RE: [registrars] RC WLS Response

[Nikolaj Nyholm <nikolajn@ascio.com>]

Pls. see below.


> > 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?


A quick review of notes, has Namescout, Melbourne IT, Tucows, IARegistry and
Ascio in favour of 'exploring' WLS (quote IARegistry: "Modifications to that
proposal are possibly the way to go").
That is 5 out of 17 registrars actively voicing concerns.

I can only speak Ascio, but I believe that while none of these registrars
support the WLS in it's current form, they see a possibility of exploring a
WLS with modifications and additions (previously outlined by Melbourne)

My point is that the paper does no effort in purveying this.


> > 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?
> 

yes, i do. and thank you to the drafting team. :)