Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Chuck and all assembly members,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> David,
>
> The fact is that this service offered at the registrar level can never
> be as effective as the same service would be at the registry level.

  Why not?  I don't see why with proper oversight from the ICANN
staff that this cannot be more effectively done at the registrar level.
Of course if the ICANN staff is unable or unwilling to do that
oversight than there will be some bad mix-ups of varying types.

  So it would seem to me to be obvious that the ICANN staff
has decided it cannot or will honor it's responsibilities yet again
in it's oversight responsibility and therefore has decided to push
this proposal or acquiesce to it in order to fudge it's contracted
responsibilities.

>  So
> if you want the best service for the ultimate customers, it must be done
> at the registry level.  The alternative is an inferior service for the
> potential registrants.

  Nonsense Chuck.  (See my comments above)  I know this sounds
good and authoritative and all that, but it is utter nonsense...  I hope
you don't believe that any knowledgeable registrant is going to buy
it do you?  >;)

>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DPF [mailto:david@farrar.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 9:39 PM
> > To: ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:36:06 -0500, "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> Could it be that the deal is really already done and the
> > proposal is just
> > >a
> > >> distraction?  Draw your own conclusion after reading this
> > exciting press
> > >> release from VeriSign:
> > >>
> > >> http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2002/pr_20020104.html
> > >>
> > >
> > >Not if the registrars have anything to do with it. The
> > proposal is neither
> > >comprehensive enough, nor focused enough for anyone to
> > endorse it at this
> > >point.
> > >
> > >More info here:
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01727.html
> > >
> > >I would also like to hear more from all of you concerning
> > what you think
> > >about the NSI proposal - feel free to continue with the
> > discussion here or
> > >within the ICANN General Assembly mailing list as you see fit.
> >
> > I don't disagree much with the points you make in the URL above.
> >
> > The registry side of a TLD has to be a monopoly - we can not avoid
> > that.  However I believe one should try to minimise the role of the
> > registry and have as much as possible dealt with at registrar level
> > where there is competition.  Ideally the registry should only be
> > focused on one thing - providing a reliable service to registrars (and
> > upholding its contractual obligations of course).
> >
> > The Verisign proposal IMO muddies the role of the registry and I can
> > see little of benefit for the wider internet community (especially at
> > the outrageous price level suggested).  However I welcome input from
> > Verisign as to what benefits they see this bringing.
> >
> > DPF
> > --
> > david@farrar.com
> > ICQ 29964527
> > --
> > 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 121k members/stakeholdes 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