Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....WLS spin by proponents

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

Sheesh that post from Ms Crawford is full of so much B.S. that I am
absolutely amazed that she can make those statements.

I wonder if she would make them under oath.

Friday, July 26, 2002, 8:42:49 PM, George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,

> In a last ditch attempt to influence the outcome of the ICANN Board's
> decision on WLS, we've got the post by Susan Crawford at:

> http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?wls;3D41DE6D00000358

> All of Susan's arguments have been made ad nauseum in the past, and had
> been responded to. It seems that they simply want to get in "the last
> word" (or "the last spin"), as a desperate last move to put lipstick on
> the pig named WLS.

> Louis Touton, in his analysis of April 17th, at:

> http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm

> gave us the ground rules, "it is my judgment that the Board should not
> seek to decide how to deal with this request without invoking the
> formal consensus development processes currently established within
> ICANN." The overwhelming consensus is that WLS be denied, as an
> unwanted intrusion on an existing competitive marketplace that is
> thriving at the registrar level. ICANN's mission is to foster
> competition, and that has been its major success, as it has stated on
> more than one occasion. The double-speak that WLS will actually
> increase competition is simply preposterous. I and many others would
> echo Susan's statement that "The Board's obligation is to take steps
> that maximally favor competition." Rejection of the monopolistic WLS
> definitely accomplishes that goal. Indeed, it is the Board's only
> choice, given that acceptance of WLS will cause a challenge by affected
> Registrars, as I noted at:

> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00303.html

> a challenge which the registrars would win easily, since ICANN can not
> show consensus for this new policy affecting domain name allocations.
> Indeed, more powerfully, not only can ICANN not show consensus FOR WLS,
> there is consensus AGAINST WLS.

> The fact of the matter is that there is intrinsic demand for the domain
> names themselves, not WLS as a mechanism to acquire them. We currently
> have numerous means to acquire those names, and WLS seeks to monopolize
> that marketplace not because it is a "better offering", but instead
> because it gets first dibs on all the names, leaving everyone else with
> the table scraps that no one else wanted. If NameWinner had done such a
> deal with Verisign, instead of SnapNames, we'd see the exact opposite
> spin by SnapNames, I'm sure, that it's anti-competitive, etc.

> I find it amusing that proponents of WLS refused to take my "Cookie
> Challenge", posted on the DNSO GA list multiple times, to answer the
> questions posed at:

> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02855.html

> among other places, regarding the "Effects Test" of WLS. However, Susan
> has taken up the "Cheese Challenge". Where do I send the cheese, to go
> along with her whine? :)

> Sincerely,

> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/

> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> http://health.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





-- 
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