WLS it ISN'T !

[Cartoonz]

Gonna be tough for it to live through this:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/doc00025.doc

 

[cheetah]

You Forget Who You dealing With !

 

All this really means is ICANN will most likely not approve WLS, and Verisign will go through with it anyway, as they have stated over and over again that they don't believe they need ICANN approval to go forward anyway.

It will be interesting to see if ICANN really has any teeth.

-t

 

[Nic]

Originally posted by thewitt
All this really means is ICANN will most likely not approve WLS, and Verisign will go through with it anyway, as they have stated over and over again that they don't believe they need ICANN approval to go forward anyway.

It will be interesting to see if ICANN really has any teeth.

-t

Who said they won't approve?
Aren't they the same people that gave verisign the .com and .net, exclusivity till infinity ?

 

[mole]

ICANN has already stated their unhappiness with rogue registrars misusing the RRP because of this obsession with name drops.

Yes, ICANN should show their teeth, by approving WLS.

 

Originally posted by mole
ICANN has already stated their unhappiness with rogue registrars misusing the RRP because of this obsession with name drops.

Can you show me this ICANN disapproval? I've been following ICANN's comments on WLS very closely, and I've missed this position entirely. The only ones I've seen complaining about supposed misuse of their registry connections are domain speculators, Verisign before they implemented bandwidth throttling and other WLS service providers who are losing to the guys who grab names better than they do.

I don't believe there is any misuse of the RRP going on at this time - and I certainly can't see any formal ICANN comment on this issue.

-t

 

[mole]

Originally posted by thewitt

Can you show me this ICANN disapproval? I've been following ICANN's comments on WLS very closely, and I've missed this position entirely. The only ones I've seen complaining about supposed misuse of their registry connections are domain speculators, Verisign before they implemented bandwidth throttling and other WLS service providers who are losing to the guys who grab names better than they do.

I don't believe there is any misuse of the RRP going on at this time - and I certainly can't see any formal ICANN comment on this issue.

-t

http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-12feb02.htm

 

This is not ICANN disapproval of a registrar using the RRP to pick up dropped names, this is ICANN bringing to light a contractual violation where a registrar gave RRP access to a third party.

There is nothing wrong with a registrar using the RRP to pick up droppding domains.

You need to be clear here - this registrar was in clear violation of his RAA by letting a third party use his RRP access directly. This is NOT the same as a licensed registrar using the RRP to pick up dropped domains for his customers.

-t

 

[mole]

I don't know legalise, but as a layman, it is clear that rogue registrars have been selling their RRP access to "parties" that can "offer" the right price. I would have done the very same thing if I needed.

 

Mole,

Any registrars who do so risk losing their accrediation. There have been some past issues with this, but it's not a common practice, and is now closely watched after the few violations 6 months ago.

It has nothing to do with why Snapnames is being beaten by a bona-fide ICANN accredited registrar.

-t

 

[Drewbert]

>This is not ICANN disapproval of a registrar using the RRP to pick up
>dropped names, this is ICANN bringing to light a contractual violation where
>a registrar gave RRP access to a third party.

Exactly. And that third party was actually SnapNames. :^)