RE: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

As an individual domain name registrant and consumer of DN products and
services, I have to say that George Kirikos speaks for me on this issue. I
am also heartened to see a poaition paper by a provider, namely Dotster,
that defends the rights of those of us who have no constituency, votes, or
other effective mechanism within ICANN for our voice to be heard.
Thank you.
Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of George
> Kirikos
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 12:07 PM
> To: Bret Fausett; DNSO General Assembly
> Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS
>
>
> Hi Bret,
>
> --- Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com> wrote:
> > I'm particularly concerned that many of the arguments against the WLS
> > focus
> > on the fact that it is allegedly anticompetitive. It strikes me that
> > ICANN,
> > with its limited staff resources and its necessary reliance on
> > volunteer
> > policy contributions from the stakeholder community, ought not be
> > placed in
> > the position of deciding what is or is not "anticompetitive."
>
> Excuse me, but part of ICANN's mission is to promote competition.
> Stuart Lynn testified before the US Government that ICANN's major
> success has been in the promotion of competition. It is wholly within
> ICANN's scope to consider the anticompetitive aspects of proposals, and
> their impacts on the marketplace and its participants. Since you're a
> lawyer, read:
>
> http://www.icann.org/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm
>
> and in particular read:
>
> Section C:
>
> "This Agreement promotes the management of the DNS in a manner that
> will permit market mechanisms to support competition and consumer
> choice in the technical management of the DNS. This competition will
> lower costs, promote innovation, and enhance user choice and
> satisfaction." (Obviously WLS fails this)
>
> "This Agreement is intended to result in the design, development, and
> testing of a private coordinating process that is flexible and able to
> move rapidly enough to meet the changing needs of the Internet and of
> Internet users. This Agreement is intended to foster the development of
> a private sector management system that, as far as possible, reflects a
> system of bottom-up management."
>
> With regards to the second paragraph, you're proposing a top-down
> system, which is diametrically opposite to the bottom-up consensus
> approach required of ICANN. Furthermore:
>
> "Neither Party, either in the DNS Project or in any act related to the
> DNS Project, shall act unjustifiably or arbitrarily to injure
> particular persons or entities or particular categories of persons or
> entities."
>
> ICANN needs to be able to justify things, not put its head in the sand
> as you suggest.
>
> > That
> > would leave the anti-competition issue to a more appropriate forum --
> > a
> > court -- where experts, economists and others could weigh in on the
> > effects
>
> SnapNames couldn't have written what you said any better. ;) FYI, one
> does not need to be an expert in Einstein's Theory of Gravity or have a
> Ph.D. in physics to know that jumping off the top of the Empire State
> Building will lead to your death when you hit the ground. Similarly, it
> is obvious that WLS is anti-competitive. Do you suggest Dotster's Clint
> Page or eNom's Paul Stahura were lying when they said that if WLS goes
> forward, their expired names services will be out of business? Surely
> one expects better from you than "let Verisign do whatever they want,
> and force others to sue them". Good for the lawyers, perhaps, but not
> policy choices of leaders. ICANN exists to make the tough decisions. If
> they can't handle the job, give it to someone who will.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
> http://sbc.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
>

--
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