[ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

[Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>]

Title: Message

Ron,

 

1) WLS will not benefit mainstream users because they will be at

a disadvantage because they will not know for certain that

their name is dropping, or for that mater, will ever drop.

Plus since WLS is first-come-first served, most names

that people know will likely be dropping will have a subscription

before the mainstream user even knows this system exist.

A better solution would be the round-robin allocation system

proposed by MIT/Tucows.

Also, thanks for the stats, but the real informative stats would be

what percent of SnapBack ripen in the first month.  That is the

stat that will tell us all how many of your customers are mainstream users,

not the stats you gave.

And speaking of information from you, please tell us the nature of the

intellectual property you claim for a "wait-list".  I believe the concept

of a "wait-list" service has probably been in existence since before the

patent office existed, but still I'd like to see what you claim your

innovation is, besides applying "wait-list" to domain names,

if that is an innovation.

 

2)  I think you are flat-out wrong in your characterization of the registrar conference call.

Nice attempt at spinning it as much as you can toward WLS, though.

Please note that there was not one single registrar who

voted "for" the WLS service.  None. Some said that under no

circumstances would they offer WLS to their customers.

I could tell by their voices and words that they are outraged not just about

WLS and it effect on competition, but about the "its already done" press releases. 

And, believe me, it is not easy

for a company to bash your monopoly supplier (Verisign) on any issue.

I think many are afraid to do it (me included). 

Yet no registrar is in favor of WLS.

And those who vote "no to WLS" do not have an interest in maintaining

the status quo, as you say they do. 

They want to implement something better for everyone, which

we nearly all agree is not the current system. 

If the question had been WLS as-is: "yes" or "no"

it would be not just a consensus "no" but a  *unanimous*  "no"

(with the exception of registrars

that are owned by Verisign, or are related to your company,

that even though they are related parties may still vote "no").

Since Montevideo (or for that matter, ever), I have not heard

any registrar say they support WLS. 

If one does, please let  me know. 

A "why" would also help.

 

As for your other statements:

 

regarding WLS on registrant's own names....

I recommend, that if WLS is implemented, and I do not

recommend that it is, that registrants be prohibited from

getting WLS on their own name since there is no purpose

to it. I think Rick is saying that without this, these mainstream

users will be duped into paying the exorbitant fee for nothing.

It is completely lame to state that the purchase of a WLS on your

own name is insurance, or as a "backstop" or for any other reason,

because if the name is dropped in error registrants should be able

to get the name back regardless if there is a WLS on it or not. 

You are already spreading confusion, as I predicted.

 

regarding load...

I was surprised to hear you and Chuck say that

WLS is not intended to solve the load problem. 

This means that we all agree that someone will have to implement

another method to fix *that* (the load) problem.  Also, if WLS is not intended

to solve the load problem, what problem is it solving?

The problem of funds being low in your bank account?

It is obvious to everyone that WLS does not remove a load problem,

and in fact will create another load problem during "spikes" when the

information that a names will be dropping is publicly released.  Chuck admitted

this when he said that Verisign already figured that the system needed

to be sized larger to handle this load spike.

 

regarding gamming WLS...

WLS is not simple concept. It is complicated, as many people reading this probably

already know.  This creates confusion. 

And it creates an excuse for a more expensive system.

And it creates more possibilities for gaming.   You admit

in your document that it is hard to build a WLS system that is game-proof.

A simpler system such as MIT/Tucows is inherently less "game-able".

Also I, personally, hope that the WLS system is not "connected

to the A root", as you say it must be.  Also, if there is a question about how

much a WLS system would cost to build, why not make requirements and put it up for bid?

I maintain that it would cost much less than your current system because

it would not have to have a "snapper array" deployed to grab names in the

batch pool.  I suggest it would be easier and cheaper to build a simpler

system such as MIT/tucows proposal, or to modify the current system,

which you admit we will have to do anyway.

 

You keep going on about "vested interest" in the status quo, like that is a reason

not one registrar supports WLS, while you are the company that stands to gain

the most if the WLS system is implemented. 

We do not support WLS because:

1) It will not benefit the mainstream user

2) It removes competition and differentiation

3) Worse, it gives one registrar an advantage over the others.

