Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

Since you are against WLS, no additional dialog is required.
Thanks,


Thursday, August 22, 2002, 11:28:44 PM, Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
JW> Don and all assembly members,

JW> Don Brown wrote:

>> 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.

JW>   How?  In any event if you read my whole post (See below)
JW> I have urged Karl to vote AGAINST WLS and I have been
JW> decidedly AGAINST WLS for a number of already stated
JW> technical and Internet Community business reasons...

JW>   In any event, R & D departments from competing companies
JW> in the same business segment often have good products that
JW> compete in the very same space heads up.  I don't see WLS
JW> as a superior service product offering than any others in this
JW> area.  Hence again I say WHY would WLS kill those R & D efforts
JW> or results of them?

>>
>>
>> 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
>> ----

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





----
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