Re: [ga] WLS Conference Call

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-05-21 16:24:22 -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>
> >If only that were true.  Sadly, what will pass for the "consensus
> >process" will transpire within a few days.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> The transfer task force is, at this point, at the very first steps
> of its comprehensive review of deleted domain name issues, with a
> focus on WLS.  If you want to put it like that, what we have been
> participating in yesterday is a "problem-finding" mission:
> Identifying the problems, and identifying possible solutions.  (With
> an emphasis on _possible_.)

  Agreed to a point here Thomas.  However Danny's concern
is still justified given the history of TF's that have been recently
concluded such as the one for .ORG...  The WhoIs Task Force
was yet another example to which Danny may be thinking of
as well...

>
>
> Despite the possibly unfortunate wording in the terms of reference
> (for which I may have to take some blame), what emanates from this
> is certainly not a policy recommendation, or even a consensus
> policy.  (The latter is already impossible by definition.)

  True.  Hence one may ask why are we discussing anything
related to WLS is the known consensus is that it is
not a good idea?

>
>
> Rather, what we'll hopefully end up with after this week is a
> somewhat clearer understanding of the implications of the WLS
> proposal, and of the side-effects it would have on competition
> between registrars, on intellectual property (think about the UDRP
> clause in the revised proposal - that part is not a red herring!),
> on other existing businesses, and whatever else people will come up
> with.  We'll, I hope, also have a clearer understanding of what
> policy-making should be undertaken next in order to mitigate some of
> the (of course unintended - after all, WLS is supposed to foster
> competition according to its proponent!) ill side-effects.
>
> That policy-making would then have to be handled by whatever body is
> appropriate; currently, that's of course the DNSO.

  As far as WLS goes yes the DNSO would be the appropriate
body.  But there are also serious implications as pointed out
by a number of the Teleconference participants today to
users that are not yet Domain Name holders...

>
>
> Examples include (1) the interaction with the UDRP which may or may
> not have been handled sufficiently in the proposal, (2) the
> interaction with a uniform deletion policy.

  The UDRP as we see it plays not real role with WLS.
As the UDRP was not and still is not a consensus based
policy instrument for handling disputes on Domain Names,
and the court systems are again getting flooded with
Domain Name disputes, I cannot see it as relevant
to WLS or any other delete related issue...

>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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