Re: [ga] Versign GRS Final Feedback for Wait Listing ServiceProposal

[Abel Wisman <abel@able-towers.com>]

For an OpenSRS reseller you are sure selling for some strange entities:

http://www.firstplace.com/cgi-bin/dir.cgi?&passurl=/Computers/Internet/Domain_Names/

good thing VGRS will only consider answers from GROUPS :)

abel


On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 23:45, FirstPlace.com wrote:
>  
> To: support@snapnames.com, info@snapnames.com, wls@verisign.com, cgomes@verisign.com, ga@dnso.org, Ron@Snapnames.com, CameronP@Snapnames.com, MasonC@Snapnames.com
> 
>  
> 
> From:  FirstPlace.com®, Your FirstPlace on the Internet®
> 
> Date:  2/29/02
> 
> Subject:  Versign GRS Final Feedback for Wait Listing Service Proposal
> 
>  
> 
> {FirstPlace.com® is a certified OpenSRS reseller, very interested in the most equitable distribution and release of expired domain names.  As an OpenSRS s reseller, we have registered and transferred hundreds of TLD domain names for many clients.  We are a formally incorporated company in the state of Florida and operate among a group of approximately one dozen personnel.  Our company forges business relationships in a variety of fields including domain registration, website development, intellectual property protection matters, and affiliate networks.  We have been proudly serving the Internet community since 1995 with a choice of quality search engines and high-quality affiliate members}.
> 
>  
> 
> We compliment VeriSign GRS for its determined effort to forge a manual, fair and objective method for disseminating expired domain names.  The philosophical concept for the Wait Listing Service (WLS), based upon the licensed SnapNames® patented technology, is a terrific development for equitable distribution of expired domain names.  VeriSign GRS is to be commended for its quest for clarity and equity in this effort.
> 
> We have read the latest published White Paper from VeriSign GRS, titled:  "VeriSign GRS Responses to Domain Name Wait Listing Service Questions", dated February 15, 2002.  The document appears to outline an objective, clearly understood means to fairly register expiring .com and .net domain names.  
> 
> We have little objection to most of the VeriSign GRS positions in this February 15, 2002 publication.  However, the VeriSign GRS Proposal question #18, bullet item #3 is contrary to the interests of both VeriSign GRS and the large, non-speculating domain name community.  Bullet item #3 on question #18 requires immediate remedy.  As currently written, question #18, bullet #3 in the Proposal will be grossly unfair to existing Snapback® subscription holders, and will cede power to the technologically sophisticated speculating Registrars, who will be very encouraged to engage in the same speculative scripting abuse that dominates the expiring domain process today.  Bullet #3 in question #18 in the VeriSign GRS Proposal states:
> 
> "To ensure that no provider of aftermarket domain name services, including SnapNames®, has any advantage in obtaining WLS subscriptions as they are returned to availability, the status updates on availability would pre processed by VGRS in batches, at random times, within 48 hours of the termination of a Snapback® subscription".
> 
> Our very reliable and informed sources reveal several Registrars, including some Asian Registrars, are already preparing an aggressive scripting assault of the new WLS system to lay siege to newly released Snapback® subscriptions the millisecond they become available to the WLS.  Clearly, the proposed 48-hour random release timeframe for newly released Snapback® subscriptions invites and encourages unsavory Registrars to engage in gross, continuous 24/7 scripting abuse of the new WLS system.  These unscrupulous Registrars are seeking to script-blitz the new WLS in attempts to seize unsuspecting Snapback® subscribers who would, in good-faith, release their Snapback® subscriptions in order to place a new WLS subscription.  A VeriSign GRS hope that unscrupulous and speculating Registrars will refrain from such familiar and unsavory activity would be tragically naļve.  Offending Registrars have shown no regard for operating within proper guidelines in the past, and they should not be expected to behave now, especially given this clear opportunity for mischief. 
> 
> Within Section A of  "VeriSign GRS Responses to Domain Name Wait Listing Service Questions", answer to question #2, the VeriSign GRS position on scripting and competition is clearly stated:  
> 
