Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1279
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, June 18 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1279

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 15:26:35 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS proposal

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 15:22:18 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
To: "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
CC: NCDNHC-discuss list <[email-masked]>

As one of the members of the Transfers TK from the NCC, this is my proposed
solution to the problem of expired domains.

Rather than allocate these domains on a first come first serve basis, which
   creates a lot of problems in terms of how people get first in line, and
which also  presents problems for people that did not intend to let a domain
lapse, I propose the following proceedure.

1.  Whenever a domain expires, and after whatever grace period is
appropriate, it be placed upon a list of expired domains, maintained joinly
by the registrars who want to participate, with equal access to the list.

2.  Over a period of 30 days, any person who wants to register the expired
domain can express an interest.

3.  During the 30 day period, the original domain owner can reactivate the
domain.

4.  If the original domain owner has not reactivated the domain during the
30 day period, the domain is assigned by lottery to one of the parties
seeking the domain.

Jamie

- ------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

- -- 
- ------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:36:18 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, at 10:50 [=GMT-0700], Sandy Harris wrote:

> Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> > > In most countries, you are innocent unless proven guilty. What you propose
> > > is to decide that somebody is guilty even before committing the action.
> >
> > Terrorism, piracy, above all the latter, need to be tackled _before_ the
> > vile acts are committed. We cannot allow any chances, that a trademark
> > actually gets hurt.
>
> I hope you were joking or being sarcastic in writing that.

The latter. Sorry.

> If not,
> methinks you're insane.

Be careful or you will be sued for libel/defamation by those who included
sunrise periods in the launch of new gTLDs.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS proposal

Hello,

- --- James Love <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 2.  Over a period of 30 days, any person who wants to register the
> expired
> domain can express an interest.

<skip>

> 4.  If the original domain owner has not reactivated the domain
> during the
> 30 day period, the domain is assigned by lottery to one of the
> parties
> seeking the domain.

Impractical for the following reasons:

1) Lotteries are highly regulated and illegal in many cases.

2) Nothing prevents folks from assuming millions of identities for the
purpose of increasing their odds, thus "gaming" the lottery, assuming
there is no cost to the lottery. If there is a non-refundable cost to
the lottery, see #1.

In reality, the current system isn't broken. Prove it's broken, before
trying to create solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. The Status
Quo, perhaps with a uniform deletions policy to stop Verisign registrar
from hoarding domains, works better than any of the proposals made to
date. 

The problem "Verisign isn't making enough money off expired domains"
isn't a good enough reason, nor a real problem, to change the Status
Quo. $6/name is more than enough to meet their contractual obligations
of managing a central database. Oracle or IBM, among others, would
surely be up to the job if they aren't.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS proposal

jamie,

your proposal -- its the same as what the registrars suggested to VGRS.
Chuck Gomes shot it down. We asked them for a proposal and the WLS is all
we got.

see http://www.icann-registrars.org/deletes.htm

- -rick

On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, James Love wrote:

>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal
> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 15:22:18 -0400
> From: James Love <[email-masked]>
> To: "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
> CC: NCDNHC-discuss list <[email-masked]>
>
> As one of the members of the Transfers TK from the NCC, this is my proposed
> solution to the problem of expired domains.
>
> Rather than allocate these domains on a first come first serve basis, which
>    creates a lot of problems in terms of how people get first in line, and
> which also  presents problems for people that did not intend to let a domain
> lapse, I propose the following proceedure.
>
> 1.  Whenever a domain expires, and after whatever grace period is
> appropriate, it be placed upon a list of expired domains, maintained joinly
> by the registrars who want to participate, with equal access to the list.
>
> 2.  Over a period of 30 days, any person who wants to register the expired
> domain can express an interest.
>
> 3.  During the 30 day period, the original domain owner can reactivate the
> domain.
>
> 4.  If the original domain owner has not reactivated the domain during the
> 30 day period, the domain is assigned by lottery to one of the parties
> seeking the domain.
>
> Jamie
>
>
> ------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
> voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> --
> ------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
> voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS proposal

> Impractical for the following reasons:
>
> 1) Lotteries are highly regulated and illegal in many cases.

there are way to structure the system so it is not a Lottery.

