<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Twenty Questions for Verisign about the WLS
Here here! Good work George! I'm for submitting the
questions as a GA submission as well.
Don Brown wrote:
>
> I think George has done an excellent job. I think that his questions
> should be submitted by the GA to VGRS for a response. Personally, I
> would like to see VGRS's answer to each one of them.
>
> AFIC, George, thanks for spending the time and having the patience to
> wade through a lot of the issues pertaining to WLS and formulating a
> lot of excellent and pointed questions. Good job!!
>
> Thanks,
>
> p.s. Although, I did notice that you forgot your profit motive, i.e.
> about making George Kirikos a millionaire. :-) That's not a problem
> with me, though. :-)
>
> Wednesday, February 06, 2002, 4:47:19 PM, George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com> wrote:
> GK> Hello,
>
> GK> I've gone through the discussions of the past month carefully and tried
> GK> to come up with a set of questions for Verisign. Feel free to consider
> GK> adding them to the DNSO GA, Registrars, or other constituency questions
> GK> (I think the more a question is repeated, the greater difficult
> GK> Verisign will face in refusing to provide answers). Many will recognize
> GK> these questions from before, although there are a few new ones that
> GK> I've not seen posted elsewhere. Apologies if you receive this email
> GK> more than once.
>
> GK> Let's play 20 questions:
>
> GK> 1. CIRA, the registry for dot-ca, was able to manage 100-times
> GK> scalability when it released expired names recently for re-registration
> GK> (see http://www.cira.ca/news-releases/63.html ). Given that this
> GK> non-profit registry did not require a wait-list system, nor a
> GK> surcharge, what are the technical flaws in Verisign systems that
> GK> prevent a similar system as CIRA?
>
> GK> 2. a) What are the success criteria that Verisign/ICANN intend to use
> GK> at the end of the 1-year WLS testing period (these should be specified
> GK> ex-ante, not ex-post)?
> GK> b) Do those criteria take into account the existing competitive
> GK> landscape that exists in the market?
> GK> c) If so, what market measurements has Verisign/ICANN made of the
> GK> current competitive landscape (NameWinner, eNom, AWRegistry,
> GK> ExpireFish, SnapNames, NicGenie, IARegistry, Signature Domains, and
> GK> other competitors), to serve as the basis for a comparison?
> GK> d) Under what metrics will the WLS test be considered a failure?
>
> GK> 3. At: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00081.html Chuck
> GK> Gomes wrote "The value to the Internet community therefore seems rather
> GK> obvious to me. But, if there is none as you suggest, then the service
> GK> will be a failure. On the other hand, if there is demand and hence
> GK> value, it will succeed. The level of success will depend on how much
> GK> demand and value there is. The best way to test it is to let the
> GK> market prove it one way or other."
>
> GK> There currently exists a competitive market in the automotive industry
> GK> (as there is for the expired domain names industry). If it was replaced
> GK> by a single monopolistic seller for a 1-year test period, cars would
> GK> undoubtedly still be bought, as there is a intrinsic demand for cars
> GK> themselves. How does Verisign/ICANN intend to differentiate the demand
> GK> for WLS from the demand for the expired names themselves, when there
> GK> would be no alternative mechanism for securing those expired names for
> GK> which there is a basic demand already that is being satisfied in the
> GK> market?
>
> GK> 4. If the WLS is deemed to be illegal (due to anti-trust law, and/or
> GK> relevant Commodity Futures law), will Verisign/ICANN indemnify affected
> GK> resellers, registrants and other market participants from all
> GK> liability, legal costs, and implementation costs associated with the
> GK> 1-year test?
>
> GK> 5. a) How much is Snapnames being paid per reservation? Why?
> GK> b) What are the relevant patent-pending registration numbers for any
> GK> intellectual property that is involved in the creation of the WLS, in
> GK> particular the "Parallel Registry" technology?
>
> GK> 6. What is the definition of "abusive speculation"? In particular, do
> GK> any of the 55 examples from the SnapNames Hot 100 referenced at:
>
> GK> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00085.html
>
> GK> constitute "abusive speculation"? (I will note that as of this writing,
> GK> the Hot 100 list on SnapNames' website is apparently no longer
> GK> available, although the mirror is available)
>
> GK> 7. Why has Verisign refused to implement various technical fixes to
> GK> reduce registry load issues, including "rate-limiting" technology and
> GK> "extended response codes"?
