Re: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF - "Another Load"

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

Don and all assembly members,

  Although you and I have strongly disagreed on some privacy
related issues, we strongly agree in opposition to WLS and the TF
false report regarding WLS.  We both, along with others that
were in the Phone Conferences discussing WLS, which is
recorded as I understand it somewhere (P.S. I hope that
the recording device MP3? was working at the time), also
showed a strong displeasure with WLS as well.  Hence
I can only now conclude as I suspected, that Marilyn is
again grandstanding in the extreme for her own political
purposes and that the TR TF Report is just is just
"Another Load"...

Don Brown wrote:

> Danny,
>
> WLS has been debated on the GA list for months. A review of the
> archives will show that many on the GA list are steadfastly opposed to
> WLS and that I am one of them. Therefore, Marilyn's conclusion about
> my silence is correct and on-point and I'd guess the same would be
> true of the others who oppose WLS.
>
> As for those in favor of WLS, like the gTLDs, IPC, VeriSign Registry,
> SnapNames, SnapName partners, VeriSign Registrar, VeriSign's Registrar
> subsidiaries, VeriSign partners, their law firms and lawyers, their
> shills who spoke in Bucharest and posted canned statements to the
> ICANN comment forum, and the other folks who actually are pursuing
> their own independent agenda, they have not been silent, as you have
> noticed and pointed out below.
>
> There has already been opportunity for comment, as you have also noticed
> and pointed out below, and careful reading of item 3 of the "Schedule of
> Events" posted at
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00331.html will
> disclose a plan for another 10 day public comment period.
>
> The TF has been criticized on matters of form, but not really on
> substantive issues.
>
> For instance, perhaps, as the gTLDs pointed out, the TF should not
> have considered the wholesale price of a WLS to the Registrars, but
> it's difficult not to do so in light of a $6 cost to register a domain
> name and a $24 cost for a WLS option. That's particularly true in
> light of all of the documents spewed by SnapNames justifying an even
> higher price. Let's not forget that the proposed WLS price used to be
> much higher than the current $24 WLS proposal, as well.
>
> Perhaps, also, the TF should not have discussed whether an additional
> registry service can be introduced by the registry, totally ignoring
> SnapNames long and convoluted legal diatribe about how the registry
> can't be prevented from introducing WLS and, of course, how everyone
> would get sued unless SnapNames' customers were given preferential
> treatment.
>
> However, considering that other people made those points a part of the
> equation for consideration, I think the TF would have been negligent
> if they had not addressed them.
>
> I think, therefore, that the process behind the report either fails your
> comprehension or that you have not carefully researched your position
> and, as a result, are too petulant to criticize.
>
> WLS has two fatal flaws: (1) WLS is anti-consumer because it
> eliminates consumer choice. Instead of multiple services in an already
> available market at differing prices, the consumer will have only one,
> take it or leave it, service. (2) WLS is anti-competitive because it
> will effectively kill the current market of services which are already
> available.
>
> Since part of ICANN's mission is to promote competition, WLS should
> fail on its face, because of those two fatal flaws alone. Everything
> beyond that, is just marketing spins, noise and rabbit trails. ICANN's
> BoD vote in favor of WLS will be a vote approving a Monopoly, which
> contravenes the very reason for ICANN's very existence.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 1:00:41 PM, DannyYounger@cs.com <DannyYounger@cs.com> wrote:
> Dcc> Marilyn,
>
> Dcc> In your letter to the Transfers TF you write:  "To date, while input was
> Dcc> received pre-status report, there has been very little feedback from the
> Dcc> community, constituencies and GA on the status report, or the recommendation
> Dcc> proposed by Grant Forsyth. This should indicate that the draft has wide
> Dcc> support within the constituencies/GA".
>
> Dcc> Your conclusion is flawed.  Silence does not equate to acquiescence.  Your TF
> Dcc> has still not produced a final set of recommendations, nor has the public yet
> Dcc> been invited to comment upon such a final set of recommendations.   To
> Dcc> conclude that a lack of comments on an incomplete proposal is an indication
> Dcc> of support is nothing more than wishful thinking.
>
> Dcc> The gTLDs have already indicated that they do not support your
> Dcc> recommendations, as have many that spoke at Bucharest and many that have made
> Dcc> their comments on the Public Forum list.  By the way, I have seen no
> Dcc> indication that any members of your TF have ever once looked at the public
> Dcc> forum comments (if so, you would already have the URLs for the SNAPNAMES
> Dcc> documentation that you are now requesting).
>
> Dcc> I share the concerns of the gTLDs regarding "the process behind producing
> Dcc> that Report", and would encourage your TF to more responsibly attend to your
> Dcc> obligations.
> Dcc> --
> Dcc> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Dcc> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> Dcc> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Dcc> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> ----
> 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