RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection

[dwascher@iaregistry.com]

Just the traffic alone for a couple of days working through the UDRP would
be worth the $30 + registration fee for the WLS. As I stated before many
time, the speculators have been saving their pennies since the drops have
gone dormant. The speculators have the money and they know how to use each
of us to work the system.

David Wascher

**-----Original Message-----
**From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
**Behalf Of Jim Archer
**Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 5:04 PM
**To: tim@godaddy.com
**Cc: registrars@dnso.org
**Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection
**
**
**Hello Tim
**
**AOL is of course an exteme case, but even this domain would be
**distrupted.
**Even though there is a trademark, time is required to deal with a problem
**like this and the domain is down in the meantime.  I think in most cases,
**the domain holder would end up paying off the WLS older, if they can.
**
**Jim
**
**--On Monday, July 22, 2002 11:21 AM -0500 Tim Ruiz
**<tim@godaddy.com> wrote:
**
**> 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
**>
**>
**
**