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

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

--- Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> George Kirikos's questions deserve detailed dialogue, and specific
> responses
> from ICANN.
> 
> Why does ICANN evade so many fair and sincere questions?
> 
> Why is there no mechanism for responses to analyses like George's?
> 
> If ICANN is open and transparent and has nothing to hide, why doesn't
> it
> engage in open dialogue?
> 
> Can we have a response to George Kirikos's main points please?

ICANN's unlikely to respond, as they'll say "we're in the middle of a
lawsuit". They didn't have that argument last year, but ignored the
questions then too. Maybe one of the registrars will like to take a
stab at it, on their mailing list. Or, perhaps someone in the press
will get Mary Hewitt, who always seems to have an answer, to explain
things.

Verisign isn't a defendant in this case, so perhaps they'd like to
respond. It's not as though these questions have not been asked before,
namely at:

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

and every other occasion that was brought up in the past, too.

As was brought to my attention, Verisign played the "load" card
(presumably under oath?) at the congressional hearing, too (listen to
the Q&A session, at:

http://icann.blog.us/2003/07/31.html#a1396

Methinks Verisign plays the victim not very well, to resort to
statements that are in condradiction to their February 15, 2002 written
statements that:

"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)

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

Thankfully, it is the court where the Truth will be discovered.

Perhaps a Woodward and Bernstein type can get to the bottom of WLSgate
-- all we need is a "Deep Throat" to help....might make someone's
career...

By the way, it still amazes me as to how ICANN can state they're acting
in the "public interest", when EVERY constituency that voted, but one
(Verisign-dominated gTLD registries), was AGAINST WLS. Have there been
a single other example, besides WLS, where the Board has acted contrary
to a consensus vote in the Names Council?

Sincerely,

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