[registrars] Ross's Motion - Suggeseted Amendment

[Larry Erlich]

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 at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] 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