Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

Come-on, Jeff, there is already a market.  This will kill it and put a
monopoly in direct control.

Rethink free-enterprise.

The market participants have already devoted their R & D to this
market.  This will kill that.

The only, realistic, source of supply will be V$.

If they could have come up with a better mouse-trap which would not
have killed all of their competitors, I would have been all for it.
In typical fashion, they didn't.

So, NO, like the majority of the rest of the community, I would
support Damian for President, before I supported WLS.

Thanks,


Thursday, August 22, 2002, 9:33:37 PM, Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
JW> karl and all assembly members,

JW> Karl Auerbach wrote:

>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Kristy McKee wrote:
>>
>> > If this WLS process must be implemented, why not offer the Domain Name
>> > Registrant the "opportunity" to pay more money per year to ensure that they
>> > also have claim to their domain(s) within the WLS database.
>>
>> Presumably under WLS they have that - they simply buy into WLS.
>>
>> I have a question for you (and everyone on the GA list):
>>
>> I've been wrestling back and forth on the WLS issue.  I don't like giving
>> NSI/Verisign yet another boon but I also don't like ICANN being a
>> regulator of ever increasing size.

JW>   I have no problem personally with Verisign getting a boon on anything
JW> as long as it is not at the unfair expense of the stakeholders/users.
JW> If Verisign or any other company has a "Better Idea" and can
JW> effectively sell it as such, than more power to them.

JW>   I do agree with you Karl that ICANN should not become
JW> what it already has, an over imposing regulator and any 
JW> further modify the registrar contract to include WLS 
JW> as a Defacto standard for dealing with Deletes. 
JW> ICANN should stay away from WLS all together.  On 
JW> that biases alone the ICANN BoD should not vote in 
JW> favor of WLS...

>>
>>
>> This is a tough question and there are equities on all sides.
>>
>> My feeling is that I at the board meeting tomorrow morning that I will
>> vote in favor of WLS but only on the condition that there are provisions
>> that require the current registrant to know of the existance (and
>> identity) of WLS entries placed on his/here domain name.  That, to my
>> mind, helps restore the balance of information and lets all parties to the
>> registration agreement attempt to optimize their actions.

JW>   I would agree that the provision you suggest here Karl, would
JW> help balance the interests of the registrants with the
JW> Registrars/Registries.
JW> My personal concern though is that can we trust Verisign to
JW> insure this suggestion of yours takes place and can we also
JW> be sure that the oversight of ICANN to insure that they do?
JW> I say no we cannot...  ICANN has no provisions in the
JW> current Registrar and Registry contracts to even enforce them
JW> As-Is.  With the modification to encompass WLS we would
JW> have an even potential and likely worse situation for 
JW> the Registrant and other Registrars...

JW>   Hence Karl, I would advise/ask that you vote against
JW> Louis's suggestion and WLS...

>>
>>
>> (It may not be black letter contract law, but I do feel that those who are
>> parties to a contract ought not to be unreasonably manipulative of one
>> another - particularly when the contracts are of an adhesive quality [and
>> more particularly when the public isn't allowed onto the regulatory body
>> that establishes many of the contractual terms].  And in the case of WLS I
>> have always found it distasteful that the registry, who has an indirect
>> contractual relationship with the registrant, might hold back information
>> from the registrant that could be of value to the registrant.)
>>
>> This condition on the casting of my vote in favor is in addition to things
>> like the pre-existance of the grace period mechanisms for at least 6
>> months, etc etc.)
>>
>> Any comments?
>>
>>                 --karl--
>>
>> --
>> 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

JW> Regards,
JW> --
JW> Jeffrey A. Williams
JW> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
JW> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
JW> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
JW> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
JW> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
JW> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
JW> --
JW> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
JW> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
JW> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
JW> 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