GA summary 2002-04

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list’s discussions during the 4th week of 2002. List archives are available online at []. Please feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate. Votes No formal votes are goin…

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list’s discussions during the 4th week of 2002. List archives are available online at []. Please feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate.


No formal votes are going on. However, signatures are being collected for (and against) a possible GA minority position to the .org task force’s report. See below for details.

Task Force News

In a private message sent last Tuesday, the former chair of the GA, Danny Younger, indicated that he would not continue to participate in any task forces where he was representing the GA in his property as the GA chair.

As a consequence of that, Alexander Svensson will represent the GA on the IDN task force (in his capacity as the GA’s alternative chair), and Thomas Roessler will represent the GA on the WHOIS task force (in his capacity as the GA’s chair). For the whois task force, Abel Wisman and Kristy McKee have offered their valuable help (this task force has to wade through a lot of questionnaires). Thomas and Kristy both participated in a WHOIS task force telephone conference held on January 28.


(i) WLS and deleted domain handling. This topic lost a lot of momentum last week. The most notable posting on this came from Ron Wiener of Snapnames, who posted a “speculator-specific pricing analysis” of the WLS proposal. According to this paper’s conclusion, “the evidence shows that, like all rational actors, speculators do pay the market rate for secondary domain names, for subscriptions to the WLS-like SnapBack service, and for preferential access to registrars’ connections – on average, about $40-$80. The WLS will have little impact on the price speculators pay”. []

Abel Wisman has volunteered to set up and lead a drafting group to try to formulate a GA consensus position on this topic. []

(ii) dot-org. The dot-org task force’s report has been accepted by the names council, and a public comment period starting January 18, and ending on February 1, was announced. Comments are to be sent to . Also, minority views on the report are invited from DNSO constituencies during the same period. Comments will be forwarded to the ICANN board along with the report. []

Bret Fausett asked whether this is the last opportunity to comment on the report before the ICANN board decides on dot-org, replacing the normal ICANN-wide comment period, or whether it augments that opportunity for comment. []

Marc Schneiders, who represented the GA on the dot-org task force, posted a slightly revised version of his supplementary report, which emphasizes that the task force’s decision of making .org unrestricted for new and old registrants alike is supported. There were no follow-ups to this message. []

Based on this, Alexander Svensson produced a proposal for GA members’ comments on dot-org, which can be signed until Friday, 15:00 CET. Please send statements of support (or opposition) to Thomas. []

(iii) The GA representative on the transfer task force, Dan Steinberg, sent out a call for input (and, if needed, participation) for a telephone conference with Louis Touton. The teleconference will deal with the problem of “apparent authority”: Who has “apparent authority” to bind a registrant when registrant’s domain is to be transferred? Questions and wishes for participation were to be submitted until midnight Eastern time, Sunday, January 27th. The actual telephone conference will happen on Friday, February 1, noon EST.

[], [].

(iv) Chuck Gomes sent in a thoughtful article on working groups vs. task forces as tools in the DNSO consensus process. Recommended reading. []

(v) Andy Duff (of pointed to some Business Constituency charter revisions. []

(vi) NC chair period of office. In a posting to the GA and others, Jeff Neuman (acting on behalf of the gTLD constituency) expressed concern on the “recent suggestion that the NC rules of procedure should be amended to (a) extend the six-month period that each NC chair is in office, and (b) allow the chair in office to continue to serve until a successor is appointed”. The gTLD constituency demands that “the Names Council should not proceed at this time on this expeditious time frame. […] The current election should and must proceed, regardless of the action the NC decides to take in connection with th emotion.” Jeff also argues, it seems, that any new rules should not be applied to the NC chair who is currently being elected. [], [], [].

mutt-1.3.26 is out.

Last Friday, mutt 1.3.26 was released. This is the latest beta, with most changes being bug fixes. You can download it here.

Last Friday, mutt 1.3.26 was released. This is the latest beta, with most changes being bug fixes. You can download it here.

