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

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

David,

The suggestion of a $1-$2 price reminds me of those who claimed that a
registry could be run for 50 cents a name. Knowing first hand what it
costs to run a registry and do so in a quality way, I was always curious
about what service would be provided by such a registry.  In this
particular case, we couldn't even come close to licensing the technology
for such an amount, let alone integrate it into our systems.

One of things I have learned is that processes need to be simple and
well defined, minimizing the need for manual processes, to ensure that
processes scale with increased volume.  In light of this, I would like
to know how you would envision more than one registrant competing for
the same name.

I agree that WLS subsribers should only interface with registrars.  That
is what is proposed.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DPF [mailto:david@farrar.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 5:29 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
> 
> 
> 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
>

smime.p7s