DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [registrars] Separate WLS from Deletes issue

Bruce and Ross ... I agree.....

I don't blame Verisign for trying it on.... what is interesting is that the
Registrars are not asking for the two issues to be addressed seperately - either
by the Names Council, the DNSO Constituencies or Verisign Registry- the issues
should be:
i) How to handle the expired names so not to crush the technical resources of
day to day business of the Registry/Registrar - that's how this "problem"
ii) How to create a new "value added" market, that benefits the competitive
Registrar industry and their customers, and not the "sole source" Registry....

There is a Names Council meeting on Thursday (14th February) .... perhaps take
soundings from the Constituency and put on the Agenda as AoB.....



"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:

> I couldn't agree more Bruce, but unfortunately, as long as Verisign is
> managing the consensus process and not the Names Council via the DNSO, our
> options are extremely limited.
> Were the NC to add this to the agenda for the DNSO and work towards a
> consensus resolution to the issue, I think that we would have an extremely
> good chance of arriving at a solution that closely resembles what you
> describe below.
> Take care,
> -rwr
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
> To: <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 11:47 AM
> Subject: [registrars] Separate WLS from Deletes issue
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I think we should separate the WLS as a proposed new service, from the
> > problems with competition for expired names.
> >
> > One way to do this would be to prevent a WLS being placed on a name within
> > say 30 days of the expiry date of the domain during the trial period.
> Thus
> > the WLS would then act as a genuine back order system, not as a higher
> > re-registration fee for a deleted domain name.  We can still have the
> > various competing approaches to securing deleted names.
> >
> > The current WLS proposal would likely create the same behaviour as we are
> > seeing already.  ie speculators will wait for signs that a domain name is
> > about to be deleted, and then compete to get the WLS on the name.
> >
> > I would like to see a proposed solution to the deletes problem (ie
> excessive
> > use of checks/adds in the lead up to a domain name being deleted), at the
> > same time that we decide on the WLS solution/trial.
> >
> > I personally like the idea of the back order concept as a new business
> idea,
> > but I disagree that it solves the current problem with the existing core
> > registry service.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Tonkin

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