[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] WLS Status Report
[cc'ed to nc-transfer@dnso.org]
George,
I completely agree with your remarks in this regard. As previously
mentioned, the community has really been dealing with two separate issues
here;
1.) Verisign's initial failure to deal with registration activity
generated by registrars [the ensuing arguement boiled down to whether or not
the registrar behavior was appropriate or whether Verisign was failing to
live up to its obligations under the registry contract with ICANN and the
registrars. Tucows still contends that the batch pool system implemented by
Verisign represents an arbitrary establishment of policy contrary to the
FCFS methodology that was previously in place and that in fact, Verisign has
an obligation to establish and maintain systems infrastructure commensurate
with, and capable of dealing with the policy implications of their contract.
Verisign contents that registrars are engaging in an illegitimate activity
that they therefore should not support.]
2.) The introduction of a new (monopoly) registry service that would
affect (adversely or positively, I leave it to the reader to determine which
theology they prescribe to) the (pre-)existing market for services.
I recommend that the passage below be removed[1] from the final report
unless it can be clearly established that a) registrars were engaging in
illegitimate behaviour, or conversely, b) that Verisign did not live up to
their contractual obligations and provide the infrastructure necessary to
support the existing policy instead of arbitrarily establishing new policy
that lead to the batch pool methodology.
To your second point concerning the fast-track recommendation, it is my
understanding that this will consist of a policy analysis (and
recommendations) concerning standardizing the process of deletion and
re-registration (and other related policy issues.) Tucows fully supports
this approach provided that it is not inconsistent with the views that have
been widely held as being "appropriate practice" over the last few years
(ie - specific and finite period during which a domain name must be deleted
by a registrar after it expires, safeguards for registrants, re-registration
pricing equivalent to original registration pricing, FCFS, etc.)
-rwr
[1]The statements provided in bullet five and six of this section tend to
support the conclusion that this entire should be removed, perhaps with the
exception as being a historical note (which, if this is the case, the
passage need be reworded to function as a statement of fact.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@yahoo.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>; <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
Cc: <mcade@att.com>; <stahura@enom.com>; <cclark@dotster.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 11:28 PM
Subject: [ga] WLS Status Report
Hello,
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00236.html
has an update by the DNSO Transfers Task Force (TF) chair, and makes
excellent reading (unless you happen to work for VGRS).
Essentially, after reviewing everything, the task force is against WLS,
as expected.
I would have to point out, though, that the TF is giving undue weight
to Verisign's statements that it is suffering due to "add storms", and
I object to its inclusion (or at least one should point out the counter
arguments, for balance). The TF writes:
"1. It was acknowledged that present practices of competitive services
result in “add storms” which are affecting the registry’s services, and
according to the registry, adding significant costs for support of all
the attempts to “grab” names but without resulting in transactions
which provide revenue to the registry." (III.1)
I'd like to remind people that by Verisign's own admissions, at:
http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf
In the answer to B.1:
"The WLS is not intended or designed to deal with deleted
registrations nor has VGRS ever made that claim."
and in reply to B.2.
"registry load is no longer an issue. The multiple pools and rate
limiting technology have solved that problem."
I repeat "registry load is no longer an issue."!!
Thus, I think the Task Force should remove any references to these
technical issues from their report, or note that they do not apply. WLS
should be treated as a BUSINESS PROPOSAL for a new MONOPOLY SERVICE at
the registry level, and it should be delinked from any discussion over
technical concerns. Any "technical" concerns are self-serving fiction
and misinformation by Verisign. "Registry load is no longer an issue"
and "solved that problem" cannot be more clear. "Significant costs" is
entirely inappropriate language, as VGRS has never said what those
costs are, and has refused to provide any data whatsoever to backup
their misinformation. To some people, $5,000 or $10,000/yr is
"significant". If anyone but Arthur Andersen were to do a cost
accounting, the solution to the technical problems was likely a minimal
expenditure, and insignificant. I remind folks that CIRA in Canada
handled similar domain deletions (TBR names) without a cost increase of
any kind, and could handle the spike in traffic without hiccups. VGRS
is equally capable. I'm sure CIRA would gladly take the job, for $180
million/yr, if VGRS can't stomach the job...
Also, I think given the findings by the task force, full consensus
process should be invoked (or just reject WLS outright), given the harm
to numerous parties, and WLS could not and should not be fast-tracked.
As a policy concern for any new registry offering, only products that
would not unduly harm existing market participants should ever be
fast-tracked. I'm not sure why the TF hesitated in this regard in the
report.
Will there be more teleconferences before the coming ICANN meeting, to
iron out outstanding issues? (the possibility of 2 more had been
mentioned)
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 ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html