simply to press the point that, for whatever reason,
there was little representation from all of the other accredited registrars.

Nor any representation from the 240 ccTLDs and other interested parties.

> > > (iv) Working groups, sublists, etc.  As a spin-off from the deleted
> > > domains thread (which, bad enough, seems to have mostly killed that
> > > thread),
<snip>

> Personally, I think the WLS is dead (that's why I've not bothered to
> even reply to some of the "last gasp" posts that have been made, as
> most already see them as self-serving and adding little if anything to
> the decision calculus;

Yes, that was my point.  There's not that much more to say re WLS.

> If there was a working group set up, I think it might be a good thing,
> although I would only participate in it if it had authorization from a
> Greater Power (i.e. ICANN, etc.),

The "greater power" in our case is the Names Council of the DNSO.

Whilst Working Groups have been established in the past, the NC is
working with a Task Force model at present.  Each Task Force contains
one representative from each constituency and one from the GA.  That's
really quite a small, elite group of people.

For example, Phillip Sheppard seems to have his finger in all the pies from
the Business Constituency to the Names Council to the Chair of the Task
Forces to the person drafting the agendas, etc.

Now you will be aware that genuine partipation, like you have in OpenSRS
[discuss-list], requires a group with a critical mass larger than a handful
but not so large as to be unwieldy.  The Task Forces are quite clearly
captured but, even if they weren't, their size is puny.

So we must set up a Working Group.  Terms of Reference?

"A Working Group to consider and, if desirable, improve policies, practices
and procedures with respect to the systems used by registries and registrars
(whether or not they are integrated or separated).

The particular focus of the working group will be to review existing and
proposed systems for registrations, storage, transfers, amendments, expiries
and deletions of domain names.  Related issues might include registrar
accreditation, quality assurance and registrant/whois structures as well as
any contracts, agreements or economic relationships between the parties."

Whilst I'm sure the wording could be improved, I think that gets the general
idea across.

> otherwise it might be the usual thing
> where one comes up with a lot of useful questions and suggestions,
> but they go unanswered and unacknowledged...

No, the Working Group must come up with more than questions or even
suggestions.  It must come up with a reasonable framework to deal with
these important issues properly.

Have faith, George.  With sensible work output, the NC will get interested.

Best Regards
Patrick Corliss

PS    That's the last of my five postings today.  See you tomorrow !!

- --
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: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:40:27 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Setting Up A Working Group   (was GA summary 2002-02)

Tuesday, Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 5:34:34 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Sorry, George, my intention was not to denigrate the fine efforts of the
> OpenSRS resellers but simply to press the point that, for whatever reason,
> there was little representation from all of the other accredited registrars.

Some of those resellers register more names than many of the missing
registrars  :)

> Nor any representation from the 240 ccTLDs and other interested parties.

I don't see that the ccTLDs have much of an interest in this subject
really.  And I understand that isn't your point.

On your point, again I must say, if they want to be heard, the
responsibility is on them to get involved.  Having a sublist for this
would not have resolved this issue at all.

- -- 
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: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:56:30 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Registrars.com forcing customers to transfer to NSI

I saw this post from a Registrars.com customer on another list:
> I'm looking for a recommendation for a domain registrar.  I've been using
> Registrars.com and have just been notified that my domains become registered
> by Verisign or Network Solutions on 1/21 unless I move them first.  Needless
> to say, I had better act quickly.

Then saw the notice on their website:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
In June of 2001, Registrars.com, Inc. was acquired by VeriSign, Inc.,
the world's leading provider of domain name registration and trust
services.  This acquisition affords individuals and businesses an
entire suite of world class Internet identity and trust services that
all businesses need in order to establish, promote, and protect their
identity, transactions and communications on the Internet.  Grow an
online presence with a full range of domain name offerings, Web site
tools, digital certificates and payment services.

Registrars.com will be phasing out its Web site and transitioning it
to VeriSign.  As a result of this migration, Registrars.com will not
be accepting any new customers or partners on this site.  VeriSign
offers all the same products that you have come to enjoy with
Registrars.com plus additional products and services to help grow your
online presence.  VeriSign welcomes the opportunity to have you as a
customer or partner and look forward to becoming your domain name
provider.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I don't see anything like this on Namesecure, another Verisign owned
registrar.

