Not that I'm personally defending the VeriSign proposed system but... (read through)...
Charles Daminato TUCOWS Product Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Robert L Mathews wrote: > At 1/2/02 4:20 PM, Mark Jeftovic wrote: > > >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. > > I agree that a major qualm is the steep wholesale price. In order for > registrars and resellers to make a profit, the retail price would end up > around $79-99, I think. That's high, and I certainly don't want to see > Verisign getting most of the money from this. > Note that the proposal is under discussion, and the price may change; this will take pressure from the registrar consituency, but I'm confident that if we stick together there can be some change. > The question of "who owns the name" and "why should Verisign think they > own it when it expires" also comes up again, just as with the OpenSRS > experiment. It feels slightly less evil because at least there is a level > playing field across the registrar/reseller/registrant end of the > business, although that playing field slopes sharply at the registry > (Verisign) end, if I may extend the metaphor. > Well, ownership isn't in question. If there is no "subscription" on the name, it simply drops into the registry - if there is, the registration falls to the next in line. It's like having a book or a movie on reservation. > Yes, it sucks that Verisign has a monopoly on the .com registry, but they > do have it, and since I'm in favor of demand-based pricing, I guess I > have to recognize that if people are going to pay a premium for desirable > names (as I think they should to lessen the speculation mania that keeps > bringing the system to its knees), the company holding the monopoly on > the supply is going to do well from it. I'd rather see all the windfall > profits dedicated to decreasing wholesale prices for less desirable > names, or wiring schools for the Internet, or feeding homeless kittens or > something, but I guess ideas like that are non-starters. > > Hmmm. At least such a system would (partially) codify the rules for > domain drops at the registry level, which is needed, although I note they > don't commit to dropping the non-wait-listed names promptly. > I think the system is a step in the right direction for this. From what I've seen (and based on VeriSign's numbers in the proposal), the traffic generated for dropped names is increasing significantly, and that's with holding these names back and slowly releasing them. By placing a first come, first served, one subscription only tickets on these names, they can all be dropped and snagged up at once, without potentially damaging traffic to the registrar and registry systems. > The whole scheme is a scam, really. By definition the most desirable > names won't be dropped anyway. Most people who sign up for this service > would therefore be throwing their money away, and Verisign would make > money selling vapor (a database entry). $40 wholesale when the strong > odds are you get nothing! Sheesh. At least .biz lottery ticket buyers > knew that the domain was going to be awarded to one of them. And here I > am actually providing services to people in exchange for their money... > what a sucker. > If you get the WLS subscription, you get the domain. If there's already a subscription, you know you won't get the name and can move on. The only catch (already pointed out) is that subscriptions are purchased for names that never drop - that's money being thrown away. > Actually, I wonder if the proposed system would really change anything > about the domain drop mania. Why wouldn't people just hammer registrars > every day in the hope that they could grab a WLS subscription for sex.com > that may be about to expire? > Since the WLS subscription is a "one ticket" system, there would be no hammering. Once a subscription for sex.com (for example) was purchased, no one else could get one, until the domain had expired, gone to the subscription owner, and the subscription subsequently freed for that domain. Now, I did not notice in the initial proposal any comments on making the subscription list public. It would server everyone well to at least see if there was an outstanding subscription on a name so they wouldn't waste resources and effort attempting to obtain one in vain. > -- > Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies > >
