Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1324
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, July 11 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1324

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:16:13 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

Well, let's give him a break.

He didn't really look very much farther than his nose, but was very
quick to criticize. Now that you have given him a hint, maybe he will
review the archives of the GA list and the other on-point materials
and form his opinion accordingly.

Thanks,

Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 8:58:32 PM, Rick Wesson <[email-masked]> wrote:

RW> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Jeffrey J. Neuman wrote:

>> To be fair, there were a number of other parties that spoke out in
>> favor of the WLS in the public forum, not necessarily because they
>> liked the service, but rather for the points that were raised by the
>> gTLD Constituency.  In fact, when the transcript for the public forum
>> is published (hopefully soon), you will see a strong statement of
>> support for allowing the WLS to be introduced from Bruce Tonkin, a
>> Names Council representative speaking on behalf of the MelbourneIT
>> registrar supporting the notion of allowing the service to go forward.
>> In addition, I understand that in the Registrar Constituency a vote
>> was taken on whether to support the report or not and the result was
>> 13 in favor of it, 10 against.

RW> Which vote was that, one in Bucharest? If the vote was in Bucharest, not
RW> all registrars voted or had the oppertunity to vote, nor were any minutes
RW> distributed to the registrars constituency concering such a WLS vote.

RW> If you want to talk about the vote in Feb the Registrars Constituency
RW> voted in opposition of the WLS.

RW> spin the numbers as you wish, everyone else does.

RW> -rick

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:19:02 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 7:19:26 PM, Jeffrey J. Neuman wrote:

> Regardless, even assuming that these matters should be considered by the
> DNSO (which the gTLDs do not believe that it should be), the point I was
> trying to make is that with the IPC, gTLDs, ccTLDs and at least some of
> the Registrars (some of which are not in any way associated with
> VeriSign) not opposed to the introduction of the WLS, I do not believe
> that it can be said that there is a consensus to prevent its
> introduction.

Nice spin "some of which are not in any way..."

I believe the number is 4

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:22:27 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF - "Another Load"

Jeff and all assembly members,

Jeffrey J. Neuman wrote:

> -Snip -
>
> So, with the gTLDs, Snapnames, 10 of the 23 voting registrars, the IPC
> (who is actually neutral so long as the Grace Period is implemented),
> and ccTLDs (who I understand abstained in a TF vote on whether to
> support the report) not opposed to the introduction of the WLS, can it
> really be said that a consensus exists in favor of having the Board
> reject the service?

  Simple answer.  YES...