While Registrars.com's customer service was never impressive to start
with, I hope their customers wise up and move to other registrars
before the 21st, when they find their customer service levels dropping
to the horrible Verisign/NSI level.

It's the registrants being screwed here.

- -- 
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: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:09:36 -0800
From: Paul Stahura <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the  Few

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19E32.D89129B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Ron,
 
1) WLS will not benefit mainstream users because they will be at
a disadvantage because they will not know for certain that
their name is dropping, or for that mater, will ever drop.
Plus since WLS is first-come-first served, most names 
that people know will likely be dropping will have a subscription
before the mainstream user even knows this system exist.
A better solution would be the round-robin allocation system
proposed by MIT/Tucows.
Also, thanks for the stats, but the real informative stats would be
what percent of SnapBack ripen in the first month.  That is the 
stat that will tell us all how many of your customers are mainstream users,
not the stats you gave.
And speaking of information from you, please tell us the nature of the
intellectual property you claim for a "wait-list".  I believe the concept 
of a "wait-list" service has probably been in existence since before the
patent office existed, but still I'd like to see what you claim your
innovation is, besides applying "wait-list" to domain names, 
if that is an innovation.
 
2)  I think you are flat-out wrong in your characterization of the registrar
conference call.
Nice attempt at spinning it as much as you can toward WLS, though.
Please note that there was not one single registrar who
voted "for" the WLS service.  None. Some said that under no
circumstances would they offer WLS to their customers.
I could tell by their voices and words that they are outraged not just about
WLS and it effect on competition, but about the "its already done" press
releases.  
And, believe me, it is not easy
for a company to bash your monopoly supplier (Verisign) on any issue.
I think many are afraid to do it (me included).  
Yet no registrar is in favor of WLS.
And those who vote "no to WLS" do not have an interest in maintaining
the status quo, as you say they do.  
They want to implement something better for everyone, which
we nearly all agree is not the current system.  
If the question had been WLS as-is: "yes" or "no"
it would be not just a consensus "no" but a  *unanimous*  "no" 
(with the exception of registrars
that are owned by Verisign, or are related to your company,
that even though they are related parties may still vote "no").
Since Montevideo (or for that matter, ever), I have not heard 
any registrar say they support WLS.  
If one does, please let  me know.  
A "why" would also help.
 
As for your other statements:
 
regarding WLS on registrant's own names....
I recommend, that if WLS is implemented, and I do not
recommend that it is, that registrants be prohibited from
getting WLS on their own name since there is no purpose
to it. I think Rick is saying that without this, these mainstream
users will be duped into paying the exorbitant fee for nothing.
It is completely lame to state that the purchase of a WLS on your
own name is insurance, or as a "backstop" or for any other reason,
because if the name is dropped in error registrants should be able
to get the name back regardless if there is a WLS on it or not.  
You are already spreading confusion, as I predicted.
 
regarding load...
I was surprised to hear you and Chuck say that
WLS is not intended to solve the load problem.  
This means that we all agree that someone will have to implement
another method to fix *that* (the load) problem.  Also, if WLS is not
intended
to solve the load problem, what problem is it solving?
The problem of funds being low in your bank account?
It is obvious to everyone that WLS does not remove a load problem,
and in fact will create another load problem during "spikes" when the
information that a names will be dropping is publicly released.  Chuck
admitted
this when he said that Verisign already figured that the system needed
to be sized larger to handle this load spike.
 
regarding gamming WLS...
WLS is not simple concept. It is complicated, as many people reading this
probably 
already know.  This creates confusion.  
And it creates an excuse for a more expensive system.
And it creates more possibilities for gaming.   You admit 
in your document that it is hard to build a WLS system that is game-proof.
A simpler system such as MIT/Tucows is inherently less "game-able".
Also I, personally, hope that the WLS system is not "connected
to the A root", as you say it must be.  Also, if there is a question about
how
much a WLS system would cost to build, why not make requirements and put it
up for bid?
I maintain that it would cost much less than your current system because
it would not have to have a "snapper array" deployed to grab names in the
batch pool.  I suggest it would be easier and cheaper to build a simpler
system such as MIT/tucows proposal, or to modify the current system,
which you admit we will have to do anyway.
 
