Re: [ga] Twenty Questions for Verisign about the WLS
George and all assembly members,
These are very good questions that need to be answered by
Verisign as well as the ICANN BoD and staff. Well done George! >:)
George Kirikos wrote:
> I've gone through the discussions of the past month carefully and tried
> to come up with a set of questions for Verisign. Feel free to consider
> adding them to the DNSO GA, Registrars, or other constituency questions
> (I think the more a question is repeated, the greater difficult
> Verisign will face in refusing to provide answers). Many will recognize
> these questions from before, although there are a few new ones that
> I've not seen posted elsewhere. Apologies if you receive this email
> more than once.
> Let's play 20 questions:
> 1. CIRA, the registry for dot-ca, was able to manage 100-times
> scalability when it released expired names recently for re-registration
> (see http://www.cira.ca/news-releases/63.html ). Given that this
> non-profit registry did not require a wait-list system, nor a
> surcharge, what are the technical flaws in Verisign systems that
> prevent a similar system as CIRA?
> 2. a) What are the success criteria that Verisign/ICANN intend to use
> at the end of the 1-year WLS testing period (these should be specified
> ex-ante, not ex-post)?
> b) Do those criteria take into account the existing competitive
> landscape that exists in the market?
> c) If so, what market measurements has Verisign/ICANN made of the
> current competitive landscape (NameWinner, eNom, AWRegistry,
> ExpireFish, SnapNames, NicGenie, IARegistry, Signature Domains, and
> other competitors), to serve as the basis for a comparison?
> d) Under what metrics will the WLS test be considered a failure?
> 3. At: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00081.html Chuck
> Gomes wrote "The value to the Internet community therefore seems rather
> obvious to me. But, if there is none as you suggest, then the service
> will be a failure. On the other hand, if there is demand and hence
> value, it will succeed. The level of success will depend on how much
> demand and value there is. The best way to test it is to let the
> market prove it one way or other."
> There currently exists a competitive market in the automotive industry
> (as there is for the expired domain names industry). If it was replaced
> by a single monopolistic seller for a 1-year test period, cars would
> undoubtedly still be bought, as there is a intrinsic demand for cars
> themselves. How does Verisign/ICANN intend to differentiate the demand
> for WLS from the demand for the expired names themselves, when there
> would be no alternative mechanism for securing those expired names for
> which there is a basic demand already that is being satisfied in the
> 4. If the WLS is deemed to be illegal (due to anti-trust law, and/or
> relevant Commodity Futures law), will Verisign/ICANN indemnify affected
> resellers, registrants and other market participants from all
> liability, legal costs, and implementation costs associated with the
> 1-year test?
> 5. a) How much is Snapnames being paid per reservation? Why?
> b) What are the relevant patent-pending registration numbers for any
> intellectual property that is involved in the creation of the WLS, in
> particular the "Parallel Registry" technology?
> 6. What is the definition of "abusive speculation"? In particular, do
> any of the 55 examples from the SnapNames Hot 100 referenced at:
> constitute "abusive speculation"? (I will note that as of this writing,
> the Hot 100 list on SnapNames' website is apparently no longer
> available, although the mirror is available)
> 7. Why has Verisign refused to implement various technical fixes to
> reduce registry load issues, including "rate-limiting" technology and
> "extended response codes"?
> 8. a) What is Verisign's proposed wholesale price for a variant of WLS
> with zero (0) exchanges?
> b) What are Verisign's proposed wholesale prices for a variant of
> WLS with a two-stage mechanism, where the WLS holder is charged $X for
> their place in queue, and then and additional $Y if and only if the
> domain is deleted, with no exchanges? (i.e. tell us X and Y)
> 9. a) Verisign has highlighted that there are 80-100 million domain
> "checks" per day. What is the number of checks per day on average,
> broken down by each of the accredited registrars?
> b) Which of the above registrars are performing these checks on
> behalf of SnapNames?
> 10. Has Verisign considered implementing a 1-year test on the dot-TV
> and dot-CC TLDs, instead of on dot-COM and dot-NET? Why wouldn't a test
> on those two TLDs suffice, if it's merely a "test"? (rationale: a test
> on dot-TV and dot-CC would not impact the existing competitive deleted
> domains industry, and would also provide the further advantage of
> comparison between the two alternative markets on the same time-scale)
> 11. a) Will existing holders of SnapNames SnapBacks be grandfathered
> into the WLS?
> b) If not, what are the proposed Sunrise and Landrush mechanisms
> for the WLS?
> 12. Since WLS subscriptions purchased in the final month of the "test"
> will continue be honoured, doesn't this mean that the impact of this
> "test" on the deleted domains market will be for 2 years and not merely
> 1 year?
> 13. a) Under what metrics does Verisign plan to decide that there is a
> stakeholders "consensus" for bringing forth this proposal to ICANN? In
> particular, what level and nature of opposition must exist to abandon
> the proposal?
> b) Under what conditions do counter-proposals by other stakeholders
> receive attention as viable alternatives to WLS?
> c) Why is the "Status Quo" proposal not an option? (it seems to
> have greater support and consensus at this time than the WLS) If it has
> greater support than the WLS, why is the "Status Quo" not the best
> 14. Verisign has not had a batch deletion in about 4 weeks. Have batch
> deletions been suspended pending the resolution of the WLS proposal?
> 15. a) Will the WHOIS information for the WLS subscription holder be
> made public?
> b) If not, why not?
> 16. a) If a name is deleted "in error", does it go back to the original
> b) What are the exact conditions that constitute a deletion "in
> 17. Will WLS subscriptions be refused on names that expire after the
> end of the WLS subscription?
> 18. How does the WLS system handle credit-card chargebacks by
> registrants (and the associated chargeback fees) who fail to acquire a
> 19. How will WLS enhance competition and innovation in the deleted
> domain industry, when it will reduce the number of available business
> models that presently exist in the marketplace?
> 20. Which of the existing business models that are active in the
> deleted domains market (eNom, SnapNames, NameWinner, NicGenie,
> Signature Domains, IARegistry, AWRegistry, ExpireFish, and others) are
> inappropriate and/or violations of their respective registrar
> George Kirikos
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html