Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

Karl,
I have to say that I am surprise at your conclusion.

WLS removes a free and open market in favor of a monopoly market.  As
a businessman first, and a (non-practicing) lawyer second, I'm sure
you can identify.

There is no doubt that there is some merits to WLS.  In some folk's
pervue there are merits of a Chevrolet over a Ford.  That's not a good
reason to change the market in favor of Chevrolets, however.

Reading the well reasoned posts, and there are many, and ignoring the
V$ hate posts, and there are many as well, the bottom line is that WLS
will thwart a competitive market with an abundance of consumer choice
in favor of only ONE CHOICE, the monopoly.

Personally, I am in favor of the "free enterprise system" and WLS is
180 degrees diametrically opposed to that.

Thanks,


Thursday, August 22, 2002, 6:01:05 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com> wrote:
KA> 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.

KA> Presumably under WLS they have that - they simply buy into WLS.

KA> I have a question for you (and everyone on the GA list):

KA> I've been wrestling back and forth on the WLS issue.  I don't like giving
KA> NSI/Verisign yet another boon but I also don't like ICANN being a
KA> regulator of ever increasing size.

KA> This is a tough question and there are equities on all sides.

KA> My feeling is that I at the board meeting tomorrow morning that I will
KA> vote in favor of WLS but only on the condition that there are provisions
KA> that require the current registrant to know of the existance (and
KA> identity) of WLS entries placed on his/here domain name.  That, to my
KA> mind, helps restore the balance of information and lets all parties to the
KA> registration agreement attempt to optimize their actions.

KA> (It may not be black letter contract law, but I do feel that those who are
KA> parties to a contract ought not to be unreasonably manipulative of one
KA> another - particularly when the contracts are of an adhesive quality [and
KA> more particularly when the public isn't allowed onto the regulatory body
KA> that establishes many of the contractual terms].  And in the case of WLS I
KA> have always found it distasteful that the registry, who has an indirect
KA> contractual relationship with the registrant, might hold back information
KA> from the registrant that could be of value to the registrant.)

KA> This condition on the casting of my vote in favor is in addition to things
KA> like the pre-existance of the grace period mechanisms for at least 6
KA> months, etc etc.)

KA> Any comments?

KA>                 --karl--





KA> --
KA> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
KA> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
KA> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
KA> 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