[registrars] Fw: [council] Final Resolution regarding Verisign Registry Site Finder Service

[Jean-Michel Becar]

As we can see the GNSO council advice to ICANN for that wildcard story 
is really far from the push we want as registrar.
So still wondering if we won't have better a better voice by going 
directly to ICANN BoD.

The public reaction and comment are obvious for the past 2 weeks I've 
never heard someone in favor of this wildcard thing and that resolution 
want to listen first.......why things are taking so long???

I'm asking again the question can we as the RC writes a common letter to 
ICANN? or one by one as Registrar write a letter each to ICANN?

It's obvious the GNSO council resolution doesn't reflect at all the 
consensus we could see last 2 weeks which is : STOP that service NOW !!!!

Wondering how we can make this process more accurate.

-- 
Jean-Michel Becar
Senior Architect
Global Media Online INC.
Tokyo - 150-8512
Tel: +81 (0)3 5456 2687



Broitman wrote:

>Thank you Ken.  I wonder if our representatives have any explanation
>regarding the resolution - namely, "monitor community reaction and
>experiences with the new service" -- does this call for the registrar
>constituency to provide input regarding its concerns, in addition to the
>motion that the constituency had passed?
>
>Thanks, Elana
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs at digitel.net>
>To: "Registrars" <Registrars at dnso.org>
>Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 1:34 PM
>Subject: [registrars] Fw: [council] Final Resolution regarding Verisign
>Registry Site Finder Service
>
>
>  
>
>>FYI
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>>To: "council" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 10:52 AM
>>Subject: [council] Final Resolution regarding Verisign Registry Site
>>    
>>
>Finder
>  
>
>>Service
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>[To: council at gnso.icann.org]
>>>
>>>GNSO Council teleconference 25 September 2003.
>>>http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-25sep03.shtml
>>>
>>>Item 4. Issues associated with Verisign's introduction of wild card
>>>      
>>>
>>entries
>>    
>>
>>>(*.com and *.net in the .com and .net zonefile)
>>>
>>>
>>>Final Resolution regarding Verisign Registry Site Finder Service
>>>      
>>>
>proposed
>  
>
>>by
>>    
>>
>>>Marilyn Cade and voted on by Council:
>>>
>>>Whereas, on September 15, 2003, VeriSign Registry introduced a wild card
>>>service into .com and .net zones that creates a registry-synthesized
>>>      
>>>
>>address
>>    
>>
>>>record in response to look ups of domain  names that are not present in
>>>      
>>>
>>the
>>    
>>
>>>zone. This service changes the routing of traffic by directing traffic
>>>      
>>>
>>that
>>    
>>
>>>would have otherwise resulted in a 'no domain' notification to the
>>>      
>>>
>>"sender"
>>    
>>
>>>to a VeriSign  operated web site with search results and links to paid
>>>advertisements.
>>>
>>>Whereas the IAB commentary published its architectural Concerns on the
>>>      
>>>
>use
>  
>
>>>of DNS wildcards on 19 September 2003. (LINK)
>>>
>>>Whereas VeriSign Registry on 21 September 2003, responded to Paul
>>>      
>>>
>Twomey,
>  
>
>>>President and CEO, ICANN, acknowledging ICANN's advisory and declining
>>>      
>>>
>to
>  
>
>>>suspend the service until they (VeriSign) has an opportunity to collect
>>>      
>>>
>>and
>>    
>>
>>>review available data.
>>>
>>>Whereas the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, 22 September
>>>      
>>>
>>2003,has
>>    
>>
>>>published its recommendations at www.icann.org
>>>
>>> Therefore, the gNSO Council:
>>>Supports ICANN's actions to
>>>1) monitor community reaction and experiences with the new service
>>>2) request advice from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee and
>>>from the IAB on the impact of change introduced by the registry service
>>>      
>>>
>of
>  
>
>>>VeriSign
>>>3) encourages broad participation by the community in the upcoming
>>>      
>>>
>meeting
>  
>
>>>hosted by the Security and Stability Advisory Committee
>>>
>>>Pledges to
>>>1) Support the recommendation of of the Security and Stability Advisory
>>>Committee, 22 September
>>>2003
>>>2) work cooperatively to ensure full opportunity to fully understand the
>>>service, its implications for the DNS, and any implications for the need
>>>      
>>>
>>for
>>    
>>
>>>policy development within the scope of the gNSO.
>>>
>>>The motion carried, 17 votes in support 6 abstaining votes.
>>>
>>>GNSO Secretariat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>