Re: [ga] For those interested in delete games
Fair enough I think I read your initial suggestion and skewed the rest
your post based upon that.
Now that I reread it in the light suggested I think I am very closely
aligned with your position.
Thank your for the extra energy that took. And thank you on behalf of
1 or 2 people who do not post but agree with us.
George Kirikos wrote:
> --- Eric Dierker <email@example.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 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