Re: [ga] WLS is dead (or should be): Names Council vote comments

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

Jeff and all assembly members

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Actually Mr. Kirikos, the Names Council did not vote on rejecting the WLS,
> but rather voted to adopt the report.

  Yeah, I have been trying to get George to understand this important
point that he seems to have missed yet again.

> That was a recognition of the process
> the TF used and a recognition that the report adequately represents the view
> of those that participated in the Task Force.  It was not approval for the
> substance contained within the report.  Please do not confuse the  two
> points.

  Exactly.  And as such seemingly engineered to be purposefully
confusing as well...

>
>
> I also think you misunderstand the points raised during the meeting with
> respect to the ccTLDs.  After listening to the archives myself, I understood
> the debate to focus on whether the ccTLDs should be allowed to vote on
> something that they themselves have admitted was a gTLD (and not a ccTLD
> issue)  They are voting to impose restrictions on gTLDs that they themselves
> would never agree to in a million years.  In fact, interestingly enough the
> ccTLDs voted to have ICANN move "hastily to implement the Redemption Grace
> Period."  Does this mean that the ccTLDs are agreeing to have ICANN
> implement the RGP and that by voting to impose it on the gTLDs, that they
> are agreeing to adopt it themselves?  Of course, not.  I believe that is the
> concern expressed by the gTLD Constituency representatives.
>
> By the way, I think it would be great for the ccTLDs to follow ICANN's
> mandate and adopt the Redemption Grace Period.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Kirikos [mailto:gkirikos@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 1:47 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Cc: cpage@dotster.com
> Subject: [ga] WLS is dead (or should be): Names Council vote comments
>
> Hello,
>
> For those who didn't have time to listen to the Names Council
> conference call and vote recorded at:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020724.NCteleconf.mp3
>
> it was interesting (the actual vote on WLS took place at 1 hour and 17
> minutes into the MP3, for those who want to fast forward).
>
> The final report of the Transfers Task Force, see:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00406.html
>
> which, on a CONSENSUS basis rejected WLS, was approved in full by the
> Names Council Board, with only the gTLD Constituency voting against it.
> Thus, the Names Council vote itself was a CONSENSUS majority against
> WLS.
>
> I believe that the ICANN board would be unwise to allow implementation
> of WLS, ignoring that vote of the Names Council and its constituencies,
> and also given the ability of negatively affected registrars to issue a
> challenge based on my comments at:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00303.html
>
> and also in the courts.
>
> I found it interesting to note the attempts by some Names Council
> members to exclude the ccTLD constituency voting on the WLS (which
> could have made it a non-consensus vote), saying that "WLS didn't
> affect them", among other arguments. I was appalled that they'd stoop
> to those levels, to disenfranchise a constituency once they were
> discovered to be anti-WLS (previously, I had thought the ccTLDs were
> pro-WLS, and I was pleasantly surprised that they did their homework
> and talked to their members, and reviewed all the arguments and came
> out against WLS). I echo the sentiments of another Names Council member
> who stated that if someone had a concern about a constituency's
> involvement in the Task Force, it should have been made ex-ante, not
> ex-post after their final position was made.
>
> Kudos to the Business Council members on the Board. If the GA
> disappears, I think that's the "team" I'd want to be on (they seemed to
> have the most logical and articulate members). I think Marilyn Cade
> deserves great thanks (from those both for AND against WLS) for doing a
> fantastic job taking input from all sides, especially given the time
> constraints involved.
>
> My predictions:
>
> 1) WLS is denied by the ICANN Board by this time next week.
> 2) SnapNames downsizes, and reduces its price for SnapBacks back to
> $49. I don't think they'll go bankrupt, as they have a great service,
> although it should not be a monopoly service in my opinion (thus my
> opposition to WLS). The downsizing would mostly affect the "political"
> employees of SnapNames (i.e. those mostly doing non-technical lobbying
> activities), so I don't see this as a bad thing, because those
> employees aren't truly "productive" in an economic sense, producing
> valuable goods and services for consumers. I expect them to end up with
> 15 or so employees, a tight group.
> 3) SnapNames probably introduces an auction service for domain
> resellers/buyers to complement their SnapBacks (i.e. competing against
> GreatDomains and Afternic), and becomes the top auction marketplace.
> 4) Verisign renegotiates its R&D commitments of $200 million with
> ICANN, to save money (I think they can get it down to $100 million with
> not many people caring).
> 5) The expired names marketplace sees more and more competition and
> innovation, with benefits to registrars and consumers.
> 6) Verisign eventually gets bought out by IBM or Microsoft, for under
> $2 billion (2 or 3 year time frame). :)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> http://health.yahoo.com
> --
> 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
> --
> 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