Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1388
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 23 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1388

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:04:15 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Yep.  Let's find a way to improve the gross from $6 to $24.  It's not
as good as the good-ole-days for $35 or $50, but it is one heck of a
lot better for the bottom line than $6.

So what, if all other competition is stifled.  Monopolies know how to
to do that . . .

Thursday, August 22, 2002, 4:51:31 PM, Kristy McKee <[email-masked]> wrote:

KM> What concerns me about the proposed WLS solution is not knowing what my 
KM> chances are for securing the WLS position for all our company and client 
KM> domains, especially the more popular ones.

KM> If this WLS process must be implemented, why not offer the Domain Name 
KM> Registrant the "opportunity" to pay more money per year to ensure that they 
KM> also have claim to their domain(s) within the WLS database.

KM> Perhaps everyone Current Registrant should automatically be entered as the 
KM> WLS Registrant for free for the first year.

KM> The System (Registry/Registrar) could charge a annual "Insurance Renewal 
KM> Fee" that more closely reflects the cost of the service on an opt-in basis 
KM> which graciously allows the current registrant the option to renew prior to 
KM> or at re-registration time.

KM> In the instance where a domain name Registrant chose not to use the 
KM> Insurance the domain name would then be made available to the WLS database 
KM> and applicants could more reasonably be charged a higher fee to Register to 
KM> be the Registrar of the domain name at the WLS level.

KM> :)

KM> ~k

KM> --
KM> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
KM> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
KM> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
KM> 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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:05:52 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: General Counsel 2nd WLS analysis

Thursday, August 22, 2002, 5:09:19 PM, [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote:
ehtc> George,

ehtc> Can we really legislate technology development?  Or do you think a judge
ehtc> can help?
ehtc> Me thinks perhaps just the small "simpleton" techies in my office can route
ehtc> around the problem you describe here.  It seems that even as dumb as I am
ehtc> "i call the systems robotics for some stupid reason" we can prevent such
ehtc> problems even if they implement WLS.

ehtc> Now if you are talking of a private individual user that does not
ehtc> understand such things that is different.
ehtc> How do we protect the truly ignorant?, and by that I mean those without
ehtc> specialized knowledge that do not seek advice.  I am afraid no one in this
ehtc> fora has even suggested a solution to that question.

ehtc> At a certain point we must go Caveat Emptor.
ehtc> (to latin hesitant, buyer beware)

ehtc> Hey you got a solution for my dotcommoners?  Oops, we don't register names
ehtc> under our own name, we go to lawyers and Doctors and Stockbrockers and ISPs
ehtc> for professional services.
ehtc> WLS is a red herring - the pros can beat it and amateurs have no business
ehtc> in dotCOM.

ehtc> Sincerely,
ehtc> eric

ehtc> (actually I am playing the role of antagonist without full conviction, my
ehtc> mental jury is still out)

ehtc> George Kirikos wrote:

>> Hello,
>>
>> Comparing WLS to something like the .name optional e-mail system is a
>> joke. By its very nature, WLS trumps competition. When the General
>> Counsel of ICANN is engaging in this kind of "stretch" to justify WLS,
>> things don't look good. Time to get the lawyers ready, methinks....
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> George Kirikos
>> http://www.kirikos.com/

ehtc> --
ehtc> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
ehtc> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
ehtc> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
ehtc> 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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:19:07 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Come-on, Jeff, there is already a market.  This will kill it and put a
monopoly in direct control.

Rethink free-enterprise.

The market participants have already devoted their R & D to this
market.  This will kill that.

The only, realistic, source of supply will be V$.

If they could have come up with a better mouse-trap which would not
have killed all of their competitors, I would have been all for it.
In typical fashion, they didn't.

So, NO, like the majority of the rest of the community, I would
support Damian for President, before I supported WLS.