Addendum to GA summary 2002-03

(This was missing from yesterday’s summary.) The registrar constituency’s official response on the WLS proposal was submitted, and announced to the GA list by Ross Rader. [], [].

(This was missing from yesterday’s summary.)

The registrar constituency’s official response on the WLS proposal was submitted, and announced to the GA list by Ross Rader.

[], [].

GA summary 2002-03

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list’s discussions during the third week of 2002. List archives are available online at []. Votes There were no ongoing votes. NC teleconference A names council teleconference was held on January…

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list’s discussions during the third week of 2002. List archives are available online at [].


There were no ongoing votes.

NC teleconference

A names council teleconference was held on January 17; an MP3 recording is available at [].

During that teleconference, Thomas Roessler and Alexander Svensson were confirmed as the GA’s chair and alternative chair.


(i) The structure task force. David P. Farrar provded another great update on the structure task force’s work. Some bullet points: Draft 4 of the task force’s report is out now. The new version of the report leaves the question open how many members the ALSO must have before it may elect for board members (suggested numbers range from 1,000 to 30,000). The gTLDs, the non-commercials, and the intellectual property communities have published positions. In the thread following his excellent initial summary, David reports that there is no consensus in the task force on the number of at large directors the board should have. Bret Fausett commented that he “was under the impression that the task force’s work was to center on possible restructuring of the DNSO”, to which David replied that he “always saw the review taskforce more looking at DNSO restructuring and structure at wider ICANN structure”. Also, according to DPF, “most of the focus has been on how having an ALSO would affect the DNSO as the DNSO at present is meant to be the sole policy advisory body to the Board on domain name issues”. [], [], []

In the same thread, Patrick Greenwell strongly argued against any quorums in the context of votes of members. [], [], [].

(Yes, I’ve linked almost the entire thread, but most of it is really worth reading.)

(ii) WLS and deleted domains. This (almost) was another week’s dominant topic, with a short break in the beginning of the week.

Please note that there was extensive discussion on this. I’m giving a necessarily incomplete excerpt from what has been said. I’m pretty certain that many among you will point out something they believe to be important that I’ve dropped. If you are really interested in this discussion’s details, I’d strongly suggest you have a look at the threaded archive, and just use the postings I’m pointing to as starting points.

Probably, I should first mention Patrick Corliss’ follow-up to the last summary, in which he asserts that “most of this discussion was led by OpenSRS staff supported by a number of OpenSRS resellers”. To this, George Kirikos replied that while he’s an OpenSRS reseller, he hopes “that the arguments I made stand on their own, regardless of some ‘label’ folks want to place on my forehead”. [], [], [].

Rick Wesson, speaking on behalf of his employer, posted “Alice’s Registry Response to VGRS Registrar Wait List Proposal”. In this message, Rick briefly reviews the developments which lead to the WLS proposal, the tragedy of the commons, and Speculation, “A Non-Constant Sum Game”. He then analyzes the proposal, specifically elaborating on the price, on transparency, and monopolies. He then proposes four “required” changes: “Set the wholesale price of a WLS subscription to $4.50”. “Require the registry to display the registrar that places a WLS subscription on a domain in the registry whois”. Enable registrants to opt out of WLS. Fix the overflow pool problem by enforcing contracts. []

However, the WLS discussion was really brought back to life by Ron Wiener of SnapNames, who posted a file named “Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few.pdf”. In this document, Wiener produces some numbers on his customer base, some of them presented in a pie-chart which was erroneously (as he later corrected) labeled “as of January 2000”. While you are looking at the numbers and (in particular) the pie chart, I’d strongly suggest that you do the maths in your head and always use some estimate of revenue per client group as the basis for any comparisons you do (or, at least, do that kind of comparison in addition).

