No Such Weblog

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list’s (and related) discussions and news between March 13, 2002, and March 20, 2002.

GA list archives are available online at [www.dnso.org]. Please feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate.

Note that, once again, no claims of completeness of this summary are made. A lot was said during the time covered, and a lot of this is left out of this summary. However, I hope that this summary can provide readers with a helpful collection of starting points for their own reading of the list archives. If you believe that I missed a significant position or sub-thread, please don’t hesitate to follow up with your own summary of that.

List Monitoring

The posting rights of Jeff Williams have been suspended by the list monitor for eight weeks because of repeated violation of the list rules; the suspension was announced on Monday, March 18. No appeal was received by the GA’s chairman as of today, March 21. [www.dnso.org]

Topics

(i) WLS. Verisign announced the publication of a collection of comments received regarding the WLS proposal at [www.verisign-grs.com]. At the point of time at which this announcement was made, the registrars’ constituency had, however, not yet submitted its commentary. [www.dnso.org]

They submitted their comments (and posted them to the GA list as well) two days later. [www.dnso.org]

(ii) Verisign removing expiration dates from WHOIS data. George Kirikos pointed out that, for the domain auction-barn.com, the whois data as accessible at whois.networksolutions.com does not contain an expiration date. (As of this writing, the expiration date is still not given; T.R., 2002-03-21, 00:15 CET.) [www.dnso.org]

In a follow-up, Rick Wesson pointed out that the Registrar Accreditation Agreement _requires_ registrars to include the expiration date in their whois database. [www.dnso.org]

No explication for the lack of the information has, so far, been provided by Verisign.

(iii) Accra meeting documents posted. The DNSO secretariat has posted a collection of URLs and notes relating to the ICANN meetings in Accra at [www.dnso.org]. [www.dnso.org]

(iv) “Substance over rhetoric.” ICANN’s former chairman Esther Dyson suggested that ICANN should hire GA co-chair Alexander Svensson “to manage At-Large outreach for the next year,” and offered to contribute to the funding; her pledge is supposed to be “matched by institutions such as Harvard’s Berkman Center […], Markle, Bertelsmann, and the like.” [www.dnso.org]

This suggestion caused considerable debate on the mailing list.

During that discussion, Barbara Simons noted that “the number of ‘instant’ at-large members would be a six digit figure if you count everyone who registered and five digits if you just count those who confirmed their registration.” [www.dnso.org]

In her response, Esther Dyson mentioned that the ALSC had asked for the list of at-large members, “to no avail.” Asked by Barbara who turned down the ALSC’s request, Esther noted that “Denise Michel would know the details, but it was staff (since the board did not meet to consider the request).” [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

In a different branch of this thread, current ICANN chairman Vint Cerf noted that “the resolution that implemented the ALSC proposal, except for the election component, should be on the website already.” (It certainly is now.) Michael Froomkin commented: “Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?” to which Vint responded: “Please also note the verbatim board discussion in which a number of directors expressed the hope that elections might be possible if/when the deficiencies documented in the ALSC report and elsewhere can be overcome.” [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

(v) “Discussion draft — ICANN reorganization.” Danny Younger posted some “comments on the funding aspects of ICANN’s problems.” [www.dnso.org]

Peter de Blanc commented that the proposal that ICANN should charge each ccTLD $ 7,200 was “a disturbing concept,” and pointed out that some ccTLDs have few registrants (with, in part, less than 500 names registered). “Those ccTLDs can hardly afford US $ 7,200. In fact in one of the countries I am referring to, a special permit is required to convert local cash to US $,” Peter continued. He then reported about a conversation with Josh Eliot, who used to “perform the IANA function” prior to ICANN, and now works for a company which “provides DNS as a paid service to large clients […]. They do this for a fee based on the number of ‘DNS inquiries’ they get […]. Josh’s company gives incredible QoS (Quality of Service) level guarantees,” Peter writes. With root server operations in mind, he suggests that it “will be interesting to see what fees Josh’s company will charge.” [www.dnso.org]

Another note by Danny, stating that “perhaps we can obtain necessary funding without the need to actually seat governments on the board of ICANN,” provoked a response from Vint Cerf, who stated that “the proposal that Stuart made would not put government employees on the board but would offer governments an opportunity to choose among a slate of candidates developed by a nominating committee.” To this, Jon Weinberg responded that the proposal as published leaves the nomination process of board members to the governments. Vint replied that his statement reflects “the evolution of thinking since January 24.” “The nominations process was one area that Stuart left kind of loose, not knowing what he might hear from the GAC,” Vint writes. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

James Love suggested a “much different model for the governments” than the one imagined by Vint: “Giving (some) governments a direct role […] will blur issues such as the legal authority of the entity and its accountability to the public.” Also, Jamie asks, “what are you going to tell China?” In his reply, Vint conceded that “you may well be right that this won’t work – which is one of the reasons we have asked the GAC to respond with its own ideas.” Jamie then focused on the model of public-private partnerships used by Stuart Lynn, and commented that the structure suggested by the Lynn proposal “is pretty much the worst way to structure this.” [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

(vi) “Motion for a vote of no confidence in the Board.” Danny Younger proposed a “vote of no confidence in the board.” [www.dnso.org]

In the subsequent debate, some agreed, some didn’t.

