RE: [ga] For those interested in delete games

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

Patrick,

According to feedback I have seen so far, there are registrars who
oppose the WLS proposal and those who favor it.  I expect to receive
feedback from the Registrar Constituency by 18 January or shortly
thereafter.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@quad.net.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:10 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: [ga]
> Subject: Re: [ga] For those interested in delete games
> 
> 
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:43:43 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> > Verisign is instead trying to use the existence of a 
> fictional problem
> > to justify creating a new program that will make up for the 
> tremendous
> > loss of market share that their Registrar has experienced 
> in the last
> > 2 years and create a completely new profit center for them.
> 
> According to Roberto Gaetano, Chuck Gomes wrote:
> 
> > Since 1996, there have been potential domain name holders who have
> > requested some sort of wait list service in case domain names are
> > released into the available pool.  The service at the 
> registrar level
> > was a response to this demand.  Putting the service at the registry
> > level improves the value of the service for potential registrants.
> 
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 20:11:12 -0500, Chuck Gomes wrote:
> 
> > Please help me understand your conclusion.  It clearly does 
> not follow
> > from what I said.  Even under this proposed service, the 
> registrar is
> > extremely important.  It is the registrar that is the 
> direct interface
> > with the customer, that provides the customer service, that 
> markets the
> > service, etc.
> 
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 21:18:08 -0500, Chuck Gomes wrote:
> 
> > There is and will continue to be clear separation between 
> the VeriSign
> > Registry and VeriSign Registrar regardless of how much people refuse
> > to believe it.
> 
> Hi Chuck
> 
> You are saying that there is a clear distinction between the 
> registry and
> registrar operations.   At the same time, you are saying that 
> a decision was
> made to provide this new service at the registry level rather 
> than that of the
> registrar, ok?
> 
> So let's see if I have got this right.  The assumption is that if the
> registrar were completely detached from the registry, the 
> registrar would be
> happy for the registry to generate income from this new 
> business opportunity.
> 
> Which implies that OTHER registrars (i.e. other than 
> VeriSign) support the
> proposal.
> 
> However, William X. Walsh seems to be suggesting that the reason the
> proposal is being introduced relates, in some way, to the 
> Verisign registrar's
> decline in market share with respect to renewed domain names.
> 
> In other words, if the majority of registrars agree that the 
> function of
> reserving domain names prior to their deletion should be 
> performed by the
> registry then it would seem to be a sound proposition objectively.
> 
> Could you advise me, please, whether you have any indication 
> that other
> ICANN-accredited registrars are, in fact, supportive of 
> VeriSign's initiative?
> 
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
> 
> 
>

smime.p7s