RE: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal registration activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Elizabeth wrote:

is the recent increase of prices by VeriSign related to
> the necessity to face permanent kiting kind-of denial of
> service attacks? Billions fake registrations, billions
> deletes, it all requests for huge databases, robust servers,
> much bigger than the normal data processing.

Good question Elizabeth!

> If the price increase by VeriSign is to cover the kiting,
> then those who generate that volume must pay for their games.
> Not the end registrant.

In a perfect world, I would have to agree.  However, this is the world of
business where the end consumer ultimately always pays one way or another
:-)

I have not had time to read this entire thread or all the documents
thoroughly (due to 40,000 language codes attracting my attention at this
moment in time).

However, somewhere I read a proposal that a Registrar should be limited to
10% domain tasting of their annual purchase amount.  e.g 54,000 domains
purchased entitles 5,400 allowable domain tastes!  Sounds pretty reasonable
to me!  Would certainly cut the problem down to about 1% of what it is at
the moment (according to my recollection).

Is someone putting together a succinct document indicating all the proposals
currently on the table for dealing with this problem?


Kind regards

Debbie



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Sent: 02 April 2008 20:30
> To: chris@xxxxxx; Neuman, Jeff; Jeffrey A. Williams
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal
> registration activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules
>
>
> Now, that we learned not only about the dark side of the
> moon, but also about kiting - many thanks Chris for a very
> clear explanation - my question
> is: is the recent increase of prices by VeriSign related to
> the necessity to face permanent kiting kind-of denial of
> service attacks? Billions fake registrations, billions
> deletes, it all requests for huge databases, robust servers,
> much bigger than the normal data processing.
>
> If the price increase by VeriSign is to cover the kiting,
> then those who generate that volume must pay for their games.
> Not the end registrant.
> Incidentally it means ICANN failed in its mission - they knew
> about kiting since 2004, and they even did not hire a
> mathematician to observe tendencies in registration, and
> provide them with adequate analysis?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: chris@xxxxxx
> To: Neuman, Jeff ; Jeffrey A. Williams ; Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal
> registration activity,
> was: Re: [ga] List Rules
>
>
> Thank you Jeff. FYI, I would really like this to be resolved.
> I am not just against registrars, registries, and ICANN. I am
> simply going by ICANN's past history and performance when it
> comes to these type of issues when referring to it. If there
> is mistrust, there is good reason.
>
> Actaully what Bob is referring to IS kiting and not tasting.
> Tasting is when anyone uses the AGP to try out a domain name.
> Kiting happens when they work with others so that person
> number 2 picks it right back up for another 5 days, person 3
> does the same, and so on and so on. That domain name is not
> off the market for 5 days. It is off the market for an
> indeterminate amount of time depending on the size of their network.
>
> Tim is a good guy and I respect his opinion as I do yours
> Jeff. However, I have to wonder if he is choosing this
> because it is at least a good start or if he actually
> believes this will solve the problem.
>
> The evidence you ask for cannot exist and I assume that is a
> rhetorical question. It's like going into a lab and finding
> an unlimited button and someone says I wonder what this does.
> We cannot know until you push the button.
>
> However I do know that if the AGP did not exist, it would
> solve the problem.
> That is fact. Indisputable. So choosing that solution will
> definitely solve the problem and the other method "might"
> solve the problem or at least we do not have proof that it
> won't solve the problem, so you would rather choose the
> "might" method. I would rather choose the definite method.
>
> You do agree that we can "prove" that the elimination of the
> AGP will stop the abuse of same right?
>
> And Jeff, I do appreciate the dialogue. We may disagree, but
> I do not mean any of it as a personal attack on anyone. I
> have to work for clients who want better domain names and
> many of those are not available due to tasting and kiting
> being allowed for this long.
>
> Chris McElroy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Neuman, Jeff
> To: chris@xxxxxx ; Jeffrey A. Williams ; Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:06 PM
> Subject: RE: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal
> registration activity,
> was: Re: [ga] List Rules
>
>
> Thank you for this.
