<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Registry and New Service Offering
ooops... below, I meant to type:
Those registries did **NOT** set the price and service unilaterally.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Stahura [mailto:stahura@enom.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 7:11 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage; Ross Wm. Rader; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Registry and New Service Offering
>
>
> Michael,
> see below
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:53 AM
> > To: Ross Wm. Rader; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Registry and New Service Offering
> >
> >
> > Thanks Ross,
> >
> > Although I think it is a great initiative, the true test will
> > be having it
> > come to fruition. Because of the WLS discussion I wanted to
> > wait, however,
> > my conversations in my conversations with the registries about their
> > potential sponsorship of our meeting next month made me
> > believe that this is
> > an issue that needs to be addressed sooner as opposed to later.
> >
> > Almost every registry operator discussed how they wanted to
> > discuss with
> > registrars new service offerings that would be launching
> > shortly. This made
> > me think that if these discussions go the same course as the
> > WLS we have
> > zero chance of completing our objectives outlined in the
> 2002 agenda.
> >
> > I have to think about your comments of the WLS being a
> > re-packed service,
> > and let me explain why. A number of registrars offer a
> registrar lock
> > feature, some for free (eNom) others at an additional cost.
> > In the NeuLevel
> > .BIZ proposal they discussed a registry lock feature that
> > would directly
> > compete with the registrar lock service offering.
>
> I spoke with the .biz people at the LA ICANN meeting about
> their offer of registrar lock, since as you say eNom is one
> of the registrars that also offers a similarly sounding
> product. In my opinion, it does not
> compete with, at least, eNom's registrar lock function;
> it is a different feature that we don't offer.
> eNom uses registrar lock so that registrant's names will
> not be accidentally or inadvertently transferred.
> .biz's lock does not prevent us from offering eNom's "registar lock"
> function because there is a mechanism built-in to the EPP
> whereby registrants need a roid to transfer names.
> I would have a problem if Verisign or Nuelevel started charging
> for a "prohibit name from transferring" registrar lock.
>
> I brought up at the Verisign registry meeting that I
> have a *slight* problem with registries competing with registrars
> by offering services that we already offer such as DNS
> email forwarding, etc that Verisign announced at that meeting.
> BUT I have a *big* problem when they
> offer a monopoly product (one that we cannot possibly offer)
> that directly replaces one that we (and they) are already offering,
> and already offering at a much lower price.
>
>
>
> > Although I
> > do not believe
> > that this service is currently operational, a price point is
> > provided for in
> > their existing contract, see Appendix G -
> > http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/biz/registry-agmt-appg-11
> > may01.htm.
>
> We all agreed, via a huge ICANN process that they could offer
> this product
> at
> that price. Just like we all agreed via ICANN that .name
> could offer email forwarding at the price they are offering
> it at, even though many registrars were
> offering email forwarding, and that this particular email
> product could
> only be offered by .name registry.
> Those registries did set the price and service unilaterally.
>
> > So what happens if VeriSign was to decide to offer a registry
> > lock feature in
> > .com, .org and .net would this be classified as a re-packed service?
>
> We'd analyze it on a case-by-case basis
> like we are doing with WLS.
> In this case, if they offered the same service as nuelevel's,
> I'd say it was not re-packed, but only if the other stuff
> remained the same or it did not pre-empt the operation of the
> current service, ie, they continued
> to offer the current registrar lock feature and the
> new feature does not interfear with its operation. If they
> replaced the current one, then I'd say it was re-packaed.
>
> In the WLS case Verisign/SnapNames is attempting to offer
> this "new" (not really, IMO), yet worse service, which *pre-empts*
> a service, i.e. re-registering deleted names,
> that is already factored in to their ICANN/DOC
> agreements.
>
>
> >
> > Further issues that I would need to consider in my analysis are the
> > following, do we as registrars have an exclusive lock on
> all services
> > associated with a sponsored domain name and that customer.
> > For example,
> > could a registrant choose TUCOWS to register a .BIZ domain
> > name, but choose
> > VeriSign registrar to offer a registry lock service in
> > connection with a
> > digital certificate it obtains. Gets interesting doesn't it :-)
> >
> > The objective of the paper/flowchart is to illicit comments from
> > registration authorities to work towards a mutually
> > acceptable goal. Based
> > upon my current work load, I hope to have the flow chart
> > available prior to
> > the February meeting so I doubt it would have any benefit
> > toward the current
> > WLS discussion. Moreover, the flow chart is designed to
> start with the
> > proposal and then work through a series of steps, I do not
> > think plugging
> > the WLS into it with all its baggage would work.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 2:10 PM
> > > To: Michael D. Palage; registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [registrars] Registry and New Service Offering
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a great initiative Mike. Declaring standardized processes
> > > will most
> > > certainly allow registrars and registries to streamline their
> > > relationships
> > > and operate in closer harmony. One problem though as it
> > relates to this
> > > particular comment.
> > >
> > > > In connection with this effort, I have begun drafting a
> > flow chart that
> > > > would allow all interested parties to provide input into the
> > > process while
> > > > protecting the business interests of registration
> > authorities, both
> > > > registrars and registries. I will be circulating a draft
> > > shortly. But the
> > > > part of this flow chart that I would like to share with
> > the constituency
> > > now
> > > > in connection with the WLS discussion is the following.
> There are
> > > generally
> > > > three objections to any new registry service offering:
> > policy, price and
> > > > technology. What the draft committee should consider is how to
> > > distill the
> > > > comments into the following areas. Once you have consolidate the
> > > individual
> > > > and collective concerns you then allow for a more
> > informed discussion.
> > >
> > > The WLS is not a new service entirely. It is a re-package
> > of an existing
> > > service. As a result, it clearly falls within the scope of the
> > > ICANN/Registry Agreement. Changing these agreements requires the
> > > development
> > > of consensus policy - which is not a process that we can
> > > arbitrarily change
> > > or ignore.
> > >
> > > Not having seen the document yet, my question would
> > necessarily be - does
> > > the document take this into account or is it strictly
> > intended to deal
> > > solely with the development and deployment of new services? I
> > > suspect it is
> > > the latter from your email, but I just want to be clear.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > -rwr
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|