RE: [ga] For those interested in delete games
According to feedback I have seen so far, there are registrars who
oppose the WLS proposal and those who favor it. I expect to receive
feedback from the Registrar Constituency by 18 January or shortly
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:10 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: [ga]
> Subject: Re: [ga] For those interested in delete games
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:43:43 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
> > Verisign is instead trying to use the existence of a
> fictional problem
> > to justify creating a new program that will make up for the
> > loss of market share that their Registrar has experienced
> in the last
> > 2 years and create a completely new profit center for them.
> According to Roberto Gaetano, Chuck Gomes wrote:
> > Since 1996, there have been potential domain name holders who have
> > requested some sort of wait list service in case domain names are
> > released into the available pool. The service at the
> registrar level
> > was a response to this demand. Putting the service at the registry
> > level improves the value of the service for potential registrants.
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 20:11:12 -0500, Chuck Gomes wrote:
> > Please help me understand your conclusion. It clearly does
> not follow
> > from what I said. Even under this proposed service, the
> registrar is
> > extremely important. It is the registrar that is the
> direct interface
> > with the customer, that provides the customer service, that
> markets the
> > service, etc.
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 21:18:08 -0500, Chuck Gomes wrote:
> > There is and will continue to be clear separation between
> the VeriSign
> > Registry and VeriSign Registrar regardless of how much people refuse
> > to believe it.
> Hi Chuck
> You are saying that there is a clear distinction between the
> registry and
> registrar operations. At the same time, you are saying that
> a decision was
> made to provide this new service at the registry level rather
> than that of the
> registrar, ok?
> So let's see if I have got this right. The assumption is that if the
> registrar were completely detached from the registry, the
> registrar would be
> happy for the registry to generate income from this new
> business opportunity.
> Which implies that OTHER registrars (i.e. other than
> VeriSign) support the
> However, William X. Walsh seems to be suggesting that the reason the
> proposal is being introduced relates, in some way, to the
> Verisign registrar's
> decline in market share with respect to renewed domain names.
> In other words, if the majority of registrars agree that the
> function of
> reserving domain names prior to their deletion should be
> performed by the
> registry then it would seem to be a sound proposition objectively.
> Could you advise me, please, whether you have any indication
> that other
> ICANN-accredited registrars are, in fact, supportive of
> VeriSign's initiative?
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss