Re: [ga] WLS: ICANN should approve it (and be sued for that).
Thomas and all assembly members,
Very good points here Thomas. Well done!
The crux of the problem can be simply put that the TR TF did not
address one of the two primary concerns it was supposed to
to begin with and got overly distracted with WLS. That being to
find or come up with a solution for handling Deletes of expired
Now WLS was offered by Verisign as a potential solution, but
really was not in that it did not entirely handle that problem and
created some other problems as well.
To me anyway, this experience like the .ORG TF, shows why
the TF approach to determining policy solutions for these types
of problems does not work as well as the WG approach...
Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2002-08-22 21:45:16 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >To: George Kirikos <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Cc: email@example.com
> >Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion
> >OK, you (and everyone else) convinced me.
> I'm not so sure you should be convinced.
> At least my most important concerns about WLS are actually resolved
> in the general counsel's report:
> - The perverse incentives for registrars created by WLS - namely,
> not extending existing registrations, and letting a WLS
> subscription ripen - are kind of mitigated by the redemption grace
> - The business model to hoard domain names in order to later sell
> them off through WLS subscriptions (and subsequent "deletion") is
> addressed by the agreement to prevent sponsoring registrars from
> placing WLS subscriptions on a domain name in the 60 days before
> the name expires. (Note that this restriction is messy and
> entirely unnecessary when the current registrant wants to place
> the subscription!)
> At the same time, this removes part of registrars' incentives to
> hoard domain names in order to unfairly compete about WLS
> subscriptions - delete the name when a subscription is placed
> through the sponsoring registrar, don't delete it when the
> subscription is placed through a competitor.
> (Actually, the version of this argument given by Louis in his
> report is not accurate.)
> Once again, this is not the perfect solution - the correct
> approach would be to mandate the point of time when registrars
> send the DELETE command to the registry.
> Note that these are genuine policy matters, and clearly within
> ICANN's scope.
> The single most important concern which remains - and it's the one
> George and friends are emphasizing - is that WLS may put existing
> registrar-based approaches out of business. The existing
> used-domain dealers demand that their business models be protected.
> I'm sorry to say this, but they are pretty close to Hollywood's
> crusade against the net in that - I think Bruce Schneier paraphrased
> the latest legislation around intellectual property like this: "They
> are creating a new crime, interference with a business model."
> ICANN should not get into the business of prosecuting this "crime"
> in the registy/registrar market - and that's precisely what not
> accepting WLS would mean. Don't let George's argument fool you,
> when he says that "changing the contract" amounts to "action" and
> "not changing the contract" amounts to a hands-off approach. I'm
> sorry, George - this is (good, and, it seems, effective ;)
> rhetorics, and not an argument: Hands-off means that you let others
> do what they want. Normally, that's equivalent to "do nothing".
> However, when to "do nothing" means to forbid an activity, a
> hands-off approach implies rubber-stamp approval.
> Of course, this was only half of the argument, so far: I didn't
> address the fact that existing competition would be replaced by a
> _monopoly_. It's the context in which I believe that protecting
> business models is a good idea and a requirement: When existing,
> lawful business models would be threatened by a new business model
> which can only be implemented as a monopoly. There are two tests in
> - Does the new business model necessarily imply a monopoly service?
> The answer is obviously yes.
> - Are the existing business models lawful? Can current
> expired-domain registration services compete without registrars
> violating their accreditation agreements by letting others
> control "their" transactions with the registry? I'm not sure
> that this question will ever be answered based on information
> easily accessible to ICANN and the public. But there are some
> indications that the answer is "no". Ups.
> Given the lack of information, and given that this is a classical
> question for governments and courts to address, I believe that ICANN
> should do precisely that: Leave the question to governments and
> courts, i.e., do not address it in your decision.
> Thus, ultimately, I would strongly recommend that ICANN approves
> this service - fully aware of the perspective that it will quite
> likely be sued for this decision.
> Finally, there is one relatively deep point to this, well worth the
> board's attention - for the future, because it's too late to address
> this for WLS: It's Steven Heath's question whether new monopoly
> services based on the registry's data should automatically be the
> registry's privilege, or whether these services should be subject to
> a public bidding process.
> I'm not entirely sure whether Louis' argument that the .name
> services set a precedent for this actually works: After all, with
> .name the new service was introduced from the very beginning. There
> may be some merit to treating services to be added later differently
> than services included in the original TLD concept.
> Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html