Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-07

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Thomas and all assembly members,

  You left out the call for a ballot for the Structure TF report (v6)...



Thomas Roessler wrote:

> This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's (and related)
> discussions and news during the 7th (and the beginning of the 8th)
> 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.
>
>                         "I have made this letter longer than usual
>                         because I lack the time to make it shorter."
>                                                 -- Blaise Pascal
>
>
>                                 Votes
>
> There were no ongoing General Assembly votes during the time
> covered.
>
>                           Call for Sponsors
>
> Names Council chairman Philip Shepard published a call for sponsors
> for the webcasting of DNSO meetings in Ghana.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00970.html>
>
>                                 Topics
>
> (i) Lending of Registry Access.  Alexander Svensson forwarded an
> advisory from ICANN on inappropriate lending of registry access.
> This advisory elaborates on some obligations registrars have under
> the agreement.  The advisory points out that "at least one registrar
> access-lending scheme currently in operation raises significant
> issues under these provisions of the RAA."
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00954.html>
>
> (ii) Read-only access to the names council list.  Danny Younger
> asked what happened about Alexander's January 8 request for
> read-only e-mail access to the Names Council list.  In a reply, the
> DNSO secretariat pointed out that such access "is already done
> through a transparent access to archives".  In a follow-up,
> Alexander pointed out that his request was about e-mail access,
> _not_ web access.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00964.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00966.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00979.html>.
>
> (iii) Whois task force.  Danny Younger asked for public access to
> the raw survey data.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00980.html>
>
> (iv) Redemption grace period.  Ross Rader posted a link to a
> discussion paper from ICANN, on "Redemption Grace Periods for
> Deleted Names." In that paper, a solution for the problem of
> unintentional domain registration deletions is suggested: Any
> "delete" of a domain name results in a 30-day grace period, during
> which the domain name will be in registry-hold mode and removed from
> the zone file, yielding the domain unresolvable, so registrants
> notice that they have a problem. During that grace period,
> "registrants could redeem their registrations through registrars."
> <http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm>
>
> William Walsh replied that "it should be stated that the registrar
> can only redeem the registration for the original registrant."
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00982.html>
>
> Harold Whiting suggested that there should be uniformity with
> respect to the current registrar-dependent "grace period": "If all
> registrars are mandated to follow the same procedure during the 45
> day window and delete names uniformly, we solve not only the
> 'mistakes' but also the hoarding issue." According to him, the
> proposal adds "another layer of opportunity to manipulate the
> system."
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00985.html>
>
> Abel Wisman elaborates on the point that redemptions would lead to
> registrants paying "renewal fees, plus a service charge, to the
> registry operator." He sees a connection to the WLS proposal, which
> would create an additional demand for such a redemption grace
> period.  William Walsh followed up on this message to suggest that
> the service charge be removed from the proposal.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00988.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00996.html>.
>
> Genie Livingston points out that, in Verisign's answers to questions
> about WLS (see below), there is indeed a pointer to the redemption
> grace proposal: According to their Q&A document, Verisign had
> suggested a 15-day registry hold period.  "In the revised WLS
> proposal, this provision was removed because ICANN is going to take
> the lead in the process that hopefully will lead to such a
> procedure." If ICANN process on this takes longer than
> implementation of WLS, Verisign "would be willing to consider
> implementing an interim procedure to provide for this need."
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01004.html>
>
> Don Brown says that he is in favor of the redemption grace period
> document, with some modifications: The suggested grace period
> "should be a 'minimum' period for the domain name to be on-hold";
> the grace period should be longer when considering the effect of DNS
> cache expiration; the domain should be on hold the day following
> expiration; on-hold status should be reflected in whois information;
> the grace period should not be conditioned upon payment of a fee to
> Verisign registry by registrars; pricing for the service fee is to
> be based on Verisign's cost; only the original registrant should be
> permitted to redeem a domain; there should be a policy to prevent
