<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
Todd and all assembly members,
todd glassey wrote:
> Jeff- lets take this a step farther...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>; "Alexander Svensson"
> <alexander@svensson.de>; "icann board address" <icann-board@icann.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 5:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
>
> > Todd and all assembly members,
> >
> > You are quite right that this is one of the more serious deficiencies
> > of WLS. But it is certainly not the only one. Versign is touting
> > WLS as a solution to the DELETE problem.
>
> No the real problem is the Name Squatters and the Registrars that own a
> Name Squatting Company or that are partnered with one.
I admit this is ONE of the other problems, but not the main problem
really, but rather a symptomatic product of the problem that WLS
properties to address. That again being the Delete concern/problem.
> The other problem is
> that there is still only one fricken ROOT here. The Root Zone Protocol and
> the running of multiple simultaneous and separate roots is critical in
> moving forward.
I agree. A single Root structure, as I have frequently argued amongst
a host of others, is critical for a number of already well argued reasons...
>
>
> > WLS does not
> > completely address the DELETE problem as creates several
> > more problems of market fixing and the like that ICANN
> > should find as also a COI on several levels... Making
> > WLS a "Best Practice" or standard is just not legitimately
> > thinkable.
> >
> > However there should be no restriction on Verisign in deploying
> > WLS of their own accord should they so choose to do so.
>
> Ewww - I disagre with you BIG TIME. No one should be allowed to do anything
> like a WLS since it clearly puts the Registrar at odds with their original
> customer.
I understand your position here. I don't agree with it however.
>
>
> For example - if the Domain is hosted (published) by Verisign as as booked
> for WLS, well that there is an unfair advantage accorded to Verisign in that
> the instant the domain becomes expired the WLS factor is triggered and the
> domain is automatically re-registered.
This is not a valid argument against WLS vs Other similar products
that do the same thing though...
> No one but an idiot would register
> across one registrar to another to WLS a domain name. So that means that WLS
> really only works with the Registrar that currently has the Domain
> published.
>
> So then what WLS is, is a specific set of processes to allow the booking of
> futures based pre-payments by the registrar. This can only be a mechanism to
> allow the forced keeping of domains with that same registrar.
Again not a valid argument here either. WLS is only one of several already
operating products that essentially do what WLS can and is supposed to do.
>
>
> Now take a bigger picture. The Registrar also operates a Domains-for-Sale
> company; so that division registers as a WLS client against all the cool
> names and if there is any screwup or lapse, then the same Registrar
> ultimately winds up stealing the names from its clients. Only there is no
> need to pass actual money in this manner so the Registrar just books all the
> cool names it wants and says "Get Sc^&*d" to all its customers.
>
> This is what WLS is all about.
I agree only IF WLS being "Sanctioned" by ICANN
as a "Best Practice" facility or "Standard"...
>
>
> >
> >
> > todd glassey wrote:
> >
> > > The problem with the WLS is simple- it will cause a liability in
> operations
> > > against ICANN in that it assumes that the marks or Internet Domain Names
> > > that have to date been treated as trade marks are not that, and that
> they
> > > are the ONE and ONLY MARQUE used by that IP Holder.
> > >
> > > This makes the Internet Domain Name a separate class of Marque and this
> > > would take an act of law to put in place.
> > >
> > > They (the WLS Registrars) also are looking to put in place that because
> > > these "marques" are only valid during the period of being registered,
> that
> > > the instant the registration expires that the owners has officially
> > > abandoned the marque and that is ludicrous at best. This erroneous
> > > assumption of US Trademark Law would then place the marque further into
> the
> > > control of the registrar and not the real owner of the marque.
> > >
> > > The rules about trademark Intellectual Property are simple and have been
> in
> > > effect for much longer than there was an Internet, so without modifying
> > > them, the WLS itself is probably illegal in my estimation and will
> likely be
> > > challenged in court.
> > >
> > > The net effect is that anyone suffering damages due to what I consider a
> > > "commercially self-centered" policy, should just sue the registrar and
> ICANN
> > > jointly for the damages. And I assure you that the veil of the
> corporation
> > > is most likely easily pierced in such a situation. And pierced such
> that
> > > the ICANN Board Members can be held financially accountable for damages
> in
> > > WLS based damage claims... personally.
> > >
> > > My feeling is that it will be very interesting to see how this works
> out,
> > > since I am sure ICANN's director's insurance would not cover a malicious
> act
> > > of creating a system that intentionally allows to usurping of existing
> > > marques. And what also about certain registrar's refusals to delete
> expired
> > > domains or to allow transfers to happen to domains... Seems like we have
> the
> > > same problem. The registers controlling access to IP's they do not own.
> > >
> > > Todd Glassey
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Alexander Svensson" <alexander@svensson.de>
> > > To: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:17 AM
> > > Subject: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> > > > >In preparation for the NC discussion and vote on the final report of
> the
> > > Transfers task force on the Wait List Service referral, please see below
> the
> > > result of the internal vote of the task force on their report. (Edits
> for
> > > clarity are mine.)
> > > > >Philip.
> > > > >
> > > > >----------------------------------
> > > > >I. Recommendation 1: To deny the WLS:
> > > > >
> > > > >A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
> > > enforce the
> > > > >proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and
> practice
> > > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
> > > > >Accepted by all
> > > > >
> > > > >B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to
> amend
> > > its agreement to
> > > > >enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
> > > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > > > >No: IP, gTLD
> > > > >6 YES 2 NO
> > > > >
> > > > >C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the
> WLS
> > > for 12 months.
> > > > >Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
> > > > >No: gTLD
> > > > >Abstain: NonC, IP
> > > > >5 YES 1 NO 2 ABSTENTIONS
> > > > >
> > > > >I. Summary Recommendation to deny the WLS:
> > > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > > > >No: IP, gTLD
> > > > >6 YES 2 NO
> > > > >
> > > > >II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF
> prime
> > > recommendation.
> > > > >Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted
> above
> > > > >and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12
> month
> > > > >trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be
> approved
> > > with
> > > > >conditions:
> > > > >
> > > > >A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation
> and
> > > proven
> > > > >(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
> > > > >Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
> > > > >establishment of a standard deletion practise.
> > > > >Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
> > > > >No:gTLD
> > > > >7 YES 1 NO
> > > > >
> > > > >B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard
> > > deletion practise
> > > > >be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this
> could
> > > be
> > > > >considered separately from WLS.
> > > > >
> > > > >(CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
> > > > >
> > > > >1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as
> WLS
> > > and
> > > > >implemented before WLS.
> > > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
> > > > >5 YES
> > > > >2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be
> in
> > > > >place before
> > > > >WLS is implemented.
> > > > >Yes: IP, NonC
> > > > >2 YES
> > > > >
> > > > >3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
> > > > >Yes: gTLD
> > > > >1 YES
> > > > >C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
> > > > >
> > > > >C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the
> > > Registry
> > > > >(through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name
> when
> > > a
> > > > >WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
> > > > >Yes: GA, NonC,
> > > > >2 YES
> > > > >
> > > > >C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
> > > > >name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
> > > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
> > > > >Abstain: gTLD,
> > > > >5 YES 1 Abstain
> > > > >
> > > > >D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency
> as
> > > to who has placed
> > > > >a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the
> option.
> > > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > > > >No: IP
> > > > >Abstain: gTLD
> > > > >6 YES 1 NO 1 Abstain
> > > > >
> > > > >E. Cost. WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous
> > > considerations for
> > > > >approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
> > > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
> > > > >Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
> > > > >5 YES 3 Abstain
> > > >
> > >
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> >
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|