Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-02
--- Patrick Corliss <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:36:38 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > (iii) Deleted domain name handling. This was certainly the week's
> > dominant topic.
> As I pointed out in a separate posting, most of this discussion was
> led by
> OpenSRS staff supported by a number of OpenSRS resellers. Your
> does not fully specify the respective relationships.
I'm an OpenSRS reseller (although mostly for my own domain portfolio),
but I'm also a SnapNames customer, an Afternic customer, a Verisign
customer (freaky, I know!), and a customer of some of the other expired
name services. I would hope that the arguments I made stand on their
own, regardless of some 'label' folks want to place on my forehead.
Being a proponent of consumer choice, and against monopolies doesn't
make me a shill for OpenSRS or any other group.
If one reads the OpenSRS mailing list archives, I've been against some
OpenSRS practises too (but they've they've been very good at
acknowledging concerns voiced by many parties -- competition forces
companies to be customer-friendly), and even have been for Verisign in
some instances (for example, I continue to believe that having the
"losing" registrar on a domain transfer be able to seek proof that the
transfer was authorized is a good thing, unless there were more
documented statements that domain hijacking could not be 100% reversed
in all cases; others disagree, and I can understand their perspective
too, in making the transfer process user-friendly).
> > (iv) Working groups, sublists, etc. As a spin-off from the deleted
> > domains thread (which, bad enough, seems to have mostly killed that
> > thread),
> Not at all, a poll was held seeking people's views. There was
> opposition to VeriSign's WLS proposal. So much had been said (as you
> explained in your summary) that there wasn't that much to add. What
> needed now is a proper debate on how the current system should be
> You have, however, taken it upon yourself to oppose any suggestion
> the introduction of an Open Working Group would be a possible
Personally, I think the WLS is dead (that's why I've not bothered to
even reply to some of the "last gasp" posts that have been made, as
most already see them as self-serving and adding little if anything to
the decision calculus; in some cases the "stats" brought up have
undermined their own arguments). If there was a working group set up, I
think it might be a good thing, although I would only participate in it
if it had authorization from a Greater Power (i.e. ICANN, etc.),
otherwise it might be the usual thing where one comes up with a lot of
useful questions and suggestions, but they go unanswered and
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html