Re: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:53:53 -0500

[Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

George Kirikos wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
> >We asked for feedback on the proposal.  We have received a lot, in
> > particular with regard to the price, and we are taking a new look at
> the
> > economics.  Regardless of whether it makes a significant dent in the
> > load issue or not, I personally believe it would be a valuable
> service
> > for consumers.  Rather than continuing to argue that point, it seems
> > like it would be really useful to give it a 12-month test where
> > registrars and registries and other interested parties can find out
> in
> > real time.
> 
> I think it was much more than price that was wrong about the WLS. I
> don't think you can simply tweak that, and expect "WLS II" to fly. 

Well, it seems like that is exactly what is being
attempted.


The
> main reason that WLS was put forth by Verisign in the first place was
> to solve the "load issue". Now trying to argue that "it would be a
> valuable service for consumers" seems beyond the scope of Verisign
> registry -- it seems beyond the scope of their role as the simple
> managers of a database. 

This seems to be clear to just about everyone everyone but
the Verisign representative.

Innovation should take place at the registrar
> level, where there is a competitive landscape. And, if you've noticed,
> that competition already exists (NameWinner, NicGenie.com, SnapNames,
> eNom Drop club, IAregistry, AWregistry, ExpireFish and all the other
> competitors mentioned before). It's out of place for Verisign registry
> to interfere in that market.

Verisign is not just a registry and no matter how often
they keep repeating their mantra of "the registry and
registrar businesses are separate", the truth is that they
are still one and the same business: VERISIGN.  Verisign
appears to be suffering from a split personality of sorts
and appears to be confused about their role(s) in the
marketplace.  

> 
> Since Verisign owns .cc and .tv, I propose that should it wish to run a
> WLS test for a year, it run it on those two registries. It can report
> back to the community in a year, and let us know whether the test was
> "successful". One should specify in advance what is considered to be a
> "success" (i.e. pre-specify the metrics that are used to determine
> whether results meet goals). I'm 100% confident that the SnapNames
> people can adapt their technology to the .cc and .tv registries, and
> propose that they direct their energies in that direction. I look
> forward to reading your report in 2003.

COM is the only TLD people will line up for, so Verisign
has its sights fixed on the most lucrative market.  Funny
thing is, there is no value in an after market if a name
is not already registered.  For, as Abel Wisman pointed
out, the registrant creates the value in a name, and
Verisign wants to capitalize on already existing domains
without providing any tangible or real value for their
proposed waiting list service patrons.  In the real world,
when someone sells the rights to something they have no
right to sell, the practice is called fraud. 

-- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
--
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