DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[registrars] Todays Call Notes


the notes from our call are attached, Mike Palage's are a word doc; mine
are a excel attachement and notes by Ross Rader are below.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
To: "Michael@Palage. Com" <michael@palage.com>
Cc: "Scott Allan" <sallan@tucows.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 5:36 PM
Subject: Call Notes

> Enjoy....
> VRSN: not present on call.
> AfterNIC: presented RRS.
> Allwest - Opposed to WLS, Opposed to AfterNIC.
> Enom - Opposed to WLS. So many things wrong that he doesn't know where to
> start. It removes differentiation amongst the registrars. Increases FUD
> amongst registrants (will tell registrants that it is an insurance
> It appeals to a limited market (the educated ones). Bottom of the barrel
> proposal (in relationship to the others presented). More comments on the
> list.
> GoDaddy - Oppose WLS. Will not participate at any price. Conflict of
> interest, even prior to this with the registry.registrar connection.
> scope of natural monopoly and limits registrar competition. Cost to
> is minimal, or it should be. Registrant protection not taken into account,
> it should be. Willing to take legal remedy. Possibly favor the MIT/Tucows
> proposal, but not prepared to fully support it without further
> CORE - Oppose WLS, echo other's comments specifically with regard to the
> ethical problems and the rights of the existing registrant. Tucows/MIT
> proposal seems to be better than the status quo, but more work and
> consultation is required.
> PSI - Concerned about lotteries, not taking a position on specific
> at this time. Abstaining "not confident to render a decision on a specific
> proposal".
> Register.com - WLS: Prices are too high. Margins will be razor thin.
> Concerns about moving further innovation into the registry thus increasing
> the scope of their monopoly. Speculator angle also causes some concern -
> guarantees of acquisition will promote technical gaming of the FCFS.
> Supports RRS.
> InterCosmos - Likes the concept of the WLS, does not like the price.
> REcognizes that SnapNames is in the corner if this proposal isn't
> Will likely offer it due to competitive concerns. Not a fan of auctions,
> therefore opposed to the RRS proposal. Doesn't like the status quo - 4 or
> registrars are soaking up all of the connections. The registry should give
> us more options. Opposed to the status quo. Abstain on the MIT/Tucows
> proposal. Opposed to WLS as it currently stands.
> DomainBank - Echos Intercosmos comments. WLS has a long way to go, but in
> theory it sounds like it may offer an even playing field. Opposed to WLS,
> RRS, status quo and abstain on the Tucows/MIT proposal.
> eMarkMonitor - Abstains on all proposals. Observations on WLS, would
> encourage a longer grace period, followed by notices to earlier registrant
> etc. Pricing is high. Probably opposed to RRS model.
> NSI-Registrar - Have not yet formalized comments on any proposal. Neither
> abstaining nor endorsing nor opposing.
> ActiveISP - Not part of business model, in a listening mode and abstaining
> on all proposals.
> MIT - There are two issues here - favors a technical solution to the
> technical problem and a business approach to the "new business proposal".
> VRSN has a requirement to provide minimum service levels and prices to
> registrars. Further work is required on the WLS proposal. Pricing is too
> high. Supports the WLS proposal, but only with modification. The technical
> problems still need to be resolved. The WLS proposal simply moves the
> problems around. Does not support the RRS proposal. Abstain on the
> Tucows/MIT proposal, oppose the status quo.
> BulkRegister - believes that the WLS proposal is anticompetitive. Is
> positioned in the marketplace as benefitting consumers when in fact it
> not because of the anti-competitive attributes. Must be careful of
> perception because of the positioning. The concept is okay, but increasing
> the scope of the monopoly is not. Opposed to WLS. Opposed to status quo.
> Would support a hybrid proposal generated from a mix of the current
> proposals as none of them completely solve the problem. Opposed to
> proposal for business reasons. Abstaining on the Tucows/MIT proposal in
> favor of a hybrid.
> Dotster - Opposed to WLS. Echoes Paul's comments. Favors the competitive
> registrar model. Totally bad deal for the consumer. These are lawsuits
> waiting to happen for consumers. Not sure that Dotster can even implement
> on their site because of technical concerns. Potential for gaming is too
> high. No incentive for losing registrars to delete names. The registry and
> snapnames will be the primary beneficiaries. Opposed to anything that has
> up-front cost to the end consumer unless the registrar delivers a domain
> name to them in their accounts. Opposed to all current proposals.
> Joker - Opposed to WLS. Not sure if that matters however. This is his
> biggest concern. The right way to solve this problem would be a joint
> run by registrars. Opposed to all other proposals.
> Tucows - opposed on the grounds that the current proposals do not provide
> sufficient guidance, insight or definition to sufficiently discern on a
> policy, business or operational level what the impact on our operations
> revenue will be. Further definition of the proposals and consultation with
> the community must occur. Echo's MIT's comments. Favors - a technical
> solution to the technical problems that NSI is experiecing. Favors - a
> variable pricing model to the new business proposal. favors -
> to the various stakeholders (registrars, registrants etc.) Abstain on
> Tucows/MIT proposal.
> Schlunde - Opposed to WLS and RRS. Improve the status quo.
> Mediaventure - pass, not on call.
> IARegistry - Opposed to WLS, abstain from the AfterNIC proposal.
