From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #78 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Tuesday, April 11 2000 Volume 01 : Number 078 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:36:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Patrick Greenwell Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Philip Sheppard wrote: > Charter and open > This is not a black and white choice. Even dot com has some defining > characteristics. It is not dot edu, not dot mil and not dot tv. That it is none of these TLDs is meaningless, as .com/.net/.org have become a catch-all for any entity. > Strong competition will be provided by names that add value to the name > space. A dot com2 will provide poor competition to dot com. The > point of the principles is that even a new open gTLD should, as some > commented last week, have a defining characteristic. We tried to capture > this in the original principles by > "3. Differentiation – the selection of a gTLD string should not confuse net > users and so gTLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by > the marketing and functionality associated with the string." > > This is not, as some have suggested, a call for only charter gTLDs. It > intentionally leaves it to a registry to be as chartered or as open as they > please, so long as they are different to all that has gone before them. Please describe how a prospective registry could both maintain a completely open TLD(s) akin to the .com/.net/.org NSI administers, and at the same time be required to be different from every other registry. I submit that such a requirement would have at least three gravely adverse effects on both registries and consumers: a) It would, contrary to your stated intent, force registries to run chartered TLDs in order to maintain disparity from all other registries. b) It would create fiefdoms where single registries would be responsible for all registrations pertaining to a specific charter. c) Potential new registries would be forced to choose among decreasingly attractive TLDs as monopoly(in their given purpose) chartered TLDs came into being. Robust competition is created when entities offering the same or largely similar goods/services enter a market, not by allowing a single entity to control all goods/services in a specific market as this clause would do w/r/t domain names. It's bad for the registries and it is bad for consumers. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:48:30 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven > If there's any doubt, perhaps the registries in question would like to > speak up with statistics about how many unique 1-letter, 2-letter, > 3-letter, and 4-letter SLDs remain available for registration within > each? How many were available in .com? To change the requirements for new registries is unfair trade. > Besides the point of fairness I'm trying to make, there's another very > sensible reason for not allowing any registry with pre-existing, > pre-sold registrations into the testbed: Those registries bring with > them an enormous amount of potential infringement in their SLDs, which > have not been held in check by any kind of process, be it the UDRP or > any other oversight. Just flooding namespace with those pre-existing > registrations that have sat in the shadows all this time might very > well anger the IP interests. How many problems were there in .com? Is the UDRP resolving them? If yes, then this isn't a problem. If no, then the problem isn't with the domains, it's with the UDRP. > Finally, would someone please produce the documents in which IANA > blessed these various registries with the right to start registering > domains within these TLDs? I've asked a few times here, I believe, > and haven't yet seen them. Dave will be pleased to present you with a copy of the signed gTLD-MoU, I'm sure. I'd be pleased to present you with the uncontested court testimony (as well as 3 live human witnesses) of IANA's directive to Image Online Design to show them the "running code" for .web and their approval to charge for registrations provided a suitable disclaimer were displayed. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:48:01 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 01:36 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: >Sorry, perhaps my language wasn't clear either: My problem is not with >the registrars. I am opposed to ICANN entering into an agreement with >any registry (not -rar), at least during the testbed, that contains >any existing registrations in the TLD being courted. ahh. well, me too. And CORE is not such an entity, though there ARE some others around. >I.e., any registry participating in the testbed and hosting .FOO >should be completely devoid of existing registrations in .FOO at the >inception of the testbed period. No pre-existing .FOO registrations >will be grandfathered. yes. definitely concur. >Finally, would someone please produce the documents in which IANA >blessed these various registries with the right to start registering >domains within these TLDs? I've asked a few times here, I believe, >and haven't yet seen them. That's probably because they don't exist. With respect to gTLD-MoU work (POC/CORE) there are explicit signals of IANA support, such as its signature on the MoU. However I believe that explicit permission to add gTLDs to the root did not occur. