Re: [registrars] Re: [ga] FW: Comments Received Regarding RevisedWLS Proposal

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

Hi Rick...

Along these lines, please also call particular attention to the resolution 
adopted (a small nitpick - a resolution was "adopted," not "ratified") by 
the RC in the recent vote to all appropriate persons within ICANN as well 
as Verisign.  As the RC is the entity legally charted by ICANN to speak for 
registrars, and as that unambiguous resolution was adopted by a very wide 
margin, I believe this to be an extremely important statement made by the 
RC in adoption of its official WLS opposition as a body.

Also Rick, let me think you publicly for the hard work and fine job you did 
in coordinating our response and the balloting.  I realize this was a 
tremendous effort and I'm sure everyone involved in this process greatly 
appreciates your efforts, as do I.  Well done!

Jim

--On Thursday, March 14, 2002 11:56 PM -0800 Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com> 
wrote:

>
> Harold,
>
> The registrars have not yet submitted their final comments to VGRS because
> we had to vote on the commnets, check the vot, verify the ballot, sign the
> names and cehcek everything again.
>
> I expect that the registrars will release the response to VGRS some time
> tomorrow.
>
> best regards,
>
> -rick
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Harold Whiting wrote:
>
>> The Registrar's Constituency's Formal response to the WLS is missing.
>> How convenient, for it does NOT support the WLS.
>>
>> Also very convenient is the absence of the the expanded discussion over
>> whether the registry was contractually allowed to roll out and charge for
>> this type of service.
>> I do not see this type of service listed in the Registry contract's
>> appendix of "allowed" services that the registry could charge for. 
>> Neither did anyone else.
>>
>> Chuck, if you are going to publish only the feedback that is favorable to
>> WLS, make it clear that that is what you are doing.  As usual, this is a
>> blatantly biased posting by VeriSign.
>>
>> --HJW--
>>
>> At 02:09 AM 3/15/2002 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>       FYI
>>        
>>       Chuck
>>        
>>       -----Original Message-----
>>       From: Johnson, Terry
>>       Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:29 PM
>>       To: 'jim.foley@neteka.com'; 'mdierstein@namebay.com';
>>       'abel@able-towers.com'; 'info@firstplace.com'
>>       Cc: 'Stahura@enom.com'; Gomes, Chuck;
>>       'donny@intercosmos.com'; 'jarcher@registrationtek.com';
>>       'gbertrand@neteka.com'
>>       Subject: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal
>>
>>        To all respondents:
>>
>>       On behalf of Chuck Gomes, thanks once again for taking time
>>       to share your comments and feedback concerning the proposed
>>       Wait Listing Service (WLS).   As stated, it has been our goal
>>       to aggregate the feedback that is collected and post this for
>>       public record to the VeriSign website.  To that end, we have
>>       posted to our website the collective feedback that was
>>       submitted to VGRS, and received at wls@verisign.com as of
>>       4:30P, March 14, 2002.  The URL where these comments
>>       regarding the revised Wait Listing Proposal may be viewed is
>>       at:   http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html. (under the title:
>>       "Comments on Wait List Service Proposal")
>>
>>        
>>
>>       Terry Johnson
>>        
>>       VeriSign Global Registry Services
>>        
>>        
>>
>>
>>
>> Harold Whiting -- This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org
>> list. Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga" in
>> the body of the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>>



*****************************
Jim Archer, CEO
Registration Technologies, Inc.
10 Crestview Drive
Greenville, RI 02828
voice: 401-949-4768
fax: 401-949-5814
jarcher@RegistrationTek.com
http://www.RegistrationTek.com