[ga] Re: [More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS]

[Loren Stocker <loren@800.net>]

Hi George,

Always good to see that you're on top on this WLS non-sense.

Registry load is irrelevant. Thanks to this "temporary system," the drop load
is now contained and controlled with allocated bandwidth and on it own server
bank. More registrar? No problem. Just re-allocate or use the new revenues to
add capacity.

The only remaining problem is psychological. Mr. Gomez is in denial. The
"temporary system" is the system that works. The rest of us have moved on.

Yet, there's hope for Mr. Gomez. Anyone know a good recruiter? This guy can
act! 

MEO

WWW.EVIL.BIZ

George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello,

See:

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gomes-letter-to-halloran-28may03.htm

I remind Chuck of Verisign's official answers to various questions at:

http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-responses-15feb02.pdf

in particular, answers to B.2 and B.3

"Registry load should not be a criterion for determining the proper
course of action regarding deleted domain name registrations."

Yet, once again Chuck trots out the Verisign misinformation, to attempt
to misinform the Board:

"These various registrars do so by sending extraordinarily high numbers
of robotic domain name registration requests to the VeriSign Com Net
Registry that currently costs VeriSign significant unreimbursed expense
to process. VeriSign has implemented a temporary system to support such
activity since August 2001 and has continued to support it without
charge since that time."

If registry load isn't a criterion, why does Chuck mention load, over
and over and over again? If anything qualifies as bad faith, I think it
is this, when it is clearly contrary to official answers that registry
load isn't an issue. Only an ICANN board who knowingly ignores a
community consensus, and its contracts with registrars, will not see
this letter by Verisign for what it truly is. 

The rest of the letter is the usual Verisign double-speak, which failed
to convince the community (indeed, the consensus position in the Names
Council was that WLS be denied). "I fail to understand" why Verisign
wants to push this through "for everyone's benefit" when their own
customers, Registrars, are against it (failed to get majority support
in the Registrars Constituency), and the customers of Registrars
(Business Constituency, ISPs, Non-Commercials) were also against it?
 
I'd like a clear answer from Verisign to one question, and I think this
letter above from Chuck *demands* an answer:

IS REGISTRY LOAD AN ISSUE IN THE WLS DEBATE?? Yes or no?

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.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