Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion
I have to say that I am surprise at your conclusion.
WLS removes a free and open market in favor of a monopoly market. As
a businessman first, and a (non-practicing) lawyer second, I'm sure
you can identify.
There is no doubt that there is some merits to WLS. In some folk's
pervue there are merits of a Chevrolet over a Ford. That's not a good
reason to change the market in favor of Chevrolets, however.
Reading the well reasoned posts, and there are many, and ignoring the
V$ hate posts, and there are many as well, the bottom line is that WLS
will thwart a competitive market with an abundance of consumer choice
in favor of only ONE CHOICE, the monopoly.
Personally, I am in favor of the "free enterprise system" and WLS is
180 degrees diametrically opposed to that.
Thursday, August 22, 2002, 6:01:05 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com> wrote:
KA> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Kristy McKee wrote:
>> If this WLS process must be implemented, why not offer the Domain Name
>> Registrant the "opportunity" to pay more money per year to ensure that they
>> also have claim to their domain(s) within the WLS database.
KA> Presumably under WLS they have that - they simply buy into WLS.
KA> I have a question for you (and everyone on the GA list):
KA> I've been wrestling back and forth on the WLS issue. I don't like giving
KA> NSI/Verisign yet another boon but I also don't like ICANN being a
KA> regulator of ever increasing size.
KA> This is a tough question and there are equities on all sides.
KA> My feeling is that I at the board meeting tomorrow morning that I will
KA> vote in favor of WLS but only on the condition that there are provisions
KA> that require the current registrant to know of the existance (and
KA> identity) of WLS entries placed on his/here domain name. That, to my
KA> mind, helps restore the balance of information and lets all parties to the
KA> registration agreement attempt to optimize their actions.
KA> (It may not be black letter contract law, but I do feel that those who are
KA> parties to a contract ought not to be unreasonably manipulative of one
KA> another - particularly when the contracts are of an adhesive quality [and
KA> more particularly when the public isn't allowed onto the regulatory body
KA> that establishes many of the contractual terms]. And in the case of WLS I
KA> have always found it distasteful that the registry, who has an indirect
KA> contractual relationship with the registrant, might hold back information
KA> from the registrant that could be of value to the registrant.)
KA> This condition on the casting of my vote in favor is in addition to things
KA> like the pre-existance of the grace period mechanisms for at least 6
KA> months, etc etc.)
KA> Any comments?
KA> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
KA> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
KA> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
KA> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA Internet Concepts, Inc.
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55 (972) 788-2364 Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html