[ga] Registrar debate

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

An interesting exchange of thoughts is occuring on the registrar list.  
Excerpts:

David Wascher:  I do not understand - if the RC voted NO and the DNSO voted 
NO but ICANN is still going to allow WLS - then what the hell are we here 
for. The RC and the DNSO might as well pack up and go home because ICANN and 
VeriSign are going to do what they want.

Rick Wesson:  A better question is, "why is ICANN there" and why did you all 
sign a document telling the DoC how great it is that ICANN is there. If the 
WLS moves forward it is partly our own fault.

Michael Palage:  What the letter states is that the registrars recognize that 
ICANN is not perfect and there are outstanding issues, but we will work 
within the frame work of our existing contractual relations to resolve these 
issues. TUCOWS has been working on advocating a parallel argument where 
contracting parties can have their disputes resolved in a commercial manner. 
Something I have advocated since last February in Dulles.

Bhavin Turakhia:  I am in full agreement with Rick. Maybe I should withdraw 
my support for the ICANN letter. In fact on second thoughts now I am 
wondering if it was the peer movement that made me sign it. For I have not 
seen ICANN move towards reforming any issue. Its funny how decisions that 
favour Verisign (read WLS) got taken right away while we are still 
deliberating on the Transfers issue, or the Delete hoarding issue of 
Verisign, without any assistance/resolution there.

The thread begins at 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02993.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