Re: [registrars] WLS - VOTING

[Mike Brown <mike@awregistry.net>]

Dear Fellow RC Constituents and NC Representatives:

AWRegistry is OPPOSED to WLS on the grounds that it is anti-competitive and
that Verisign's position as registry gives it an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE in offering
this type of service.

As to the "Alternative Recommendations", we believe in full disclosure of all
data elements, i.e., data regarding WLS subscriptions should be made publicly
available just as data regarding domain name registrations is currently
disclosed.  Further, we believe it is sufficient that the data is available
through some form of lookup (WHOIS perhaps), and that it need NOT be "pushed"
to the registrant by a notification.

We would also suggest that the next order of business of this constituency
is to establish a clear definition of consensus and well defined rules about
how our NC reps shall vote, so time is not wasted on these issues again.

> PROPOSED BALLOT:
> 
> With regard to the Names Council Task Force report on the WLS,
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020714.TFtransfer-WLS-report.html, and the
> "Preferred Recommendations" That (1) The ICANN board move with all haste to
> implement and actively enforce the proposed Redemptions Grace Period for
> Deleted Names policy and practice; and (2) The ICANN Board reject Verisign's
> request to amend its agreement to enable it to introduce its proposed WLS;
> and (3) The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12
> months.
> 
> [ ] I oppose it
> [x] I support it
> 
> 
> With regard to the Names Council Task Force report on the WLS,
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020714.TFtransfer-WLS-report.html, and the
> "Alternative Recommendations" regarding pricing, notification, accessibility
> of whois information, etc. (see Alternate Recommendations for all 6
> recommendations).
> 
> [x] I oppose it
> [ ] I support it


Sincerely,

Mike Brown
All West Communications, Inc. D/B/A AWRegistry