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

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 14:48:19 -0500 , "Gomes, Chuck"
<cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

>David,
>
>The fact is that this service offered at the registrar level can never
>be as effective as the same service would be at the registry level.  So
>if you want the best service for the ultimate customers, it must be done
>at the registry level.  The alternative is an inferior service for the
>potential registrants.

Thanks for the reply Chuck.

It depends on what you call effective and whether this is the main
consideration. One can argue that more than one registrant should have
a chance of getting a name once it expires.  Why should it be
guaranteed to one would be person/orgn?

I tend to think that registrants should not even know about if
possible or deal with the registry - their contact should all be
through Registrars and that this proposal has the registry taking on a
role which may negate this.

Even if there is a demand from registrants to be able to guarantee
they are next in line to get a domain name (is there any documented
demand?) I would rather the registrars devise a collective scheme
where this can be done which they could then ask the registry to
implement by addition of a new field in the register.

Incidentally the charge to a registrar for using that field should be
something like $1 - $2 if such a scheme was implemented.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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