You keep going on about "vested interest" in the status quo, like that is a
reason
not one registrar supports WLS, while you are the company that stands to
gain
the most if the WLS system is implemented.  
We do not support WLS because:
1) It will not benefit the mainstream user
2) It removes competition and differentiation
3) Worse, it gives one registrar an advantage over the others.
 
NOT because we have a "vested interest" in the status quo,
which we don't by the way.  Most of us would like to see a different
system in place.  Not WLS and not the current set-up, but the
WLS is so wrong, that most, if not all of us, would accept 
the current set-up over WLS.  No one has more of a vested
interest to see WLS happen than you.  It is your full-time job
to see that it happens.  I wish it was mine because then I'd
have more time to confront your propaganda (as a complement,
I'd like to say I wish I had your talent in sending out press releases).
I confess though that eNom would like to continue to
compete with you instead of being forced to pay you for something
that we are all already doing and competing at.
That is my interest, vested or otherwise.
I assume your other competitors feel the same.
 
WLS is not "iron-clad", as you state.  Unless you mean it is "iron-clad" to
give you a monopoly revenue stream, which I would agree with.  What about
people
buying a WLS subscription on a name that is not set to expire
for 10 years? What about the fact that the risk is more for people who don't
know that a name is about to be deleted, vs. someone who does?
What about the fact that it is useless to buy a subscription on 
your own name?  What about the three-switching rule, 
how will we know the count?  What about the cost?  What about the
load spike?  What about pinging the root server, or requesting the
zone file, to be the first to find the information that a name is no longer
there, and therefore, is about to be dropped?
In all your thinking about "gaming", didn't this cross your mind?
If anyone takes some time to study this complicated and 
subtly tricky system, which luckily they are now taking the time to do, 
they'd see these problems (and more) which I've already outlined in 
eNom's position paper.  
 
Regarding differentiation...
How can we differentiate when we all have to use the WLS system?
We are differentiated now.  Any registrar can use the current system,
and many do, in different ways.  How about a poll of the registrars
to find out how they think they will be able to differentiate except 
based on price.
At least the current system lets us differentiate.
You say with WLS we will be able to compete with our "site designs",
"information products" etc and that we can innovate with 
"notification of previously wait-list names recent availability".
What a bunch of bunk.  You think freedom to change our
"site design" is real competition? or offering "information products"?
We already do that anyway.  Each of us has a different looking site, for
example.
WLS model does not give the world *more* competition, it gives less.
You might as well have said we could compete because
we still have the freedom to offer toaster ovens with each WLS
subscription.  Were is the competition to offer different models?
First-come-first-served, auction, random, your "wait-list" model, 
eNom's subscription model, etc.?  
I wish I could truly compete with the other
fiercely competitive registrars just by innovating some creative 
graphics and putting them up on eNom's site.
I wish eNom will be able to compete with Verisign-registrar
in selling WLS subscriptions, but it will
be difficult since Verisign-registrar will know beforehand 
when most of the names will be dropping, and eNom won't.
 
Regarding the cake and eating it...
There is no paradox because
the price is not the factor when it comes to disadvantaging 
mainstream users.  It is knowledge.  
First, with WLS, the people 
(not mainstream customers)  who have 
the knowledge of which names are dropping, and when, 
will have the advantage.  Only non-mainstream users will 
have access to this information before making a risk-free 
WLS subscription purchase. 
Second, one registrar has much more of this information
than the others. 
At least with the other proposed systems,
every registrar has an equal chance, and therefore they can
implement whatever methods they choose to serve whatever
customer base they choose.
 