> 2) Nothing prevents folks from assuming millions of identities for the
> purpose of increasing their odds, thus "gaming" the lottery, assuming
> there is no cost to the lottery. If there is a non-refundable cost to
> the lottery, see #1.

please read some of the registrar proposals they go into these issues and
how they can be resolved.

> In reality, the current system isn't broken. Prove it's broken, before
> trying to create solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. The Status
> Quo, perhaps with a uniform deletions policy to stop Verisign registrar
> from hoarding domains, works better than any of the proposals made to
> date.

yes it is, the system is fair or efficient.

  o registrars are not allowed to know what domains are deleting
  o registries have assumed they must allow DDoS attacks on their systems
    in the form of Add Storms.

> The problem "Verisign isn't making enough money off expired domains"
> isn't a good enough reason, nor a real problem, to change the Status
> Quo. $6/name is more than enough to meet their contractual obligations
> of managing a central database. Oracle or IBM, among others, would
> surely be up to the job if they aren't.

I hope the new .org registry will show everyone how its done fairly and
equitably

- -rick

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:52:50 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Cui bono?  Possible Mission Statements.

I will present two very high-level mission statements for ICANN. For 
each of these mission statements, I'll try to give a brief overview  
of what such an ICANN could and should do. In doing this, I'll  
ignore most of the input side (internal process, board selection,  
...), but concentrate on the output and enforcement side. In each  
case, I'll look at three reference problems in order to better  
understand what precisely the respective mission statements mean:  
(1) The introduction of new TLDs. (2) Negotiating or entering into  
new contracts (or contract changes, such as WLS) with registrars or  
registries. (3) Working out a Dispute Resolution Policy.

Of course, most of the discussion will remain on or close to the  
surface of the deeper problems which undoubtedly occur in the  
implementation of each proposal. Still, I hope that this may be  
helpful in order to better understand what's at the heart of quite a 
bit of the current debate.

The proposed mission statements: ICANN's mission is to coordinate  
technical and policy functions of the domain name system in order to 
promote a stable and secure domain name system...

	... for the benefit of the public.

	... as a cooperative effort of registries, registrars, and 
	registrants, for their mutual benefit.

Both mission statements are strongly influenced by the suggestions  
made by various constituencies' representatives during some Names  
Council telephone conferences on ICANN structure.

1. "... for the benefit of the public." This is the broader of the  
mission statements discussed. The core value is neither the benefit  
of users or registrants, nor the benefit of registrars, nor the one  
of registries: It is the public benefit, the common good (quoted  
rather frequently throughout the Evolution & Reform Committee's  
recent output). An ICANN with this mission statement is responsible 
for making sure that the DNS is operated for the benefit of the 
public at large. An ICANN of this kind has to take into account  
considerations which traditionally belong into the realm of nation  
states' authority: Anti-trust considerations, intellectual property  
interests, free speech are just examples of the scope of this ICANN. 
Some may call this mission creep; others would talk about successful 
privatization of the regulation of the Internet (and still others  
would argue that this isn't private-sector any more) - an ICANN like 
the one described by this mission would indeed be a regulator, not a 
self-regulator.

A key value of such an ICANN would be independence: The board would  
have to be able to operate by its own judgment of what the public  
good is, without having to pay attention to pressure generated by  
vested interests. As a corollary, such an ICANN would require public 
trust and accountability on a global basis - trust from suppliers,  
 from end users, and from governments, and accountability to its key  
stakeholder, the public at large. It would have to be funded in a  
way which makes it impossible for vested interests to exercise  
pressure on the board's decision-making.

In short, it would look like a government, or an association of 
governments.

Looking at the reference problems mentioned above, it is fairly  
obvious that attacking these problems would be natural and possible  
for an ICANN truly operating in the benefit of the public: It would  
have the independence needed to come up with balanced, reasonable,  
and practicable policies for the introduction of new TLDs, without  
paying attention to the interests of existing registrars and  
registries who may fear the newly added competition. It would have  
the weight needed to protect the public benefit in contract  
negotiations with registrars and registries, by, for instance,  
paying attention to anti-trust matters. Similarly, it would also be  
the appropriate body to work out a dispute resolution policy.