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Don
> Brown
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 7:17 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF
>
> Danny,
>
> WLS has been debated on the GA list for months. A review of the
> archives will show that many on the GA list are steadfastly opposed to
> WLS and that I am one of them. Therefore, Marilyn's conclusion about
> my silence is correct and on-point and I'd guess the same would be
> true of the others who oppose WLS.
>
> As for those in favor of WLS, like the gTLDs, IPC, VeriSign Registry,
> SnapNames, SnapName partners, VeriSign Registrar, VeriSign's Registrar
> subsidiaries, VeriSign partners, their law firms and lawyers, their
> shills who spoke in Bucharest and posted canned statements to the
> ICANN comment forum, and the other folks who actually are pursuing
> their own independent agenda, they have not been silent, as you have
> noticed and pointed out below.
>
> There has already been opportunity for comment, as you have also noticed
> and pointed out below, and careful reading of item 3 of the "Schedule of
> Events" posted at
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00331.html will
> disclose a plan for another 10 day public comment period.
>
> The TF has been criticized on matters of form, but not really on
> substantive issues.
>
> For instance, perhaps, as the gTLDs pointed out, the TF should not
> have considered the wholesale price of a WLS to the Registrars, but
> it's difficult not to do so in light of a $6 cost to register a domain
> name and a $24 cost for a WLS option. That's particularly true in
> light of all of the documents spewed by SnapNames justifying an even
> higher price. Let's not forget that the proposed WLS price used to be
> much higher than the current $24 WLS proposal, as well.
>
> Perhaps, also, the TF should not have discussed whether an additional
> registry service can be introduced by the registry, totally ignoring
> SnapNames long and convoluted legal diatribe about how the registry
> can't be prevented from introducing WLS and, of course, how everyone
> would get sued unless SnapNames' customers were given preferential
> treatment.
>
> However, considering that other people made those points a part of the
> equation for consideration, I think the TF would have been negligent
> if they had not addressed them.
>
> I think, therefore, that the process behind the report either fails your
> comprehension or that you have not carefully researched your position
> and, as a result, are too petulant to criticize.
>
> WLS has two fatal flaws: (1) WLS is anti-consumer because it
> eliminates consumer choice. Instead of multiple services in an already
> available market at differing prices, the consumer will have only one,
> take it or leave it, service. (2) WLS is anti-competitive because it
> will effectively kill the current market of services which are already
> available.
>
> Since part of ICANN's mission is to promote competition, WLS should
> fail on its face, because of those two fatal flaws alone. Everything
> beyond that, is just marketing spins, noise and rabbit trails. ICANN's
> BoD vote in favor of WLS will be a vote approving a Monopoly, which
> contravenes the very reason for ICANN's very existence.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 1:00:41 PM, [email-masked]
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Dcc> Marilyn,
>
> Dcc> In your letter to the Transfers TF you write:  "To date, while
> input was
> Dcc> received pre-status report, there has been very little feedback
> from the
> Dcc> community, constituencies and GA on the status report, or the
> recommendation
> Dcc> proposed by Grant Forsyth. This should indicate that the draft has
> wide
> Dcc> support within the constituencies/GA".
>
> Dcc> Your conclusion is flawed.  Silence does not equate to
> acquiescence.  Your TF
> Dcc> has still not produced a final set of recommendations, nor has the
> public yet
> Dcc> been invited to comment upon such a final set of recommendations.
> To
> Dcc> conclude that a lack of comments on an incomplete proposal is an
> indication
> Dcc> of support is nothing more than wishful thinking.
>
> Dcc> The gTLDs have already indicated that they do not support your
> Dcc> recommendations, as have many that spoke at Bucharest and many that
> have made
> Dcc> their comments on the Public Forum list.  By the way, I have seen
> no
> Dcc> indication that any members of your TF have ever once looked at the
> public
> Dcc> forum comments (if so, you would already have the URLs for the
> SNAPNAMES
> Dcc> documentation that you are now requesting).
>
> Dcc> I share the concerns of the gTLDs regarding "the process behind
> producing
> Dcc> that Report", and would encourage your TF to more responsibly
> attend to your
> Dcc> obligations.
> Dcc> --
> Dcc> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Dcc> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> Dcc> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Dcc> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> [email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:42:39 +1200
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

> So, with the gTLDs, Snapnames, 10 of the 23 voting registrars, the IPC
> (who is actually neutral so long as the Grace Period is implemented),
> and ccTLDs (who I understand abstained in a TF vote on whether to
> support the report) not opposed to the introduction of the WLS, can it
> really be said that a consensus exists in favor of having the Board
> reject the service?

The reasons why the ccTLD's did not comment is the same reason why we don't
expect ICANN to comment on operational issues in the ccTLD issues. 

Also, I would argue the same for you last comment. If so many are against it
and only gTLD, SnapNames, 10 registrars for it how can the board really
approve this based on consensus not being met?

Steven Heath

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS: Dotster posts the definitive arguments against it, and more

Hello,

Tonight, Dotster (owner of NameWinner) posted what I consider to be the
best document to date summarizing the arguments against WLS. It can be
seen here:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00341.html

It should be considered mandatory reading by anyone on the Names
Council and on the ICANN Board, when considering the WLS proposal. I
agree with and support the Dotster position 100%.

