RE: [registrars] RC WLS Response

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Well as a member of the drafting team, I accepted the document as a
reasonable compromise amongst the members of the drafting team.  This
compromise can of course be influenced by the views of the constituency that
were not part of the drafting team.  I have kept silent on the issue for a
few days to allow others to express their views.

My personal view leans more towards what Nikolaj has expressed, and this is
documented in earlier postings by me to Chuck Gomes (with copies to this
list) and also my comments on the registrars call.

I am prepared to work with the registry (rather than in opposition) to
improve on the proposal.  Note that some of the ideas being discussed since
the proposal was presented can be combined.

For example:
(1) The Verisign proposal does not solve the technical load problem - I
would like to see Verisign offer a solution to that, so that we can consider
that solution in the context of their new business proposal
(2) The auction models could actually be used to assign WLS slots - however
I am more in favour of the Tucows proposal where the proceeds of such
auctions go to the original registrant with a fee going to the registry and
registrar that facilitate this

I think it is good to document some ideas for improvement to the current
proposal, but I accept that this is not the role of the current draft
response.

So I can accept a change that states that the current proposal is not
acceptable, and that the registrars wish to work with Verisign to explain
the problems with it, so that Verisign may submit a second DRAFT (not an
announcement to the press about a new service and when it will be delivered)
for further feedback.

I would also like to see Verisign generate new DRAFTS in response to
feedback quickly - e.g within 7 days of 18 Jan 2002.

On the current draft, I approve it as is, but I encourage others to comment
if they want it to be changed slightly consistent with Nikolaj's comments.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:06 AM
> To: Nikolaj Nyholm
> Cc: 'Registrars List'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] RC WLS Response
> 
> 
> 
> 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
>