[registrars] RE: Registrar Constituency Response to the VGRS WLS Proposal

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Thank you Rick.  I appreciate the timely response.  We will use the
feedback you provided along with that provided directly to us by
registrars.

With regard to point b, if you have any objective evidence to show that
VGRS has ever used its position to advantage the VeriSign Registrar,
please provide it to me. I am highly confident that there is no evidence
of any significant violations in this regard but will certainly
investigate if you can prove otherwise.

Regarding point c, if the WLS as we proposed it provides incentives and
rewards for speculators, what does the current system do in that regard,
considering the current system is alive with registrars slamming our
systems 24 hours per day to get deleted names. This may be just a
difference of opinion that could only be resolved through a test of the
WLS.

Regarding point d, we have never claimed that the WLS would solve the
technical problem so it is not clear to me why that still keeps coming
up as an issue with regard to the WLS.

In conclusion: For b, I understand the fears however invalid I think
they may be and I will personally ensure that any charges of favoritism
are investigated and dealt with as appropriate.  For c, I don't
understand the argument so I would appreciate any suggestions how the
WLS proposal could be improved to alleviate this concern. For d, as I
have said many times in many forums, we will continue to work toward
solutions of technical problems caused by the slamming of our systems by
registrars, resulting in transactions hitting our systems in rates
approaching 150M per day.  For point a, we anticipate providing a
response to the price concerns shortly along with a response to other
suggestions made by registrars in response to the WLS proposal.

Finally, you indicated that there was a unanimous vote by registrars.  I
would appreciate understanding what that means.  Does that mean that all
172 ICANN accredited registrars supported the statement you sent me?
How about all 96 active registrars?  Does it mean that all registrars
oppose the WLS as proposed? Some objective data would be helpful for me
in evaluating what steps we should take next.

Thanks again for the timely response.

Chuck

Chuck



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 4:51 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Registrars List
> Cc: halloran@icann.org; Louis Touton
> Subject: Registrar Constituency Response to the VGRS WLS Proposal
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Chuck Gomes,
> 
> 
> Attached is the constituency response to the VeriSign WLS proposal. We
> appreciate your team developing this proposal and welcome 
> your comments in
> regards to this constituency consensus statement.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> -rick
> 
> Rick Wesson, on behalf of the DNSO Registrars Constituency
> 
>

smime.p7s