Re: [ga] WLS: Fair Warning

[William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>]

Thank you Danny for finally bringing up a very valid point.

But I think there is less to worry about with regard to the WLS issue,
because despite the Names Council report, there was still quite a bit
of support for the new Verisign contract inside of the DNSO, and not
just from Verisign or Verisign controlled entities.  I know I got
emails from several registrars who supported it despite my imploring
them not to.

There is no support for the WLS outside of Verisign and Verisign
controlled entities, except for a couple individuals (whose concerns
in my opinion would still be FAR better addressed without the WLS).

And ICANN itself, through Louis Touton, has been showing a leaning
against the WLS.

I think it is unlikely ICANN will pull an end run around the DNSO on
this one, but I do agree that it ALWAYS bears watching, because we
have seen them do it before.

Tuesday, May 21, 2002, 2:57:56 PM, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Remember the VeriSign contract renegotiations?  The DNSO has already once 
> recently been jerked around by the ICANN Board with regard to VeriSign 
> proposals.  Stuart Lynn had argued to the Department of Commerce that no 
> "policy" matters were implicated in the contract revisions, stating:

> "As this recitation indicates, the ultimate Names Council recommendations to 
> ICANN are, in general, not focused on "policy" issues, but rather are 
> suggestions about how the proposed new agreements could be modified, by 
> changing contractual dates and the like, to make them better agreements in 
> the view of those supporting the resolutions. These expressions are certainly 
> important, but they can hardly be described as representing the kinds of 
> policy issues that are, pursuant to ICANN's bylaws, the initial 
> responsibility of the DNSO within the ICANN structure. The only issue that 
> has been prominently mentioned in this discussion that could even arguably be 
> termed a "policy" matter is the issue of common ownership of registry and 
> registrar businesses. Thus, it is useful to focus on that point to illustrate 
> why the ICANN Board and management concluded that the proposed new agreements 
> were operational, not policy, matters."  
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-rose-16apr01.htm

> If anyone is opposed to the VeriSign WLS proposal, I would recommend that all 
> arguments be framed in terms of "policy".  Otherwise, this contract revision 
> will proceed on schedule just like the last contract revision.  Don't be 
> stupid twice.  If there are policy implications, make them clear.
> --
> 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





-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
--
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

--
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