[ga] Compiled WLS Questions
[The list has been sent to VeriSign Global Registry Services]
Compilation of questions from the DNSO General Assembly
about the proposed Waiting List Service for domain names
Registry load issues
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. Why has Verisign refused to implement various technical fixes to
reduce registry load issues, including "rate-limiting" technology and
"extended response codes"?
3. When does VGRS plan to solve her problems; the increased load on VGRS
systems, as mentioned in Montevideo, Uraguay in September 2001.
4. 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?
5. Can Verisign (registry) assure the community that registrars
offering this service on a world-wide basis are not going to face
legal problems? In an earlier message (*) sent to the registrars'
list, Jim Archer raises some questions on this, arguing that
offering WLS subscriptions may be considered commodity trading. If
such problems exist even in some (possibly obscure) jurisdictions,
this would introduce an unfair national bias into the system.
6. 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
7. On what (contractual) grounds does VGRS propose the WLS, instead of
letting this part of the markt be a free operating system?
Where does VGRS base the sale of WLS upon, considering that it is her
contractual duty to return domains to the pool after 45 days, in which
there would be nothing to sell
8. When does VGRS propose to settle with ICANN on a delete agreement pursuant
to 3.7.5 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA).
9. Does this WLS not constitute a seperate contract between ICANN and VGRS
and as such, should an open "bid" period to allow other to "bid" for a
likewise system not be entertained?
Prices, payment and costs
10.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)
11.What besides "willingness of the market" is the base for the extremely
high price of WLS? When will VGRS deliver a cost-based analyses to all
constituencies to determine a "fair" price for such services, if they
should be started?
12.How does the WLS system handle credit-card chargebacks by
registrants (and the associated chargeback fees) who fail to acquire a
13.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?
Test success criteria
14.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?
15.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
16.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)
17. 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"? (As of this writing,
the Hot 100 list on SnapNames' website is apparently no longer
available, although the mirror is available)
18.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?
19.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
20.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
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
21.a) Will the WHOIS information for the WLS subscription holder be
b) If not, why not?
22.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
23.Will WLS subscriptions be refused on names that expire after the
end of the WLS subscription?
24.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?
25.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
26.How does VGRS respond to the fact that WLS will put a number of operators
in a likewise service based on free market principles out of business?
27.Will the process of BULK deletion remain in place?
28.Verisign has not had a batch deletion in about 4 weeks. Have batch
deletions been suspended pending the resolution of the WLS proposal?
This list has been compiled from questions asked by members of the
DNSO General Assembly list.
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