Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com>]

Dear Jonathan,

(I've trimmed the cc list)

--- Jonathan Cohen <jcohen@shapirocohen.com> wrote:
> please explain more clearly what decisions or policies of ICANN are
> troubling and why.What alternative do you propose and why is it
> better.I do

Let's start with the most recent ICANN decision over WLS. The Board
ignored the consensus against WLS that exists in the DNSO (via the
Names Council vote), and instead voted to approve it. Why?

Just as an aside,I'd like to know if you (and other Board members)
actually took any time to read the Names Council recommendations, or
whether instead you relied upon the filtered information provided by
ICANN Staff. Did you take the time to read even a few of the 800+
comments against WLS at the official ICANN WLS Forum (now closed) at:

http://forum.icann.org/wls/

or the 3,400+ petition comments at:

http://www.petitiononline.com/antiwls/

Why is it that ICANN's WLS Forum was closed? Don't you think further
comments by stakeholders are warranted, especially if the WLS is a
work-in-progress, a "test"??

I've proposed the Status Quo as an alternative, as it ensures that
consumers have choice, and it preserves competition at the registrar
layer, instead of allowing Verisign to leverage their monopoly to
corner the market for expired names. It's better because it offers
consumers choice, and allows registrars to innovate. I'd be prepared to
accept a vote in the DNSO, Status Quo vs WLS -- how about it?

Dotster has prepared a good summary of the issues, at:

http://web.dotster.com/resources/wlsresponse.php

and will be challenging the Board's decision by the end of next week,
as you might be aware.

Personally, it boggles my mind that ICANN can ignore the consensus, and
force through such an anti-competitive proposal. But, I'd like to hear
your justification, and the pros and cons that were weighed. To many,
it seems like the Board of Directors really fumbled the ball on this
one, and court action will be required in order to set things right.
ICANN often is criticized by professional troublemakers, but this isn't
the case where WLS is concerned -- the Business Constituency, for
example, was against WLS (as were the ISPs, Registrars, and others in
the consensus). It's one thing to ignore an overly vocal minority, but
this time you've ignored an overwhelming majority, if not the
anti-trust laws themselves, and the contractual obligations with
registrars, per consensus policies.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.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