DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[registrars] WLS Update

Board minutes from today's call -

WLS was approved but will not be operational until 2003.

Net-Net no one is likely to be happy which is one definition that I have for


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Christopher Kruk
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 1:15 PM
To: Bhavin Turakhia; 'Rick Wesson'; 'David Wascher'
Cc: 'Registrars List'
Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS go ahead???

Bhavin, I agree with your sentiments. From a Registrar's business and
operational perspective, I would think a high priority should be placed on
achieving stability for basic Registrar services such as transfers,
deletions, whois, etc. I personally didn't pay much attention to the WLS
issue since I considered it a service proposal that would go through a
lengthy advisory process following a resolution of the more pressing issues
on the table.

Now I see postings with subject lines like "WLS go ahead???" and I'm very
concerned as I hope many other Registrars are if this is happening so
quickly. I can understand if there was a high customer demand but I don't
see it. Has anyone else?

 >Aaah ..... What came first ... The chicken or the egg
In this case, I think the rooster came first ;)

Roger and out,

At 09:20 PM 8/23/02 +0530, Bhavin Turakhia wrote:

> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>Aaah ..... What came first ... The chicken or the egg :) ..... It is
>indeed after ICANN was formed that the Registrars came into being.
>However I am in full agreement with Rick. Maybe I should withdraw my
>support for the ICANN letter. Infact 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.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>