Re: (none)

[Hank Nussbacher <hank@ibm.net.il>]

At 02:01 PM 6/21/97 GMT, Mark Henderson-Thynne wrote:
>*sigh*
>
>How many times so we have to make this point, how can we make it even
>clearer so you will understand:
>
>1) There is no such thing as pre-registration, zoen files for these domains
>    do not exist, the CORE database does not exist, how can registrations be 
>    made to databases/zone files that do not yet exist. the term
pre-registration
>    implies registering a name before registrations are allowed but that is
>    impossible as there is no way to register a name yet.
>
>2) Clients have asked us to attempt to register their names as soon as 
>    possible on day one. To make this easier for us and the client we are
>    taking their details now. When registrations are allowed we will submit
>    the names that clients have asked us to attempt to register. We are not
>    taking any money now and we will only bill clients once a name has been
>    successfully registered (i.e. after day one).
>
>Lets try to make it even clearer still:
>
>1) pre-registration cannot exist.
>
>2) taking advance orders to be submitted on day one can exist and lots
>    of companies are doing it.
>
>3) Clients want to be able to place an advance order as they see the importance
>    and legitimacy of the new gTLDs. For the same reason they have chosen not 
>    to register in the "fake root nameserver confederations and domains". 
>
>3) not all these companies make it clear that registration isn't gauranteed
>    when the application is submitted.
>
>4) NetNames makes it very clear that placing an advance order gaurantees
>    nothing.
>
>5) NetNames is being positive and providing a service that clients want instead
>    of being negative and criticising the whole process.
>
>OK, that may still be too complicated so I will try again:
>
>1) pre-registration cannot exist therefore NetNames (or anyone else) cannot
>    (and does not) pre-register.
>
>I hope you unstand the above but please feel  free to mail me if you have
any other
>questions.
>
>Mark......
>
>At 3:12 pm -0700 20/6/97, Simon Higgs wrote:
>>At 9:02 AM +0200 6/20/97, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>>
>>> At 10:10 AM 6/20/97 -0400, Sandy C. Kronenberg wrote:
>>> >WHAT!!!!...How can they preregister? what is going on here?
>>>
>>> You are basing your info from the draft application form V11, right?  It
>>> says near the top that it is a draft.  During our discussions between iPOC
>>> and PAB, the item about preregistrations has come up and it has been removed
>>> from the current draft application form (internal still).
>>>
>>> If any potential registrar guarantees pre-registration they will be sued for
>>> fraud by the person requesting the new domain, when they don't get it.
>>> Review all the cavaets Netnames uses when accepting an application for a new
>>> gTLD.  Any other company can do the same.
>>
>>
>>Geeez... the PAB is not NetNames. Who else did you discuss it with on
>>the PAB? No-one I bet.

It was raised on PAB and discussed on PAB.  I did not receive a *single*
note indicating objection to this from anyone on PAB.  If I did, we would
have discussed it further to clear up the matter.  

>>
>>Bad, bad, bad, bad mistake.
>>
>>Congratulations! You just destroyed the PAB, Hank.

I have?  iPOC, considering the nature of the change, voted on the matter and
it received a majority in favor of the change.

>>
>>One of the cardinal rules in this business is that *NO* applications
>>can be accepted by *ANYONE* until day one.
>>
>>Authorization is only given by to start on day one. I assume this must
>>have begun? The gTLDs are now in the root and *EVERYONE* can accept
>>registrations and cash in? No?
>>
>>Has anyone on the IAHC/iPOC or IANA given any organization permission
>>to accept applications in the seven IAHC gTLDs?

No one has permission to register new gTLDs.  Anyone can accept
pre-submission as Netnames and others are doing.  It doesn't guarantee that
the domain will be yours.  When day #1 comes along, someone else may get it
first.

>>
>>What makes NetNames or anyone else able to do this, and GlobeComm and
>>Sandy and all the other PAB members (by specific request of Don Heath)
>>not able to do this?

Anyone can do it.

>>
>>This is even worse than the original NSI problem because there is
>>uneven discrimination going on in a supposedly "open" and "fair"
>>process. Why do think this is process is regarded as badly flawed, and
>>most folks who know better won't sign the MoU?
>>
>>I suggest all those who are not taking applications and think they are
>>being unfairly discriminated against start a class action suit against
>>the iPOC.
>>
>>You may not like me, or my viewpoint, but you know I'm right.

Every step of the way you have been against our solution - merely because we
didn't adopt your solution in total.  The alternative to our solution is NSI
and a monopoly.  I'll continue to plunge ahead with the gTLD MoU solution.



>>
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>
>>Simon
>>
>>-- "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
>>will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare.  Now, thanks to
>>the Internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Wilensky, ILP 1996
>
>
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    NETNAMES INTERNATIONAL * Protecting your business all around the world
>                      Registering Domain Names in over 200 countries
>          Business to business * Professional service * Automated system
>                                       http://www.netnames.com   
>                       Phone +44 171 224 2017    Fax +44 171 224 4313
>     Mark Henderson-Thynne :  Domain Name Manager : mark@netnames.com
>
>
>
>
Hank Nussbacher
iPOC member
[The views expressed above are the authors alone and may not reflect
the view of other iPOC members]