Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #999
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, January 16 2002         Volume 01 : Number 999

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 04:35:03 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Answers please.

Harold and all assembly members or other interested parties,

Harold Whiting wrote:

> At 09:46 PM 1/15/2002 -0800, Ron Wiener wrote:
> >Walsh,
> >
> >The data is based on only active subscriptions in our system, not historical
> >sales records.  You can't get fresher data than this.  If you refuse to read
> >the material, I refuse to answer any more of your unproductive questions.
> >
> >-Ron
>
> again with the impudent arrogant disrespect, shame on you.  His name is
> either "William", William Walsh", or even "Mr. Walsh".  Does your disregard
> for common courtesy  infer that we should simply address you as "Wiener"?
> Let's not degrade this discussion any further with this kind of nonsense, ok?
> ==========================

  Harold this is not ok IMHO.  If you wish to conduct a political correct
speech class, or attend one, please do so on some other forum.   As long
as I have been participating on various E-Mail based forums, addressing
someone by their last name is not rude in a any way, nor should be viewed
as such and is done fairly frequently...
===============================

Now to your questions below....

>
>
> Now, Ron, please answer this:
>
> Q: you registered ~23,500 names in 2001 True/False?

  Fair question, and one I also would like to see an answer to.
However you should understand that Ron nor Snapnames
is compelled or required to answer this question on this forum.
However this is a question that the ICANN Staff or BoD
should be asking with respect to the Registrar contract agreement
and potential abuse if a claim is filed.

>
>
> Q: you had ~$3M in revenues in 2001  True/False?

  If I were Ron or anyone at Snapnames I would tell you to
go smoke a pickle as my answer to this question.  I don't
see any need to know what the revenue of Snapnames is
nor is it any of my, your or anyone's business.

>
> - snip -

  The rest of you questions are good an valid questions IMHO.  But
they are questions that the ICANN BOD and staff as well as perhaps
the NTIA should be asking.  Therefore you may want to request
and post them to the ICANN BOD and staff as well as the NTIA
as well as possibly rephrase them.

>
>
> Q: Since you have not offered the shorter 12 month SnapBack subscription
> for anywhere close to a year, you cannot supply us with empirical data to
> support an answer to the question that many of us really want to know - How
> many SnapBacks go to term and expire without ever providing the subscriber
> with a name?  This group would likely be largely made up of all of your
> precious "Jills" and "mainstream consumers" and not "domain speculators",
> and do not give me the "IP Community" BS here, please.
> Basically, How many people end up with nothing to show for thier money?
>
> Q: Simple math, assuming the above figures are in line, shows us that even
> at the higher SnapBack cost of $49, the names registered in 2001 can only
> account for less than $1.2M  I doubt that you can tell us with a straight
> face that you really sold ~$1.8M worth of "SnapShot" subscriptions, did you?
>
> That leaves us with well over 50% of all SnapBack subscriptions sold last
> year unfulfilled. Yet you claim that "the majority" ripen in the first 60 days?
>
> I have no reason to believe that, if WLS were to be put in place,  the
> percentage of unfulfilled subscriptions would change by much.  This would
> mean, at a 5% level (as you have suggested) that over 700,000 people may
> simply be "throwing thier money away". Call me old fashioned, but to me
> this seems wrong to even contemplate offering such a thing to the public.
> I have seen concerns about this type of thing brought up by many different
> registrars, always with no response from SnapNames or VGRS to assure us
> that anything would prevent this.  I see it as becoming the majority of the
> WLS subscriptions, if implemented as proposed, due to FUD.  This concerns
> me, as a consumer, to think that the Registrar business will now be forced
> to sell a product to unsuspecting "main stream" consumers that has a likely
> chance of providing those same consumers with absolutely no performance for
> thier money.  Does the Registrar Industry need more "Black Clouds" of
> unscrupulous behavior hanging over it?  Oh, I forgot... It is for the
> Public good because it "fights" the "abusive speculators".  Personally, I
> see this whole proposal as Predatory itself.
>
> Q: What is the Patent Pending on your "technology"?  Where is it filed?
>
> Q: Were VeriSign to implement some similar process by themselves, without
> SnapNames, since SnapNames would not be able to operate as they are now,
> would SnapNames sue VeriSign?  If so, what would this suit be for, patent
> infringement or Anti Trust violations?  I expect no answer to this question.
>
> Harold Whiting
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:03:14 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefit  s of the  Few

Ron,

I may quite sure have been missing something, but would you please 
be so kind to explain to these various lists what precisely the 
heading 

<center>
"SnapNames Internal Data <bold>as of January, 2000</bold>" 
</center>

(2000, not 2002!) on page 2 of your PDF file is supposed to mean, 
then?

