[ga] Re: WLS call follow-up

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

Sure. Sorry for the call quality. I'm not sure what was wrong cause I
had no trouble hearing myself.

Basically the way I see things is that the WLS proposal is essentially
IP neutral. I fail to see how it helps anyone with respect to IP unless
you insert some tribunal or UDRP or other 'judge' in the process when
selecting someone to be in the queue for a particular domain.

I think that there are enough issues with WLS as is without introducing
irrelevancies and things we are not qualified to deal with.

I both reject Chuck's argument that its better for the IP constituency
as well as the argument that a domain holder could lose out or feel
compelled because of IP issues.  

Were it true that WLS helps IP holders, snapnames would already have had
everyone in existence as a client.  The simple solution to concerns
about losing your intellectual property, which were always
around before WLS (which only makes it easier for someone to grab it
*once* you have lost it)

...is....to....
...remember to renew! This is not rocket science.

And...as a fall back...to use a hypothetical example, should Dan
Steinberg use WLS to get att.com when
someone at ATT falls asleep...ATT (as they always did) has recourse
under UDRP, lanham act, etc. If the hypothetical "Allied Telesyn
Technologies" grabs that name...using WLS or any other existing means... 
then...too bad for the people who forgot to re-register.  I do not see
this as an issue in the context of WLS. Any risks that exist already
existed before WLS. WLS is merely a way to find out in advance who would
get it, no more.  It just gets someone potential preferential treatment
in the event of a deletion, nothing more i.e. if ATT makes a
mistake...it just decides who gets *lucky*, and does nothing to enhance
the possibility of ATT making a mistake in the first place.


pure and simple I think it is as irrelevant to WLS as today's weather in
idaho.

I was disturbed by people making all sorts of claims that this is an IP
issue when it isnt, especially people who obviously are not experts on
intellectual property at all.

Does this help?

Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
> Following up to today's WLS call, there are some questions with
> which I'd like to grill some of you folks; in particular Chuck
> Gomes and Dan Steinberg. ;)
> 
> 1. Chuck: In the presentation you made to the task force and all
> those attending the call, you talked about registrars with a total
> market share of 57.5% supporting the proposal.  I already mentioned
> during the call that, after substracting Verisign's own market share
> of about 40%, we end up at a mere 17.5% of market share; this is
> comparable to the market share you mention as being opposed to WLS.
> I believe that it was Rick Wesson who asked how much of that
> remaining market share in favor of WLS actually belongs to
> registrars owned by or affiliated with Verisign.  Could you please
> provide some clarification of this on the GA list?  Thank you.
> 
> 2. Dan: I may have misunderstood you due to the extremely poor
> sound quality of your contribution, but I seemed to understand that
> you were suggesting that the task force should leave IP and
> competition aspects out.  Could you please elaborate on the
> rationale for this?
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

-- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
--
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