The bottom line of the paper seems to be that “unlike some commentators, who concede without embarrassment that they cater primarily to speculators, SnapNames’ focus has always been the mainstream customer: the ‘little guy.’ Because a number of postings have criticized SnapNames and WLS as either catering to, or unfairly benefiting professional speculators, we feel compelled to demonstrate […] that precisely the reverse is true”. In line with this, the headline of that particular paragraph claims that “WLS Offers the Greatest Good to Greatest Number – Primarily Mainstream Users”. In the next part, Wiener tries to back these claims with the numbers and pie chart mentions above, and also elaborates how retail pricing and the structure of the customer base are related.

The paper also criticizes, under the headline “What’s Wrong with the Consensus Process Today?”, the registrars’ constituency’s January 9 teleconference. Wiener urges “the broader community not to let these special interests [those represented in the registrars’ constituency – ed.] hijack the decision-making process to the detriment of the other registrars, and the mainstream consumer”. In the last part of the document, Wiener covers some more specific arguments, such as “defensive WLS subscriptions”, “WLS will not solve the system load problems”, “The WLS will be gamed by speculators”, and “Differentiation between registrars will decrease”. [], [].

In a follow-up to Ron’s message, Ross Wm. Rader points out that the teleconference mentioned “was a constituency conference call, not an accredited registrar conference call”. “The DNSO process only accounts for those that have self-selected to participate in the process,” he continues. He then goes on to address various claims made in Wiener’s message, including the number of registrars to oppose the WLS during said conference call. Finally, Ross points out that he is “deeply disappointed with this obvious attempt to distract the participants in this discussion […].” []

Ron Wiener replied to this message, stressing the accuracy of his facts concerning registrars’ participation in the conference call. According to him, the number of (constituency) members represented in the conference call “is of no relevance whatsoever”. He then also disputes what “opposition” to the proposal actually means, since only a few registrars were opposed to the proposal “unconditionally”, while others would be interested in offereing WLS if it was modified. []

Rick Wesson’s comment on this message was that “over 90% of all domains registered by registrars were represented. Another way to look at this is that over 90% of the RRP transations generated by registrars were in attendance on the call.” He then asked Ron and Ross to “get back to dealing with substantive arguments”. []

Donny Simonton pointed out that he “was the one registrar who said ‘when Verisign goes live with the WLS, we would offer it.'” After discussing the impact the WLS could (in his opinion) have on SnapNames, and quoting a speculator according to whom a high price for WLS would be good for speculators, Donny came back to the conference call: “Trust me nobody on the conference call had anything good to say about the WLS sysem except for myself. […] I like the concept of the WLS, but not the current implementation!” []

To this, Ron replied that “if the WLS does not get through this process, please do not worry about the health of SnapNames”. Also, according to him, “everyone seems to underestimate the complexity of building a system like this”. Concerning economic theories on what kind of price would be preferable for what kind of customer, Wiener responds that the only way to actually check these would be to try things on the market, and that his firm can only offer their own experiences and historical data. []

Another set of comments on the WLS proposal was posted by Jim Archer to the registrars list on behalf of Registration Technologies; a link to this was posted by George Kirikos. He points out that this is one of the previously silent registrars talking. According to George “they made one of the best posts I’ve seen *against* the WLS”. Points of criticism include (from the Executive Summary): “Verisign’s stated desire to enter the secondary domain marketplace […] in which they currently have no presence […] with a stated objective to eliminate existing participants in that margket segment.”; “We question why Verisign is permitted to control this comment process.”; material received was incomplete (a service agreement to which registrars would be subject was missing); “additionally, the time frame for preparing comments was very short”. The detailed comments are then organized into “ethical issues”, “potential legal issues” (divided into “monopoly and antitrust”, “unlicensed commodity trading” [does trading “domain futures” require a license?], and “contract terms”), “practical issues”, and “practical and administrative issues”.

It’s a five-page PDF, read it yourself for details.

[], [].