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:03:34 -0700 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven Pardon the length of this... On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 10:52:21AM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: > PROPOSAL: > > I propose that we allow no pre-sold TLDs to become part of the > testbed, and I further propose that we re-evaluate this position once > the testbed period has ended. I agree totally. There can be no pre-sold TLDs. Moreover, I am TOTALLY SUPPORTIVE of the fairness concern that underlies this proposal. The IAHC names do not have the problem you are trying to address, however. Consider: The instant that any names are publically approved by ICANN people will start considering what SLD names they may wish to register in the new TLDs, and making up their internal lists of names they might want to have. We obviously can't stop that. I, Kent Crispin, as a person who registers domain names for people, could advertise to my current customers that I will take "preregistrations" for SLDs in the new TLDs, which would mean that as soon as the TLDs become active, I will try to register the those SLDs in those new TLDs. There is no guarantee that the registrations will succeed, of course. There is no way to restrict this activity, either. An ICANN-approved registrar can do exactly the same thing. They can (and most assuredly will) start taking "preregistrations" on exactly the same basis, as soon as *any* new names are approved. They will, as a practical matter, start taking "preregistrations" as soon as there is a high probability of a name being approved. They will be forced to, by their customers. [This is exactly what happened with many of the CORE registrars -- customers would ask to be put on a waiting list, and if the registrar said "no", the customer would go to a registrar who said "yes". The competitive forces for waiting lists are *very* great.] In any case, realistically speaking, and given the international span of registrars, there is very little that can be done about this, either -- this is a level of business activity that ICANN simply can't afford the time to police. Moreover, *nobody* wants ICANN to become an intrusive international regulatory body. And anyway, there is really nothing at all wrong with registrars keeping lists of names that they will *attempt* to register on a customers behalf, should the TLD become available. Note that all that has been said so far relates directly to ICANN accredited registrars for *any* new shared-registry TLDs, and it has no necessary connection to CORE or the IAHC names. During startup of *any* new gTLDs there will certainly be an initial rush, where multiple registrars will try to register the same SLD. This will be true whether it is the registrar itself that keeps a list, or whether it is a list held by an ISP, or whether it is just an individual registrant desiring a good name. Some process needs to be in place to guarantee fair access at the registrar level -- for example, a large registrar with high bandwidth and a lot of names on a waiting queue should not be able to swamp the input to the registry when it comes on line. Small registrars should have an equal opportunity to register names. Note once again that this is a *general* problem, completely independent of CORE. It is, however, precisely the same problem that CORE had to address in the design of the CORE SRS (Note that NSI doesn't have a "startup problem" like this). CORE settled on a round-robin allocation algorithm that gave fair opportunity to each CORE registrar. ICANN will need to develop a similar algorithm to handle the startup problem, as well. [The algorithm can continue to operate after startup, but the probability of a name collision becomes much much less after the initial rush.] Presume, therefore, that before startup of any new shared gTLD, ICANN will require some fair algorithm -- call this the "round robin" algorithm (since at some level a round robin allocation will almost certainly be required). CORE currently is an accredited ICANN registrar, and as such would, AS A SINGLE ENTITY, be entitled to precisely one slot in the round robin algorithm. Say that there are 50 active CORE resellers with legacy queues of various sizes; and 100 active ICANN registrars. Each of the CORE resellers has one chance in 50 of being the next round robin slot at the CORE level, and from there has one chance in 100 of getting the round robin slot at the ICANN level. [The same issue applies to Tucows resellers: Tucows, as a whole, would get 1 slot in the ICANN round robin (though Tucows may not worry about fairness at the Tucows level).] The issue changes somewhat if CORE is also selected to be a registry for one or more of the new domains, and the TLD involved was one of the IAHC TLDs. Should the queues that the CORE registrars maintain have any precedence over the queues that an ICANN-accredited registrar might have? No, absolutely not. EVERY registrar must have fair and equal access to the registry, whether a CORE member or not, or indeed whether the registrar is CORE itself, or not. This would probably require some kind of serious split between CORE as a registry and CORE as an ICANN approved registrar. That's life. It is, in my opinion, an absolute requirement that a registry give all registrars precisely equitable access, and that indeed, there be *no* presold registrations. But there is no way whatsoever to prevent registrars and others from keeping private queues, and, in fact, they are relatively harmless. > The IAHC 7, on the other hand, were of dubious value, were not in the > roots, and were only reachable by those willing to configure their > systems to handle multiple independent roots. Nope. They were never reachable at all. CORE never set up alternate roots (except for internal testing purposes); and