2. "... as a cooperative effort of registries, registrars, and  
registrants, for their mutual benefit." The ICANN described in these 
words ("ICANN.coop"?) is the servant of the three groups of  
stakeholders mentioned; it's the ICANN of Susan Crawford and David  
Johnson. It can only act in situations in which all stakeholder  
groups profit from ICANN's activities. These situations are mostly  
limited to technical coordination. A cooperative ICANN could not  
play an active role in policy-making, except as a facilitator (or  
secretariat) for discussions which could (and would) also happen  
elsewhere.  Such discussions would obviously be managed and driven  
by those most affected by the results - if that wording sounds  
familiar, you're right: It comes from a gTLD registry contribution 
to a Names Council call, just like the mission statement.

The "cooperative effort" ICANN would not be the appropriate place to 
work out policies for the addition of new TLDs: The addition of more 
competition may be against the interests of at least existing  
registries and registrars, unless there are strong incentives for  
these parties to enable such competition (like, for instance, close  
regulatory oversight from some national government interested in  
privatizing the DNS, and introducing competition into the business). 
However, the "cooperative effort" ICANN could of course administer 
policies worked out elsewhere.

The "cooperative effort" ICANN would also not be the appropriate  
partner for working out new contracts with registrars and  
registries: It would find itself in a conflict of interests,  
negotiating with some of the very stakeholders for whose benefit it  
should act.  In short, it would be in the middle of a rather bad  
exercise of self-dealing by registries and registrars.

Finally, under the assumption that a dispute resolution policy is 
beneficial for all three groups of stakeholders, this would be the 
only one of the reference problems which could appropriately be 
handled by ICANN.coop. However, it is not clear that this assumption 
is valid: Registrars and registries may have an economical interest 
in a dispute resolution policy which removes the threat of 
litigation from them; on the other hand, current registrants may 
possibly be better served by use of the traditional legal system as 
a tool for the resolution of disputes over domain names.

In any event, the first two examples already provide evidence that 
ICANN.coop could not be a tool for the full privatization of the 
domain name system. Key policies would have to be worked out with 
the public interest in mind; they would have to take, for instance, 
anti-trust and similar considerations into account. 

Key contracts would have to be negotiated between registrars and  
registries on the one side of the table, and a sufficiently strong  
regulator on the other side. This could certainly be one government, 
any collection of governments, or some international treaty  
organization. The corporation itself would not be the adequate place 
for these activities.

Making an ICANN like the one described by this second mission  
statement the contract partner of global registries is, for this 
reason, the best way to remove public interest considerations from 
the regulatory environment for much of the gTLD registries' 
activities: It means that ICANN is given the duties of an 
international regulator, but not its rights.

In short, it's a rather brilliant move if you are a gTLD registry  
and want to get rid of regulatory constraints for some time.

Regards,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS proposal

Hello,

- --- Rick Wesson <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   o registries have assumed they must allow DDoS attacks on their
> systems
>     in the form of Add Storms.

Registries can easily throttle their connections, to permit no more
than X requests per second per registrar, where:

X = L/N 

L = their maximum hardware limit on total requests per second
N = number of registrars (thus providing equal access)

It's not a DDoS attack if registrars are merely making their requests
at the maximum permitted rate. A registry can easily reduce that
permitted rate to an acceptable level.

If one does a search for "mod throttle" or "throttle ftp" or "throttle
apache" on Google, these aren't trailblazing ideas.

One sample link is: http://www.snert.com/Software/Throttle/

Of course, VGRS isn't running the shared registry using Apache, but the
ideas need only be slightly modified to implement in their systems. The
simplest of the solutions is probably the "Idle" policy, which only
requires that VGRS learn how to use the "sleep()" library function, or
its variants.

