RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Rick,

Claim? I can't imagine why anyone, other than AOL, would want a WLS on
AOL.COM. Even if the domain is somehow dropped no one can really profit from
it unless they somehow acquire the trademark at the same time. So what does
the WLS holder have a "claim" on that would require shareholder
notification? All the notice is going to generate is a lot of customer
support calls for the Registrars.

And I'm not suggesting that the personal information of the WLS holder not
be gathered. Just that it not be publicly available. VeriSign or ICANN can
use it to evaluate the WLS success, or lack of it, or whatever. I would just
hate to see a repeat of the privacy fiasco that the port 43 Whois program
has become.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:51 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: ross@tucows.com; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection




Tim,

you bring up several important points I'd like to address...

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Ross,
>
> Here are our comments in more detail.
>

[snip]

> We DON'T agree with the recommendation that the current registrant should
be
> sent a notice about a WLS subscription being placed on their domain name.
We
> don't understand the purpose of alarming them with this information after
> the fact. Registrars already have a vested interest in encouraging
renewals.

I think the shareholders of any major corporation need to understand that
a major asset has a claim on it, such as AOL.COM or YAHOO.COM; If either
of these had a WLS on them their shareholders have a right to know with
this in mind we know better than recommending otherwise.

> And since there will be a redemption period of one sort or another to
> protect the registrant we don't see a need for this notice. With or
without
> the WLS, if they let their registration lapse, someone is going to snap it
> up.

I'm not sure notice is the correct way either... but it will help us
figure out the bad registrant data, when contacts are sent notices.

> We DO agree that the fact that a WLS subscription has been placed on a
name
> should be available upon request, either through a registrar request, or
> perhaps through the Whois in some manner.

yes, some publicly available method like whois would be good.

> We DON'T agree that the personal information of the WLS holder should be
> available. They are not the registrant of the domain name, at least not
yet.
> There is enough unfortunate abuse of people's personal information without
> finding additional excuses for making it available.
>

again disclosure is important and more so than privacy -- after all it
might be a fraudulently registered WLS and we need to be able to identify
those as fraud before the WLS fires rather than after. Also with this
being a "market test" (on a production name space) public WLS registration
information would be in-line with the openness required of ICANN
organizations and assist in the research of the WLS market penetration.

best,

-rick