My thinking on this matter has evolved somewhat over this short but wholly unpleasant period.
I began with the principled, philosophical position that the registry and registrars should not be selling what does not belong to them. Then I began to accept the fact that sales of the expired names (many of which should have been released to the public years ago) are going to occur, but that the registry should not reap the lion's share of the profit. Now I'm so disgusted with the whole mess I think that if the registrars can't manage to muster enough resources to block the WLS proposal, then they deserve the royal screwing they are going to get. I am intrigued by the proposal Elliot Noss presented, and much prefer it to the WLS proposal. But I think it has next to no chance of being implemented, and that's a shame for all registrants - past, present, and future. Chuck Hatcher www.subhost.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abel Wisman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 5:57 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: Outreach > <sent this from a wrong dated machine so it will most likely get lost, if > double sorry> > > > > Verisign is, despite all opposition, intending to move ahead with the project > with the WLS, i quote chuck Gomes from a mail to ga this morning (in response > to Elliot Noss: > > <quote> > > I can definitely confirm this. In my original analysis of the various > solutions put forward on the ICANN-delete list, whereas I indicated that > we would be willing to pursue what was then called a parallel-registry > option, I also said that we did not believe that that solution solved > the deleted names problem. I do think that the WLS could still make > some positive impact in this regard, but it certainly does not solve the > whole problem, so additional actions are needed. > > </quote> > > to be build-up more: > > <quote> > > Hey! We were trying to solve this problem by not leaving money on the > table in our wait list proposal, but our initially proposed $40 price > has been the biggest point of criticism! :) More seriously, from an > economic point of view, I agree with you. And I would like to think > that there is lots of room for market driven variability in price at the > registrar level regardless of what solution is tried. > > </quote> > > and finally the "piece de resistance": > > <quote> > > We asked for feedback on the proposal. We have received a lot, in > particular with regard to the price, and we are taking a new look at the > economics. Regardless of whether it makes a significant dent in the > load issue or not, I personally believe it would be a valuable service > for consumers. Rather than continuing to argue that point, it seems > like it would be really useful to give it a 12-month test where > registrars and registries and other interested parties can find out in > real time. > > </quote> > > In a lengthy email, answering within the body of the mail moves the attention > somewhat away from what you are saying, but freely translated it is very > clear that they have decided to this, unless stopped with force. > > > The moneyhunger among registrars has not made it any better and all of them > are carefully evading the simple basic question in this topic of a new > service intriduced by the registry: what are you trying to sell if nothing > but thin air. > > There can be no mistake, a regsitered domain belongs (even in the grace > period because the "current" registrant is the reason for the grace period) > to the registrant, after that it has to be deleted, once it is deleted there > is nothing and it is everybody's right to register a domain that is not yet > registered t any given moment, the fact that one combination of letters is > more attractive then another does not change the fundamentals. > > By not agreeing to that simple fact each and every registrar becomes a money > hungry (greedy?) entity set out to screw the general public out of yet > another dollar. > This has nothing to do with economics, it might merely be that Verisign > practices are rubbing of on the registrars. > > Let's not forget that registrars have a contract with ICANN (who(ICANN) also > has a contract with the registry) to register domains against a pre-set fee. > they have NO rights to deleted domains whatsoever that should be bigger then > the grocer accross the street. > > abel wisman >
