RE: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
At 2:48 PM -0500 1/5/02, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>The fact is that this service offered at the registrar level can never
>be as effective as the same service would be at the registry level. So
>if you want the best service for the ultimate customers, it must be done
>at the registry level. The alternative is an inferior service for the
The registry is a monopoly, which is why its services are (supposedly)
defined and controlled by ICANN.
Why has this extra level been developed with no consensus, no opportunity
for inout from affected parties, and weird extra's like a licensing of some
unknown snapnames technology.
I thought new protocols came to us via the IETF?
>From what I understand of the registry system, no client data is stored on
it other than the sponsoring registrar and name server info.
Why then, is this new verisign system built as a seperate database? surely
the obvious thing to do here is add just ONE MORE field to the current
registry database - an entry detailing the registrar who holds the current
"reservation" for this name. That, along with a few extra functions added
to the current registrar-registry interface, would allow Verisign to offer
a reservation system at the same price as their current registration cost.
This would benefit Verisign, as (from what they've told us - if they're to
be believed) the big problem with the current system is the server load
involved. The above simple change would reduce server load dramatically,
and so there would be no need for charging a higher price than $6 wholesale.
A reservation costs $6 wholesale (and the registry simply places the
sponsoring registrar's code in the reservation field of that domain). And
the registrars are left to develop registration interfaces, etc and set
their own retail price for the service.
Why is the wholesale price going to be so high? It's not due to the
technical requirements - very little involved there. How much is Snapnames
being paid per reservation? Why?
Then again, if the current SRS isn't coping, let's fix the problems with
the current system (probably very easily done if the right people are told
exactly what the problem is, instead of it being hidden under Verisign
marketspeak), rather than bring in a new, biased, system which lines the
pockets of a number of private companies, to the detriment of registrants.
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html