ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Reject WLS | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 11 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: Reject WLS
    by GeorgeK on Thursday July 11 2002, @07:52AM (#7777)
    User #3191 Info | http://www.kirikos.com/
    I didn't submit the story, but for the record the origin of that letter is the ICANN WLS Forum, namely at:

    http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?wls;3D2DD587000000FA

    Dotster also issued a statement last night, which I consider the best summary to date against WLS, at:

    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00341.html

    It's in Word .doc format, at the very bottom. Someone converted it to ASCII text format here:

    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02794.html

    For those who are against WLS, like myself, feel free to add your concerns at the ICANN WLS Forum mentioned above, and also sign the petition at:

    http://www.petitiononline.com/antiwls/petition.html

    Sincerely,

    George Kirikos
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Reject WLS
    by PeterBarron (pebarron@hotmail.com) on Thursday July 11 2002, @08:06AM (#7779)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    If there were more registries, this wouldn't be nearly the issue that it is.

    ICANN's overbearing and tight fisted regulatory limitation of the market has created this monster.

    ++Peter
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    On the VeriSign aspect
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Thursday July 11 2002, @11:03AM (#7786)
    User #2810 Info
    VeriSign's second quarter earnings were below expectations yesterday [Reuters/Yahoo], some coverage [e-commerce times] of some of their current problems, and the problem [NY Times, may require free registration] of interlocking directorships, including Stratton Sclavos, CEO of VeriSign, who by his own admission only wants more than his fair share. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Reject WLS
    by RFassett on Thursday July 11 2002, @05:13PM (#7793)
    User #3226 Info | http://www.enum.info
    an average member of the registrant community does not benefit from the status quo or WLS. The vast majority of people are not going to spend the ridiculous and wasteful amount of time that I do to know:

    1) how to register a deleted domain name (or even what this means)
    2) or how to register a premium domain during a new registry "landrush"

    This logic seems to be entirely lost in the WLS argument (i.e. what is in the best interests of the community as a whole that is logically representative of people that have far better things to do than analyze how to buy a domain name the split second it becomes available to do so). The day I can go into a store and buy domain.foo off the shelf when I feel like it and at normal retail price is the day artificial market mechanisms such as WLS (or the status quo options) will fill absolutely no market need - as it should be. Yes, I know, speculators serve a viable purpose and cringe at such radical thinking.

    It's also quite funny to hear registrars crying "anti-competitive" reasons as a defense for WLS as they continue to gouge the registrant community with rip-off type fees relative to LR1, LR2 etc etc. Sorry, no sympathy from here. Somehow, I really do not think the registrar community has proven to care much about my interests when it comes to acquiring a domain considered as premium. No, this is about how much I can be gouged and what party gets it.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Reject WLS
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Saturday July 13 2002, @11:33AM (#7837)
    User #2810 Info
    Michael Palage cautions the registrars:
    Although I have recused myself from the WLS issue, I have a strong objections on potential anti-trust grounds of this constituency voting on anything that recommends/discusses a price.
    Charging more for a pre-existing domain than for a new one isn't justifiable on the name alone. It's due to the ready made traffic. SnapNames themselves admit that half their customers are speculators. I don't know how they catergorize those who want to catch traffic but I suspect that is the bulk of their business and would continue to be under the WLS.

    Take a look at blindhit.com (some nudity), and there are many others out there like them. They pay 5 cents per click. So if you register a dropped name that was previously averaging 1000 hits per day, that's $50 income per day for the new owner, so of course the name is worth a WLS fee of $50 or many times that. You can see from this that even sites which previously had quite low traffic could turn a profit. Those who want to blindly hit you with ads (mostly for pr0n and gambling) are the folks who have the most to gain from the WLS, and VeriSign/Snapnames know that. This is being spun as a benefit to consumers but the vast majority of consumers, including those wanting names, those losing their names, and those who otherwise use the names in the way they were originally intended will all be the poorer for it.

    VeriSign doesn't care. They want a bigger part of that action. VeriSign has already shown that they are willing to negotiate/drop the price somewhat and to give registrars a bigger piece, but they still own the pie. It sure looks and smells like something begging for anti-trust action to me. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com