Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....WLS spin by proponents

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

To demonstrate how little control over the Internet that ICANN actually has,
the response would be for a few million domain owners to all contribute a
dollar and start up a new root. All ICANN has going for it now is that they
have the first-mover advantage which means that they grew out of what was
left over when the old not-for-profit NSFNet went commercial in 1992...Which
is why so many of their processes and infrastructure is in the shape its in.

As to WLS though. This is the first registrar's attempt at being able to
consummately screw the Domain Owners and it needs to be stopped cold.

It is my humble opinion that WLS is of itself not only likely to be a cause
for a lawsuit, but rather is also a harassment to the end user, the person
ultimately paying the bill for the Domain's Publication Services (from the
Registrar) and that's the key. The Registrar's participating in WLS from my
standpoint should likely be shut down since they are intentionally acting as
agent provocateur and as reception/publication agent in respect to the same
piece of IP. And that clearly is a serious conflict of interest.

WLS conceptually is so devious a transaction model that no one in their
right mind would ever register for WLS except with the Registrar who would
be  the one to expire the domain(s) in question. Because the absolute
instant the domain expired there is no other registrar that can reregister
that domain as fast. So what WLS is really all about is facilitating that
the same registrar keeps all the good names. And as such, retains the
follow-on royalties from the registration of said same domain name.

WLS is then a process to allow a registrar to most-likely keep the same name
off the market and so it is a lie that it release and makes more names
available. It allows a single Registrar to retain publications control over
its domain names, by instantly transferring the domain name in question, at
expiry to an already prearranged "owner" (or in this case 'lessor') and this
is a real problem since it now implies that an Internet Marque is very
different than a Trade Mark or Service Mark in that once it expires and the
wait period elapses, that ***ANY*** claim to the underlying IP is forfeited.

And unless I am stupid too, it lets those Registrars that operate Domain
Names for Sale operations (Squatters) that can also through funny money,
sidestep the IP ownership question while increasing their portfolio... No in
all cases the WLS Services DO NOT MAKE more domain names available, they
just allow presales against someone else's registered and published IP's...
And that's not smart for us as Domain Owners, just for the registrars.

Personally I think that the registrars need to hear from us on what we think
of them trying to be adversarial to us rather than our partners. And this is
the most important letter we need to draft. This is all about making
ourselves a credible organization and having the ability to speak with one
voice. - Something to date we have been pretty poor at.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <william@wxsoft.info>
To: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@yahoo.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; <touton@icann.org>; <cpage@dotster.com>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....WLS spin by proponents


>
> Sheesh that post from Ms Crawford is full of so much B.S. that I am
> absolutely amazed that she can make those statements.
>
> I wonder if she would make them under oath.
>
> Friday, July 26, 2002, 8:42:49 PM, George Kirikos wrote:
>
> > Hello,
>
> > In a last ditch attempt to influence the outcome of the ICANN Board's
> > decision on WLS, we've got the post by Susan Crawford at:
>
> > http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?wls;3D41DE6D00000358
>
> > All of Susan's arguments have been made ad nauseum in the past, and had
> > been responded to. It seems that they simply want to get in "the last
> > word" (or "the last spin"), as a desperate last move to put lipstick on
> > the pig named WLS.
>
> > Louis Touton, in his analysis of April 17th, at:
>
> > http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm
>
> > gave us the ground rules, "it is my judgment that the Board should not
> > seek to decide how to deal with this request without invoking the
> > formal consensus development processes currently established within
> > ICANN." The overwhelming consensus is that WLS be denied, as an
> > unwanted intrusion on an existing competitive marketplace that is
> > thriving at the registrar level. ICANN's mission is to foster
> > competition, and that has been its major success, as it has stated on
> > more than one occasion. The double-speak that WLS will actually
> > increase competition is simply preposterous. I and many others would
> > echo Susan's statement that "The Board's obligation is to take steps
> > that maximally favor competition." Rejection of the monopolistic WLS
> > definitely accomplishes that goal. Indeed, it is the Board's only
> > choice, given that acceptance of WLS will cause a challenge by affected
> > Registrars, as I noted at:
>
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00303.html
>
> > a challenge which the registrars would win easily, since ICANN can not
> > show consensus for this new policy affecting domain name allocations.
> > Indeed, more powerfully, not only can ICANN not show consensus FOR WLS,
> > there is consensus AGAINST WLS.
>
> > The fact of the matter is that there is intrinsic demand for the domain
> > names themselves, not WLS as a mechanism to acquire them. We currently
> > have numerous means to acquire those names, and WLS seeks to monopolize
> > that marketplace not because it is a "better offering", but instead
> > because it gets first dibs on all the names, leaving everyone else with
> > the table scraps that no one else wanted. If NameWinner had done such a
> > deal with Verisign, instead of SnapNames, we'd see the exact opposite
> > spin by SnapNames, I'm sure, that it's anti-competitive, etc.
>
> > I find it amusing that proponents of WLS refused to take my "Cookie
> > Challenge", posted on the DNSO GA list multiple times, to answer the
> > questions posed at:
>
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02855.html
>
> > among other places, regarding the "Effects Test" of WLS. However, Susan
> > has taken up the "Cheese Challenge". Where do I send the cheese, to go
> > along with her whine? :)
>
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
> --
> Save Internet Radio!
> CARP will kill Webcasting!
> http://www.saveinternetradio.org/
>
>
> --
> 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