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

["Ali Farshchian" <ali@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

|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.


We've been successful at raising attention regarding these issues here
primarily due to collective participation of the Internet community:
http://www.circleid.com/wls (still on going...)

	Commentary submission go live right away.
	Blogs within 24 hours.

Ali Farshchian
http://www.circleid.com


|-----Original Message-----
|From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf
|Of George Kirikos
|Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:11 AM
|To: ga@xxxxxxxx
|Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign under penalty of perjury: without WLS,
|registrars "threaten the stability of the Internet"
|
|
|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/
|