Re: [ga] WLS proposal

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

> Let's say we concede that the current system isn't "fair" (I disagree,
> but let's go with that premise anyway).
>
> What would be more fair than first come first served?

FCFS isn't fair in this case because just to come to the table the network
latency and jitter could be a detrimental factor in two players where one
is close (25ms) to the registry and the other is far away (175ms)

the current setup only allows those to play that have figured out
what names to play because the names are not disclosed and take a fair
amount of work (which violates ICANN and registry Zone file Access
Agreements) to determine what names are going to be in play.

> A random system certainly isn't fair, nor is it likely to stand up to
> legal scrutiny unless it is ENTIRELY without cost to losing parties,
> and if that is the case, you are actually creating much more UNFAIR
> system since people will abuse it for multiple entries.

since when did random distribution become unfair? could you describe how
these suggestions you have would be unfair to registrants?

> Everyone moans and groans about how first come first served is not
> fair, but nothing I have seen proposed is any more fair at all.

lets say its not equitable.

> WLS CERTAINLY isn't.  Neither are any of the lottery schemes.

I also disagree with many WLS policy suggestions.

> So how would you do it in a matter that is MORE fair than FCFS, Rick?

I would pick from one of the other vetted proposals on
http://www.icann-registrars.org/deletes.htm under the
heading Proposals.

-rick





--
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