Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

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

Don and all assembly members,

  I also fail to see how deferring any decision that is obviously
in the purview of ICANN such as WLS is certainly as a possible
standard or "Best Practice" for registrars, helps to satisfy
any protection of any Registrants or Registrars rights.  The very
thought is completely silly.

  So yes Don, you are quite right that the forest of purposefully
created confusion, as Thomas, our chair has put forth here
yet again.  Too many trees being planted can smother
a healthy stand.  It seems obvious that such is the situation
with WLS and the TR-TF and the delete problem that
needs to be addressed or be allowed to be handled via
the free market approach in accordance with the already
Registrar and Registry contracts.

  So I would have to conclude in part at least, that ICANN
via Joe Sims, is dissatisfied with the original contracts that
he himself crafted for ICANN for registrars and registries,
and is now trying to find a political solution via Verisign
using WLS as the bait..

Don Brown wrote:

> I am not clear about how ICANN, by deferring a decision, has any
> bearing on preserving anyone's rights.
>
> Fundamentally, ICANN has certain rights and obligations pursuant to
> the MoU. It has contracts with Registries and with Registrars.
> Normally, all properly crafted contracts provide that an omission or
> inaction is not considered a waiver of rights under a contract and
> that the rights and obligations are cumulative and can be exercised at
> any time and time from time to time. IOW, if they do not enforce a
> provision, for whatever reason, they can still enforce it later.
>
> I fail to see how enforcing a provision or not enforcing a provision
> operates to preserve, or not to preserve, any third party's rights.
>
> I think it boils down to ICANN's rights and obligations under the MoU
> and its rights and obligations under its contracts with others.
>
> One of ICANN's obligations, and its only success as admitted during
> the congressional hearings, is to foster competition.
>
> Transforming an already competitive market into a monopoly registry
> service can hardly be considered as fostering competition. Even if the
> price was $0.50, 100% of the gross proceeds would be donated to
> charity and the service was 100% guaranteed to benefit the consumer,
> that would still not justify thwarting free enterprise and open market
> competition or for ICANN to ignore its obligation to foster
> competition.
>
> Sometime, we make things so complicated that they become convoluted
> and we loose track of the forest because of all those darn trees.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Saturday, July 13, 2002, 3:54:17 PM, Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com> wrote:
> BF> Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >> Nobody could disagree with this.  As I said before, WLS has some
> >> aspects which may best be dealt with in court, and some aspects
> >> which can _only_ be dealt with within the ICANN process...
>
> BF> That's just right! What I'm trying to articulate -- and I'm doing a fair
> BF> amount of thinking out loud here -- is a decision-making philosophy for
> BF> ICANN by which ICANN looks to defer a decision to another forum/arbiter
> BF> whenever possible. It decides only those matters that only it can decide.
>
> BF> This might mean making a determination as to whether the WLS created
> BF> instability for the .com TLD or the Internet as a whole. It might mean
> BF> examining other technical issues associated with the implementation of WLS.
>
> BF> But if the registrars had a remedy at law for a registry's anticompetitive
> BF> behavior, then ICANN would intentionally pass on that issue, taking care to
> BF> preserve everyone's legal rights so they could be pursued elsewhere.
>
> BF> Of course, if ICANN had adopted such a decision-making philosophy from the
> BF> beginning, we never would have had the UDRP. But it's easy to grant the UDRP
> BF> a special grandfather status in a reformed ICANN and look to narrow ICANN's
> BF> mission for the future to those matters that only it can deal with
> BF> effectively.
>
> 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