Re: [ga] WLS

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> Although our pricing, like much of the debate taking place over WLS, is
not
> legally relevant to the ICANN Board's review of VeriSign's proposed WLS
> price, we apply the same pricing rules to all SnapBack customers on an
equal
> basis. We do and have always offered volume discounts, as any business
does.
> Because this is standard business practice, and is in fact followed by all
> registrars, it's unclear why it is relevant here, even under the still
> legally unsupported standards of relevance held by WLS critics. So yes, we
> do offer "fair first-come first-serve treatment of all customers."

Mason - help me understand this statement. I've been trying to piece
together an understanding of this position based on Snapnames' public
statements and I've yet to see how you are supporting this statement.

Based on the WLS proposal, we are talking about taking a loosely defined
system of allocating names and organizing them under a centrally supported
process that is administered by the registry. There are pro's and con's of
doing so, all of which have been well covered here so I won't reiterate.
But, central to this analysis is the question of whether or not the proposal
negatively or positively affects competition (not competitors). Based on my
read of ICANN's deal with the DOC and it's bylaws, the questions that the
WLS proposal raises are squarely within ICANN's scope. I think that the
disconnect might lie with the rather narrow view that you have taken of
ICANN's role (resulting from strictly looking at the proposal from the
standpoint of the Registry contract as implied by the "pricing rules"
statement that you make above). If this is the case, then I suppose it
becomes a matter of interpretation and perspective, if not, then I'd
definitely like to hear more. Either way, I'd appreciate hearing a bit more
in order to allw my understanding to develop.

Thanks in advance,

-rwr

--
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