One primary difference is the traffic pointed towards the WLS system (which is clearly for speculation, imho) would be diverted away from the regular systems, which would improve performance for the 99% of registrants that could care less.
Charles Daminato OpenSRS Product Manager Tucows Inc. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chuck Hatcher > Sent: January 3, 2002 2:54 PM > To: Robert L Mathews; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Verisign Attempting Cash Grab over Expiring Names > > > Maybe there isn't a solution that doesn't seem sleazy in one way > or another. > > A domain name doesn't exist until the original registrant first assembles > the string of characters to create it. From then on Pandora's > box has been > opened, and the domain assumes a life of its own. During their tenure, > perhaps they build traffic, enhancing the value. In principle, if anyone > should profit from the "reassignment" of the domain, it is the former > registrant, and not the registry or registrar. (If your bank > forecloses on > your house because you didn't pay the mortgage, and your house is sold at > public auction, you get any money collected in excess of what you owe. Of > course no real-world analogy exactly fits the world of domain > names.) This > is OK in principle, but it clearly is not practical to implement in this > case. So the big question is, who should profit on a valuable abandoned > domain? > > In the proposed system, whether the cost of a subscription is $6, > or $46, or > $499 - it still won't be enough to eliminate the frenzy of > competition among > speculators. It won't be any easier to get the sole subscription for a > valuable expired name than it currently is to grab it when it > drops. Absent > some kind of lottery, the only real difference between the > proposal and what > we have today will be in Verisign's bottom line. > > The interesting twist to the proposed system will be what happens when a > domain name expires, one person has the subscription on it, and > someone else > wants it really bad. They have nothing to lose, so no reason not > to try to > find the original owner and deal with them (or paying the $35 > renewal out of > spite just to keep the subscription holder from getting the name!). > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert L Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 1:43 PM > Subject: Re: Verisign Attempting Cash Grab over Expiring Names > > > > At 1/2/02 6:55 PM, Charles Daminato wrote: > > > > >Not that I'm personally defending the VeriSign proposed system > > >but... (read through)... > > > > <snip> > > > > >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. > > > > Yeah. Again, I don't really want to defend Verisign, but the reality is > > that they "own" deleted .com domain names one way or another, > and they're > > either going to sell them for $6 at random or $40 to someone with a > > reservation. (To paraphrase the old "joke", we've already established > > what they are, now we're just haggling over the price.) > > > > Since some names are more desirable, it makes sense that they > should cost > > more. Given that Verisign is the one selling them either way, I guess I > > can reluctantly agree to the existence of a scheme that allows everyone > > involved to make more money off these names, as long as it is in fact > > possible for everyone in the chain to do so. > > > > However, Verisign's profit for these names increases 766% (from $6 to > > $46), even if every reserved name actually expires, and much > more if most > > don't drop. Is my profit (or OpenSRS's profit) going to increase this > > much? I doubt it. That's why the fees seem out of line. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > >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. > > > > But subscriptions can expire if they aren't renewed, just like domains. > > Let's say you're a speculator and you know that someone has > purchased the > > subscription for sex.com, and that subscription might expire at noon on > > January 3 (or even worse, you don't know when it might expire > because the > > expiration date isn't public). I'd think you're going to hammer the WLS > > subscription availability lookup system to try to get the subscription. > > > > That doesn't seem much better than the current system; it's > still a brute > > force method (he with the most connections wins), and SnapNames et al > > will simply buy extra registrar connections to the WLS system > so they can > > grab the WLS entries by brute force. So the system will still > get crushed > > under heavy loads, and end users will still be forced to go through > > SnapNames, except that SnapNames' cost increased dramatically > (especially > > when you factor in that they had to pay for many domains that didn't > > drop), so they charge end-users $499 instead of $49. > > > > -- > > Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies >
