DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 20:24:40 -0500 , "Gomes, Chuck"
<cgomes@verisign.com> 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.  

As one of those involved in moving .nz towards a registry using the
SRS model I have some idea of the costs also of registries.

I presume that Verisign manage to make at least a small margin from
the $250 million or so per annum you receive from registry fees at
$6/name.  So lets presume the cost of providing the registry is less
than $6/name.

>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.

I'm not sure there is a great need for any huge technology is there?
At the moment entries in the register have around a dozen fields -
registrant, registrar, registrar URL, expiry date and name servers
IIRC.  Surely to implement this scheme all one needs to do is provide
for two extra fields being waiting registrant name and waiting
registrar name.  Registrars that wish to use the service will using
normal transactions place an entry in the waiting fields and mange the
relationship with the registrant to be.

This should be an extremely easy change to make I would have thought.

>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 am actually quite a fan of random allocation amongst those who have
registered an interest in a name.  Fair to everyone.

>I agree that WLS subsribers should only interface with registrars.  That
>is what is proposed.

Good - that is important. 


ICQ 29964527
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>