Well I'm still digesting this.
They compare this system to snapnames, there is a big difference. Other parties (read: people like me) still have a shot at domains that are snapnames subscribed. This goes away under this proposal as far as I can tell. The registry is doing an end run around everybody and basically locks the post-expiry market on names subscribed. In short, there will be no competition for a given name. It will be first come, first served. Maybe this is not a bad thing, since its similar to domains now. But the cost is pretty steep. -mark On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, George Kirikos wrote: > Verisign has made a new "proposal" over expiring domain names. I've > mirrored a copy of it at: > > http://www.loffs.com/images/VRSN_WLS.pdf > > (Adobe Acrobat is required to view it, feel free to mirror it > elsewhere, as it was obtained from another website) > > Given the wording of the document, with its rapidly approaching dates > for implementation, it seems more like an attempt to sneak through a > 'done deal' negotiated in secret, rather than just be a discussion > document. It's scheduled to run for a full year at least (looks like 2 > years to me, as a "Waiting list" order in the final month would still > last a year). > > In summary, it's just a Snapnames-like service, wholesaled to other > registrars, with a WHOLESALE cost of $40 per name, PLUS the $6 > registration fee (wholesale) for the new registrant. If a name doesn't > expire, the Waiting List Service buyer gets nothing. Other registrars > would charge a markup on top of the wholesale costs. Quality names > would no longer be deleted as they are now. > > This is a pure cash grab -- Verisign's profitability has been in > question, with the lower than expected growth in registrations. With an > expected market of 5% of the 30 million domain names, that's roughly > $60 MILLION dollars per year to Verisign, for doing essentially > nothing. > > Verisign presents this as a "win-win" for everyone, but I don't see it > that way. If Verisign is extracting an additional $60 million/year (on > top of the $180 million/year it already gets as maintainers of the > registry) from the system, someone is losing out -- consumers. Also, > many registrars would lose out, as they can make more money using the > existing state of affairs (registrars will be nothing more than bulk > resellers of a commodity, with low margins, while Verisign scoops up an > additional $40 per name. > > There is NO WAY that it's costing Verisign $60 million/year to > implement the batch drop system, as it exists now. If they think it > does, I'll offer to take responsibility for it for only $30 > million/year, saving them lots of money! :) > > I'm hopeful that others see this for what it is, and protest strongly > to the appropriate authorities (ICANN, etc.). If someone can provide > email addresses, that would be great (I've never sent email to ICANN -- > this will be a first). > > Also, if Tucow/OpenSRS would reiterate its position stated at: > > http://www.byte.org/rc-deletes/ > > (i.e. VGRS Obligations proposal), that might help. > > Verisign is the embodiment of greed, attempting to overstep its > authority over these expiring names in order to pad its earnings, at > the expense of consumers and other registrars. The only solution I see > is an order from ICANN, in keeping with the VGRS obligations proposal > by Tucows/OpenSRS, that they be forced to delete all expiring names for > re-registration by ANYONE and ANY REGISTRAR at the standard $6/year > wholesale cost, using the batch system that exists now. The registry > monopoly doesn't exist so that Verisign can maximize profits at the > expense of others. > > If they really think there is a problem with excessive automated > processes, those processes can be easily throttled. OR, there can be a > slight surcharge for names registered via the batch pool (e.g. make it > $10 instead of $6). > > I'm looking forward to comments. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > http://www.kirikos.com/ > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send your FREE holiday greetings online! > http://greetings.yahoo.com > -- mark jeftovic http://www.easydns.com http://mark.jeftovic.net
