Re[4]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

Tuesday, January 08, 2002, 5:15:13 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

GC> George,

GC> Let me change the analogy.  Is it okay for a property manager to have a
GC> waiting list?

GC> Chuck

Why is everyone even spending the time to debate the mechanics of this
proposal.  AFIC, there are a few fundamental hurdles which need to be
met before anything else is important:

1. The WLS proposal essentially puts monopolistic power in the hands
of one entity (the Registrar) and thwarts all competition. That is
exactly opposite of why, today, there is an ICANN and competing
Registrars.

2. The theory behind this WLS proposal is that it addresses technical
issues, which cannot otherwise be addressed on a technical level. I
arrived late, but I understand that there have been many suggestions
about how those technical issues could best be resolved to the benefit
of all parties, but there has been no detailed discussion about the
exact reasons why those specific suggestions are invalid.

If something is broken, then let's work together to get it fixed. I
have been in the IT biz for about 25 yrs., and an Exec of a Fortune
500, but I've never had a business model changed due to a tech
problem. So, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, as they
say.

Is there some reason why there is not a cooperative effort to
solve these tech issues - particularly when there is so much free
talent available?

3. The name space belongs to the public - not the Registrars, the
Registry or ICANN. Therefore, none of the foregoing have any rights to
any domain name, regardless of its current status, unless they are the
Registrant of that name. The one, and only thing, that confers any
rights to a domain name is its registration and that registration is,
essentially, on the basis of FCFS (let's forego a discussion about TMs
since we all know about it and it will only muddy the water).

When one builds a case, or any kind of structure, it is built from the
base up. Therefore, in MHO, there needs to be a solid, strong and
plausible basis for this proposal, before anything else is worthy of
consideration. Right now, IMHO, there is no foundation which warrants
any further time.  That is ditto for the AfterNic counter-proposal, as
well.

When the above three basic items have been satisfactorily addressed,
it will be the time when the proposal merits further time and effort
to examine it.

Thanks,

p.s. I live in Dallas, Texas and consider myself a Texan -- I've been
here a long time. My roots, however, are in Missouri, where I was born. So,
as Missourian's say, "Show Me!"


----
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@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