[ga] Verisign under penalty of perjury: without WLS, registrars "threaten the stability of the Internet"

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

Amazingly, the above quote comes from:

http://www.lextext.com/wls/turner_decl.pdf

"In the process, however, these registrar-level services have
technically harmful effects and threaten the stability of the Internet,
because the robotic "add storms" cause enormously high (and
ever-increasing) registry database loads, threatening the stability of
the registry database and Domain Name and thereby the Internet."
(page 12 of the PDF, paragraph 36)

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Who is this guy trying to fool? I sincerely hope he is cross-examined
on that BS. Paragraph 23 mentions load as well, as does Paragraph 24
and others.

Yet, we have Verisign on the record on February 15, 2002:

http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-responses-15feb02.pdf

"registry load is no longer an issue. The multiple pools and rate
limiting technology have solved that problem." (answer to B.2)

"Registry load should not be a criterion for determining the proper
course of action regarding deleted domain name registrations." (answer
to B.3)

Those submissions under penalty of perjury, and Verisign's prior
statements listed above can't both be true, can they??

Thanks to Bret for posting relevant documents at:

http://icann.blog.us/2003/08/04.html#a1397

I'll have more comments to make after reading them in more detail, but
that Verisign statement just stood out and had to be challenged.
Especially given that VGRS refused to answer the similar load issues
raised at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc12/msg01410.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc12/msg01440.html

(in particular, graphs showing registry load to be miniscule relative
to capacity (0.2% to 0.3% of capacity), and that even under RGP, when
no names were dropping, load was relatively unchanged, indicating that
drops are obviously insignificant in affecting the registry's
operations at this time.

One other question: ICANN asserts that they can make policy without
going through the consensus process. However, the bigger question is
whether they can make policies that contravene an existing consensus
policy?

I'd assert that the Names Council super-majority vote ESTABLISHED a new
policy that WLS be denied. From: 

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00395.html

Item 3: Wait Listing Service - report and vote to adopt
.......
"Philip Sheppard moved for a vote of adoption for the report as a
whole.
15 voted in favour, 3 voted against (the members of the gTLD
constituency) 1 abstention (IPC). Greg Ruth was absent, no proxy given.
The motion carried with a greater than two-thirds majority making this
a consensus policy recommendation of the DNSO. This reflected the vote
within the task force itself on the recommendations.
Decision 3: Report adopted"

Thus, it can (and should be) argued that not only are registrars
disputing that there is a consensus FOR WLS, but there IS an EXISTING
policy AGAINST WLS, due to the above vote in the Names Council, which
needs to be overcome by WLS proponents. It's one thing to say there was
a vacuum, and WLS doesn't contravene anything. But, it's another to
argue that there's EXISTING POLICY against WLS.

Consider some of the following statements, if you believe that the
consensus process wasn't invoked:

http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm

"If, however, there are specific reasons to conclude that the
legitimate
interests of others are likely to be harmed, then ICANN's existing
obligation to seek consensus whenever possible before acting suggests
that it should invoke the formal consensus development mechanisms that
currently exist prior to any decision by the ICANN Board." (Louis
Touton)

http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-22aug02.htm

"it changes the functional specification under which those two
registries are to be operated (it involves a change in the
name-allocation algorithm)" 

4.2.4 of the Registrars Accreditation agreement at:

http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm

specifically mentions "principles for allocation of Registered Names",
thus allowing the current challenge based on a non-consensus.

What has even Joe Sims written on "consensus"? Here is a magical quote:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00905.html

"The contracts must obviously be consistent with established policy,
and if you or anyone else thinks the ICANN policies are wrong or should
be changed for any reason, you should initiate a consensus policy
process to accomplish that change."

Let's see, we think ICANN's policies with respect to WLS are wrong. We
went through the task forces and Names Council and got a super-majority
against WLS. Short of giving bribes to ICANN Board directors and staff,
what more was required by the internet community that was
overwhelmingly opposed to WLS??

By the way, Registrars in their pleadings and arguments need to argue
more forcefully that it was not only a consensus of Registrars against
WLS, it was ALL constituencies that voted excluding the gTLD registries
(i.e. Verisign and their cohorts). That's a powerful argument that is
"missing", especially whenever ICANN and Verisign are arguing this is
in the "public interest".

The public's interest is expressed through various constituencies. I
challenge ICANN and Verisign to show me which constituences open to the
public voted *FOR* WLS??

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/