RE: [ga] Re: Verisign proceeds with WLS, despite opposition

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Note my responses below.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Harold Whiting [mailto:Harold@PeterWhiting.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 7:41 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] Re: Verisign proceeds with WLS, despite opposition



*synopsis:

1. Verisign was never looking for consensus, only how marketable WLS would
be once it became "the only way to get a used domain name".

Chuck: Partially correct in that we were looking for reasonable interest,
not consensus, because no registrar is required to participate.  But it is
very hard to imagine that the WLS will never become the only way to get a
used domain name.  Auctions, direct resale and even some of the other
current secondary market offerings will continue.

2. Verisign believes it is not required to submit to ICANN consensus
process.

Chuck: Wrong.  We are contractually required to submit to consensus policies
and will.  But there is no consensus policy involved in this case.

3. Verisign assumes that everyone who has not spoken out against WLS
(especially those that have never even heard of it) are stron supporters of
WLS.

Chuck: Wrong. On the contrary, we actually think that most people who did
not speak out really don't care too much one way or the other.

4. Since the "official" RC position was staunchly against this, Verisign
uses thier own registrar holdings, and Snap Names' partners too, combined
with the most tortured math and logic concievable, to declare "overwhelming
support" byt the Registrars for WLS.

Chuck: How representative of the the Registrars Constituency's "official
position?"  Tortured math?  Actually we simply applied simple arithmetic.
And the arithmetical results clearly demonstrated enough interest to move
forward.

5. Verisign still firmly maintains that no existing businesses will be
adversely affected by WLS and the resulting monopoly on the "used domain"
market.  After all, now they can simply buy the "new product"!

Chuck: Actually what we concluded was that it was not clear that any current
models would be eliminated.  And we concluded that models that require use
of our systems at extemely inefficient levels did not make good business
sense. 

*The above is strictly my own opinion, based upon the written documents
publicly posted by VGRS. No warranty is made for its accuracy. Your milage
may vary.

--HJW--
Harold Whiting
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html