RE: [registrars] RC WLS Response

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

We DO NOT agree that the DNSO should work with VGRS to refine this 
proposal.  As stated in our comments, our opinion is that the proposal 
represents anti-competitive behavior on the part of VGRS and that WLS would 
inspire market activities that would harm our industry and consumers 
worldwide.

We support the drafted DNSO response, although we don't love it.  We think 
it does not go far enough in opposing this porposal.  Of all the 
"solutions" I have heard proposed to this "problem" the WLS is the worst. 


In any proposal on any topic, I would like to see a clearly defined 
objective.  If there is a problem to solve, what is the problem and what 
steps have been examined to remedy it?  If the goal is to make additional 
opportunities, what does the DNSO suggest as potential new opportunities 
from the registrar perspective?  These should form the basis of a proposal.

Finally, a word on the "abusive speculative registrations."  Like it or 
not,  name speculators are a legitimate market segment, and one that 
currently functions very well.  We have no right to modify our industry to 
squash these people.

If you go to a sneaker outlet, you can select from sneakers ranging in 
price from $20 to $500 or more.  You pay your money and you get a pair of 
sneakers.  What would you tell the clerk at the sneaker outlet if he told 
you that you could pay $70, and maybe you would get the sneakers and maybe 
not?  I'm sure you would all rush to put down your money.

Despite Verisign saying there is a 100% chance of success, that's true only 
if the name actually expires.  So there is no guarantee whatsoever, and if 
there is no name delivered, the money is not refunded.  WLS, sneakers, 
people expect to get something for their money.

Now, you tell me which is "abusive."

Jim




--On Wednesday, January 16, 2002 8:09 AM -0800 Rick H Wesson 
<wessorh@ar.com> wrote:

>
> all:
>
> please weigh in on Nikolaj's comments below.
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Nikolaj Nyholm wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I disagree with this black and white point of view.
>
> ok, this response is about registrar constituency consensus, which means
> that not everyone will agree but that a vast majority of us agree that the
> response is expressing as clearly as possible the will of those taking a
> stand.
>
>>
>> While the poll showed unanimous opposition to WLS _as is_, I believe that
>> the general sentiment was to work _with_ VGRS on improving certain
>> aspects of the proposal, rather than focusing on new, alternative
>> proposals.
>
> ok, is there anyone else that believes this is true? Nikolaj, could you
> provide us with others that support your view?
>
> If this is your only exception then do you agree with the majority of
> the rest of the document? understand that its ok to disagree with points
> of the response, but we need to see significant opposition to it before
> the drafting team is going to change it.
>
>> The document does not reflect this nuance, and I can therefore not
>> support it in it's current form.
>
> ok, do you agree with the rest of the document?
>
> thanks,
>
> -rick
>
>



*****************************
Jim Archer, CEO
Registration Technologies, Inc.
10 Crestview Drive
Greenville, RI 02828
voice: 401-949-4768
fax: 401-949-5814
jarcher@RegistrationTek.com
http://www.RegistrationTek.com