Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

[William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>]

Friday, July 26, 2002, 11:51:42 AM, todd glassey wrote:

> Jeff- lets take this a step farther...

No, the only thing your post does is show that you have no
understanding of what the WLS is, and what the true issues are.

But I am seeing this as a pattern with you about most issues here
it seems, Todd.


> ----- 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@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





-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
--
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/


--
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