Dear Marc Schneiders,


I think your observation is itself very valuable and interesting.
But I want to be more practical. Regardless of whatever your thinking is,
now, our constituency should face the new PDP regarding "new registry
service". And it has something to do with how to regulate any kind of
value added or value destructive or value changing services in registry as
well as registrar. For me, it is somewhat unclear why such a different
classification would be so important at this moment. Because I think such
observations could be very diverse and maybe controversial depending on
viewpoints.

As you asked, I am also wondering how many and what kind of such services
could be available. Then, I think many unexpected possible services could
be available as we looked at such examples like WLS and wildcard services.
As Technical Advisory Committee pointed out, there are several best
practices and tacit promises regardless of standards in DNS. Therefore,
there must be many other possible additional services available although
we cannot guess it beforehand.

Now, focus is not Verisign and their wildcard service but how ICANN will
act in response to some future business actions of Registry/rars.

In Carthage workshop on wildcard service, I felt that wild card service is
not an easy challenge. Now, Technical Advisory Committee's official
position is that they are still analyzing that. And one other problem is
that at least 18 or more ccTLDs have already been using wildcard service.
If necessary, the accusation of wildcard service and Versign should be
separately raised and discussed. Anyway, in my thinking, Council
discussion is not directly challenging Verisign but dealing with ICANN's
reguation issue.


regards,

Chun


On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, at 14:32 [=GMT+0800], Horacio T. Cadiz wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >
> > > It is not that I refuse to see the point. What I refuse is to be
> > > tricked into agreeing to a set of leading questions (in lieu of a
> > > proper problem description), based on an incident that has only
> > > vaguely to do with the issue of the PDP. The conclusion of the whole
> > > thing should be that Verisign tricked us into a topic that has nothing
> > > to do with Sitefinder, because it is _not_ a new service, but an abuse
> > > of an old service.
> > >
> > > This whole text is of the level of "Why did you beat your wife?".
> >
> >    I agree with Marc here that ICANN seems to be justifying a new set of
> > services based on an erroneous issue.
> >
> >    A question for Marc though.  Even if Sitefinder is *NOT* a new service,
> > shouldn't we still be talking about how new services should be phased in?
>
> What are "new services"? The Waiting List Service (or whatever it is
> called now) of Verisign certainly was. Why do we not start from
> evaluating the way that was dealt with by ICANN?
>
> I am not looking for a definition of "new services". But some more
> examples. Are there that many we can think of? Are there that many the
> registries can think of? Is the level where new services are supposed
> to be offered the registRAR level?
>

--
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82)  2-2166-2205
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   [log in to unmask]
------------------------------------------------------------