DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [registrars] 18 Registrars Endorse WLS Implementation

Please remove directNIC.com from this list.  We have do not give our
support for the modified WLS.

Donny Simonton
Intercosmos Media Group dba directNIC.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
> Behalf Of jim.foley@neteka.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 5:04 PM
> To: wessorh@ar.com; wls@verisign.com
> Cc: halloran@icann.org; Registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] 18 Registrars Endorse WLS Implementation
> March 7, 2002
> Rick Wesson (wessorh@ar.com)
> Registrars Constituency
> Chuck Gomes (wls@verisign.com)
> VeriSign
> Dear Messrs. Wesson and Gomes:
> We, the undersigned ICANN-accredited registrars, none of whom utilize
> connections to VeriSign Global Registry Service to give preferential
> access
> to any customers over any other customers, appreciate this opportunity
> provide our feedback on VGRS' domain name Wait List Service (WLS),
> has
> recently been released for final comment in a modified form.  Per
> VeriSign's
> invitation to submit our comments, we are, as instructed, submitting
> 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 jim.foley@neteka.com
> <mailto:jim.foley@neteka.com.
> Our industry, now through its first stage of growth, is facing a
number of
> issues challenging its capability to further grow and mature while
> 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
> in
> reality, will shortly become the primary market, as the inventory of
> reasonably usable new names further depletes and customer's choices
> be
> principally from the previously registered names now deleting back
> availability.
> At present, however, the aggressive competition for deleting names-by
> registrars, professional speculators, and third-party service
> effectively freezing out the mainstream customer, who without
> sophisticated
> equipment or even an understanding of how to find and secure a
> name, has no practical access to the new primary domain name
> Accordingly, a change is necessary to restore a level playing field
> all
> users, and to bring fair, equitable and practical access to all
> registrants.  In this context, we offer our conditional support for
> modified WLS proposal (as published on January 29, 2002), on a
> proof-of-concept basis intended to provide all concerned more
> on
> its viability as a long-term solution.
> Thank you for your consideration.
> Sincerely,
> 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
> cc:
> Dan Halloran (halloran@icann.org)
> Requested Information about the signatories:
> What is the nature of the members of your group (e.g., individuals,
> registrars, registries, trade organizations, etc.)?
> ICANN-accredited Registrars
> What is the total size of your membership?
> Approximately 100 are operational
> How many members of your group participated in the WLS feedback
> leading up to the final feedback provided?
> 4
> How many members who contributed to the WLS feedback you provided to
> are involved or planning to be involved in the process of directly or
> indirectly using the VGRS batch delete system for registering
> names?
> 4
> What efforts did your group make to reach out to members of your group
> 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
> of
> the Registrars Constituency, both because they are known to be
> their own comments and because they are not representative of all 100
> registrars, particularly the over 70 who are not active paid members
> 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).

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