[registrars] RE: 18 Registrars Endorse WLS Implementation
Dear Registrar Colleagues:
I'm following up with additional detail with regard to the letter submitted
to VeriSign and the RC by ICANN-accredited registrars supporting a WLS
First, Jim, your concern is noted, but be advised and assured that it is
misplaced. Either the letter was physically signed by a company
representative in Dulles, or its permission to be included as a signer was
explicitly given and confirmed following those meetings. At least one other
registrar in support of WLS is submitting, or has submitted, a statement
separately (e.g. MelbourneIT). Let me say clearly to you and everyone that I
would jeopardize neither my nor my colleagues' companies' reputations with
a dishonest approach to this discussion, so please put away any
inappropriate questions about the validity of this communication.
The requests from DirectNIC and DomainMonger to amend their positions have
been reviewed, and here's what I can report:
- The letter was physically signed in Dulles by an attending Intercosmos
(DirectNIC's owner) representative, though Donny was unaware of this action
at the time. His follow-on request to remove their name was based on
specific pricing detail in the proposal (thus he could not technically agree
with all elements of the modified proposal), and not on the WLS concept,
which DirectNIC continues to support.
- DomainMonger confirmed its support prior to the Dulles meetings and agreed
to placement of its name on the letter. Since that time, per Austin's post
today, they have updated their position.
By copy of this mail, VeriSign GRS has been fully updated. These positions
were verified today (March 11) with each company and are accurate. I hope
the conclusion of this question settles the issue for Jim or anyone else
with a process concern.
I appreciate that grains of salt have been a part of this overall discussion
on WLS. Though there have been many, this letter is not a source of further
Jim G. Foley
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 6:04 PM
To: 'email@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
Cc: 'email@example.com'; 'Registrars@dnso.org'
Subject: 18 Registrars Endorse WLS Implementation
March 7, 2002
Rick Wesson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Chuck Gomes (email@example.com)
Dear Messrs. Wesson and Gomes:
We, the undersigned ICANN-accredited registrars, none of whom utilize our
connections to VeriSign Global Registry Service to give preferential access
to any customers over any other customers, appreciate this opportunity to
provide our feedback on VGRS' domain name Wait List Service (WLS), which has
recently been released for final comment in a modified form. Per VeriSign's
invitation to submit our comments, we are, as instructed, submitting our
comments through "one of the DNSO constituencies" -- in this case, the
Registrars Constituency, in the person of Rick Wesson. Our point of contact
is Jim Foley of Neteka, who may be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Our industry, now through its first stage of growth, is facing a number of
issues challenging its capability to further grow and mature while meeting
the needs of all users. This is particularly true with respect to the issue
of deleting domain names-this "secondary" market of .com and .net names, in
reality, will shortly become the primary market, as the inventory of
reasonably usable new names further depletes and customer's choices will be
principally from the previously registered names now deleting back into
At present, however, the aggressive competition for deleting names-by
registrars, professional speculators, and third-party service providers-is
effectively freezing out the mainstream customer, who without sophisticated
equipment or even an understanding of how to find and secure a deleting
name, has no practical access to the new primary domain name marketplace.
Accordingly, a change is necessary to restore a level playing field for all
users, and to bring fair, equitable and practical access to all potential
registrants. In this context, we offer our conditional support for the
modified WLS proposal (as published on January 29, 2002), on a
proof-of-concept basis intended to provide all concerned more information on
its viability as a long-term solution.
Thank you for your consideration.
BulkRegister.com, Baltimore, MD, USA Tom D'Alleva
ChinaDNS, Beijing, China Edward Lee
DirectNic, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA Michael Brunson
DomainMonger.com, Washington State, USA Austin Linford
DomainSite.com, Boston, MA, USA Rick Zaniboni
Galcomm.com, Rishon Lezion, Israel Moshe Fogel
Go Daddy, Scotttsdale, AZ, USA Bob Parsons
Namebay, Monaco Patricia Husson
NameEngine, New York, NY, USA Antony Van Couvering
NameScout, Ontario, Canada Rob Hall
NameSecure, Moravia, CA, USA Gary Khachadoorian
NameSystem, Bridgetown, Barbados Jason Heldeles
Neteka, Toronto, Canada Greg Bertrand
VeriSign Registrar, Herndon, VA, USA Bruce Beckwith
Register.it, Bergamo, Italy Bruno Piarulli
Registrars.com, Los Angeles, California USA David Barbosa
SiteName, Rishon Lezion, Israel LM Service
SRSPlus, Los Angeles, California, USA Anthony Bishop
Dan Halloran (email@example.com)
Requested Information about the signatories:
What is the nature of the members of your group (e.g., individuals,
registrars, registries, trade organizations, etc.)?
What is the total size of your membership?
Approximately 100 are operational
How many members of your group participated in the WLS feedback process
leading up to the final feedback provided?
How many members who contributed to the WLS feedback you provided to VGRS
are involved or planning to be involved in the process of directly or
indirectly using the VGRS batch delete system for registering just-deleted
What efforts did your group make to reach out to members of your group who
did not participate in the WLS discussion process?
The group signing this letter is not a formal group per se. It is a subset
of all registrars. We made efforts to reach dozens of registrars to educate
them and make them aware of this issue. We did not contact many members of
the Registrars Constituency, both because they are known to be submitting
their own comments and because they are not representative of all 100
registrars, particularly the over 70 who are not active paid members of the
Registrars Constituency. (Indeed, some of the RC members compete with
VeriSign or have proposals competitive with VeriSign's WLS, or are in
disputes with VeriSign Registrar).