>
> GK> 8. a) What is Verisign's proposed wholesale price for a variant of WLS
> GK> with zero (0) exchanges?
> GK> b) What are Verisign's proposed wholesale prices for a variant of
> GK> WLS with a two-stage mechanism, where the WLS holder is charged $X for
> GK> their place in queue, and then and additional $Y if and only if the
> GK> domain is deleted, with no exchanges? (i.e. tell us X and Y)
>
> GK> 9. a) Verisign has highlighted that there are 80-100 million domain
> GK> "checks" per day. What is the number of checks per day on average,
> GK> broken down by each of the accredited registrars?
> GK> b) Which of the above registrars are performing these checks on
> GK> behalf of SnapNames?
>
> GK> 10. Has Verisign considered implementing a 1-year test on the dot-TV
> GK> and dot-CC TLDs, instead of on dot-COM and dot-NET? Why wouldn't a test
> GK> on those two TLDs suffice, if it's merely a "test"? (rationale: a test
> GK> on dot-TV and dot-CC would not impact the existing competitive deleted
> GK> domains industry, and would also provide the further advantage of
> GK> comparison between the two alternative markets on the same time-scale)
>
> GK> 11. a) Will existing holders of SnapNames SnapBacks be grandfathered
> GK> into the WLS?
> GK> b) If not, what are the proposed Sunrise and Landrush mechanisms
> GK> for the WLS?
>
> GK> 12. Since WLS subscriptions purchased in the final month of the "test"
> GK> will continue be honoured, doesn't this mean that the impact of this
> GK> "test" on the deleted domains market will be for 2 years and not merely
> GK> 1 year?
>
> GK> 13. a) Under what metrics does Verisign plan to decide that there is a
> GK> stakeholders "consensus" for bringing forth this proposal to ICANN? In
> GK> particular, what level and nature of opposition must exist to abandon
> GK> the proposal?
> GK> b) Under what conditions do counter-proposals by other stakeholders
> GK> receive attention as viable alternatives to WLS?
> GK> c) Why is the "Status Quo" proposal not an option? (it seems to
> GK> have greater support and consensus at this time than the WLS) If it has
> GK> greater support than the WLS, why is the "Status Quo" not the best
> GK> option?
>
> GK> 14. Verisign has not had a batch deletion in about 4 weeks. Have batch
> GK> deletions been suspended pending the resolution of the WLS proposal?
>
> GK> 15. a) Will the WHOIS information for the WLS subscription holder be
> GK> made public?
> GK> b) If not, why not?
>
> GK> 16. a) If a name is deleted "in error", does it go back to the original
> GK> registrant?
> GK> b) What are the exact conditions that constitute a deletion "in
> GK> error"?
>
> GK> 17. Will WLS subscriptions be refused on names that expire after the
> GK> end of the WLS subscription?
>
> GK> 18. How does the WLS system handle credit-card chargebacks by
> GK> registrants (and the associated chargeback fees) who fail to acquire a
> GK> name?
>
> GK> 19. How will WLS enhance competition and innovation in the deleted
> GK> domain industry, when it will reduce the number of available business
> GK> models that presently exist in the marketplace?
>
> GK> 20. Which of the existing business models that are active in the
> GK> deleted domains market (eNom, SnapNames, NameWinner, NicGenie,
> GK> Signature Domains, IARegistry, AWRegistry, ExpireFish, and others) are
> GK> inappropriate and/or violations of their respective registrar
> GK> agreements?
>
> GK> Sincerely,
>
> GK> George Kirikos
> GK> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> GK> __________________________________________________
> GK> Do You Yahoo!?
> GK> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
> GK> http://greetings.yahoo.com
> GK> --
> GK> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> GK> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> GK> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> GK> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA Internet Concepts, Inc.
> donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55 (972) 788-2364 Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
Sincerely,
Sotiris Sotiropoulos
Hermes Network Inc.
Toronto, Canada
----
direct: 416.422.1034
icq: 34564103
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|