<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] RC WLS Response
Folks, if and until we see the proposed service agreement, we have no idea
exactly what this proposal is.
Jim
--On Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:35 PM +0100 Nikolaj Nyholm
<nikolajn@ascio.com> wrote:
>
>
> I disagree with this black and white point of view.
>
>
> While the poll showed unanimous opposition to WLS _as is_, I believe that
> the general sentiment was to work _with_ VGRS on improving certain aspects
> of the proposal, rather than focusing on new, alternative proposals.
>
> The document does not reflect this nuance, and I can therefore not support
> it in it's current form.
>
>
> Kindest regards
> Nikolaj Nyholm
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com]
>> Sent: 16. januar 2002 16:05
>> To: wessorh@ar.com; Nikolaj Nyholm
>> Cc: 'Registrars List'
>> Subject: RE: [registrars] RC WLS Response
>>
>>
>> I want to second Rick's comments. We are reacting to the
>> current WLS, and
>> it leaves us with the opportunity to continue to object to
>> any modified WLS.
>> But, we believed that we put ourselves in the strongest position to
>> negotiate by taking this stance. We should not be negotiating against
>> ourselves by telling VGRS what we'd be willing to settle for.
>> We would only
>> end up with a position somewhere in between theirs and ours.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: wessorh@ar.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 2:57 AM
>> To: Nikolaj Nyholm
>> Cc: 'Registrars List'
>> Subject: RE: [registrars] RC WLS Response
>>
>>
>>
>> Nikolaj,
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Nikolaj Nyholm wrote:
>>
>> > I think it is insufficiently nuanced to write: "in fact the
>> unanimous vote
>> > of all those taking a position - is to oppose the WLS."
>> >
>> > I believe that several registrars, ourselves included, were
>> in favour of
>> > working with Verisign on enhancing the WLS, but oppose it
>> in it's current
>> > form.
>>
>> since we could not negotiate with VGRS we could only vote on
>> the proposal
>> as given to us. When we have other proposals on the table I'm sure the
>> vote will come out differently.
>>
>> It also make complete sense that a different WLS proposal may get
>> a completely different voting result. Since every registrar
>> had some way to
>> improve the WLS it was impractical to list every registrars
>> vote and their
>> alternative; we just can't make a consensus statement that
>> says "it would
>> be ok with some changes..." without all agreeing on those
>> changes and VGRS
>> capable of incorporating those into the proposal.
>>
>> > I hope that alternative proposals ("The RC will address
>> these proposals in
>> a
>> > separate position paper.") will include suggestions on how
>> to revise the
>> WLS
>> > proposal.
>>
>> I too expect to see more alternative proposals, we have several at
>> www.icann-registrars.org please review them and provide
>> comments to their
>> authors.
>>
>> -rick
>>
>>
>>
>> > Regards
>> > Nikolaj
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
>> > > Sent: 16. januar 2002 05:21
>> > > To: Registrars List
>> > > Cc: WLSDraftingTeam@ar.com
>> > > Subject: [registrars] RC WLS Response
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > all:
>> > >
>> > > attached is the draft response from the WLS Drafting Team
>> composed of
>> > > the following:
>> > >
>> > > George DeCarlo - dotster
>> > > Bruce Tonkin - melbourneit.com.au
>> > > E. Broitman - register.com
>> > > David Wascher - iaregistry.com
>> > > Paul Stahura - enom.com
>> > >
>> > > Please comment on the draft as to if this is an
>> acceptable response.
>> > > The WLS Drafting Team used the comments from the meeting and
>> > > additional
>> > > comments forwarded to them to draft this response.
>> > >
>> > > If you find a general exception to the response please contact the
>> > > drafting team via WLSDraftingTeam@ar.com
>> > >
>> > > A text version is included below for ease in quoting. We must
>> > > finish this
>> > > response by Thursday so that we can formally deliver it to VGRS as
>> > > requested by Friday the 18th of January, 2002.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for your corporation.
>> > >
>> > > -rick
>> > >
>> > > Rick Wesson
>> > > CTO, Registrars Constituency
>> > >
>> > > -------------------- txt version of RC-WLS-Response.pdf
>> > > ---------------
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > To Chuck Gomes,
>> > >
>> > > The Registrar Constituency (RC) is hereby providing its formal
>> > > position to the VeriSign Global Registry Services (VGRS)
>> regarding
>> > > its proposal to manage a Wait Listing Service (WLS), the
>> subscription
>> > > service for deleted domain names. VRSN sent its proposal to the
>> > > Registrar Constituency on December 30, 2001, and allowed
>> registrars
>> > > to comment until January 18, 2002.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The RC has considered the WLS, holding discussions and voting by
>> > > email and through a conference call. The overwhelming
>> posi tion of
>> > > the RC - in fact the unanimous vote of all those taking
>> a position -
>> > > is to oppose the WLS. Considering VRSN's obligation under its
>> > > agreements with ICANN to vet any proposed price
>> increases or service
>> > > modifications for registry services with ICANN, and
>> ICANN's bottom
>> > > -up approach, it is the RC's understanding that the RC
>> position will
>> > > be considered within the Domain Name Supporting
>> Organization (DNSO)
>> > > before the DNSO would make a recommendation to the ICANN
>> Board, and
>> > > that the RC position would be a significant factor in ICANN's
>> > > consideration of the WLS proposal.
