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

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

It is the lobbyists/special interests and their cash who inevitably
get what they want. Community consensus, and what's really in the best
interest of the Internet Community, is clearly irrelevant to ICANN.

The Internet Community was strongly against WLS and the Names Council
opposed it as well.  It is abundantly clear that VeriSign's money was
much more attractive to the ICANN Board than doing the right thing for
the Community, the Registrars and for fair and healthy competition.

It is also very clear that with this ICANN reorganization and the
assassination of the GA, ICANN has every intention to completely
stifle the voice of the Community or, perhaps better said, to mold
that voice into whatever ICANN wants it to be.

ICANN has, indeed, become part of the very monopoly which it was
charged to dissolve. Their actions just with .com, .net and WLS speak
volumes.

Maybe it is time to consider letting ICANN, VeriSign and the
"insiders" play, all by themselves, in the sandbox, which is clearly
what they want. Maybe it is time for the Community to abandon this
inequity and prove to ICANN and the insiders that it is not the
Community which is irrelevant, but it is they who are the irrelevant
ones.

I have never endorsed the Alternate Root, but I can certainly see the
merit of it, particularly in the face of what ICANN has come to be and
of what ICANN has come to stand for.

If the Community wants equity, democracy and a voice in Internet
governance, then the Community will need to create it.  It's not
happening within the ICANN structure and the evidence shows it's
ICANN's intent for it never to happen.

Thanks,




Friday, May 30, 2003, 1:32:51 PM, George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com> wrote:
GK> Hello,

GK> --- Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz> wrote:
>> And if it was, even a half-arsed programmer could add rate limiting
>> to 
>> the SRS protocol very easily. Surely Verisign's got a spare
>> half-arsed 
>> programmer sitting around somewhere?

GK> Exactly -- throttling was a trivial fix, and solved the problem. See
GK> the February 2002 document where Verisign answered that and other
GK> questions, namely B.2. and B.3.
 
>> Or maybe they're not interested in the easy fix?

GK> The technical problem was fixed long ago -- the drop system is
GK> functioning in an orderly manner every day at 2 pm Eastern time for
GK> com/net. Verisign only trots out the load issue when they want to pull
GK> the strings of the "technologists" in ICANN, suggesting that there
GK> still needs to be an engineering solution, even though the problem is
GK> solved. This pulls the wool over the eyes of those in ICANN who have
GK> only a cursory knowledge of WLS, by framing the debate in such a way
GK> that PRESUMES a problem. There's no problem whatsoever at present.

GK> The true "problem" is that Verisign can't abuse its monopoly position
GK> under the status quo, and needs WLS to soak consumers and registrars
GK> with unnecessary charges, for a service already offered in a competitve
GK> manner at the registrar layer.

GK> Sincerely,

GK> George Kirikos
GK> http://www.kirikos.com/
GK> --
GK> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
GK> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
GK> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
GK> 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