Mike Roberts (ICANN’s former president and CEO) pointed out that he doesn’t “detect support for the Lynn plan from any significant stakeholder group thus far.” The “Board has bent over backward not to endorse the plan,” he notes. With respect to director representation and accountability, he notes that there are “three years of experience in which nomination, selection and seating of the Directors from the names, protocols and address areas has functioned better than one might expect.” “Let’s not be in a rush to jettison structures that are getting the job done, especially those, such as the DNSO, that are showing considerable recent improvement in quality and process,” he writes. Concerning at-large elections, he notes that the board “left a door open for an initiative.” He then goes on to comment on various points of the Lynn proposal, and opinions raised in the recent debate. I suggest you just read these comments in Mike’s own words. [www.dnso.org]

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list’s (and related) discussions and news between February 27, and March 12, 2002.

GA list archives are available online at [www.dnso.org]. Please feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate.

(Please note that this summary does not claim to be complete. In fact, it does so even less than the usual summaries, since I have to catch up two weeks of traffic. In particular, I have refrained from the temptation to include all the bits about what’s currently going on at the ICANN meetings in Accra. – T.R.)

Topics

(i) Structure: Reactions to the Lynn Proposal. In a follow-up to the “preliminary comments” thread covered in the previous summary, Alexander Svensson noted that “having an Ombudsperson and a Manager of Public Participation sounds like a good idea.” However, he says, “it is equally necessary to ensure public participation not only personally (by making it someone’s job), but also structurally (by making it part of the ICANN process and structure).” [www.lextext.com], [www.dnso.org]

David P. Farrar suspected that the Lynn plan may “in fact be merely a red herring.” “It is one of the oldest political tricks,” he continues, “to propose something so extreme and controversial that when you finally withdraw it the masses are so happy they didn’t get Proposal A they don’t complain so much about Proposal B.” It turned out that David was not the only one with this particular suspicion. [www.dnso.org]

In another posting, David (who also represents the GA on the Structure TF) tried to analyze the “pros and cons of the Lynn plan.” The message is written in a very concise manner, and has a whole lot of good points. It’s required reading in its entirety, and I’m not going to summarize it here. [www.dnso.org]

Danny Younger forwarded an interesting quote from RIPE NCC’s response to the ICANN document: “Seeing that you are proposing fundamental changes to ICANN and the principles behind the ICANN – RIR MoU, signed in 1999, we believe that in the interest of our members, we have to thoroughly re-assess our relationship with ICANN.” [www.dnso.org]

In the following discussion, DPF suggested that the ccTLDs “should carry on forming their own peer association” to negotiate with the DoC taking “over ICANN’s role with regards to any ISO3166-1 entries in the root”. In another posting on this, he also characterizes the behavior of ICANN management as a declaration of war on the ccTLDs, and notes that “ICANN was primarily created due to the need to create new gTLDs not to form some mini-UN over the ccTLDs.” Looking for ICANN’s functions with respect to the ccTLDs, he comes up with a list of three functions needed: 1. Update the root zone, 2. Notify of minimum technical standards for a TLD, 3. Establish and administer re-delegation when needed by the local Internet community. “This could all be done very easily by the ccTLDs acting as a peer organization,” he concludes. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

Another “Preliminary Statement” on the Lynn proposal was posted by Rob Courtney of Center for Democracy & Technology, on behalf of the NAIS team. In that statement, the NAIS group demands that the ALSC’s report should be “openly evaluated before the whole idea of the At Large is abandoned.” It is also pointed out that ICANN Board action during the Accra meeting will be necessary in order to hold elections for new at-large directors. The current at-large directors’ terms end this year. Further, the NAIS team states that the Lynn proposal “fails to provide adequate support” to the principles of “openness, transparency, inclusiveness and participation”. [www.dnso.org]

(ii) Structure: icannatlarge.com. Significant discussion took place concerning the icannatlarge.com effort, and the steering group established for that effort. Some of that discussion concerned various details of the effort, at a time when the ALSC’s forum list was unreachable. Other discussion covered the question whether or not members of DNSO constituencies should be allowed to participate in an at large effort. The links below are to messages at both ends of the spectrum of opinions raised. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org]

