<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] RC WLS Response
I think all we have time for at this point is to agree or disagree. I am
not against preparing a counter-proposal, but that is not something we can
do in a few days. True?
--On Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:59 AM -0500 Ketan Patel
<ketan@neteka.com> wrote:
> My question is are we supposed to either
>
> a) disagree with the WLS proposal as it stands today
> b) agree with the WLS proposal as it stands today
> c) counter propose with our own WLS type proposal
> d) negotiate the terms within the current WLS proposal
>
> Can anyone answer this for me??
>
> I believe there are many positive aspects to the WLS proposal
>
> Ketan Patel
> VP of Business Development
> Neteka Inc.
> T: (416) 971-4306
> F: (416) 978-6052
> http://www.neteka.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nikolaj Nyholm" <nikolajn@ascio.com>
> To: "'Registrars List'" <Registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: January 16, 2002 10:35 AM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] RC WLS Response
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>
|