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

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

Patrick,

Why so much emotion? You really should get some facts.  There is no
queue proposed.  Please point out one deletion failure of the VeriSign
Registry. If there have been any, they could probably be counted on one
hand, so I don't know what you are talking about with regard to
reputation.  And what does Registry Customer Service have to do with it
unless you are talking about the service that is provided to registrars
7x24x365; is there a problem with that?

Finally, please show me the FUD.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@quad.net.au]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 1:29 AM
> To: Bret Fausett
> Cc: [ga]
> Subject: [ga] VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
> 
> 
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 16:22:03 -0800, Bret Fausett wrote:
> 
> > >> Putting the service at the registry level improves the
> > >> value of the service for potential registrants.
> > >
> > > Improves it for who?
> >
> > 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?
> 
> So you join a queue of 20 people all waiting for the domain 
> name?  What, they
> climb up the queue like in a customer service call centre -- 
> "You are fourth
> in the queue" ??
> 
> Do you really believe that Verisign, which has the world's 
> worst reputation
> for managing expired and released domain names, is going to 
> manage such a
> process sensitively?
> 
> Especially at registry level where there is less "customer 
> service" to begin
> with.
> 
> Don't you think that some people will want to pay more leading to a
> degeneration of the system from FCFS to the "highest bidder" 
> ?  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?  Or VeriSign revising 
> their proposals?
> 
> And how do you manage those who give up?  It's like when you 
> are in a lift
> (elevator to you guys) and press the wrong floor, how do you 
> cancel the
> incorrect depression?  Anwer is you don't and the lift stops 
> anyway with
> nobody getting in or out.
> 
> Of course, the validity cannot be forever, it would be too 
> intensive, so there
> will be a limited time (if not at first then later when the 
> waiting list for a
> popular domains gets longer).  Why do I say that?  Simple, it 
> would generate
> even more income.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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