>
> FYI, Tim Ruiz, who is in senior management at GoDaddy was on
> the drafting committee and supports the motion.  The motion
> proposes to end the types of abuses Bob is talking about.
> However, I will note for the record that what Bob calls
> kiting is not actually kiting, but rather tasting.  Big difference.
>
> My question still remains.  If the motion goes through and is
> implemented, what evidence is there that this will not stop
> the AGP abuses?
>
> With respect to your questions:
>
> 1.  There has been very little tasting going on in .biz or
> .us.  Any tasting that has occurred did not start until last
> year.  So no, I was not part of anything related to this
> prior to when the issues were brought forward by the ALAC in
> their draft issues report.
>
> It is my belief that all known abuses to the AGP will be
> eliminated by the
> proposal.   Will tasting be eliminated?  Tougher question,
> but the answer is
> the same whether this motion is adopted or the AGP is
> eliminated.  In other words, eliminating the AGP will not
> sole any more problems in my view that the current version.
> It will create additional problems with respect to legitimate deletes.
> Registrars have abused the AGP, however, the motion should
> cure the known abuses.
> And no, I do not believe personally that the response to the
> abuses has been as quick as it should have been either from
> ICANN or by the Registrars.
> That said, I believe NeuStar's implementation will solve the
> known issues with the AGP.
>
> Also, I believe you asked whether I believe registrars just
> made up reasons for legitimately using the AGP to benefit
> from tasting or something like that.  The answer is no.  Most
> of the reasons for keeping the AGP were submitted by
> companies like GoDaddy and others that do not engage in
> tasting or have ever abused the AGP.
>
> Sorry if I missed some questions, but I hope I got most of
> them.  If I did not, feel free to ask again.  (Although maybe
> we can start a new chain.this one got long and hard to follow).
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  &
> Business Development
> NeuStar, Inc.
> e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> From: chris@xxxxxx [mailto:chris@xxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:50 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff; Jeffrey A. Williams; Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal
> registration activity,
> was: Re: [ga] List Rules
>
> Here is a letter written to ICANN in 2004 from Bob Parsons.
> http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/pdf/100804_letter_iyd.pdf
>
> This is from april of 2006
>
> "35 million names registered in April. 32 million were part
> of a kiting scheme. A serious problem gets worse.
>
> In a nutshell, here's how domain kiting works.
> Domain kiting registrars put up mini-Web sites - loaded with
> search engine links - for domains names for which they never
> pay. When people land on these Web sites and click on the
> links, money is made. It's easy to spot one of these
> registrars as the number of total registrations they make
> often far exceed the number of permanent registrations - or
> names for which they actually pay. This is why during the
> month of April 2006, out of 35 million registrations, only a
> little more than 2 million were permanent or actually
> purchased. The vast majority of the rest were part of the
> domain kiting scheme.
>
> Now let's drill down a little further into domain kiting 101.
> A registrar who participates in this scheme - Go Daddy and
> its affiliates do not participate in this scheme - makes a
> large deposit - sometimes a huge deposit - at a registry.
> Then the registrar registers as many domain names as the
> deposit will allow. For example, if the registrar makes a
> $600,000 deposit at VeriSign Registry, they could register
> 100,000 .COM domain names as .COM names cost $6.00 per year."
>
> Now if registrars are engaged in domain kiting how do you
> assume that registrars and registries opinion of how to solve
> this issue should carry more weight than any user on this
> list or any user on the web for that matter. Since it is the
> very industry doing the domain kiting, why should
> recommendations from that industry be taken seriously
> regarding this issue?
>
> It's not like it just now happened and your industry is
> taking progressive steps to police it. It was going on since
> before 2004. So where were the other registries and
> registrars, excluding Bob Parsons, who did speak out, when it
> was going on then? Where was your outrage at a few rogue
> registrars abusing the AGP? It was ignored because there was
> no public outrage. Now that there is, the registries and
> registrars step up and tell us that they will take the lead
> to solve this problem and that we should all just trust you.
> As you said our mistrust of the registries and registrars and
> ICANN is no reason to suggest the elimination of the AGP.
>
> Had all of the "legitimate" registries and registrars stepped
> up to solve this issue in 2004, maybe it would be different.
