RE: [registrars] RC WLS Response

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Nikolaj,

please review my first note that had the draft response attached. most of
the 5 registrars you refer to assisted in the drafting of the response; i
expect they weighed in as a team, unless one of them states otherwise.

best regards,

-rick


On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Nikolaj Nyholm wrote:

>
> 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. :)
>