RE: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

["Jeff Field" <jfield@aaaq.com>]

<--snip-->
>   I have to agree with Don here.  Neither Snapnames nor Verisign have
> a solution of the table that solves the delete problem in it's entirety.
> In fact WLS does not even solve the load problem as it is touted
> to do.
<--snip-->

Just a quick comment from the lurker's gallery...

IMHO, the delete/load problem will absolutely vanish if WLS is implemented.
Why?  Because all names of any substantial value will always have
subscriptions, all names of lesser value that get near or go past their
expiration date will soon get subscribed (on a rolling basis), and names
that have no value at all will just go away.  IOW, any name in the registry
worth anything to a speculator or otherwise will be registered by utilizing
WLS, not by snagging it at mass delete time.  The only names that will be
mass deleted will be names that have no value.  And, if the names being
deleted have no value, it would naturally follow that no one will be hitting
the registry to register those names.  And, if no one is hitting the
registry at mass delete time, well, there goes the load on the registry and,
there also goes the delete problem.

Am I missing something here?  BTW, the above is simply a comment, not an
endorsement either for or against WLS.

Best regards,

Jeff

--
jeff field
952-848-7626
952-848-7627 fax
jfield@aaaq.com <mailto:jfield@aaaq.com>
-----

--
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