Thanks,

Thursday, August 22, 2002, 9:33:37 PM, Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
JW> karl and all assembly members,

JW> Karl Auerbach wrote:

>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Kristy McKee wrote:
>>
>> > If this WLS process must be implemented, why not offer the Domain Name
>> > Registrant the "opportunity" to pay more money per year to ensure that they
>> > also have claim to their domain(s) within the WLS database.
>>
>> Presumably under WLS they have that - they simply buy into WLS.
>>
>> I have a question for you (and everyone on the GA list):
>>
>> I've been wrestling back and forth on the WLS issue.  I don't like giving
>> NSI/Verisign yet another boon but I also don't like ICANN being a
>> regulator of ever increasing size.

JW>   I have no problem personally with Verisign getting a boon on anything
JW> as long as it is not at the unfair expense of the stakeholders/users.
JW> If Verisign or any other company has a "Better Idea" and can
JW> effectively sell it as such, than more power to them.

JW>   I do agree with you Karl that ICANN should not become
JW> what it already has, an over imposing regulator and any 
JW> further modify the registrar contract to include WLS 
JW> as a Defacto standard for dealing with Deletes. 
JW> ICANN should stay away from WLS all together.  On 
JW> that biases alone the ICANN BoD should not vote in 
JW> favor of WLS...

>>
>>
>> This is a tough question and there are equities on all sides.
>>
>> My feeling is that I at the board meeting tomorrow morning that I will
>> vote in favor of WLS but only on the condition that there are provisions
>> that require the current registrant to know of the existance (and
>> identity) of WLS entries placed on his/here domain name.  That, to my
>> mind, helps restore the balance of information and lets all parties to the
>> registration agreement attempt to optimize their actions.

JW>   I would agree that the provision you suggest here Karl, would
JW> help balance the interests of the registrants with the
JW> Registrars/Registries.
JW> My personal concern though is that can we trust Verisign to
JW> insure this suggestion of yours takes place and can we also
JW> be sure that the oversight of ICANN to insure that they do?
JW> I say no we cannot...  ICANN has no provisions in the
JW> current Registrar and Registry contracts to even enforce them
JW> As-Is.  With the modification to encompass WLS we would
JW> have an even potential and likely worse situation for 
JW> the Registrant and other Registrars...

JW>   Hence Karl, I would advise/ask that you vote against
JW> Louis's suggestion and WLS...

>>
>>
>> (It may not be black letter contract law, but I do feel that those who are
>> parties to a contract ought not to be unreasonably manipulative of one
>> another - particularly when the contracts are of an adhesive quality [and
>> more particularly when the public isn't allowed onto the regulatory body
>> that establishes many of the contractual terms].  And in the case of WLS I
>> have always found it distasteful that the registry, who has an indirect
>> contractual relationship with the registrant, might hold back information
>> from the registrant that could be of value to the registrant.)
>>
>> This condition on the casting of my vote in favor is in addition to things
>> like the pre-existance of the grace period mechanisms for at least 6
>> months, etc etc.)
>>
>> Any comments?
>>
>>                 --karl--
>>
>> --
>> 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

JW> Regards,
JW> --
JW> Jeffrey A. Williams
JW> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
JW> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
JW> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
JW> E-Mail [email-masked]
JW> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
JW> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
JW> --
JW> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
JW> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
JW> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
JW> 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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:28:44 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Don and all assembly members,

Don Brown wrote:

> Come-on, Jeff, there is already a market.  This will kill it and put a
> monopoly in direct control.
>
> Rethink free-enterprise.
>
> The market participants have already devoted their R & D to this
> market.  This will kill that.

  How?  In any event if you read my whole post (See below)
I have urged Karl to vote AGAINST WLS and I have been
decidedly AGAINST WLS for a number of already stated
technical and Internet Community business reasons...

  In any event, R & D departments from competing companies
in the same business segment often have good products that
compete in the very same space heads up.  I don't see WLS
as a superior service product offering than any others in this
area.  Hence again I say WHY would WLS kill those R & D efforts
or results of them?

