Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

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

Don and all assembly members,

Don Brown wrote:

> That is usually true. However, it is not totally true in this case
> because there is a monopoly involved and WLS will be a monopoly
> service.

  Good point here Don.  And this amongst a number of other reasons
clearly shows how WLS is both anti competitive as well as a
security problem.  If WLS becomes an ICANN or semi regulatory
standard for dealing with expired or soon to be expired domain names
(and not just in .com as some have contended, should WLS become a
standard or "Best practice"), than WLS is at that point, a monopolistic
protocol, and as such, directly effects negatively security as well
as thwarting, if not eliminating already existing competition...

>
>
> One of the reasons for ICANN's existence was to break-up the monopoly
> and foster competition. I think that's also why VeriSign's contract
> requires ICANN's permission/approval for it to offer any other
> service. ICANN seems to already have a watch dog/regulatory role.

  And this is one of the problem with the ICANN BOD and staff making
all of the decisions from a Top Down type approach as predicated by
the "Blueprint"/"Black-and-Blueprint" without any benefit of the
stakeholders/users directly or through an At-Large where that
At-Large elects at least 51% of the BoD.

>
>
> >From a slightly different perspective, a party can currently obtain
> service from several different sources (SnapNames, included) and there
> is competition between them. If ICANN approves WLS, then there will be
> only one source. So, in that scope your statement is true, since ICANN
> would be getting in the way of free enterprise and not fostering
> competition.

  Precisely right.  Not to mention not even completely addressing the
Delete problem as WLS purports to do...

>
>
> Within the narrow confines of the foregoing, ICANN's best course of
> action is quite clear.

  It is clear to many yes.  It doesn't seem to be clear to the ICANN
BoD or staff...

>
>
> Thursday, July 11, 2002, 4:08:34 PM, Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com> wrote:
> BF> John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
> >> However, ICANN is required to do what it does...in such a manner as to foster
> >> and promote some concept of "competition".  Because you are a lawyer, you
> >> translate that into some legal standard.
>
> BF> Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that the best way to foster competition
> BF> is to get out of the way. Make sure you preserve the private law remedies of
> BF> private parties and then let them do what they will.
>
> BF>      -- Bret
>
> BF> --
> BF> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> BF> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> BF> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> BF> 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