YET,
You still miss (I assume you are not just ignoring it) the main point of
eNom's position
which is people have an incentive to buy WLS subscriptions from the
registrar who knows the name will be dropping becuase then the WLS
subscriber will incur
much less risk (ok, zero risk) that it won't drop.  The WLS subscriber wants
to make sure the names
will drop so that their $40 will not be for nothing. Verisign registrar has
this information for half of the names, therefore they have a massive
advantage
over the rest of the registrars.  It is a flaw in the *model*, not in the
price,
even though the price, additionally, is outrageous.
Even if the company who would be getting this advantage was not the same
company
implementing WLS (which raises concerns to many), 
the WLS model still has this flaw.  WLS provides
a way for Verisign registry to advantage Verisign Registar in signing up WLS
customers
and therefore a way for them to "delete" their names before the rest
of us get an equal opportunity to register them.  
 
Where is the competition?
Where is the equality and fairness amongst registrars?
 
Paul 
eNom, Inc.

 
 
- -----Original Message-----
From: Ron Wiener [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 8:24 AM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

Rather than respond to individual response documents and e-mail posts,
please find attached a concise document, in PDF format.
 
Cheers,
Ron

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19E32.D89129B0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:o =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>

<META content=3DWord.Document name=3DProgId>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<META content=3D"Microsoft Word 10" name=3DOriginator><LINK=20
href=3D"cid:[email-masked]" =
rel=3DFile-List><o:SmartTagType=20
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"=20
name=3D"PostalCode"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType=20
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"=20
name=3D"State"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType=20
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"=20
name=3D"City"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType=20
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"=20
name=3D"Street"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType=20
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"=20
name=3D"place"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType=20
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"=20
name=3D"address"></o:SmartTagType><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
  <o:DoNotRelyOnCSS/>
 </o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <w:WordDocument>
  <w:Zoom>95</w:Zoom>
  <w:SpellingState>Clean</w:SpellingState>
  <w:GrammarState>Clean</w:GrammarState>
  <w:DocumentKind>DocumentEmail</w:DocumentKind>
  <w:EnvelopeVis/>
  <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
 </w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>st1\:* {
	BEHAVIOR: url(#default#ieooui)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]-->
<STYLE>@font-face {
	font-family: Verdana;
}
@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; =
mso-header-margin: .5in; mso-footer-margin: .5in; mso-paper-source: 0; =
}
P.MsoNormal {
	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; =
mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; =
mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; =
mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; =
mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; =
mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; =
mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single
}
A:visited {
	COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
	COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single
}
P {
	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: =
"Times New Roman"; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; =
mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; =
mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
	FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-STYLE: normal; =
FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; TEXT-DECORATION: none; text-underline: none; =
mso-style-type: personal-compose; mso-style-noshow: yes; =
mso-ansi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; =
mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; =
text-line-through: none
}
DIV.Section1 {
	page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
 /* Style Definitions */=20
 table.MsoNormalTable
	{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
	mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-style-parent:"";
	mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
	mso-para-margin:0in;
	mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=3DEN-US style=3D"tab-interval: .5in" vLink=3Dpurple =
link=3Dblue>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>Ron,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>1) WLS=20
will not benefit mainstream users because they will be =
at</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>a=20
disadvantage because they will not know for certain =
that</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>their=20
name is dropping, or for that mater, will ever =
drop.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Plus=20
since WLS is first-come-first served, most names </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>that=20
people know will likely be dropping will have a =
subscription</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>before=20
the mainstream user even knows this system exist.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>A=20
better solution would be the round-robin allocation =
system</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>proposed by MIT/Tucows.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Also,=20
thanks for the stats, but the real informative stats would=20
be</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>what=20
percent of SnapBack ripen in the first month.&nbsp; That is the=20
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>stat=20
that will tell us all how many of your customers are mainstream=20
users,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>not=20
the stats you gave.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>And=20
speaking of information from you, please tell us the nature of=20
the</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>intellectual property you claim for a "wait-list".&nbsp; I =
believe the=20
concept </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>of a=20
"wait-list" </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>service has probably been in existence since =
before=20
the</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>patent=20
office existed, but still I'd like to see what you claim=20
your</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>innovation is, besides applying "wait-list" to domain names,=20
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>if=20
that </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>is an innovation.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>2)&nbsp; I think you are flat-out wrong in your =
characterization of the=20
registrar conference call.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Nice=20
attempt at spinning it as much as you can toward WLS,=20
though.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Please=20
note that there was not one single registrar who</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=
 size=3D2>voted=20
"for" the WLS service.&nbsp;&nbsp;None. Some said that under=20
no</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>circumstances would they offer WLS to their=20
customers.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>I=20
could tell by their voices and words&nbsp;that they are outraged not =
just=20
about</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>WLS=20
and it effect on competition,&nbsp;but about the "its already done" =
press=20
releases.&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>And,=20
believe me,&nbsp;it is not easy</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>for a=20
company to bash your monopoly supplier (Verisign) on any=20
issue.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>I=20
think many are afraid to do it (me included).&nbsp; =
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Yet no=20
registrar is in favor of WLS.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>And those who vote "no to WLS" do not have =
an interest=20
in maintaining</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>the status quo, as you say they do.&nbsp;=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>They want to implement something better=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>for everyone,=20
which</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>we nearly all agree is not the current =
system.&nbsp;=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>If the question had been WLS as-is: "yes" or =

