Re: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

Jeff,

Read the archives and come to your own conclusion.  The truth will set
you free.

Thanks,


Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 8:19:36 PM, Jeffrey J. Neuman <jeff@neumanfamily.us> wrote:
JJN> To be fair, there were a number of other parties that spoke out in favor
JJN> of the WLS in the public forum, not necessarily because they liked the
JJN> service, but rather for the points that were raised by the gTLD
JJN> Constituency.  In fact, when the transcript for the public forum is
JJN> published (hopefully soon), you will see a strong statement of support
JJN> for allowing the WLS to be introduced from Bruce Tonkin, a Names Council
JJN> representative speaking on behalf of the MelbourneIT registrar
JJN> supporting the notion of allowing the service to go forward.  In
JJN> addition, I understand that in the Registrar Constituency a vote was
JJN> taken on whether to support the report or not and the result was 13 in
JJN> favor of it, 10 against.

JJN> So, with the gTLDs, Snapnames, 10 of the 23 voting registrars, the IPC
JJN> (who is actually neutral so long as the Grace Period is implemented),
JJN> and ccTLDs (who I understand abstained in a TF vote on whether to
JJN> support the report) not opposed to the introduction of the WLS, can it
JJN> really be said that a consensus exists in favor of having the Board
JJN> reject the service?




JJN> -----Original Message-----
JJN> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Don
JJN> Brown
JJN> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 7:17 PM
JJN> To: owner-ga@dnso.org; DannyYounger@cs.com
JJN> Cc: ga@dnso.org; mcade@att.com
JJN> Subject: Re: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

JJN> Danny,

JJN> WLS has been debated on the GA list for months. A review of the
JJN> archives will show that many on the GA list are steadfastly opposed to
JJN> WLS and that I am one of them. Therefore, Marilyn's conclusion about
JJN> my silence is correct and on-point and I'd guess the same would be
JJN> true of the others who oppose WLS.

JJN> As for those in favor of WLS, like the gTLDs, IPC, VeriSign Registry,
JJN> SnapNames, SnapName partners, VeriSign Registrar, VeriSign's Registrar
JJN> subsidiaries, VeriSign partners, their law firms and lawyers, their
JJN> shills who spoke in Bucharest and posted canned statements to the
JJN> ICANN comment forum, and the other folks who actually are pursuing
JJN> their own independent agenda, they have not been silent, as you have
JJN> noticed and pointed out below.

JJN> There has already been opportunity for comment, as you have also noticed
JJN> and pointed out below, and careful reading of item 3 of the "Schedule of
JJN> Events" posted at
JJN> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00331.html will
JJN> disclose a plan for another 10 day public comment period.

JJN> The TF has been criticized on matters of form, but not really on
JJN> substantive issues.

JJN> For instance, perhaps, as the gTLDs pointed out, the TF should not
JJN> have considered the wholesale price of a WLS to the Registrars, but
JJN> it's difficult not to do so in light of a $6 cost to register a domain
JJN> name and a $24 cost for a WLS option. That's particularly true in
JJN> light of all of the documents spewed by SnapNames justifying an even
JJN> higher price. Let's not forget that the proposed WLS price used to be
JJN> much higher than the current $24 WLS proposal, as well.

JJN> Perhaps, also, the TF should not have discussed whether an additional
JJN> registry service can be introduced by the registry, totally ignoring
JJN> SnapNames long and convoluted legal diatribe about how the registry
JJN> can't be prevented from introducing WLS and, of course, how everyone
JJN> would get sued unless SnapNames' customers were given preferential
JJN> treatment.

JJN> However, considering that other people made those points a part of the
JJN> equation for consideration, I think the TF would have been negligent
JJN> if they had not addressed them.

JJN> I think, therefore, that the process behind the report either fails your
JJN> comprehension or that you have not carefully researched your position
JJN> and, as a result, are too petulant to criticize.

JJN> WLS has two fatal flaws: (1) WLS is anti-consumer because it
JJN> eliminates consumer choice. Instead of multiple services in an already
JJN> available market at differing prices, the consumer will have only one,
JJN> take it or leave it, service. (2) WLS is anti-competitive because it
JJN> will effectively kill the current market of services which are already
JJN> available.

JJN> Since part of ICANN's mission is to promote competition, WLS should
JJN> fail on its face, because of those two fatal flaws alone. Everything
JJN> beyond that, is just marketing spins, noise and rabbit trails. ICANN's
JJN> BoD vote in favor of WLS will be a vote approving a Monopoly, which
JJN> contravenes the very reason for ICANN's very existence.

JJN> Thanks,


JJN> Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 1:00:41 PM, DannyYounger@cs.com
JJN> <DannyYounger@cs.com> wrote:
Dcc>> Marilyn,

Dcc>> In your letter to the Transfers TF you write:  "To date, while
JJN> input was 
Dcc>> received pre-status report, there has been very little feedback
JJN> from the 
Dcc>> community, constituencies and GA on the status report, or the
JJN> recommendation 
Dcc>> proposed by Grant Forsyth. This should indicate that the draft has
JJN> wide 
Dcc>> support within the constituencies/GA".  

Dcc>> Your conclusion is flawed.  Silence does not equate to
JJN> acquiescence.  Your TF 
Dcc>> has still not produced a final set of recommendations, nor has the
JJN> public yet 
Dcc>> been invited to comment upon such a final set of recommendations.
JJN> To 
Dcc>> conclude that a lack of comments on an incomplete proposal is an
JJN> 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
JJN> have made 
Dcc>> their comments on the Public Forum list.  By the way, I have seen
JJN> no 
Dcc>> indication that any members of your TF have ever once looked at the
JJN> public 
Dcc>> forum comments (if so, you would already have the URLs for the
JJN> SNAPNAMES 
Dcc>> documentation that you are now requesting).

Dcc>> I share the concerns of the gTLDs regarding "the process behind
JJN> producing 
Dcc>> that Report", and would encourage your TF to more responsibly
JJN> 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




JJN> ----
JJN> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
JJN> donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
JJN> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
JJN> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
JJN> ----

JJN> --
JJN> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
JJN> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
JJN> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
JJN> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

JJN> --
JJN> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
JJN> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
JJN> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
JJN> 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