RE: [ga] VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Bret's understanding of "VeriSign's FUD" seems pretty accurate to me.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:baf@fausett.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 2:22 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
> 
> 
> >> Registrants, for one. The principal improvement of the 
> Waiting List Service
> >> proposed last week is that if you buy a subscription, then 
> you're certain to
> >> get your desired domain name if and when it lapses.
> > 
> > C'mon, Bret, that's crap and you know it.  What is the basis, FCFS?
> 
> Yes. My understanding of the proposal, is that it's first-come,
> first-served, just as in registering a new domain name.
>  
> > So you join a queue of 20 people all waiting for the domain name?
> 
> If I read the proposal correctly, it's not certain whether 
> there will be
> more than one person allowed to take a subscription. I 
> believe that's still
> under discussion.
> 
> > For example, if you know who is in the queue above you, 
> what's to stop you
> > from contacting them and buying out their interest?
> 
> Nothing that I can see. So what? Nothing to stop you from 
> contacting any
> domain name owner and buying out their registration contract either.
>  
> >> Under a registrar-based model, you'd have to purchase a 
> subscription with
> >> all of the various registrars who offer a competing 
> service in order to get
> >> close to the same guarantee.  It would cost more, in both money and
> >> aggravation, and still not guarantee that you would get the name.
> > 
> > I'm amazed that you fall for VeriSign's FUD.  There are no 
> guarantees.
> 
> No, if the system works the way it's intended, you should be 
> guaranteed the
> name. Of course, on the registrars list, you can already see companies
> exploring the idea of using the window of time after the 
> customer has lost
> rights in the names for non-renewal but before the name 
> actual deletes to
> offer their own service. If that's permitted, it would 
> significantly devalue
> the WLS. 
> 
> Guarantees and predictability are generally good for registrants.
> 
> If you've tried to pick up a deleting name over the last 
> year, you've faced
> two problems:
> 
>    1. knowing when it was going to drop
>       (expiration date seems to have virtually nothing to do with
>       when a name is actually deleted); and
> 
>    2. knowing how to get it first, when it dropped
>       (before Snapnames and other commercial services, this was
>       a dark art that bordered on the occult)
> 
> Even with Snapnames or some of the other registrar offerings, you were
> playing the odds. $49.00 got you a Snapback. Dotster's 
> Namewinner service
> was an auction, which cost another $25.00 minimum to play. 
> eNom and some
> other registrars had their own services. All of those services were
> competing against each other for the name you wanted. As a 
> consequence, if
> you REALLY wanted a name, you had to play all the games to 
> maximize your
> chances. Add up all the fees and you're well over whatever it 
> is that VGRS
> and the registrars will charge for this WLS.
> 
> So from the perspective of someone who has paid for these 
> services in the
> past, I don't particularly care what system the registrars 
> adopt, but I do
> think these two features are important:
> 
>    (a) the person first-in-line with a subscription always 
> gets the domain
> name when it deletes; and
> 
>    (b) change of ownership always happens at a defined time after the
> previous owner's registration has lapsed (i.e. no more random periods
> between expiration and deletion).
> 
> I hope the registrars will keep those in mind as they are 
> evaluating the
> VGRS proposal.
> 
>          -- Bret
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

smime.p7s