However, as VGRS has already admitted, registry load is no longer
problem, so I'm not sure why the "add storms" topic keeps cropping up.
See answer to Question B.2 at:

http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf

Even B.3 says

"the registry load problems are solved....Registry load should not be a
criterion for determining the proper course of action regarding deleted
domain name registrations."

Conclusion: the Status Quo works great! Don't worry, be happy!

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 18:26:28 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS proposal

Jamie and all assembly members,

  Your idea is a good one until step 4.  That's where is fall short of
being fair really.  Instead, why not just delete the Domain Name
and allow it to be available for anyone to register it again, no lottery
involved... ????

James Love wrote:

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal
> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 15:22:18 -0400
> From: James Love <[email-masked]>
> To: "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
> CC: NCDNHC-discuss list <[email-masked]>
>
> As one of the members of the Transfers TK from the NCC, this is my proposed
> solution to the problem of expired domains.
>
> Rather than allocate these domains on a first come first serve basis, which
>    creates a lot of problems in terms of how people get first in line, and
> which also  presents problems for people that did not intend to let a domain
> lapse, I propose the following proceedure.
>
> 1.  Whenever a domain expires, and after whatever grace period is
> appropriate, it be placed upon a list of expired domains, maintained joinly
> by the registrars who want to participate, with equal access to the list.
>
> 2.  Over a period of 30 days, any person who wants to register the expired
> domain can express an interest.
>
> 3.  During the 30 day period, the original domain owner can reactivate the
> domain.
>
> 4.  If the original domain owner has not reactivated the domain during the
> 30 day period, the domain is assigned by lottery to one of the parties
> seeking the domain.
>
> Jamie
>
> ------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
> voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> --
> ------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
> voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS proposal

George,

> Conclusion: the Status Quo works great! Don't worry, be happy!

an issue that concerns some is that your statement seems to read:

  " I making money, so please don't screw up my nice little market nitch"

Its not working for everyone and that is what we are attempting to fix in
a fair and equitable manor, fail to realize that and you are marginalized.

- -rick

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 03:14:45 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS proposal

On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, at 16:44 [=GMT-0700], Rick Wesson wrote:

> George,
>
> > Conclusion: the Status Quo works great! Don't worry, be happy!
>
> an issue that concerns some is that your statement seems to read:
>
>   " I making money, so please don't screw up my nice little market nitch"
>
> Its not working for everyone and that is what we are attempting to fix in
> a fair and equitable manor, fail to realize that and you are marginalized.

The fairest way to determine who has the best right to a domain is perhaps
giving it to the person who is willing to pay the most cash for it. This
is sad, but workable, unlike eye colour, size of feet or other aspects
that matter in a beauty contest, like trademarks, good causes, and the
like.

Speculation in domain names is the crude way in which the above was and is
implemented because of lack of finding any real solution by those in
charge of the domain name cartel.  Perhaps because the registrars and
registries profit very much from speculation, which means more
registrations, and hence ICANN, which receives a 'tax' on each domain. The
more the better.

If ICANN was truly accepted by the Internet Community At Large, it could
auction expired domains (or let the registry do that), and use the profit
for good purposes, like the expensive evaluation of the new gTLDs, which
(as is the main conclusion of over a year of work of Lynn's Committee) is
beyond ICANN's budget.

By the way: A waiting list will only create more unused domains and
speculation. If you know someone else wants it, you renew it.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 03:15:46 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re:  WLS proposal

On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, at 20:22 [=GMT-0400], James Love wrote:

> Here is an important reason why domain holders would be better off under
> my proposal.   During the 30 day period when people signed up for the
> lottery to get the expired name, anyone who wanted could contact the
> previous owner of the domain, and ask them to reregister the name
> (permitted during the 30 day period), and then sell it.  If the domain
> holder had let the domain expire by mistake, they would then be alerted.
> If the domain holder did not make a mistake, they would then be informed
> that (a) the domain has value and (b) the name of one or more persons
> willing to buy it.  In every case where someone actually contacted the
> previous owner of the domain, the domain owner would be better off.

