(sorry if anyone got this twice -- I had some bad addresses in the original, and fixed some typos)
Hello, In regards to the upcoming teleconference on WLS by the Names Council Task Force, I found it interesting to read the position of Verisign's Roger J. Cochetti at: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00183.html in particular: "The VeriSign Registry does not agree that its planned waitlist service involves any new policy matters and consequently the VeriSign Registry neither supports nor accepts a legitimate role for the Council, or its task forces, to review its planned waitlist service. To the extent that there are new policy matters raised by the waitlist service, they have been neither identified nor justified." I find that position very odd, but consistent once again with an abusive monopolist seeking to circumvent the process whereby their anti-competitive proposal has been soundly rejected by affected stakeholders. In particular, it rejects the objections raised by Louis Touton of ICANN at: http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm "If, however, there are specific reasons to conclude that the legitimate interests of others are likely to be harmed, then ICANN's existing obligation to seek consensus whenever possible before acting suggests that it should invoke the formal consensus development mechanisms that currently exist prior to any decision by the ICANN Board." It has been pointed out on many occasions that there are specific legitimate interests of others that are harmed by this proposal. 1) Other registrars who are actively pursuing domain drops -- I won't rehash the list again, but by my count there are at least 30 registrars currently pursuing expired domains, using a variety of business models, leading to innovation and choice for consumers. They would be specifically and negatively affected by the proposal. I don't pretend to speak for other registrars, but I will believe Verisign has a consensus support IF and ONLY IF registrars like Dotster (who run NameWinner), eNom, Parava, AWRegistry, IARegistry, Registration Tek, Signature Domains and the multitude of other registrars running their own systems come forth in favour of WLS. The fact that Verisign proposes a grandfather system which shows preferential treatment towards SnapNames (its business partner on WLS), without compensating other market participants is a further sign of specific harm caused by WLS' impact as an intrusion on the market. There is no consensus amongst registrars in favour of WLS, as pointed out in the official position of the DNSO RC: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02233.html I recall one registrar describing WLS as a "bottom of the barrel" option, when discussing alternative mechanisms for handling expired names. If there's any consensus, it is that the "Status Quo" is the best current option for all involved. 2) Impact on consumers -- the WLS has a specific negative impact on consumers in 2 ways a) reduced consumer choice -- this occurs because of the destruction of competing business models (such as NameWinner's auction system, or eNom's drop club system). In particular, under some existing systems, consumers pay IF AND ONLY IF the domain is registered successfully on their behalf. Under WLS, consumers pay Verisign irregardless of the success of their Wait-List Subscription (e.g. if the current registrant renews). b) Higher prices -- increasing the WHOLESALE cost of names from $6 to $35 is outrageous, and VGRS' only motive in this regard is a cash grab, to replace lost revenues as its competitors take market share in the main domain registration market. One need only look at Verisign's recent stock price collapse as a signal that it needs new revenue sources. It should compete in offering innovative products, and not seek out another monopoly. Higher prices only positively impact one party, and that is Verisign (and it's business partners), to the detriment of all other market participants. Verisign has tried to justify higher prices as a way to curb "abusive speculation" by domain holders. However, that's only a myth propagated by Verisign, who themselves, when challenged, admit they have no authority in this matter (see answer to B.17 at: http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf where examples of SnapNames registrations were listed.) With regards to price, Verisign refuses to provide costing numbers, given that they are considered trade secrets. However, it is trivial to consider how one can replicate WLS at low cost. Consider WLS as simply a "shadow TLD". For instance, we have example.com as a domain in the dot-com TLD. We can implement WLS by simply creating a "shadow TLD" called dot-com1. Folks are free to register example.com1, for instance, using similar models to today. The costs of implementing this new shadow TLD are well known, either by Verisign's costs and/or the costs of new entrants such as the registry operators of dot-info or dot-biz. What is the ADDITIONAL cost to VGRS for implementing WLS, with this shadow TLD? It is equal to the cost of implementing the following pseudocode into their systems: Current Code for Deleting Example.com: 10: receive request from Registrar to delete Example.com 20: put domain into 5/6 day deletion cycle 30: delete domain Proposed New Code for Deleting Example.com: 10: receive request from Registrar to delete Example.com 15: IF Example.com1 exists, register Example.com to holder of Example.com1, and exit 20: (we only get here if example.com1 doesn't exist) put domain into 5/6 day deletion cycle 30: delete domain So, essentially there is only *1* extra step (line 15) that needs to be introduced into VGRS' systems, namely checking whether there is a holder of the "shadow" domain in the shadow TLD, and if so registering the name to that holder. I am willing to bet VGRS' programmers can implement