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

["Monte Cahn" <monte@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

AGREED!  Also, does anyone know when the new obsessive, tax increase is
supposed to go into effect?

Monte Cahn
Founder/CEO
 
Monte@xxxxxxxxxxx
Monte@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
O - 954-984-8445
F - 954-969-9155
 
Moniker.com - ICANN Accredited Corporate Domain Management Services
DomainSystems.com - Domain Sales & After-market Services
CoolHandle.com - World Class Hosting and Email Solutions


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric
Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 2:45 PM
To: tbarrett
Cc: michael@xxxxxxxxxx; 'Registrars List'; brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: WLS on ICANN's agenda 


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