Re: [ga] WLS Status Report

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Ross and all assembly members,

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> [cc'ed to nc-transfer@dnso.org]
>
> George,
>
> I completely agree with your remarks in this regard. As previously
> mentioned, the community has really been dealing with two separate issues
> here;
>
>     1.) Verisign's initial failure to deal with registration activity
> generated by registrars [the ensuing arguement boiled down to whether or not
> the registrar behavior was appropriate or whether Verisign was failing to
> live up to its obligations under the registry contract with ICANN and the
> registrars. Tucows still contends that the batch pool system implemented by
> Verisign represents an arbitrary establishment of policy contrary to the
> FCFS methodology that was previously in place and that in fact, Verisign has
> an obligation to establish and maintain systems infrastructure commensurate
> with, and capable of dealing with the policy implications of their contract.
> Verisign contents that registrars are engaging in an illegitimate activity
> that they therefore should not support.]

  I also agree with Ross's remarks and detail nicely yet briefly provided
above.  From a registrants/stakeholders/users point of view, or otherwise
position, it is clear that WLS does not address the current problem in it's
entirety, nor is it reasonable to consider as policy in dealing with Delete
and/or Transfer of Domain Names in a fair and equitable manner.  It also
forces registrars and their registrant customers or potential stakeholder/users
into a policy approach that they have no voice of vote in but yet are directly
effected by it.

>
>
>     2.) The introduction of a new (monopoly) registry service that would
> affect (adversely or positively, I leave it to the reader to determine which
> theology they prescribe to) the (pre-)existing market for services.

  Also agreed here.  Such policies or types of policies do not deserve
consideration.

>
>
> I recommend that the passage below be  removed[1] from the final report
> unless it can be clearly established that a) registrars were engaging in
> illegitimate behaviour, or conversely, b) that Verisign did not live up to
> their contractual obligations and provide the infrastructure necessary to
> support the existing policy instead of arbitrarily establishing new policy
> that lead to the batch pool methodology.
>
> To your second point concerning the fast-track recommendation, it is my
> understanding that this will consist of a policy analysis (and
> recommendations) concerning standardizing the process of deletion and
> re-registration (and other related policy issues.) Tucows fully supports
> this approach provided that it is not inconsistent with the views that have
> been widely held as being "appropriate practice" over the last few years
> (ie - specific and finite period during which a domain name must be deleted
> by a registrar after it expires, safeguards for registrants, re-registration
> pricing equivalent to original registration pricing, FCFS, etc.)

  These potential safeguards must be the choice of the original registrant if
that registrant can be contacted in a given period of time (30-60-90 days?)
Other than that I believe that Ross is also correct here as well...

>
>
> -rwr
>
> [1]The statements provided in bullet five and six of this section tend to
> support the conclusion that this entire should be removed, perhaps with the
> exception as being a historical note (which, if this is the case, the
> passage need be reworded to function as a statement of fact.)

  Agreed here as well...

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@yahoo.com>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>; <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> Cc: <mcade@att.com>; <stahura@enom.com>; <cclark@dotster.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 11:28 PM
> Subject: [ga] WLS Status Report
>
> 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
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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