Re: [ga] Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List Service

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

Danny and all assembly members,

  I believe that the two reasons why the Registry constituency
stated by Jeff.Neuman were very minor reason, but good ones
none the less for why WLS should not be adopted as a
standard.  In light of recent security concerns from the
Homeland Security department reporting directly to the
president, (See article:http://news.com.com/2100-1023-942686.html)
as partial refrence, and the upcoming House hearing regarding
two recent house sponsored bills regarding "Cybersecurity"
WLS represents a direct avenue for Terrorists to use as
a tool for their many and varied attempts to cause problems
with the infrastructure and fabric of the DNS.

  Therefor I would strongly suggest that WLS be either
dismissed entirely or be tabled for later revamping and
than reconsidered after some more serious consideration.

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> posted to the Council list:
>
> Dear Transfer Task Force/Names Council,
>
> The gTLD Constituency, which represents both the sponsored and unsponsored
> gTLD registries, has had the opportunity to review the DNSO Transfer Task
> Force's Report on the Wait List Service ("Report") presented to the Board at
> the ICANN meeting in Bucharest.  As we have consistently stated within the
> Transfer Task Force, the gTLD constituency has several serious concerns with
> the report and the process behind producing that Report, which prevent us
> from giving it our support.
>
> More specifically, the constituency unanimously believes that the Report
> delves into matters that are beyond the scope of any policy task force and
> certainly are not appropriate for the policy consensus process.  These
> matters include, but are not limited to: (1) whether a Registry Service can
> be introduced by a Registry Operator; and (2) the price of a Registry
> Service.  We believe that such issues are related to the business of the
> individual registry and are more appropriate for the market place to
> regulate rather than ICANN.
>
> In light of these, we strongly believe that VeriSign's proposed amendment to
> Appendix G be approved by ICANN and that they be allowed to introduce the
> Wait List Service.
>
> *We want to note for the record that because of VeriSign's inherent interest
> in this issue, VeriSign did not participate in the gTLD Constituency's
> discussion of this particular issue.
>
> Thank you for this opportunity to present our comments and we would be happy
> to answer any questions that you may have.
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
> e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@NeuLevel.biz
> --
> 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