> Maybe you could raise the issue that you should be trusted to
> come up with a solution. But that did not happen did it? And
> as far as trusting ICANN to solve the domain kiting and
> tasting issue, why are we just now addressing this? Where
> were they then? Where have they been on every single issue?
> On the side of big business and registrars and registries and
> never on the side of users.
>
> The abuse of the AGP has hurt small business owners and users
> by creating a false shortage of domain names. The registries
> and registrars and ICANN allowed it to happen. Now we should
> just trust them to fix it? Why? What evidence or prior good
> acts can you point to that suggests that this industry or
> ICANN deserves that trust?
>
> More from Bob Parsons;
>
> Domain kiting registrars abuse the 5 day refund period to
> work their scheme.
> After a domain name is registered, a registrar has five days
> to cancel a domain name registration - i.e. drop the name -
> and get their money back.
> Domain kiting registrars abuse this rule and cancel the
> lion's share of the names they register just before the five
> day period expires - so they get their money back. But then
> something unexpected happens. After names are cancelled or
> dropped, the domain kiting registrar goes out and immediately
> registers the same names again. The domain kiting registrar
> will then put the same simple Web site back up for each
> domain name, wait another five days and then cancel all the
> names again - just in time to get a full refund. And for most
> names caught up in the domain kiting scheme, this process
> will repeat itself over and over and over.
>
> Meet DirectNIC.
> You might find the registration statistics of DirectNIC
> somewhat interesting. DirectNIC registered more than 8.4
> million domain names in April 2006, but only permanently
> registered - or paid for - 51.4 thousand of those. The trend
> was the same in March, when DirectNIC registered 7.6 million
> names and only permanently registered - or paid for - 52.5 thousand.
> Whatever could DirectNIC be doing? Why are they dropping and
> re-registering all those names - again - and again - and
> again? And why doesn't ICANN care?
>
> But wait, there's more - many more.
> And the list of registrars, that register many more domain
> names than they actually purchase, goes on and on.
>
> ICANN fiddles while the Domain system burns.
> I will point out that at this time, unlike check kiting -
> there is nothing illegal about domain kiting. Of course,
> domain kiting should be illegal.
> ICANN is perfectly happy with the practice. In spite of many
> complaints they have done nothing to put an end to it.
>
> ICANN's favorite comment.
> Since my last blog article a number of people have contacted
> ICANN and quite predictably, but sadly, ICANN has had no comment.
>
> Domain kiting is out of control and must be stopped.
> This domain kiting practice needs to be stopped. It benefits
> only those few organizations that are pillaging the domain
> name system. It takes millions of good names off the system,
> and makes them unavailable for the purposes for which those
> names were originally intended. It places an unnecessary
> burden on every registry.
> You said that "There are a lot of conclusory statements made
> in the e-mails calling for the abolishment of the AGP. Yet,
> there is little evidence behind those conclusions."
>
> When has there not been evidence? None of the above
> statements by Bob Parsons refers to evidence of registrars
> engaging in domain kiting?
>
> You also said, "evidence was presented by the Registrars on
> how the AGP was used for legitimate purposes."
>
> And you do not expect them to come up with reasons to keep
> the AGP when some of them benefit from it in non-legitmate ways?
>
> You say "Neither the registries nor the registrars will
> support the abolishment of the AGP because of these
> legitimate purposes."
>
> Are you sure that is the reason? Do you ask us to believe
> that only "legitimate reasons motivate the registrars to keep
> the AGP? None of them want to keep it for other reasons?
> Where does Bob Parsons stand on the issue?
>
> Then you say "The fact that your gut tells you there could in
> theory be issues or that you general distrust registries,
> registrars and ICANN is NOT a basis to call for the
> abolishment of the AGP, where legitimate uses have been demonstrated."
>
> Questions
>
> Where has this trust been earned in regards to the issue of
> domain tasting and domain kiting?
>
> Did you write the proposal you speak of in 2004 or just
> recently since this has gotten more public attention?
>
> Do you think domain kiting and domain tasting is a theory?
>
> Do you think that it is only a theory that registrars have
> engaged in this practice?
