Re: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: WLS proposal

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

John and all assembly members,

John Berryhill wrote:

> > I don't care about "average registrants" seeking to register the
> > domain, but it does make sense to create a system that (a) protects the
> > original domain holder if a mistake was made,
>
> That is not a function of WLS as proposed.

  Exactly right.  And because this is true, it seems rather odd in the extreme
that so much discussion regarding WLS around these lines is being
put forth...

>  The last person anyone on the
> WLS wants to know about an expiring domain name is the registrant.

  Also exactly right here as well!  The WLS "Place Holder" doesn't give
a hoot in hell about who the original registrant is or was.  Nor does the
Registrar that is selling the WLS "Service?", even if that original registrant
is one of their registrants.  Vicious circle here...

>  That, in
> fact, was my objection to registrar participation in SnapNames many moons
> ago - it provides an incentive for registrars to fail to notify their own
> registrants of domain expiration.
>
> Grace period or not, mistakes will continue to be made.  How many people
> look at the grace period of various of their bills as constituting the
> "real" deadline.  I, for one, do.

  I do as well, but than again I am likely a bit out of the norm in this area..
>;)

>  In my case, failure to obtain a dial tone
> is the usual method by which I am apprised of the amount and deadline of my
> telephone bill.  That's just me, but I am surely representative of some
> population of domain name registrants.
>
> Oops, no cable TV tonight...

  ROFLMAO!  Well there is always Satellite!  >;)

>
>
> > (b) does't require
> > people to
> > speed dial to "win" the expired domains,
>
> That's right, with WLS as proposed, the race is to get on the WLS.  Same
> race, different finish line.
>
> http://www.dnso.com/comics/2002/Apr/3/
>
> > If there is going to be a
> > bidding system
> > going on, they can bid directly with the old domain holder,
> > rather than with
> > the registrars.
>
> Why is it preferable to have the old domain holder conduct an auction, as
> opposed to the registrars, or anyone else.  Why does a technical
> coordination system care who gets paid the same money?  The question is, is
> something broken and in need of fixing?
>
> > Giving domains to those who are good at "being
> > first" when
> > domains expire seems a bit weird to me,
>
> RFC1591 may be weird, but it remains RFC1591.
>
> >  A brief period to express interest followed by
> > a lottery
> > allows people to get a good night's sleep.
>
> That's more or less what is going on now - nobody knows who is going to get
> an expiring domain names, and everyone who wants one takes their chances
> with one system or another.
>
> >     Well, if it comes to that, who cares?
>
> Whatever it comes to, it will come to another set of rules upon which clever
> people will construct clever strategies.  The only difference is that all of
> the money will go into one pocket instead of several.  That much is a
> certainty.
>
> Sort of like the byzantine rules for .museum names, which prudently allocate
> swiss.frog.museum to the Swiss Frog Museum, rather than
> frog.swiss.museum....
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
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 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