FW: [registrars] 18 Registrars Endorse WLS Implementation

[Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin [mailto:alinford@sisna.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 2:20 PM
To: 'Paul Stahura'
Subject: RE: [registrars] 18 Registrars Endorse WLS Implementation


Paul,
will you forward this post for me?

To the group:
There may have been some confusion over the interpretation of our last
post, so here is a new and improved statement that clears up
Domainmonger.com's position with regard to the SnapNames / NetSol
debate.

We did agree to allow Domainmonger.com to be included on the list of
supporting Registrars of the modified WLS.  Upon further review, we have
decided to retract our support.

For more in depth discussion on why we have changed our position, feel
free to email me directly at austinl@domainmonger.com

Austin Linford
Central Registrar, dba Domainmonger.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Austin [mailto:alinford@sisna.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 6:12 PM
To: stahura@enom.com
Subject: RE: [registrars] 18 Registrars Endorse WLS Implementation


Paul, please forward this for us:

Please remove Domainmonger.com from this list.  We have do not give our
support for the modified WLS.

Austin Linford
Central Registrar, dba Domainmonger.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Donny Simonton [mailto:donny@intercosmos.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:35 PM
To: jim.foley@neteka.com; wessorh@ar.com; wls@verisign.com
Cc: halloran@icann.org; Registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] 18 Registrars Endorse WLS Implementation


Please remove directNIC.com from this list.  We have do not give our
support for the modified WLS.

Donny Simonton
Intercosmos Media Group dba directNIC.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
> Behalf Of jim.foley@neteka.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 5:04 PM
> To: wessorh@ar.com; wls@verisign.com
> Cc: halloran@icann.org; Registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] 18 Registrars Endorse WLS Implementation
> 
> March 7, 2002
> 
> Rick Wesson (wessorh@ar.com)
> Registrars Constituency
> 
> Chuck Gomes (wls@verisign.com)
> VeriSign
> 
> Dear Messrs. Wesson and Gomes:
> 
> We, the undersigned ICANN-accredited registrars, none of whom utilize
our
> connections to VeriSign Global Registry Service to give preferential
> access to any customers over any other customers, appreciate this 
> opportunity
to
> provide our feedback on VGRS' domain name Wait List Service (WLS),
which
> has
> recently been released for final comment in a modified form.  Per
> VeriSign's invitation to submit our comments, we are, as instructed, 
> submitting
our
> comments through "one of the DNSO constituencies" -- in this case, the

> Registrars Constituency, in the person of Rick Wesson.  Our point of
> contact is Jim Foley of Neteka, who may be reached at 
> jim.foley@neteka.com <mailto:jim.foley@neteka.com.
> 
> Our industry, now through its first stage of growth, is facing a
number of
> issues challenging its capability to further grow and mature while
meeting
> the needs of all users.  This is particularly true with respect to the

> issue of deleting domain names-this "secondary" market of .com and
> .net
names,
> in
> reality, will shortly become the primary market, as the inventory of
> reasonably usable new names further depletes and customer's choices
will
> be
> principally from the previously registered names now deleting back
into
> availability.
> 
> At present, however, the aggressive competition for deleting names-by
> registrars, professional speculators, and third-party service
providers-is
> effectively freezing out the mainstream customer, who without
> sophisticated equipment or even an understanding of how to find and 
> secure a
deleting
> name, has no practical access to the new primary domain name
marketplace.
> Accordingly, a change is necessary to restore a level playing field
for
> all
> users, and to bring fair, equitable and practical access to all
potential
> registrants.  In this context, we offer our conditional support for
the
> modified WLS proposal (as published on January 29, 2002), on a
> proof-of-concept basis intended to provide all concerned more
information
> on
> its viability as a long-term solution.
> 
> Thank you for your consideration.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> BulkRegister.com, Baltimore, MD, USA		Tom D'Alleva
> ChinaDNS, Beijing, China			Edward Lee
> DirectNic, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA		Michael Brunson
> DomainMonger.com, Washington State, USA	Austin Linford
> DomainSite.com, Boston, MA, USA		Rick Zaniboni
> Galcomm.com, Rishon Lezion, Israel		Moshe Fogel
> Go Daddy, Scotttsdale, AZ, USA			Bob Parsons
> Namebay, Monaco				Patricia Husson
> NameEngine, New York, NY, USA		Antony Van Couvering
> NameScout, Ontario, Canada			Rob Hall
> NameSecure, Moravia, CA, USA			Gary Khachadoorian
> NameSystem, Bridgetown, Barbados		Jason Heldeles
> Neteka, Toronto, Canada			Greg Bertrand
> VeriSign Registrar, Herndon, VA, USA		Bruce Beckwith
> Register.it, Bergamo, Italy			Bruno Piarulli
> Registrars.com, Los Angeles, California USA	David Barbosa
> SiteName, Rishon Lezion, Israel			LM Service
> SRSPlus, Los Angeles, California, USA		Anthony Bishop
> 
> 
> cc:
> Dan Halloran (halloran@icann.org)
> 
> 
> Requested Information about the signatories:
> 
> What is the nature of the members of your group (e.g., individuals,
> registrars, registries, trade organizations, etc.)? ICANN-accredited 
> Registrars
> 
> What is the total size of your membership?
> Approximately 100 are operational
> 
> How many members of your group participated in the WLS feedback
process
> leading up to the final feedback provided?
> 4
> 
> How many members who contributed to the WLS feedback you provided to
VGRS
> are involved or planning to be involved in the process of directly or
> indirectly using the VGRS batch delete system for registering
just-deleted
> names?
> 4
> 
> What efforts did your group make to reach out to members of your group
who
> did not participate in the WLS discussion process?
> The group signing this letter is not a formal group per se.  It is a
> subset of all registrars.  We made efforts to reach dozens of 
> registrars to educate
> them and make them aware of this issue.  We did not contact many
members
> of
> the Registrars Constituency, both because they are known to be
submitting
> their own comments and because they are not representative of all 100
> registrars, particularly the over 70 who are not active paid members
of
> the
> Registrars Constituency.  (Indeed, some of the RC members compete with

> VeriSign or have proposals competitive with VeriSign's WLS, or are in
> disputes with VeriSign Registrar).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>