Thanks,
<nofill>
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/

On 2002-01-15 21:46:44 -0800, Ron Wiener wrote:
>From: Ron Wiener <[email-masked]>
>To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: [email-masked],
>	"Registrars@Dnso. Org" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: RE: Re[5]: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. 
>	 Benefit  s of the  Few
>Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:46:44 -0800
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
>
>Walsh,
>
>The data is based on only active subscriptions in our system, not historical
>sales records.  You can't get fresher data than this.  If you refuse to read
>the material, I refuse to answer any more of your unproductive questions.  
>
>-Ron
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 7:13 PM
>> To: William X Walsh
>> Cc: Ron Wiener; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> Registrars@Dnso. Org
>> Subject: Re[5]: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs.
>> Benefit s of the Few
>> 
>> Tuesday, Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 7:10:44 PM, William X Walsh wrote:
>> 
>> > Tuesday, Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 6:41:58 PM, Ron Wiener wrote:
>> 
>> >> William,
>> 
>> >> I don't know how you missed it, but in the attached - a copy of what
>> was
>> >> posted this morning - we answered your specific questions regarding our
>> >> customer mix in great detail, pie chart and all.
>> 
>> > No, all you do is use the numbers to throw up more smokescreens,
>> > and used data that is over 1 year old, before your company had really
>> > swung into the position it is in now.
>> 
>> Correction, data that is nearly 2 years old.
>> 
>> You seriously want us to take you seriously when you play these kinds
>> of shenanigans?
>> 
>> --
>> 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

</nofill>
- --
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 08:10:27 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Answers please.

Harold Whiting wrote:
> 
> At 11:57 PM 1/15/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >Harold, so that you don't frustrate yourself, just know that I will no
> longer respond to you or William X Walsh on the public boards.  I've
> received multiple e-mails from people who've been on the ga list for a long
> time cautioning me about you two, and from what I've seen, they speak from
> experience.  Shame on me for my naiveté in tangling with you earlier.
> >
> >-RW
> 
> Interesting response, considering I have only been a member of the GA list
> for less than a week and have had no problems with anyone else.
> Additionally, the questions I posed stand on thier own, no matter who asks
> them.  How convenient that you refuse to answer them.  DO you not think
> that others want these answers too?  I believe they do, and have asked as
> well.  How long will you be able to dodge the issues that we ALL want
> addressed?

It's pretty evident that both Ron Wiener and Chuck Gomes
are not providing ANY answers to the questions and
concerns articulated by numerous members of the GA. 

It is also quite evident that there is a general CONSENSUS
among the members of the GA which clearly speaks against
the implementation of the Verisign WLS proposal.

Further, it is more than patently clear that the only
explicit support for the WLS proposal comes from the two
companies which stand to gain by it: Verisign and
SnapNames.

Nonetheless, based on the press reports and other
publicized activities surrounding the issue, it appears as
if Verisign is going to implement their WLS schema and
basically force it on everyone.  So much for CONSENSUS
based decision models!  If ICANN and the US DOC allow
Verisign to implement this schema it will be evidence of
what I stated on this list during the WG-Review exactly
one year ago today:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01451.html

On Monday, January 15, 2001 I wrote: "I believe
"consensus" is a recipe for gang rule; the most powerful
and organized gangs rule!"

In the absence of any real definition of any consensus
mechanism or qualification(s), it is not surprising that
Verisign will be allowed to get away with their WLS
proposal.  Who is truly at fault?  In my opinion: the US
Government and their DOC.  Not surprisingly, the USA is
not governed by consensus policy but they expect to
enforce such a rule on the rest of the world via their
control of the DNS: which is (in their own words) a public
resource!  It is becoming increasingly clear that
consensus policy within ICANN and its sphere of influence
means US corporate domination of an international
community.  The great irony of it all is that a US company
like Microsoft has to face charges of monopolistic
activities, while Verisign is to be rewarded.