Eric Schneider of posted a “recommendation” under the subject “WLS – Better Margins for Registrars”. The purpose of his response is, he says, “to propose a pricing model to demonstrate how the above requirement can be met”. According to Eric, “it is not only the obligation, duty, and responsibility but also the time for a registry to come full circle and provide reusability services.” He then suggests a different pricing model for the WLS, which I’ll leave for the list archive to explain. []

Finally, there was quite a bit of discussion on forming a working group to create input on the WLS proposal. My suggestion on this is that the GA itself should go into “working group mode”, with some participants in the discussion operating as a drafting committee.

Some helpful input was already provided by Ross Rader, who posted a list prepared by the registrars in Montevideo last year, containing “basic principles that should be fulfilled by any proposal put forward”. Similar input from other constituencies would be most welcome!

[], [], [], [].

(iii) Reseller representation in the DNSO process. The fact that Eric Schneider is posting from the domain of a reseller of a registrar triggered a brief discussion on representing resellers in the DNSO process. According to William Walsh, “it is time the non-registrar regtistration service providers have some say and input in the process.” Ross Rader agrees that “there really is no appropriate home for the Intermediate Supplier Stakeholders.” He suggests that it may be “worthwhile that someone investigate whether or not the interests of the ISS’s and tose of the [ISP constituency] are compatible,” or whether the ISPC could “accommodate an extended membership consisting of firms that don’t necessarily qualify under their current bylaws.” He then gives a link to some of criteria for a new constituency. [], [].

GA summary 2002-02

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list’s discussions during the second week of 2002. List archives are available online at []. Note that a new volume of the archive has been begun. Votes The election for the GA representative to …

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list’s discussions during the second week of 2002. List archives are available online at []. Note that a new volume of the archive has been begun.


The election for the GA representative to the NC Transfer Task Force ended on Thursday 10 January 2002. The candidates were Dan Steinberg, Eric Dierker, and Jeff Williams. Dan Steinberg was elected. Details on the vote are available from [].

The vote for the GA chair and alternative chair began Saturday 5 January 2002, and was finished on 12 January 2002. The candidates were Kristy McKee, Thomas Roessler, Alexander Svensson, and Eric Dierker. Thomas Roessler and Alexander Svensson were elected. Details on the vote are available from [].


(i) domain-policy archives. According to a message from Chuck Gomes, in reply to a question from Patrick Corliss, the domain-policy mailing list was shut down by Verisign for legal reasons in May 2001. []

There was some debate on whether or not this had actually been said before in public.

(ii) .org divestiture. Marc Schneiders posted the final version of the final draft of the .org NC task force report, plus a supplemental report from the GA representative which lists remaining concerns with the current text. [], [].

(iii) Deleted domain name handling. This was certainly the week’s dominant topic.

Genie Livingstone gave a summary of data gathered from tracking of expiring domains. According to him, “most dropped domains in 2001 were originally registered at Netsol Registrar. 99.9% of dropped domains were NOT re-registered at Netsol Registrar.” “This might be one interesting premise motivating Verisign to try to recapture the monopoly,” he writes. His message goes on to list some more concerns he has with practices of Verisign’s registrar division. [].

Don Brown summarized what he believes to be “a few fundamental hurdles which need to be met before anything else is important” with respect to the waiting list proposal: “1. The WLS proposal essentially puts monopolistic power in the hands of one entity (the Registrar) and thwarts all competition.” (I suppose this should have been “the registry”.) “2. The theory behind this WLS proposal is that it addresses technical issues, which cannot otherwise be addressed on a technical level.” Don then demands that the technical difficulties be solved in a way which does not affect the business model. As his third point, he notes that “the name space belongs to the public – not the registrars”. []

In a more fundamental part of the thread, Chuck Gomes asks whether or not it is “okay for a property manager to have a waiting list”. To this, George Kirikos replies: “IF the LANDLORD allowed such a thing in their contract with the property manager, it would be perfectly legitimate. HOWEVER (and read this part, as it’s important), it is NOT OK for the property manager to create a waiting list on their own volition and keep all the money for themselves, behind the back of the landlords!” He also notes that “in most cases where there’s a waiting list, though, there’s a definite end to the lease term.” To this, William Walsh follows up to say that “Verisign is creating a situation in which a domain name has more value to the Registry and Registrar if the registrant does NOT renew the domain, and creates a problem in that the Registrar will be incentivized to not provide as strong a renewal notification service as they would otherwise be under incentive to do.” [], [], [].

