Re: [registrars] RE: WLS on ICANN's agenda

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom,

> When three (3) registrars sent a letter to Paul Twomey on December 3 in
> support of WLS, it was promptly published on the ICANN website
> (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/registrars-to-twomey-03dec03.htm).
> 
> However, when twenty-five (25) registrars sent a letter to Paul Twomey on
> December 12 opposing WLS, it has not been posted on the ICANN website.  See
> attachment for a copy of this letter.

Good catch.

All,

I still don't understand Paul Kane's note to this list of 11/24, which urged
all registrars "interested in supporting ICANN and industry self organized
regulation" to lobby their controlling legal jurisdictions (governments) to
keep their hands off our industry.

We stand a chance of getting profoundly screwed, not just on WLS, but on the
whole issue of registry services, sitefinder today, more fun and games later,
by a regulator that either regulates at random or is a captive of its cause
for existance.

Handing the "what is a registry service" question to some random court of
first impression, and taking that ruling as controlling, let alone as good
national law or good policy by a body larger than one country, is odd. We
don't do that in Indian Country. All of our issues of first import are on
the SCTUS docket, every October.

I'm ticked that we can't work on substantive issues, like the cost of the
registry API divergence, dnssec, revisiting the requirements for new, yes
new registries, because VGRS's marginal marginal marginal profit takes all
the air out of the room.

There has to be a better way than the way we're going.

Eric