> hoarding; there should be a fine or other monetary penalty for
> infractions.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00990.html>
>
> Marc Schneiders pointed out that some registrars he has checked have
> an "auto-renew" option, which, he says, fully takes care of the
> problem discussed in the ICANN document.  He also asks for facts and
> figures to back up the "anecdotal evidence" which "indicates that a
> significant portion of the demand for registration of deleted
> domains involves domains that the former registrant did not intend
> to have deleted." (Quote from the ICANN document.)
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00994.html>
>
> Alexander Svensson points out that "e.g., register.com's service
> called SafeRenew is simply an attempt to charge the credit card the
> renewal fee" - an attempt which would of course be subject to the
> possibility of failure.  Alexander also quotes a message from Dave
> Crocker to the ncdnhc-discuss list where Dave estimates the core
> costs for domain registration to be $0.5 - $2.  As Alexander says,
> "the late renewal fee should definitely be less." Also, "the only
> ones negatively affected are companies and individuals trying to
> make a business out of the current situation where at least some
> domains are deleted without the owner realizing it."
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01005.html>,
> <http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-February/001437.html>.
>
> Elisabeth Porteneuve suggests that we learn from other than domain
> name services.  As an example, she quotes public services in France,
> where suppliers are allowed to charge subscribers' bank account
> periodically.  (BTW, it works similarly in Germany.)  Elisabeth
> suggests that "a 'long term option' based on a kind of automatic
> periodical payment could be added to registrant's choice."
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01032.html>
>
> (v) Verisign responses to questions received regarding the revised
> WLS proposal.  Verisign posted their response to the revised WLS
> proposal as a 25-page PDF document.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00992.html>,
> <http://verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf>.
>
> In follow-up messages, Harold Whiting and William Walsh both agree
> that the paper "is an excellent exercise in answering by not
> answering." (William's wording.)
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00995.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00997.html>.
>
> Genie Livingstone points out that the WLS proposal does not bring
> any solution to the problem of deleted domain hoarding at
> registrars.  Unless this is resolved first, Genie finds WLS
> unacceptable "in any shape or form."
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01019.html>
>
> Finally, Chuck Gomes announced that, responding to a request by the
> registrars' constituency, Verisign is extending the deadline for
> comments on the proposal to 7 March 2002.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01056.html>
>
> (vi) Structure; At Large Membership.  Danny Younger quoted the idea
> "to involve ISPs in support of the At-Large membership," and
> elaborates on some details of it.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00993.html>
>
> Danny also pointed out that Philip Sheppard has published v6 of the
> structure task force report.  Danny considers that report "garbage."
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01006.html>
>
> In the subsequent discussion, Chuck Gomes of Verisign writes:
> "Regardless of whether you like Danny's choice of words or not, it
> appears to me that what he is saying is probably quite accurate, at
> least with regard to the fact the report is primarily one prepared
> by Philip.  I know for a fact that the gTLD Registry Constituency
> submitted fairly significant comments to the TF only to be largely
> ignored." <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01029.html>
>
> In a different message, Danny points out that he believes that the
> task force's chair (Philip) demonstrates business constituency bias,
> and asks for Philip to be replaced.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01037.html>
>
> On the other hand, Philip claims that the current draft reflects
> input from all constituencies.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01039.html>
>
> To this, Chuck objects that "it certainly does not contain input
> provided by the gTLD registry constituency."
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01041.html>
>
> (vii) A somewhat different approach to ICANN structure. A message
>  from ICANN director Andy Müller-Maguhn made it to the GA list
> through several forwarding layers.  According to Andy, Joe Sims was
> in Brussels today for some closed door meeting with the European
> Commission, where he presented plans for a complete restructuring of
> the ICANN board, without an at large participation, and with "parts
> of the DNSO." Apparently, Andy was not able to get hold of any
> details. <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01055.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

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 jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
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 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