Re: [Re: [ga] WLS Status Report]

[Loren Stocker <loren@800.net>]

Hi Guys,

I think Marilyn & Company did a GREAT job of listening to our side and it
fully reflected in the TF proposal. Not only does the report not support WLS,
I didn't find where the "bad guys" won even one point! Your concerns about
"add storms" seems a minor point. The major one -- did you catch this -- is a
recommendation as follows:

"The price for the WLS be set at the same amount as the current registry fee
..."

End of story! Without a windfall of cash, what's the point? In fact, the cash
was the point!!! We all agree that WLS was an unneeded, unwanted service.

I do have one concern, however. The TF says, "..move with all haste to
implement and actively enforce the proposed Redemptions Grace Period for
Deleted Names policy." Great, but this seems like politics without vision. Why
are these isolated as independent issues? Where do users come in?

This should not be about the process, but about the people who use it! We need
a INTEGRATED plan and explicitly recognitize the rights of the Subscriber.
This crazy system we have today rose up from the vindictive retreat of an
outsted monopoly. Why are we trying to fix this nightmare? Rather, we should
start with this simply vision:

(1) Users rule, not "domains."
(2) Treat Users with respect.
(3) Design the process to protect Users.

It should be clear to anyone with direct experience with the system in place
today: Users are an afterthought. Rather, we need to begin anew and redesign
the process with users in mind. If we do that, how can we fail???

Best Regards,

Loren Stocker
www.evil.biz


Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
George and all assembly members,

  I wonder when Marilyn is going to learn to put such reports out
in a file type that is not a virus laden type such as .doc...  ???
Is this report available in a either HTML or .TXT?

Your right George is seems that this TF again didn't not listen very
well to the two Phone conferences very well either and Marilyn
also did not follow up on them very well either.  Indeed the
Load problem no longer exists!  Tisk, Tisk...

  It was also pretty much agreed on the Phone conferences that
the "Add Storms" are a very minor problem and yes, too much
emphasis was put on this issue as well...

  I think it is time for the GA to have a motion on and up or down
vote by the GA members on the WLS Proposal and the Task
Forces (Interim?) report in a separate motion up or down vote
as to it's conclusion...

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00236.html
>
> has an update by the DNSO Transfers Task Force (TF) chair, and makes
> excellent reading (unless you happen to work for VGRS).
>
> Essentially, after reviewing everything, the task force is against WLS,
> as expected.
>
> I would have to point out, though, that the TF is giving undue weight
> to Verisign's statements that it is suffering due to "add storms", and
> I object to its inclusion (or at least one should point out the counter
> arguments, for balance). The TF writes:
>
> "1. It was acknowledged that present practices of competitive services
> result in “add storms” which are affecting the registry’s services, and
> according to the registry, adding significant costs for support of all
> the attempts to “grab” names but without resulting in transactions
> which provide revenue to the registry." (III.1)
>
> I'd like to remind people that by Verisign's own admissions, at:
>
> http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf
>
> In the answer to B.1:
>
> "The WLS is not intended or designed to deal with deleted
> registrations nor has VGRS ever made that claim."
>
> and in reply to B.2.
>
> "registry load is no longer an issue. The multiple pools and rate
> limiting technology have solved that problem."
>
> I repeat "registry load is no longer an issue."!!
>
> Thus, I think the Task Force should remove any references to these
> technical issues from their report, or note that they do not apply. WLS
> should be treated as a BUSINESS PROPOSAL for a new MONOPOLY SERVICE at
> the registry level, and it should be delinked from any discussion over
> technical concerns. Any "technical" concerns are self-serving fiction
> and misinformation by Verisign.  "Registry load is no longer an issue"
> and "solved that problem" cannot be more clear. "Significant costs" is
> entirely inappropriate language, as VGRS has never said what those
> costs are, and has refused to provide any data whatsoever to backup
> their misinformation. To some people, $5,000 or $10,000/yr is
> "significant". If anyone but Arthur Andersen were to do a cost
> accounting, the solution to the technical problems was likely a minimal
> expenditure, and insignificant. I remind folks that CIRA in Canada
> handled similar domain deletions (TBR names) without a cost increase of
> any kind, and could handle the spike in traffic without hiccups. VGRS
> is equally capable. I'm sure CIRA would gladly take the job, for $180
> million/yr, if VGRS can't stomach the job...
>
> Also, I think given the findings by the task force, full consensus
> process should be invoked (or just reject WLS outright), given the harm
> to numerous parties, and WLS could not and should not be fast-tracked.
> As a policy concern for any new registry offering, only products that
> would not unduly harm existing market participants should ever be
> fast-tracked. I'm not sure why the TF hesitated in this regard in the
> report.
>
> Will there be more teleconferences before the coming ICANN meeting, to
> iron out outstanding issues? (the possibility of 2 more had been
> mentioned)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
> --
> 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