As for the ludicrous WLS proposal itself, only a dolt
could deny that anyone who holds any valuable domains will
be checking to see if their names are on a WLS, and that
they would more than likely take the appropriate
countermeasure (renewal of registration) should they
discover such a state of affairs.  If we were to discover
that one of our domain names was on a WLS, rest assured
that we would renew such registrations assiduously. Anyone
opting for WLS on one of our domains would be wasting
their money.  Not that Verisign cares about value for
money or anything outmoded like that...

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
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 14:28:43 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Draft: Registrars' response to  WLS

A draft of the registrars' constituency's response to WLS is 
available at  <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01846.html>.

According to that draft, "the RC has a number of key concerns with 
WLS: a) price, b) transparency, c) benefit to the Internet, and d) 
lack of a solution".

- -- 
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: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:17:53 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of  the  Few

I think you missed the point.

Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 8:23:22 PM, Eric Dierker <[email-masked]> wrote:
ED> Whoa,
Please, just save it.

ED> This is neither a democracy nor a trade union nor a professional
ED> society.
ED> This is an open and transparent bottom up consensus oriented
ED> corporation.  In
ED> such a case the reasonable or at least stated minority opinion
ED> should be weighed equally.  If we do not protect the minority in domain
ED> names
ED> who does?
ED> (hence the often used terms; Policy, Policing, Governance, Consensus,
ED> Regulatory)  None of these are made
ED> for the benefit of the majority but to protect the minority and bottom
ED> end
ED> users, voters and consumers.

The 75 have chosen not to be a part of the Registrar's Constituency
and, therefore, not vote or otherwise be a part of forming a
Registrar's consensus.

ED> Here in the GA when we vote one thing can be said; these interests
ED> blend.

The operative word, above, is "vote." We can't quantify the positions
of those who didn't vote. We also can't infer that the plurality of
the vote is somehow nefarious, because not everyone voted. The 75 had
an opportunity to be part of the process and, thus, cast their vote,
but obviously chose not to do so.

ED>   But
ED> from what I saw in the Registrar published matters, there were distinct
ED> groupings that suggested anything but a consensus.

With respect to the WLS proposal and per the published minutes of the
conference call, each participant vocalized their vote. The
distinctive grouping was the majority who did not favor WLS. There's
nothing wrong with that.

ED> Please fill us in on why majority financial interest is of import.

I never stated, or even remotely inferred, that to be my position.

Let's please not make any more noise about this issue.  It was only
important from the aspect of Ron Weiner's attack on Ross Raider's
veracity -- which was inaccurate and unfair.

ED> Eric

ED> Don Brown wrote:

>> 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.

- ----
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 08:26:31 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Answers please.

Good Questions.

I hope we see a response.

:)

- --
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 09:06:52 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

>From page 5 of Ron Wiener's attached pdf document:

     2. “WLS will not solve the system load problems.” This point is
     another red herring meant to divert attention toward VeriSign and
     away from the real issue – equality of customer access. It’s also
     a textbook example of inventing a theoretically perfect/complete
     solution to set up as the enemy of an actual good one. As Chuck
     Gomes has repeatedly made clear, yet others continue to pretend
     he never said it, the WLS was not intended to solve the load
     problem.

>From Paragraph 1 of the WLS proposal dated 12/31/01:

     1. Introduction
     
     In response to a formal request by Rick Wesson on behalf of the
     Registrar Constituency, VeriSign, Inc. is providing this paper to
     describe its proposed Domain Name Wait Listing Service (WLS).
     Specifically, the proposed WLS is intended to provide both (1) a
     new, streamlined business opportunity for the entire registrar
     community, and (2) some measure of relief in dealing with the
     “deleted domains” issue.

Addressing the load problem was, indeed, one of the fundamental
predicates of the proposal. Although, "some measure of relief" is
vague, at best.

I do agree with the Ron Wiener, however, in that the intention of the
proposal is clearly not to "solve" the load problem or the other
troubling aspects concerning the handling of deleted names.
Conversely, this proposal is nothing more than two companies trying to
sell their product to a group.

It is not unusual for a sales person to paint their product or
proposal in the most favorable light. Hence, there have been many
theories advanced about the potential benefits of the WLS. Many are
nothing more than speculation, conjecture and marketing "eye wash."

