they are against it :-)
the davids don't want the verisign-netsol-goliath to be fed
with new royalties and further power against the consumers/domain holders.
kind regards philippe
--- *** ---
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01907.html
>
>Thanks,
>
>-rwr
>Mr. Chuck Gomes,
>
>Attached is the constituency response to the VeriSign WLS proposal. We
>appreciate your team developing this proposal and welcome your comments in
>regards to this constituency consensus statement.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>-rick
>
>Rick Wesson, on behalf of the DNSO Registrars Constituency
>
>RC-WLS-Response.pdf
>
To Chuck Gomes,
The Registrar Constituency (RC) is hereby providing its formal position to the
VeriSign Global Registry Services (VGRS) regarding its proposal to manage a Wait
Listing Service (WLS), the subscription service for deleted domain names. VRSN sent
its proposal to the Registrar Constituency on December 30, 2001, and allowed
registrars to comment until January 18, 2002.
The RC has considered the WLS, holding discussions and voting by email and through a
conference call. The overwhelming position of the RC - in fact the unanimous vote of
all those taking a position - is to oppose the WLS. Considering VRSN's obligation
under its agreements with ICANN to vet any proposed price increases or service
modifications for registry services with ICANN, and ICANN's bottom-up approach, it is
the RC's understanding that the RC position will be considered within the Domain Name
Supporting Organization (DNSO) before the DNSO would make a recommendation to the
ICANN Board, and that the RC position would be a significant factor in ICANN's
consideration of the WLS proposal.
Prior to reviewing the RC's concerns, it would be instructive to recall the history of
this issue. In Spring 2001, VGRS temporarily shut off registrar connections,
preventing new and/or small registrars from registering .com, .net and .org domain
names. Ostensibly to address this technical load problem VGRS had temporarily closed
the process of deleting expired names. Rather than effectively solving the technical
load problem, VGRS implemented an interim solution, relegating batch requests for
deleting names to one of three pools to prevent this high-volume traffic from
overloading its systems. But according to VGRS, this solution has not solved the
connection problems. In fact, VGRS is once again announcing that it is limiting
connections.
The RC has a number of key concerns with WLS:
a) price, b) transparency, c) benefit to the Internet, and d) lack of a solution:
a) The proposed $40.00 price point for WLS (which is in addition to the $6.00 registry
fee) is exorbitant. VGRS has not justified this price with cost requirements. Not only
does WLS create a much higher price point for the end consumer, it effectively
undermines competitive registrars' financial wherewithal. It is highly unlikely that
registrars would be able to increase their margins in proportion to the increased
margin charged by VGRS. In fact, market data (such as the Snapames price point of $49)
demonstrates that competitive registrars would have to dramatically lower, or
eliminate, their current margins in order to compete for WLS names. This would
undermine competitive registrars' revenues and jeopardize their ability to remain
profitable.
� The one registrar that may be able to take effectively advantage of this price is
the VeriSign registrar, which continues to enjoy the largest market share. It would be
able to use the new higher margin of $46.00 to price below wholesale, as it has in the
past with the $6.00 fee. The result is to unfairly undermine competitor registrars.
b) There would be a lack of transparency if VGRS runs the primary registry, the
largest registrar, and the subscription service. As long as the same company is
operating this vertically powerful chain of companies, it may be possible for it to
shift domain names from the $6.00 registry to the $46.00 WLS. In fact, only the
registry would know all of the WLS subscriptions and the timing for deleting names.
Such information could be abused by its registrar. Considering that there is a history
- some of it still unresolved - of VeriSign not deleting expired names, the RC is
doubly concerned that VGRS' operating the WLS provides new opportunities for domain
name hoarding.
c) The WLS provides an incentive and reward for speculators, while squeezing
registrants seeking to build a web presence and registrars (as explained above). The
WLS provides a "sure thing" to Internet insiders who are savvy enough to get to the
head of the line. This primarily means speculators. They will be willing to pay the
added $40 fee for a guarantee of getting the expired name if 1) they are sure the name
will be deleted and 2) they believe that they can resell the domain name at a higher
price. Insiders will be virtually the only ones able to ensure that a certain name
will be deleted. The end user will still have to pay the market price, which will be
determined on the secondary market. Moreover, the fact that a WLS subscription has
been placed on any given name would prompt a speculator holding such domain name to
renew it, rather than release it.
d) In addition to creating new problems, WLS will not solve the problem of batch pool
slamming. In fact, there is the potential to create the same technical loading
problems on the WLS as currently exist on the main registry. For example, there will
be competition amongst speculators to be the first to get the WLS on the best names
about to be deleted. There could also be a landrush effect to place WLS on well known
popular names, at the moment when the new WLS service goes live. Registrars will still
compete for the expiring names that do not have WLS subscriptions. Since it costs the
same "to slam" a $40 name as to slam a name greater than $40, there is no incentive
not to. Finally, since WLS subscriptions are not tied to a name, this will create many
WLS-switches immediately after the zone file is released daily.
While the RC opposes the WLS in its current form, it recognizes the need for a
permanent solution to the apparent problem of deleted names not being released or
being released in a manner that undermines other registry functions. Therefore, the RC
welcomes other ideas for addressing these issues, and has discussed other
alternatives. The RC will address these proposals in a separate position paper. The RC
is open to VGRS' comments on these other proposals, as well as any modified VGRS
proposal that modifies the WLS per the comments herein.
The RC is clearly very interested in this issue and welcomes questions or further
dialogue.
Regards,
Rick Wesson
Registrar Constituency
Chief Technical Officer
cc: Louis Touton
Dan Halloran