>
>
> The only, realistic, source of supply will be V$.
>
> If they could have come up with a better mouse-trap which would not
> have killed all of their competitors, I would have been all for it.
> In typical fashion, they didn't.
>
> So, NO, like the majority of the rest of the community, I would
> support Damian for President, before I supported WLS.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Thursday, August 22, 2002, 9:33:37 PM, Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> JW> karl and all assembly members,
>
> JW> Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Kristy McKee wrote:
> >>
> >> > If this WLS process must be implemented, why not offer the Domain Name
> >> > Registrant the "opportunity" to pay more money per year to ensure that they
> >> > also have claim to their domain(s) within the WLS database.
> >>
> >> Presumably under WLS they have that - they simply buy into WLS.
> >>
> >> I have a question for you (and everyone on the GA list):
> >>
> >> I've been wrestling back and forth on the WLS issue.  I don't like giving
> >> NSI/Verisign yet another boon but I also don't like ICANN being a
> >> regulator of ever increasing size.
>
> JW>   I have no problem personally with Verisign getting a boon on anything
> JW> as long as it is not at the unfair expense of the stakeholders/users.
> JW> If Verisign or any other company has a "Better Idea" and can
> JW> effectively sell it as such, than more power to them.
>
> JW>   I do agree with you Karl that ICANN should not become
> JW> what it already has, an over imposing regulator and any
> JW> further modify the registrar contract to include WLS
> JW> as a Defacto standard for dealing with Deletes.
> JW> ICANN should stay away from WLS all together.  On
> JW> that biases alone the ICANN BoD should not vote in
> JW> favor of WLS...
>
> >>
> >>
> >> This is a tough question and there are equities on all sides.
> >>
> >> My feeling is that I at the board meeting tomorrow morning that I will
> >> vote in favor of WLS but only on the condition that there are provisions
> >> that require the current registrant to know of the existance (and
> >> identity) of WLS entries placed on his/here domain name.  That, to my
> >> mind, helps restore the balance of information and lets all parties to the
> >> registration agreement attempt to optimize their actions.
>
> JW>   I would agree that the provision you suggest here Karl, would
> JW> help balance the interests of the registrants with the
> JW> Registrars/Registries.
> JW> My personal concern though is that can we trust Verisign to
> JW> insure this suggestion of yours takes place and can we also
> JW> be sure that the oversight of ICANN to insure that they do?
> JW> I say no we cannot...  ICANN has no provisions in the
> JW> current Registrar and Registry contracts to even enforce them
> JW> As-Is.  With the modification to encompass WLS we would
> JW> have an even potential and likely worse situation for
> JW> the Registrant and other Registrars...
>
> JW>   Hence Karl, I would advise/ask that you vote against
> JW> Louis's suggestion and WLS...
>
> >>
> >>
> >> (It may not be black letter contract law, but I do feel that those who are
> >> parties to a contract ought not to be unreasonably manipulative of one
> >> another - particularly when the contracts are of an adhesive quality [and
> >> more particularly when the public isn't allowed onto the regulatory body
> >> that establishes many of the contractual terms].  And in the case of WLS I
> >> have always found it distasteful that the registry, who has an indirect
> >> contractual relationship with the registrant, might hold back information
> >> from the registrant that could be of value to the registrant.)
> >>
> >> This condition on the casting of my vote in favor is in addition to things
> >> like the pre-existance of the grace period mechanisms for at least 6
> >> months, etc etc.)
> >>
> >> Any comments?
> >>
> >>                 --karl--
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
>
> JW> Regards,
> JW> --
> JW> Jeffrey A. Williams
> JW> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
> JW> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> JW> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> JW> E-Mail [email-masked]
> JW> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> JW> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> JW> --
> JW> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> JW> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> JW> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> JW> 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
> ----

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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, 22 Aug 2002 21:35:08 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Karl,
I have to say that I am surprise at your conclusion.

WLS removes a free and open market in favor of a monopoly market.  As
a businessman first, and a (non-practicing) lawyer second, I'm sure
you can identify.

There is no doubt that there is some merits to WLS.  In some folk's
pervue there are merits of a Chevrolet over a Ford.  That's not a good
reason to change the market in favor of Chevrolets, however.