Ron is right, however. Neither Snap or VeriSign have a proposal on the
table which will solve the problems related to deleted names.

It is, IMHO, incumbent upon the stakeholders to focus on a resolution
to the problems associated with deleted names. The WLS proposal, by
Ron's own assertion, was not intended to, and does not, solve those
problems.  Therefore, I suggest we move on to some meaningful work.

Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 10:23:42 AM, Ron Wiener <[email-masked]> wrote:
RW> Rather than respond to individual response documents and e-mail posts,
RW> please find attached a concise document, in PDF format.
 
RW> Cheers,
RW> Ron

- ----
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 09:09:37 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the  Few

Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 11:09:52 PM, Ross Wm. Rader <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> and determined Position on the Delete issue.  Currently with the
>> recent comments of our new Chair, Thomas Rossler, it doesn't
>> seem that we will be given the RIGHT to vote on this and perhaps

RWR> For some reason,

This may be the reason (snip from 1st paragraph of WLS proposal):

     1. Introduction
     In response to a formal request by Rick Wesson on behalf of the Registrar Constituency,
     VeriSign, Inc. is providing this paper to describe its proposed Domain Name Wait Listing Service
     (WLS).

RWR>  only a very narrow selection of impacted stakeholders were
RWR> requested to feedback on the VGRS proposal. I have heard rumblings that this
RWR> may be expanded in the future, but this is only rumor at this point. It may
RWR> be the case that the registrar constituency was selected to "guinea pig" the
RWR> proposal in order that something more mature could be presented to the rest
RWR> of the DNSO - time will tell I suppose.

RWR> -rwr

RWR> ----- Original Message -----
RWR> From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
RWR> To: "Don Brown" <[email-masked]>
RWR> Cc: "genie@ magi" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
RWR> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 1:33 AM
RWR> Subject: Re: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits
RWR> of the Few

>> Don and all assembly members,
>>
>>   Don, your quite right.  In this country, my country, TX, >;) we have
>> a right, and I would argue a duty, to vote.  However the GA members
>> are not being given that opportunity on many issues, the "Delete and WLS"
>> issues or most recent interest.  This is why I and I believe Patrick
>> put out two polls for the DNSO GA members to demonstrate their
>> VOTE.  I believe that given an opportunity without fear of some
>> sort of retribution, GA members will vote.  I believe that we
>> NEED a "Delete WG" in order to come up with a GA generated
>> and determined Position on the Delete issue.  Currently with the
>> recent comments of our new Chair, Thomas Rossler, it doesn't
>> seem that we will be given the RIGHT to vote on this and perhaps
>> other issues that need addressing for instance the .ORG v5.4
>> final report from the .ORG TF, unless it happens to be a issue
>> that Thomas, our newly elected chair supports....
>>
>> Don Brown wrote:
>>
>> > 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]>
RWR> 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
>>
>> 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
>>
>>

RWR> --
RWR> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
RWR> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
RWR> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
RWR> 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 09:21:40 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS & back to basics

Has WIPO made any comments about the WLS?

I looked over their web site; but didn't find much.

~k

- --
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 09:29:23 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: [ga] RE: WLS Input

><snip>  And many of these customers are trademark owners re-acquiring
>names in which they consider themselves to have intellectual property
>rights.  See http://www.snapnames.com/corporate_clients.html.
>
>(All contents of SnapNames' website are protected from direct copying by
>applicable copyright laws.)
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>Cameron Powell
>VP of Business Development and General Counsel
>SnapNames
>115 NW First Avenue
>Suite 300
>Portland, OR  97209
>(503) 219-9990 x229    (503) 502-5030 cell    (503) 274-9749 fax
>[email-masked]
><snip>

What will you do to support the Trademark owners who already have the 
domains that match their trademarks and do not wish to discontinue use of 
them at any time?  None of your literature permits these folks to opt-out 
of your automated re-registration program.

:)

~k

- --
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 16:37:35 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] I do support WLS

Dear Folks,
an inept system usually dies from its own logic. The DNS management system 
is flawn since Jon Postel gave it to a merchant rather than to a secretary 
and that the US Congres decided through the AntiCybersquatting Act to 
organize the imposture (that a name has a life and a value independently 
from what it names) instead of rulling it out in forbiding the [re]sales of 
nothing.