"no"</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>it would be not just a consensus "no" but a=20
&nbsp;*unanimous*&nbsp; "no" </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>(with the exception of=20
registrars</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>that are owned by Verisign, or are related =
to your=20
company,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>that even though they are related parties =
may still=20
vote "no")</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff><SPAN =
class=3D373431121-15012002>.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>Since Montevideo (or for that matter, ever), =
I have not=20
heard </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>any registrar say they=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>support WLS.&nbsp;=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>If one does, please let&nbsp;=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>me know.&nbsp;=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>A "why" would also=20
help.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>As for your other=20
statements:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>regarding WLS on registrant's own =
names.</SPAN>.<SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>..</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>I =
recommend, that=20
if WLS is implemented, and I do not</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>recommend that it is, that registrants be =
prohibited=20
from</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>getting WLS on their own name since there is =
no=20
purpose</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>to it. I think Rick is saying that without =
this, these=20
mainstream</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>users will be duped into paying the =
exorbitant fee for=20
nothing.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>It is completely lame to state that&nbsp;the =
purchase=20
of a WLS on your</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>own name is insurance, or as a "backstop" or =
for any=20
other reason,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>because if the name is dropped in error =
registrants=20
should be able</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>to get the name back regardless if there is =
a WLS on it=20
or not.&nbsp; </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>You are already spreading confusion, as I=20
predicted.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>regarding =
load...</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>I was surprised to hear you and Chuck say=20
that</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>WLS is not intended to=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>solve the load =
problem.&nbsp;=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>This means that we all agree that someone =
will have to=20
implement</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>another method to fix *that* (the=20
load)&nbsp;problem.&nbsp; Also, if WLS is not=20
intended</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>to solve the load problem, what problem is =
it=20
solving?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>The problem of funds being low in your bank=20
account?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>It is obvious to everyone that WLS=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>does not remove a load =

