<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Re: WLS call follow-up
Dan wrote:
>
> ...is....to....
> ...remember to renew! This is not rocket science.
>
You are exactly correct.
The point is to:
1. periodically pay on time for domain name renewal
(cf my yestrday message to the NC Transfer)
Therefore one need a mechanism for automated payments.
It seems impossible to me that what is such an elementary
bank service in France, used by sixty million population,
does not existe elswhere.
When I sign a contract for water supply, electricity supply,
telephone (land or cellular), renting flat, private school, etc,
I have an option to indicate to the service provider
my bank account number and autorise him for permanent,
periodical, payment settled in contract.
There is an advantage to both parties in good faith,
the service provider is granted to get paid periodically
and automaticaly from my bank to his bank, I am granted
to have peace and not forget a deadline. Such bank
autorisation remain under my control - at any
time I may ask my bank to stop it, should problems arise.
Last not the least, banks are using universal system
for accounts, it is called IBAN - International Bank
Account Number. It fits into the Internet quite well
- IBANs start with ISO 3166-1 code.
Elisabeth
--
> From owner-ga@dnso.org Tue May 21 22:38 MET 2002
> Message-ID: <3CEAAFD9.FEC51F18@videotron.ca>
> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 16:36:41 -0400
> From: Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>
> X-Sender: "Dan Steinberg" <VLTUPIPL@relais.videotron.ca> (Unverified)
> X-Accept-Language: en,fr-CA
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> CC: ga@dnso.org, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
> Subject: [ga] Re: WLS call follow-up
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Sure. Sorry for the call quality. I'm not sure what was wrong cause I
> had no trouble hearing myself.
>
> Basically the way I see things is that the WLS proposal is essentially
> IP neutral. I fail to see how it helps anyone with respect to IP unless
> you insert some tribunal or UDRP or other 'judge' in the process when
> selecting someone to be in the queue for a particular domain.
>
> I think that there are enough issues with WLS as is without introducing
> irrelevancies and things we are not qualified to deal with.
>
> I both reject Chuck's argument that its better for the IP constituency
> as well as the argument that a domain holder could lose out or feel
> compelled because of IP issues.
>
> Were it true that WLS helps IP holders, snapnames would already have had
> everyone in existence as a client. The simple solution to concerns
> about losing your intellectual property, which were always
> around before WLS (which only makes it easier for someone to grab it
> *once* you have lost it)
>
> ...is....to....
> ...remember to renew! This is not rocket science.
>
> And...as a fall back...to use a hypothetical example, should Dan
> Steinberg use WLS to get att.com when
> someone at ATT falls asleep...ATT (as they always did) has recourse
> under UDRP, lanham act, etc. If the hypothetical "Allied Telesyn
> Technologies" grabs that name...using WLS or any other existing means...
> then...too bad for the people who forgot to re-register. I do not see
> this as an issue in the context of WLS. Any risks that exist already
> existed before WLS. WLS is merely a way to find out in advance who would
> get it, no more. It just gets someone potential preferential treatment
> in the event of a deletion, nothing more i.e. if ATT makes a
> mistake...it just decides who gets *lucky*, and does nothing to enhance
> the possibility of ATT making a mistake in the first place.
>
>
> pure and simple I think it is as irrelevant to WLS as today's weather in
> idaho.
>
> I was disturbed by people making all sorts of claims that this is an IP
> issue when it isnt, especially people who obviously are not experts on
> intellectual property at all.
>
> Does this help?
>
> Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >
> > Following up to today's WLS call, there are some questions with
> > which I'd like to grill some of you folks; in particular Chuck
> > Gomes and Dan Steinberg. ;)
> >
> > 1. Chuck: In the presentation you made to the task force and all
> > those attending the call, you talked about registrars with a total
> > market share of 57.5% supporting the proposal. I already mentioned
> > during the call that, after substracting Verisign's own market share
> > of about 40%, we end up at a mere 17.5% of market share; this is
> > comparable to the market share you mention as being opposed to WLS.
> > I believe that it was Rick Wesson who asked how much of that
> > remaining market share in favor of WLS actually belongs to
> > registrars owned by or affiliated with Verisign. Could you please
> > provide some clarification of this on the GA list? Thank you.
> >
> > 2. Dan: I may have misunderstood you due to the extremely poor
> > sound quality of your contribution, but I seemed to understand that
> > you were suggesting that the task force should leave IP and
> > competition aspects out. Could you please elaborate on the
> > rationale for this?
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>
> --
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|