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

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

Jeff and all assembly members,

Jeffrey J. Neuman wrote:

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

  Simple answer.  YES...

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