problem,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>and in fact will create another load problem =
during=20
"spikes" when the</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>information that a names will be dropping is =
publicly=20
released.&nbsp; Chuck admitted</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>this when he said that Verisign already =
figured that=20
the system needed</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>to be sized larger to handle this load=20
spike.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>regarding gamming=20
WLS...</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>WLS is not simple concept. It is =
complicated,&nbsp;as=20
many people reading this probably </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>already know.&nbsp; This creates =
confusion.&nbsp;=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>And it creates an excuse for a&nbsp;more =
expensive=20
system.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>And it creates more possibilities for=20
gaming.&nbsp;&nbsp; You admit </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>in your document that it is hard to build a =
WLS system=20
that is game-proof.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>A simpler system such =
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN =
class=3D373431121-15012002>as=20
MIT/Tucows is inherently less =
"game-able".</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>Also I, personally, hope that the WLS system =
is not=20
"connected</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>to the A root", as you say it must be.&nbsp; =
Also, if=20
there is a question about how</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>much a WLS system would cost to build, why =
not make=20
requirements and put it up for bid</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>I maintain that it would cost much less than =
your=20
current system because</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>it would not have to have a "snapper array" =
deployed to=20
grab names in the</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>batch pool.&nbsp; I suggest it would be =
easier and=20
cheaper to build a simpler</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>system such as MIT/tucows proposal, or to =
modify the=20
current system,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>which you admit we will have to do=20
anyway.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>You keep going on about "vested interest" in =
the status=20
quo, like that is a reason</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>not one registrar supports WLS, while you =
are the=20
company that stands to gain</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>the most if the WLS system is =
implemented.&nbsp;=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>We do not support WLS=20
because:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>1) It will not benefit the mainstream=20
user</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>2) It removes competition and=20
differentiation</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>3) Worse, it gives one registrar an =
advantage over the=20
others.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>NOT because we have a "vested interest" in =
the status=20
quo,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>which we don't by the way.&nbsp; Most of us =
would like=20
to see a different</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>system in place.&nbsp; Not WLS and not the =
current=20
set-up, but the</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>WLS is so wrong, that =
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN =
class=3D373431121-15012002>most,=20
if not all of us, would accept </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>the current set-up over WLS.&nbsp; No one =
has more of a=20
vested</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>interest to see WLS happen than you.&nbsp; =
It is your=20
full-time job</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>to see that it happens.&nbsp; I wish it was =
mine=20
because then I'd</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>have more time to confront your propaganda =
(as a=20
complement,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>I'd like to say I wish I had your talent in =
sending out=20
press releases).</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>I confess though that eNom would like to =
continue=20
to</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>compete with you instead of being forced to =
pay you for=20
something</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>that we are all already doing and competing=20
at.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>That is my interest, vested or=20
otherwise.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>I assume your other competitors feel the=20
same.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>WLS is not "iron-clad", as you state.&nbsp; =
Unless you=20
mean it is "iron-clad" to</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>give you a monopoly revenue stream, which I =
would agree=20
with.&nbsp; What about people</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>buying a WLS subscription on a name that is =
not set to=20
expire</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>for 10 years? What about the fact that the =
risk is more=20
for people who don't</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>know that a name is about to be deleted, vs. =
someone=20
who does?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>What about the fact that it is useless to =
buy a=20
subscription on </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>your own name?&nbsp; What about the =
three-switching=20
rule, </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>how will we know =
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN =
class=3D373431121-15012002>the=20
count?&nbsp; What about the cost?&nbsp; What about=20
the</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>load spike?&nbsp; What about pinging the =
root server,=20
or&nbsp;requesting the</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>zone file,&nbsp;to be the first to&nbsp;find =
the=20
information </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>that a name is no=20
longer</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>there, and therefore,&nbsp;is about to be=20
dropped?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>In all your thinking about "gaming", didn't =
this cross=20
your mind?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>If anyone takes some time=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>to study this =
complicated and=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>subtly tricky system, which luckily they are =
now taking=20
the time to do, </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>they'd see these problems (and more) which=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>I've already outlined =
in=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>eNom's position paper.&nbsp;=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>Regarding=20
differentiation...</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>How can we differentiate when we all have to =
use the=20
WLS system?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>We are differentiated now.&nbsp; Any =
registrar can use=20
the current system,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>and many do, in different ways.&nbsp; How =
about a poll=20
of the registrars</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>to find out how they think they will be able =
to=20
differentiate except </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>based on =
price.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>At least the current system lets us=20
differentiate.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>You say =
with WLS we will=20
be able to compete with our "site=20
designs",</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN =
class=3D373431121-15012002>"information products"=20
etc and that we can innovate with =
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN =
class=3D373431121-15012002>"notification of=20
previously wait-list names recent=20
availability".</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>What a =
bunch of=20
bunk.&nbsp; You think freedom to change=20
our</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>"site =
design" is real=20
competition? or offering&nbsp;"information=20
products"?</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>We already =
do that=20
anyway.&nbsp; Each of us has a different looking site, for=20
example.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>WLS model =
does not give=20
the world *more* competition, it gives=20
less.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>You might =
as well have=20
said we could compete because</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>we still =
have the=20
freedom to offer toaster ovens with each=20
WLS</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN =
class=3D373431121-15012002>subscription.&nbsp; Were=20
is the competition to offer different=20
models?</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN =
class=3D373431121-15012002>First-come-first-served,=20
auction, random, your "wait-list" model,=20
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>eNom's =
subscription=20
model, etc.?&nbsp; </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>I wish I =
could truly=20
compete with the other</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>fiercely =
competitive=20
registrars just by innovating some creative=20
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>graphics =
and putting=20
them up on eNom's site.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>I wish eNom =
will be able=20
to compete with =
Verisign-registrar</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>in selling =
WLS=20
subscriptions, but it will</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>be =
difficult since=20
Verisign-registrar will know beforehand=20
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN =
class=3D373431121-15012002>when&nbsp;most of the=20
names will </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>be dropping, and&nbsp;eNom=20
won't.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>Regarding the cake and eating=20
it...</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>There is no paradox=20
because</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>the price is not the factor when it comes to =