Two points:

1. It might not be clever to alert the old owner, if one wants the domain.
He may renew (because he forgot), or ask a very high price. And you won't
get the name then. Going for the lottery (esp. if it is not a name that
many would want to have) can be a more sensible option.

2. Speculators will love it. They will let their names expire, just to
find out who is interested and how much...

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 18:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS proposal

Hello,

- --- Rick Wesson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Conclusion: the Status Quo works great! Don't worry, be happy!
> 
> an issue that concerns some is that your statement seems to read:
> 
>   " I making money, so please don't screw up my nice little market
> nitch"
> 
> Its not working for everyone and that is what we are attempting to
> fix in
> a fair and equitable manor, fail to realize that and you are
> marginalized.

You have no basis for stating the above, in regards to "I making
money". In particular, I'm a customer of SnapNames myself (and other
systems). BuyDomains is one of their larger customers, and is against
WLS too. A lot of people are against it, as it's anti-competitive.

I registered the expired Mitsou.com (name of a popular Canadian
musician) to prevent abusive speculators from acquiring the name, and
handed it over to her representatives AT COST. Just this afternoon, I
sent an email to the lawyers for "QueerAsFolk.com", telling them they
better do something, as their name is about to be deleted (should go
either June 19 or June 20, but I won't touch it).

So, I'd appreciate it if you don't generalize and lump me in with those
who are purely into money and self-interest (i.e. like Verisign), and
are framing their arguments with that bias. The current market is
extremely competitive, which is a Good Thing (at least according to my
economic value system), and will continue to evolve in a positive
manner left untouched, or with only minor tweaking.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:19:15 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re:  WLS proposal

> >  If the domain
> > holder had let the domain expire by mistake, they would then be alerted.
> > If the domain holder did not make a mistake, they would then be informed
> > that (a) the domain has value and (b) the name of one or more persons
> > willing to buy it.  In every case where someone actually contacted the
> > previous owner of the domain, the domain owner would be better off.

...which makes the point of the WLS what, exactly?  If the point was to
allow "average registrants" to register expiring domain names (although I am
still in search of the average registrant), then you have effectively thrown
those "average registrants" to the mercy of (a) a newly-empowered registrant
of a domain name she thought he was just going to allow to lapse, and will
now simply renew for the mere fact that someone else out there wants it, or
(b) a pool of bidders sitting on the WLS for that name.

There IS such a system.  It is called "Afternic.com".

> 2. Speculators will love it. They will let their names expire, just to
> find out who is interested and how much...

Ah... so the trick becomes to stay OFF of the WLS if nobody else is ON the
WLS for the domain name you want, and then to race other
non-WLS-participating speculators in order to grab the domain name the
moment the unsuspecting registrant allows it to expire.

Could somebody remind me again of what problem the WLS is the proposed
solution?

And if the problem is "SnapNames can't compete effectively without a
monopoly", you can cry me a river.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re:  WLS proposal

Hello,

- --- John Berryhill <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Could somebody remind me again of what problem the WLS is the
> proposed
> solution?

Verisign overpaid for Network Solutions years ago, and needs more
money, especially now that their stock price is below $10. WLS would
let Verisign begin to reprice names at the wholesale level, eventually
moving to a dot-TV pricing scheme, at the extreme.
 
> And if the problem is "SnapNames can't compete effectively without a
> monopoly", you can cry me a river.

Amen.

WLS should be taken as seriously as my own "Let's Make George Kirikos a
Multi-Millionaire Proposal", at:

http://www.opensrs.org/archives/discuss-list/0201/0339.html

Both would be immense cash grabs. Verisign's proposal is maybe treated
more seriously because they might have the power, through leveraging
their monopoly, to force it through. But, both have about the same
sense of "equity" and "fairness".

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:17:01 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re:  WLS proposal

John Berryhill wrote:
> ...which makes the point of the WLS what, exactly?  If the point was to
> allow "average registrants" to register expiring domain names (although I am
> still in search of the average registrant), then you have effectively thrown
> those "average registrants" to the mercy of (a) a newly-empowered registrant
> of a domain name she thought he was just going to allow to lapse, and will
> now simply renew for the mere fact that someone else out there wants it, or
> (b) a pool of bidders sitting on the WLS for that name.