>
> Do you believe ICANN has addressed these issues in a timely fashion?
>
> Do you think the registrars and registries have acted to
> police their own industry in regards to these issues in a
> timely fashion?
>
> I'm really curious as to your answers to those questions. It
> may be a matter of perception. If you perceive that ICANN and
> the registrars and registries have acted in a timely fashion
> then your idea of timely is much different than it is for
> many of us. Had those actions in your proposal been suggested
> when this was first brought to everyone's attention, then
> they woiuld definitely have been taken more seriously and
> more drastic action might not have been called for.
>
> Chris McElroy
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> "Elisabeth Porteneuve"
> <elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:29 AM
> Subject: RE: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal
> registration activity,
> was: Re: [ga] List Rules
>
> >
> > I feel an obligation to respond, since my comments are quoted here.
> >
> > There are a lot of conclusory statements made in the
> e-mails calling for
> > the abolishment of the AGP. Yet, there is little evidence
> behind those
> > conclusions.
> >
> > I will be the first to state the process followed in
> getting this motion
> > together has been less than stellar....IN short, there were lots of
> > flaws.  I have pointed this out on a number of occasions.
> That said,
> > evidence was presented by the Registrars on how the AGP was used for
> > legitimate purposes.  As a registry, I have personally seen
> how the AGP
> > has been used in cases where a reseller or registrant has
> attempted to
> > defraud a registrar.  Just because you may not have personally
> > benefitted from the AGP, does not mean that other
> registrants have not.
> > Neither the registries nor the registrars will support the
> abolishment
> > of the AGP because of these legitimate purposes.  Let me
> also state for
> > the record, there is no financial or other benefits NeuStar
> will receive
> > by keeping an AGP.  In fact, one might argue that
> eliminating the AGP
> > will result in NeuStar getting more money because no
> refunds will ever
> > be issued.  However, we do see the benefits of the AGP if
> used properly
> > and therefore, despite the possibility of making more money, we do
> > support keeping a limited AGP (as you saw in our proposal).
> >
> > What I have not seen from anyone in support of eliminating
> the AGP is
> > evidence as to (i) why the proposed motion will not solve
> the abuses of
> > the AGP, and (ii) more importantly, if the solution does solve these
> > abuses of the AGP, as NeuStar believes, why is eliminating the AGP
> > necessary.  The fact that your gut tells you there could in
> theory be
> > issues or that you general distrust registries, registrars
> and ICANN is
> > NOT a basis to call for the abolishment of the AGP, where legitimate
> > uses have been demonstrated.
> >
> > If you believe I am wrong, please provide EVIDENCE....not
> gut feelings,
> > disbelief, conjectures, distrust and conspiracy theories.
> I really do
> > want to see this evidence.
> >
> > Like Roberto said earlier (or something like this), why do
> you need a
> > bazooka to kill a mosquito.
> >
> >
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> > Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  &
> >
> > Business Development
> >
> > NeuStar, Inc.
> > e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> > Of Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:37 AM
> > To: Elisabeth Porteneuve
> > Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dstansell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx; greg.abbott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > board-review-tor@xxxxxxxxx; jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx; twomey@xxxxxxxxx;
> > public.information@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal
> registration activity,
> > was: Re: [ga] List Rules
> >
> >
> > Elisabeth and all,
> >
> >  Thank you for your thoughtful and somewhat detailed
> > response.  Very much welcomed by me anyway, and I hope
> > by others of the GA members.  Perhaps you would be
> > so kind as to forward this, your response to the ALAC as
> > well.  I am sure it would be of interest to some on
> > that forum as well.  I shall be sure to forward mine
> > in response!  >:)
> >
> >  The remainder of my remarks, thoughts, concerns in
> > response will be interspersed below elisabeths and
> > are intended to be very general and applied to the
> > GA members as a whole or other perhaps interested
> > parties and addressed to/cc.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >>From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Sent: Apr 1, 2008 6:45 AM
> >>To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, 'Danny Younger'
> > <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, 'Hugh Dierker' <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>,
> > debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>Cc: Elisabeth Porteneuve <elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules
> >>
> >>
> >>I went through PPT presentations attached to the quoted message (via
> > Danny)
> >>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg0
> 5626.html,
> >>re-read Jeff Neuman's quotes from New Delhi (via Dominik)
> >>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01
> 071.html ,
> > Ross
> >>Rader's note
> >>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01
> 300.html ,
> > but
> >>also browsed contractual reports ICANN receives from registries at
> >>http://www.icann.org/tlds/monthly-reports/ , especially
> com-net ones.