it never sold registrations in any alternate roots. > They should not have > been pre-sold as though they were going to be added to the roots > any day now. However, if I recall the ad copy, that's how CORE was > pushing them. Nope. CORE has *never* presold any registrations, at all. Individual CORE registrars have kept private queues, as described above. There is nothing that can be done about that; it will happen with any new names. [...] > Introducing new gTLDs where the namespace has been presold does not > solve this problem. It simply introduces new gTLDs in which all the > "good names" have been taken before the public as a whole has a chance > to register anything in them. There is, as described, an intrinsic startup problem. But as far as CORE is concerned, it is most emphatically the case that there are *no* presold registrations; *every* ICANN-accredited registrar will have a precisely equal probability of being the one to register any given name. [...] > Anyone who registered such a name knew, or should have known, the > risk they were taking by giving money to a registrar selling SLDs under > TLDs not in the sanctioned roots. There should have been -- indeed, > could not have been -- any guarantee that those registrations would > carry over if the TLD was ever added to the roots. On the whole, no guarantees were made. CORE as a whole doesn't have any realistic way to control the exact wording of an individual registrars web site, of course, and that is true of ICANN in dealing with ICANN-accredited registrars. [It is my personal opinion that there were indeed some CORE registrars with lousy ethics, just as it is my opinion that there are some ICANN-accredited registrars with lousy ethics. That is completely to be expected.] > If people want to keep operating TLDs outside the authoritative roots, > fine. CORE has *never* done that. > if people want to sell SLDs within them, fine. CORE has *never* done that. > If people are > willing to give these people money for those SLDs, again fine. Some CORE registrars have charged processing fees for maintaining a waiting list -- but that's a completely reasonable business practice. And at the beginning, there were a very few CORE registrars who made outlandish claims that were, in my opinion, borderline fraud. But CORE is a membership organization that has no realistic way of policing such nonsense, and as the probabilities and the realities became obvious, the idiocy went away. The fact is that preregistrations don't guarantee anything of significance to the "preregistrant", and at this point most people realize that. > But > don't presume that you're doing a public good by arguing to add a > presold gTLD to the root to alleviate the current shortage of names > within namespace. It's painfully obvious when you're thinking with > your wallet. The public good comes from the fact that there are users out there who know the IAHC TLDs -- POC regularly gets mail from people asking when they will be able to register in one of the TLDs or another, and the names are very well vetted. These names have been out in the public eye for two years now, and they are not bad names. Aside from a couple of obvious examples, there are no conflicts. It may well be that some of the old CORE registrars make a few dollars when they shake the dust off of their old web site and find some people on their lists who are actually still interested, and who manage to make it through the probabilities, but it would not be a giant windfall -- maybe they could treat the employees to pizza or something? Please note that I am not thinking with my wallet. CORE has never paid me a dime. In fact if I were thinking with my wallet I would be doing something else right now. Kent - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:06:34 -0700 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 01:48:01PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > At 01:36 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: > >Sorry, perhaps my language wasn't clear either: My problem is not with > >the registrars. I am opposed to ICANN entering into an agreement with > >any registry (not -rar), at least during the testbed, that contains > >any existing registrations in the TLD being courted. > > ahh. well, me too. > > And CORE is not such an entity, though there ARE some others around. > > >I.e., any registry participating in the testbed and hosting .FOO > >should be completely devoid of existing registrations in .FOO at the > >inception of the testbed period. No pre-existing .FOO registrations > >will be grandfathered. > > yes. definitely concur. > Ok. Then we're left with the registrars who have enormous pre-existing queues of pre-sold domain names within TLDs that as yet have no registry. What shall we do with them? I see only two solutions: 1) Those queues be flushed, or 2) All registrars immediately start pre-selling domain names in the TLDs they think will end up in the testbed period, so that no registrar ends up getting screwed in this process. The conflicts among identical names from different registrars, and the resulting load suddenly put on the new registries, and the SRS, for a given TLD should be spectacular to watch. (there is, of course, a third option: All the other accredited registrars, who've Done The Right Thing and not pre-sold names in these unregistried TLDs just ignore those other registrars who have done so and are about to eat their lunch on these new TLD rollouts. I suspect that won't happen, tho). So, shall we move to this arena, now that the issue of pre-sold registries has been cleared up? - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:13:48 -0700 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 01:36:18PM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: > Sorry, perhaps my language wasn't clear either: My problem is not with > the registrars. I am opposed to ICANN entering into an agreement with > any registry (not -rar), at least during the testbed, that contains > any existing registrations in the TLD being courted. > > I.e., any registry participating in the testbed and hosting .FOO > should be completely devoid of existing registrations in .FOO at the > inception of the testbed period. No pre-existing .FOO registrations > will be grandfathered. WE ARE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT ON THIS MATTER. I will bet you $100 that Ken Stubbs is in total agreement. This isn't even on the map as far as CORE is concerned. There are *no* grandfathered registrations in any IAHC names [unless you want to count the names that IODesign has registered in its .web -- IODesign has indeed engaged in the practice you deplore, but CORE has not.] [...] > Finally, would someone please produce the documents in which IANA > blessed these various registries with the right to start registering > domains within these TLDs? I've asked a few times here, I believe, > and haven't yet seen them. IANA signed the gTLD-MoU. However, that "blessed" a plan to create a registry; it did not bless a registry per se (maybe that's just semantics). The legal documents that create CORE and all that all contain bold disclaimers saying, basically: "this may not work". - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:19:35 -0700 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 12:50:32PM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote: > Let's call it like it is - there are two pre-sold TLDs available right now. Nope. There is 1 -- IODesign's. CORE has *no* pre-sold TLDs. > One is IOD's .web, and the other is CORE's 7. At this time, IOD is > suing CORE over .web, and CORE's motion to dismiss has been denied, > so I expect it will be resolved soon. Presume that CORE selects one > of the remaining 6 for the testbed, you have 2 TLDs that have been > pre-sold. > > Why were they pre-sold? IOD claims that IANA gave permission to > go live and accept fees pending resolution of the TLD addition > process. CORE claims that IANA gave permission to go live > and accept fees pending resolution of the gTLD-MoU process. Nope. > In both cases, IOD and CORE have been operating under those > claims. Whether they are true or not is immaterial to the fact that > registrations are being taken. CORE has taken *no* registrations. Period. Zilch. Nada. The big Goose egg. Zero. None. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:13:40 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 02:06 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: >Ok. Then we're left with the registrars who have enormous pre-existing >queues of pre-sold domain names within TLDs that as yet have no registry. > >What shall we do with them? I see only two solutions: You left off the one that I have tried to stress a number of times on this thread: Ignore the issue. It is between the registrars their customers. Absent misrepresentations of the registry, it is none of the registry's (or ICANN's) business. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:20:21 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 01:36 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: >Finally, would someone please produce the documents in which IANA >blessed these various registries with the right to start registering Forgot to anticipate a frequent, factual mis-claim, by providing the relevant citation: With the most salient text being: > What's most interesting about the breach of con-tract/estoppel > claim is that the claim made is that there was a contract entered into, > or that the Defendant should be estopped from denying that a contract was > entered into with an entity that the Plaintiff claims has no authority to > act. And in drawing that conclusion, I don't mean to oversimplify and > sound cute about the inconsistency, but there's a real internal > inconsistency in the breach of contract position and again, the failure > to establish the elements of a contract. > The second category of claims really has to do with the unfair > competition. There we have the claim of Image Online that they have a > proprietary and protectable interest in dot web. > I find the evidence insufficient to support either factually, > or as a matter of law, that the Plaintiff has estab- lished that it has > protectable proprietary interest in the term -- or the word -- term "dot > web," considering the nature of the interweb and the usage of the term, > vis a vis, the interweb -- the Internet. =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:36:57 -0700 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven Just to bring closure to this, I'm 100% with Kent's recommendation for a round-robinning mechanism, or some other fairness mechanism, being instantiated to throttle the flood of potentially conflicting registrations from various registrars when the new TLDs go live. Now, someone please buy me a drink. I just agreed with Kent, and I need one. