[registrars] Fw: [ga] GA summary 2002-05
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 5:57 AM
Subject: [ga] GA summary 2002-05
> This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's (and related)
> discussions and news during the 5th week of 2002. GA list archives
> are available online at
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/maillist.html>. Please
> feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate.
> Names Council Changes
> Caroline Chicoine and Guilermo Carey are stepping down from the
> Names Council. The IPC is now represented on the Council by Ellen
> Shankman (Asia), J. Scott Evans (North America), and Laurence
> Djolakian (Europe).
> Dot-Org Divestiture Comments Process
> The GA members' statement on the .org task force's report has been
> submitted to comments-dotorg last Friday, with a list of those who
> signed for and against the statement. GA members support the
> unrestricted character of .org for current and future registrations,
> emphasize the need for a complete divestiture, and thank Marc
> Schneiders for his work.
> The NCDNHC statement mainly supports the task force's draft, with an
> emphasis on a noncommercial management organization for .org. Also,
> the NCDNHC members "oppose any attempt to restrict registrations in
> .org", and "urge the board to increase competition and diversity",
> "by ensuring that the market position of existing dominant actors
> are not entrenched nor enhanced through participation in, taking an
> interest in, or contracting to deliver critical services to the new
> .org management organization."
> The business constituency's comments agree on that particular point
> (pretty much verbatim), but support restricted access which is to be
> "applied in the least interventionist manner by way of ex-post
> challenge to future new registrations" , and the "sponsored" model
> for future management of .org.
> The gTLD constituency has no comments on the final report itself
> "that can be meaningfully expressed in a public comment" - whatever
> the latter part of the sentence actually means. However they are
> "concerned" by the business and non-commercial constituencies' notes
> quoted above, and call a prohibition like the one suggested
> "fundamentally anti-competitive". Also, the gTLD constituency says,
> excluding certain players could increase prices and hinder the
> performance of the .org registry because "the limitation may also
> exclude provision of services by the most efficient and reliable
> Milton Mueller replies to this that "if we were concerned
> exclusively with who was the low-cost provider we might not need to
> divest .org at all."
> (i) WLS. Chuck Gomes of Verisign submitted a revised proposal for
> WLS, and a document titled "Justification for a registry-based Wait
> Listing Service". In these documents, Verisign proposes the
> following process: Questions about the revised proposal should be
> provided until February 8 (this Friday). Verisign will respond
> until February 15. Final feedback should be submitted to Verisign
> until March 1st.
> In a follow-up to Chuck's announcement, George Kirikos asks whether
> existing SnapBack holders are going to be grandfathered into the WLS
> system, and whether Verisign is continuing the current bulk deletion
> process. According to George, there have been no such deletions for
> weeks. There doesn't seem to be any answer on these questions, and
> no rebuttal of George's claim concerning current bulk deletion
> practices. <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00781.html>
> In another note, Kristy McKee argues that WLS "simply adds another
> layer and increases the amount of money spent". According to her,
> "those individuals and businesses currently 'pounding' on the whois
> database will continue to do so". Instead of opening up new
> business opportunities, she argues, Verisign should improve their
> current registry system.
> Don Brown is not the only one to remark that the new proposal isn't
> too different from the old one. As he sees it, "the only difference
> [...] is the marketing spin on the objections". In particular, he
> disputes Verisign's claims that "offering the WLS at the registry
> level is the only way to maximize consumer value for such a
> service", and that "the purchaser is free to decide how much it is
> worth and to act accordingly": "When there is only one source of
> supply, [...] the consumer will pay the tax man, because they have
> no choice." <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00806.html>
> (ii) Domain hoarding (this is also a deleted domains handling issue,
> and may be something you want to think about when discussing WLS).
> Marc Schneiders posted whois output concerning a domain registered
> with register.com. The domain expired on Feb 21 2001 (two thousand
> and one). Marc asks in what century the domain is going to be
> released. <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00832.html>
> (iii) Names Council Elections. The discussion on Names Council
> elections continued mainly on the council's own mailing list.
> However, there were some notes on the GA list, including two replies
> (by David Farrar and Don Brown) on the gTLD statement on the
> elections. Both seem to agree with the gTLD constituency that the
> motion under debate should be deferred. As David puts it, "terms of
> office and term limits should not be changed in such a way which
> affect(s) an incumbent."
> In a different part of the discussion, David also argues against
> Caroline Chicoine's revised motion to waive the provision of the
> Rules of Procedure for the DNSO, which prohibits a retiring chair
> from running for re-election. He notes that waivers generally are
> used in exceptional circumstances, and expresses his hope that there
> is more than one member of the names council which would be suitable
> for the job. He also suggests a rotating chairmanship, like it is
> known from the European Union's Presidency. (This message was also
> forwarded to the council list.)
> To this, Jeff Neuman of Neustar replies that the gTLD response is
> advocating precisely such a rotating chairmanship.
> A Names Council vote on the revised motion is about to be closed on
> February 5, 2002; results are due on Wednesday, February 6. On the
> same day, the nomination period for the GA chair begins.
> (iv) Renewal after expiry. Abel Wisman asks about Enom charging
> customers USD 20 surcharge for renewals after expiry date. To this,
> Rick Wesson replies that "most registrars contain a provision in
> their registration agreements that reserve(s) the right to charge a
> customer to 'revive'" such a registration. According to Rick, there
> "may" be a lot of work involved with this, which justifies the
> surcharge. <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00843.html>,
> (v) Russ Smith on Verisign. Russ Smith of consumer.net sent four
> messages complaining about Verisign's business practices.
> Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html