<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] WLS is dead (or should be): Names Council vote comments
Wednesday, July 24, 2002, 1:43:49 PM, Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> wrote:
NJ> Actually Mr. Kirikos, the Names Council did not vote on rejecting the WLS,
NJ> but rather voted to adopt the report. That was a recognition of the process
NJ> the TF used and a recognition that the report adequately represents the view
NJ> of those that participated in the Task Force. It was not approval for the
NJ> substance contained within the report. Please do not confuse the two
NJ> points.
Sounds like it didn't go the way you wanted it to go. Slice hairs and
complain, but what was delivered is exactly per the board's request.
Louis was consulted several times and commented several times on the
propriety of the process and the propriety of the content of the TF
report. Splitting hairs doesn't change a thing. It is what it is.
NJ> I also think you misunderstand the points raised during the meeting with
NJ> respect to the ccTLDs. After listening to the archives myself, I understood
NJ> the debate to focus on whether the ccTLDs should be allowed to vote on
NJ> something that they themselves have admitted was a gTLD (and not a ccTLD
NJ> issue) They are voting to impose restrictions on gTLDs that they themselves
NJ> would never agree to in a million years. In fact, interestingly enough the
NJ> ccTLDs voted to have ICANN move "hastily to implement the Redemption Grace
NJ> Period." Does this mean that the ccTLDs are agreeing to have ICANN
NJ> implement the RGP and that by voting to impose it on the gTLDs, that they
NJ> are agreeing to adopt it themselves? Of course, not. I believe that is the
NJ> concern expressed by the gTLD Constituency representatives.
It would definitely have gone differently if only gTLD had voted, but
that's like having the bank robber and his family be the only ones on
the jury. I think the ccTLD, in their impartial capacity, was a good
thing for this process. The implication is disingenuous, at best,
since the ccTLD had no axe to grind.
Everyone had ample time to challenge the composition of the Task
Force. Betting a horse race before they have left the gate is one
thing, but being allowed to bet while they're in the stretch or a nose
from the finish is an entirely different matter. Therefore, those
complaints are less than weak. I'd call them noise, in fact.
The rhetoric to derail the TF and the process, substantially by the
gTLD, wasted over an hour of everyone's time in the NC meeting, plus
the time of those who listened to the recording afterwards. It is a
sorry state when a faction decides to become part of the problem
rather than part of the solution, but that is their choice.
NJ> By the way, I think it would be great for the ccTLDs to follow ICANN's
NJ> mandate and adopt the Redemption Grace Period.
I think it would be good, too. There's no evidence that they won't do
that either, but what does this have to do with anything, anyway? The
negative implications are not on point and suggest to me that you've
run out of real ammunition.
At the end of the day, sour grapes are just sour grapes.
Thanks,
NJ> -----Original Message-----
NJ> From: George Kirikos [mailto:gkirikos@yahoo.com]
NJ> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 1:47 PM
NJ> To: ga@dnso.org
NJ> Cc: cpage@dotster.com
NJ> Subject: [ga] WLS is dead (or should be): Names Council vote comments
NJ> Hello,
NJ> For those who didn't have time to listen to the Names Council
NJ> conference call and vote recorded at:
NJ> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020724.NCteleconf.mp3
NJ> it was interesting (the actual vote on WLS took place at 1 hour and 17
NJ> minutes into the MP3, for those who want to fast forward).
NJ> The final report of the Transfers Task Force, see:
NJ> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00406.html
NJ> which, on a CONSENSUS basis rejected WLS, was approved in full by the
NJ> Names Council Board, with only the gTLD Constituency voting against it.
NJ> Thus, the Names Council vote itself was a CONSENSUS majority against
NJ> WLS.
NJ> I believe that the ICANN board would be unwise to allow implementation
NJ> of WLS, ignoring that vote of the Names Council and its constituencies,
NJ> and also given the ability of negatively affected registrars to issue a
NJ> challenge based on my comments at:
NJ> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00303.html
NJ> and also in the courts.
NJ> I found it interesting to note the attempts by some Names Council
NJ> members to exclude the ccTLD constituency voting on the WLS (which
NJ> could have made it a non-consensus vote), saying that "WLS didn't
NJ> affect them", among other arguments. I was appalled that they'd stoop
NJ> to those levels, to disenfranchise a constituency once they were
NJ> discovered to be anti-WLS (previously, I had thought the ccTLDs were
NJ> pro-WLS, and I was pleasantly surprised that they did their homework
NJ> and talked to their members, and reviewed all the arguments and came
NJ> out against WLS). I echo the sentiments of another Names Council member
NJ> who stated that if someone had a concern about a constituency's
NJ> involvement in the Task Force, it should have been made ex-ante, not
NJ> ex-post after their final position was made.
NJ> Kudos to the Business Council members on the Board. If the GA
NJ> disappears, I think that's the "team" I'd want to be on (they seemed to
NJ> have the most logical and articulate members). I think Marilyn Cade
NJ> deserves great thanks (from those both for AND against WLS) for doing a
NJ> fantastic job taking input from all sides, especially given the time
NJ> constraints involved.
NJ> My predictions:
NJ> 1) WLS is denied by the ICANN Board by this time next week.
NJ> 2) SnapNames downsizes, and reduces its price for SnapBacks back to
NJ> $49. I don't think they'll go bankrupt, as they have a great service,
NJ> although it should not be a monopoly service in my opinion (thus my
NJ> opposition to WLS). The downsizing would mostly affect the "political"
NJ> employees of SnapNames (i.e. those mostly doing non-technical lobbying
NJ> activities), so I don't see this as a bad thing, because those
NJ> employees aren't truly "productive" in an economic sense, producing
NJ> valuable goods and services for consumers. I expect them to end up with
NJ> 15 or so employees, a tight group.
NJ> 3) SnapNames probably introduces an auction service for domain
NJ> resellers/buyers to complement their SnapBacks (i.e. competing against
NJ> GreatDomains and Afternic), and becomes the top auction marketplace.
NJ> 4) Verisign renegotiates its R&D commitments of $200 million with
NJ> ICANN, to save money (I think they can get it down to $100 million with
NJ> not many people caring).
NJ> 5) The expired names marketplace sees more and more competition and
NJ> innovation, with benefits to registrars and consumers.
NJ> 6) Verisign eventually gets bought out by IBM or Microsoft, for under
NJ> $2 billion (2 or 3 year time frame). :)
NJ> Sincerely,
NJ> George Kirikos
NJ> http://www.kirikos.com/
NJ> __________________________________________________
NJ> Do You Yahoo!?
NJ> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
NJ> http://health.yahoo.com
NJ> --
NJ> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
NJ> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
NJ> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
NJ> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
NJ> --
NJ> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
NJ> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
NJ> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
NJ> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55 (972) 788-2364 Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|