(iii) Waiting List Service. Ross Rader forwarded comments on the WLS from Michael Mann from Buydomains. [www.dnso.org]

Abel Wisman and Don Brown proposed GA feedback on the Waiting List Service, which lists various observations and concerns raised by GA members. The document concludes that “the GA does not support or endorse the WLS proposal in any manner”, and suggests that attention be turned to the ICANN Redemption Grace document, and that policy and procedure for the handling of expired registrations be developed. “The policy and procedure should safeguard the rights of Registrants during the post-expiration grace period and it should contain specific language designed to prevent potential abuses by the Registries and Registrars.” [www.dnso.org]

The document was supported by Kristy McKee, Harold Whiting, George Kirikos, Hugh Blair, Sotiris Sotiropoulos, David P. Farrar, Marc Schneiders, William X. Walsh, and Genie Livingstone.

(iv) DNSO funding. Verisign announced that it would redraw its offer to match any donations made to support the work of ICANN’s Domain Name Supporting Organization and Names Council for up to $100,000. [www.dnso.org]

Peter de Blanc followed up to state that he expects Verisign “to match the donations to date, as small as they may be.” [www.dnso.org]

Elisabeth Porteneuve pointed out that she believes that an “other donations” item of 9050 USD in 2000 “is a donation for matching funds”. [www.dnso.org]

(v) ICANN staff draft towards Mission Statement. Alexander Svensson forwarded an ICANN Staff Draft titled “What ICANN Does”, and published on March 7. In that draft, ICANN staff describes the corporation’s current activities. [www.dnso.org]

The draft caused significant discussion. ICANN director at large Karl Auerbach produced a shorter list of “what ICANN ought to do”, which is considerably shorter than the staff document. [www.dnso.org]

Elisabeth Porteneuve thanked Karl for “this excellent synthesis”, and suggested to add IPv6 deployment to the list. [www.dnso.org]

As a comment to Karl’s posting, Peter de Blanc (.VI) noted that “it is truly amazing that something once done by volunteers … now costs over US $5 million per year to sustain a bureaucracy that did not exist prior to commercialization of the Internet.” “Frankly,” he continues, “I do not see the need to pay so much for so little. Like there is not even a [Quality of Service] guarantee on the operation of the root server system.” [www.dnso.org]

Kent Crispin (now ICANN Staff) commented that there used to be paid IANA staff, that the Internet was much smaller in 1995/96, and that “the complexity of the things that IANA/ICANN does don’t scale linearly with the size of the Internet.” Concerning the cost, Kent claims that ICANN is “amazingly cheap,” “given the demands made.” [www.dnso.org]

Per Kle (.DK) responded that Kent’s note was “rubbish”, and argued that “as far as TLD’s is concerned ICANN/IANA is (only) managing a database with +250 entries.” In a different posting, Peter de Blanc stated his agreement. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org]

In response to that, Kent noted that the cost for the .DK database (which Per had also quoted) was indeed quite high from a pure database management point of view. “The reason it costs you $3mil to run your database has almost nothing to do with the size of your database,” Kent writes. “The cost is caused almost entirely by other factors. Similarly, the costs to ICANN/IANA for running the root zone have essentially nothing to do with the size of the root zone.” [www.dnso.org]

In another note from Karl Auerbach, he pointed out that “much is *still* done by volunteers.” “ICANN management,” he claims, “likes to inflate the complexity of what it is doing.” As an example, he quotes Stuart Lynn as saying that the operation of 12 root servers would cost $10,000,000 per year, and compares that with own estimates which yield about $3,000,000 per year. Also, he states that the cost ICANN itself currently incurs to run one of the root servers is not known. [www.dnso.org]

(vi) Root Server Operator MoU. In a branch of this discussion, Marc Schneiders asked where the memorandum of understanding between ICANN and the root server operators which Karl had mentioned was available. It turned out that the document seems to be unavailable. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

(vii) dot-usa. Danny Younger forwarded a Reuters news item on dotusa.com: The web site where users could “register” .usa domain names was shut down by a US court, according to the Federal Trade Commission. There was then some discussion on what the decision could mean for various kinds of alt.roots, and where the differences between dotusa.com and the other alt.roots, and new.net, are. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list’s (and related) discussions and news during the 8th (and the beginning of the 9th) week of 2002. GA list archives are available online at [www.dnso.org]. Please feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate.

