<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Ross's Motion - Suggeseted Amendment
- To: <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Rob Hall'" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] Ross's Motion - Suggeseted Amendment
- From: "tbarrett" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:07:44 -0400
- Cc: "'Registrars Mail List'" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <3F69EA7E.1080707@tucows.com>
- Reply-to: <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I would echo Rob's comments.
The broken policy process is the larger issue here.
I believe that, if introduced correctly, wildcards in a tld can deliver a
better user experience than what occurs today. Frankly, there is no reason
why an ISP/Browser vendor such as AOL or MSN deserves this traffic anymore
than Verisign does. There is no reason why the other tld's should be
prevented from doing this. Although, if Neustar or Afilias wanted to do it,
they should do it sooner rather than later.
I also do not agree that Siteminder has undermined registry or registrar
competition. In fact, if SiteFinder provided a randomized list of
registrars for visitors to choose from to register the unregistered domain,
then competition would be enhanced.
In this regard, SiteFinder would be completely different than WLS, which
will only benefit a few large registrars.
The other issues: broken spam programs and security issues, seem solvable
and less important.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 1:25 PM
To: Rob Hall
Cc: Registrars Mail List
Subject: Re: [registrars] Ross's Motion - Suggeseted Amendment
On 9/18/2003 1:16 PM Rob Hall noted that:
> Would you consider an amendment to your motion that refers the matter
to the
> GNSO for immediate study, and suspends the recent Verisign implementation
> until the study is completed ?
If it suspends all gTLD implementations until the study has been
completed and a process has been followed to carefully gauge the impact
of the proposed change on the technical and user communities, then yes.
I don't want to be in a situation in a few weeks or months where the
SSAC issues some findings and Verisign or Neulevel says "Thanks for the
input, we'll take it under advisement" and ignores the interests and
wishes of the community.
Elana and I talked earlier about essentially the same thing, but I've
had a hard time framing it in words - can you put forward some proposed
text that we could incorporate?
As well - Jim Archer - if you're listening, now's the time to get those
"whereas's" in...
--
-rwr
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|