However, Verisign’s proposal wasn’t the only one to draw criticism: In fact, the “registry re-circulation system” (RRS), proposed by Peter Girard of, forwarded to the GA on Monday, and covered in the last summary, drew some criticism, too: George Kirikos complains that replacing “one monopoly (Verisign’s WLS) with another (a cartel of registrars doing an auction) isn’t a solution which promotes competition”. He also notes that the proposal “gives all the value of the domains that are auctioned to the registrars”, who have however done nothing to create that value (he says). He then introduces the “Let’s make George Kirikos a Multi-Millionaire” proposal. After all, he didn’t do anything to contribute to domains’ value, just like registrars….

In another reply to the Afternic proposal, Darryl (Dassa) Lynch writes: “I can’t see any reason for Registrars or the Registry to be benefiting from the consumer market value for renewed/deleted domains.”

[], [], [].

A comment from Ron Wiener of (the folks who own the technology Verisign has licensed for the WLS) was forwarded by Ross Wm. Rader. One of his points is this: “It seems to me that there is a distinction between the WLS (as proposed) and the RRS (as proposed), in that the WLS allows registrars to capture “backup demand” for any name throughout the entire year. The RRS only allows the capture of demand during a portion of the 45-day grace period window, which inherently means it would be primarily of interest to, and accessible to, speculators, not mainstream consumers.” []

Rick Wesson has asked the community to develop a “concise list of requirements for proposals to solve the issues with a registry deleting domains in batch”. He hopes for a consensus document on the requirements to be used when proposals are evaluated. []

In reply to this, George Kirikos lists various requirements, two of which are these: 1. Equal opportunity for any registrar to acquire a deleted name. “No current business model that is in place must be forcibly required to change […], unless it can be proven that they have caused the abuse through their choice of business models.” 2. “Registrants should continue to have the ability to register an expired name at a registrar’s normal price for a brand new registration for ALL deleted names.” []

From a registrant point of view, Bret Fausett lists six requirements, including: Registrants shouldn’t need to pay fees to more than one registrar to get a deleted domain; registrants should be able to place the order with one visit of the registrar’s web site; expiration dates listed in the whois should have some meaning; “the current registrant should make his or her decision to renew blind to the value placed on that domain name by prospective registrants”. (I find the last one particularly interesting.) []

Elliot Noss of Tucows sent a long message to the GA list in which he looks at various aspects of the deleted domains issue. First, he considers who may claim the right to expired or expiring names. He concludes that “the competing claims of registries and registrars are likely subordinate to those of registrants,” in the end of the day. “Accordingly, any solution should start with this underpinning,” he says. In the second section of his document, Noss emphasizes that he believes that the issues of registry load and expired/expiring domain allocation should be considered separately, and that the technical side of the problem can be (and actually mostly has been) solved without touching the allocation question. He then elaborates on “the inefficiency of flat pricing”, and argues that the combination of flat-priced supply and variable-priced demand has lead to a robust secondary market, and to a “significant amount of the current CNO namespace sitting unused”. He warns that these effects should not be magnified by solutions for the “expiring market”. Noss concludes by stating that the WLS proposal is unacceptable to him, and then suggests what he calls “two important modifications” to Afternic’s RRS proposal: Make all names available for bidding, and give the existing registrant an opportunity to accept bids at any time (with registrars and registries getting their share of the money, too). []

