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

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com>]

Abel,

I agree with you 200%. It's anti-competitive, ignoring the fact that we
have an existing system that seems to be working. I've not yet been
provided any proof that there is a technical problem at present, other
than a large number of "checks" or "add attempts" that fail every day.

Verisign surely has the technical ability to identify which registrars
are issuing those large amount of checks, and throttle them if
required. I would like Verisign to provide the list with a breakdown,
by registrar, of who is issuing these massive "denial of service"
attacks by issuing too many checks (this is, after all, what prompted
this proposal, isn't it?). Let's put it out in the open, and see who's
involved, so we can have an informed debate.

Also, assuming the registry code base is written in C, I'd like to
inform Verisign of the sleep() ANSI C library function. Surely they can
add it appropriately, to throttle the relentless assault on connections
that is causing such technical problems....(although, you can probably
buy a more advanced version of sleep, which throttles to any number of
milliseconds you want, compared to the limitations of the ANSI C
version).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/




--- Abel Wisman <abel@able-towers.com> wrote:
> listmembers, 
> 
> It seems to me that even for $ 6 Verisign is still unable to deliver
> a 
> quality way of keeping a registry.
> This new proposal is a way of making lots more money, on a service
> they are 
> not allowed to handle and should not be allowed to handle.
> The registry's duty is to register -eof-
> 
> There are several technical ways of solving the current so-called
> problems, 
> if there are any at all that have not rooted from the brains of
> Verisign.
> 
> The current proposal ignores other proposals on the table to solve
> the 
> problem, even though far more ppl were supporting that, nad is
> nothing but a 
> new contract enhancement for Verisign, and a great way of getting yet
> again 
> more control over the registry.
> 
> And what are they in the end proposing: to finally clean up their
> mess, make 
> the whois a usable instrument and then let ppl pay to be next in line
> IF the 
> domain drops.
> Of course if a domain has 5 years to go and you want to be sure that
> you are 
> on top of that list (or the only one as the proposal is now, but
> undoubtedly 
> that will be the next step) you will have to pay 5 years wortth of 
> subscription.
> 
> Isn't is far easier, (if the whois was working adequately) to
> approach an 
> owner of said domain and start negotiations ?
> 
> So summarizing, the registry fails in her task in several ways.
> one way is the lack of a decent registry searchable via whois.
> This failure now opens a great business opportunity for the registry
> namely 
> the getting it working again (whois) and then sell to anyone who
> thinks he 
> can buy video.com when and if it ever drops, should keep some people 
> re-subscribingt for eternity i would think.
> 
> It lacks any substance of reason for the proposal other then making
> money for 
> the registry. 
> It contains no safeguards against far business, certainly not in
> theproposed 
> partnership with a registrar (registrar like) company.
> It lack business sense as that the software is licensed, and as such
> there is 
> no safeguard on continuity, Snapnames has not been around long enough
> to make 
> this an assumption.
> 
> The registry is just that, a registry, supposedly under control of
> ICANN, not 
> a business entity.
> It is hard to keep a division anyway while doing both (registry and 
> registrar) and the amount of names nor dropped in an appropriate way
> would in 
> any other business or even government been reason for long and deep 
> investigations.
> Thus far there has been little containment of the monoplist behaviour
> of 
> Verisign,  agreeing with even one line in their current proposal
> would be 
> simply disastrous for the entire market and proof beyond a doubt that
> ICANN 
> has no longer any function and it's tasks are better done by
> Verisign.
> 
> The cost for such a service are not even a fraction of what verisign
> claims 
> and if Snapnames wants that much money for her license then i suggest
> 
> verisign contacts us, we will gladly write such a system in
> propriatry for 
> far less.
> 
> abel wisman
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday 07 January 2002 1:24 am, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> Abel Wisman
> office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
> mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16
> 
> www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at
> affordable prices
> www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
> www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
> www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
> --
> 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
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
--
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