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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Chuck and all assembly members,

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.

  Your likely right here Chuck.

>
>
> 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.

  The answer to you last question is really simple.  FCFS!

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

  However this is neither needed, especially at the registry level, nor is
it desired except by the registry(s).  Ergo, such a proposal should be
vetted amongst the registrants and stakeholders before becoming a
best practice or put into practice.  However I also recognize that
such may be considered by the registry and registrar industry as
over regulation and therefore resisted.  It should also be understood
that the registry industry in particular should and will be able to
provide any service, such as this proposed one should they so choose.

>
>
> 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
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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