Re: [ga] WLS: Fair Warning

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Danny and all assembly members,

  I think personally that you are absolutely right in this warning
and your follow-on suggestion.  Framing concerns as to
how they effect current or potential DNS and in particular
Domain Name Delete/Transfer policy is a very wise
warning as well as idea.

  Secondly however, the WLS issue in terms of technically
addressing the Delete problem is also a key.  So addressing
WLS in terms of technical Policy for ICANN and ICANN
Registrars also needs to be given serious consideration.

  Currently in our members view, WLS only addresses part of
the symptom of the delete problem.  It does not get to the
root, pardon the pun, of the delete problem.  Rather a more
comprehensive yet direct approach from the Registry side
would in our view, actually address the Delete problem as
I some time ago outlined in some detail...

  WLS is simply put, a service that Verisign and perhaps some other
registrars wish to offer for a fee, that will address in part the delete
problem from the registrar side.  However it is our members view
that Verisign in as much as .COM and .Net are concerned regarding
registrations of Domain Names or deletion of abandon domain names
is Verisigns problem internally and the cost of handling those problems
should be entirely borne by the Respective Registry, in the case of
.COM and .NET, and that is Verisign.  NOT by the registrant or the
Registrar...

  Therefore I, nor any of our members that I can find or have
talked to specifically can see any reason why the ICANN BoD
should be in any involved with WLS in any way.  If Verisign want's
to implement it that's fine.  They cannot however enforce any registrar
to use WLS exclusively as a means to deal with delete problems
that are Verisigns to begin with as they are the registry for .COM
and .NET.  The only policy issue in this regard for the ICANN
BOD to address is a possible modification to the Registry
Contracts with Verisign and other Registries as well so as
to insure that no particular piece of software such as WLS
will in any way be required of any registrar to use for any
reason...

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Remember the VeriSign contract renegotiations?  The DNSO has already once
> recently been jerked around by the ICANN Board with regard to VeriSign
> proposals.  Stuart Lynn had argued to the Department of Commerce that no
> "policy" matters were implicated in the contract revisions, stating:
>
> "As this recitation indicates, the ultimate Names Council recommendations to
> ICANN are, in general, not focused on "policy" issues, but rather are
> suggestions about how the proposed new agreements could be modified, by
> changing contractual dates and the like, to make them better agreements in
> the view of those supporting the resolutions. These expressions are certainly
> important, but they can hardly be described as representing the kinds of
> policy issues that are, pursuant to ICANN's bylaws, the initial
> responsibility of the DNSO within the ICANN structure. The only issue that
> has been prominently mentioned in this discussion that could even arguably be
> termed a "policy" matter is the issue of common ownership of registry and
> registrar businesses. Thus, it is useful to focus on that point to illustrate
> why the ICANN Board and management concluded that the proposed new agreements
> were operational, not policy, matters."
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-rose-16apr01.htm
>
> If anyone is opposed to the VeriSign WLS proposal, I would recommend that all
> arguments be framed in terms of "policy".  Otherwise, this contract revision
> will proceed on schedule just like the last contract revision.  Don't be
> stupid twice.  If there are policy implications, make them clear.
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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