Re: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

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

Don and all assembly members,

  I have to agree with Don here.  Neither Snapnames nor Verisign have
a solution of the table that solves the delete problem in it's entirety.
In fact WLS does not even solve the load problem as it is touted
to do.

  What is more important to the DNSO GA members here though is
that we must have a vote on; 1.) the two proposals on the table thus
far, 2.) A vote on is a WG desired and/or needed to come up with
a approach for addressing the Delete problem/concern.

Don Brown wrote:

> >From page 5 of Ron Wiener's attached pdf document:
>
>      2. “WLS will not solve the system load problems.” This point is
>      another red herring meant to divert attention toward VeriSign and
>      away from the real issue – equality of customer access. It’s also
>      a textbook example of inventing a theoretically perfect/complete
>      solution to set up as the enemy of an actual good one. As Chuck
>      Gomes has repeatedly made clear, yet others continue to pretend
>      he never said it, the WLS was not intended to solve the load
>      problem.
>
> >From Paragraph 1 of the WLS proposal dated 12/31/01:
>
>      1. Introduction
>
>      In response to a formal request by Rick Wesson on behalf of the
>      Registrar Constituency, VeriSign, Inc. is providing this paper to
>      describe its proposed Domain Name Wait Listing Service (WLS).
>      Specifically, the proposed WLS is intended to provide both (1) a
>      new, streamlined business opportunity for the entire registrar
>      community, and (2) some measure of relief in dealing with the
>      “deleted domains” issue.
>
> Addressing the load problem was, indeed, one of the fundamental
> predicates of the proposal. Although, "some measure of relief" is
> vague, at best.
>
> I do agree with the Ron Wiener, however, in that the intention of the
> proposal is clearly not to "solve" the load problem or the other
> troubling aspects concerning the handling of deleted names.
> Conversely, this proposal is nothing more than two companies trying to
> sell their product to a group.
>
> It is not unusual for a sales person to paint their product or
> proposal in the most favorable light. Hence, there have been many
> theories advanced about the potential benefits of the WLS. Many are
> nothing more than speculation, conjecture and marketing "eye wash."
>
> Ron is right, however. Neither Snap or VeriSign have a proposal on the
> table which will solve the problems related to deleted names.
>
> It is, IMHO, incumbent upon the stakeholders to focus on a resolution
> to the problems associated with deleted names. The WLS proposal, by
> Ron's own assertion, was not intended to, and does not, solve those
> problems.  Therefore, I suggest we move on to some meaningful work.
>
> Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 10:23:42 AM, Ron Wiener <Ron@Snapnames.com> wrote:
> RW> Rather than respond to individual response documents and e-mail posts,
> RW> please find attached a concise document, in PDF format.
>
> RW> Cheers,
> RW> Ron
>
> ----
> 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
> ----
>
>

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