 

NOT because we have a "vested interest" in the status quo,

which we don't by the way.  Most of us would like to see a different

system in place.  Not WLS and not the current set-up, but the

WLS is so wrong, that most, if not all of us, would accept

the current set-up over WLS.  No one has more of a vested

interest to see WLS happen than you.  It is your full-time job

to see that it happens.  I wish it was mine because then I'd

have more time to confront your propaganda (as a complement,

I'd like to say I wish I had your talent in sending out press releases).

I confess though that eNom would like to continue to

compete with you instead of being forced to pay you for something

that we are all already doing and competing at.

That is my interest, vested or otherwise.

I assume your other competitors feel the same.

 

WLS is not "iron-clad", as you state.  Unless you mean it is "iron-clad" to

give you a monopoly revenue stream, which I would agree with.  What about people

buying a WLS subscription on a name that is not set to expire

for 10 years? What about the fact that the risk is more for people who don't

know that a name is about to be deleted, vs. someone who does?

What about the fact that it is useless to buy a subscription on

your own name?  What about the three-switching rule,

how will we know the count?  What about the cost?  What about the

load spike?  What about pinging the root server, or requesting the

zone file, to be the first to find the information that a name is no longer

there, and therefore, is about to be dropped?

In all your thinking about "gaming", didn't this cross your mind?

If anyone takes some time to study this complicated and

subtly tricky system, which luckily they are now taking the time to do,

they'd see these problems (and more) which I've already outlined in

eNom's position paper. 

 

Regarding differentiation...

How can we differentiate when we all have to use the WLS system?

We are differentiated now.  Any registrar can use the current system,

and many do, in different ways.  How about a poll of the registrars

to find out how they think they will be able to differentiate except

based on price.

At least the current system lets us differentiate.

You say with WLS we will be able to compete with our "site designs",

"information products" etc and that we can innovate with

"notification of previously wait-list names recent availability".

What a bunch of bunk.  You think freedom to change our

"site design" is real competition? or offering "information products"?

We already do that anyway.  Each of us has a different looking site, for example.

WLS model does not give the world *more* competition, it gives less.

You might as well have said we could compete because

we still have the freedom to offer toaster ovens with each WLS

subscription.  Were is the competition to offer different models?

First-come-first-served, auction, random, your "wait-list" model,

eNom's subscription model, etc.? 

I wish I could truly compete with the other

fiercely competitive registrars just by innovating some creative

graphics and putting them up on eNom's site.

I wish eNom will be able to compete with Verisign-registrar

in selling WLS subscriptions, but it will

be difficult since Verisign-registrar will know beforehand

when most of the names will be dropping, and eNom won't.

 

Regarding the cake and eating it...

There is no paradox because

the price is not the factor when it comes to disadvantaging

mainstream users.  It is knowledge. 

First, with WLS, the people

(not mainstream customers)  who have

the knowledge of which names are dropping, and when, 

will have the advantage.  Only non-mainstream users will

have access to this information before making a risk-free

WLS subscription purchase.

Second, one registrar has much more of this information

than the others. 

At least with the other proposed systems,

every registrar has an equal chance, and therefore they can

implement whatever methods they choose to serve whatever

customer base they choose.

 

YET,

You still miss (I assume you are not just ignoring it) the main point of eNom's position

which is people have an incentive to buy WLS subscriptions from the

registrar who knows the name will be dropping becuase then the WLS subscriber will incur

much less risk (ok, zero risk) that it won't drop.  The WLS subscriber wants to make sure the names

will drop so that their $40 will not be for nothing. Verisign registrar has

this information for half of the names, therefore they have a massive advantage

over the rest of the registrars.  It is a flaw in the *model*, not in the price,

even though the price, additionally, is outrageous.

Even if the company who would be getting this advantage was not the same company

implementing WLS (which raises concerns to many),

the WLS model still has this flaw.  WLS provides

a way for Verisign registry to advantage Verisign Registar in signing up WLS customers

and therefore a way for them to "delete" their names before the rest

of us get an equal opportunity to register them. 

 

Where is the competition?

Where is the equality and fairness amongst registrars?

 

Paul

eNom, Inc.

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Wiener [mailto:Ron@Snapnames.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 8:24 AM
To: 'ga@dnso.org'; 'icann-delete@total.confusion.net'
Subject: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

Rather than respond to individual response documents and e-mail posts, please find attached a concise document, in PDF format.

 

Cheers,

Ron