Reading the well reasoned posts, and there are many, and ignoring the
V$ hate posts, and there are many as well, the bottom line is that WLS
will thwart a competitive market with an abundance of consumer choice
in favor of only ONE CHOICE, the monopoly.

Personally, I am in favor of the "free enterprise system" and WLS is
180 degrees diametrically opposed to that.

Thanks,

Thursday, August 22, 2002, 6:01:05 PM, Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]> wrote:
KA> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Kristy McKee wrote:

>> If this WLS process must be implemented, why not offer the Domain Name 
>> Registrant the "opportunity" to pay more money per year to ensure that they 
>> also have claim to their domain(s) within the WLS database.

KA> Presumably under WLS they have that - they simply buy into WLS.

KA> I have a question for you (and everyone on the GA list):

KA> I've been wrestling back and forth on the WLS issue.  I don't like giving
KA> NSI/Verisign yet another boon but I also don't like ICANN being a
KA> regulator of ever increasing size.

KA> This is a tough question and there are equities on all sides.

KA> My feeling is that I at the board meeting tomorrow morning that I will
KA> vote in favor of WLS but only on the condition that there are provisions
KA> that require the current registrant to know of the existance (and
KA> identity) of WLS entries placed on his/here domain name.  That, to my
KA> mind, helps restore the balance of information and lets all parties to the
KA> registration agreement attempt to optimize their actions.

KA> (It may not be black letter contract law, but I do feel that those who are
KA> parties to a contract ought not to be unreasonably manipulative of one
KA> another - particularly when the contracts are of an adhesive quality [and
KA> more particularly when the public isn't allowed onto the regulatory body
KA> that establishes many of the contractual terms].  And in the case of WLS I
KA> have always found it distasteful that the registry, who has an indirect
KA> contractual relationship with the registrant, might hold back information
KA> from the registrant that could be of value to the registrant.)

KA> This condition on the casting of my vote in favor is in addition to things
KA> like the pre-existance of the grace period mechanisms for at least 6
KA> months, etc etc.)

KA> Any comments?

KA>                 --karl--

KA> --
KA> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
KA> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
KA> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
KA> 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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:39:24 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Karl,

I do have a comment or two:

 From our conversations within the GA with NSI/Verisign Representatives, we 
were able to determine the implementation of the WLS will not help to 
alleviate any of the existing challenges the NSI/Verisign network 
faces.  This is an additional service, another stick in the fire, another 
kettle set on the fire to boil.  And another income stream.

For the consumer, the WLS quite simply doubles the cost to register a 
domain name.  And Yes, in the case of errors, it would be rather 
disappointing for a UDRP panel to even be in the position to give a domain 
registration to the WLS holder rather than it's Registrant.

Otherwise, I like Bret's advancement of my earlier suggestion.  And agree 
with your assessment of the issue as presented within this thread.

Good luck with your deliberation,

Best Regards,

Kristy McKee

- --
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, 22 Aug 2002 21:41:56 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Since you are against WLS, no additional dialog is required.
Thanks,

Thursday, August 22, 2002, 11:28:44 PM, Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
JW> Don and all assembly members,

JW> Don Brown wrote:

>> Come-on, Jeff, there is already a market.  This will kill it and put a
>> monopoly in direct control.
>>
>> Rethink free-enterprise.
>>
>> The market participants have already devoted their R & D to this
>> market.  This will kill that.

JW>   How?  In any event if you read my whole post (See below)
JW> I have urged Karl to vote AGAINST WLS and I have been
JW> decidedly AGAINST WLS for a number of already stated
JW> technical and Internet Community business reasons...

JW>   In any event, R & D departments from competing companies
JW> in the same business segment often have good products that
JW> compete in the very same space heads up.  I don't see WLS
JW> as a superior service product offering than any others in this
JW> area.  Hence again I say WHY would WLS kill those R & D efforts
JW> or results of them?