>> > >
>> > > Prior to reviewing the RC's concerns, it would be instructive to
>> > > recall the history of this issue. In Spring 2001, VGRS
>> temporarily
>> > > shut off registrar connections, preventing new and/or s mall
>> > > registrars from registering .com, .net and .org domain names.
>> > > Ostensibly to address this technical load problem VGRS had
>> > > temporarily closed the process of deleting expired names. Rather
>> > > than effectively solving the technical load problem,
>> VGRS implemented
>> > > an interim solution, relegating batch requests for
>> deleting names to
>> > > one of three pools to prevent this high -volume traffic from
>> > > overloading its systems. But according to VGRS, this
>> solution has
>> > > not solved the connection problems. In fact, VGRS is once again
>> > > announcing that it is limiting connections.
>> > >
>> > > The RC has a number of key concerns with WLS: a) price, b)
>> > > transparency, c) benefit to the Internet, and d) lack of
>> a solution:
>> > >
>> > > a) The proposed $40.00 price point for WLS (which is
>> in addition to
>> > > the $6.00 registry fee) is exorbitant. VGRS has
>> not justified
>> > > this price with cost requirements. Not only does
>> WLS create a
>> > > much higher price point for the end consumer, it effectively
>> > > undermines competitive registrars' financial
>> wherewithal. It is
>> > > highly u nlikely that registrars would be able to
>> increase their
>> > > margins in proportion to the increased margin
>> charged by VGRS.
>> > > In fact, market data (such as the Snapames price
>> point of $49)
>> > > demonstrates that competitive registrars would have to
>> > > dramatically lower , or eliminate, their current margins in
>> > > order to compete for WLS names. This would undermine
>> > > competitive registrars' revenues and jeopardize
>> their ability to
>> > > remain profitable. * The one registrar that may be
>> able to take
>> > > effectively advantage of this price is the VeriSign
>> registrar,
>> > > which continues to enjoy the largest market share.
>> It would be
>> > > able to use the new higher margin of $46.00 to price below
>> > > wholesale, as it has in the past with the $6.00
>> fee. The result
>> > > is to unfairly undermine competitor regi strars.
>> > >
>> > > b) There would be a lack of transparency if VGRS runs
>> the primary
>> > > registry, the largest registrar, and the
>> subscription service.
>> > > As long as the same company is operating this vertically
>> > > powerful chain of companies, it may be possible for
>> it to shift
>> > > domain names from the $6.00 registry to the $46.00 WLS. In
>> > > fact, only the registry would know all of the WLS
>> subscriptions
>> > > and the timing for deleting names. Such
>> information could be
>> > > abused by its registrar. Considering that there is
>> a history -
>> > > some of it still unresolved - of VeriSign not
>> deleting expired
>> > > names, the RC is doubly concerned that VGRS'
>> operating the WLS
>> > > provides new opportunities for domain name hoarding.
>> > >
>> > > c) The WLS provides an incentive and reward for
>> speculators, while
>> > > squeezing registrants seeking to build a web presence and
>> > > registrars (as explained above). The WLS provides a "sure
>> > > thing" to Internet insiders who are savvy enough to
>> get to the
>> > > head of the line. This primarily means
>> speculators. They will
>> > > be willing to pay the adde d $40 fee for a
>> guarantee of getting
>> > > the expired name if 1) they are sure the name will
>> be deleted
>> > > and 2) they believe that they can resell the domain
>> name at a
>> > > higher price. Insiders will be virtually the only
>> ones able to
>> > > ensure that a certain name will be deleted. The
>> end user will
>> > > still have to pay the market price, which will be
>> determined on
>> > > the secondary market. Moreover, the fact that a WLS
>> > > subscription has been placed on any given name
>> would prompt a
>> > > speculator holding such domain name to renew it, rather than
>> > > release it.
>> > >
>> > > d) In addition to creating new problems, WLS will not solve the
>> > > problem of batch pool slamming. In fact, t here is the
>> > > potential to create the same technical loading
>> problems on the
>> > > WLS as currently exist on the main registry. F or example,
>> > > there will be competition amongst speculators to be
>> the first to
>> > > get the WLS on the best names about to be deleted.
>> There could
>> > > also be a landrush effect to place WLS on well known popular
>> > > names, at the moment when the new WLS service goes liv e.
>> > > Registrars will still compete for the expiring
>> names that do not
>> > > have WLS subscriptions. Since it costs the same
>> "to slam" a $40
>> > > name as to slam a name greater than $40, there is
>> no incentive
>> > > not to. Finally, since WLS subscriptions are not tied to a
>> > > name, this will create many WLS -switches
>> immediately after the
>> > > zone file is released daily.
>> > >
>> > > While the RC opposes the WLS in its current form, it
>> recognizes the
>> > > need for a permanent solution to the apparent problem of deleted
>> > > names not being released or b eing released in a manner that
>> > > undermines other registry functions. Therefore, the RC welcomes
>> > > other ideas for addressing these issues, and has discussed other
>> > > alternatives. The RC will address these proposals in a separate
>> > > position paper. The RC is ope n to VGRS' comments on these other
>> > > proposals, as well as any modified VGRS proposal that
>> modifies the
>> > > WLS per the comments herein.
>> > >
>> > > The RC is clearly very interested in this issue
>> and welcomes
>> > > questions or further dialogue.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
*****************************
Jim Archer, CEO
Registration Technologies, Inc.
10 Crestview Drive
Greenville, RI 02828
voice: 401-949-4768
fax: 401-949-5814
jarcher@RegistrationTek.com
http://www.RegistrationTek.com
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|