On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, William X Walsh wrote: <snip>
> FCFS, it is the most fair system of all, and the system that we should > stick to. > > And Robert, one thing that is plain for anyone to see, the problems > start when people try and find a way around FCFS. Look at the .biz > crap, and all the preregistration sunrise and landrush crap. Do you > really think any of that was fair to anyone but the Registries who > made money hand over foot? Good day William, How is the Verisign proposal *not* FCFS? As I see it, it keeps this model in-place, though through a different mechanism. The first person to submit a claim on a dropping domain is the one who will have the chance at it. It seems that two points are being argued here as a single one; the allocation method (FCFS, lottery, what-have-you), and the implementation of that (whether done at the registry-level, or somewhere higher, and the cost of the service). Personally, I don't see a problem at all with some kind of mechanism to be able to register a claim on a domain, but I do have a problem with this being done at the registry level, in the way that they are proposing, because, as has been pointed out, Verisign stands to be the one to reap the benefits of this, especially as they will be able to undercut other registrars in pricing. Mark.
