RE: [gnso-rap-dt] Interesting article not unrelated to the Front Running Discussions

[Paul Stahura <Paul.Stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

Don't confuse the loch ness monster with a big fish
A domain availability check is different than a whois lookup.

From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 7:40 PM
To: Neuman,Jeff
Cc: George Kirikos; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] Interesting article not unrelated to the Front 
Running Discussions

Thanks, Jeff.  An excellent sighting / photo of the Loch Ness Monster.

J.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] Interesting article not unrelated to the Front
Running Discussions
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, September 01, 2009 9:29 pm
To: "George Kirikos" <icann+rap@xxxxxxxx>, <gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx>


New Service by Network Solutions (Reveal of all whois queries for the day).

http://domainnamewire.com/2009/09/01/network-solutions-displays-customers-whois-queries-to-the-public/


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx<https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose>]
 On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 4:30 PM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Feedback on front running questions


As per my prior email:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/msg00308.html

I'd still appreciate a list of the domain names he attempted to
register, to see if they were "worthy" of being registered, i.e. their
quality.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Marika Konings<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Please find below the response received from Ben Edelman to the follow-up
> questions posed by members of the RAP WG. Note that the report was
> commissioned by the ICANN compliance department.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> From: Ben Edelman 
> [mailto:ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose>]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:19 PM
> To: 'Stacy Burnette'
> Subject: RE: Questions on front running study
>
> Thanks for the further questions.
>
> Attached is the list of URLs where domain availability was checked.  There
> are fewer than 600 entries because some URLs were checked repeatedly,
> consistent with the methodology detailed in my report.
>
> To Greg's second question: As I mentioned in my prior message, I did not
> have occasion to classify the particulars of each URL where I checked domain
> availability.  So I don't know the answer to that question.  My tests began
> at the URLs listed in the attachment.  Then, as detailed in my methodology,
> I used a domain registration or search link or form on (or linked from) each
> page to check the availability of a test domain on each of the test URLs.
>
> On Greg's third question: Checking the registry would have been a fine
> alternative to DNS queries.  As Greg suggests, checking the registry would
> offer certain benefits.  With INFO as well as COM and NET, I'd need to run
> several kinds of checks, but it's certainly doable.  However, the
> methodology I used was the methodology described in my report, not the
> alternative Greg suggests.
>
> I'll let ICANN speak to the question of what part of ICANN requested the
> report.
>