DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [ga] For those interested in delete games


--- Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com> wrote:
> Agreeing with Williams' premise and agreeing with his conclusion,
> are two desperately different matters and Mr. Kirikos you seem
> to agree with his premise but also agree that we need distinct
> policy to correct VRSNs' ability not to implement reasonable
> procedures. Demanding that it is only a technical problem
> does not get us closer to a resolution.

It appears you didn't read my post in full (the first section alone was
on technical; perhaps I should have broken it into 2 emails). I did
answer Rick's request as to requirements of an alternative system to
replace what we have now with 4 requirements. I repeat them below for
your convenience:

> > If Verisign was somehow able to pass the above "sniff" test, that
> there
> > is a true technical problem, I think a few requirements (not
> > exhaustive, as some requirements would require more reflection):
> >
> > 1) Equal opportunity be preserved to allow any registrar to acquire
> a
> > deleted name, using any business model of the registrar's choosing
> (and
> > not one forced upon them by Verisign registry, either explicitly or
> > implicitly). No current business model that is in place (I've
> mentioned
> > 8 groups of existing competitors to SnapNames that use a variety of
> > business models) must be forcibly required to change their business
> > model, unless it can be proven that they have caused the abuse
> through
> > their choice of business models.
> >
> > 2) Registrants should continue to have the ability to register an
> > expired name at a registrar's normal price for a brand new
> registration
> > for ALL deleted names (including 'premium' ones). Remember, even
> those
> > registrars using automated processes are permitted to do so only in
> the
> > batch pool, not in the normal or overflow connection pools. Simple
> > registrants who happen to "time it right" can still hold out a
> > possibility of getting a name at the normal price of a brand new
> > registration (which means under $15 from most Verisign
> competitors).
> > Thus, no "Verisign surtax" for any name that was previously
> registered,
> > as compared to a brand new registration, even so called "premium
> > names". Verisign might own .tv with their graduated pricing scheme,
> but
> > they don't own .com/net, yet.
> >
> > 3) Any system should not grandfather any entity's perceived
> "ownership"
> > of a name -- it doesn't belong to the registry, and it doesn't
> belong
> > to the registrars, and it doesn't belong to some SnapBack holder
> who
> > bought a SnapBack six months ago on a name.
> >
> > 4) Any new system should be whole hog, not a "test bed" that folks
> want
> > to tinker with and re-adapt. If you want to run a "test-bed", for
> proof
> > of concept, it can be run on dot-net or dot-org.
> >
> > Those are a few starters. Hopefully others agree that they are
> > reasonable requirements, as otherwise any new system would give
> people
> > fewer options than is available now.
> >
> > Someone in another post wondered if the "Status Quo Proposal" was
> > intended in jest -- it was not. I think if "Status Quo" was deemed
> to
> > be unacceptable for whatever reason, that the WLS Proposal (which
> gives
> > a monopoly to the registry) and the "Afternic auction proposal"
> (which
> > gives a monopoly to a cartel of registrars) have as much basis in
> > reality and fairness as the "Let's make George Kirikos a
> > Multi-Millionaire" proposal", which gives a monopoly to a single
> modest
> > and benevolent registrant. Since ICANN is supposed to be looking
> after
> > the interests of registrants, I assume they'll pick Proposal #4
> from
> > the current menu.


George Kirikos

P.S. I'm not on the ICANN-DELETE mailing list, so if never arrives
there, someone should forward it. I think that mailing list was
restricted, so I can't read replies....

Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
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 >>>