>>
>>
>> The only, realistic, source of supply will be V$.
>>
>> If they could have come up with a better mouse-trap which would not
>> have killed all of their competitors, I would have been all for it.
>> In typical fashion, they didn't.
>>
>> So, NO, like the majority of the rest of the community, I would
>> support Damian for President, before I supported WLS.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Thursday, August 22, 2002, 9:33:37 PM, Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> JW> karl and all assembly members,
>>
>> JW> Karl Auerbach wrote:
>>
>> >> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Kristy McKee wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > If this WLS process must be implemented, why not offer the Domain Name
>> >> > Registrant the "opportunity" to pay more money per year to ensure that they
>> >> > also have claim to their domain(s) within the WLS database.
>> >>
>> >> Presumably under WLS they have that - they simply buy into WLS.
>> >>
>> >> I have a question for you (and everyone on the GA list):
>> >>
>> >> I've been wrestling back and forth on the WLS issue.  I don't like giving
>> >> NSI/Verisign yet another boon but I also don't like ICANN being a
>> >> regulator of ever increasing size.
>>
>> JW>   I have no problem personally with Verisign getting a boon on anything
>> JW> as long as it is not at the unfair expense of the stakeholders/users.
>> JW> If Verisign or any other company has a "Better Idea" and can
>> JW> effectively sell it as such, than more power to them.
>>
>> JW>   I do agree with you Karl that ICANN should not become
>> JW> what it already has, an over imposing regulator and any
>> JW> further modify the registrar contract to include WLS
>> JW> as a Defacto standard for dealing with Deletes.
>> JW> ICANN should stay away from WLS all together.  On
>> JW> that biases alone the ICANN BoD should not vote in
>> JW> favor of WLS...
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This is a tough question and there are equities on all sides.
>> >>
>> >> My feeling is that I at the board meeting tomorrow morning that I will
>> >> vote in favor of WLS but only on the condition that there are provisions
>> >> that require the current registrant to know of the existance (and
>> >> identity) of WLS entries placed on his/here domain name.  That, to my
>> >> mind, helps restore the balance of information and lets all parties to the
>> >> registration agreement attempt to optimize their actions.
>>
>> JW>   I would agree that the provision you suggest here Karl, would
>> JW> help balance the interests of the registrants with the
>> JW> Registrars/Registries.
>> JW> My personal concern though is that can we trust Verisign to
>> JW> insure this suggestion of yours takes place and can we also
>> JW> be sure that the oversight of ICANN to insure that they do?
>> JW> I say no we cannot...  ICANN has no provisions in the
>> JW> current Registrar and Registry contracts to even enforce them
>> JW> As-Is.  With the modification to encompass WLS we would
>> JW> have an even potential and likely worse situation for
>> JW> the Registrant and other Registrars...
>>
>> JW>   Hence Karl, I would advise/ask that you vote against
>> JW> Louis's suggestion and WLS...
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (It may not be black letter contract law, but I do feel that those who are
>> >> parties to a contract ought not to be unreasonably manipulative of one
>> >> another - particularly when the contracts are of an adhesive quality [and
>> >> more particularly when the public isn't allowed onto the regulatory body
>> >> that establishes many of the contractual terms].  And in the case of WLS I
>> >> have always found it distasteful that the registry, who has an indirect
>> >> contractual relationship with the registrant, might hold back information
>> >> from the registrant that could be of value to the registrant.)
>> >>
>> >> This condition on the casting of my vote in favor is in addition to things
>> >> like the pre-existance of the grace period mechanisms for at least 6
>> >> months, etc etc.)
>> >>
>> >> Any comments?
>> >>
>> >>                 --karl--
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> 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
>>
>> JW> Regards,
>> JW> --
>> JW> Jeffrey A. Williams
>> JW> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
>> JW> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>> JW> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>> JW> E-Mail [email-masked]
>> JW> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
>> JW> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>> JW> --
>> JW> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> JW> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> JW> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> JW> 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
>> ----

JW> Regards,
JW> --
JW> Jeffrey A. Williams
JW> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
JW> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
JW> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
JW> E-Mail [email-masked]
JW> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
JW> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- ----
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: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Hi Karl,

- --- Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> However, I do not like the intense regulatory system that ICANN has
> become
> - at some point ICANN has to step back and get out of the way.  I

Let's take this point on directly. You want ICANN to step back and get
out of the way -- that's fine. HOWEVER, that *doesn't* mean supporting
WLS. Remember, ICANN and Verisign currently have a contract. It is
Verisign that is asking to CHANGE the terms of the contract (via its
change of the domain allocation method, and the increase in pricing).

If you're truly in favour of stepping out of the way, then the correct
course of action is not to go for a change in the contract (which is a
one-sided windfall for Verisign, with no benefit and indeed an expense
to the community ICANN represents), but instead to simply say "NO", and
vote for the status quo. The Status Quo represents no regulation, not
making a change which unilaterally benefits the registry operator. Get
out of the way of the Registrars, who are innovating, and don't
interfere with the existing marketplace. It's not the Registrars who
are asking to change the rules, to tilt the playing field. Consumers
aren't asking for this -- they're begging you not to give more control
to Verisign. The Business Constituency isn't asking for WLS.

Verisign has the ability to compete at the Registrar level. Their
partner, SnapNames, boasts that it has a 70% success rate. They can
market it on that basis, in the status quo at the registrar level, and
allow their competitors to get what they can. Forcing SnapNames
competitors to shut down and simply become resellers of Verisign, with
no value added, is unacceptable, and leaves consumers with higher
prices, and fewer choices. How is that in keeping with ICANN's mission
to promote competition?

Verisign doesn't consider this an "innovative" service, you can be sure
of that (though they mouth the words). They don't need WLS to compete
against .co.uk, or .ca, or .tv, or .cc. You don't see those other
registries "competing" on the basis of waiting lists for expired names.
Having WLS on .de doesn't somehow make .de a more favourable place to
have domain names, rather than .com. You mentioned some areas that
*are* innovative, and you denigrate them by lumping them into the same
class as WLS, which is not innovative.

I've asked proponents of WLS to find a single example on the planet
where people pay to be on a waiting list like this, where if the
current registrant renews, they are still out their cash. Do you see it
in the Trademark registration field? How about vanity license plates,
or vanity telephone numbers (to Neustar in particular, who has
expertise in phone systems)? Suppose you wanted to be on a waiting list
for Dallas Cowboys season tickets -- if folks renew their tickets, do
the Cowboys keep your deposit? How about when you go to rent an
apartment -- does the landlord keep your security deposit for being on
a waiting list, if the current tenant renews? The only area in which
Verisign is "innovating" is in its level of greed and monopolistic
behaviour -- its desire to shut out competitors from an existing
market. That behaviour shouldn't be rewarded -- there are far greedier
people about who can do a better job, if ICANN will let me^H^H them. ;)

I've written a lot about this topic since last December, and others
have since months before that. I hope that the Board has been following
the debate, and has at least glanced at the WLS Public Comments forum
and the Anti-WLS petition. There are few issues where the Names Council
has had such a strong consensus, and for the Board to ignore that
consensus is inadvisable (it'll be challenged, if you do). Can ICANN
survive another embarrassment, in caving to Verisign like this? The
3000+ petition signatures and 1000 forum posts is only the tip of the
iceberg compared to the outrage that will ensue, when folks start to
see the ramifications of another poor ICANN decision.

> For example - ICANN is imposing business models.  ICANN's mechanisms
> rule
> out potentially innovative and useful alternatives.  For instance,

WLS isn't an example of innovation or a useful alternative. It's a tax
on the system, by reimposing central control over the list of expiring
names. What prevents Verisign registrar from taking out a (phantom) WLS
slot on 100% of its names, shutting out all other players, and then
auctioning off the names on eBay, like they do for .cc names? It's
money shifting from one pocket to another, and if they don't get their
price, they can always sell it for $24, in the worst case scenario.
This is a simple way to circumvent the price caps in the registry
agreement. ICANN clearly doesn't have the inclination to stop that
practice, either.

> service can be done is at the registry.  My own preference is for the
> 
> thinnest of thin registries - sort of a microkernel - upon which 
> everything else is layered by other, independent, entities.)

