<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] Ross's Motion - Suggeseted Amendment
- To: tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [registrars] Ross's Motion - Suggeseted Amendment
- From: Larry Erlich <erlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:21:28 -0400
- Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
- Organization: DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
- References: <000001c37e0f$c5561c70$6601a8c0@blackdell>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
tbarrett wrote:
>
> 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.
It's their customer that is paying them
monthly fees.
AOL/MSN can say contractually "if you connect
though us you agree to have a search page instead
of an error when you make a typo. If you don't like that,
get your access elsewhere". (Remember free internet
access companies that added popup ads or whatever.)
Customers have a choice of who to connect through.
The money that AOL/MSN earns through the search function
could conceivably be used to lower access charges.
(Of course Verisign could use this money to lower the $6 charge.)
Larry
> 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
>>>
|