Votes

The nomination period for the Names Council chair was ongoing. The gTLD registry constituency has nominated Cary Karp. Philip Sheppard of the Business Constituency, the current chair, is available for a second term.

Topics

(i) Deleted domain handling; supplemental information on domain name redemption. ICANN published a supplemental paper which detailed the proposal in various points: Registrar processes remain mostly unchanged, registries should be allowed to take a “cost-recovery service charge”, and registrants should be able to choose the renewing registrar. [www.icann.org]

Genie Livingstone was not the only one to mention domain hoarding as a problem which should be addressed first. However, Genie produced a sample of 100 4-letter domains being in “on hold” status, beginning with the letter “A”, in order to understand what currently happens. The result was that a particularly large number of the domains investigated is held by Verisign Registrar, with Register.com following on the second place. [www.dnso.org], [www.eyeondomain.com].

Harold Whiting followed up to notice that “as of a few days ago, NSI registrar was backlogged with over 1.3 million names that are overdue for deletion.” He suggests a Uniform Registrars’ Deletion Policy which should be mandatory for registrars. He suggests that, upon expiration, a domain should immediately be put “on hold”, and become unusable for a (uniform, I suppose) period not less than 40 days. After that period, domains should be returned to the registry and become available for re-registration. However, “registry shall queue all names marked for deletion using the standard ‘5 day hold’ process used now.” [www.dnso.org]

William Walsh replied that this proposal would tie up some of registrars’ capital for a 45 day period, which would hurt smaller registrars. While the same is the case with the current grace period, that one is optional, while Harold’s proposal would make it mandatory. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

Abel Wisman pointed out that a possible solution to this problem may be to charge renewal fees to the registrar on the 45th day of expiry, unless a domain is returned to the registry. Fees would then be non-returnable. [www.dnso.org]

(ii) Structure. After the board’s retreat over the week-end, a restructuring proposal done by ICANN’s Lynn was posted. According to this proposal, the current board of directors would be replaced by a (smaller) board of trustees. Some trustees would be appointed by governments (one trustee per geographical region), some would represent so-called policy councils (replacing the current supporting organizations, and being lead by “steering groups” which would replace the current councils), and some would be co-opted by the board. In particular, there would be no more “at large” elections.

Constituencies would be replaced by “forums”, and would not automatically send representatives to the steering groups.

The board of trustees would be expected to make policy decisions by itself, as opposed to the current board’s mission (as far as theory is concerned).

See [www.icann.org] for details, and [www.icannchannel.de] for a nice chart of the suggested structure done by Alexander Svensson.

Alexander also provided some preliminary comments, noting, in particular, that “the Board seems to elect itself according to this proposal.” He also asks how non-commercial and individual users make sure their voice is heard: Assuming that they have indeed representatives in the steering groups (the proposal reserves seats for non-commercials and individuals in the steering group of the generic TLD names policy council), they would have to convince the remainder of the steering group, which could then write a recommendation for the board. The board, in turn, could ignore such recommendations. Alexander concludes that, “to have an influence on the ICANN process, having a seat on the board and/or the new nominating committee seem to be good places.” [www.dnso.org]

(iii) Registrar data accuracy. Danny younger forwarded an excerpt from a New York Times article on registrar data accuracy. In the article, the counsel of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property claims that many registrars did not reply to a message from the committee which requested information “about whether and how the companies verify customer data.” [www.dnso.org]

Rick Wesson replied that “we” (we being Alice’s Registry) “responded and sent a lengthy letter discussing how difficult it is to identify invalid addresses. There is no known method of verifying a snail mail address in over 100 countries.” [www.dnso.org]

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 [www.dnso.org]. 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. [www.dnso.org]

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.” [www.dnso.org]

(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. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

(iii) Whois task force. Danny Younger asked for public access to the raw survey data. [www.dnso.org]

(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.” [www.icann.org]

William Walsh replied that “it should be stated that the registrar can only redeem the registration for the original registrant.” [www.dnso.org]

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.” [www.dnso.org]

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. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

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.” [www.dnso.org]

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. [www.dnso.org]

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.) [www.dnso.org]

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.” [www.dnso.org], [www.icann-ncc.org].

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.” [www.dnso.org]

(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. [www.dnso.org], [verisign-grs.com].

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.) [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

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.” [www.dnso.org]

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. [www.dnso.org]

(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. [www.dnso.org]

Danny also pointed out that Philip Sheppard has published v6 of the structure task force report. Danny considers that report “garbage.” [www.dnso.org]

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.” [www.dnso.org]

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. [www.dnso.org]

On the other hand, Philip claims that the current draft reflects input from all constituencies. [www.dnso.org]

To this, Chuck objects that “it certainly does not contain input provided by the gTLD registry constituency.” [www.dnso.org]

(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. [www.dnso.org]

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list’s (and related) discussions and news during the 6th (and the beginning of the 7th) week of 2002. GA list archives are available online at [www.dnso.org]. Please feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate.