WLS is the best thing which may come to the Internet as it gives anyone the 
legal tool to make a lot of money, kill Verisign and to show the ICANN an 
International Crooks Association for Network Naming. I documented on the BC 
copy to the IPC how it creates legal business squatting and leads to the 
loss of every IP rights when subscribing a domain name.

I wait for Verisign to withdraw WLS and Back-Order.
Otherwise let enjoy the fun and make some big money (Verisign documented 
that they have M$ 80 to claim "Verisign inside": could be inside our pockets).
Jefsey

- --
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 07:58:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Answers please.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

[snip]

>
> It is also quite evident that there is a general CONSENSUS
> among the members of the GA which clearly speaks against
> the implementation of the Verisign WLS proposal.
>
> Further, it is more than patently clear that the only
> explicit support for the WLS proposal comes from the two
> companies which stand to gain by it: Verisign and
> SnapNames.
>
> Nonetheless, based on the press reports and other
> publicized activities surrounding the issue, it appears as
> if Verisign is going to implement their WLS schema and
> basically force it on everyone.  So much for CONSENSUS
> based decision models!  If ICANN and the US DOC allow
> Verisign to implement this schema it will be evidence of
> what I stated on this list during the WG-Review exactly
> one year ago today:
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01451.html

there is absolutely nothing to indicate that VGRS and SnapNames can push
the WLS proposal through without Registrar consensus; this is why VGRS
asked the Registrars first.

again, there is no indication that the WLS can come into fruition without
the express consent of the DNSO.

- -rick

- --
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 11:10:40 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the  Few

> This may be the reason (snip from 1st paragraph of WLS proposal):
>
>      1. Introduction
>      In response to a formal request by Rick Wesson on behalf of the
Registrar Constituency,
>      VeriSign, Inc. is providing this paper to describe its proposed
Domain Name Wait Listing Service

So, were it not for Rick's proactive request, then no one would have been
consulted?

- -rwr

- --
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 09:58:53 -0800
From: Ron Wiener <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefit s 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_01C19EB7.75E91D60
Content-Type: text/plain

Typo, obviously.  Meant to be 2002.  We weren't even on-line until Dec of
2000, which was fully disclosed in the pricing market research document.
Thanks for pointing out this confusing error, Tom.
 
- -----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 3:03 AM
To: Ron Wiener
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefit s
of the Few
 
Ron, 
 
I may quite sure have been missing something, but would you please be so
kind to explain to these various lists what precisely the heading 
"SnapNames Internal Data as of January, 2000" 
 
(2000, not 2002!) on page 2 of your PDF file is supposed to mean, then? 
 
Thanks, 
 
- -- 
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/

On 2002-01-15 21:46:44 -0800, Ron Wiener wrote:
>From: Ron Wiener 
>To: "[email-masked]'" 
>Cc: [email-masked],
>       "Registrars@Dnso. Org" 
>Subject: RE: Re[5]: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. 
>       Benefit s of the Few
>Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:46:44 -0800
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
>
>Walsh,
>
>The data is based on only active subscriptions in our system, not
historical
>sales records. You can't get fresher data than this. If you refuse to read
>the material, I refuse to answer any more of your unproductive questions. 
>
>-Ron
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 7:13 PM
>> To: William X Walsh
>> Cc: Ron Wiener; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> Registrars@Dnso. Org
>> Subject: Re[5]: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs.
>> Benefit s of the Few
>> 
>> Tuesday, Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 7:10:44 PM, William X Walsh wrote:
>> 
>> > Tuesday, Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 6:41:58 PM, Ron Wiener wrote:
>> 
>> >> William,
>> 
>> >> I don't know how you missed it, but in the attached - a copy of what
>> was
>> >> posted this morning - we answered your specific questions regarding
our
>> >> customer mix in great detail, pie chart and all.
>> 
>> > No, all you do is use the numbers to throw up more smokescreens,
>> > and used data that is over 1 year old, before your company had really
>> > swung into the position it is in now.
>> 
>> Correction, data that is nearly 2 years old.
>> 
>> You seriously want us to take you seriously when you play these kinds
>> of shenanigans?
>> 
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> William X Walsh 
>> --
>> 
>> "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

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19EB7.75E91D60
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">