disadvantaging </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>mainstream users.&nbsp; It is =
knowledge.&nbsp;=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>First, with WLS, the people=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>(not =
mainstream=20
customers)&nbsp; </SPAN>who have </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>the knowledge of which names are dropping,=20
and&nbsp;when,&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>will have the advantage.&nbsp; Only =
non-mainstream=20
users will
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>have access to this information before =
making a=20
risk-free </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>WLS subscription purchase.=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>Second, one registrar has much more of this=20
information</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>than the=20
others.&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>At least with the other proposed=20
systems,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>every registrar has an equal chance, and =
therefore they=20
can</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>implement whatever methods they choose to =
serve=20
whatever</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>customer base they=20
choose.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>YET,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>You still miss (I assume you are not just =
ignoring it)=20
the main point of eNom's position</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>which is people have an incentive to buy WLS =

subscriptions from the</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>registrar who knows the=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>name will be dropping =
becuase then=20
the WLS subscriber will incur</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>much less risk (ok, zero risk) that it won't =

drop</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT =

color=3D#0000ff><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>.&nbsp; The WLS =
subscriber wants to=20
make sure the names</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>will drop so that their $40 will not be for =
nothing.=20
Verisign registrar has</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>this information for half of the names, =
therefore they=20
have a massive&nbsp;advantage</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>over the rest of the registrars.&nbsp; It is =
a flaw in=20
the *model*, not in the price,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>even though the price, additionally, is=20
outrageous.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>Even if the company who would be getting =
this=20
advantage&nbsp;was not the same =
company</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>implementing WLS (which raises=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff><SPAN class=3D373431121-15012002>concerns to many),=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>the WLS model still has this flaw.&nbsp; WLS =

provides</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>a way for Verisign registry to advantage =
Verisign=20
Registar in signing up WLS customers</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>and therefore a way for them to "delete" =
their names=20
before the rest</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>of us get an equal opportunity to register =
them.&nbsp;=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>Where is the=20
competition?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>Where is the equality and fairness amongst=20
registrars?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>Paul </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002>eNom, Inc.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D373431121-15012002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Ron Wiener=20
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, January 15, 2002 =
8:24=20
  AM<BR><B>To:</B> [email-masked]';=20
  [email-masked]'<BR><B>Subject:</B> [icann-delete] =
WLS Input=20
  - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV class=3DSection1>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p><SPAN=20
  class=3D949355715-15012002>Rather than respond to individual response =
documents=20
  and e-mail posts, please find attached a&nbsp;concise document, =
in&nbsp;PDF=20
  format.</SPAN></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p><SPAN=20
  class=3D949355715-15012002></SPAN></o:p></SPAN>&nbsp;</P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p><SPAN=20
  class=3D949355715-15012002>Cheers,</SPAN></o:p></SPAN></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p><SPAN=20
  =
class=3D949355715-15012002>Ron</SPAN></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE=
></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19E32.D89129B0--
- --
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 #994
************************