Re: [ga] WLS

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

Don and all assembly members,

  Don, you make some very good points here a la Snapnames and
Verisign as ti relates to WLS.  Of course verisign is free to make
whatever business agreements, contractual or otherwise it so chooses.
However as Verisign is seeking to make WLS a standard practice
for addressing Deletes of expired or abandon Domain Names, the
ICANN BoD and staff should and I feel must not allow for WLS
to be such a standard if Verisign is going to pick and choose, as
well as extract a price, for the use of WLS.  This also however
should have no direct impact of whether or not Verisign wishes
to use WLS for .COM domain names, of which Verisign is
the registry in perpetuity as part of the ICANN brokered
.ORG/.NET divestiture.

Don Brown wrote:

> Why wasn't it published in one of the many papers produced by VeriSign
> and SnapNames and otherwise broadcast to the masses?
>
> In particular, why wasn't that fact plainly stated in the most recent
> 51 page marketing spin and misinformation pollution published by
> SnapNames for the ICANN Board? There wasn't any mention of it and
> that's particularly curious in light of all the justification noise
> proffered by SnapNames on that very subject.
>
> Mentioning it on the phone and devoting two sentences to it here,
> seems quite disingenuous in face of all of the other communication
> activities and publications by VeriSign and SnapNames.
>
> Furthermore, I'm not sure if VeriSign could accord the same privilege
> to all of SnapNames' current competitors given the differing business
> models. That is, however, in my opinion, inadequate justification to
> accord SnapNames any special consideration.  They should be treated
> the same as every other competitor in the current market.  The
> sideways threat of lawsuits for tortuous interference is nothing more
> than just another barrage of misinformation pollution without
> substance.
>
> Saturday, June 22, 2002, 1:28:45 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
> GC> William,
>
> GC> In one of the Transfer TF WLS calls I invited other businesses who might
> GC> experience contractual issues as a result of WLS implementation to contact
> GC> VGRS and said that we would consider accomodation there if it was possible.
> GC> I have not heard from anyone.
>
> GC> Chuck
>
> GC> -----Original Message-----
> GC> From: William X Walsh [mailto:william@wxsoft.info]
> GC> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 9:21 AM
> GC> To: Mason Cole
> GC> Cc: 'John Berryhill'; ga@dnso.org
> GC> Subject: Re: [ga] WLS
>
> GC> Friday, June 21, 2002, 5:05:49 PM, Mason Cole wrote:
>
> >>>> In terms of strategy with the legal mumbo-jumbo, though, it will work
> >>>> as well on the board as did IOD's same tactics.  Whoever wrote the
> >>>> stuff about how SnapNames is required to bring along its
> >>>> pre-registered customers, or else they will sue ICANN, should look
> >>>> over how well that played in Marina Del Rey the last time that tune
> >>>> was heard. . . .  In fact, those snapbacks can remain post-WLS
> >>>> snapbacks and not be breached at all.
>
> >> A clarification:  Please note that SnapBack customers will not be brought
> >> along, as is mentioned here.  Under VeriSign's proposal, names for which
> >> there exist SnapBacks will not be allowed into the WLS system.  All must
> >> compete over those names as they do today.  Thus is "grandfathering" an
> >> unfortunate misnomer.  And, as you mention, SnapBacks remain SnapBacks
> >> post-WLS.  What would constitute tortious interference would be to allow
> GC> WLS
> >> orders on those names for which there are currently paid-up contracts
> >> (SnapBack orders) on specific names.
>
> GC> But of course, the same courtesy is not to be extended to the
> GC> customers of other registrars operating such services.
>
> GC> Thus giving Snapnames an advantage even now.
>
> GC> I see Snapnames has the same principles of Verisign in dealing with
> GC> the public.
>
> GC> Snapnames can't compete with registrars offering snapnames-like
> GC> services, so they seek to make them irrelevant by getting an exclusive
> GC> contract from the registry and circumvent the competition altogether.
>
> GC> Your company's tactics disgusted me when they were first launched, and
> GC> throwing your lot in with Verisign has only lowered my opinion even
> GC> further.
>
> ----
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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