Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

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

Don and all assembly members,

Don Brown wrote:

> Come-on, Jeff, there is already a market.  This will kill it and put a
> monopoly in direct control.
>
> Rethink free-enterprise.
>
> The market participants have already devoted their R & D to this
> market.  This will kill that.

  How?  In any event if you read my whole post (See below)
I have urged Karl to vote AGAINST WLS and I have been
decidedly AGAINST WLS for a number of already stated
technical and Internet Community business reasons...

  In any event, R & D departments from competing companies
in the same business segment often have good products that
compete in the very same space heads up.  I don't see WLS
as a superior service product offering than any others in this
area.  Hence again I say WHY would WLS kill those R & D efforts
or results of them?

>
>
> The only, realistic, source of supply will be V$.
>
> If they could have come up with a better mouse-trap which would not
> have killed all of their competitors, I would have been all for it.
> In typical fashion, they didn't.
>
> So, NO, like the majority of the rest of the community, I would
> support Damian for President, before I supported WLS.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Thursday, August 22, 2002, 9:33:37 PM, Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> JW> karl and all assembly members,
>
> JW> Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Kristy McKee wrote:
> >>
> >> > If this WLS process must be implemented, why not offer the Domain Name
> >> > Registrant the "opportunity" to pay more money per year to ensure that they
> >> > also have claim to their domain(s) within the WLS database.
> >>
> >> Presumably under WLS they have that - they simply buy into WLS.
> >>
> >> I have a question for you (and everyone on the GA list):
> >>
> >> I've been wrestling back and forth on the WLS issue.  I don't like giving
> >> NSI/Verisign yet another boon but I also don't like ICANN being a
> >> regulator of ever increasing size.
>
> JW>   I have no problem personally with Verisign getting a boon on anything
> JW> as long as it is not at the unfair expense of the stakeholders/users.
> JW> If Verisign or any other company has a "Better Idea" and can
> JW> effectively sell it as such, than more power to them.
>
> JW>   I do agree with you Karl that ICANN should not become
> JW> what it already has, an over imposing regulator and any
> JW> further modify the registrar contract to include WLS
> JW> as a Defacto standard for dealing with Deletes.
> JW> ICANN should stay away from WLS all together.  On
> JW> that biases alone the ICANN BoD should not vote in
> JW> favor of WLS...
>
> >>
> >>
> >> This is a tough question and there are equities on all sides.
> >>
> >> My feeling is that I at the board meeting tomorrow morning that I will
> >> vote in favor of WLS but only on the condition that there are provisions
> >> that require the current registrant to know of the existance (and
> >> identity) of WLS entries placed on his/here domain name.  That, to my
> >> mind, helps restore the balance of information and lets all parties to the
> >> registration agreement attempt to optimize their actions.
>
> JW>   I would agree that the provision you suggest here Karl, would
> JW> help balance the interests of the registrants with the
> JW> Registrars/Registries.
> JW> My personal concern though is that can we trust Verisign to
> JW> insure this suggestion of yours takes place and can we also
> JW> be sure that the oversight of ICANN to insure that they do?
> JW> I say no we cannot...  ICANN has no provisions in the
> JW> current Registrar and Registry contracts to even enforce them
> JW> As-Is.  With the modification to encompass WLS we would
> JW> have an even potential and likely worse situation for
> JW> the Registrant and other Registrars...
>
> JW>   Hence Karl, I would advise/ask that you vote against
> JW> Louis's suggestion and WLS...
>
> >>
> >>
> >> (It may not be black letter contract law, but I do feel that those who are
> >> parties to a contract ought not to be unreasonably manipulative of one
> >> another - particularly when the contracts are of an adhesive quality [and
> >> more particularly when the public isn't allowed onto the regulatory body
> >> that establishes many of the contractual terms].  And in the case of WLS I
> >> have always found it distasteful that the registry, who has an indirect
> >> contractual relationship with the registrant, might hold back information
> >> from the registrant that could be of value to the registrant.)
> >>
> >> This condition on the casting of my vote in favor is in addition to things
> >> like the pre-existance of the grace period mechanisms for at least 6
> >> months, etc etc.)
> >>
> >> Any comments?
> >>
> >>                 --karl--
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
>
> JW> Regards,
> JW> --
> JW> Jeffrey A. Williams
> JW> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
> JW> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> JW> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> JW> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> JW> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> JW> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> JW> --
> JW> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> JW> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> JW> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> JW> 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
> ----

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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