[registrars] RE: WLS on ICANN's agenda

[tbarrett]

Mike,

Thanks for following up on this.

A lot more details have emerged since the ICANN Board last considered WLS in
terms on how WLS will be implemented.

I have two more questions for the ICANN Board.

If WLS is implemented, the only way it is offered by Verisign is via the
Verisign NameStore Agreement.  The NameStore requires a brand new interface
between Registrars and Verisign-GRS.  In other words, RRP can not be used
for WLS.

Does the ICANN Board realize that if WLS is approved, they will be either
creating two classes of registrars or causing a forced migration to
Verisign's NameStore?  

Isn't this an "illegal tying arrangement"?  Has this question been discussed
at the ICANN Board?

Thanks for making sure the Board is informed!

Tom




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 12:43 PM
To: 'Registrars List'
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: WLS on ICANN's agenda


Tom,

I sent this to the Board mailing list, and will follow-up on these
questions.

I do not know if I will be going to Rome. Nelly blew out her knee last week
when we were skiing in Colorado. We have to wait and see when the surgery is
scheduled for.

Hope all is going well.

Best regards,

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of tbarrett
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 11:28 AM
To: michael at palage.com; 'Registrars List'
Subject: [registrars] RE: WLS on ICANN's agenda



Dear Mike,

During the ICANN Board Meeting tomorrow, could you ask the following
questions?

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.

Is there any reason for this descrepancy?  What other correspondence has
ICANN withheld from the public?

In order to regain credibility, ICANN must be more even-handed in publishing
correspondence on its website.

See you in Rome,

Tom





-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 9:02 PM
To: Rick Wesson; Registrars List
Subject: [registrars] RE: WLS on ICANN's agenda


Rick:

Sometimes you make me laugh :-)

Best regards,

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh at ar.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 8:41 PM
To: Registrars List
Cc: Michael D. Palage
Subject: WLS on ICANN's agenda



Will Mike Palage provide us some in site as to the board's negotiations with
Verisign regarding WLS?

I hope that mike still has some ties to Registrars enough to clue us in on
what transpires next week.

see http://www.icann.org/minutes/

   Proposed Agenda:
     ...
      o WLS Negotiations with VeriSign


-rick