<meta name=3DProgId content=3DWord.Document>
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10">
<meta name=3DOriginator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10">
<link rel=3DFile-List href=3D"cid:[email-masked]">
<!--[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:DocumentKind>DocumentEmail</w:DocumentKind>
  <w:EnvelopeVis/>
  <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
 </w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
	mso-font-charset:0;
	mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
	mso-font-pitch:variable;
	mso-font-signature:553679495 -2147483648 8 0 66047 0;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Verdana;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
	mso-font-charset:0;
	mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
	mso-font-pitch:variable;
	mso-font-signature:536871559 0 0 0 415 0;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{mso-style-parent:"";
	margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";
	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;
	text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;
	text-underline:single;}
p
	{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0in;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0in;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";
	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
	mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:Verdana;
	mso-ascii-font-family:Verdana;
	mso-hansi-font-family:Verdana;
	color:blue;
	font-weight:normal;
	font-style:normal;
	text-decoration:none;
	text-underline:none;
	text-decoration:none;
	text-line-through:none;}
@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;}
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 link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple =
style=3D'tab-interval:.5in'>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3DVerdana><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:blue'>Typo, obviously.<span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp; </span>Meant to be 2002. <span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp;</span>We weren't even on-line until =
Dec of
2000, which was fully disclosed in the pricing market research =
document.<span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp; </span>Thanks for pointing out this =
confusing error,
Tom.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3DVerdana><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:blue'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></=
p>

<div style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in =
0in 4.0pt'>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> Thomas Roessler
[mailto:[email-masked]] <br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, January =
16, 2002
3:03 AM<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Ron Wiener<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> [email-masked]'; =
[email-masked]<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [ga] RE:
[icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefit s of the =
Few</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Ron, <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>I may
quite sure have been missing something, but would you please be so kind =
to
explain to these various lists what precisely the heading =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&quot;SnapNames Internal Data<b><span
style=3D'font-weight:bold'> as of January, 2000</span></b>&quot; =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>(2000,
not 2002!) on page 2 of your PDF file is supposed to mean, then? =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Thanks, <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>-- <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Thomas
Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3D3
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'><br>
<br style=3D'mso-special-character:line-break'>
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]><br =
style=3D'mso-special-character:line-break'>
<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>On
2002-01-15 21:46:44 -0800, Ron Wiener =
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;From:
Ron Wiener <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;To:
&quot;[email-masked]'&quot; <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;Cc:
[email-masked],<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&quot;Registrars@Dnso. Org&quot; <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;Subject:
RE: Re[5]: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Benefit s of the Few<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;Date:
Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:46:44 -0800<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;X-Mailer:
Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;Walsh,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;The
data is based on only active subscriptions in our system, not =
historical<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;sales
records. You can't get fresher data than this. If you refuse to =
read<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;the
material, I refuse to answer any more of your unproductive questions. =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;-Ron<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
- -----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
From: William X Walsh =
[mailto:[email-masked]]<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 7:13 PM<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
To: William X Walsh<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
Cc: Ron Wiener; [email-masked]; =
[email-masked];<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
Registrars@Dnso. Org<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
Subject: Re[5]: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good =
vs.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
Benefit s of the Few<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt; <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
Tuesday, Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 7:10:44 PM, William X Walsh =
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt; <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
&gt; Tuesday, Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 6:41:58 PM, Ron Wiener =
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt; <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; William,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt; <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; I don't know how you missed it, but in the attached - a copy =
of what<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
was<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; posted this morning - we answered your specific questions =
regarding
our<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; customer mix in great detail, pie chart and =
all.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt; <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
&gt; No, all you do is use the numbers to throw up more =
smokescreens,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
&gt; and used data that is over 1 year old, before your company had =
really<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
&gt; swung into the position it is in now.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt; <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
Correction, data that is nearly 2 years =
old.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt; <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
You seriously want us to take you seriously when you play these =
kinds<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
of shenanigans?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt; <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
- --<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
William X Walsh <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
- --<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt; <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
&quot;There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study =
of<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a =
lawyer<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
interprets the truth.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;&gt;
- -- Jean Giradoux<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;--<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;This
message was passed to you via the [email-masked] =
list.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;Send
mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;(&quot;unsubscribe
ga&quot; in the body of the message).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&gt;Archives
at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

</div>

</body>

</html>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19EB7.75E91D60--
- --
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 #999
************************