In order to stay under my 5 posts/day limit, I'd like to also mention
that when Louis Touton directed the WLS debate to the Task Force, it
was to see whether at a first glance there would be any major negative
effects from it. If there were negative effects, the full consensus
process should be invoked, and WLS should not be fast-tracked. See:

http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm

"If, however, there are specific reasons to conclude that the
legitimate interests of others are likely to be harmed, then ICANN's
existing obligation to seek consensus whenever possible before acting
suggests that it should invoke the formal consensus development
mechanisms that currently exist prior to any decision by the ICANN
Board."

Notice in particular the words "ICANN's existing obligations to seek
consensus". However, in the post by Jeffrey Neuman of of Neustar at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02786.html

he writes "I do not believe that it can be said that there is a
consensus to prevent its introduction." Of course, Mr. Neuman has
things completely backwards -- the consensus must be FOR the
introduction of WLS, to pass the acceptance. He should know better.

I find it interesting that Neustar is now involved in the debate. Given
that Verisign and SnapNames are pretty silent on the lists right now
(perhaps licking their wounds, or not wanting to provide free
"discovery" in the event of lawsuits), maybe they can point me and Task
Force members to some examples where monopolistic paid waiting lists
are in operation, where the consumers are charged even if they don't
ultimately receive the product/service? 

I can get on a waiting list for many products for free. Or, for Toronto
Maple Leafs season tickets, one can place a refundable security deposit
only. Or for an apartment, a landlord might ask for a refundable
security deposit. But, none of these are like WLS, where one might get
charged for no service (if a name is renewed), and the price of the
security deposit is several hundred percent higher than the cost of the
service itself.

Since Neustar runs various telephone number allocations, perhaps they
can provide examples of where there is a "WLS-like" scheme to reserve
vanity telephone numbers that are being recycled? Surely proponents of
WLS can provide some examples where a WLS-like scheme was a solution to
a real problem in resource allocations.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:58:50 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS: Dotster posts the definitive arguments against it, and more

At 7:56 PM -0700 7/10/02, George Kirikos wrote:
>Tonight, Dotster (owner of NameWinner) posted what I consider to be the
>best document to date summarizing the arguments against WLS. It can be
>seen here:
>
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00341.html
>
>It should be considered mandatory reading by anyone on the Names
>Council and on the ICANN Board, when considering the WLS proposal. I
>agree with and support the Dotster position 100%.

Word document (I assume) so therefore possibly a malicious virus carrier.

Anyone care to put an Internet-friendly version somewhere?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:11:41 +1000
From: "McMeikan, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Dotster WLS Statement as text

Apologies for long post, but I am sure many have the same virus concerns as
Andy.

source:word doc at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00341.html

	cya,	Andrew...
- --

To:	Marilyn Cade, Chair
WLS Task Force 

From:	Clint Page

Date:	July 10, 2002

RE:	WLS Statement

Dear Marilyn,

With the ICANN Board Meeting in Bucharest now complete it is my
understanding that the Names 
Council Task Force has until approximately the end of July 2002 to finalize
its position regarding VeriSign's WLS proposal.  As President of Dotster,
Inc., I feel compelled to make one last attempt to outline our position
relative to this proposal.

Dotster's position regarding the VeriSign proposal for a Domain Name Wait
Listing Service continues to be one of total disagreement.  The WLS proposal
is Verisign's attempt to simply leverage its existing monopoly at the
registry level to capture the innovative and highly competitive secondary
domain market. VeriSign's blatant monopolistic posturing and the greed
represented in the proposal will both restrict consumer choice and raise
prices. The arguments for and against the proposal are myriad.  However, we
believe the issues distill themselves nicely into three very distinct areas:
The consumer, the registrar and the registry.

	The consumer

·	The stated WLS proposal goes against one of the foundational charter
issues that were a part of the creation of ICANN.  Namely, the privatization
of the DNS was intended to create an open market, whereby consumers would
benefit from competition and lower prices. Part of ICANN's mission is to
encourage competition and the WLS proposal is diametrically opposed to this
precept.

·	The WLS proposal will put the consumer in the position of
unknowingly purchasing a product that can never be delivered.  In many
cases, Verisign will be allowed to make money off an option that the
consumer has no ability to exercise. For example, Verisign will be more than
happy to sell a consumer a "snapback" on a domain name for $24 per year-
whether or not the name ever becomes available. The WLS concept is basically
an option or "tax" that in many cases can never be exercised, and in it's
worst form borders on consumer fraud. 
 
