Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
It seems to me that even for $ 6 Verisign is still unable to deliver a
quality way of keeping a registry.
This new proposal is a way of making lots more money, on a service they are
not allowed to handle and should not be allowed to handle.
The registry's duty is to register -eof-
There are several technical ways of solving the current so-called problems,
if there are any at all that have not rooted from the brains of Verisign.
The current proposal ignores other proposals on the table to solve the
problem, even though far more ppl were supporting that, nad is nothing but a
new contract enhancement for Verisign, and a great way of getting yet again
more control over the registry.
And what are they in the end proposing: to finally clean up their mess, make
the whois a usable instrument and then let ppl pay to be next in line IF the
Of course if a domain has 5 years to go and you want to be sure that you are
on top of that list (or the only one as the proposal is now, but undoubtedly
that will be the next step) you will have to pay 5 years wortth of
Isn't is far easier, (if the whois was working adequately) to approach an
owner of said domain and start negotiations ?
So summarizing, the registry fails in her task in several ways.
one way is the lack of a decent registry searchable via whois.
This failure now opens a great business opportunity for the registry namely
the getting it working again (whois) and then sell to anyone who thinks he
can buy video.com when and if it ever drops, should keep some people
re-subscribingt for eternity i would think.
It lacks any substance of reason for the proposal other then making money for
It contains no safeguards against far business, certainly not in theproposed
partnership with a registrar (registrar like) company.
It lack business sense as that the software is licensed, and as such there is
no safeguard on continuity, Snapnames has not been around long enough to make
this an assumption.
The registry is just that, a registry, supposedly under control of ICANN, not
a business entity.
It is hard to keep a division anyway while doing both (registry and
registrar) and the amount of names nor dropped in an appropriate way would in
any other business or even government been reason for long and deep
Thus far there has been little containment of the monoplist behaviour of
Verisign, agreeing with even one line in their current proposal would be
simply disastrous for the entire market and proof beyond a doubt that ICANN
has no longer any function and it's tasks are better done by Verisign.
The cost for such a service are not even a fraction of what verisign claims
and if Snapnames wants that much money for her license then i suggest
verisign contacts us, we will gladly write such a system in propriatry for
On Monday 07 January 2002 1:24 am, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> The suggestion of a $1-$2 price reminds me of those who claimed that a
> registry could be run for 50 cents a name. Knowing first hand what it
> costs to run a registry and do so in a quality way, I was always curious
> about what service would be provided by such a registry. In this
> particular case, we couldn't even come close to licensing the technology
> for such an amount, let alone integrate it into our systems.
> One of things I have learned is that processes need to be simple and
> well defined, minimizing the need for manual processes, to ensure that
> processes scale with increased volume. In light of this, I would like
> to know how you would envision more than one registrant competing for
> the same name.
> I agree that WLS subsribers should only interface with registrars. That
> is what is proposed.
office +44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16
www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html