In follow-ups, George Kirikos and Don Brown argue that, if there’s no technical need for changing the “expiring market”, this market should be left alone for the moment, and more pressing problems should be addressed first. As Don puts it: “I am in favor of ‘healthy’ change, but I don’t view any change with respect to the after-market to be either healthy or warranted at this time.” []

In another follow-up to Elliot Noss’ message, Don Brown points out that part of the process “to introduce more efficiency into the systems and procedures” concerning deleted domain names should be “the adoption of specifications or policy” in the sense of 3.7.5 of the RAA (Registry-Registrar-Agreement): Such policy does not currently exist. []

In his comments on Elliot Noss’ proposal, Chuck Gomes of Verisign agrees with most of the points Elliot made. In particular, he “definitely confirms” that the WLS proposal and the technical problems the registry has with deleted domain names are not directly connected, and can be dealt with separately. However, he believes that the WLS could “still make some positive impact in this regard, but it certainly does not solve the whole problem”. He also points out that, while the registry problems do not affect day-to-day business of registrars anymore, “there has been and continues to be a growing impact on registry operations and registry costs”.

He then suggests that WLS would still be “a valuable service for consumers”, and that a 12-month test could be useful. []

Also on the deleted domains topic, the registrars’ constituency held a conference call. Various draft notes of the conference call are available. [], [], [].

(iv) Working groups, sublists, etc. As a spin-off from the deleted domains thread (which, bad enough, seems to have mostly killed that thread), some discussion on working groups and sublists came up, including on-list straw polls on whether or not the GA should start a working group on the deletion issue, or whether people like the WLS. David Farrar writes about these: “Could I suggest both this poll and the previous one while well intentioned lead to the GA being more dysfunctional. Many do not subscribe here to see 40 people vote on a list.” []

Announcements from the new Chair and Co-Chair

In two short messages to the GA list, the new Chair and Alt.Chair have pointed out what their immediate plans are. These include:

  • Enforce list rules, including the posting limit. (Alexander will be the list monitor.)
  • Try to attract discussions and participants from various constituencies to the GA.
  • Concerning GA working groups and sublists, a “show traffic, get group” policy will be followed for the moment: If sustained discussions on some topic become too much, and participants desire it, the chairs will try to organize a new mailing list for these.
  • Concerning task forces, there’s nothing which prevents the GA members from discussing topics. According to the “show traffic, get group” policy, “mirror working groups” may be established. The GA rep to task forces has the responsibility to inform task force members of the GA’s discussions.

[], [].

GA summary 2002-01.

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list’s discussions during the first week of 2002. List archives are available online at []. Criticism and suggestions for improvement are welcome. Votes The election for the GA representative to …

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list’s discussions during the first week of 2002. List archives are available online at [].

Criticism and suggestions for improvement are welcome.


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 [].

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 [].


(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 []. 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. []

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 [].

(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 [].

(iii) UDRP task force: The time line for the UDRP questionnaire has been extended until February 6. []

(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. [], [].

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. []

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 [].

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. [], [].

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). []

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, 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. []

mutt- and mutt-1.3.25 have just been simultaneously released.

These releases both fix a security hole which can be remotely exploited. The problem was found and a fix suggested by Joost Pol

These releases both fix a security hole which can be remotely exploited. The problem was found and a fix suggested by Joost Pol <joost(at)>. Thanks for that.

mutt- is released as an update to the last stable version of mutt, mutt-1.2.5. The ONLY relevant change in this version is the fix mentioned above. No other bugs present in 1.2.5 have been fixed. You only want to upgrade to this version of mutt if you absolutely have to stick with the mutt-1.2 series.

mutt-1.3.25 is the latest BETA version of mutt, and very close to what will eventually become mutt-1.4. Personally, I’d recommend that you download and use this version.

The tar balls, with detached PGP signatures, will be available from within some minutes.

As an alternative, you can apply this patch to any 1.2 or 1.3 series mutt source code, and rebuild.

I apologize for the problem, and wish all of you a happy new year.

%d bloggers like this: