DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ga] WLS Suggestion

--- Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com> wrote:
> Any comments?

My biggest area is that this eliminates an already dynamic area of the
industry and forces everyone into a monopoly based system.  Now, the current
system is not perfect by why should Verisign gain a highly profitable
monopoly and force everyone else into a reseller arrangement?

Now, if WLS was to go ahead then being a realist the follow things should be

1, Competitive tender process (while not perfect is far better than handing
the WLS to Verisign on a platter).

2, As Mr Touton states the deletion process/policy must be cleaned up and
all names that meet the policy be purged BEFORE WLS comes into effect.

3, Clear metrics must be outlined before the WLS is implemented on what its
takes for the WLS to continue after the 'trial period'. To determine the
success or failure of the WLS trial after the contract is signed is prone to
'disagreement'. (I personally think that if WLS is implemented it would
never be withdrawn)

If this is a trial to test the process and such like what is it not done in
a ccTLD that Verisign is already involved in? Or perhaps even trial it in
.org as that is in the process of being divested.

Steven Heath
.nz news and views

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 >>>