Re: [ga] Poll: WLS -- yes or no?
--- Dan Steinberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Ummmm I am generally opposed to informal polls...but this one I am
> specifically opposed to since it appears to be too general.
> which WLS are we talking about?
> the proposal on the table?
> the concept of an WLS in general?
> I think this lacks precision.
The WLS is the exact proposal on the table from VGRS, i.e. given their
responses in their most recent document. If there is a problem of "lack
of precision", it's because VGRS hasn't tabled formal documents with
service levels and pricing -- it intends to wait until after this
process concludes, and present it as a done deal to ICANN. This topic
of lack of precision was also mentioned on the Registrars list, at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01826.html and as
far as I know, VGRS has no intentions of supplying anything before
March 7, 2002.
One can always "abstain", and then give reasons in that space. :) I
don't recall hearing your input/position before, so I think the more
voices the better. VGRS doesn't seem to be tabling variations to its
existing proposal eithers (that's why I asked question B.10 in
http://verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf for instance).
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html