Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-01.

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Dear Mr. Roessler,

Thank you for your hard work and your request for suggestions.
I am not so bold to suggest except through some questions.

How did you do it?  Did you use a Threader type auto process?
Did you use some type of sequence for compilation?

How much time did this take?  Did you have any other input?
Did you use any RFCs for guidance?

I believe it is quite well done and am interested in incorporating
it into the general process of the GA.  I believe it could be posted
on a weekly basis (of course it would have to be in a place where
further comment could be made and the summary attacked).

In conjunction with Danny's site and a worldwide Internet Cafe'
group we even believe that we can get this type of summary
translated in short order in many languages.

If this type of mechanism could become reality it would make an
enormous difference to such ideas as the at-large and IDNH,
not to say anything of virus' and spamming.

Sincerely,
Eric

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's discussions during
> the first week of 2002.  List archives are available online at
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/maillist.html>.
>
> Criticism and suggestions on how to improve this are welcome.
>
>                                 Votes
>
> The election for the GA representative to the NC Transfer Task
> Force, began on Thursday 3 January 2002, and will end on Thursday 10
> January 2002.  The candidates are Dan Steinberg, Eric Dierker, and
> Jeff Williams.  Details on the vote are available from
> <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-b10-outline.html>.
>
> The call for endorsement for the election of the GA Chair and
> Alternate Chair closed on Friday, 04 January 2002.  The vote began
> Saturday 5 January 2002, and will end on 12 January 2002. The
> candidates are Kristy McKee, Thomas Roessler, Alexander Svensson,
> and Eric Dierker.  Details on the vote are available from
> <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-b11-outline.html>.
>
>                                Topics
>
> (i) .org divestiture.  Jeff Williams forwarded a draft (version 5.2,
>  from Jan 4, 2002) of the Task Force's report on the .org divestiture
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03974.html>.  Marc
> Schneiders (the GA's representative to this task force) followed up,
> noting that it's not clear whether the draft posted is the final
> version, but that it was posted to the NCDNHC list.  He noted that
> he believes that the key points he stands for are "quite well
> represented in the text", and that he's happy with it.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03987.html>
>
> There was little discussion on this text.  It should, however, be
> noted that the .org divestiture TF is currently the subject of
> active discussions on the names council list, see various threads at
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/mail10.html>.
>
> (ii) Structure task force.  Dave P. Farrar (the GA representative to
> the DNSO Structure Task Force) provided a summary of options and
> discussions on the task force.  See
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg04031.html>.
>
> (iii) UDRP task force:  The time line for the UDRP questionnaire has
> been extended until February 6.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00166.html>
>
> (iv) Deleted domain name handling.  On December 30, 2001, a PDF
> document circulated on the registrars constituency mailing list
> detailed plans on a waiting list service.
> <http://www.lextext.com/icann/december2001.html#12312001a>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/pdf00010.pdf>.
>
> The proposal goes like this (from Verisign's document): "WLS is a
> service whereby potential registrants ('subscribers') through their
> selected, participating registrar, may purchase a subscription tied
> to a domain name currently registered. [...] All current processes
> would remain unchanged with one exception.  A domain name
> registration that is subscribed to on WLS will be registered to the
> subscriber when the current domain name registration is deleted
> through normal operational procedures.  Initially, a domain name
> registration could only have one subscription pending at a time."
>
> Note, in particular, that according to this proposal the registrar
> would still be the only one who does business with registrants
> directly.  This includes the process of fulfilling a subscription:
> When this process is done, the domain in question will be registered
> for the (now former) subscriber through the registrar which was used
> to place the subscription.
>
> Pricing at the registrar level is at US $ 40 (wholesale) for a
> one-year subscription.
>
> Feedback on the proposal is expected from the registrars'
> constituency by January 18, 2002.
>
> To implement the proposal, Verisign has licensed technology from
> Snapnames.
> <http://www.lextext.com/icann/january2002.html#01042002a>
>
> The proposal provoked ample, and sometimes heated, discussions on
> the GA list, which is still going on.
>
> The discussion included fears that the deal may already be done
> (which was denied by Ross Rader "if the registrars have anything to
> do with it").  Ross also pointed to a message discussing the
> proposal which he sent to the registrars list
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01727.html>.
>
> Some (WX Walsh, DP Farrar) doubted that the proposal may have any
> benefit for the internet community as a whole, as opposed to
> Verisign's stakeholders.  To this, Chuck Gomes of Verisign responded
> that requests for a wait list service have been there since 1996.
>
> Bret Fausett noted that putting the service at the registry level
> would mean an improvement to registrants: You'd just buy one
> subscription through your favorite registrar, and you'd be
> guaranteed that you get a domain name if and when it lapses.  With a
> purely registrar-based system, you'd pay various services, and that
> just for improving the chance that you may get the domain when it's
> dropped.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg04020.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg04028.html>.
>
> In a message forwarded by WXW from some other list (the registrars
> list?), George Kirikos elaborates on various points of criticism on
> the proposal. In particular, George asks why Verisign registry has
> not implemented any of the simple technical fixes proposed earlier.
> Suggestions include "rate-limiting connections, pushing out lists of
> candidate drop names, and returning richer error codes".  He also
> lists "numerous competing firms and registrars attempting to
> register expired domains, using the existing fair and transparent
> system" (besides Snapnames).
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg04014.html>
>
> In a follow-up, Chuck Gomes points out that "every registrar would
> have equal opportunity to participate or not participate".  George
> Kirikos replies that his problem is "leveraging the monopoly power
> of the registry, to enter a 'new business', which puts existing
> market participants out of business".
>
> Finally, Ross Rader has forwarded an alternative proposal from the
> icann-deletes mailing list.  The proposal from Afternic.com, called
> Registry Re-circulation System, basically boils down to an auction
> of expired domain names during a finite amount of time after they
> have been dropped.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00165.html>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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