·	VeriSign/SnapNames neglects to mention that under many competing
systems, the consumer only pays for a name if it is successfully acquired.
For example, NameWinner charges the customer only $25 on average per domain
name, and only on those names that are acquired.  In addition other
resellers charge much less than NameWinner (e.g. $10/name at Tucows). One
does not need to pay VeriSign/SnapNames $24/year, for a "chance" at a name,
when it is much less expensive to go with a different firm and only pay for
success. 

·	Adoption of this proposal will create a monopoly for the secondary
market component of the DNS.  Monopolies, independent of industry, are
famous for their abuse of customer service. This currently is an area where
domain competitors work hard to differentiate themselves from one another.
The customer is the beneficiary of this competition as registrars attempt to
differentiate themselves by providing a broad array of tools and support
systems directed at making the customer experience as pleasant as possible.
This innovation and customer care will be lost in a monopolistic
environment.  One of the initial reasons for the breakup of the old NSI
monopoly were complaints from the DNS user community regarding poor customer
service.

·	The WLS pricing scheme is a centrally planned model, similar to what
central planners did under the old Soviet regimes. The planners set a price
based on what they thought was "fair", rather than allowing the market to
set the price through competition. The Internet domain registration business
operates most efficiently and effectively based on free-market principles.
Better we should rely on a competitive marketplace to determine prices and
valid business models, rather than a single monopolist. A competitive
marketplace will always result in better prices for the consumer. Since that
competitive market exists now, ICANN had better have a very good reason for
interfering in it. 

·	Adoption of the WLS will result in limiting the choices consumers
have in the secondary market by destroying all of the competitive business
models in this area.

·	The WLS proposal makes it more lucrative for a registrar to get a
WLS subscription than to get a renewal from an existing customer.  The
implications involved in this factor may create an anti-consumer environment
throughout the DNS. Registrars will be unwilling to allow a transfer of any
domain name with a WLS subscription attached to it because of the potential
revenue loss. 

·	The recent public media announcements by SnapNames, (the technology
provider behind the scenes) wherein they stated their annual revenues will
increase from $3 million to $20 million in year one of the WLS arrangement,
should give considerable cause for concern.  If SnapNames is going to
realize an approximate 700% revenue growth increase, what does VeriSign's
piece of the action represent?  The VeriSign Registry currently charges $6
for every CNO name registered.  This rate was a negotiation point in the
privatization process and was arrived at to ensure adequate margins for the
registry.  If VeriSign's registry can make adequate margins at $6 per
registered domain name, then obviously one has to conclude that the proposed
WLS pricing will be at the expense of the consumer.

The Registrar

·	Competition will be stifled. Existing registrar competitors will
receive the privilege of being resellers of Verisign services, instead of
being allowed to innovate and differentiate as they do today. Registrars
will be reduced to the role of gas stations with their sole supply of
product coming from the Verisign monopoly.

·	The idea that the WLS will only be a "test" is completely false.
Trying to suggest a "test", when your company would earn $20 million during
that test, while completely wiping out existing competitors is not a "test."
The Verisign/SnapNames proposal is simply an anti-competitive cash grab
designed to eliminate competition and recreate the monopoly in the secondary
market. None of the more than thirty existing secondary market competitors
would still be able to run their business models under the WLS.

·	The WLS will interfere with free flow of transfers from registrar to
registrar.  If approved, the WLS will eliminate any domain from ever
expiring from the Network Solutions database. The reason being that NSI will
make more money controlling these domains while collecting WLS subscription
fees. To make matters worse, there is no requirement that forces any
Registrar to ever release an expired domain. In essence, the WLS will create
a total domain lock down industry wide. 

