RE: [registrars] WLS Update

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Patrico,

The Registrar Executive Committee is currently locked in a debate about the
Transfer's Task Force which was recently tasked to handle the issue of
deletes.

Several months ago it was decided to merge WLS and Transfers together in a
single Task Force to expedite the issue of transfers which has been
languishing for over 18 months. Yes I am both disappointed ("pissed off")
that WLS has been voted on by the board and transfers are no closer to
resolution. Please refer to my memo to the Board asking for transfers to be
made an agenda item in China.

Be forewarned, because transfers are also part of the same set of contracts,
I would not expect a much different course of action. If what emerges from
the Names Council Transfer's Task Force is inconsistent with the contracts,
the Board is going to do the same thing again. Unfortunately one of the
problems with ICANN 1.0 is the Names Council gives people false hopes that
they can cure all which is wrong. The Names Council has a role within ICANN,
but it is NOT to dictate to the ICANN Board what to do. The Names Council
Task Force was not a total waste, I believe the price reductions and
extended ramp up period were hard fought concessions that VeriSign would not
have otherwise given in on.

Although I have been quiet on the issue of WLS, I agree with the legal
outcome of the Board's. I respect that a number of registrars think that the
WLS is a bad idea. But the problem lies in the contract language in the
VeriSign-ICANN-DOC contracts signed last year. As someone that fought hard
against the adoption of those contracts, I have spent a lot of time  reading
them and the new standard contracts of the new registries operators.

To date, Ross has been the only registrar representative on the transfer
task force although other constituencies have multiple representatives. This
was decided during/after the Dulles meeting. My motion currently before the
Registrar Executive Committee is to elect another registrar representative
to the Transfer's task Force to assist Ross until the delete issue can be
separated from the Transfer's Task Force. If the two issues remain merged,
the second additional registrar representative would handle delete related
issue and offer any supplementary support that Ross needed.

I think Ross has done an excellent job to date but I want to make sure that
the interests of the registrars are fully represented going forward to
prevent another WLS detour.

Mike




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Patricio Valdes
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 3:09 PM
To: 'Registrars List'
Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS Update


This totally sucks...........

We the Registrars that are not happy about this should all get together and
do something about this.

Its obvious that the bottom line for ICANN is the money.

What happened to the Deletion and Transfer issues? Its been 18 months and
still nothing. If it were the other way around, Transfers benefiting
Verisign, something would have been implemented a long time ago.

This decision will have a serious repercussion on us as I am sure it will
have on many of the other Registrars.

So much for ICANN and their rules and regulations.

I wish I could write down what I am currently thinking about them, but that
would only make me be like them ..........



Patricio Valdes
Parava Networks


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 1:06 PM
To: 'Registrars List'
Subject: [registrars] WLS Update


Board minutes from today's call -
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23aug02.htm

WLS was approved but will not be operational until 2003.

Net-Net no one is likely to be happy which is one definition that I have for
consensus.

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Christopher Kruk
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 1:15 PM
To: Bhavin Turakhia; 'Rick Wesson'; 'David Wascher'
Cc: 'Registrars List'
Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS go ahead???


Bhavin, I agree with your sentiments. From a Registrar's business and
operational perspective, I would think a high priority should be placed on
achieving stability for basic Registrar services such as transfers,
deletions, whois, etc. I personally didn't pay much attention to the WLS
issue since I considered it a service proposal that would go through a
lengthy advisory process following a resolution of the more pressing issues
on the table.

Now I see postings with subject lines like "WLS go ahead???" and I'm very
concerned as I hope many other Registrars are if this is happening so
quickly. I can understand if there was a high customer demand but I don't
see it. Has anyone else?

 >Aaah ..... What came first ... The chicken or the egg
In this case, I think the rooster came first ;)

Roger and out,
  -Chris




At 09:20 PM 8/23/02 +0530, Bhavin Turakhia wrote:


> > > I do not understand - if the RC voted NO and the DNSO voted NO but
> > > ICANN is still going to allow WLS - then what the hell are we here
> > > for. The RC and the DNSO might as well pack up and go home because
> > > ICANN and VeriSign are going to do what they want.
> >
> > A better question is, "why is ICANN there" and why did you
> > all sign a document telling the DoC how great it is that
> > ICANN is there. If the WLS moves forward it is partly our own fault.
>
>Aaah ..... What came first ... The chicken or the egg :) ..... It is
>indeed after ICANN was formed that the Registrars came into being.
>However I am in full agreement with Rick. Maybe I should withdraw my
>support for the ICANN letter. Infact on second thoughts now I am
>wondering if it was the peer movement that made me sign it. For I have
>not seen ICANN move towards reforming any issue. Its funny how decisions
>that favour Verisign (read WLS) got taken right away while we are still
>deliberating on the Transfers issue, or the Delete hoarding issue of
>Verisign, without any assistance/resolution there.