Why not consider suing Icann, Verisign and others if there is dirty business going on?
Alternatively, get the US congress onside to force Icann to change it's rules, or fire the whole Icann board, or dismantle it completely and start with a different group of people and a different paradigm. This whole domain name business has had sleaze stuck on parts of it for a long time. It seems to be getting sleazier. Swerve > From: Harold Whiting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 02:10:56 -0800 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Choice? > > Keep in mind that the registrars are not the ones doing this, the registry > (VeriSign) is. > > Every Registrar is now keenly aware of the value of a percentage of "used" > domain names. The mechanism put in place by the registry solved the > disruption of "normal business" during drop times by allowing automated > batch processing in a separate pool designated for that very function. More > and more registrars are "competing" for dropping names every drop. > > Is this fair? Yes, and I will tell you why I think that. > Every Registrar now has an equal shot at grabbing a prime dropping domain > with this system. While we may long for the days when we could simply stay > up till the wee hours of the morning and simply plink into the registrar?s > API and catch a few good ones by hand, or even later by script - those days > are gone. The end of that was accelerated by one individual that decided to > publish the secret of the "6:30am Gold Rush" to the world, but that is a > different axe of mine to grind... > > Like it or not, the only way to get truly spectacular domains from the > drops today is to pay for them, one way or another. Should you be lucky > enough to get a "Snap" locked in on one, you have a decent shot, but the > downside is you pay upfront and performance is not guaranteed. The upside > is also that performance is not guaranteed, so every other registrar has a > shot at grabbing that same domain when it drops. So you can also utilize a > variety of other drop services and still have a shot at getting what you > want. Every registrar is free to choose their own business model to use to > participate in this process. That is free enterprise. That is fair. Is it > fair to us, the consumers? YES, because we have a CHOICE. While we may not > like paying more than $8 for a domain name, we all want them because they > are worth far more so it is not unreasonable that we pay a premium. That is > capitalism. > > VeriSign Registry has decided that they are going to screw us all out of a > choice. Registrars will have no choice. We will have no choice. Is this > fair? I don't even need to answer that. > > But there is another more insidious danger here. Notice what they do NOT > say... > They do not say anything about all registrars following a uniform deletion > process. They do not mention anything about ALL registrars uniformly > returning names to the pool in any manner, timely or not. > > Register.com has long been selling expired names "out the back door". > Another registrar recently tried an even bolder move by inventing something > called "internal deletions" where names were not deleted unless they failed > a "sniff test" in the last few days before deletion. Then if they "passed" > that "sniff test", the ownership magically changed to one entity who was > willing to pay for this service. Both of these practices border on > racketeering, IMO. But the sad truth is that this new proposal from the > registry will only promote more of this unethical behavior. Why? Simple > economics, why would a registrar return a valuable name to the pool if only > VeriSign could reap the profits from its re-registration? > > The only truly fair way to handle deletions, IMO, is to enforce a strict > policy that requires every registrar to return the names to the pool in a > set period of time. No "sniff tests". No "unpaid names Dept." All expired > names get thrown back into the pool. Then, the registry could have regular > and timely "drops" using the system ALREADY IN PLACE and every registrar > has a fair and equal shot at registering a name. Each registrar is free to > choose whatever business model they choose for this and each consumer is > free to choose from that. Sure, it won't be $8, but it will be a choice. > > The registry is crying that it "does not make enough money" to cover the > costs to implement this... Ya, right! Give me over 180 million dollars a > year and I think I could find room! Even if the registry were to charge an > extra $10 per name registered through the "batch pool" that would not > affect the end results, and it would swell the coffers of VeriSign far more > than any "additional cost" to run a few more servers. > > So, in effect, we have VeriSign deciding that the only way to reregister on > of "their"? names is going to be with this "new product" offering that will > make them an additional $40 for every name! Wrap it in fluff, call it a > "New exciting Product" and you have the Emperor?s New Clothes, that we the > consumers should be exited about? Needless to say, I am not too "excited" > about it. Neither should the Registrars be thrilled with this either. > Again, no choice. > > Now for the really scary part... > Nothing prohibits Verisign/SnapNames from undercutting all the other > registrars on price, due to the fact that THEY control the wholesale cost. > So they could simply charge a flat fee of say $45 to the public, including > registration costs at verisign registrar and effectively "lock out" every > other registrar's chances of subscribing anyone using thier registrar. > This would be the only "choice" under this proposal, which registrar to buy > through, but VeriSign/SnapNames can make that a moot issue with a simple > "promotion". > > Or maybe you think I am crazy and this new "product" will be better for > everyone... If so, remember that you once had a choice. > I choose to fight. Even if I lose, I can always know that I did the right > thing. > > Harold Whiting >
