Hello, http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00236.html
has an update by the DNSO Transfers Task Force (TF) chair, and makes excellent reading (unless you happen to work for VGRS). Essentially, after reviewing everything, the task force is against WLS, as expected. I would have to point out, though, that the TF is giving undue weight to Verisign's statements that it is suffering due to "add storms", and I object to its inclusion (or at least one should point out the counter arguments, for balance). The TF writes: "1. It was acknowledged that present practices of competitive services result in �add storms� which are affecting the registry�s services, and according to the registry, adding significant costs for support of all the attempts to �grab� names but without resulting in transactions which provide revenue to the registry." (III.1) I'd like to remind people that by Verisign's own admissions, at: http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf In the answer to B.1: "The WLS is not intended or designed to deal with deleted registrations nor has VGRS ever made that claim." and in reply to B.2. "registry load is no longer an issue. The multiple pools and rate limiting technology have solved that problem." I repeat "registry load is no longer an issue."!! Thus, I think the Task Force should remove any references to these technical issues from their report, or note that they do not apply. WLS should be treated as a BUSINESS PROPOSAL for a new MONOPOLY SERVICE at the registry level, and it should be delinked from any discussion over technical concerns. Any "technical" concerns are self-serving fiction and misinformation by Verisign. "Registry load is no longer an issue" and "solved that problem" cannot be more clear. "Significant costs" is entirely inappropriate language, as VGRS has never said what those costs are, and has refused to provide any data whatsoever to backup their misinformation. To some people, $5,000 or $10,000/yr is "significant". If anyone but Arthur Andersen were to do a cost accounting, the solution to the technical problems was likely a minimal expenditure, and insignificant. I remind folks that CIRA in Canada handled similar domain deletions (TBR names) without a cost increase of any kind, and could handle the spike in traffic without hiccups. VGRS is equally capable. I'm sure CIRA would gladly take the job, for $180 million/yr, if VGRS can't stomach the job... Also, I think given the findings by the task force, full consensus process should be invoked (or just reject WLS outright), given the harm to numerous parties, and WLS could not and should not be fast-tracked. As a policy concern for any new registry offering, only products that would not unduly harm existing market participants should ever be fast-tracked. I'm not sure why the TF hesitated in this regard in the report. Will there be more teleconferences before the coming ICANN meeting, to iron out outstanding issues? (the possibility of 2 more had been mentioned) Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