that extra line of code in 1 day, or 2 days tops. How much does Verisign *really* expect to make from WLS, at the expense of consumers? We need only look at the reports from their business partner, SnapNames. See: http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2002/05/20/story5.html (free registration required) When discussing their recent layoffs, it was written: "Wiener had said he expected that the WLS would bring in revenue of $100 million to $150 million over the course of the 5-year contract." This is *big* money, at the expense of consumers, registrars, and other market participants. And that's only SnapNames' take -- you can be sure Verisign would make a bundle too. VGRS wouldn't have the opposition that it encounters now if they introduced a proper landrush period, and charged $6 for WLS (the costs of the shadow TLD above). It's pure greed on their part, thus the opposition to it. This is evident in their answers to questions B.14 of: http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf where they refuse to acknowledge the impact on other market participants (if it's only a "test" as they suggest, part of that test would clearly involve knowing ex-ante what the existing market is). The only criteria of whether the WLS "experiment" is a failure is: "If costs exceed revenue or if the demand for the service is not sufficient to warrant continued investment, VGRS would have to reconsider offering the service." i.e. if Verisign makes money, it's a success. If it doesn't, it's a failure! Spoken like a true abusive monopolist. Even SnapNames acknowledges that the current market landscape is one which is rich with competition, something that ICANN is supposed to encourage (creating new monopolies is not ICANN's mission). From the above article discussing the SnapNames layoffs: "The launch of the WLS has been delayed, according to Cole, because of sharp competition between domain-name registrars." Verisign also appears to be continuing its misinformation campaign with regards to as high registry loads as a reason for introducing WLS. Even Louis Touton, in his April 17th letter above wrote: "In the specific case of WLS, however, it is quite possible that some of the technically harmful effects of the registrar-level services (such as the high registry loads caused by "add storms") may justify instituting a registry-level WLS." This had been challenged consistently in the registrar community dating back to last summer, yet Verisign has led ICANN to believe that this is *still* an issue, when it is categorically false. It is proven to be false by their own words, the answer to Question B.2 of the WLS responses document, namely: "Second, registry load is no longer an issue. The multiple pools and rate limiting technology have solved that problem." I think Verisign should apologize for continuing to perpetuate the myth of registry load to the extent that Mr. Touton would even mention it again, and stop misleading the good folks at ICANN and elsewhere that load is still an issue. It was a red herring back in August of 2001, and remains one today. Verisign has also stated that they are not aware of any anti-trust issues in regards to WLS. I'd like to ask them to publicly confirm or deny whether they are currently under investigation for any anti-trust matters, and in particular with relation to 1) WLS and 2) their recent conduct with competing registrars and fake renewal notices (i.e. the Godaddy lawsuit). For folks who've monitored these mailing lists, I'm sure it is not a surprise that multiple complaints have been made to the US DoJ and the FTC by numerous market participants in relation to the anti-competitive behaviour of Verisign. Some might have also noticed the decreased posting on these lists by Verisign representatives and Snapnames representatives (provides free "discovery" to those who are investigating things). I think ICANN and other market observers who are making a decision with regards to WLS would like to know, simply yes or no, whether Verisign is under investigation with regards to their behaviour in these matters. The arrogance displayed in rejecting the role of the Names Council is just one more sign that they've gone too far in trying to force through this cash grab. Just to show that the DoJ has a serious interest in these matters, the bottom of this email includes the HEADERS of an email I received from them (out of respect for privacy, I chose not to disclose the contents of their private email). I think it's time for Verisign to follow the principle of full-disclosure, before ICANN submits to these blatant anti-competitive proposals. I've cc'd the DoJ on this matter. Anyone with a further interest, opposition, data, or material to submit to them should send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] They know where to forward it, I'm sure. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ ----- start headers from DoJ ---------- Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: ki2963204@mail-06 Received: from wdcsun022.usdoj.gov (wdcsun4.usdoj.gov [149.101.1.103]) by mail.9netave.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA86048 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:53:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from wt6.usdoj.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wdcsun022.usdoj.gov (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id GTQXP401.C6T for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:53:28 -0500 Received: (from x400@localhost) by wt6.usdoj.gov (8.9.3 (PHNE_18546)/8.9.3) id MAA26986 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:53:28 -0500 (EST) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text X400-MTS-Identifier: [/P=GOV+DOJ/A=TELEMAIL/C=US/;3CA4A96B.35BA.6899.000] ----- end headers from DoJ ---------- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
