Re: [registrars] WLS Update

["Joyce Lin" <joyce@007names.com>]

All,

It is totally disgusting!!  When there are hundreds of thousands if not
millions of expired domain names that have been put onhold by Verisign in
anticipation of their WLS and ICANN could not do a thing about it for so
long.  Their hypocrisy is epitomized by the so called   "consumer choice"
that is being so unjustly used to  expedite the decision.

Joyce Lin
007Names



----- Original Message -----
From: "Patricio Valdes" <valdes@parava.net>
To: "'Registrars List'" <Registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 3:09 PM
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.
>
>
>