> Modifications to that proposal are possibly the way to go. Has tabled an
> alternative hybrid proposal that he believes requires further attention.
> favor of status quo. Favor MIT/Tucows Proposal. Disappointed that this
> fast-tracked and transfers policy gets ignored.
> Speednames - Opposed to WLS. Favors Tucows/MIT proposal. Opposes RRS
> proposal.
> NameScout - Opposed to RRS, in favor of status quo. Once the bulk batch
> deletes go away, the status quo become sustainable. Favors Tucows/MIT
> proposal, but probably requires further work. Opposed to WLS as it is
> currently written. This option needs further exploration and is not
> to a parallel registry.
> Alice's Registry - Opposed to WLS. An opt-out needs to be implemented if
> WLS does get implemented. Gives registrants further choice -
> counter-insurance, insurance on IP. Opposed to the price and disappointed
> that the registry hasn't shown interest in displaying the status of the
> subscription on any forum.
> Round-up: the way forward:
> Wesson - recommend a drafting team to present a counter-proposal for
> discussion within the RC.
> Stubbs - serious concerns with Verisign's behavior. May try to use this to
> leverage a price increase. have cut back connections and may use this to
> justify economic concerns that they may create. Verisign has more than
> adequate resources to devote to resolving the technical issues.
> Broitman - how can the registry modify the terms of service (ie -
> connections) without consultation or explanation.
> Nyholm - Is ChuckG on the line? Could Wesson or Palage provide a heads-up
> Verisign's next steps? How will Verisign receive the proposal?
> Wesson - Cannot speculate. Let's try and keep things in order. Keep
> responses short and to the point. When will Verisign have the bulk batch
> deletes taken care of?
> Beckwith - Don't know yet. Need a response from the internals. I will
> forward an answer when I get it.
> AWRegistry - No further comments.
> Enom - How many names does NSI-Registrar have queued for deletion? Will
> queues be cleared before the WLS gets implemented?
> NSI - Same question as Robs basically. Don't know, but I will forward more
> information to the list.
> Godaddy. No further comments on this. What can we do when VRSN rolls this
> out anyways? I'd be surprised if they made any changes or cancelled the
> roll-out.
> Wesson: Have asked this question of staff.
> Broitman: ICANN wants us to treat this informally. They want us to take
> to a number of constituencies with registrars acting as the primary
> stakeholder. Pretty confident that VRSN will not be able to move forward
> written arbitrarily.
> Stubbs (NC): probability that this may never get released. More likely
> they will cancel the program and go in for a price increase.
> Wesson: Spoke to someone to an analyst that claims that they are
> a 40% increase in revenue next year.
> RCOM: Useful to talk a little bit about the concept of auctions. Flat
> pricing model allows for too much gaming by registrars. Lets insiders take
> crack at the opportunity. Shouldn't be dismissing the auction model so
> quickly.
> DomainBank: No other comments.
> eMarkMonitor: Membership should rank the proposals so that we know where
> focus our efforts.
> NSI-Registrar: No further comments.
> ActiveISP: No further comments.
> MIT: This is classed as a registry service and therefore constitutes a
> increase. They need ICANN approval. Constituency needs a position on WLS.
> Constituency also needs a position on the best way to go. We don't want to
> confuse the two. This could lead to endless proposals.
> BulkRegister: Concerned with the process of how we handle this. Public
> perception is that this is a done deal. if they manage to get it rolled
> then this is really a done deal. I wonder how much poweer the constituency
> has after this occurs. When we speculate on ideas and it goes out to the
> public, perception becomes reality.
> Dotster: No further comments.
> Tucows: Echo's MIT comments, favors the creation of a position statement
> separately a counter-proposal.
> CORE: Ditto.
> ?: Ditto
> IARegistry: WLS should be completely turn-down. They should fix the
> technical problem. Verisign-registry is a datawarehouse and should stay
> of our business.
> Ascio: Afraid of violent opposition. This does us a disservice. The
> does have potential - we need to look at proposals that make us money. We
> should work with Verisign on this.
> NameScout: Agrees with MIT, Tucows and IARegistry. We've already vetted
> other proposals already - we need to make sure that we have a position on
> the WLS as a constituency. The biggest problem currently is with the
> Other proposals have merits, but they should be dealt with separately. We
> shouldn't be rewarding the monopoly however if the problem goes away as
> IARegistry has indicated.
> Palage: Adjustments to price talk about net increase, its ambiguous.
> MIT: ICANN can't unreasonably withhold...
> Palage: Talks about net increases...
> Rader: Some of the terms are very defined...to the accountants...perhaps
> could clarify.
> NameScout: Nothing to stop NSI-Registrar from hoarding names and then
> grabbing the money when they see a subscription come through. We need to
> comment on the WLS. Comments should be constructive.
> Wesson: We need to formally reply to the WLS proposal, need to form a
> drafting team. Need volunteers. We also need a policy on how registrars
> delete domains. We can discuss this further on the list and at our
> Volunteers: Broitman (RCOM), Tonkin (MIT), Stahura (eNom), DiCarlo
> (Dotster), Wascher (IARegistry)
> Tonkin: Time is of the esssence.
> Stubbs - the community is following this closely. We need to make sure
> the goals of the document and the presentation are clear.
> Thanks,
> -rwr



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>