Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, George Kirikos wrote:

I'm responding to you and the other e-mails I've receives so far:

You present strong arguments why I ought to vote against WLS, and I too 
do not like it.  Nor do I like the way that those who have names 
registered in .com will, once again, have significant changes imposed upon 
their domain name relationships (I am intentionally using words that 
extend beyond the existance of the mere registration contract) without 
their consent - particularly without them having a meaningful role in the 
body, ICANN, that is governing those relationships.

However, I do not like the intense regulatory system that ICANN has become
- at some point ICANN has to step back and get out of the way.  I disagree
somewhat with P.D. Thrush's point that the regulation has to occur
somewhere - to me that begs the question regarding whether regulation of
certain matters is necessary at all.)

For example - ICANN is imposing business models.  ICANN's mechanisms rule
out potentially innovative and useful alternatives.  For instance, I'm
intrigued by the possibility of a DNS registration system that uses
digitally signed "bearer" certificates that represent the right to control
a name, i.e. to be recognized as being able to make updates.  [This would
require a transfer agent to prevent repudiation of transfers, but that
transfer agent need not have any way to know what name that certificate
represents.] This would achieve what I believe is a far more effective
system and would hand control over to the registrant, including control of
his/her personally identifiable information [i.e. privacy data].

Overall, I do believe that the discussion of ICANN's proper scope is still 
in its infancy and that too much is happening without understanding what 
ICANN is to do and, more importantly, not to do.

Getting back to WLS - the thing that tilted the scales, that prompted my
e-mail earlier today, was the possibility that the current name holder
obtaining the name of anyone who takes out a WLS subscription on the
holder's name.  That would allow the holder to take appropriate action -
like continuing the registration.  [I would be really ticked off if some
UDRP panel construed such an act as a reason to take away the domain
name.]

Danny Younger's point about letting the DNSO be the guide is well taken
and I need to reconsider this (particularly in light of my own previous
complaints that the board overrode the DNSO without making a finding, as
required by the by-laws, that such an override was necessary.)

And the comments from Bret F., Rick W. and others about additional safety 
mechanisms has actually had a strong impact.  It isn't particularly the 
additional safety mechanisms themselves but the sense that there are still 
many matters that have not been allowed to coalesce.  (And I have also 
begun to question the assertions that the only place that this kind of 
service can be done is at the registry.  My own preference is for the 
thinnest of thin registries - sort of a microkernel - upon which 
everything else is layered by other, independent, entities.)

I'm in the middle of an office move, so I'll be checking e-mail on and off 
while I still have connectivity.  I am no longer sure which way I will 
vote.

		--karl--









--
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