<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
Jeff- lets take this a step farther...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>; "Alexander Svensson"
<alexander@svensson.de>; "icann board address" <icann-board@icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
> Todd and all assembly members,
>
> You are quite right that this is one of the more serious deficiencies
> of WLS. But it is certainly not the only one. Versign is touting
> WLS as a solution to the DELETE problem.
No the real problem is the Name Squatters and the Registrars that own a
Name Squatting Company or that are partnered with one. The other problem is
that there is still only one fricken ROOT here. The Root Zone Protocol and
the running of multiple simultaneous and separate roots is critical in
moving forward.
> WLS does not
> completely address the DELETE problem as creates several
> more problems of market fixing and the like that ICANN
> should find as also a COI on several levels... Making
> WLS a "Best Practice" or standard is just not legitimately
> thinkable.
>
> However there should be no restriction on Verisign in deploying
> WLS of their own accord should they so choose to do so.
Ewww - I disagre with you BIG TIME. No one should be allowed to do anything
like a WLS since it clearly puts the Registrar at odds with their original
customer.
For example - if the Domain is hosted (published) by Verisign as as booked
for WLS, well that there is an unfair advantage accorded to Verisign in that
the instant the domain becomes expired the WLS factor is triggered and the
domain is automatically re-registered. No one but an idiot would register
across one registrar to another to WLS a domain name. So that means that WLS
really only works with the Registrar that currently has the Domain
published.
So then what WLS is, is a specific set of processes to allow the booking of
futures based pre-payments by the registrar. This can only be a mechanism to
allow the forced keeping of domains with that same registrar.
Now take a bigger picture. The Registrar also operates a Domains-for-Sale
company; so that division registers as a WLS client against all the cool
names and if there is any screwup or lapse, then the same Registrar
ultimately winds up stealing the names from its clients. Only there is no
need to pass actual money in this manner so the Registrar just books all the
cool names it wants and says "Get Sc^&*d" to all its customers.
This is what WLS is all about.
>
>
> todd glassey wrote:
>
> > The problem with the WLS is simple- it will cause a liability in
operations
> > against ICANN in that it assumes that the marks or Internet Domain Names
> > that have to date been treated as trade marks are not that, and that
they
> > are the ONE and ONLY MARQUE used by that IP Holder.
> >
> > This makes the Internet Domain Name a separate class of Marque and this
> > would take an act of law to put in place.
> >
> > They (the WLS Registrars) also are looking to put in place that because
> > these "marques" are only valid during the period of being registered,
that
> > the instant the registration expires that the owners has officially
> > abandoned the marque and that is ludicrous at best. This erroneous
> > assumption of US Trademark Law would then place the marque further into
the
> > control of the registrar and not the real owner of the marque.
> >
> > The rules about trademark Intellectual Property are simple and have been
in
> > effect for much longer than there was an Internet, so without modifying
> > them, the WLS itself is probably illegal in my estimation and will
likely be
> > challenged in court.
> >
> > The net effect is that anyone suffering damages due to what I consider a
> > "commercially self-centered" policy, should just sue the registrar and
ICANN
> > jointly for the damages. And I assure you that the veil of the
corporation
> > is most likely easily pierced in such a situation. And pierced such
that
> > the ICANN Board Members can be held financially accountable for damages
in
> > WLS based damage claims... personally.
> >
> > My feeling is that it will be very interesting to see how this works
out,
> > since I am sure ICANN's director's insurance would not cover a malicious
act
> > of creating a system that intentionally allows to usurping of existing
> > marques. And what also about certain registrar's refusals to delete
expired
> > domains or to allow transfers to happen to domains... Seems like we have
the
> > same problem. The registers controlling access to IP's they do not own.
> >
> > Todd Glassey
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alexander Svensson" <alexander@svensson.de>
> > To: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:17 AM
> > Subject: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> > > >In preparation for the NC discussion and vote on the final report of
the
> > Transfers task force on the Wait List Service referral, please see below
the
> > result of the internal vote of the task force on their report. (Edits
for
> > clarity are mine.)
> > > >Philip.
> > > >
> > > >----------------------------------
> > > >I. Recommendation 1: To deny the WLS:
> > > >
> > > >A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
> > enforce the
> > > >proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and
practice
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
> > > >Accepted by all
> > > >
> > > >B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to
amend
> > its agreement to
> > > >enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > > >No: IP, gTLD
> > > >6 YES 2 NO
> > > >
> > > >C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the
WLS
> > for 12 months.
> > > >Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
> > > >No: gTLD
> > > >Abstain: NonC, IP
> > > >5 YES 1 NO 2 ABSTENTIONS
> > > >
> > > >I. Summary Recommendation to deny the WLS:
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > > >No: IP, gTLD
> > > >6 YES 2 NO
> > > >
> > > >II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF
prime
> > recommendation.
> > > >Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted
above
> > > >and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12
month
> > > >trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be
approved
> > with
> > > >conditions:
> > > >
> > > >A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation
and
> > proven
> > > >(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
> > > >Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
> > > >establishment of a standard deletion practise.
> > > >Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
> > > >No:gTLD
> > > >7 YES 1 NO
> > > >
> > > >B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard
> > deletion practise
> > > >be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this
could
> > be
> > > >considered separately from WLS.
> > > >
> > > >(CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
> > > >
> > > >1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as
WLS
> > and
> > > >implemented before WLS.
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
> > > >5 YES
> > > >2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be
in
> > > >place before
> > > >WLS is implemented.
> > > >Yes: IP, NonC
> > > >2 YES
> > > >
> > > >3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
> > > >Yes: gTLD
> > > >1 YES
> > > >C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
> > > >
> > > >C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the
> > Registry
> > > >(through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name
when
> > a
> > > >WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
> > > >Yes: GA, NonC,
> > > >2 YES
> > > >
> > > >C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
> > > >name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
> > > >Abstain: gTLD,
> > > >5 YES 1 Abstain
> > > >
> > > >D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency
as
> > to who has placed
> > > >a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the
option.
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > > >No: IP
> > > >Abstain: gTLD
> > > >6 YES 1 NO 1 Abstain
> > > >
> > > >E. Cost. WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous
> > considerations for
> > > >approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
> > > >Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
> > > >5 YES 3 Abstain
> > >
> >
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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@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@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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|