Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Karl - let me paint a picture of what WLS is and why it should not be
allowed to progress...

    1)    The WLS system is a method for which an existing registrar can
block the transfer or otherwise control of a piece of IP from its rightful
owner, and this is easily demonstrated.

This is true because any registrar that already has the domain name
registered can perform the WLS process faster than any of its competition
since it and only it will be there  when it expires the name and releases it
for re-registration. Therefore if it resells the publication against that
domain name no other Registrar will be able to beat it to the
re-registration efforts. Hence WLS give the incumbent registrar an unfair
advantage. Further how are you going to stop multiple Registrars from
booking against the same name when clearly the incumbent will be the winner
unless #2 is also dealt with.

    2)    The WLS system clearly violates the constraints of equality at the
bottom line that people like NASD have had to deal with by embargoing
network transactions until all participants have the same equal share/chance
at winning the prize here (in this case the domain name(s) that have been
WLS'ted).

    3)    The WLS system further confuses what is and what is not a
trademarkable instance since by trademark law I do not necessarily have to
continue the use of the marque on the Internet to still have the trademark
status of the word... or in this case the domain name.

    4)    And the biggest problem is that this only controls within the
ICANN Root and that is likewise a serious issue since anyone else can
already publish the same name with another root provider and viola...

Todd


----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>
To: "Kristy McKee" <k@widgital.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion


> 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.
>
> Presumably under WLS they have that - they simply buy into WLS.
>
> I have a question for you (and everyone on the GA list):
>
> I've been wrestling back and forth on the WLS issue.  I don't like giving
> NSI/Verisign yet another boon but I also don't like ICANN being a
> regulator of ever increasing size.
>
> This is a tough question and there are equities on all sides.
>
> My feeling is that I at the board meeting tomorrow morning that I will
> vote in favor of WLS but only on the condition that there are provisions
> that require the current registrant to know of the existence (and
> identity) of WLS entries placed on his/here domain name.  That, to my
> mind, helps restore the balance of information and lets all parties to the
> registration agreement attempt to optimize their actions.
>
> (It may not be black letter contract law, but I do feel that those who are
> parties to a contract ought not to be unreasonably manipulative of one
> another - particularly when the contracts are of an adhesive quality [and
> more particularly when the public isn't allowed onto the regulatory body
> that establishes many of the contractual terms].  And in the case of WLS I
> have always found it distasteful that the registry, who has an indirect
> contractual relationship with the registrant, might hold back information
> from the registrant that could be of value to the registrant.)
>
> This condition on the casting of my vote in favor is in addition to things
> like the pre-existence of the grace period mechanisms for at least 6
> months, etc etc.)
>
> Any comments?
>
> --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
>
>


--
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