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:41:52 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: [wg-c] Mark's Proposal Mark's proposal is a clear shot at the longest-standing pioneer registry, and nothing else. The immediate and vocal support from Crocker and Crispin should be the first clue as to its intent. If this working group has been reduced to petty shots like this, rest assured that it will be given all the consideration and action that it is due. By the way, the claims that CORE registrars don't have registered names is false. I just checked the IOD database, and found over 700 registered .web names as coming from CORE registrars - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:59:33 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > Let's call it like it is - there are two pre-sold TLDs available right now. > One is IOD's .web, and the other is CORE's 7. At this time, IOD is > suing CORE over .web, and CORE's motion to dismiss has been denied, > so I expect it will be resolved soon. Presume that CORE selects one > of the remaining 6 for the testbed, you have 2 TLDs that have been > pre-sold. > > Why were they pre-sold? IOD claims that IANA gave permission to > go live and accept fees pending resolution of the TLD addition > process. CORE claims that IANA gave permission to go live > and accept fees pending resolution of the gTLD-MoU process. > In both cases, IOD and CORE have been operating under those > claims. Whether they are true or not is immaterial to the fact that > registrations are being taken. IANA didn't have the authority to give permission, Chris. I suggest that if they did so, and misrepresented themselves, then perhaps you should look at whatever legal resource you have against them to recover your losses. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE48k7F8zLmV94Pz+IRAtcNAKD0sgfzljOYhQYpnA/1tlaIlAIyGQCg8CSL +GWsR9MQQ4HPFMfPRE5xfAI= =89Xo - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:01:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > I must ask - was NSI required to revoke all .com/.net/.org registrations > when they signed on with ICANN? NSI was authorized to accept registrations, neither CORE or IOD were. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE48k8q8zLmV94Pz+IRApXJAJ9GHmJDD5xdEEYl9t99QyicRtHG6wCdEAjr neE9RCbEGpGZzMtYxB3bE0c= =zdFS - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:04:08 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10-Apr-2000 Mark C. Langston wrote: > > > > > PROPOSAL: > > I propose that we allow no pre-sold TLDs to become part of the > testbed, and I further propose that we re-evaluate this position once > the testbed period has ended. I support this. Any "pending" or "current" registrations would have to be forfeited since those operations have gone on without any expressed authority or sanction. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE48k/Y8zLmV94Pz+IRAlUCAJ94ApCsPW6wR2DOhfQOCHs4Kz2Q7wCgjPii boF/2dJkkjn5FT6WXgnjuyc= =IyBD - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:05:07 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10-Apr-2000 Mark C. Langston wrote: > What shall we do with them? I see only two solutions: > > 1) Those queues be flushed, or Yes, or they give up their right to be a participating registrar in those TLDs. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE48lAT8zLmV94Pz+IRAoeSAJ9ADK5fNnyNwinVn7h8Hg84WMBrywCeIEDd QFqzzCEcXXBU9XQaZbga824= =iM4m - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:06:07 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10-Apr-2000 Kent Crispin wrote: > CORE has taken *no* registrations. Period. Zilch. Nada. The big > Goose egg. Zero. None. Semantics Kent. As you and others have pointed out several times, CORE IS ITS REGISTRARS. So the registrars make up CORE and they have accepted registrations. You can't have it both ways, depending on what is convienant at the moment. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE48lBP8zLmV94Pz+IRAuPtAJ9uw0Guffza/dT2JmMe8YGJECKC3ACcCnkK IpOsUaqi9Hl0/OHaLo1IAKA= =dhP5 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:17:40 -0700 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Mark's Proposal On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 02:41:52PM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote: > By the way, the claims that CORE registrars don't have > registered names is false. I just checked the IOD database, > and found over 700 registered .web names as coming from > CORE registrars Yes, thanks for confirming that IODesign is indeed accepting registrations. However, CORE does not. A CORE member is an independent business, separate from CORE. Some are ISPs, some are large Telcos, and some -- a very few, have questionable ethics. But of course, it would be unrealistic to expect them all to be saints. CORE members are registrars, not registries. A few CORE members are also ICANN accredited registrars, and register directly in .com etc. If a member of CORE also wants to do business with someone else, that's their business. CORE has *no* presold TLDs. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:23:22 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Mark's Proposal > Yes, thanks for confirming that IODesign is indeed accepting > registrations. However, CORE does not IODesign has been accepting registrations since 31 July, 1996. There's nothing to confirm, it's a fact. Kent, your claims are not accurate, but since they are part of an active lawsuit, I can't comment on them, as much as I'd like to. As documents from the lawsuit are created, I invite everyone to read them (they are public record). Indeed, the judge's opinion of CORE's argument for dismissal of the case (which was denied) is very interesting. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:31:58 -0700 From: "Bret A. Fausett" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs Kent Crispin wrote: > CORE has taken *no* registrations. Period. Zilch. Nada. The big > Goose egg. Zero. None. Good news if true. But are you making a distinction among paid registrations, unpaid registrations and pre-registrations? (Or is it just a distinction between CORE and its participating member registrars?) Nominalia, for example, takes "pre-registrations" on .web, .biz, .arts, etc. They do so on a page bearing the logos of ICANN. When you "pre-register" with Nominalia, you get this: If you application form is of preregistration a domain, this order is inserted into Nominalia Data Base. The orders of preregistration are sorted and added to a queue by time received order (first come first added). When a new termination becomes active (.firm, .shop, .web, .arts, .rec, .info, .nom ) Nominalia will send an e-mail to the administrative contact to inform him of the definitive registration process, prices and means of payment. The "first come, first added" language suggests that, if it's able, Nominalia will give preference to those registered in its database. Forget for a minute who is doing it and who isn't, for pay or for marketing, Chris raises a fair question. When a new TLD is launched, what happens to these pre-registrations? -- Bret ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:32:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Mark's Proposal - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > Mark's proposal is a clear shot at the longest-standing > pioneer registry, and nothing else. The immediate and > vocal support from Crocker and Crispin should be > the first clue as to its intent. If this working group has > been reduced to petty shots like this, rest assured that > it will be given all the consideration and action that it is due. > > By the way, the claims that CORE registrars don't have > registered names is false. I just checked the IOD database, > and found over 700 registered .web names as coming from > CORE registrars Just like ICANN Accredited registrars cannot accept a registration for a com/net/org domain name that has not yet become available, but might later, CORE and IOD should not be able to come into this with pre-existing registrations of any form. If they want to participate in new gTLDs, its a clean slate or not at all. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE48lZq8zLmV94Pz+IRAlmyAKCrn4ov9aU+jM+Zljflbzp0IBxXiACgvYT9 vgy1BLfxK7mvPdaaH+5A25M= =F6/o - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:41:13 -0700 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 03:31:58PM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote: [...] > The "first come, first added" language suggests that, if it's able, > Nominalia will give preference to those registered in its database. It's a private database, and guarantees nothing. > Forget for a minute who is doing it and who isn't, for pay or for marketing, > Chris raises a fair question. When a new TLD is launched, what happens to > these pre-registrations? Please see my other long message. I'm over quota already. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 100 19:38:06 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven > Just to bring closure to this, I'm 100% with Kent's recommendation for > a round-robinning mechanism, or some other fairness mechanism, being > instantiated to throttle the flood of potentially conflicting registrations > from various registrars when the new TLDs go live. > > Now, someone please buy me a drink. I just agreed with Kent, and I > need one. > > -- > Mark C. Langston > mark@bitshift.org > Systems & Network Admin > San Jose, CA I am also in complete agreement that no previous registrations in any new TLD that gets added to the legacy roots should be grandfathered in. The only mechanism that seems fair would be a round-robin mechanism to flush the queues at point 0 of when the TLD goes live. Whichever way it's done, once the name of a new TLD is announced, there WILL be pressure on the registrars (or the companies below the legal registrar) to build up waiting lists, and most certainly somewhere someone WILL accept "queue-building" or "preregistrations" or whatever you want to call it. There's nothing stopping me from writing a script that interfaces to a registrars' web-based registration page or generates email forms and bombarding the said registrar which in turn will bombard the registry. Which means that if no registrar does it upfront, then the activity will exist and be underground. Declaring illegal what is unenforceable is not worth the hassle. Do I get a drink too? Yours, John. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 100 19:40:32 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Mark's Proposal > Mark's proposal is a clear shot at the longest-standing > pioneer registry, and nothing else. The immediate and > vocal support from Crocker and Crispin should be > the first clue as to its intent. If this working group has > been reduced to petty shots like this, rest assured that > it will be given all the consideration and action that it is due. > > By the way, the claims that CORE registrars don't have > registered names is false. I just checked the IOD database, > and found over 700 registered .web names as coming from > CORE registrars Any name that a CORE accredited registrar may have registered with IOD is certainly not going through CORE. It's like saying that if one ICANN accredited registrar employs child labor, then ICANN is at fault. The activity between any registrar and IOD is outside the scope of CORE, and of course you know this perfectly, so this earns a 10 on the FUD-attempt scale. Yours, John. ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #78 *************************