> "We have proposed a first-come, first served policy with regard to the WLS as well, and believe that the WLS provides all registrars with an equivalent chance to serve their customer on a first-come, first served basis.  This is preferable to the way registrations of just-deleted names are currently happening, where those who a have elaborate automated systems have the best chance and the average end-user/registrant is left with uncertainty and a lower probability of success".
> 
> The VeriSign GRS unambiguous opposition to 'automated systems' is clear.  Given the unscrupulous Registrars' inevitable, and previously-demonstrated designs to aggressively script a new WLS for newly released Snapback® subscriptions, VeriSign GRS can preempt a tragic, automated scripting scenario with a very minor altering of the VeriSign GRS Proposal. Under question #18, 'Grand Fathering', VGRS can maintain bullet items #1 and #2 but change bullet #3 to communicate the following important alternative: 
> 
> The Snapback® subscriber may opt to convert his/her Snapback® subscription to a new WLS subscription within the first 10 days after the launch of the WLS system.  The Snapback® subscriber will, in effect, be afforded an opportunity of first refusal to convert his/her Snapback® subscription and purchase a new WLS subscription with the registrar of their choice. 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> {Rational:  VeriSign GRS states that 'relatively few' and 'minimal' Snapback® subscriptions will exist at the WLS launch date.  Thus, the Registrars logically should not be concerned with such a trivially 'minimal' number of remaining Snapback® subscriptions.  Given the Snapback® holder's certain vulnerability to losing a newly released Snapback® subscription to unscrupulous, automated scripting Registrars, the Snapback® subscription holder should most certainly be afforded the right of first refusal to manually convert his/her Snapback® subscription into a WLS purchased subscription, within a limited number of days after the WLS launch.  After all, every Snapback® subscription was purchased and placed under a First Come First Served policy-exactly the same policy VeriSign now endorses for its WLS.  This way, the unsavory and unscrupulous Registrars' ambitions to create powerful automated scripts for the new WLS would be preempted.  Moreover, the Registrars will profit on the SnapNames®-to-WLS subscription purchase conversion.    
> 
> Since VeriSign GRS states that a 'relatively few' and 'minimal' amount of Snapback® subscriptions will exist at the WLS launch time, this 'minimal' amount of remaining Snapback® subscription conversions should not meet with resistance from the Registrars, especially in light of the fact the Registrars will profit from all converted Snapback® subscriptions to new WLS purchased subscriptions.  Further, since only a percentage of Snapback® subscribers will chose to convert their Snapback® subscription to a WLS purchased subscription (some may see the cost as too high, others may have lost interest, or otherwise neglected their Snapback® subscription), the resultant number of converted WLS subscriptions would be much less than a 'minimal' existing total.  This solution, beautiful, in its simplicity, is a win-win-win-win scenario for the Registrars, the Snapback® subscription holder, SnapNames® Inc, and the integrity of the new WLS system.
> 
> The successful and efficient SnapNames® Snapback® system was a fair and manual process, where automated scripting of the Snapback® system was neither necessary nor advantageous.  With a properly implemented WLS, a similar manual process can also flourish successfully if the existing Snapback® subscriber is afforded fair integration opportunity into the new WLS.  
> 
> Finally, the solution provided also allows SnapNames® to effectively manage messy refund issues and avoid multiple meritorious lawsuits sure to ensue given SnapNames'® stated promise to transfer Snapbacks® to the new WLS. (Reference SnapNames® Incident 020216-000707)}.
> 
> Thank you for inviting us to provide VeriSign GRS this most important solution.  The solution provided is a most equitable answer for ALL concerned parties' interests.  It would be an utter disaster to design and implement a new WLS system with the best intentions, only to have it savaged by the automated Registrars' speculative cottage industry.
> 
> We wish VeriSign GRS the best of luck with the launch of a truly fair, profitable, and manual-advantaged WLS system as the best vehicle to also satisfy the large, non-speculative domain name registrant community.  
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> FirstPlace.com®.  Your FirstPlace On The Internet®.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 


--
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