DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[ga] GA summary 2002-01.

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's discussions during 
the first week of 2002.  List archives are available online at 

Criticism and suggestions on how to improve this are welcome.


The election for the GA representative to the NC Transfer Task 
Force, began on Thursday 3 January 2002, and will end on Thursday 10 
January 2002.  The candidates are Dan Steinberg, Eric Dierker, and 
Jeff Williams.  Details on the vote are available from 

The call for endorsement for the election of the GA Chair and 
Alternate Chair closed on Friday, 04 January 2002.  The vote began 
Saturday 5 January 2002, and will end on 12 January 2002. The 
candidates are Kristy McKee, Thomas Roessler, Alexander Svensson, 
and Eric Dierker.  Details on the vote are available from 


(i) .org divestiture.  Jeff Williams forwarded a draft (version 5.2, 
 from Jan 4, 2002) of the Task Force's report on the .org divestiture 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03974.html>.  Marc 
Schneiders (the GA's representative to this task force) followed up, 
noting that it's not clear whether the draft posted is the final 
version, but that it was posted to the NCDNHC list.  He noted that 
he believes that the key points he stands for are "quite well 
represented in the text", and that he's happy with it. 

There was little discussion on this text.  It should, however, be 
noted that the .org divestiture TF is currently the subject of 
active discussions on the names council list, see various threads at 

(ii) Structure task force.  Dave P. Farrar (the GA representative to 
the DNSO Structure Task Force) provided a summary of options and 
discussions on the task force.  See 

(iii) UDRP task force:  The time line for the UDRP questionnaire has 
been extended until February 6. 

(iv) Deleted domain name handling.  On December 30, 2001, a PDF 
document circulated on the registrars constituency mailing list 
detailed plans on a waiting list service. 

The proposal goes like this (from Verisign's document): "WLS is a
service whereby potential registrants ('subscribers') through their
selected, participating registrar, may purchase a subscription tied
to a domain name currently registered. [...] All current processes
would remain unchanged with one exception.  A domain name
registration that is subscribed to on WLS will be registered to the
subscriber when the current domain name registration is deleted
through normal operational procedures.  Initially, a domain name
registration could only have one subscription pending at a time."

Note, in particular, that according to this proposal the registrar 
would still be the only one who does business with registrants 
directly.  This includes the process of fulfilling a subscription: 
When this process is done, the domain in question will be registered 
for the (now former) subscriber through the registrar which was used 
to place the subscription.

Pricing at the registrar level is at US $ 40 (wholesale) for a 
one-year subscription.

Feedback on the proposal is expected from the registrars' 
constituency by January 18, 2002.

To implement the proposal, Verisign has licensed technology from 

The proposal provoked ample, and sometimes heated, discussions on 
the GA list, which is still going on.

The discussion included fears that the deal may already be done 
(which was denied by Ross Rader "if the registrars have anything to 
do with it").  Ross also pointed to a message discussing the 
proposal which he sent to the registrars list 

Some (WX Walsh, DP Farrar) doubted that the proposal may have any 
benefit for the internet community as a whole, as opposed to 
Verisign's stakeholders.  To this, Chuck Gomes of Verisign responded 
that requests for a wait list service have been there since 1996. 

Bret Fausett noted that putting the service at the registry level 
would mean an improvement to registrants: You'd just buy one 
subscription through your favorite registrar, and you'd be 
guaranteed that you get a domain name if and when it lapses.  With a 
purely registrar-based system, you'd pay various services, and that 
just for improving the chance that you may get the domain when it's 

In a message forwarded by WXW from some other list (the registrars 
list?), George Kirikos elaborates on various points of criticism on 
the proposal. In particular, George asks why Verisign registry has 
not implemented any of the simple technical fixes proposed earlier. 
Suggestions include "rate-limiting connections, pushing out lists of 
candidate drop names, and returning richer error codes".  He also 
lists "numerous competing firms and registrars attempting to 
register expired domains, using the existing fair and transparent 
system" (besides Snapnames). 

In a follow-up, Chuck Gomes points out that "every registrar would 
have equal opportunity to participate or not participate".  George 
Kirikos replies that his problem is "leveraging the monopoly power 
of the registry, to enter a 'new business', which puts existing 
market participants out of business".

Finally, Ross Rader has forwarded an alternative proposal from the 
icann-deletes mailing list.  The proposal from Afternic.com, called 
Registry Re-circulation System, basically boils down to an auction 
of expired domain names during a finite amount of time after they 
have been dropped. 

Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
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 >>>