It is very hard to argue against these points. It gives me an idea. I always say if you are going to bitch then you should offer a solution. I think I have a small one that could snowball. I'll post later.
Regards, Lars -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Harold Whiting Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 4:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal?? At 12:46 AM 1/5/2002 -0800, Robert L Mathews wrote: >At 1/4/02 7:14 PM, William X Walsh wrote: > >>See, this is the argument that makes the least sense to me. Verisign >>can solve the technical problem here (and it is a strictly TECHNICAL >>PROBLEM), but rather than solve the problem their poor system design >>has created, they are trying to use the problem to justify a way for >>them to add a new profit center. > >Okay, well, how should they solve it, then? If you have an idea, I'd love >to hear it (and I'm not being sarcastic). I honestly don't think it's >solvable -- there is a virtually infinite demand for some names, and the >registry/registrars/resellers can't supply virtually infinite connection >resources. Simple. Every registrar has access to the batch-pool. The registry complains of tens of millions of worthless "checks" during drop times. An additional response code signifying a name has been registered IN THE LAST 24 HOURS would stop the registrars from continuing to pursue that name. Should the registry still be unhappy with the resources required, simply charge a fee of $10 in addition to the $6 registry fee for ALL NAMES REGISTERED THROUGH THE BATCH POOL.. Viola, the redundant check problem is fixed and so is the registry's cost for supplying the needed resources. It really is that simple. >It's the same problem that landrush/sunrise periods hoped to solve with >new TLD introduction, and a whole bunch of smart people have tried >various schemes. I think we can all agree that the results of every >scheme tried so far for new TLDs and com/net/org drops have been >disasters. Only because the registry has thus far neglected to actually address the technical problem. They seem more intent on "inventing" a "new product" to sell outside of thier mandate. >So, seriously: how can you sell a resource that could be worth hundreds >of thousand of dollars to the general public for six dollars, and avoid >crushing speculation and mysterious shenanigans? Especially since the >virtual nature of the sale prevents you from limiting the applications to >one per customer? Many customers from many different registrars will pursue certain "valuable" names, this is a fact. It is also a fact that both the registry and the registrars are in business to provide registration SERVICES to enable end users to register names, be it worthless or valuable. It certainly is not in the registry's scope to determine what a name's "value" is, thier mandate is to operate the registry for the $6 registry fee. That registrars have chosen to cripple themselves with 50 cent markups is nobody's fault but thier own. >I don't think it's a technical problem, but rather a human nature problem. I'd love to be proven wrong. It is only a "problem" when the registry does not address the technical problems. What IS a "speculator", anyway? Is Proctor & Gamble a "speculator" because they own 10,000 domains pointing to them? Is NSI a speculater, after all nsi.com just "points" to something else..... Besides, who registers what name and for what reason is not in the scope of intended influence of either the registy or the registrars, they are designed to profit from the actual mechanics of "registering" names.