·	VeriSign's contention that the industry requires a more "ordered
process" is another red herring.  Why do we need an "ordered process", where
Verisign/Snapnames would put existing competitors out of business and secure
100% of the market and profits for themselves? The WLS is simply Verisign's
response to competition in the secondary market. As competitors such as
eNom, NameWinner, NicGenie, IARegistry, AWRegistry, etc. have experienced
success, Verisign has proposed a new monopoly in the secondary market to
eliminate both competition and consumer choice.
 
·	Equal opportunity must be preserved to allow any registrar to
acquire a deleted name, using any business model of the registrar's
choosing, and not one forced upon them by Verisign registry. No current
business model that is in place must be forcibly required to change their
business model, unless it can be proven that they have caused the abuse
through their choice of business models. Throughout the long WLS debate,
neither VeriSign nor SnapNames have provided a single example of registrar
abuse in this area.

·	Supposedly, the main reason that Verisign put WLS forth in the first
place was to solve the "load issue."  Now trying to argue, "it would be a
valuable service for consumers" seems beyond the scope of Verisign registry.
Is the Registry to become a Registrar? Let them do what they do best, which
is to manage the database. However, innovation should take place at the
registar level where there is a healthy and competitive landscape. 

The Registry

·	There currently exists an intrinsic demand for expired names within
the competitive DNS market. How would Verisign/ICANN differentiate WLS
demand from the intrinsic demand for the expired names themselves? This
question would be particularly difficult to answer given that there would no
alternative mechanism for securing those expired domains. 

·	Verisign's initial comment that "the system load is too high" was a
red herring to position them in the secondary market. By Verisign's own
admissions "registry load is no longer an issue. The multiple pools and rate
limiting technology have solved that problem."  

·	VeriSign's price point for WLS is exorbitant.  Although the company
has clearly outlined its rationale for establishing the $24 price point, the
stated costs of development, implementation, licenses and maintenance are
all part of any new product offering.  The recent launches of the new .biz
and. info TLDs are examples of this process and both of these registries
encountered similar costs in their respective introductions. Yet they were
both able to deliver a product that cost the participating registrars less
than $6 per domain name year registered.  Dotster finds it inconceivable
that creation of these registries was any less complex and/or costly than
the establishment of the WLS service. Why the wide variation in pricing? In
fact, Dotster has gone on record stating that we would be more than happy to
operate the WLS registry for $6 per domain name.  

·	When VeriSign states "getting paid fairly" as WLS justification, it
confuses where the actual value resides.  There is a fixed amount of value
associated with the intrinsic value of the names themselves.  WLS is not
providing a valuable service; it is imposing a tax on the domain name. A
competitive environment as currently exists amongst registrars and different
business models will ensure that the consumers and registrars alike are
getting a fair price.  

·	If the courts end up determining that the WLS is indeed illegal,
will Verisign/ICANN indemnify affected consumers, resellers, registrants and
other market participants from all liability, legal costs, and
implementation costs.

Summary

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the negative impact this
decision would have on our small registrar business. Dotster's Namewinner
product was the first domain name auction model for deleting domains
introduced into the DNS and is a significant part of our revenue and
profits. This product has been widely accepted and utilized by many
customers, who also use competing products. In fact, a large percentage of
our customers are also customers of our direct competitor SnapNames.

 In the past year, Namewinner has signed 5,585 customer accounts of which
1,737 customers are actively involved in the domain auctions. Additionally,
over 50,000 domains have been bid on and the total number of domain names
won by these customers is over 32,000. To say that Dotster would be
adversely impacted by the adoption of the WLS is an understatement. To allow
a direct competitor (SnapNames) to partner with Verisign and create a
monopoly in the secondary market goes against a fundamental charter of
privatization of the domain name industry. I strongly urge you to vote
against this proposal and allow open competition to continue to exist in the
secondary market.

Sincerely,

Clint Page
President
Dotster, Inc.
11807 NE 99th St., Ste. 1100
Vancouver, WA  98682 USA Tel (360) 253-2210;Fax (360) 253-4234
[email-masked]

- ---

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:30:14 -0700
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS: Dotster posts the definitive arguments against it, and more

"George Kirikos" wrote: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 7:56 PM

> Hello,
>
> Tonight, Dotster (owner of NameWinner) posted what I consider to be
the
> best document to date summarizing the arguments against WLS. It can be
> seen here:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00341.html
>
> It should be considered mandatory reading by anyone on the Names
> Council and on the ICANN Board, when considering the WLS proposal. I
> agree with and support the Dotster position 100%.
>

George, thank you for posting this link.  I wholeheartedly agree.
Dotster's formulation and summary of WLS opposition provides concise,
common-sense arguments, clearing up muddy waters and smoke screens
thrown up by the cash grab proponents.  As an administrator of expired
domain monitoring service (which does not charge consumer if it does not
succeed and upon success only charges $5.95 monitoring fee plus 5 year
domain registration fee) I would like to add our 100% support to Clint
Page's/Dotster's position.

Sincerely

Genie Livingstone
Magi Inc

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:25:50 UT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS: Dotster posts the definitive arguments against it, and more

Mr. Kirkos,

First, the questions I presented last night were sent on my own behalf in order to further examine the issues and not on behalf of NeuStar (except to the extent that NeuLevel agrees with the position of the gTLD constituency).  In addition, NeuLevel does not express a view one way or the other on offering the WLS or even on the market viability of such a service.  Please do not associate the gTLD position against the Task Force Report as "support for the WLS."  They are two completely separate issues.

Second,  while there are some good arguments for and against the WLS (like the Dotster Statement), consider the statement given by Bruce Tonkin at the Public Forum, which I quote below:  See <http://www.icann.org/bucharest/captioning-afternoon-27jun02.htm> (Sorry, but it is a long one)

"Yes, my name is Bruce Tonkin. And I'm representing a company view, Melbourne it, rather than any other views that I might be held to have. First I want to address the issue of competition. Today, we have a service called a domain name service. There's really two fundamental commands there, I guess. And that is you can create a domain name, and you can delete a domain name.

There is competition today both as to what's the best name to create and when is the best time to create it. There's competition in terms of the prices for that domain name.

Once someone purchases a domain name, then there is competition in the best way of maybe transferring it or allocating it or optioning that domain name. When a domain name is deleted, all registrars have access to the same service, which is called "add." You basically add a domain name. There are different business models as to the best time after a name has been deleted as to trying to predict when the name will be deleted and various ways of generating the "add" commands to acquire that domain name.

The comments have been made that by introducing the WLS service will somehow reduce competition. That is not true, because when you introduce a WLS service, you have exactly the same competitive behavior.  First there is the choice as to what's the optimum time to place a WLS on a name. Some might choose to place a WLS on the name immediately, so there will be competition the instant the service stats. There will be competition to register WLS names. Then there will be those that will choose to put a WLS on a name when they believe it's about to be deleted. Again, there will be different business models in how the best way of the optimum time to apply a WLS.

There's no guarantee you'll get a WLS in that situation, because somebody else may put a WLS on the name. So there's no 100% certainty until you get a WLS. The question about is there any other service where you have 100%, there is. It's called a domain name. Once I purchase a domain name, I have 100% chance that I can use that domain name for my web site.

Getting that domain name, however, there is a probability that you might not be able to get that domain name, just as there may be a probability that you may not be able to get the WLS on your name. WLSs, like domain names, also expire. So there will also be competition in business models as to what's the best time to predict when a WLS will expire. And you will have exactly very similar types of business models again with WLS as you do for domain names. Whenever you make a change to a service, it will also have an impact on the current business models the companies have. But they will innovate and continue to compete.

The Redemption Grace Period will cause a change in registrar business models. So even introducing something as simple as that could be seen as having an impact on people's current business models. However, people will come up with other business models to gain the best advantage from the Redemption Grace Period.

In regards to price, I guess my issue there is really I think the board needs to define a process for how it handles questions regarding price. And I don't think it's appropriate for the Names Council or registrars to try and choose a price for the registry. There needs to be a more objective approach to doing that.