Votes

There were no ongoing General Assembly votes during the week covered.

The names council’s vote on a possible waiver of rules of procedure was finished on February 6, with 10 votes in favor, 9 against, and one abstention. As pointed out by Louis Touton (and noted earlier by Danny Younger), this means that the waiver was not formally accepted during this vote. Also, as Touton points out, the Names Council “may not formally act through a vote conducted by e-mail alone.” [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

Topics

(i) WLS. Abel Wisman presented a first draft of a response to the revised WLS proposal. This draft contained various questions collected from various mailing lists. Independently of that, Thomas Roessler prepared another (considerably shorter) list of questions, and, finally, George Kirikos submitted no less than twenty questions. Alexander Svensson eventually created a compilation of all the different sets of questions, which was then submitted to Verisign. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

Danny Younger sent a pointer to the registrars’ set of questions. [www.dnso.org]

(ii) Structure Task Force. Danny Younger commented on the structure task force’s work. He notes that version 5 of the task force’s draft was posted on January 17, that it had seen practically no comments from the DNSO. Version 6 (which was supposed to be based on comments received) is still missing. According to Danny, this is proof for the “continued failure” of the task force approach. Also, he demands that the TF should focus on restructuring the DNSO. As Danny puts it, “none of us care much about the BC’s and IPC’s opinion about the future ALM.” [www.dnso.org]

In a follow-up, Peter de Blanc points out that he disagrees (!) about the possible ability of the at-large to become a “possible financial force within ICANN.” As an example, he takes just one US dollar per member. [www.dnso.org].

Alexander Svensson replies that small membership fees are hardly practical, since sending such donations to the US directly would create banking costs which make any payment unpractical. As examples, he lists GhanaExpress and NigeriaDirect, where a transfer of $ 1 would generate a fee of $ 12. He concludes that collecting small fees directly would generate prohibitive transaction costs. [www.dnso.org]

Mike Roberts suggests that the only option which may be implemented (“an imperfect, but feasible option”) is “a self-organized initial cohort of ALSO participants who are willing to pay a membership fee by credit card.” He quotes “a sustaining individual membership” as a “general type of minimum test.” [www.dnso.org]

In a follow-up message, David P. Farrar asks for a reference about the board indicating a minimum threshold of 5,000 members for a viable at-large organization (which was also mentioned by Mike). David estimates that the “chances of getting 5,000 people to initially pay $ 25 is near zero.” He suggests a lower fee and a lower threshold. [www.dnso.org]

(iii) Transfer Task Force. Danny points to discussion notes from the task force’s latest conference call. The notes were pointed to the registrars list by Ross Rader. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

(iv) Webcast of Accra meetings. Ben Edelman pointed out that the Berkman Center’s staff will not be present in Accra, and that ICANN itself should be contacted for webcast details. [www.dnso.org]

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 [www.dnso.org]. 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). [www.dnso.org]

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. [www.dnso.org]

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.” [www.dnso.org]

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. [www.dnso.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 parties.” [www.dnso.org]

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.” [www.dnso.org]

Topics

(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. [www.dnso.org]

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. [www.dnso.org]

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. [www.dnso.org]

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.” [www.dnso.org]

(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. [www.dnso.org]

(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.” [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

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.) [www.dnso.org],

To this, Jeff Neuman of Neustar replies that the gTLD response is advocating precisely such a rotating chairmanship. [www.dnso.org]

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. [www.dnso.org]

(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. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

(v) Russ Smith on Verisign. Russ Smith of consumer.net sent four messages complaining about Verisign’s business practices. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

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

Votes

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.

Topics

(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”. [www.dnso.org]

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

(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. [www.dnso.org]

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. [www.dnso.org]

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. [www.dnso.org]

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. [www.dnso.org]

(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.

[www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

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

(v) Andy Duff (of new.net) pointed to some Business Constituency charter revisions. [www.dnso.org]

(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. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

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

(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.

[www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

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

Votes

There were no ongoing votes.

NC teleconference

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

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

Topics

(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”. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org]

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

(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”. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

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. [www.dnso.org]

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”. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

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 […].” [www.dnso.org]

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. [www.dnso.org]

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”. [www.dnso.org]

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!” [www.dnso.org]

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. [www.dnso.org]

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.

[www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

Eric Schneider of unames.com 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. [www.dnso.org]

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!

[www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].

(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. [www.dnso.org], [www.dnso.org].