[nc-transfer] FW: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF
- To: "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [nc-transfer] FW: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF
- From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:33:13 -0400
- Sender: email@example.com
- Thread-Index: AcIoZ9PmheWAv8V1T9e7XvTdLIqx5AAEwrkw
- Thread-Topic: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF
posted with permission of sender. Marilyn
From: Don Brown [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 7:17 PM
To: email@example.com; DannyYounger@cs.com
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF
WLS has been debated on the GA list for months. A review of the
archives will show that many on the GA list are steadfastly opposed to
WLS and that I am one of them. Therefore, Marilyn's conclusion about
my silence is correct and on-point and I'd guess the same would be
true of the others who oppose WLS.
As for those in favor of WLS, like the gTLDs, IPC, VeriSign Registry,
SnapNames, SnapName partners, VeriSign Registrar, VeriSign's Registrar
subsidiaries, VeriSign partners, their law firms and lawyers, their
shills who spoke in Bucharest and posted canned statements to the
ICANN comment forum, and the other folks who actually are pursuing
their own independent agenda, they have not been silent, as you have
noticed and pointed out below.
There has already been opportunity for comment, as you have also noticed
and pointed out below, and careful reading of item 3 of the "Schedule of
Events" posted at
disclose a plan for another 10 day public comment period.
The TF has been criticized on matters of form, but not really on
For instance, perhaps, as the gTLDs pointed out, the TF should not
have considered the wholesale price of a WLS to the Registrars, but
it's difficult not to do so in light of a $6 cost to register a domain
name and a $24 cost for a WLS option. That's particularly true in
light of all of the documents spewed by SnapNames justifying an even
higher price. Let's not forget that the proposed WLS price used to be
much higher than the current $24 WLS proposal, as well.
Perhaps, also, the TF should not have discussed whether an additional
registry service can be introduced by the registry, totally ignoring
SnapNames long and convoluted legal diatribe about how the registry
can't be prevented from introducing WLS and, of course, how everyone
would get sued unless SnapNames' customers were given preferential
However, considering that other people made those points a part of the
equation for consideration, I think the TF would have been negligent
if they had not addressed them.
I think, therefore, that the process behind the report either fails your
comprehension or that you have not carefully researched your position
and, as a result, are too petulant to criticize.
WLS has two fatal flaws: (1) WLS is anti-consumer because it
eliminates consumer choice. Instead of multiple services in an already
available market at differing prices, the consumer will have only one,
take it or leave it, service. (2) WLS is anti-competitive because it
will effectively kill the current market of services which are already
Since part of ICANN's mission is to promote competition, WLS should
fail on its face, because of those two fatal flaws alone. Everything
beyond that, is just marketing spins, noise and rabbit trails. ICANN's
BoD vote in favor of WLS will be a vote approving a Monopoly, which
contravenes the very reason for ICANN's very existence.
Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 1:00:41 PM, DannyYounger@cs.com <DannyYounger@cs.com> wrote:
Dcc> In your letter to the Transfers TF you write: "To date, while input was
Dcc> received pre-status report, there has been very little feedback from the
Dcc> community, constituencies and GA on the status report, or the recommendation
Dcc> proposed by Grant Forsyth. This should indicate that the draft has wide
Dcc> support within the constituencies/GA".
Dcc> Your conclusion is flawed. Silence does not equate to acquiescence. Your TF
Dcc> has still not produced a final set of recommendations, nor has the public yet
Dcc> been invited to comment upon such a final set of recommendations. To
Dcc> conclude that a lack of comments on an incomplete proposal is an indication
Dcc> of support is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Dcc> The gTLDs have already indicated that they do not support your
Dcc> recommendations, as have many that spoke at Bucharest and many that have made
Dcc> their comments on the Public Forum list. By the way, I have seen no
Dcc> indication that any members of your TF have ever once looked at the public
Dcc> forum comments (if so, you would already have the URLs for the SNAPNAMES
Dcc> documentation that you are now requesting).
Dcc> I share the concerns of the gTLDs regarding "the process behind producing
Dcc> that Report", and would encourage your TF to more responsibly attend to your
Dcc> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Dcc> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
Dcc> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Dcc> 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