DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

FW: [registrars] 18 Registrars Endorse WLS Implementation

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin [mailto:alinford@sisna.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 2:20 PM
To: 'Paul Stahura'
Subject: RE: [registrars] 18 Registrars Endorse WLS Implementation

will you forward this post for me?

To the group:
There may have been some confusion over the interpretation of our last
post, so here is a new and improved statement that clears up
Domainmonger.com's position with regard to the SnapNames / NetSol

We did agree to allow Domainmonger.com to be included on the list of
supporting Registrars of the modified WLS.  Upon further review, we have
decided to retract our support.

For more in depth discussion on why we have changed our position, feel
free to email me directly at austinl@domainmonger.com

Austin Linford
Central Registrar, dba Domainmonger.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin [mailto:alinford@sisna.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 6:12 PM
To: stahura@enom.com
Subject: RE: [registrars] 18 Registrars Endorse WLS Implementation

Paul, please forward this for us:

Please remove Domainmonger.com from this list.  We have do not give our
support for the modified WLS.

Austin Linford
Central Registrar, dba Domainmonger.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Donny Simonton [mailto:donny@intercosmos.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:35 PM
To: jim.foley@neteka.com; wessorh@ar.com; wls@verisign.com
Cc: halloran@icann.org; Registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] 18 Registrars Endorse WLS Implementation

Please remove directNIC.com from this list.  We have do not give our
support for the modified WLS.

Donny Simonton
Intercosmos Media Group dba directNIC.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
> Behalf Of jim.foley@neteka.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 5:04 PM
> To: wessorh@ar.com; wls@verisign.com
> Cc: halloran@icann.org; Registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] 18 Registrars Endorse WLS Implementation
> March 7, 2002
> Rick Wesson (wessorh@ar.com)
> Registrars Constituency
> Chuck Gomes (wls@verisign.com)
> VeriSign
> Dear Messrs. Wesson and Gomes:
> We, the undersigned ICANN-accredited registrars, none of whom utilize
> connections to VeriSign Global Registry Service to give preferential
> access to any customers over any other customers, appreciate this 
> opportunity
> provide our feedback on VGRS' domain name Wait List Service (WLS),
> has
> recently been released for final comment in a modified form.  Per
> VeriSign's invitation to submit our comments, we are, as instructed, 
> submitting
> comments through "one of the DNSO constituencies" -- in this case, the

> Registrars Constituency, in the person of Rick Wesson.  Our point of
> contact is Jim Foley of Neteka, who may be reached at 
> jim.foley@neteka.com <mailto:jim.foley@neteka.com.
> Our industry, now through its first stage of growth, is facing a
number of
> issues challenging its capability to further grow and mature while
> the needs of all users.  This is particularly true with respect to the

> issue of deleting domain names-this "secondary" market of .com and
> .net
> in
> reality, will shortly become the primary market, as the inventory of
> reasonably usable new names further depletes and customer's choices
> be
> principally from the previously registered names now deleting back
> availability.
> At present, however, the aggressive competition for deleting names-by
> registrars, professional speculators, and third-party service
> effectively freezing out the mainstream customer, who without
> sophisticated equipment or even an understanding of how to find and 
> secure a
> name, has no practical access to the new primary domain name
> Accordingly, a change is necessary to restore a level playing field
> all
> users, and to bring fair, equitable and practical access to all
> registrants.  In this context, we offer our conditional support for
> modified WLS proposal (as published on January 29, 2002), on a
> proof-of-concept basis intended to provide all concerned more
> on
> its viability as a long-term solution.
> Thank you for your consideration.
> Sincerely,
> BulkRegister.com, Baltimore, MD, USA		Tom D'Alleva
> ChinaDNS, Beijing, China			Edward Lee
> DirectNic, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA		Michael Brunson
> DomainMonger.com, Washington State, USA	Austin Linford
> DomainSite.com, Boston, MA, USA		Rick Zaniboni
> Galcomm.com, Rishon Lezion, Israel		Moshe Fogel
> Go Daddy, Scotttsdale, AZ, USA			Bob Parsons
> Namebay, Monaco				Patricia Husson
> NameEngine, New York, NY, USA		Antony Van Couvering
> NameScout, Ontario, Canada			Rob Hall
> NameSecure, Moravia, CA, USA			Gary Khachadoorian
> NameSystem, Bridgetown, Barbados		Jason Heldeles
> Neteka, Toronto, Canada			Greg Bertrand
> VeriSign Registrar, Herndon, VA, USA		Bruce Beckwith
> Register.it, Bergamo, Italy			Bruno Piarulli
> Registrars.com, Los Angeles, California USA	David Barbosa
> SiteName, Rishon Lezion, Israel			LM Service
> SRSPlus, Los Angeles, California, USA		Anthony Bishop
> cc:
> Dan Halloran (halloran@icann.org)
> Requested Information about the signatories:
> What is the nature of the members of your group (e.g., individuals,
> registrars, registries, trade organizations, etc.)? ICANN-accredited 
> Registrars
> What is the total size of your membership?
> Approximately 100 are operational
> How many members of your group participated in the WLS feedback
> leading up to the final feedback provided?
> 4
> How many members who contributed to the WLS feedback you provided to
> are involved or planning to be involved in the process of directly or
> indirectly using the VGRS batch delete system for registering
> names?
> 4
> What efforts did your group make to reach out to members of your group
> did not participate in the WLS discussion process?
> The group signing this letter is not a formal group per se.  It is a
> subset of all registrars.  We made efforts to reach dozens of 
> registrars to educate
> them and make them aware of this issue.  We did not contact many
> of
> the Registrars Constituency, both because they are known to be
> their own comments and because they are not representative of all 100
> registrars, particularly the over 70 who are not active paid members
> the
> Registrars Constituency.  (Indeed, some of the RC members compete with

> VeriSign or have proposals competitive with VeriSign's WLS, or are in
> disputes with VeriSign Registrar).

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