But, moving things back into the control of the registry, like WLS, is
a move towards a thicker registry. The status quo is preferable, where
innovation takes place at the registrar layer.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.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: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:40:28 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Can someone tell me that we cannot beat the system by routing around it?

Karl's' deregulation is presumptively correct unless we cannot beat it with
technology.

I just can't hear anyone who works in the biz of these systems arguing that it
will really block technical expertise.

On the policy of theft which is rampant at this time that is another matter.
And if voting against WLS will help fight that theft prevention then good.
Nobody seems to have actually concluded these factors for sure one way or the
other.

dichotomy!

Eric

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, George Kirikos wrote:
>
> I'm responding to you and the other e-mails I've receives so far:
>
> You present strong arguments why I ought to vote against WLS, and I too
> do not like it.  Nor do I like the way that those who have names
> registered in .com will, once again, have significant changes imposed upon
> their domain name relationships (I am intentionally using words that
> extend beyond the existance of the mere registration contract) without
> their consent - particularly without them having a meaningful role in the
> body, ICANN, that is governing those relationships.
>
> However, I do not like the intense regulatory system that ICANN has become
> - at some point ICANN has to step back and get out of the way.  I disagree
> somewhat with P.D. Thrush's point that the regulation has to occur
> somewhere - to me that begs the question regarding whether regulation of
> certain matters is necessary at all.)
>

- --
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, 22 Aug 2002 23:56:00 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Karl,

The WLS Task Force Report pretty much said this:

"We already know that the Board is going to reject the consensus view of the 
community, again, so when that happens we would like you to at least consider 
the following..."

Council members have come to the realization that the mentality of "What's 
good for General Motors is good for America" has been adopted by the Board in 
the form of "What's good for VeriSign is good for ICANN".  As such, they 
cushion each recommendation with alternatives knowing that the Board will 
overturn their recommendations anyway.

When the broader community concludes that it no longer matters what they 
collectively think, because the Board will disregard such consensus anyway 
and do whatever it damn well pleases, then there is no longer any incentive 
to remain a participant.  Why bother?  No matter what we conclude, the Board 
will override the recommendation without even the decency of remanding it for 
further consideration.  

It doesn't matter that the entire community endorsed a Supporting 
Organization for the At-large... the Board doesn't want it, so community 
consensus gets thrown out the window without even an explanation as to why 
the concept is off the table.   It doesn't matter that everyone opposed the 
VeriSign contract renegotiations, the Board "knows best".  

This is what's wrong with the current Reform.  Too much power is being vested 
in a Board that is no longer responsive to community consensus, and all 
reasonable checks-and-balances on the authority of this Board-run-amok are 
being eliminated.  

You have a difficult decision ahead of you, but remember this... we respect 
the fact that you took the time to raise your questions on the GA list.  Too 
bad for us that your fellow Board members won't do the same.
- --
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, 22 Aug 2002 23:21:04 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

I could not have said it any better than that.  Think about it.

Thanks,

Thursday, August 22, 2002, 10:30:59 PM, George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote:
GK> Hi Karl,

GK> --- Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> However, I do not like the intense regulatory system that ICANN has
>> become
>> - at some point ICANN has to step back and get out of the way.  I

GK> Let's take this point on directly. You want ICANN to step back and get
GK> out of the way -- that's fine. HOWEVER, that *doesn't* mean supporting
GK> WLS. Remember, ICANN and Verisign currently have a contract. It is
GK> Verisign that is asking to CHANGE the terms of the contract (via its
GK> change of the domain allocation method, and the increase in pricing).

GK> If you're truly in favour of stepping out of the way, then the correct
GK> course of action is not to go for a change in the contract (which is a
GK> one-sided windfall for Verisign, with no benefit and indeed an expense
GK> to the community ICANN represents), but instead to simply say "NO", and
GK> vote for the status quo. The Status Quo represents no regulation, not
GK> making a change which unilaterally benefits the registry operator. Get
GK> out of the way of the Registrars, who are innovating, and don't
GK> interfere with the existing marketplace. It's not the Registrars who
GK> are asking to change the rules, to tilt the playing field. Consumers
GK> aren't asking for this -- they're begging you not to give more control
GK> to Verisign. The Business Constituency isn't asking for WLS.

