RE: [ga] WLS Suggestion

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

It has been long enough that I've been silent, this letter frightens me
Mr Auerbach, to say the least.

It seems in your busy schedule you have not had enough time to read the
opinions and expert knowledge that has been shown on this list for one
by a lot of people, most of whom supported you.

I suggest you read back on the topic, it can not be that hard, a lot is
gathered on sites, and you will without any doubt come to the conclusion
that whatever read herrings you are reading now, they do not nearly
describe the can of worms you are opening by supporting this proposal.

I urge you to reconsider supporting the proposal.


Kind regards

Abel Wisman


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga-full@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-full@dnso.org] 
> On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach
> Sent: 23 August 2002 00:01
> To: Kristy McKee
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> (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-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
> 


--
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