> >
> > I did a quick review of this report and found it very interesting.
> > I would like to ask if it could be acceuented on the GNSO web
> > site more promonantly for others whom have recently ask, to review.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>At the end of my reading, I think I understand better.
> >>
> >>First of all, I understand the AGP serves the large spectra of non
> > written
> >>purposes, for the benefit of registrars and their
> resellers. My blunt
> >>perception from PPTs is that a number of registrars run insecure
> > software,
> >>and let their uneducated resellers to do as much mess as
> possible - all
> > that
> >>is on the dark side of the moon, because outside of ICANN's
> contracts,
> > AGP
> >>is a kind of insurance to fix unspoken disasters.
> >
> >  Your first sentance here really get's to the central aspect of the
> > AGP's existance and or need/lack there of.  Non written purposes
> > for the existance of the AGP has a "Gaming" aspect that seems to
> > be central to the problem of Tasting, warehousing, kiting, and
> > other related errant registration activity.  As such, the only
> > method or means by which those aspects of the AGP can be addressed
> > is to either document what does and does not constitute the
> AGP's use
> > for those now unwritten benifits to registrants, or the elimination
> > of the AGP, which I Chris, and Dominik proposals/motions outline
> > and call for, becomes necessary.  Chris and myself have doubts as
> > to wheather of not such specifics in modification of the AGP to
> > provide for the desired flexability or the now non written benifits
> > can be adaquately accomplished, and I personally am of the opinion
> > the policing of same would be a huge burden of responsibility on
> > the ICANN staff that is obviously desired to be eliminated.  Some
> > of those oversite functions I know can be automated programatically
> > in the registration software, but given that less than secure
> > registration software in used a additional security level
> requirement
> > would than also become necessary.  I have frequently suggested such
> > be done long ago, but was sarimoniously ignored.  Now that chicken
> > has come home to roost!
> >>
> >>Secondly, VeriSign's reports clearly indicate that some registrars -
> > very
> >>few - delete N (big N)  times more domains than add or
> renew, and that
> > is a
> >>permanent situation. VeriSign's benefit is that their servers'
> > performances
> >>are permanently benched and able to withstand a lot.
> >
> > Yes but Verisign in not necessarly respectively comparative to
> > other registries as far as server performance ability is concerned,
> > and does not apply to registrars at all.
> >>
> >>Third, I do not see much AGP benefit to registrants, they
> do not have
> > EPP
> >>access to anything, and IMHO cannot make many mistakes
> (typo happens,
> > of
> >>course).
> >
> >  I fully agree.  What is and has for years now been necessary is
> > that registrants have EPP access to their own registered domain name
> > records at both the registrar level and registry level so as to
> > keep them accurate and up to date.  Both registries and registrars
> > have been particularly resistant to providing for this function,
> > and as such errors in both registry/registrar data for any
> particular
> > Domain name information remain, AND Whois listing data.
> This poses at
> > least one, and I would be glad to argue at any time in any setting,
> > several other significant legal and criminal activity
> directly related
> > to this lack of ability and oversite of domain name registration
> > data.  As such, ICANN by way of the RAA contracts is liable to a
> > limited degree in complicity of such illegal activity accordingly.
> >
> >  However anyone of reasonable sensibilities can understand a
> > typo error, but as Chris has pointed out those should not occur
> > after the second opt-out has been sent to the registrant and
> > recieved accordingly.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Eventually I concur with proposed GNSO (Council?) motion -
> 50 deletes
> > or
> >>10% - to discriminate between occasional mistakes or incompetence of
> > the
> >>dark side and permanent tasting by some registrars.
