DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??


Please note my responses below.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:52 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Gomes, Chuck; 'abel@able-towers.com'; Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
> At 09:58 9/01/02, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >Joop,
> >
> >How would you answer the question I asked?  For a 
> re-registration of a
> >released name, is the permission of the previous registrant needed?
> Chuck,
> That answer was already given:
> Yes, under some circumstances, especially when the registry 
> has been put on 
> notice of TM rights, it would be strongly advisable for a 
> registrar or TLD 
> registry to seek that permission.
> Now how about answering the implied questions of my original point:
> Would you not like to see a feature incorporated in 
> Verisign's registration 
> database, that would read:
> DN Holder Permission for placing the Domain on a waiting list 
> obtained? (Y/N)  
I assume you mean VeriSign Registry's registration database.  If I am
correct in that assumption, then my answer would be no because it would
not make any sense in the thin registry model that we operate.  We do
not have any DN holder information.  Besides, I think has been clear in
other statements I have made, I disagree with your argument that the
previous registrant should have any say as to whether a new registrant
should get the name once it is released.

> DN Holder Permission for re-registration to third party 
> obtained (Y/N) ?
No. Same reasoning as above.

> If I were a new Registrant of a another's deleted Name, I 
> would certainly 
> appreciate such information.
In some cases that might be true.  If your motivation here is to lesson
the chances of inadvertant deletions, in our proposal we suggested a
Registry hold period before names are actually deleted or before they
would be registered to a wait list holder.

> Do you not think registrars should compete with such 
> registrant-friendly 
> features that would enhance the secure holding of the Name?

Sure.  I think registrars should differentiate their services freely and
thereby give consumers lots of choices.

> Finally, (but you don't have to answer this one) do you not 
> think that the 
> shareholders in your company would applaud an active attempt 
> by VRSN to do 
> something about its image?

Image is of course very important and I think every company always wants
to manage its image.  And we are no exception.  But I can tell you that
the image held by people on this list is absolutely not representative
of VeriSign's image elsewhere.  As I have traveled around the world, I
have found that VeriSign's image is very good.  That of course doesn't
mean it can't be improved.  With regard to registry services, what we
offer is unparalleled in terms of quality and reliability.  People of
course focus on problems that occur rather than successes; that I guess
is human nature.  But when you look at those in terms of the total
volume of business we do and the total number of customers supported,
they really make up a very small percentage of the total picture.  At
the same time I can assure you that work is being done to make that
percentage smaller still.

> --Joop


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