RE: [ga] WLS

["John Berryhill" <john@johnberryhill.com>]

>
> A clarification:  Please note that SnapBack customers will not be brought
> along, as is mentioned here.  Under VeriSign's proposal, names for which
> there exist SnapBacks will not be allowed into the WLS system.  All must
> compete over those names as they do today.  Thus is "grandfathering" an
> unfortunate misnomer.  And, as you mention, SnapBacks remain SnapBacks
> post-WLS.  What would constitute tortious interference would be
> to allow WLS
> orders on those names for which there are currently paid-up contracts
> (SnapBack orders) on specific names.


Clever.

Would the same restriction on WLS apply to pending or concluded namewinner
auctions at the time of institution of the WLS?

Why or why not?

Obviously since most of everyone else is going to leave town when WLS
starts, those held-over snapbacks are going to be the only game in town, and
thus pretty much certain.  Unless you were planning on posting a list of
them.

I can, right now, contract with anyone to attempt to register any domain
name when it expires in the future.  Why will only snapback contracts merit
special treatment?

Not to mention that snapbacks are re-targetable to different names if they
fail.  Why is it okay to rescind that part of snapback contracts but not
others?


--
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