<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
Bret's understanding of "VeriSign's FUD" seems pretty accurate to me.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:baf@fausett.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 2:22 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
>
>
> >> Registrants, for one. The principal improvement of the
> Waiting List Service
> >> proposed last week is that if you buy a subscription, then
> you're certain to
> >> get your desired domain name if and when it lapses.
> >
> > C'mon, Bret, that's crap and you know it. What is the basis, FCFS?
>
> Yes. My understanding of the proposal, is that it's first-come,
> first-served, just as in registering a new domain name.
>
> > So you join a queue of 20 people all waiting for the domain name?
>
> If I read the proposal correctly, it's not certain whether
> there will be
> more than one person allowed to take a subscription. I
> believe that's still
> under discussion.
>
> > For example, if you know who is in the queue above you,
> what's to stop you
> > from contacting them and buying out their interest?
>
> Nothing that I can see. So what? Nothing to stop you from
> contacting any
> domain name owner and buying out their registration contract either.
>
> >> Under a registrar-based model, you'd have to purchase a
> subscription with
> >> all of the various registrars who offer a competing
> service in order to get
> >> close to the same guarantee. It would cost more, in both money and
> >> aggravation, and still not guarantee that you would get the name.
> >
> > I'm amazed that you fall for VeriSign's FUD. There are no
> guarantees.
>
> No, if the system works the way it's intended, you should be
> guaranteed the
> name. Of course, on the registrars list, you can already see companies
> exploring the idea of using the window of time after the
> customer has lost
> rights in the names for non-renewal but before the name
> actual deletes to
> offer their own service. If that's permitted, it would
> significantly devalue
> the WLS.
>
> Guarantees and predictability are generally good for registrants.
>
> If you've tried to pick up a deleting name over the last
> year, you've faced
> two problems:
>
> 1. knowing when it was going to drop
> (expiration date seems to have virtually nothing to do with
> when a name is actually deleted); and
>
> 2. knowing how to get it first, when it dropped
> (before Snapnames and other commercial services, this was
> a dark art that bordered on the occult)
>
> Even with Snapnames or some of the other registrar offerings, you were
> playing the odds. $49.00 got you a Snapback. Dotster's
> Namewinner service
> was an auction, which cost another $25.00 minimum to play.
> eNom and some
> other registrars had their own services. All of those services were
> competing against each other for the name you wanted. As a
> consequence, if
> you REALLY wanted a name, you had to play all the games to
> maximize your
> chances. Add up all the fees and you're well over whatever it
> is that VGRS
> and the registrars will charge for this WLS.
>
> So from the perspective of someone who has paid for these
> services in the
> past, I don't particularly care what system the registrars
> adopt, but I do
> think these two features are important:
>
> (a) the person first-in-line with a subscription always
> gets the domain
> name when it deletes; and
>
> (b) change of ownership always happens at a defined time after the
> previous owner's registration has lapsed (i.e. no more random periods
> between expiration and deletion).
>
> I hope the registrars will keep those in mind as they are
> evaluating the
> VGRS proposal.
>
> -- Bret
>
> --
> 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
>
smime.p7s
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|