Re: [ga] Dotster's latest letter to ICANN re: WLS -- Why hasn't ICANN acknowledged it?

["John Palmer" <jp@ADNS.NET>]

I can't speak for the ccTLDs or all INS tlds, but for INRS (Inclusive Namespace Registry System)
TLDs, the rule is that an expired domain hangs around for 60 days after it expires and is then
deleted. This isn't a complicated matter. No WLS needed. 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Dierker" <eric@hi-tek.com>
To: <gkirikos@yahoo.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 16:56
Subject: Re: [ga] Dotster's latest letter to ICANN re: WLS -- Why hasn't ICANN acknowledged it?


> What are inclusive and ccTLDs doing regarding such things.
> I would like to know what WS, UK, AU, LA, US do with such matters.
> Leah and Joe and Jim probably have different policies.
> If one country has a better mousetrap, let us shift. Good for that country.
> Adding two digits is easy.
> Of course I read the funny paper called a newspaper and dotcoms are still 
> bombing. we must adapt.  .COM is toast.  Yes they still have a data base but 
> there have been more expiries than registrations in the last few months.
> 
> These monoliths called Verisign and other Registrars are not developing.
> Customers want service and there is none in the dotbomb arena.
> Watch as services become more developed and consumer oriented and community 
> based.
> 
> Eric Dierker
> 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > --- "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com> wrote:
> >> If that leaves you scratching your head, then you have not had your
> >> eye on
> >> the ball, and probably still believe the propaganda about WLS pricing
> >> floated
> >> by certain folks here last year.
> > 
> > Indeed.
> > 
> > I'm amazed that Dotster's letter *still* hasn't been posted at:
> > 
> > http://www.icann.org/correspondence/
> > 
> > It was dated April 9, 2003. We do have Louis Touton's correspondences
> > to the GNSO dated April 8th and April 11th posted. I see another
> > correspondence by Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi dated April 23rd. We even have
> > a couple of posts to/fron Danny Younger in late March 
> > 
> > I find it hard to fathom why a contracted party such as Dotster has a
> > lower priority of responsiveness from ICANN than Danny Younger! (with
> > all due respect to Danny) Perhaps something ICANN will need to explain
> > to an arbiter or judge one day, should the issue of 'good faith' crop
> > up....
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > George Kirikos
> > http://www.AutoInsurance.ca/
> > --
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
--
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