Ok, I may be incorrect and maybe they do get deleted. But then how do they register them first? Are all of these companies running constant checks on the domains to see if they're available yet? That sounds like a major drain on bandwidth/server resources, and doens't make it any more fair to the general public. Since it's not really a first come first served model, it's a who has access to the most resources model.
Maybe we should look at a lottery based system. This might be similar to the way the .biz tld was launched, but whatever. Everyone can buy a ticket, for a buck or whatever, and a winner of the name is selected. The winner wins the right to lease the name for the usual fee. Granted, it's still not a really fair way of doing things, but it's way better than an auction based system, and a little better than just whoever hounds the registry servers the most often to get in first. And to make it even more ethical, the money generated by the ticket sales could be used for some 'nobel' purpose, instead of just lining someones pocket. Since it's all about who gets rich and who gets hurt/poor that determines whether or not something is ethical. Just thinking aloud here. Dave On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, George Kirikos wrote: > Hello, > > --- Dave Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What would be the difference between the SnapBack service and the new > > OpenSRS product? I don't believe names that are 'back ordered' > > through > > SnapBack actually get dropped if they're controlled by NSI. Just > > You're wrong. The names do get deleted, and thus folks at many > registrars have a chance to catch them. Check out NameWinner, as an > example of a competitor to SnapNames. Also, check out the WHOIS records > of canary.com, voice.com, beijing.com, and other elite names that have > dropped -- they were caught at non-SnapNames and non-NameWinner > registries. > > > or not I agree with the idea. If the new product helps to create a > > more > > even playing field in the game between us and Verisign etc, and is > > still > > fairly ethical, then it's all good. :) > > If names don't get deleted that are expired, it doesn't level the > playing field. All you'll find is that only low-value names ever get > deleted, and that high-value expired names get brokered behind closed > doors. One can't blame the registrars for being tempted to get in on > this action, but it's simply not their names to decide how to allocate > once they expire, in my view. > > Do you really think NSI, if they had the power to dictate the future of > expired names, would even consider handing over Beijing.com or a high > quality name to a SnapBack holder for $49? > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > http://www.kirikos.com/ > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send your FREE holiday greetings online! > http://greetings.yahoo.com >