> >
> >  Plain and simple, registrars that have shown a short history
> > of Tasting or other errent and possibly illegal activity should
> > immediately have their ICANN accreditation revoked and their
> > Domain Name taken down.
> >>
> >>Last, I think ICANN's should compile tendencies of monthly
> reports to
> > show
> >>to the Board any new piggyback services happening in registrations.
> >
> >  I fully agree.  Additionally if such activity is recognized, the
> > offender should be immediately notified and given no longer than
> > 10 calender days to correct the problem or face whatever legal
> > consequences that may and should insue.
> >
> > My final and personal concerns regarding Tasting and registration
> > of Domain Names:
> >
> >  As I have repeatedly stated for a number of years, along with
> > Dr. Joe Baptista, my single biggest concern regarding the Domain
> > name registration is similar to the assingment of IP addresses,
> > that being that many, too many Domain Names that are registered
> > are used for illegal activities, such as spam, phishing, and
> > more importantly Child Ponrnography solicitiation or direct
> > Child Ponography activity.  This must be STOPPED and ICANN
> > can and has the direct ability to STOP it if it so chooses.
> > Currently it does not choose to do so, or is unable to do
> > so due to lack of staff and technical ability.  Those are
> > not reasonable excuses IMHO!  Yet the user, just like myself,
> > cannot by themselves stop this errant or illegal activity.
> > But we can, and I persoanally do, just like Dr. Joe, Chris,
> > and Dominik have, object strongly to this lack of responsibility
> > by ICANN!
> >
> >  As a matter of practicality and legal liability, passing
> > along to LEA's, court systems in any and all countries,
> > judicial systems of same due to a lack of responsibility
> > by the ICANN Bod and legal staff is an unecessary burden
> > upon those LEA's, judicial systems, court systems and an
> > affront to the public that I am sure they do not appriciate
> > at all.  Nor do I! >:(
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>My 2 euro-cents
> >>
> >>Elisabeth Porteneuve
> >>
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>To: "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>; "'Hugh Dierker'"
> >><hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>; <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:04 PM
> >>Subject: RE: [ga] List Rules
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Danny, that could be really helpful in trying to sort this
> > issue
> >>> out. At least for me.
> >>> RG
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> >>>> Sent: Monday, 31 March 2008 21:49
> >>>> To: Hugh Dierker; debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello Eric,
> >>>>
> >>>> As much as I like motions, we would in a better position if
> >>>> we could draft an issues paper laying out the pros and cons
> >>>> of the AGP.  I note that the registrars have already created
> >>>> a powerpoint on the benefits of the AGP -- you can view it by
> >>>> clicking on the attachment at this url:
> >>>>
> >
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05626.html
> >>>>
> >>>> By this way, this powerpoint was quite convincing (at least
> >>>> to Board director Steven Goldstein that referenced this
> >>>> presentation at the Washington JPA session), so our
> >>>> counterpoint arguments must necessarily be of equal or
> >>>> greater caliber if we are to convince both the GNSO and the
> >>>> Board over the objections of the registrars.
> >>>>
> >>>> regards,
> >>>> Danny
> >>>>
> >>>> --- Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> > The list has run along very smoothly for several
> months. The main
> >>>> > reason is voluntary compliance with the rules. Once
> this concept
> >>>> > breaks down so does the list. We are not talking about
> >>>> individual one
> >>>> > time lapses. For constant repeat violations we must stand
> >>>> strong and
> >>>> > enforce the rules.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >   We are at a point for the first time in months, that
> the list is
> >>>> > coalescing into the form of producing a
> statement/motion. The AGP
> >>>> > issue seems to have come to a head and more formal resolution
> >>>> > procedures may be appropriate. I believe it is at a motion
> >>>> stage with
> >>>> > 4 seconds. If the desire is to move forward in a constructive
> >>>> > effective matter, we should hear that from the members.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >   Eric
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> > Regards,
> >
> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k
> members/stakeholders strong!)
> > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
> >   Abraham Lincoln
> >
> > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> > United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> > ===============================================================
> > Updated 1/26/04
> > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
> > div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
> > jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > My Phone: 214-244-4827
> >
>
>
>
>
>