Finally, the main issue that I have as a registrar is really that you can game WLS just as you can game the domain name system. And the issue of transfers and delete processes are issues that are of far higher importance to the Transfers Task Force than the actual impact of WLS on its own."

Third, if you could please show me where in the gTLD Agreements it says that the policy supporting organizations can prevent Registry Services from being introduced, or where in the Agreements it says that the policy making body of ICANN can determine the price of a service, I would be interested in seeing that.  

Thanks.

>----- Original Message -----
>From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Sent: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 -0700 (PDT) 19:56:17
>
>Hello,
>
>Tonight, Dotster (owner of NameWinner) posted what
>I consider to be the
>best document to date summarizing the arguments
>against WLS. It can be
>seen here:
>
>
>It should be considered mandatory reading by anyone
>on the Names
>Council and on the ICANN Board, when considering
>the WLS proposal. I
>agree with and support the Dotster position 100%.
>
>In order to stay under my 5 posts/day limit, I'd
>like to also mention
>that when Louis Touton directed the WLS debate to
>the Task Force, it
>was to see whether at a first glance there would be
>any major negative
>effects from it. If there were negative effects,
>the full consensus
>process should be invoked, and WLS should not be
>fast-tracked. See:
>
>
>"If, however, there are specific reasons to
>conclude that the
>legitimate interests of others are likely to be
>harmed, then ICANN's
>existing obligation to seek consensus whenever
>possible before acting
>suggests that it should invoke the formal consensus
>development
>mechanisms that currently exist prior to any
>decision by the ICANN
>Board."
>
>Notice in particular the words "ICANN's existing
>obligations to seek
>consensus". However, in the post by Jeffrey Neuman
>of of Neustar at:
>
>
>he writes "I do not believe that it can be said
>that there is a
>consensus to prevent its introduction." Of course,
>Mr. Neuman has
>things completely backwards -- the consensus must
>be FOR the
>introduction of WLS, to pass the acceptance. He
>should know better.
>
>I find it interesting that Neustar is now involved
>in the debate. Given
>that Verisign and SnapNames are pretty silent on
>the lists right now
>(perhaps licking their wounds, or not wanting to
>provide free
>"discovery" in the event of lawsuits), maybe they
>can point me and Task
>Force members to some examples where monopolistic
>paid waiting lists
>are in operation, where the consumers are charged
>even if they don't
>ultimately receive the product/service? 
>
>I can get on a waiting list for many products for
>free. Or, for Toronto
>Maple Leafs season tickets, one can place a
>refundable security deposit
>only. Or for an apartment, a landlord might ask for
>a refundable
>security deposit. But, none of these are like WLS,
>where one might get
>charged for no service (if a name is renewed), and
>the price of the
>security deposit is several hundred percent higher
>than the cost of the
>service itself.
>
>Since Neustar runs various telephone number
>allocations, perhaps they
>can provide examples of where there is a "WLS-like"
>scheme to reserve
>vanity telephone numbers that are being recycled?
>Surely proponents of
>WLS can provide some examples where a WLS-like
>scheme was a solution to
>a real problem in resource allocations.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>http://www.kirikos.com/
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
>http://sbc.yahoo.com
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked]
>list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/ms
>g00341.html
>http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr0
>2.htm
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02786.ht
>ml
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS: Dotster posts the definitive arguments against it, and more

I have a question too, where does it say ICANN should work towards the
stability and security of the DNS?

IMHO, the WLS can effect the Stability and Security of the Internet and
because of such the service offering should be examined thourghly. Is the
WLS is more important, for whatever reason, than the stability and
security of the internet?

It is these reasons that the ICANN process should review the desires of
registries -- to prevent monopolies from doing stupid things to the naming
infrastructure of a global resource; to prevent greed at the expense of
the DNS.

best,

- -rick

On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Tonkin is quoted...

[snip]

> Third, if you could please show me where in the gTLD Agreements it
> says that the policy supporting organizations can prevent Registry
> Services from being introduced, or where in the Agreements it says
> that the policy making body of ICANN can determine the price of a
> service, I would be interested in seeing that.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1324
*************************