        I don't care about "average registrants" seeking to register the 
domain, but it does make sense to create a system that (a) protects the 
original domain holder if a mistake was made, (b) does't require people to 
speed dial to "win" the expired domains, and doesn't have the .com and .net 
registry/registrars operators create expensive services that are designed to 
capture the "rent" from the names.  If there is going to be a bidding system 
going on, they can bid directly with the old domain holder, rather than with 
the registrars.  Giving domains to those who are good at "being first" when 
domains expire seems a bit weird to me, given how people have discribed the 
this in practice.  A brief period to express interest followed by a lottery 
allows people to get a good night's sleep.

>>2. Speculators will love it. They will let their names expire, just to
>>find out who is interested and how much...
> 
> Ah... so the trick becomes to stay OFF of the WLS if nobody else is ON the
> WLS for the domain name you want, and then to race other
> non-WLS-participating speculators in order to grab the domain name the
> moment the unsuspecting registrant allows it to expire.

    Well, if it comes to that, who cares?

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:26:07 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS proposal

Rick,

I think you are missing the point.

The status quo is pro-competition.  Pro-competition is pro-consumer.
Look what's happened to the price of domain name registrations after
other Registrars have entered the market.  Even NetSol/VeriSign has
been offering sales and discounts.

WLS means there will be one, and only one, source of supply for
expired domain names and at a very high cost, indeed. Add to that
equation the fact that NetSol/VeriSign has been hoarding domain names
for a long time. They will, therefore, have the only watering hole and
can dictate, mandate and demand whatever price they want for anyone to
have a drink. The consumer has absolutely no choice.  The price is
fixed.

If WLS happens, there will not be any open market competition or
consumer choice.  History shows us that's a bad deal.  Monopoly has
never proven to be good for the consumer.

However, you are absolutely correct that other people are making money
due to the status quo.  They are competing for the opportunity to make
it, though, and that introduces market efficiencies.  That's good for
the consumer and generally drives down the price.  A monopoly has
absolutely no incentive to do that, since they are the only game in
town.

The "add storms" were initially an excuse to justify WLS. However,
when NetSol/VeriSign was called on it, they stated more than once that
the "add storms" are no longer a problem. George gave you the links to
those statements. Therefore, Registry capacity is not relevant to WLS.
Even if it was relevant, it is a very weak argument, laughable, in
fact, from a technical standpoint.

Bull Feathers, WRT the argument that WLS will reduce domain name
speculation.  Snap Names and Gomez readily admits that half of the
Snap Name customers are speculators.

Bull Feathers, also to the argument that the other competitors will be
able to market WLS at whatever price they like. NetSol sets that
price, too. There is not very much margin to pay for the little things
like R&D and marketing discriminators, either. NetSol/VeriSign gets
the lions share of the margin. Again, the big dog eats whenever he
wants. That's how a monopoly works and that's bad for a free market
and consumers.

Please don't fall for the marketing hipe. The obvious intent of WLS is
to fully control and monopolize domain name expirations, kill all
competition, remove any consumer choice and for Snap Names and
NetSol/VeriSign to make one heck of a lot of money.

It's not an original thought, but I'll repeat it anyway.  WLS is
nothing more than a money grab.  It is about profit for the WLS
players, pure and simple.

I'm confident that if you continue to peel the onion and look at all
of the posts with regard to WLS and use your own common sense, that
you will come to the very same conclusion.

Thanks for spending the time to be on the TF and work on this project.

Thanks,

Monday, June 17, 2002, 6:44:17 PM, Rick Wesson <[email-masked]> wrote:

RW> George,

>> Conclusion: the Status Quo works great! Don't worry, be happy!

RW> an issue that concerns some is that your statement seems to read:

RW>   " I making money, so please don't screw up my nice little market nitch"

RW> Its not working for everyone and that is what we are attempting to fix in
RW> a fair and equitable manor, fail to realize that and you are marginalized.

RW> -rick

RW> --
RW> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
RW> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
RW> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
RW> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1279
*************************