GK> Verisign has the ability to compete at the Registrar level. Their
GK> partner, SnapNames, boasts that it has a 70% success rate. They can
GK> market it on that basis, in the status quo at the registrar level, and
GK> allow their competitors to get what they can. Forcing SnapNames
GK> competitors to shut down and simply become resellers of Verisign, with
GK> no value added, is unacceptable, and leaves consumers with higher
GK> prices, and fewer choices. How is that in keeping with ICANN's mission
GK> to promote competition?

GK> Verisign doesn't consider this an "innovative" service, you can be sure
GK> of that (though they mouth the words). They don't need WLS to compete
GK> against .co.uk, or .ca, or .tv, or .cc. You don't see those other
GK> registries "competing" on the basis of waiting lists for expired names.
GK> Having WLS on .de doesn't somehow make .de a more favourable place to
GK> have domain names, rather than .com. You mentioned some areas that
GK> *are* innovative, and you denigrate them by lumping them into the same
GK> class as WLS, which is not innovative.

GK> I've asked proponents of WLS to find a single example on the planet
GK> where people pay to be on a waiting list like this, where if the
GK> current registrant renews, they are still out their cash. Do you see it
GK> in the Trademark registration field? How about vanity license plates,
GK> or vanity telephone numbers (to Neustar in particular, who has
GK> expertise in phone systems)? Suppose you wanted to be on a waiting list
GK> for Dallas Cowboys season tickets -- if folks renew their tickets, do
GK> the Cowboys keep your deposit? How about when you go to rent an
GK> apartment -- does the landlord keep your security deposit for being on
GK> a waiting list, if the current tenant renews? The only area in which
GK> Verisign is "innovating" is in its level of greed and monopolistic
GK> behaviour -- its desire to shut out competitors from an existing
GK> market. That behaviour shouldn't be rewarded -- there are far greedier
GK> people about who can do a better job, if ICANN will let me^H^H them. ;)

GK> I've written a lot about this topic since last December, and others
GK> have since months before that. I hope that the Board has been following
GK> the debate, and has at least glanced at the WLS Public Comments forum
GK> and the Anti-WLS petition. There are few issues where the Names Council
GK> has had such a strong consensus, and for the Board to ignore that
GK> consensus is inadvisable (it'll be challenged, if you do). Can ICANN
GK> survive another embarrassment, in caving to Verisign like this? The
GK> 3000+ petition signatures and 1000 forum posts is only the tip of the
GK> iceberg compared to the outrage that will ensue, when folks start to
GK> see the ramifications of another poor ICANN decision.

>> For example - ICANN is imposing business models.  ICANN's mechanisms
>> rule
>> out potentially innovative and useful alternatives.  For instance,

GK> WLS isn't an example of innovation or a useful alternative. It's a tax
GK> on the system, by reimposing central control over the list of expiring
GK> names. What prevents Verisign registrar from taking out a (phantom) WLS
GK> slot on 100% of its names, shutting out all other players, and then
GK> auctioning off the names on eBay, like they do for .cc names? It's
GK> money shifting from one pocket to another, and if they don't get their
GK> price, they can always sell it for $24, in the worst case scenario.
GK> This is a simple way to circumvent the price caps in the registry
GK> agreement. ICANN clearly doesn't have the inclination to stop that
GK> practice, either.

>> service can be done is at the registry.  My own preference is for the
>> 
>> thinnest of thin registries - sort of a microkernel - upon which 
>> everything else is layered by other, independent, entities.)

GK> But, moving things back into the control of the registry, like WLS, is
GK> a move towards a thicker registry. The status quo is preferable, where
GK> innovation takes place at the registrar layer.

GK> Sincerely,

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

GK> __________________________________________________
GK> Do You Yahoo!?
GK> Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
GK> http://finance.yahoo.com
GK> --
GK> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
GK> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
GK> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
GK> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1388
*************************